News
Tesla’s long road to maturity teaches a hard lesson for electric vehicle startups
Elon Musk may be prone to incredibly optimistic release estimates for Tesla’s products, but there is one aspect of the company that the CEO has been very realistic on — the challenges involved in mass production. Over the years, Elon Musk has highlighted this point. In the Q2 2021 earnings call alone, Musk reiterated these challenges when describing just how difficult it was to ramp the production of Tesla’s custom 4680 cells. “Limited production is easy, prototype production is easy but high-volume production is hard. There are a number of challenges in transitioning from sort of small-scale production to large volume production,” Musk said.
Tesla is now a mature electric vehicle company, but it has not always been that way. Before its eight consecutive profitable quarters, Tesla was fighting an uphill battle, coming close to ruin more than once. Today, Tesla is a strong automaker, weathering the issues brought about by the chip crisis admirably and securing $1 billion quarterly profit for the first time in Q2 2021. That’s not bad at all for an 18-year-old company competing in one of the most unforgiving segments in the market.
One thing that may be forgotten today is just how long the road was for Tesla before it was able to secure the stable ground that it stands on today. This long, arduous road, paved with several trips through “production hell,” would likely be faced by other electric car makers as well. This would likely be especially true for companies like Lucid, which entered the stock market even before it delivered its first car to consumers.
There is a trend now among electric vehicle makers. Unlike Tesla, which went public after delivering the original Roadster to customers, other EV makers have gone public through special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). This was the case for controversial hydrogen truck maker Nikola, which saw its stock climb rapidly before plummeting down as issues about its founder Trevor Milton emerged. Nikola is not alone in the SPAC trend, with companies like Lucid and Fisker also going public through SPACs.
As noted in a Bloomberg report, a good number of these EV makers have seen quite a bit of volatility. Nikola’s rapid rise and fall aside, companies like Faraday Future have exhibited volatility not long after they debuted on the Nasdaq. Faraday saw gains in its inaugural day of trading, for example, but the company saw a 23% drop over the next two sessions.
It’s almost expected now that new EV makers that enter the stock market through a SPAC would likely see notable gains and some steep losses. And now that they are publicly traded, management decisions and strategies would likely result in their respective stocks seeing some movement.
This was experienced by Lucid Motors. The SPAC that took Lucid public earlier this year saw dips in its stock after the EV maker postponed the initial production of its Air sedan, which CEO Peter Rawlinson explained was due to the pandemic. What is quite interesting is that Lucid is already one of the more prepared EV makers that are looking to follow Tesla into the mainstream auto segment, since it has a ready product and management that seems to have things in order.
Other EV makers that have gone public through SPACs, such as Nikola, Canoo, and Lordstown Motors, ended up experiencing management turmoil even before they went public. This means that many electric car companies, particularly those who may be entering the stock market through a SPAC, may very well have to learn a hard lesson about how difficult it is to transition from being a maker of EV prototypes to a mass manufacturer of electric cars that can stand beside Tesla in the mainstream auto market.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
