News
Tesla vs The Big Three – An uneven contest
Elon Musk has said many times that his ultimate goal is to increase the adoption of electric vehicles, a goal that’s advanced with every EV that rolls off a dealer’s lot, even if it’s not a Tesla. “The biggest impact that Tesla will have is not the cars that we make ourselves, but the fact that we show that you can make compelling electric cars that people want to buy,” he said in Revenge of the Electric Car.
When it comes to making compelling electric cars, the company has succeeded spectacularly. But when it comes to inspiring the industry leaders to sell their own EVs in substantial numbers, that isn’t happening. Spokesmen for the major automakers (especially when speaking to the EV media) say things like, “the future is electric,” and “we intend to stay at the forefront of technology,” but when it comes to action, the playbook is: sell just enough EVs to satisfy government regulators, while keeping the focus on profitable trucks and SUVs.
A recent article in CleanTechnica takes a look at the lineup of plug-in models offered by the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler). The current roster consists of 3 pure electric vehicles (EVs) and 5 plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). Of the 3 EVs, only one, the Chevy Bolt, is truly an attractive option. The Fiat 500e is a compliance car that’s only available in two states, and Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has asked the public not to buy it. The Ford Focus EV was introduced in 2011, and not updated until 2015 – it sold a grand total of 901 units in 2016.
However, the handwriting is on the garage wall. Plug-in vehicle sales have increased every month for the last 20 months, Tesla’s Model 3 has accumulated somewhere around 400,000 advance orders sight unseen, and battery prices are falling rapidly – several industry observers have predicted that EVs will reach cost parity with legacy vehicles in about 5 years. So, is Detroit raising its game, and preparing to expand its portfolio of electric models?
Fiat 500e [Credit: Car and Driver]
Well, sort of. In January, Ford announced that it plans to introduce 13 new electrified vehicles over the next five years. However, it offered specifics for only 7, and only one of these is an electric vehicle for the US market: “an all-new fully electric small SUV, coming by 2020, engineered to deliver an estimated range of at least 300 miles.” The other 6 include hybrids and an electric commercial van to be sold in Europe.
Ford representatives have made it clear that the company will be taking a gradual, go-slow approach to electrification. CleanTechnica’s Loren McDonald spoke with Brett Hinds, Ford’s Chief Engineer of Electrified Powertrain Systems, in early January, and was left with the impression that the automaker feels little urgency about upgrading its electric vehicles. When McDonald mentioned that industry experts expect EV ranges to increase to 300 miles in 5-7 years, and that battery charging rates are also expected to improve, he was told that “Ford just doesn’t see it that way.” (Yes, this directly contradicts Ford’s official announcement quoted above – the major automakers often make contradictory statements about their electrification plans.)
More recently, Ford replaced CEO Mark Fields with Jim Hackett, the head of its Smart Mobility division, a move that is believed to signal more emphasis on electric and autonomous vehicles. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford confirmed this, telling Bloomberg in an interview that the CEO switch “is about EVs, and it’s about AVs [autonomous vehicles].” However, he seemed to acknowledge that the focus would remain on short-term profits (read: trucks). “Wherever we go, we have to make sure that the returns are great for our shareholders,” said Ford. When asked if he could foresee a future in which EVs would generate the kind of margins the company makes on the F-150 pickup, he thought silently for a moment, then changed the subject.
The voltage level is much higher over at GM, where the new Chevy Bolt has been earning rave reviews, and making respectable sales – it moved 1,566 units in May, #5 in the US plug-in ranking. However, the rollout has been slow – the Bolt went on sale in December 2016, but it still isn’t available in all 50 states.
“I wouldn’t necessarily call it a slow rollout; it was a phased rollout,” Chevrolet spokesman Jim Cain told Bloomberg. “In terms of sales, I think we’re right on plan.” And that’s kind of the point. As Elon Musk and others have pointed out, GM doesn’t seem to have any desire to sell the Bolt in mass-market quantities – it’s likely to limit production to 25,000 or so per year.
Ironically, the considerable media buzz around the Bolt seemed to disappear as soon as it actually went on the market. “The little car hasn’t captured any of Tesla’s Silicon Valley street cred, and it hasn’t whipped up any of the cultish following that still benefits the Toyota Prius,” writes Bloomberg’s Kyle Stock.
GM’s future electrification plans are vague. In February, GM CEO Mary Barra told CNET’s RoadShow that the Bolt platform will be the basis for a range of future EVs, but no details have been forthcoming.
And then there is Fiat Chrysler, the only automaker that has always been honest about its lack of interest in EVs. CEO Sergio Marchionne has said that the company loses about $14,000 on each unit of its Fiat 500e, and famously asked consumers not to buy it. The little electric runabout has garnered excellent reviews, can be leased for as little as $100 a month, and has been selling a surprising 600 or 700 per month, despite being available only in California and Oregon. Chrysler recently launched a plug-in hybrid version of its extremely popular Pacifica minivan, but it’s too early to tell how it will do.
