News
Tesla Cybertruck lead engineer shares insights on deep integration and vehicle development
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill recently shared some insights on the electric vehicle maker’s deep integration and unique approach to car design in a recent post on social media platform X. As could be seen in the engineer’s post, it is Tesla’s intense attention to detail that ultimately makes the company’s vehicles as disruptive as they are today.
Anyone informed who looks at the Tesla Cybertruck would know that the vehicle is a symphony of automotive engineering. Tesla, however, took some time before it reached this point. As per Morrill in his post, Tesla in its early days utilized different teams with collaborative goals in vehicle design. Adopting this system allowed the company to make great cars, but the designs of the vehicles themselves were not optimal.
“A well known example – early days of Tesla there was a battery team and separately a vehicle structures team. Structures team designed their vehicle body to meet given requirements of strength, crashworthiness, torsional stiffness, etc. Likewise, the battery team designed their part to be self contained, it could survive durability, accidentally being dropped, being hit in a crash, etc.
Good analysis – this is what happens when teams work together to make the best product. https://t.co/XAXf70k3jc— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 14, 2024
“As a result, we ended up with was a super dense battery in a strong box like structure, which was then Installed into the vehicle which had a nice space for it to mate into. There were no issues with integration, everything fit together perfectly and met all product goals. It achieved one of the highest crash safety ratings measured at the time.
“But we had a box full of battery cells that was installed into another empty box shaped receptacle on the body. A box in a box. When you simplify it down that far it sounds obviously wrong. The two organizations had achieved their goals, worked together without friction, and the product met its overall goals. Yet the product ended up with a clear lack of optimization as a result of the organizational boundaries of the two teams working in isolation. Nothing was wrong, but it wasn’t optimal,” Morrill wrote.
The Cybertruck Lead Engineer noted that Tesla learned from these experiences, and the company adapted. This is how innovations such as the structural battery pack—which is now being simulated by electric car makers in China—came about. Morrill stated, however, that such changes may require large organizational changes, and there has to be a drive to make the best product regardless of ego.
Have you heard of Conway's Law? It's an interesting observation about the root cause of why large organizations usually make products worse.
In 1967 Melvin Conway wrote "Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication… pic.twitter.com/SetWd6OfTe— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 14, 2024
“Before the next product was designed, the battery team gave responsibility of the battery structures also to the vehicle structures team. On this iteration, we ended up with the structural battery, which is an integral part of the body and crash structure. Without it, the vehicle body will not work. It’s the literal floor for the vehicle. But the redundancy is gone and the design is more efficient as a result. This vehicle also achieved one of the highest crash safety ratings measured at the time.
“This is a super obvious example (in retrospect) and solved with a fairly large organizational change but you can also see this happen in small technical decisions and doesn’t require structural change to fix. Someone just needs to question if there is a better solution in a team open to criticism. This mindset to work together to make the best product regardless of ego is where you end up with the most innovative products.
“Some smaller examples have been seen when inspecting Cybertruck design. The chassis air suspension which is used to pressurize the battery pack to prevent water ingress. The subwoofer which utilizes the air volume of the body side instead of making the enclosure larger. Centralized zonal vehicle controllers instead of many small distributed controllers. Doors which use the exterior surface as a crash intrusion beam. The pedestrian warning system used as a horn. The list goes on. The excitement and motivation by everyone involved to work across boundaries and actively break down Conway’s Law is one of the many reasons I love working at Tesla,” Morrill wrote.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
