General Motors may be better known for its lineup of full-size trucks and SUVs, but a recently published patent shows the legacy automaker has at least considered something much smaller and nimbler: an electric motorcycle.
The patent, which surfaced earlier this year in a report by Visordown, outlines a lightweight, scrambler-style electric two-wheeler that has set off a fresh wave of speculation about GM’s potential interest in electric motorcycles or micromobility.
The design in the patent filing shows a slim electric motorcycle with a flat bench seat, upright handlebars, and dual-sport tires, suggesting a utility-forward ride meant for light off-road or potentially even mixed urban use (if it were homologated for street use).
The rear hub motor and what appears to be a central battery housing point to a simple, low-maintenance drivetrain, potentially aimed at the commuter or recreational rider market.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The overall look is somewhere between a moped and a small electric dirt bike, reminiscent of models like the Sur Ron Light Bee or Talaria Sting, though slightly more street-looking with less of a focus on pure dirt.
While the patent doesn’t include performance specs or firm production plans, it’s the clearest signal yet that GM is at least experimenting with the idea of higher-powered two-wheeled EVs. And there is some precedent. GM previously dipped a toe into the micromobility waters with the Ariv electric bicycle project, and more recently partnered with Recon Power Bikes to release a Hummer-branded fat tire e-bike.
Both efforts showed that GM sees value in offering electric alternatives beyond the traditional four-wheel format, even if the Ariv program quietly ended after a short run.
GM previously experimented with an in-house electric bicycle known as the ARĪV, though it was killed off soon after
Whether this patent leads to a full-fledged GM electric motorcycle remains to be seen. It’s entirely possible the design is a concept or technology demo with no intention of hitting the market. But there are other possibilities too. GM could develop a motorcycle under one of its existing sub-brands, create a new division specifically for electric powersports, or partner with an existing two-wheeler manufacturer to license or co-develop the platform.
The timing wouldn’t be far-fetched. Despite bumpy roads in the larger flagship electric motorcycle market, lightweight electric motorcycles are booming, with companies like Ryvid targeting urban riders looking for clean, compact alternatives to traditional gasoline-powered bikes.
At the same time, a growing number of younger consumers are bypassing car ownership entirely, instead looking toward e-bikes, scooters, and low-speed electric motorcycles for daily transport. A small, stylish, and affordable GM electric motorcycle could hit that sweet spot.
Of course, turning a patent drawing into a real-world vehicle is a big leap, and GM’s own e-bike history is a reminder that two-wheeled projects can be short-lived. Still, it’s hard to ignore the symbolism of this move: even one of America’s largest automakers is exploring what personal electric transportation looks like when you cut the vehicle in half. GM might not be ready to ditch its trucks, but it clearly hasn’t ruled out hopping on a bike.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla spent years selling its Full Self-Driving software, for as much as $15,000, with the promise that owners would be able to use that software to send their cars out as robotaxis to earn money when they’re not being used otherwise.
Just today, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will be charging a flat fee of $4.20 for rides in its highly-supervised “robotaxi”. But that brings up the question: if Tesla spent so many years promising that you could use your car to earn money, and it’s using its cars to earn money, then why can’t you?
Tesla’s autonomy efforts started long ago, with the relatively less capable Autopilot software which was first released to the public in 2015. Autopilot operated only on highways and required driver attention, but nevertheless was a groundbreaking driver assist system which was easy to use and more capable than most everything else on the road at the time.
But that wasn’t enough for Tesla, as it promised that the system would continually improve to the point where its cars would become fully autonomous, and capable of operation without any driver inside the vehicle at all.
Nearly ten years ago, Musk started the timeline, stating in late 2015 that Tesla would have fully autonomous vehicles about two years from then. He also said that you would be able to use Tesla’s “summon” feature to call your car from New York to pick you up in Los Angeles, again targeting around 2017/2018 for that capability to be rolled out.
Tesla soon upgraded its rhetorical ambitions, selling a different piece of software on top of Autopilot, which it calls “Full Self-Driving.” The idea was to pre-sell this software to Tesla owners (with a price that would only raise over time as the system got closer to launch – but that was another broken promise), and if you purchased it, you would be able to activate the software on your car when it’s ready.
All along, Tesla hailed that it was ahead of the field on self-driving efforts, largely due to the enormous amounts of data that it was collecting with millions of cars equipped with self-driving hardware (even though it double-charged some of those owners for hardware they already bought).