One glaring problem is that the Big Three continue to put out lackluster designs for their electric cars. Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s vice president of business development had said, “In essence, they’ve delivered little more than appliances. Now, appliances are useful. But… they tend to be unemotional.” Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, goes one step further, pointing out that an electric car shouldn’t “feel like a weird-mobile.”
On the other hand, the issue with the majors’ plug-in models has never been quality – almost all who’ve driven them, including this writer, agree that they are excellent automobiles. What remains puzzling is the companies’ willingness to market them. The automakers do almost no advertising for them, and most (not all) of their dealers do their utmost to steer customers away from them. Meanwhile, the companies continue to lobby to have fuel economy and emissions standards watered down.
A recent article in Plug-in Future, “How the Major Global Automobile Manufacturers Fell Asleep at the Wheel” notes a cling-to-the-past cultural dynamic. “Part of it comes down to mentality and culture. Senior executives in automobile companies tend to be [oftentimes] male mechanical engineers who… [enjoy] tinkering around with old cars and tractors. It’s what they do; it’s what they love and their careers have been about perfecting the highly complex internal combustion engine. And now you are telling them to get rid of that engine and replace it with a simple electric drive and a battery to power it. No wonder they are resistant… Changing such a culture is very difficult.”
So what gives? Is it short-sightedness? Fear of the future? Plain old stupidity? Not likely. Sure, they might be stuck in their ways but we’re talking about highly informed veterans of the auto business, who have access to all the same articles, statistics and reports that you and I do (much more, actually).
What’s really happening here is a phenomenon called The Innovator’s Dilemma (the title of a 1997 book by Clayton Christensen, and yes, I believe most auto industry execs have read it). Incumbent corporations can’t keep up with disruptive technological changes, because their shareholders demand quarterly profits. They can experiment with new technologies, but they can’t pursue them whole-heartedly, because that would mean cannibalizing their proven profit centers (to sell an electric car, you have to explain why it’s better than a gas car). Once a new technology improves to the point that it can offer similar capabilities (range, charging time) to the old at a similar price, the incumbents’ market can disappear surprisingly quickly – remember Kodak, Blockbuster, and Blackberry.
by Charles Morris
This story was originally published on EVANNEX
Tesla Full Self-Driving’s release in Europe is set to be delayed by at least a few months.
The European Union will not vote on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) on October 6. The draft agenda for the 119th meeting of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles lists only a 25-minute “continuation of discussions” on the Netherlands’ Article 39 request, not a decision. The next scheduled TCMV session is in December, which is now the earliest date a bloc-wide vote could occur.
Tesla Europe had pointed to October 6 as a possible EU-wide vote after the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the first European type approval on April 10.
That approval, under UN Regulation 171 plus an Article 39 exemption in EU Regulation 2018/858, is the legal file other member states have been recognizing one by one. The same committee has already discussed the request twice without voting.
Elon Musk’s reply to the delay was a single word: “Sigh.”
Sigh
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 25, 2026
Seven EU countries have now cleared FSD Supervised on their own roads: the Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, and Czechia. Those seven states represent about 53 million people, or roughly 12 percent of the EU population. An EU-wide authorization still needs a qualified majority: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population, about 292 million people.
Germany, France, Italy, and Spain remain the decisive markets. France has already rejected the current system; several other governments have flagged speed-limit compliance as the main sticking point.
The safety case Tesla is putting in front of those governments is now public. On September 1, Tesla Europe said FSD Supervised was in use by more than 70,000 customers, covering over 1 million kilometers a day, and was 4.1 times less likely to be involved in a crash than manual driving across 100 million kilometers on EU public roads.
An earlier mid-year cut of the same fleet data, covering 65 million kilometers in five approved countries, put the collision advantage at 5.2 times, with zero highway collisions over 41.9 million kilometers. Tesla also reported far fewer automatic emergency braking events, harsh accelerations, and hard swerves than in comparable manual Tesla driving. Those figures are company-reported, not independently audited.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is taking over Europe: fourth country gets FSD approval
The public-health backdrop is harder to dispute. European countries recorded about 19,400 road deaths in 2025, or roughly 53 a day, most of them attributed to human error. FSD Supervised is not unsupervised autonomy; the driver remains legally responsible. But the software is already legal and in daily use across seven member states.
Until TCMV votes, the rest of the EU remains a patchwork: available in Prague and Amsterdam, locked behind review in Paris and Berlin. December is now the next chance to close that gap.
News
SpaceX readies Starship Flight 14 for a historic journey into uncharted territory
SpaceX finished Starship’s Flight 14 rehearsal, clearing the way for its first orbital flight Monday.
SpaceX has cleared one of the last hurdles before Starship’s first trip to orbit. The company posted on X Thursday afternoon that its launch rehearsal for Flight 14 was complete, keeping the mission on track for Monday, September 28. The launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. CT at Starbase, Texas, and runs for 75 minutes.
