News
Tesla’s sure-footed Model Y approach is the crossover market’s ultimate Trojan Horse
The future of the crossover market may have already started changing–the auto industry has just not realized it yet. Signs of this shift could be found beneath the surface of the Tesla Model Y, a crossover that represents the years of experience in vehicle making that the Silicon Valley-based company gained since it started building cars over a decade ago.
The Model Y could almost be described as Tesla’s most unassuming vehicle based on its exterior. Featuring a very similar design as the Model 3 and lacking the flashy features of the Model X, the Model Y looks very understated. This is one of the reasons why it was so easy for critics to dismiss the Model Y. Some, on account of the crossover’s Model 3-based design during its unveiling, even flat-out insisted that the Model Y does not exist.
The Model Y is currently undergoing a thorough teardown and analysis from automotive specialist Sandy Munro of Munro and Associates. The progress of the Model Y teardown has been incremental due to the ongoing pandemic, but the sections of the vehicle that have already undergone analysis all show one theme: the Model Y is the representation of Tesla’s refinements to its vehicle production process over the years, regardless of how minor they might be.
This could be seen in a comparison of the Model Y and the Model 3’s headliner. A look at the first-production Model 3’s headliner shows that Tesla seemed to have gone for a more traditional approach for the component, such as using glue to set specific parts in position. Tesla used a more unique injection-molded headliner for the Model Y, which eliminates the need for much of the glue used in the Model 3’s component. A hefty dose of Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH) countermeasures were also found on the crossover. Overall, the Model Y shows a far more sure-footed Tesla, one that has solid experience in carmaking.
Elon Musk has noted on Twitter that teardown experts like Munro will likely find many pleasant surprises in the Model Y, and so far, this does seem to be the case. While the vehicle still has areas for improvement, the fact remains that the crossover, which is still in its first production, is already far more refined than its predecessor. From its novel Octovalve system to its use of rigid wiring that can be set by robots on a fully-automated line, the Model Y seems to be Tesla’s most forward-thinking vehicle yet. And this could make all the difference.
The Model Y is competing in the crossover segment, which is highly competitive but incredibly lucrative. Just like the pickup truck market, there are vehicles that have become legends in the crossover industry, from affordable entries such as the Toyota RAV4 to premium SUVs like the Porsche Macan. The Model Y is designed to compete in this market and offer potential customers a compelling alternative to tried and tested vehicles. Considering its price, its tech, and the fact that it seems to be designed very well, the Model Y will likely have more than a fighting chance to compete.
Tesla has a habit of making a vehicle that ends up becoming a Trojan horse of sorts. The Model 3 is one of these, as the car ended up disrupting the midsize premium sedan market to such a degree that sales of rivals like the BMW M3 have been decimated, despite critics largely dismissing Tesla in the lead up to its release. But unlike the Model 3’s first production units, even the Model Y’s first run already shows a certain degree of maturity in vehicle design and manufacturing. The Model Y will only get better with time as Tesla continues to refine little aspects of the vehicle, but even at its current state, the all-electric crossover is already something that is out of the ordinary.
And that is the biggest irony of all. Legacy automakers appear to have adopted a pretty dismissive approach to the Model Y. Save for Ford, which has unveiled the Mustang Mach-E, and Porsche, which has announced an all-electric Macan, the premium all-electric crossover market seems strangely open for domination. Just like with the Model 3, legacy auto appears to be all-too-willing to make way for the Model Y. And just as before, by the time competitors realize the all-electric crossover’s true potential, there is a very good chance that they will be late, just as the Model 3’s rivals like the BMW i4 are late today.
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
