News
Tesla Semi faces new wave of skepticism from diesel veterans
There is very little doubt that the Model S, Model X, and Model 3 have disrupted their respective segments since they were released. Tesla aims to accomplish the same thing with its all-electric Semi truck, but the vehicle’s target is a lot more ambitious — it aims to disrupt the trucking industry.
The trucking industry is vast, and it is still growing. Long-haul trucking stands is the lifeblood of the US economy, handling the transportation of up to 71% of food, retail goods, construction supplies, and other cargo delivered every day. The American Trucking Associations’ American Trucking Trends 2018 report revealed that the US trucking industry generated $700.3 billion in economic activity in 2017, representing a 3.5% increase compared to 2016 when the trucking market generated $676.6 billion. This is the market that Tesla is aiming to tap into with the Semi.
One of the Tesla Semi’s main selling points is that it’s an environmentally-friendly vehicle. Being all-electric, the Semi is a zero-emissions truck. This is an advantage over conventional diesel trucks, which are a significant source of air pollution in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gases from medium and heavy-duty trucks were found to have increased by 85% between 1990 to 2016, accounting for about 23% of carbon emissions from transportation in 2016. This is despite the fact that diesel engines are getting steadily cleaner. The EPA estimates that emissions from current engines are about 85% lower than before 2007 when the US rolled out new standards.
The Tesla Semi has several features that make it a viable alternative to diesel-powered long-haulers, from its four Model 3-derived electric motors, its comparable Class 8 hauling capacity, and its superior speed. That said, it appears that America’s diesel veterans would not give up without a fight. In a statement to Bloomberg, Jon Mills, a spokesman for engine maker Cummins Inc. noted that electric trucks have a long way to go before they could be considered competition for diesel trucks.
“Right now, we don’t think it’s viable. Electric trucks are more viable where you have shorter routes, less loads and you’re able to recharge,” he said.
Cummins Inc. is one of America’s premier engine-makers, supplying engines for consumer trucks, fire engines, and heavy-duty long-haulers. Most of the company’s engines run on diesel, though they are also making some that operate on natural gas. Mills noted that Cummins is developing electric motors as well, but the company does not expect a lot of demand for them anytime soon.
Mills did admit that electric trucks would contribute to reducing pollution. Nevertheless, the Cummins Inc. spokesman noted that the trucking industry is likely not ready to switch to electric, mainly since vehicles like the Tesla Semi have limited range. Considering that some truck drivers are paid by the mile, they would likely lose money while waiting for their vehicles’ batteries to recharge.
“Diesel will be the primary option for heavy duty trucking markets, long haul especially, for a decade or more,” Mills said.
Elon Musk wants to initiate the transition sooner. When unveiling the Tesla Semi’s specs, Musk noted that the electric long-hauler would be cheaper to operate than comparable diesel-powered trucks. Musk noted that the Semi could cost operators $1.26 per mile to run, less than the standard $1.51 per mile that diesel-powered vehicles cost. That said, Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum trade group, is skeptical of Musk’s claims, noting that there is little need for a new entrant in the shipping industry.
“It’s easy if you’re just coming into this market to say ‘they’re $1.50 per mile and we can do it for $1.20. But where’s the proof? I haven’t seen it. Diesel is the benchmark for energy efficiency. Diesel dominates the entire sector,” he said.
Amidst continued reservations from veterans in the trucking industry, Tesla is nonetheless pushing through with further development of the Semi. The company has been conducting real-world tests of the Semi since the vehicle was unveiled, and during the Q2 2018 earnings call, Elon Musk noted that improvements to the truck are being made. Thus, when the Tesla Semi enters production, the long-hauler would be an even more viable alternative to diesel-powered trucks.
“We’ve made significant improvements to the design since the unveiling that we had, and it’s really even better than what we talked about,” Musk said.
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
