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’
—————————————————-
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
