News
Tesla Model S Plaid battery pack shows that 18650 cell innovations are not over yet
A picture of the Tesla Model S Plaid’s 18650 battery pack with its modules visible was recently shared online. The image hinted that Tesla is still in the process of optimizing and innovating its 18650 battery technology, despite the cells being quite a bit long in the tooth.
Tesla is constantly trying to improve its battery technology, which has led to the development of the company’s highly-anticipated 4680 cells. The 4680 cells are expected to be used in vehicles that require a lot of power such as the Semi, Cybertruck, and new Roadster. Amidst the ongoing supply chain challenges and delays in the mass production of 4680 cells from Tesla’s Kato Road facility, however, the company noted that the Model S Plaid, its current flagship sedan, will maintain its use of 18650 batteries.
According to Redditor u/punx, who posted the picture, the Model S Plaid’s battery pack features five large modules, packed to the brim with Panasonic’s 18650 cells. The Reddit user confirmed the cells were 18650 with measurements proving they were 18mm in diameter and 65mm in length. Previous iterations of the Model S have battery packs with as many as 16 individual modules.
A decrease in the number of modules in the Model S Plaid’s battery means fewer parts for the vehicle’s pack, resulting in lower production costs for Tesla. Lowering production costs for its vehicles is a key priority for the company. At the 2021 Annual Shareholders Meeting, Elon Musk mentioned that Tesla has been making a lot of progress in cost reduction, despite the average selling price going down due to the lower prices of vehicles like the Model 3 and Model Y.
“We managed to still do decently well on a gross margin. So, you know, getting the average price down and gross margin up is very difficult,” Musk pointed out. “But we’ve managed to do that. Our goal is really to make the cars as affordable as possible.”
The Model S Plaid (and perhaps the Model X Plaid) might be the last vehicles in Tesla’s lineup that would use 18650 cells. With Tesla focusing its efforts to master the mass production of its 4680 cells — which are more powerful and cheaper to produce — it would not be a surprise if future iterations of the flagship sedan and SUV are fitted with 4680 structural batteries. The 18650 cells are showing their age, after all, as Tesla has been using them since the days of the original Roadster.
If Tesla does utilize its 4680 cells for the Model S and Model X, the vehicles would likely be equipped with nickel-based batteries. The Tesla CEO has previously explained that the supply chain goes all the way back to raw materials like lithium and nickel, which are used to develop the company’s battery cells. During the last earnings call, Elon Musk mulled over the idea of Tesla consolidating its battery offerings down to 2 or 3 form factors, one nickel-based for high-powered vehicles like the Semi and the other iron-based for mass-produced cars like the Model 3.
“So right now, we kind of have the Baskin Robbins of batteries situation, where there’s so many formats and so many chemistries, that it’s like we’ve got like 36 flavors of battery at this point,” Musk said.
“This results in an engineering drag coefficient where each variants of cell chemistry and format requires as certain amount of engineering to maintain it and troubleshoot. And this inhibits our forward progress. So it is going to be important to consolidate to maybe—ideally two form factors, maybe three, but ideally two. And then just one nickel chemistry and one iron chemistry, so we don’t have to troubleshoot so many different variants,” he said.
With Tesla likely retiring its 18650 cells in the future, the Model S Plaid’s five-module battery pack could be seen as one of the final iterations of the technology that the company quite literally used to build its empire. And considering that the 18650 cells are being used in the Model S Plaid, there is no better swan song for the humble batteries.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, reach out to 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
