News
Tesla’s rise is unmasking Japan’s risk of being left behind
Tesla has been one of the automakers that have actually managed to thrive this year despite the pandemic. And as the electric car maker continues its rise, it is becoming pretty clear that legacy automakers who refuse to ride the transition to renewable transport risk getting left behind. This is the case even if the automaker in question is Toyota, the previous Number 1 carmaker by market cap.
Tesla only sells a fraction of the vehicles sold by Toyota every year, but the electric car maker has a market cap that is around $370 billion now. That’s roughly equivalent to the annual gross domestic product of Hong Kong, and it’s nowhere near reaching its full potential yet. TSLA bulls like Cathie Wood of ARK Invest note that Tesla’s Autopilot tech and data are pretty much ignored for now, and billionaire investor Ron Baron argues that Tesla Energy has as much potential as the company’s EV business.
Tesla is showing rapid growth across the globe, and this is no more evident than in China, a country that is currently home to the company’s first offshore Gigafactory in Shanghai. Thanks to this, as well as grassroots efforts that make Teslas widely supported by the Chinese government, the company is poised to reap benefits in the country. In Japan, however, things could not be more different. Tesla may have close ties with Japan thanks to its longtime battery partnership with Panasonic and its previous deal with Toyota, but today, the far east country’s mainstream vehicle market remains out of reach for the Silicon Valley-based maker.
Despite this, William Pesek, an award-winning Tokyo-based journalist and author of “Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan’s Lost Decades,” argues that Tesla’s rise across the globe further highlights how Japan’s auto market is still stuck in first gear. In an article on the Nikkei Asian Review, Pesek noted that what Japan is so far missing in the Tesla picture is the fact that Elon Musk does not sell cars. While Japan is still busy focusing on hardware, Tesla is already exploring software, allowing Elon Musk to pretty much sell than iPhone on wheels. This ensures that Tesla is capable of embracing the next generation of motoring.
“What Toyota long missed about Musk is that he is not selling cars. He is selling an iPhone with wheels. The vehicle itself is merely a medium to market the software undergirding the iTunes-like community that he is building. The data Tesla collects from users, their environs, interests, tendencies, travel habits and the range of behaviors will arguably be more valuable than the engines and high-performance batteries powering them. This enables Tesla to hone the customer experience, while discerning where the market will veer next,” Pesek wrote.
Perhaps what Japan really needs right now is to embrace the fact that sometimes, disruption is a necessary evil during times of transition. Strictly speaking, legacy automakers like Toyota should have no problem catching up to Tesla by, say 2025, due to their massive talent pool and resources. This does not seem to be case, however, as carmakers like Toyota have a tendency to focus more on legacy than innovation. Toyota has refined its car making processes through decades of refinements, and its global supply chain helps create millions of jobs. This, while noble in a way, is a weight that a company like Tesla simply does not have.
Tesla moves fast, fails fast, and innovates fast. The company’s vertical integration allows it to implement changes and improvements as soon as they are ready. Granted, automakers like Toyota could not adopt such changes overnight, but efforts must be done to increase innovation. This is something that Japanese companies are capable of doing, as seen in the continued efforts of Panasonic’s and its longtime battery partnership with Tesla in Gigafactory Nevada. Perhaps companies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and the other premier Japanese carmakers could do the same.
For now, it appears that Elon Musk has already won. So great is the gap in the electric vehicle market that newcomers like Lucid Motors and Rivian Automotive seem to have a better chance at catching Tesla than legacy carmakers. But amidst this threat of being permanently left behind, veterans in the auto market could also see this time as an opportunity to change and raise their electric vehicle game. If there’s anything that Tesla’s rise shows, after all, it is that renewable solutions are the new standard, and they are here to stay.
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
