News
Tesla, a stealthy Model Y ramp, and the art of underpromising
There was once a time when it was a legitimate criticism to state that Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, are prone to being a bit too optimistic in presenting a grand vision of the future. But since unveiling the Model Y all-electric crossover, it appears that Tesla has entered a new era — one where Elon Musk is developing the art of underpromising and overdelivering. This is a pretty frightening topic for the company’s critics, especially those with financial stakes against Tesla.
Despite all the hype surrounding its release, many, including myself, were quite underwhelmed when the Model Y was unveiled. Being heavily based on the Model 3 sedan, the Y was so similar that TSLA shorts actually accused the electric carmaker of fraud (no surprise there) for allegedly passing off a raised Model 3 as a new vehicle. This is a ridiculous accusation, of course, but it does give an idea about how understated the Model Y and its unveiling really was.
But the Y seems destined to disappoint the anti-Tesla crowd without remorse.
During its unveiling, Elon Musk stated that deliveries of the vehicle are expected to start in Fall 2020, a conservative date that was moved up to Summer 2020 in the company’s Q3 2019 Update Letter. During the fourth quarter earnings call, Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn announced that first deliveries of the Model Y will actually be happening sometime later this quarter. That’s far earlier than what even most TSLA bulls have predicted.
This is also a very different strategy than what Tesla adopted for the Model 3. When the Model 3 kicked off its mass production with its first customer handovers, Elon Musk announced a hyper-aggressive delivery timeframe that ended up being delayed by six months. The company suffered as a result, from its share price in the markets to the fatigue of Tesla employees working to bring the Model 3 to its target production levels. With the Model Y, Tesla seems to have started with a conservative timeline that it knew it could easily beat, and it worked its way up from there.
Based on the updates to the Model Y’s delivery timeframes, it appears that Tesla may only be adjusting its targets once it knows it can actually meet them. This shows a degree of maturity on Tesla’s part that has not really been seen in the past, and it is something that should frighten those who actively bet against the company.
This shows that Tesla is learning from its mistakes, and it is taking the lessons from the past and adapting it for the future. During the early days of the original Roadster and the Model S, it was imperative for the company to promote the vehicle’s maximum range potential to make them competitive against their petrol-powered rivals. Today, Tesla can actually afford to lowball its range. CARB filings for the Model Y initially suggested a range of over 300 miles for the vehicle’s performance variant, and this was confirmed in recent updates to Tesla’s order page. When the Model Y was unveiled, its Performance trim was listed with a range of 280. Now, the vehicle has a range of 315 miles per charge.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla is doing this while its competitors are still at a point where they are overpromising on their vehicles. Just look at the range portion of the Ford Mustang Mach-E’s presentation: the words “target range” are abounding. That means that Ford thinks it could reach the range it announced for the vehicle, but it is still working on it. It’s a strategy that’s a lot more cautious than Porsche’s with its early announcements of a 300-mile Taycan, but perhaps the American automaker learned its lesson from the Turbo S’ 192-mile range EPA rating.
It takes an ambitious company to aim for hyper-aggressive targets that have a good chance of not being met, but it takes a mature company to publicly announce goals that it knows it can beat. Tesla appears to be in the latter camp with the Model Y, and that’s really good. Apple’s legendary CEO, Steve Jobs, made his mark in the tech sector with an underpromise and overdeliver strategy, and it ultimately helped the tech giant build enough momentum to make it the juggernaut that it is today. There’s no reason why Tesla and Elon Musk cannot do the same.
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