It said that, once self-driving is solved, the company would be able to simply flip a switch and enable the entire fleet to drive everywhere, without geofences, instantly with a simple software update.
The reason for this is because the cars would then be able to operate without a driver, which means they’d be able to accomplish new tasks without taking any of the owner’s time. You could send it to pick up your kids from school and not have to leave work early, or you could get it to grab a delivery for you, or any other number of ways that it would give you back time that you would otherwise have spent driving.
But even moreso, it could make you money. Tesla said it would start its own ride-hailing service, then called “Tesla Network,” and that owners would be able to send cars out, running their own autonomous taxi services while they’re at home, at work, or otherwise not using their car.
Needless to say, none of these promises have played out, despite them being made starting a decade ago.
But despite that, Tesla has already started making money from its system, it’s just not letting its customers who paid $15,000 make money from the system they were promised would be a financial boon overnight.
Tesla starts charging for autonomous taxi rides
Tesla’s much-awaited Robotaxi launch starts this afternoon in Austin. It’s a much more limited launch than one might have expected given the hype and the long, continually-pushed-back lead time, but some people will finally experience what it’s like to be picked up by a Tesla with nobody in the driver’s seat today
But it’s still not a full robotaxi – there will be a “safety monitor” in the front passenger seat, along with teleoperators for backup, geofencing (which Musk once said isn’t “real self driving”), limited operation times, potential weather limits, a user list limited to Tesla superfans, and only around 10 vehicles in the area. It will, however, count as “level 4” autonomous, if there truly is nobody operating the vehicle.
We’re looking forward to the first videos of the experience, which should be imminent whenever the launch does happen. The launch was previously scheduled for this morning, then noon, and now “this afternoon” as announced by Musk today (cutting it quite late, as if Tesla needs the first half of the day to finish preparations on a system that they’ve reportedly been testing for “several days”)
The announcement includes a mention of the fee that Tesla will be charging for this fledgling effort, in contrast with other driverless taxi services that have operated for some time before they started charging fees. Both Cruise and Waymo went through various stages of operation before they moved to public rides with fees, including safety drivers, employee-only limitations and so on.
But by the time they charged fees, they had been operating for some time with nobody at all in the vehicle, unlike Tesla’s first effort today (though both had a waitlist for the public to join the service, but your position in the waitlist was not determined by how nice you’d been to the company on twitter – for example, I used Waymo in a press preview period, and I didn’t have a minder in the car with me telling me that I had to be nice).
Today’s announcement by Musk shows that Tesla is charging a fee from day one, before the system is really self-driving, given the many limitations of this launch. The fee is set at $4.20 – an apparent reference to Musk’s many reported drug addictions.
So this raises the question: if Tesla’s service is good enough for it to charge money, good enough for Tesla to call it a robotaxi, good enough for Tesla to put up a whole page about it, where’s that software update and asset value increase Tesla owners were promised?
After all, this was supposed to happen instantly, delivered to the whole fleet, and not geofenced (except for the matter of regulatory approval – how’s that going for you, Elon?). That’s the story Tesla has always told, anyway.
Some will point out that this measured rollout of autonomous taxis makes more sense, as safety is paramount. This is obviously true, and is why other companies have focused on gradual rollouts. But if this is still just a test and isn’t full self-driving by Musk’s definition, then Tesla probably shouldn’t call it a robotaxi and probably shouldn’t charge for it.
Also, those other companies didn’t spend ten years selling a system, for up to $15k, promising the largest asset value increase in the history of the world. They didn’t say that you’d be able to summon your car across country to come get you. They didn’t claim to be robotaxis when there was a safety monitor in the front seat, and they didn’t continually hype up a launch that got pushed back the better part of a decade and is still being pushed back today, on launch day, as the hours tick on into “afternoon.”
Meanwhile, Musk’s mouth is still writing checks that Tesla owners can’t (yet?) cash, as just today he posted a clip of himself being interviewed last month, stating that “by the end of next year” (Elon! Play Freebird!) Tesla will have hundreds of thousands or millions of autonomous taxis on the road, making money for customers who purchased FSD.
So, Tesla owners get to wait, once again, until Tesla deigns to give them the crumbs they paid so much for and have waited so long for. The company will be happy to collect money itself in the interim – but you can’t. Thanks for the 15 grand.
