News
Follow the Leader: Tesla’s Influence on Other Manufacturers
As enthusiasts of Tesla’s automobiles and what comes with them in terms of technology, we all know that their cars offer things that no other manufacturer can offer. This is not only because of Tesla’s sizeable lead in battery technology and entertainment features but simply because the cars provide a design and aesthetic that is just different than others. We all know Tesla seems to handle themselves in a more “fun” way than any other large company that builds vehicles; one would only have to see Fart Mode to know that this company is a lot different than others.
However, we see carmakers adapt more and more to Tesla’s style, technology, look, and demeanor. Every day, it seems like another company is doing something that is geared toward taking a chunk out of Tesla’s market. This idea does not only have to do with the company’s increasing performance and technology standards, but even entertainment features offered by Tesla are influencing other carmakers to do the same thing.
Earlier this week, it was announced that BMW would be offering a Tri-Motor performance electric car that would be released in 2023 or 2024. The M5 EV from the German automaker is poised to outperform Tesla’s highest-performing vehicles, like the Model S P100D or the yet-to-be-released Model S outfitted with Plaid Mode.
Speaking of Plaid Mode, when comparing the M5 to Tesla’s revised Model S Powertrain, it is a pretty similar idea. Both cars offer Tri-Motor setups with massive amounts of Horsepower: the BMW having 1,000+ and the Plaid Mode Model S, while unconfirmed, will likely have around 800 ponies. Both cars are obviously geared toward fast, high-performance driving with crazy acceleration points for 0-60 MPH.
BMW had to realize that when the Plaid Model S does release, it will likely be the only car that real speed enthusiasts will buy if they want an EV. While some may choose to spend an extra 100 grand on the Tesla Roadster, some will want a more versatile vehicle that they can use for everyday driving. Nobody has really even challenged Tesla in this portion of the industry except for Porsche, whose Taycan offers excellent performance capabilities but has fallen short of what people expect in terms of range.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
In terms of battery performance, GM has been the automaker that comes to mind when thinking of those who want to challenge Tesla. A few weeks ago, I wrote an interesting op-ed on GM’s 180 degree perspective of Tesla. Nine years ago, GM executives claimed Tesla would be “in the graveyard” due to money management and lacking vehicle technology. But just a few weeks ago, GM came out and said, “We’re close to a million-mile battery, too!” Directly acknowledging Tesla’s lead in battery tech, GM realized even to begin to compete with Tesla down the road, things better change, and developments better start happening…and they better start happening fast.
Now, I am sure many, if not all, of the newsletter readers, have heard of Xpeng in some capacity. Whether it is Tesla’s current lawsuit with the Chinese automaker or the striking similarities in the company’s website, the brand has become a pretty popular name within the EV industry. I am going to focus on the latter portion, with the website comparison, along with another example of Tesla’s influence on Xpeng.
The website: Woah. Talk about similarities. Not only does Xpeng’s general website look just like Tesla’s, but their ordering page for the P7 holds striking similarities compared to the ordering page for the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y. It is basically a carbon copy, see for yourself.
Not only did Xpeng use Tesla’s website design, but their cars can also dance as an Easter Egg. Boy, that sure does sound familiar too…*cough cough* Model X.
In terms of disrupting Tesla’s sector, two examples come to mind: GM’s Electric Van and Nikola’s series of Electric Semis.
Now, Tesla obviously does not have a van, but they may make a twelve-seater for Boring Company tunnels. But interestingly enough, GM’s most significant concern for making a van was to beat Tesla to the punch. That’s what a UPS Fleet Director said because he realizes that a battery-powered van could disrupt the commercial industry as a whole. He actually compared it to the Model 3’s disruption of consumer sedans.
Nikola is sort of a different story compared to what I’ve talked about thus far. This is a company that is planning to offer a pickup and several Semi-trucks that will use sustainable energy (depending on what your ideas about hydrogen are). But we know the Tesla Semi is going to do some real damage in the Semi market because of its impressive performance standards. A lot of pre-orders from a lot of big companies, and it will surely disrupt a sizeable industry, especially when companies with environmental concerns have it available to them and see what the Semi is capable of.
More interesting to me, though, is the company name. Really original. We should call them Edison at this point.
So what does all of this mean? What’s the big idea?
Tesla is not the company in the EV sector. Tesla is THE company in the automotive industry altogether.
Forget about batteries or entertainment or vehicle design. Tesla is the company right now in the entire industry. There is no comparison. We have EV companies gunning for them, gas-powered legacy automakers after them; there are no limits. Everyone wants a slice of the Tesla pie. And who can blame them?
—————————————————–
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
—————————————————-
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
