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’
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
