Connect with us

News

Tesla gets J.D. Power Home Charging Experience Award for 3rd consecutive year

Image Credit: Tesla Inc.

Published

on

Electric vehicles are becoming more mainstream, and amidst this trend, home electric car charging solutions have only become more prominent. As per the findings of data analytics firm J.D. Power in its 2023 US Electric Vehicle Experience (EVX) Home Charging Study, about 68% of EV owners today utilize a Level 2 permanently mounted station. 

J.D. Power noted that Level 2 portable and Level 2 permanently mounted charging stations are utilized by 83% of EV users, though satisfaction among EV owners saw a decline from 2022 to 2023 due to a variety of factors, such as charging costs and charging speeds. For its study, J.D. Power measured EV users’ satisfaction across eight metrics: fairness of retail price; cord length; size of charger; ease of winding/storing cable; cost of charging; charging speed; ease of use; and overall reliability.

The findings of the study showed that among the home charging systems in the market, Tesla’s Level 2 permanently mounted charging solutions are the best. This marks the third consecutive year of Tesla’s dominance in the sector.

Tesla’s Level 2 home charging system scored 790 out of a 1,000-point scale, which is representative of the electric car maker’s vast experience in the EV sector. Following Tesla is GRIZZL-E, which scored 757 points, and Emporia, which scored 754. It should be noted that the segment’s average stood at 740 points as per the study. 

Advertisement
Credit: J.D. Power

Following are other key findings of J.D. Power’s study, as per a press release from the data analytics firm: 

  • As electricity rates increase, educating owners becomes more critical: Just 51% of EV owners say they are knowledgeable about utility company programs for charging their vehicle at home, which is up slightly from 49% a year ago. 
  • Scheduling charge time increases satisfaction: More than one-third (35%) of owners say they always schedule a time to charge their vehicle at home, while 49% do not use any scheduling. Among those choosing to schedule home charging via an app, satisfaction is highest when using the vehicle mobile app (739) rather than the charger mobile app (706).
  • Geography makes a difference with charging satisfaction: Overall satisfaction with Level 2 home charging is lower in all nine regions in this year’s study than a year ago, with New England having the largest decline of 27 points. The Level 2 satisfaction gap between regions is now 96 points (+20 from a year ago), ranging from a low of 689 in the New England region to a high of 785 in the East South Central region.
  • Home charging game changer: Satisfaction improves 179 points when moving up from a Level 1 portable charger (561) to a Level 2 permanently mounted charger (740). Across the eight factors in the study, owner satisfaction is higher in seven factors once the switch is made to a Level 2 permanently mounted charger, especially with charging speed (+373 points). A majority (60%) of current Level 1 users say they are likely to upgrade their home charging station to either a Level 2 permanently mounted charger or a Level 2 portable unit.

Brent Gruber, executive director of the EV practice at J.D. Power, highlighted the importance of home charging systems to the overall electric vehicle experience. “Whether you’re an automaker, dealer or utility company participating in the EV ecosystem, improving the EV owner experience with respect to home charging should be a common goal shared by all. 

“There are programs available today that will help EV owners with the startup costs, such as installing or upgrading to a faster Level 2 charger. There are also programs designed to save EV owners money with the ongoing costs of charging their vehicle, like scheduling to charge during the most affordable time of the day. However, J.D. Power sees that there is little awareness and utilization of these benefits. As the EV marketplace continues to grow, brands that help owners take advantage of these offerings will be in a much better position down the road,” he said. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know

Published

on

Credit: CNBC

Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.

The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.

Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.

Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.

Advertisement

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.

The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”

This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.

Advertisement

More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.

We look forward to more details being released with time.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.

The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.

These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.

It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.

Advertisement

The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:

  • Daytime child crossing
  • Nightitime adult crossing
  • Night parallel adult

Advertisement

In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.

Credit: IIHS

Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.

Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.

Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.

Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.

Advertisement

Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.

The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete

Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites

It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.

SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history

Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.

Advertisement

Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.

SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.

The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.

Advertisement
Continue Reading