News
Tesla's battery acquisitions are paying off in spades, and giving rivals a lot of pain
There was a time, not too long ago, when Tesla skeptics questioned the company’s focus in designing and producing its own batteries with a dedicated partner like Panasonic and a facility like Gigafactory 1 in Nevada. Batteries, after all, are available off-the-shelf from companies like LG Chem, and it seemed pretty futile for Tesla to insist that it needs its own battery supply for its future business.
Fast forward to 2020, and Tesla’s extreme focus on battery development is paying off in spades. Over the years, Tesla has acquired multiple companies that have, in some way, enabled the company to accelerate or improve its products’ batteries. Included among these are Grohmann Automation, whose machines are the bread and butter in Gigafactory 1, Maxwell Technologies, and more recently, HIBAR systems.
At this point, Tesla’s batteries have pretty much become the gold standard for EVs, and the company appears to be well on its way towards releasing vehicles that have a range of 400 miles or more. The Plaid Model S and X will likely be the first of these, as well as the next-gen Roadster, which will have 620 miles of range. Even the reasonably-priced Cybertruck tops out at over 500 miles of range per charge. Massive battery developments are needed to achieve these, and Tesla seems to have done it, or at least is well on its way.
This does not appear to be true for other OEMs attempting to enter the electric vehicle market. As veteran companies unveiled their EVs, and as none have really managed to hold a candle to Tesla’s flagship Model S in terms of range, it is becoming evident that the electric car maker’s investments in batteries may have actually been the right strategy all along. Daimler, for one, seems to be feeling this inconvenient truth, with works council chief Michael Brecht explaining during a recent interview with Manager Magazin that Tesla’s battery-related acquisitions are actually having an effect on Germany’s EV efforts.
Daimler launched its first EV, the Mercedes-Benz EQC, in 2018, and it has not really lived up to the hype. Despite being dubbed at some point as a potential “Tesla Killer” due to its pedigree and excellent German build quality, the all-electric SUV has faced battery shortages and low sales. Registrations in Germany for the vehicle only show about 55 units sold to date despite all the ad campaigns dedicated to the SUV. Battery supply shortages have also forced Daimler to cut the annual production target of the EQC by 50% from 60,000 to just 30,000.
Quite interestingly, Brecht partly blames Tesla for some of the challenges facing the EQC today. Explaining his points to the publication, he argued that one of the reasons Daimler is struggling with battery demand is because Tesla bought Grohmann Engineering, which has valuable technology that could be used for battery-related developments and activities. Brecht also mentioned that Grohmann was actually hired by Mercedes-Benz to build up its own battery manufacturing capacity.
Brecht’s statements are notable since it is quite rare to see a veteran car manufacturer actually point the finger at Tesla to explain the dire condition of its own EV program. One can only hope that perhaps, the EQC would be a lesson that Daimler could learn from. After all, Daimler, among German automakers, would likely have no issues tapping into Tesla’s established technologies, batteries and powertrains alike, as the two companies have already worked together in the past. Elon Musk has stated that eventually, Tesla may be open to selling its batteries and powertrains with other OEMs. If this were to happen, it would be wise for Daimler to wait right in front of the line to avoid another EQC-sized flop.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
