News
Tesla’s disruption is making Germany’s elite automakers very tense about the future
There was once a time when Germany’s largest automakers looked on with amusement as Tesla, a small Silicon Valley electric car maker, purchased a gigantic car factory in Fremont, CA to produce its first ground-up premium sedan. Today, amidst the Model 3’s disruption and the impending arrival of the Model Y, it appears that no one in Das Auto is laughing anymore.
Electrification is something that used to be scoffed at, especially among the industry’s serious players. When Tesla was starting out, the transportation sector was still fully committed to the internal combustion engine. And in this era, Germany’s elite three — Daimler, Volkswagen, and BMW — reigned supreme. Their vehicles were sought after, and they were known for their power and pedigree. That was, at least, until upstart companies such as Tesla entered the picture.
Tesla represented everything that legacy auto was not. Instead of relying fully on a vast dealer network, Tesla sold its cars on its own. Instead of relying on a network of suppliers, Tesla adopted a vertically-integrated model. Instead of spamming its cars with all the plush amenities found in traditional luxury cars, Tesla’s EVs were spartan and minimalistic. These little differences, coupled with the fact that its vehicles are unlike any other on the road in terms of performance and tech, made the electric car maker a brand to watch among consumers looking to purchase a vehicle.
What really makes Tesla a pretty concerning opponent is the company’s dedication to its mission — to accelerate the advent of sustainability. This means that the company is about so much more than just profits. It’s a company that is legitimately trying its best to change the world, and it is beckoning everyone for support. And support it has gained. Among automakers, Tesla currently stands supreme according to social media presence. Today, the Model 3 is outselling mainstays like the BMW M3, and the arrival of the Model Y could end up disrupting a market previously held by cars like the Porsche Macan.
Today, Tesla stands as a leader in the EV market, with vehicles that have advanced driver-assist features such as Autopilot, a Full Self-Driving suite that includes capabilities like Smart Summon, and a system that constantly improves through free over-the-air updates. With these, Tesla’s electric cars such as the Model S and Model 3 have dominated their respective EV segments.
So how did Tesla end up disrupting the market even if Das Auto had all the resources all along to beat Tesla at its own game years ago? Perhaps it’s hubris, or maybe it was simply an honest mistake. Nevertheless, Tesla has now reached a point where it would be very difficult to reach and overtake, especially when it comes to the tech and batteries of its vehicles. This was highlighted when Volkswagen reportedly got its hands on a Mid Range Tesla Model 3. After tearing down the vehicle, the veteran automaker was reportedly shocked at how advanced the vehicle was.
Sajjad Khan, a Pakistani-born Daimler executive who is a member of the divisional board for CASE (Connected, Autonomous, Shared, Electric) at Mercedes-Benz, believes that this does not need to be the case. In a recent town hall meeting, Khan told an audience that the time is nigh for Germany’s auto sector to get a wake-up call.
“We need a wake-up call. We have to change fundamentally — as individuals, as departments, as a company, as a country. If we don’t, we’re going to be facing tough times ahead. We need to rebuild the mentality that made the economic miracle (in postwar Germany) possible. And we can’t wait until we have fallen on our faces to do this,” he said.
Fortunately, it may be too premature to dismiss Germany’s veteran automakers and their EV efforts. Porsche proved to the world that it can match and perhaps even exceed the performance of Tesla’s flagship sedan with the Taycan, though it had to make do with significantly less range and a far higher price. Volkswagen, for its part, is spending large amounts in its efforts to produce electric vehicles. The company is looking to conduct its ramp quickly, to the point where it would no longer sell diesel and gasoline cars by 2040.
That’s what one could call the end of an era.
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
