News
Tesla is primed for Formula E while its rivals are working in reverse
Tesla and Formula E: Will it ever happen? Probably not. At least, that’s what Elon Musk says, and he believes that production and scalability are more important. For the global EV scene, they certainly are, while professional motorsports are really just a trivial part of what Tesla does. While the company does build and create some of the fastest and highest-performing cars on Earth, it has no intentions of bringing them to a track or becoming a car company dedicated to winning shiny trophies. However, this didn’t stop other car companies from adopting different strategies.
Some companies, like BMW and Audi, for example, did their work in reverse. Years ago, when the Formula E Series became a real thing, these two companies were among the first to build a single-seat, all-electric powertrain that was extremely similar to the blazing fast F1 circuit. The only difference was that these new, sustainable racecars weren’t blaring loud motors for everyone to hear.
Instead of developing mass-market vehicles that would benefit the company in a multitude of ways, these automakers chose to work in reverse. Not focusing on building a reliable EV software infrastructure or production facilities to manufacture them in, German car companies went to their roots and focused o a few fast cars that would compete on the weekends at some of the toughest circuits in the world. But the problem is, they could have killed two birds with one stone by doing things in the correct order, which brings me to my next point: Tesla is already primed for Formula E, and it never had any intentions of competing.
A recent article from Bloomberg shows that BMW has decided to officially scrap its Formula E team at the end of this season, shifting its focus from racing and toward an intensifying EV market. The money it will save from not focusing on turning out fast laps at world-famous circuits will now be dedicated to developing EVs for consumers.
In the time that BMW has been racing in Formula E, it has only released one car: the i3, a boxy, widely unpopular car aesthetically. With plans to launch the iX, which it unveiled just last month, there are plenty of opportunities to establish a competitive lineup of all-electric cars in the future. But the focus has been all wrong from the start.
BMW didn’t have an overwhelmingly successful time in Formula E. Since it started racing in the series, which held its first race seasons ago, it has won only four races. But the company stated that it has “exhausted the opportunities to transfer Formula E’s pioneering racing technologies into passenger models.”
This is where the order of development may have been more advantageous for BMW. Now that their Formula E run is over, they have nothing to base passenger models off of, which pretty much puts them at square 1 if you take into account the i3 is not a widely popular or successful EV, to begin with.
This is where Tesla gains a real advantage in a hypothetical scenario where it would build cars for a racing series. Tesla has passenger vehicles now that could compete in several racing series, and other cars that actually have competed in racing forums like the Pikes Peak Hill Climb.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
For example, the Roadster is 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, has a quarter-mile acceleration of 8.8 seconds, and seats four people. The powertrain is already powerful enough to compete in some racing circuits, but if Tesla were to refine it slightly and build a new, more reliable chassis that would benefit racing scenarios, there is no reason that the Next-Gen Roadster wouldn’t be extremely competitive in some racing series.
The Model S Plaid is another example. It has broken multiple records, including one at the Nürburgring in Germany (which is unconfirmed) and the Laguna Seca Raceway in California. It already has the handling, speed, and downforce to take on tough tracks that are windy and difficult to maneuver. It would just take some minor refinements to make it a “racecar.”
This is where Tesla gains a significant advantage in its structure. It is irrelevant whether the company will actually race some of its cars or not, but it would be ready today if it chose to. Meanwhile, other car companies decided to build racecars first, and after seven years of R&D, they have nothing that would contribute to a highly-effective passenger car. It is like baking a cake before putting any of the ingredients together.
It doesn’t bode well for these foreign automakers, either. Unfortunately for them, Tesla is pulling away. Every day, it seems like the company is improving in range or performance or battery tech that makes its lead in the EV sector a little bit bigger than before. Now, it has four passenger cars on the road: Two sedans, a crossover, and an SUV. It has a Supercar on the way, a truck coming in the next year, a Semi that will be launched shortly. The list goes on and on, it seems, and if Tesla wanted to race a car this weekend and be competitive, it could.
It almost sounds like the priorities of these highly-complex German car companies were simply out of line. They chose to do the fun stuff first instead of focusing on the real task at hand: Getting gas cars off the road and putting electric ones on it. Instead of worrying about the issues surrounding the manufacturing processes of EVs, which took Tesla several years to figure out (and it is still a work in progress), BMW will be forced to make a full-scale commitment if it wants to be competitive within the next ten years. The decision it made could be detrimental to the future development of the company’s EV fleet. It certainly has its work cut out for it.
And if you’re wondering, Musk said Tesla would not get into racing. The big picture deals with manufacturing and scalability, and racing is really the last of the CEO’s concerns.
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
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
