News
Tesla is willing to help other automakers, but ask nicely
Earlier this week, I wrote an article talking about the German car companies and their obsession with mentioning Tesla. Volkswagen, Audi, and BMW are all gunning for Tesla in terms of electric vehicle technology and manufacturing. While the three German giants admit that Tesla holds a multi-year lead in the EV sector, they all believe they can catch up to Elon Musk and the rest of the crew.
After publishing the article, Elon responded and said that Tesla was willing to help companies transition to sustainable forms of transportation because it would help the world as a whole. However, there is evidence to suggest that Tesla and Elon are going to help those who ask for it, not those who attempt to take information in a manner that could be considered “sneaky.”
Tesla is open to licensing software and supplying powertrains & batteries. We’re just trying to accelerate sustainable energy, not crush competitors!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2020
Additionally, one of Musk’s followers had asked if Tesla’s Autopilot could be shared with other automakers in an attempt to not only accelerate the charge towards semi and fully-autonomous driving. Musk simply replied, “Sure,” indicating that there did not seem to be any boundaries in terms of what Tesla would be willing to share with its “competitors” as capitalism would refer to them as.
Sure
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2020
To me, I found that simple “Sure” reply as one of the most interesting Tweets of Musk’s illustrious Twitter career. Not only has the CEO provided many of my friends and me with a fair share of laughs and me because of his great sense of humor, but his digs at other companies, as well as some of the more ironic things that he has said, have always intrigued me.
When he said, “Sure,” all I thought of was the lawsuit that Tesla currently holds against an Xpeng engineer who formerly worked for Tesla.
For those of you that are not familiar, Tesla sued Xpeng engineer Cao Guangzhi earlier this year, who used to work for Tesla.
Guangzhi allegedly stole pieces of Tesla’s Autopilot source code and attempted to sell it to Xpeng for financial gain. Guangzhi had downloaded portions of the code to his personal laptop and then shared it through Apple Airdrop, which is hard to track because of the encryption that Apple uses. However, he ensures that he removed it from his personal laptop before leaving Tesla to join Xpeng.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
The case is still ongoing.
But what I found most interesting about Musk’s simple one-word answer was the fact that he stated he would be willing to share Autopilot’s developments with other automakers. But it seems it needs to be done in good and harmless fashion, and not in a sneaky way. This is entirely understandable, in my opinion.
If Guangzhi did what Tesla is accusing him of doing, it would be seriously sneaky and flawed. Tesla is the leader in semi-autonomous driving thanks to the developments of its Artificial Intelligence team, led by Andrej Karpathy. What separates Tesla from every other company in self-driving is the fact that it is continuously improving thanks to the company’s Neural Network. As information is communicated to the Neural Network with every Tesla vehicle on the road, the company’s self-driving software becomes more sophisticated and more accurate as it can predict the next movements of the drivers around a car.
If this source code were to be leaked or given to another company, it could be detrimental to Tesla’s lead in the self-driving universe. I’m excited to see how the case plays out.
More recently, Tesla sued Rivian for poaching former employees and stealing trade secrets. Interestingly enough, I had some time to read over several pages of the complaint from Tesla to Rivian, and some employees openly admitted to taking confidential documents when they left Tesla.
I am a big Rivian fan. I think R.J. Scaringe, the company’s CEO, is a brilliant person who has a lot of potential to do amazing things. I have recommended to a couple of my friends that they should invest in an R1T instead of getting a Cybertruck because they don’t like the Tesla pickup’s design. But either way, it seems from my understanding of legal documentation, it is going to be up to Tesla to prove that Rivian asked these employees to take things and that they are openly going after past Tesla employees. I think that is going to be a tough cookie to crack.
But either way, Rivian didn’t go to Tesla for help directly. I feel that if they needed help with electrification or self-driving code, they should have reached out to Elon directly.
Elon has stated for years that the biggest enemy of Tesla is not competitors who are developing sustainable electric vehicles. The companies that are the biggest threat to Tesla are the biggest threat to us all, which are the ones who refuse to adapt to the sustainable transportation revolution. Companies that want to develop and improve internal combustion engine machines are a threat. Not financially, but environmentally, because they’re ignoring the apparent crisis that is going on in the world.
Does it seem like Elon wouldn’t be willing to help other automakers develop their vehicles if they asked for help? I don’t think so. Personally, when I look at Musk’s mission, I see a man who is interested in collaborating with anyone and everyone, as long as they are willing to admit that their push toward sustainability is the focus and not on the backburner.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
