News
Tesla's focus on batteries is being proven right, and other EV makers are paying the price
As more and more automakers begin the transition to electric vehicles, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Tesla’s intense focus on batteries was right all along. Tesla’s strategies have always been criticized and examined under a microscope, and the company’s decision to build Giga Nevada, a facility dedicated to battery production for the Model 3, was no exception. But as veteran automakers like Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz are now finding out, investing tons of effort and resources on batteries matters a lot.
Tesla is among the industry’s most vertically-integrated companies. Similar to Apple’s consumer electronics and SpaceX’s rockets, most of what goes inside a Tesla electric car is designed and built in-house. Tesla is so serious about this; the company actually made its own seats. The same is true for the electronics that goes inside every Tesla. They are so different and superior to off-the-shelf components that teardown expert Sandy Munro compared them to the electronics of a literal fighter jet.
A lot of Tesla’s resources are dedicated to its battery improvements. Teslas stand tall among their rivals in the EV marketplace today primarily due to their efficiency and range, and this is made possible by the company’s battery tech. The company is not showing any signs of stopping too. Tesla has acquired several companies that could further improve its batteries, such as Maxwell Technologies and Hibar Systems. The electric car maker is even looking to produce its own batteries, with reports indicating that work is already underway to develop custom cells for Tesla’s next generation of vehicles and products.
It’s a difficult pill to swallow, but veteran automakers have reached a point where they must honestly admit that when it comes to batteries, Tesla has a notable lead. The very representation for this idea is the Porsche Taycan, an otherwise excellent high-performance electric vehicle whose ~200-mile EPA range is an Achilles Heel. Porsche, similar to other EV makers, opted for off-the-shelf batteries for the Taycan, and it shows. The car performs beautifully, and it’s arguably the only EV that can beat a Model S fair and square in a race, but it simply does not have the range or the efficiency to beat Tesla’s flagship sedan on all metrics.
It’s not just about the battery tech and specific cell chemistries either. Over the years, Tesla also had the foresight to secure ample battery supply for its vehicles and products. From Panasonic, which has been Tesla’s partner since its early days, to CATL, which is the company’s partner for Giga Shanghai, the electric car maker has made careful preparations to ensure that its vehicles and products will always have enough batteries. Other EV makers are not as fortunate.
This is one of the reasons why the Jaguar I-PACE, one of the most decorated vehicles in modern auto history, actually stopped production for a week. Just like the Taycan, the I-PACE is actually a pretty decent EV, with its plush interior and aggressive exterior. But behind the I-PACE’s looks lies off-the-shelf batteries that are also used by other companies. This meant that when LG Chem could not supply enough cells for the vehicle, Jaguar had no choice but to stop the vehicle’s production temporarily.
The Mercedes-Benz EQC is in the same boat. Once deemed as a potential “Tesla Killer,” the EQC’s production target for 2020 was halved by the German automaker from 60,000 vehicles to just 30,000 units. The reason was something that is pretty familiar: Daimler just could not secure enough batteries. Even companies like Dyson and Aston Martin, both of which had plans to make EVs, eventually suspended their efforts to enter the electric car market.
Tesla is not a perfect company by any means. CEO Elon Musk would be the first to admit that the company has made many mistakes over the years. But for all its delays and production issues, there is very little that can be criticized about Tesla when it comes to its batteries and the company’s foresight in improving them and securing their supply for years to come.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
