News
Tesla ‘Model 2,’ mobile phone, and Tom Zhu ‘2nd-in-command’ rumors debunked by China exec
Tesla doesn’t have a PR team, and even on the off chance that the company responds to a media outlet, its responses tend to be short and succinct. This came to a head last month when rumors about a production shutdown in Giga Shanghai during December’s last week due to weakening demand were reported by several mainstream news media outlets. In response to the wave of reports, Tesla China simply commented that the reports were “untrue.”
As it turned out, what Tesla China really meant was that the reports were not entirely accurate. Giga Shanghai was indeed pausing its production in the last week of December, but it would be due to maintenance for the plant’s lines, not a demand issue. While one could argue that Tesla China’s response could have been better — and it definitely could have been better — it was already far more of a response than what Tesla typically puts out.
Tesla China Exec Interview
In the United States, Tesla usually doesn’t even issue official responses. Elon Musk posts about Tesla frequently and he clarifies issues on Twitter, but outside of that, there is very little that the company does to respond to rumors or reports. This was why it was quite a welcome development when Tesla VP Grace Tao had an interview with Chinese media. In it, she discussed a number of pertinent topics, such as Tesla’s vehicle pricing strategy in China, as well as some rumors surrounding the company.
Rumors about Tesla are abounding, and among the most notable are arguably the “Model 2,” the vehicle believed to be the cheaper successor to the Model 3 and Model Y; the “Pi Phone,” a mobile phone that’s been spamming a number of YouTube channels for some time now; and the promotion of Tesla China’s Tom Zhu as “second-in-command” in the company. Grace Tao’s response was quick and direct, and she noted that the “rumors are not true.”
Now, if you could see a parallel between the denial that the VP recently gave to Tesla China’s response to last month’s reports of Giga Shanghai’s shutdown, you are not alone. With this in mind — and if one could speculate to a point — then perhaps Tao’s denial could also be read as the rumors not being entirely accurate. Emphasis on the “entirely.”
Model 2, Mobile Phone, and Tom Zhu
Tesla, for one, has been working on a smaller vehicle platform for some time now. Elon Musk has been pretty dismissive of the vehicle for some time, favoring a dedicated, futuristic Robotaxi with no steering wheels instead, but he has shared some details about the upcoming car in the past. Musk has, for example, noted that Tesla’s affordable car would exceed the Model 3 and Model Y’s production output. Its platform would also be roughly the cost of the Model 3 and Model Y’s. It’s undeniable that Tesla is working on an affordable car, so the VP’s recent denial can also simply mean that the “not true” part of the rumor was the speculated name of the EV, “Model 2.”
As for the Tesla “Pi Phone,” Elon Musk has noted in the past that he is not closed to the idea of making a mobile phone if Apple or Google end up blocking Twitter, but that’s about it. Unlike what’s suggested in spam videos on YouTube, the “Tesla Phone” is simply a fun idea, nothing more. Tom Zhu’s promotion has not been confirmed by Tesla, but signs are pointing to the executive taking a larger role in the company. That being said, Zhu’s position does not necessarily have to be “second-in-command” to Elon Musk. His position, if speculations do prove accurate, could simply be created to accurately describe his larger responsibilities in the company.
Tesla VP Grace Tao’s interview with local Chinese media can be viewed here.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
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
