News
Tesla’s million mile battery: Veteran auto’s ‘fake it till you make it’ strategy is perfectly fine
It is no secret that Tesla is actively pursuing a million-mile battery. With such an innovation, Tesla hopes to make its electric cars outlast gasoline-powered vehicles several times over, while ensuring that its energy storage devices are capable of lasting literal decades while being actively deployed. But if recent news is any indication, it appears that Tesla is not the only company that is closing in on a million-mile battery.
During a recent online investor conference, GM Executive Vice President Doug Parks stated that the veteran American automaker is also working on a million mile battery solution. Beyond this, Parks suggested that GM is “almost there” in developing a battery that’s far above the Ultium batteries that were announced last March. Unfortunately, the GM executive did not specify a solid timeline for the introduction of its own million mile battery, only stating that multiple teams were working on it.
GM’s rather sudden announcement of its million-mile battery echoes the company’s overall strategy with its electric vehicle program. Back in March, the automaker unveiled a sweeping electric vehicle strategy that will involve $20 billion in investments and about 20 EVs for practically every market. But despite the grandiose plans and announcements, the veteran automaker did not really disclose a lot of concrete details about its EV push, such as pricing, specifications, and timing.
GM’s approach to electric vehicles almost seems like a “fake it till you make it” strategy. Back in March, there was a lot of talk about Tesla’s upcoming Battery and Powertrain Day, which was speculated to involve discussions and announcements about the company’s next-generation of electric vehicles and energy solutions. GM’s “EV Day” seemed to be a response to this. In the same light, the previous weeks have involved updates about the impending release of Tesla’s million mile battery, an innovation that is apparently “almost there” in GM.
While this may at times feel like veteran automakers like GM are simply following Tesla’s EV playbook, it must be noted that every step made by legacy carmakers towards electric vehicles is a step towards the wider adoption of sustainable transport. Thus, despite the fact that GM’s EV strategies today are more smoke and mirrors and concept vehicles, the American automaker’s focus on electric cars is still admirable. This is a pretty big point for GM, considering that it is the very company that practically stopped the first coming of the modern electric car with its controversial cancellation of the EV1.
Besides, it is difficult to deny that legacy automakers such as GM are making an effort towards electrification now. Despite the fact that leaked production plans accessed by Reuters indicated that GM and Ford only intend to produce 320,000 EVs in 2026 for the North American market, the company is still investing heavily in EVs. For its Ultium batteries, for example, GM has stated that it is working with Korean firm LG Chem to find ways to reduce costs and improve overall performance. Adam Kwiatkowski, executive chief engineer of GM’s electric propulsion systems, noted that the automaker and LG Chem are also looking at investments in mines, hedging metals prices, and potential partnerships with metal refiners.
The next few years will definitely be one for the record books, as Tesla enters its next phase with its million mile battery and Plaid powertrain, and legacy automakers such as GM take a serious stance on electric vehicles. It’s easy to forget, after all, that less than a decade ago, the pervading narrative in the auto industry was that electric cars are still intended to be stuck as niche products, glorified golf cars for the wealthy and not much more.
The landscape today is very different, and there’s no bigger symbol of this change than GM’s own Hummer EV, a vehicle that’s the spiritual successor of the gas-guzzling monster SUV that pretty much killed the EV1. Other vehicles like the Tesla Cybertruck, which is expected to break the stereotypes of EVs as vehicles that cannot be used for real work and utility, further shows the steady trend forward for electric cars.
Tesla is a leader in the electric vehicle movement. That much is sure. But the company itself has noted that it cannot transition the world towards sustainability on its own. For true sustainability to happen, other companies, legacy carmakers like GM included, have to go all-in on the EV movement as well. One can only hope that this time, announcements such as GM’s million mile battery initiative are more on the “make it” side than on the “fake it” side.
H/T @ajtourville.
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
