Tesla Model Y is now the world’s best-selling car, first EV to do so
The Tesla Model Y was the world’s best-selling car in Q1 2023, marking the first time ever that an EV has achieved this feat, according to industry analyst JATO Dynamics.
Model Y sales have been growing around the world for the last few years, putting the car on the trajectory to become the world’s best-selling vehicle. The feat was first predicted even before the car came to market, as Tesla thought the car could see up to a million units of demand per year.
It was an ambitious goal at the time, with many considering it another example of an “optimistic” Tesla prediction, but last year Tesla said the Model Y was on track to become the world’s best-selling car in 2023.
Last year, the Model Y was the best-selling vehicle in Europe and California, the fourth best-selling in China despite China’s different tastes and model availability compared to the rest of the world, and was on the US top ten list but significantly behind several trucks and SUVs. These performances made it the third-best selling car worldwide.
But now, it looks like Tesla’s #1 sales prediction has come true. The Model Y has dethroned the Toyota Corolla as the world’s best-selling car in Q1 and looks like it may well maintain this position for the full year.
JATO Dynamics analyst Felipe Munoz compiled the data for Motor1, showing that the Model Y had 267,200 sales in Q1, according to data from 53 markets and projections/estimates for the rest of the world. This put it ahead of the Corolla at 256,400 sales for the same period and significantly ahead of the other top-five cars, the Hilux, Rav4, and Camry, all from Toyota.
While we don’t know if this placing will continue for the rest of the year, Model Y sales have been continually growing, whereas Corolla sales are trending slightly downward. One model is new and based on new technology, and the other is an old standard – though the current iteration of both models came out in a similar time frame, 2018 for the Corolla and 2019 for Model Y.
And given Tesla’s massive price cuts this year on Model Y, this will surely make the car accessible to more people compared to 2022.
Indeed, Model Y sales are already growing compared to last year. In 2022, Tesla had two of the top ten cars in the world, with Model Y achieving 759k sales. That gives it an average quarterly run rate of 189k, and this year’s Q1 number is a significant increase from that.
If Model Y continues at this rate or sales continue to grow at all for the rest of this year, it will exit 2023 with over 1 million sales. The only other vehicle in the world to sell 1 million units last year was the Toyota Corolla, at 1.12 million. So it might be close at year’s end, but we think it’s likely that Model Y will maintain its position.
The achievement is even more impressive given Model Y’s pricing and availability. While the Model Y does have broad availability in the world’s largest markets, the Corolla is available everywhere. JATO’s analysis combined all localizations (Corolla, Levin, Allion, Lingshang) and body styles (sedan, hatchback, wagon) of the Corolla model across the world to come up with its sales number.
And despite recent price cuts, the Model Y at ~$40k (after credits) is still significantly more expensive than a base-model Corolla at $21k. Higher prices generally restrict the addressable market, and while the total cost of ownership is lower for EVs, the Corolla can still claim a TCO advantage over the vehicle that is now beating it for market share.
Electrek’s Take
While the data has looked positive so far this year, this is the first confirmation by an industry analyst that we’ve seen of the Model Y’s position. We expected this would happen, and now it has, at least for Q1.
For those of us who have been in the electric game for a long time, we’ve had to hear a whole lot of people tell us that EVs are a fad, that traditional automakers will eventually wake up and dominate the market, that EVs are the “future” (not the present), and that the “demand isn’t there” – this quote specifically from Toyota, the company that has just been dethroned.
Well, here we are. An EV is presently the best-selling vehicle in the world. Not just in California, not just in Europe, but everywhere. Add them all up, and the EV wins.
Considering the rest of the industry’s inability (or lack of desire) to scale EV production, and Tesla’s relative inexperience at making cars, this is an incredibly impressive feat.
And it’s a mark against the rest of the industry that they didn’t see this coming. Each time Tesla entered a new segment, it devoured sales from competing vehicles in that segment – other modes’ sales went down, while Tesla’s sales went up in rough proportion. And yet, the industry continued to sit on its hands years after this was apparent. The arrogance of established industry has helped Tesla get this far – they should have followed when Tesla told them what needed to be done (instead of nine years later), but they were too prideful or too lazy to do so.
The fact is that consumers want EVs, they just haven’t been given enough options. When a well-made (non-compliance) EV comes around, it will sell, and Tesla seems like the only company interested in making them in big numbers.
It does seem like the industry is finally starting to get the message, offering more EVs, building up production capacity, and taking them seriously. But many automakers are still only dipping their toes into the water, and those automakers won’t do well in the long run. EVs are here; EVs are popular, and you need to make them now. Tesla has proven it time and time again, and now that an EV from a startup that didn’t even exist at the turn of the century is the top-selling vehicle in the entire world, maybe everyone will finally get the message.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024