News
Tesla Superchargers are now over 3x cheaper than their biggest competitor
Tesla’s Supercharger Network just undercut one of its biggest competitors by over three times, and the company did not even have to lower its prices. In a recent announcement, IONITY, the rapid charging network that is considered as VW, BMW, Daimler, and Ford’s answer to the Tesla Superchargers, revealed that it would be updating its pricing structure by the end of the month — and what an update it is.
In a press release, IONITY stated that it would be launching a kilowatt-hour-based pricing scheme for customers across its established pan-European network starting January 31, 2020. The new rate is simple, with the company charging customers per kWh. The only issue is that IONITY will be charging electric car drivers 0.79 EUR ($0.88) per kWh.
That’s a substantial premium compared to the Tesla Supercharging Network, which has a rate of about 0.25 EUR ($0.28) per kWh. Thus, with this new pricing structure in place, an Audi e-tron or Porsche Taycan owner would end up paying about $80 to charge the all-electric SUV from zero to 100%. Considering that these vehicles are capable of traveling just over 200 miles on a charge, IONITY’s updated prices will make long trips on electric cars far more expensive than before.
IONITY boss Michael Hajesch, for one, noted that he does not think the new pricing strategy will turn customers away from using the network. In an interview with Handelsblatt‘s EV publication Edison Media, the IONITY executive explained that the rapid charging network’s advantages would likely be worth it for electric car drivers.
“I don’t have that fear. It is important to mention that the connected mobility service providers – and in this case, also include the Porsche charging service and BMW ChargeNow – offer attractive end customer offers. Direct customers without a contract benefit from the IONITY service promise, such as high availability, a Europe-wide HPC charging network, top locations directly on the motorway, and responsible operation of the charging stations with green electricity.”
He also argued that such price adjustments would likely not deter the advent of electric mobility. While he admitted that IONITY’s new pricing is high compared to its rivals in the market, Hajesch stated that the decision to raise the network’s prices was not difficult at all, even among its owners, VW, BMW, and Daimler.
“The discussion was not fierce or difficult at all. The price will not deter customers from buying, on the contrary. The overall service promise of the European IONITY HPC network already gives an answer to the key criticisms of the past regarding availability, charging power, green electricity supply, and range anxiety. We are therefore convinced that we are making a significant contribution to the market acceptance of electromobility.
“The purchase decision will not only depend on the IONITY price point on the long-haul route, which only accounts for five to ten percent of the annual charging needs. You also have to take into account the other use cases at home/work and public charging, which can already result in advantages over diesel and gasoline,” he said.
Despite the IONITY boss’ arguments, the fact remains that EV owners now need to pay far more to charge their vehicles using the rapid charging network. This will likely deter electric car owners who are budget conscious, and it might very well incentivize the ownership of internal combustion cars once more. After all, why buy an Audi e-tron that takes about $80 to fill up when a comparable gas or diesel-powered SUV can fill up for far less?
That being said, this update in IONITY’s pricing also highlights the practicality of Tesla’s Supercharger Network, which charges about $0.28 per kWh. Tesla’s Superchargers currently top out at 250 kW, which is less than IONITY’s peak of 350 kW, but considering the price difference, electric car owners will likely take the slightly slower charging speed and be charged a rate that is several times more affordable.
It’s unfortunate, but for now, at least, it appears that the only rapid charging network that is seriously going for petrol’s jugular is Tesla and is Superchargers.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
