Read the wild email Tesla is sending to suppliers amid Supercharger chaos
After firing its entire Supercharger team, Tesla has sent out an email to suppliers which shows just how chaotic the decisionmaking leading up to the firings must have been.
Earlier this week, Tesla abruptly fired its entire Supercharging team, leading to an immediate pullback in Supercharger installation plans. Now we’ve seen the email that Tesla has sent to suppliers, and it’s not pretty.
When the firings were announced Monday night, there was little information about how they would affect Tesla’s plans.
On Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that “Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations.” According to Tesla’s website, Superchargers currently have 99.95% uptime.
But in the interim, we’ve already heard about Supercharger projects being cancelled, including halting rollout in the entire country of Australia, including sites that had already been subject to long-term leases and given the go-ahead for construction which will now be abandoned.
And Tesla has also sent out an email to all of its suppliers, which leaked to the internet. Here it is in full, but with contact information redacted:
To all concerned:
You may be aware that there has been a recent adjustment with the Supercharger organization which is presently undergoing a sudden and thorough restructuring. If you have already received this email, please disregard it as we are attempting to connect with our suppliers and contractors. As part of this process, we are in the midst of establishing new leadership roles, prioritizing projects, and streamlining our payment procedures. Due to the transitional nature of this phase, we are asking for your patience with our response time.
I understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid, however, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your understanding and support as we navigate through this transition. At this time, please hold on breaking ground on any newly awarded construction projects and planned pre-construction walks. If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
The email is remarkable for several reasons, largely because it shows a lack of structure and consideration to the decision to fire the entire team.
Firstly, Tesla states that it is “attempting” to connect with suppliers and that it may have sent multiple emails to some of them. This suggests that Tesla doesn’t have an established method of contact for all of its suppliers – either it doesn’t have a master contact list, or its previous method including points of contact within Tesla is not usable because, well, those points of contact would have been fired.
Second, it says that the “adjustment” (an odd word for firing an entire department) has led to a process of establishing new leadership roles. This is typically something that a company would consider before changing leaders, and ensure that there are current employees with experience who are ready to step up to take the position of a retiring leader, perhaps with a period of mentorship prior to the outgoing leader’s retirement.
Even in a situation where a firing is sudden, it’s typically reasonable to elevate a previous second-in-command to fill the void. This is why it’s beneficial to have a deep bench – something which Tesla has touted before.
Third, Tesla goes on to mention that these suppliers are “expecting to be paid,” which suggests that Tesla is likely to welch on its payment obligations, at least in the short term. We have seen Musk refuse to pay bills before, so mention of skipping out on payment must raise alarm bells for suppliers who have been working in good faith with Tesla.
Finally, Tesla asks for suppliers to continue construction on active projects, but to hold on breaking ground or doing pre-construction site walks. This could be considered unclear, as there are many parallel steps to approval, permitting and construction of sites, so it’s hard to set a single line that is easily communicated about which sites should continue and which sites shouldn’t. Presumably, site contacts within Tesla would be able to reach out to individual sites and tell them whether to continue construction or not – if they were still working there, which it seems they are not.
To ask for patience is reasonable when an unforeseen circumstance hits a company, but this is not an unforeseen circumstance – it is entirely self-inflicted by Tesla.
Other charging providers have reacted to Tesla’s disruption of its own Supercharger plans, with at least one company, Revel, suggesting that it’s ready to swoop in on “really good sites” that Tesla left on the table, particularly in Revel’s home in New York City.
Electrek’s Take
We have heard from several sources who told us that the reason for these firings is because Rebecca Tinucci, former head of Tesla’s EV Charging division, resisted Musk’s demand to fire large portions of her team.
While this is hearsay, it’s plausible considering the language in Musk’s letter announcing the firings – which claimed that some executives are not taking headcount reduction seriously, and made a point to say that executives who retain the wrong employees may see themselves and their whole teams cut. It isn’t a stretch to think that Musk included those demands since they were related to his firing of Tinucci and her team.
The Supercharging team was one of the more successful and crucial teams within Tesla, and many observers consider the Supercharger network to be Tesla’s primary “moat” that makes it better than the competition. Tinucci was also responsible for negotiating NACS agreements across the industry, leading to a huge win when Tesla’s plug became the de facto standard after basically every automaker adopted it over the course of the last year.
Superchargers are also incredibly important, especially in North America. In Europe there are more successful non-Tesla charge providers, but in NA, Tesla is the big dog. And if infrastructure is important, then Tesla pulling back is bad not just for Tesla but for EVs as a whole.
It seems abundantly clear that, whatever explanation we accept, the firing of the Supercharger team was not well-considered (and our readers seem to agree). Even if headcount reduction is necessary, the whole team shouldn’t be laid off. Even if it was necessary as a retaliatory measure – which would not be a good rationale – it still would be wiser to retain some part of it so as to avoid the chaos suggested by the email above.
