After a first-of-its-kind collaboration, the Range Rover Electric will feature Fortescue’s advanced EV battery software. The battery tech, which will be first used on the Range Rover EV, is claimed to boost range with faster charging speeds.

Range Rover revealed the first images of its long-awaited fully electric SUV last month. The brand’s first electric vehicle is already generating strong interest ahead of its official launch later this year.

In February, the company revealed that over 16,000 potential buyers had signed up for the Range Rover EV waitlist.

You can see Range Rover has (for the most part) stuck to its roots with a traditional design you would expect from the luxury brand. As its “most refined” vehicle yet, the Range Rover EV features a simple, modernist design.

“Range Rover with electric power – means customary Range Rover luxury, refinement and capability plus near-silent fully electric propulsion; with effortlessly smooth and relaxed journeys,” according to Thomas Mueller, JLR’s executive director of product engineering.

The vehicle is undergoing extreme weather testing in places like the Arctic Circle and deserts of the Middle East.

Range Rover has focused on core component performance, including batteries and EDU, both of which are assembled in-house for the first time.

Range Rover Electric has new EV tech to boost range

With the electric propulsion developed in-house, Range Rover believes it will enable it to “exceed its already renowned performance on low-grip surfaces, ensuring all-terrain, all-weather, and all-surface capability.”

As another first for Range Rover, the EV features a new traction control system designed to enhance performance in slippery conditions.

Most recently, JLR signed a multi-year deal Tuesday to use software from Elysia, an EV battery tech spinoff from Fortescue. The company claims its software features best-in-class BMS algorithms and a powerful cloud platform to manage, optimize, and enhance performance.

The new intelligence software is designed to improve battery longevity, safety, and performance. It will be first featured in the upcoming Range Rover EV.

JLR claims buyers can expect faster charging times, improved reliability, and increased range. The software will be used to monitor all future JLR EVs.

The company says its new partnership is part of its Reimagine strategy that includes electrifying all brands by 2030.

Two smaller EVs are expected to debut following the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport. According to rumors, they could include the Evoque and Velar models.

Range Rover’s first electric SUV will launch later this year. It will compete with the new Porsche Macan EV and other luxury electric SUVs.

More details, including specs and pricing, are expected closer to launch. Range Rover has said its first EV can navigate through 850 mm (33.5″) of water, which would top the GMC Hummer EV (32″).

Rivian has applied to certify its 2025 model year R1T and R1S with the EPA, and the document reveals some big changes in store.

After seeing some camouflaged Rivians roaming around recently, we’re finding out information about what updates the company will make for the 2025 model year, with a document that was posted to Rivianforums.com.

The biggest changes relate to the battery and the addition of a heat pump, which helps efficiency in cold weather.

Rivian has four battery options – Standard, Standard+, Large, and Max. The Standard pack is still quite large at 106kWh, giving around 270 miles of range to the R1T and R1S when configured.

But 106kWh is still a lot of batteries, and is definitely quite a chunk of change to add to a car. Rivian’s R1 vehicles aren’t cheap, starting at $70k, and the company is further looking for ways to save cost as it works towards profitability.

So it looks like next year’s truck will shift to a lower-capacity lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery. LFP batteries offer a number of advantages over NMC batteries, including cost, durability, and less conflict minerals which can make sourcing difficult. However there are a few downsides, like cold-weather performance and energy density.

LFP has lower energy density than NMC does, which means that in a world where everyone thinks range is the only number that matters and bigger always means better, manufacturers have hesitated to switch, particularly on higher-end vehicles. Although some of that is mitigated by LFP’s greater durability, which means manufacturers recommend that LFP batteries can be charged to 100% every day, whereas other EVs typically charge to 80-90% on a daily basis.

But given the cost and other advantages, we’re starting to see more LFP batteries in entry-level vehicles, keeping costs down (and/or margins up, as the case may be).

We’re not sure which option Rivian will opt for here. It could lower prices on next year’s model to induce demand, but it can also use this as an opportunity to save on costs and help get its margins up. If EPA range goes down (as it likely will due to lower total energy – but the new battery is also 152lbs lighter), it will likely have to offer some price cut to satisfy customers.

Other battery packs will likely remain the same, though perhaps with a few more miles due to other efficiency changes coming to the vehicle.

