News
BMW’s next CEO could revive an electric car initiative amid assault from EVs like Tesla
BMW CEO Harald Krueger is leaving his post as the German automaker’s chief executive. In an update on Friday, the company announced that Krueger would not be seeking another term in his contract as CEO after it expires next year. A press release from BMW noted that the Supervisory Board will be discussing Krueger’s replacement during a meeting on July 18, though a report from the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, citing people from within the company, claimed that production chief Oliver Zipse is the frontrunner to take over the CEO role.
This would likely translate to a potential revival, or at least an acceleration, of BMW’s push into electric mobility. Krueger has received a fair amount of skepticism over his leadership of BMW over the past years, particularly due to the company losing ground in the luxury segment to its main rival, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz, according to the Associated Press. BMW has also been left out in the premium electric vehicle market, which is currently being dominated by Silicon Valley-based Tesla and increasingly populated by veteran carmakers like Audi and Jaguar. This was unfortunate, as BMW, at one point, actually had a lead in EVs.
Prior to Krueger’s appointment as CEO, BMW had launched the i3, a curiously-designed battery electric car that was considered as an alternative, or even a competitor, to the Tesla Model S. Under Krueger’s leadership, BMW shifted away from all-electric vehicles, focusing instead on plug-in hybrids, which combine an internal combustion engine and an electric motor. This strategy ultimately resulted in BMW losing the lead that it established with the i3. Today, the company’s next expected EV, the iX3, has been beaten to the market by the Jaguar I-PACE, the Audi-e-tron, and even the Porsche Taycan, which is set for release later this year.
Leading up to Friday’s announcement about Krueger’s departure, BMW insiders have mentioned to German news agency Handelsblatt that the company is considering two candidates who could take over the CEO post: the ambitious Head of Development Klaus Fröhlich and the more tempered Oliver Zipse, who took over BMW’s production department from Krueger back in 2015. Fröhlich is more aggressive than the head of production, but he is also a staunch electric car critic. Back in October, for example, Fröhlich committed to diesel, arguing that ongoing discussions about electromobility are “a little bit irrational.”
Fröhlich’s more recent comments showed an even more dismissive stance on electric cars. In a round table interview in Munich, the BMW executive argued that “there is no customer requests for BEVs.” Doubling down, he added that “If we have a big offer, a big incentive, we could flood Europe and sell a million cars, but Europeans won’t buy these things. Customers in Europe do not buy EVs. We pressed these cars into the market, and they’re not wanted. We can deliver an electrified vehicle to each person, but they will not buy them.”
Zipse, provided that he does get named as CEO, would have a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders. BMW is currently facing headwinds, including a “hiring freeze” and stagnating sales. The company has also issued two profit warnings over the past nine months, suggesting that it will take much effort to turn the automaker around. Rivals Volkswagen and Daimler have already gone ahead with their electric cars such as the ID.3, Audi e-tron, Porsche Taycan, and the Mercedes-Benz EQC. Tesla still holds a notable lead in key metrics such as batteries, efficiency, and charging infrastructure, but with a new captain at the helm, perhaps BMW can start catching up to the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker as well. If there’s anything that Tesla has proven over the years, after all, it is that the demand for well-designed, high-performance electric vehicles is notable, as could be seen in the disruption being caused by the Model 3 in markets such as the United States.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
