News
‘Tesla Killers’ are like Bigfoot: They don’t exist and they never will
The term “Tesla Killer” should be retired for the rest of time. For years, automakers across the world have released their introductory electric cars into the quickly growing EV sector. With plans written out and cool, sporty photographs and renders of the “next big thing” in the EV sector being released by some of the world’s largest and oldest car company’s, many media outlets, including this one, have referred to some cars as “Tesla Killers” because that is what automakers are trying to do: knock Tesla off of its pedestal and try to derail some of the momentum that Elon Musk’s company has gained through the past several years.
The problem is this: These cars that are always coined as “Tesla Killers” never pan out to what they’re supposed to be. They’re all hype and relatively no real threat to Tesla or any of its vehicles. In all honesty, “Tesla Killers” are like Bigfoot. You always hear about them, but you never see them, and in the back of your mind, you think that it could be real, but more than likely, it isn’t.
I will admit, there are cars out there that have legitimate potential to derail some of Tesla’s momentum. I think the Lucid Air could be a great competitor to the Model S, and I think Rivian’s R1T could be a great option for potential Cybertruck owners. Some great cars are coming to the market, but none of them are worthy of being deemed a “Tesla Killer.”
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.
The fact is, the word “killer,” when attributed to everything, means it is a complete ending to any chance of success when used in the comparison of two things. A “Tesla Killer” would have to make a competing car model obsolete, killing it off from the market, and this simply doesn’t happen in the automotive world, at least in my opinion. Even if cars have slumpy sales records or slow months, someone will still buy that car eventually, no matter how crappy, inadequate, or ineffective that vehicle is.
The truth is that all of the cars labeled as “Tesla Killers” have always fallen short. I can remember the Mercedes-Benz EQC donning the label, only to sell barely any units and have the German automaker reconsidering its stance on EVs. The same thing was said about the EQS unveiling. While it is a beautiful car, does anyone really think it’s going to make Tesla reconsider its plans for future models or make it redesign any of its current ones?
Once-deemed ‘Tesla killer’ Mercedes EQC flops with 55 units sold in Germany to date
No, it won’t. It’s not an “it likely won’t” or “there’s a small chance.” It won’t happen. Period.
Tesla is on the top of the EV sector. Like it or not, nobody can really compete with them currently, and vaporware is the only real threat to Tesla’s current momentum. For years, these car companies have said they will build these incredible EVs with all of these great features. Towing capabilities, wading depth, 0-60 MPH times that are more than impressive, astronomical range ratings. You name it, one of these car companies has said it. But how many times, honestly, has a car company kept its word with an EV that it plans to release? How many times have these car companies with decades or even a century of experience come up short? How many times have EV enthusiasts been promised “the next big thing in the EV sector,” only to come up short and revise their plans?
The truth is, it happens more often than not. Car companies need to start getting honest about their issues when developing EVs. I believe transparency, not hopeless promises, is the key to winning over the incredibly loyal EV enthusiasts that make up the community. It is no secret that Tesla owners and fans are quite dismissive toward competitors. Can you really blame them? Can you see how for years, these other car companies have made all of these promises, only for their entire plan to crumble apart like an extra dry cookie?
This isn’t to say that Tesla is perfect, and it isn’t to say that they won’t eventually fall off of their pedestal. Tesla has plenty of issues. They’re dealing with supply constraints, timing inaccuracies, production bottlenecks, and delays in permissions (especially in Berlin). The company also has major issues with customer service and communication, something that has been a complaint in more recent memory. However, Tesla rarely misses when it comes to its cars. Yes, some come later than the company says, but there’s no denying that many of the specs it releases for its vehicles are accurate. No matter how astronomical or outlandish some specs may seem, Tesla usually makes good on its promises.
This is something that other automakers that have been deemed “Tesla Killers” simply haven’t done. They may put fancy names, specs, and features on their cars, but they either fall short and aren’t as effective as they say the car will be, or the car just gets delayed for several years until the companies have put in the correct infrastructure for adequate production.
“Tesla Killers” do not exist. They never have, and they never will. There will never be a car that comes along and makes a Tesla completely obsolete in the EV market. Besides, all of these companies producing “Tesla Killers” wouldn’t even plan to manufacture EVs if it wasn’t for Tesla. Let’s face it; these cars are really “Saviors” to whatever manufacturer they belong to because if they weren’t being planned or produced, these companies would be obsolete in a few years, especially as the EV sector continues to gain momentum and take market share away from petrol-powered machines.
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!
-Joey
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
