News
Tesla again urges investors to vote in favor of Musk pay plan, Texas move
Tesla has shared a new video ahead of its upcoming Annual Shareholders Meeting next month, urging voters once again to vote in favor of two proposals: CEO Elon Musk’s recently struck-down compensation plan from 2018 and the company’s re-incorporation in Texas.
As the latest in Tesla’s efforts to get shareholders to vote in favor of the re-incorporation plan and Musk’s previously approved pay package, the company’s main account on X shared a new video on Monday, once again encouraging investors to vote in favor of the proposals. The votes on moving incorporation from Delaware to Texas and the Musk compensation plan re-vote, which are numbered three and four, respectively, follow Judge Kathaleen McCormick’s decision in January to void the CEO’s 2018 pay plan.
In the post, Tesla calls the proposals “especially important,” saying that voting in favor of them will “protect your rights as stockholders & protect the value of your investment.”
The video also includes a past speech from Musk, in which he reiterates the company’s mission to help the world transition to a global, sustainable economy. It also highlights the company’s development of multiple technologies, including its electric vehicles (EVs) and their eventual autonomy, energy storage, and the Optimus humanoid robot.
“Tesla stockholders, YOU have the ability to enhance the future of the company,” writes Tesla near the video’s end. “For the past six years, under Elon Musk’s leadership, you’ve seen the value of your investment increase ~1,100 percent.
-->“The present and future value creation that Tesla is poised to deliver for all of you is at risk. We need your vote. Protect Tesla.”
You can see the full video below.
We have put forward two especially important proposals for our Annual Meeting of Stockholders—and we need your vote.
Protect your rights as stockholders & protect the value of your investment by voting FOR the ratification of the 2018 CEO Performance Award & FOR Reincorporating… pic.twitter.com/ONmB7oZfyM
— Tesla (@Tesla) May 20, 2024
-->“The Tesla team put this together of their own volition (I did not ask for it),” Musk wrote in a repost of the video on X. “Thanks!”
The Board of Directors has consistently also voiced their support for the proposals, with Board Chair Robyn Denholm recently sharing her thoughts on the judge’s decision and Musk’s pay package in general.
“Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years… That strikes us, and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard, as fundamentally unfair,” Denholm said last month. “We do not think that what the Delaware Court said is how corporate law should or does work. If it is legally advisable, we suggest simply subjecting the original 2018 package to a new shareholder vote.”
Tesla also recently launched a website both encouraging shareholders to vote yes on three and four, and detailing how they can vote through various brokerage platforms. According to a report from Bloomberg, Tesla also hired a strategic adviser to “bolster the campaign,” though shareholders have been divided on how to vote on the proposals.
One of Tesla’s largest individual shareholders, for example, has recently been blasting Musk on X in recent weeks, even going on to describe Musk as a “magician,” and the pay package ratification vote as a “robbery attempt.” Many have criticized Musk specifically for recent, widespread layoffs at the company—especially including the Supercharging team, which was let go before Tesla later re-hired a few people.
-->Others have voiced strong support for the pay package, saying they voted with the board’s recommendations on both proposals. At the time of writing, about 66 percent of those who have responded to recent Teslarati stories about ratifying Musk’s 2018 pay package said they voted in favor of the proposal, while the remaining 34 percent said they voted against it. Respondents ranged from having just a few Tesla shares to over 7,000, while the vast majority of those who reached out didn’t include how many shares they owned.
The vote is being held between now and Tesla’s Annual Shareholders Meeting, which is scheduled for June 13.
Tesla’s largest retail shareholder continues push against Elon Musk’s $56B pay package
What are your thoughts? How did you vote on these proposals? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
-->
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
