News
‘Tesla Killers’ are struggling to live up to their names
Given the struggles faced by most new electric vehicle (EV) releases over the last few years, it may be time to put away the phrase ‘Tesla Killer’ in favor of a more realistic label like ‘Tesla Kind-of Competitor.’ With brands like Faraday Future and Fisker Inc. already come and (almost) gone in the same EV arena that Tesla continues to thrive in, each new entrant looks to be the next at-risk for being an ‘also-ran’ in the quest for success in the consumer market.
As more tech knowledge is gained, supply deals are made, and Tesla continues educating potential buyers about the positive realities of electric car ownership, perhaps the ‘Tesla Killer’ label will be bandied about again. In the meantime, however, competitors like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Audi e-tron are left with the cold, hard reality: They’re just not Tesla, and that’s not yet a good thing for shoppers to be thinking about their product right now.
“If a customer is choosing the I-PACE over the comparable Tesla, they are making the conscious decision: I don’t want the Tesla,” said Ed Kim, an analyst at the car-market research and consulting firm AutoPacific, as quoted in an article on Bloomberg about Tesla’s struggling competition. “You really have to be someone who doesn’t like Tesla, who doesn’t want the Tesla product, in order to go for this.”
The e-tron and the I-PACE might actually stand a good chance at breaking into a market dominated by Tesla given their brands’ experience and financial resources in the automotive world already. As Bloomberg’s article pointed out, their sales numbers are going to have to perk up soon, though, and given some advertising tactics taken up by both brands, they’re aware of this need. Jaguar is currently offering a $3,000 ‘Tesla Conquest’ incentive, meaning current Tesla owners buying an I-PACE will receive an additional $3,000 credit towards their purchase as part of a combined $15,000 savings package program. Last month, Audi infamously decided to block Superchargers in order to spark marketing-driven conversations with Tesla owners there to ‘fill’ up.
There are a variety of reasons why ‘Tesla Killers’ aren’t living up to their name – some are speculation and some have pretty solid facts to support their case. Getting a late start in the EV game is probably the most glaring shortcoming of Tesla’s competitors, but that’s not always the determining factor. Although Tesla is lauded as a technology company that also makes cars, a sentiment expressed to applaud their achievements, there’s no rule saying they will keep that crown forever. (My source: Pirates of Silicon Valley meets Tesla Goes to China). With the kind of deep pockets legacy auto still has, they could throw their money around and make some magic happen there, if you will.
Education of the sales force seems to be a serious shortcoming as well, especially according to owners who’ve experienced it directly. In early July this year, one Jaguar I-PACE owner shared a very frustrating tale with Teslarati which involved his car failing to meet its stated battery range by a significant amount, a lack of working charge stations, and delays in servicing due to limited know-how when it came to the company’s new electric vehicle. Tesla is often chided for its growing pains in service, but legacy auto doesn’t always have a pristine record, and Tesla is always working to improve and can move at an incredible speed to do so.
Then there are theories put forth by people like Sandy Munro, a teardown specialist who has made waves in the Tesla community for his comments about the Model 3 manufacturing process. Commenting on the underwhelming battery range from Tesla competitors such as the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE in an interview with Sean Mitchell of AllThingsEV, Munro noted that this is simply because of their lack of vertical integration. “(It’s) because they’re buying them from somebody else,” he mused. Other comments made in the interview involved the long-term nature of any battery development outside of Tesla and the major battery manufacturers thanks to patents and licensing requirements. In other words, Jaguar and Audi might not be victims of ‘you snooze, you loose,’ per se, but rather ‘you don’t stay awake, you pay.’
To the extent that it’s amusing watching Tesla move so far ahead in the EV race, it’s not a terrible thing if they end of sharing the stage a bit with others down the road. Elon Musk has noted on several occasions that Tesla alone can’t achieve the total transformation that’s needed to achieve his sustainability goals. It’s good that others are trying, and a handful of actual ‘Tesla Killers’ that keep the brand on its toes is good for everyone, even those just in it for the cool factor. Better competition for Tesla means Tesla just gets better. Then they get better to keep up. And so it goes.
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