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
A record-breaking heat dome over the central United States is sending temperatures – and cooling bills! – soaring into triple digit territory. Luckily, there’s a readily available technology that can help keep your home cool without playing that infuriating and unwinnable “keep your thermostat at 79 degrees” game: a home solar and battery system.
This summer of 2025 is just getting started, but a massive “heat dome” enveloping much of the central and eastern US this week will lead to, “levels of heat and humidity not seen in June in many years,” according to AccuWeather. “There will be little relief at night, with some urban areas failing to fall below 80 for multiple nights in a row, increasing the risk of heat-related ailments such as heat exhaustion or stroke.”
All of that sounds horrible, of course – but if you’ve been looking for an excuse to add a home solar and battery solution to your home, a terrifying heat dome is as good an excuse as any!
Advertisement – scroll for more content
If you need more to consider:
Solar panels can reduce (or eliminate) your energy bills: this one’s obvious, right? If you’re using less grid energy then your bills will go down – and at a time that not much else is!
Keeps your home cool when the grid fails: massive heat means massive loads on your local grid, which can mean rolling blackouts or brownouts. If you lose power in your neighborhood, a solar panel array alone won’t keep your lights on because grid-tied solar systems are designed to automatically shut off for safety reasons, preventing electricity from flowing back “up” power lines and endangering utility workers trying to restore power. Home solar not only reduces the load on your grid, but a battery backup will enable you to keep your home and food cooler while services are restored.
Fight back against climate change by choosing a renewable resource: because the energy you’re using to keep your home cooler is for sure coming from a renewable source when you’ve got solar, it’s a fair bet that it’ll greener than whatever you’re doing now, even at a lower temperature setting.
The right time is absolutely RIGHT NOW: in the latest Senate version of the GOP’s budget and tax bill, better known as Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” the established 30% tax credit for home solar and battery systems is going to be over (bye-bye) 180 days from the time the President signs it (other tax credits for utility-scale solar and wind projects are going to be completely phased out by 2028). That, combined with record low battery prices, mean the timing is tough to beat.
In a home solar and battery backup system, you’ve got a real, physical, and electrical edge in the fight against this years’ relentless summer heat wave … and, like, not to sound alarmist or anything, but it probably won’t be any cooler next year.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Satellite image of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime choke point with Iran situated at the top with Qeshm Island and the United Arab Emirates to the South. Imaged 24 May 2017.
Gallo Images | Getty Images
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called for China to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important trade routes for crude oil in the world.
“I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,” Rubio said in an interview on Fox News. China is Iran’s most important oil customer and maintains friendly relations with the Islamic Republic.
Iranian state-owned media, meanwhile, reported that Iran’s parliament backed closing the Strait of Hormuz, citing a senior lawmaker. However, the final decision to close the strait lies with Iran’s national security council, according to the report.
An attempt to block the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman could have profound consequences for the global economy. Some 20 million barrels per day of crude oil, or 20% of global consumption, flowed through the strait in 2024, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Oil prices could shoot above $100 per barrel if the strait is closed for a prolonged period, according to Goldman Sachs and consulting firm Rapidan Energy. JPMorgan analysts view the risk of Iran closing Hormuz as low because the U.S. would view such a move as a declaration of war.
Rubio said it would be “economic suicide” for Iran to close the strait because the Islamic Republic’s oil also passes through the waterway. Iran is the third-largest oil producer in OPEC, pumping 3.3 million barrels per day. It exports at least 1.6 million bpd, with nearly 80% sold to China, according to the EIA.
The U.S. retains options to deal with Iran trying to close strait, the U.S. secretary of state said.
“It would hurt other countries’ economies a lot worse than ours,” Rubio said. “It would be, I think, a massive escalation that would merit a response, not just by us, but from others.”
The U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and tasked with protecting maritime trade in the Persian Gulf. Oil market participants generally believe the U.S. Navy would swiftly vanquish any attempt by Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz. But some analysts warn that the market is underestimating the risk.
“They could disrupt, in our view, shipping through Hormuz by a lot longer than the market thinks,” said Bob McNally, founder of Rapidan Energy and former energy advisor to President George W. Bush.
Shipping could be interrupted for weeks or months, McNally said, rather than the oil market’s view that the U.S. Navy would resolve the situation in hours or days.
The U.S. would ultimately prevail but “it would not be a cakewalk,” McNally told CNBC.