One change that might affect range is a change in wheels, as the document shows that Rivian is introducing new 22-inch aerodynamic wheels, and seemingly eliminating the 21-inch wheel option. We don’t know what the design will look like, but aerodynamic wheels can be a big efficiency gain (though larger wheels usually detract from efficiency slightly too).

Even more efficiency is brought with the addition of a heat pump, which was one of the few oversights on current R1 models. While those of us in California have no need for one of these, Rivians are popular in areas which see a lot of cold weather, and in the cold, EVs use a lot of heat to warm the cabin. Since EVs don’t have access to waste heat from the engine, that all has to be generated electrically. Heat pumps are 3-4x more efficient at generating heat than standard resistive heating coils are, which makes them a great way to improve cold weather efficiency – especially important for an “adventure truck” like the Rivian.

Rivian is continuing to use CCS for its onboard charge port instead of NACS, at least for 2025. Rivian has started shipping NACS adapters to owners so that their cars can be used on Tesla’s Supercharger network, with the eventual understanding that the cars would get NACS ports themselves. Rivian originally said that its cars would have NACS starting in 2025, but that timeline seems to have been pushed back. Current Rivians can charge at peak 220kW, though the upcoming LFP battery will have a lower peak of 210kW.

Beyond the charging and efficiency changes, the new model year will apparently have a new base trim of some sort (which we have no details on), and will relocate the AC compressor to reduce vehicle noise and vibration.

A large pension fund has addressed a letter to Tesla shareholders recommending that they vote against the reelection of Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch and against Elon Musk’s massive stock package, ahead of Tesla’s shareholder meeting on June 13.

Tesla’s shareholder meeting is coming up in just a few weeks, and it’s currently doing quite a lot to convince shareholders to vote their shares on a couple of critical decisions to the company.

At issue are a number of choices, including the reelection of Tesla’s board of directors, whether or not to move the company’s incorporation to Texas instead of Delaware, and whether or not to reinstate Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $55 billion pay package which was recently voided due to misleading statements and Elon’s close personal relationships with the Tesla Board.

That court ruling looms large over the decisions for Tesla shareholders in this vote, as most of the proposals up for a vote are related to the ruling. There’s the direct vote on reinstating Musk’s pay package, the vote to reelect the company directors whose personal relationships are intertwined with Musk and thus reduce their level of independence, and the vote to move the company’s incorporation to Texas, which was a knee-jerk reaction by Musk after the Delaware Court of Chancery voided his pay package.

Each of the proposals require a simple majority of votes to win, except the proposal to move the company’s incorporation – that requires a majority of all shares outstanding to vote in favor, which is a high bar given that turnout will not be 100%.

Many have chimed in with their opinions, including Tesla itself, which spent ad money to influence the vote, a move we haven’t really seen before. Tesla also put up a website pitching the vote, and Musk and many Tesla-related accounts have been tweeting a lot about getting people to cast their votes – both trying to increase turnout, and to get friendly voters to hopefully cast the vote in their direction.

But now we’ve heard from some of the US’ largest pension funds, those managing New York City’s pension systems, along with a number of other investment groups. In a letter, they’re suggesting that shareholders vote against the pay package and against directors Kimbal Musk (Elon Musk’s brother) and James Murdoch (son of Rupert Murdoch, one of the world’s most influential climate change deniers).

The group sent a letter, written by Brad Lander, the Comptroller of the City of New York, on behalf of several NYC city employees pension funds. NYC pension funds are some of the largest in the US. The letter was also signed onto by SOC Investment Group, Amalgamated Bank, United Church Funds, Nordea Asset Management, SHARE, UNISON, and AkademikerPension (a pension fund for Danish schools).

In it, the group argues that the pay package does not serve Tesla shareholders. It argues that the package won’t have any incentivizing effect, and that it is excessive. It also points out that the reimplementation of the package was decided on in a rushed manner by a single director, which it calls “recklessly fast,” echoing the Delaware Court’s prior decision.

It also calls Musk a “part-time CEO,” saying that the intent of the original reward was so that Musk would focus his time on Tesla for the full ten-year period of time that the reward covered. The letter says: “If this was one of the primary reasons for the 2018 pay package, then it has been an abysmal failure, as six years later Musk’s outside business commitments have only increased.”