A wet dress rehearsal is essentially launch day without the launch. Crews fill Booster 21 and Ship 41 with thousands of tons of extremely cold propellant, run the countdown nearly to ignition, then drain everything back out. It lets engineers catch leaks or equipment problems before anything leaves the pad. SpaceX still needs a launch license from the FAA before the stack, which stands 407 feet tall, can fly.
Flight 14 matters because of where it is going. All 13 previous Starship flights followed a suborbital path, which works like throwing a ball extremely high and far: the vehicle reaches space, but it is always on a course that brings it back down within about an hour. This time, Ship 41 will perform a short engine firing called an orbital insertion burn roughly 25 minutes after liftoff, giving it enough speed to keep falling around Earth instead of back into it. SpaceX plans about six laps at an altitude near 275 kilometers (171 miles) over nearly 10 hours, as Teslarati detailed when the mission was first announced.
Launch rehearsal complete ahead of Starship Flight 14 pic.twitter.com/h5LBYyBqi4
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 24, 2026
Getting into orbit also means Starship has to prove it can get back out. The ship must relight a single Raptor engine in space to slow down for reentry. SpaceX says it will only attempt the orbital insertion burn after flight controllers confirm the hardware needed for that return burn has enough backup, and its flight plan includes health checks that could shorten the mission to two or five orbits.
Flight 14 is also the first to put working satellites into service. Flight 13 carried 20 Starlink V3 satellites in July, but they came back down with the ship because that mission never reached orbit. This time, 26 V3 satellites are meant to stay up and join the constellation within a few weeks. Together they add about 26 terabits per second of network capacity, which SpaceX says is roughly 10 times what a single Falcon 9 launch of older V2 Mini satellites adds. Three of them carry cameras that will photograph Starship’s heat shield in orbit to check for tile damage before reentry.
The hardware has changed too. Ship 41 flies with extra fasteners on tiles in the most vulnerable areas, fixes for gaps where superheated plasma slipped behind tiles, and curved tiles designed to reduce heating between them. Two tiles recovered from Ship 40 will fly again, the first reuse of any part of a Starship heat shield. Booster 21 carries better engine filtering and new relight software after ice clogged three center engines on the previous booster, leaving only eight of 13 engines to restart for its landing burn.
Ship 41 is targeting a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean west of Chile, a new recovery zone after several Indian Ocean landings, while Booster 21 aims for the Gulf. Neither will be caught by the tower on this flight. Elon Musk said in August that a ship catch was likely “in a few months.”
Elon Musk
Google just picked SpaceX for its first step into orbital AI
Google will launch its first Project Suncatcher AI satellite on SpaceX’s Transporter-18 rideshare next week.
Google is about to put its own AI chips into orbit for the first time, and it is paying SpaceX to get them there.
The company said Thursday that the first in-orbit test of Project Suncatcher, its research effort to find out whether space can host large-scale AI computing, will fly next week on SpaceX’s Transporter-18 rideshare mission.
The satellite, called MVP, is about the size of a refrigerator and carries four of Google’s Tensor Processing Units, the same chips Google runs in its ground data centers. Google originally planned to launch two custom satellites in 2027, but chose to move faster by integrating its chips into a satellite.
MVP’s solar panels supply about one kilowatt of power, and Google will run Gemini models on the TPUs only in bursts of roughly 15 minutes before the chips shut down so the radiators can shed heat. In a blog post, Google said its Trillium TPUs survived vibration testing that mimicked sustained launch loads of up to 10g, with individual components seeing 50 to 100g, and handled a radiation dose greater than a five year mission would deliver.
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
Next week’s flight, slated for October 1, follows a relationship that became public in May, when Teslarati reported that Google was in talks with SpaceX for a launch deal tied to orbital data centers. Google also holds a stake of roughly 6% in SpaceX.
The two companies are chasing the same idea from very different starting points. SpaceX’s own orbital compute program is built around the AI1 satellite, a roughly 70 meter structure derived from Starlink V3 hardware that is designed for 150 kW of peak compute, about 150 times the power MVP will draw. Elon Musk has brushed off concerns about crowding orbit with those satellites, and SpaceX is building its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, to produce them, targeting an annualized rate of about 1 GW of space compute by the end of 2027.
Musk also posted on X on Thursday that “the amount of compute in space will obviously round up to 100% of all compute.”
Google has been more cautious in public. Its research estimates that launch prices need to fall below about $200 per kilogram before an orbital data center can compete with a ground facility on energy cost, a threshold the company believes could be reached around the mid 2030s. The Suncatcher team has said it expects the effort to remain a project rather than a product for years, which leaves the first real test of its hardware riding on a rocket from the company with the most aggressive timeline in the field.
Tesla Full Self-Driving release in the EU gets delayed
SpaceX readies Starship Flight 14 for a historic journey into uncharted territory
