News
The MINI Aceman is both classic MINI and a new approach
MINI has released the first images and videos of their new Aceman concept EV and it marks a significant shift in design while retaining typical “mini-ness.” The vehicle may also be a departure from MINI’s first EV offering in terms of affordability.
As a note, I am a proud MINI owner. I drive a 2011 MINI Countryman S All4 and despite its flaws, I love what I can only describe as its “mini-ness,” and I’m not talking about the vehicle’s relatively small stature. “Mini-ness” is that intangible feeling that makes you think, “Why did they make this [insert part name] this way? And more concerningly, why do I like it?!” I am proud to say that from the initial images of the concept MINI Aceman, mini-ness is alive and well.
If released, the Aceman would be the brand’s second EV offering after the Cooper SE; however, though this hasn’t been confirmed, it would be likely that this would be the brand’s first purpose-built EV (perhaps built off the BMW iX platform) instead of an EV inside of the skeleton of an ICE mini. But this is only the start of the mystery surrounding the vehicle, as MINI was quite tight-lipped in what they shared about the vehicle, essentially only addressing the vehicle’s design and how it was “the beginning of a new MINI design era.”
While this vehicle is only a concept at this point, it does (according to mini) hint at future design. The MINI notably ditches leather and chrome and aims for a simple yet angular design. The exterior of the vehicle is quite exciting with a bright light blue body, a green hood, and red accents. The vehicle looks to be the size of the Countryman, if not a little bigger, but this may be the visual effect of the massive 20-inch wheels. The angularity of the exterior is exemplified in the hexagonal headlights/typical union jack taillights, as well as the hood that has (atypical for MINI) strong creases leading to the back of the vehicle. Nonetheless, the more general curviness of MINI design language remains in a couple of areas; the side and side profile.
-
- Front of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Top view of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Side profile of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Rear quarter of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Rear of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
The sharp design language continues to the interior, and this is where pinnacle mini-ness is found. What the brand calls “MINImalism” involves removing nearly everything from the front dash; limited and basic climate controls, no visible window switches, no steering column-mounted tachometer, and nothing but the center screen. And while this may sound similar to Tesla’s interior design language, I would argue that the lack of window switches and the circular center screen help achieve the mini-ness feeling.
The fun coloring also continues within the cabin of the Aceman, but that wasn’t weird enough for MINI designers, they had to throw random geometric shapes on the seats and within the texture of the door panels/interior door handles. Once again; why did they design it this way? and why do I like it?!?!
-
- Front dash of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Front seats of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
-
- Rear seats of Mini Aceman Concept. Credit: Mini
While the strange MINI character is still very alive in the Aceman concept, many are worried that the thing that defined the Cooper SE may be gone from future MINI EVs; affordability. The Cooper SE was one of the cheapest EVs you could buy in the US, and despite its fairly disappointing specs, it grew its own community of people who were simply looking for a shorter-range fun EV. MINI will likely release more details about the vehicle when it is shown in person at the 2022 Gamescon in Cologne later this year, and be sure, the price will be on the tongue of every journalist who is hopeful for an EV future for MINI.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
