The Tesla community is one of the more polarizing groups that exists in the world of cars. It appears that it is almost 50/50 in terms of whether supporters of Tesla are willing to lend their support to other manufacturers. Some aren’t willing to hear other companies out.
While there isn’t an overwhelming push in one way or another, one thing is for certain: Tesla supporters love Tesla. But whether they’re willing to commend another automaker for developments that they may have made or cars they plan to build is a different story.
For years, Tesla was always considered a car company that didn’t have much potential. It didn’t have much money. It didn’t have many proven automotive industry veterans behind the engineering or supply chain of their cars, and it was trying to convince people that gas was inferior to electric. In 2008, this wasn’t a simple task. It was closer to impossible at the time.
Only a few people could afford Tesla’s Roadster, which was all apart of the plan so the company could pile up some funding for future projects. But on top of that, even if it was affordable, would people have bought it? Who knows.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But after Tesla started manufacturing the Model S, people began to really listen. People had invested their money into the company’s IPO just two years earlier, and the Model S was the sleek, fast, and pretty car that everyone wanted. But it was still an uphill climb. After the Model X came out, it wasn’t much of a difference; it was just the SUV version of an electric car. But the Model 3 came around and convinced many people around the world that Tesla was for real. It had built a car that people could afford. It had great range, it had performance. Most of all, Tesla proved that it could mass-produce a vehicle, even if it was hell.
Slowly but surely, the doubters switched sides. They realized they had been all wrong about Tesla, but the early investors and the people who have believed in the company since the beginning weren’t having it. Who could blame them?
They had believed in Tesla from the start. They were the ones who knew that Elon Musk could lead the company to a new era, and they were right. Now that others are coming on board, there is a spot in that where many of us can feel a bit of sympathy for them. If you weren’t with us then, don’t be with us now. Hints of a bandwagon feel come to mind when explaining this situation. It’s almost reminiscent of how I see a lot of Chiefs hats and jackets at the store now. I don’t for a second believe there are this many Kansas City fans in York County, PA.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what the Tesla loyal fans are doing. They have believed in Tesla since day 1, and now that it’s the most valuable car company in the world and is successful, many people are on board, and that can be not very pleasant.
However, more fans means more sales, which means the stock price goes up. It means there are more EVs on the road instead of gas cars, and it means Tesla’s mission is coming true. While the fandom is something that can be chalked up to a “bandwagon feel,” maybe some people just wanted proof that Tesla was for real, and I can understand that too.
Tesla’s Day 1’s also have had to deal with other car companies casting stones in Tesla’s direction for years. GM, Ford, all of these companies didn’t care about making EVs. They would roll out one or two models, some of them never even making it to production lines. Then they would say Tesla’s business model was ridiculous or unsustainable. Now, they’re drawing inspiration from that “unsustainable” company. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
Now that other car companies are all about the electric mission, they’re claiming their car is the “Tesla Killer” (a term I have come to hate in my time as an automotive journalist). They’re claiming their batteries will be better, and their cars will be cheaper. Blah blah blah, we’ve all heard it before. The problem is these companies continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk. They’re always saying how they will be the next big thing, but it rarely comes to fruition considering car companies constantly delay releases or do away with projects completely.
On the other hand, Elon has always been an open supporter of more car companies making more EVs. It all contributes, and I don’t think he’s ever taken any criticism very personally; I would imagine he’s used it as motivation based on the way things have turned out. I personally commend him for always taking the high road and never being petty or ugly toward a car company that hasn’t supported him. I think it only added fuel to the fire for him and made him want to accomplish the Master Plan that much more.
But if we all love Elon and support him and are thankful for what he’s done for the EV community, should we take his guidance and support other car companies for what they’re trying to do? Is it just a lost cause? What do you make of other car companies trying to release effective modes of electric transport?
Personally, I support any EV. I will never say that any EV is better than Tesla’s because I truly believe they are the best EVs out there. I think there are always things to work on, but if you want something that will be dependable and deliver great range, Tesla is the best option currently.
I do like other car companies, too. Rivian and Lucid are both showing tremendous potential, and I think they have a great chance to be right there in a few years. Volkswagen will always have a little place in my heart since the first car I ever had was a 1998 Jetta K2, but I think they have a lot of work to do. It will get done, I’m sure, but if I am going to support an EV company that once produced ICE, it will be VW.
I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. I want to know if you support other car companies that are producing EVs, or are you Tesla-loyal? Let’s keep it respectful as always. Please do not openly attack any company or attack anyone else’s beliefs. Try and be as respectful as you can and consider everyone’s opinions.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