Musk currently runs Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, NeuraLink, xAI, Twitter, and the Musk Foundation. He has gained control of or founded several of these companies after the original 2018 stock reward, and observers have noted his excessive commitment to Twitter lately, after spending $44 billion to purchase it which he had to sell Tesla stock to fund.

The letter states that there have been several instances of Musk making decisions that benefitted himself, but not shareholders. This includes his split attention on his other companies, his use of Tesla employees to do work for those other companies, his poaching of engineers from Tesla to move them to his other companies. The board has not stepped in to stop any of these moves. Musk’s recent threat to stop Tesla’s development of AI/robotics if Tesla shareholders don’t give him back the shares he sold to buy Twitter came after the letter was sent.

The letter says that this shows lack of independence from Tesla’s directors, focusing primarily on Kimbal Musk, who is Elon Musk’s brother, and James Murdoch, who is a close friend of Elon, having taken several family vacations together and attending Kimbal’s wedding.

It also describes close relationships with several other board members and the exceptionally high compensation they have received, all of which threaten independence of the Tesla board. Standard corporate ethics suggest that board members should be independent to ensure effective and unbiased direction of the company. But only two board members are up for a vote at this time, and the letter asks shareholders to vote against both of them.

Beyond these arguments, the letter also states that Tesla’s performance has seen a downturn lately, and that that downturn has been related to Musk’s focus on Twitter, where he seems to be spending more time than Tesla. It notes drops in various metrics, financial and otherwise, showing disorganization and lack of leadership, and shows that these metrics have dropped particularly since Musk shifted focus to Twitter.

Many signatories of the same group sent a previous letter in April to board chair Robyn Denholm outlining these concerns and requesting a meeting, but did not receive a response.

You can read the full letter as part of an SEC filing here. The last time to vote your shares is June 12, at 11:59pm Eastern time, or at Tesla’s shareholder meeting.

Electrek’s Take

Personally, I think the letter makes good points. I think it’s quite clear that there are a lot of problems with Tesla’s corporate governance, particularly after Musk has recently fired or reassigned so many high-level executives. Currently Tesla only shows three people on its corporate governance page, one of whom was recently reassigned to China, leaving only the CFO and “part-time CEO” running the company.

This would be a problem even if the CEO was an exceptional leader who was fully focused on the job and making good decisions, but Musk increasingly seems as if he does not meet that bar.

In particular, firing the entire Supercharger team, despite it being perhaps the most successful team within Tesla and led by one of its most competent executives, Rebecca Tinucci, seems like a poor decision. And that decision seems even worse when learning that the firing wasn’t due to team performance, but due to Musk himself being mad at Tinucci’s refusal to trim her team further, firing her and her entire 500-person team as petty retaliation and causing chaos with Tesla suppliers.

But the most effective point in the letter, I think, is that this pay package doesn’t incentivize any future behavior. Those in favor of the package have stated that it should be given as a reward for meeting the goals laid out in 2018 – but it is now 2024, not 2018.

That means that we have more information than we had in 2018, and particularly recently, that information doesn’t look good. Tesla’s performance lately and in particular the performance of its CEO has ben poor and erratic, and seems increasingly so. So it seems like quite a reach to suggest that shareholders should take $55 billion out of their own pockets (via dilution) – more than its total profits for the last 4 years combined – and give it to the second-richest man in the world with no strings attached.

I say “no strings attached” because the package does not ensure or target any future performance, it merely reinstates a package that was illegally given in the first place. So it can’t help shareholders going forward, since it has no incentives going forward.

It seems like the only way this would “help” Tesla is by retaining a CEO who has become increasingly erratic, who has made threats against his own company, who has directed the spending of the company’s money to influence a vote, who has a too-close relationship with the board, and who has recently taken steps to harm tens of thousands of employees either through haphazard firings (after all, the $55 billion that Musk is asking for could pay each of the 14,000+ employees he just fired a six-figure salary for 40 whole years) or through low morale that continues to affect employees today.

And, importantly, we need a strong Tesla in order to keep the transition to EVs moving at optimal speed. Tesla is one of the few companies with the size and interest to keep pushing the transition forward, as other companies waffle on a transition that is very important for America – and the world. If Tesla’s CEO is acting erratically, that’s a problem for everyone.

So maybe if Musk doesn’t get what he wants and takes his toys and leaves as he has threatened to do, that wouldn’t be so bad for Tesla, after all.