Whatever mechanism led to the firing, it does fit into a pattern of increasingly erratic behavior that Musk has been showing lately.
Many possible explanations have been advanced to explain this behavior, and most of them don’t increase my personal faith that Musk will make the right decisions with Tesla.
As I said in our original post about Tesla’s first round of layoffs, we do need Tesla to keep pushing the industry forward. While Pandora’s box is open and EVs are here to stay at this point, regardless of Tesla’s ups and comparatively-rare downs, the rest of the industry is still trying hard to pump the brakes on the transition, even if it means America will be less competitive if those companies get their way.
Tesla is one of the few entities that is large enough and committed enough to dragging those timelines forward, whether the rest of the industry likes it or not. We need a healthy Tesla, and for that, we need steadier management. This email is not an example of that – and neither are most of Musk’s managerial actions recently.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The first all-new compact Mopar since the malaise-era K-Car, the Dodge Neon was a revelation. Its fun, approachable face, its “Hi.” marketing campaign, all of it was pitch-perfect for the uncertain times it was launched into. Now, a generation later, Stellantis faces similarly uncertain times – and a new Neon could go a long way towards helping the old Chrysler Co. do what it does best: come back from the brink.
If they wanted to, Stellantis could make it happen tomorrow.
Today, Stellantis is in trouble. Much like it was in the early 90s, the company is hemorrhaging cash, fighting with the unions, and struggling to sell higher-end cars. Today as then, what the company needs is an affordable, simple new car to get people in the showrooms – and in 1994, that new car was the Neon.
In the mid-late 1990s, the Dodge Neon was everywhere. It was affordable, fun to drive, and more or less reliable. It was also economical and fuel-efficient, but it wasn’t that way. It was sold as a fun, smiling face with funky round lights. In R/T and ACR spec, it was sold as an even more fun, smiling face, and offered serious performance chops that still get the grizzled Gen X guys at the SCCA/NASA track days excited.
Stellantis is selling a car right now, today, that meets all that criteria. It’s the right size, it’s reasonably affordable, and it’s got the right tech – available as both a PHEV and a pure EV – for its time.
It’s even got some funky round lights!
Lancia Ypsilon HF
| Spec | SOHC Neon | DOHC Neon | Hybrid Y | EV Y | HF Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheelbase (mm) | 2642 | 2642 | 2675 | 2675 | 2675 |
| Overall Length (mm) | 4366 | 4366 | 4080 | 4080 | 4080 |
| Engine Size (L) | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.2 | NA | NA |
| HP | 132–136 | 150 | 100 | 156 | 280 |
| TQ (lb-ft) | 129–133 | 133 | 129 | 192 | 255 |
| 0–60 mph (s) | 7.6–8.5 | 7.6 | 9.3 | 8.2 | 5.6 |
| MPG (comb.)/EV range | 28 | 28 | ~50 | 425 km | 370 km |
As you can see from the specs, above, the first-gen Neon is pretty close in terms of size and performance, with the modern Ypsilon offering significantly improved emissions, technology, and safety upgrades compared to the OG Neon, which didn’t even offer anti-lock brakes (ABS) as standard on its base or Highline models (it was standard on the Sport and, later, R/T trims).
There’s even a modern allegory for the ultra track-focused ACR version of the Neon, which shipped with its adjustable suspension, anti-sway bars, disc brakes, and close-ratio transmission. That’s the Lancia Ypsilon HF, a 280 HP sporty compact EV that made its debut last week and originally inspired this article.
Check out the original launch ad for the 1995 Plymouth Neon, below, and tell me they couldn’t do a shot-for-shot remake with a rebadged Ypsilon and make it immediately relevant to car buyers in 1995 in the comments.
Plymouth Neon launch commercial from 1994
Original content from Electrek.
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.
Faraday Future unveiled its upcoming FX Super One MPV on Thursday, which appears to be a rebadged Great Wall Motors Way Gaoshan.
Which brings us to the question: is this how we might see more Chinese EVs make their way to the US?
The EV market in China has grown rapidly in recent years, not just in terms of total sales and revenues for its largest companies, but also in terms of the hundreds of EV companies vying to survive the current highly competitive market there.
But despite massively rising EV sales in the country, EV production is still scaling even faster. This has led to a price war within China due to this glut of cars, and also to Chinese companies seeking more buyers overseas.
These affordable EVs have been shipped around the globe, leading to rapidly rising EV sales in Europe and in the “rest of the world” – though, as of yet, not really in the US. Due to excessive tariffs, the US has made itself into an island where few Chinese EVs are allowed.
The ones that have made their way into the US are those built by Western brands that were bought up by a Chinese conglomerate, like Volvo and Polestar under parent company Geely. Some of their models are assembled in Chinese factories, but most of the ones making their way to the US are built in European or US factories (largely due to the domestic sourcing efforts in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, creating millions of US jobs which republicans are currently doing their best to send back to China).
BYD has also put out feelers about building a factory in Mexico, but those plans are on pause, ironically because BYD doesn’t want its technology to be stolen by the US (put that one on for some perspective about how far we have fallen behind on EVs, fellow Americans).
But we haven’t yet seen the kind of Chinese EV that the rest of the world is getting – one of those many eye-openingly cheap numbers that could finally bring true affordability to the US market (or bring it back, that is).
That’s due to tariffs, and it’s intentional. There are various arguments given for tariffs’ existence, but they boil down to: the US can’t make cars as cheap as China, and wants to protect its auto industry, and therefore making Chinese EVs more expensive will forestall their entry into the US while we try to get better at making them. I personally find these explanations wanting and consider these tariffs unwise (and they have only gotten more unwise).
But in a world where these tariffs exist, and depending highly on what final form they take, companies will look for ways to minimize their exposure to them and to still bring cars into the US. Much of the EV industry is sourced through China (again, one of the issues the Inflation Reduction Act tried to remedy), so parts will have tariffs on them, in various amounts.
This is where I speculate that the Faraday Future FX Super One could come in. At last night’s unveiling event, it became quite clear that the car is strikingly similar to the Great Wall Motors Wey Gaoshan.
This similarity is not coincidental – Faraday told us that it is working with “a Tier 1 Chinese automotive supplier,” one that we have heard of, to build the FX Super One. That supplier will send stamped bodies to Faraday’s US factory in Hanford, CA, where Faraday will take care of the final assembly.
Faraday didn’t let us take pictures of the interior, even from the outside, but what we saw of the interior on a short ride around the parking lot looked quite similar to the interior of a Wey Gaoshan, just with different controls (for example, the the pull-out fridge in the bottom of this photo is identical to the one I saw in the FX Super One).
Faraday said the interior hasn’t been finalized yet, but also said that it thinks it can have 100-150 cars built by the end of the year. Which is less than half a year away, for a company that has to date built 16 cars (though those it built on its own). So there’s not a lot of time for further changes at this rate.
So, here we have a company that intends to sell a car in the US, much of which originated in China. This seems like it would run afoul of tariffs.
But, depending on how (or if…) these tariffs get edited or finalized, they might be much lower for parts and/or for vehicles that undergo final assembly in the US. So Faraday might be able to get away with importing something very similar to a GWM, doing enough to it here to qualify its way past tariffs, and getting it on the market at a price that doesn’t incorporate the however-many-hundred-percent the US has ridiculously decided to tack on this week.
Faraday also mentioned during its presentations about the FX Super One that it has a US-based software team, which has been at work for some time.
The software in Faraday’s previous vehicle, the FF91, is pretty good, despite being such a low volume vehicle. And it’s gotten much better between the first time I sat in it and when I had a short demo this month of Faraday’s newly-upgraded voice recognition system (now supporting 50+ languages) and swipe gestures for setting volume and HVAC.
We didn’t get to interact with the software on the FX Super One at all, but we would be cautiously optimistic about it based on prior showings.
But more importantly for the purposes of this article, Faraday’s software team is based in the US. And given current US threats to ban any and all Chinese software from vehicles, this too would allow Faraday to swap out some chips and memory cards and make a car perfectly legal from a US perspective.
So it’s possible that Faraday is on to something here, and has found a reasonable way to get Chinese EVs into America, while complying with US law, and while giving the company a much easier way to increase its scale than trying to get numbers up for the slow-growing FF91 project. Faraday does not have the resources to build out mass market manufacturing currently, so this is another option.
Now… this is no $11k Dolphin Seagull, the Wey Gaoshan starts in the mid-$40k range in China, and is considered a luxury model. And here in the US, Faraday is positioning the car as a premium model as well, though hasn’t yet announced pricing or really gotten its messaging straight on whether it’s a mass market vehicle or a VIP/Cadillac Escalade competitor.
But if this is Faraday’s plan, and if the plan works, it could give the US a taste of the EVs that the rest of the world is getting access to, and could show a potential way of getting those cars across the border. There are both pros (competition good, cheaper prices good) and cons (race to the bottom for manufacturing, loss of important American industry) for the US auto market here, so you’ll have to decide which side of that equation you land on, but this could be a harbinger of one way cars from the now-biggest auto exporting country in the world could make their way out into markets that have exhibited hostility to that idea.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. 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.
Environment
Review: The tech-forward Meepo Go electric skateboard is a smooth, speedy ride for all [Video]
![Review: The tech-forward Meepo Go electric skateboard is a smooth, speedy ride for all [Video]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/07/Meepo-skateboard-hero.jpg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Scooter here, back with another electric mobility review. This time, I tested out the Meepo Go electric skateboard. It is a sturdy, smooth deck designed for riders of all sizes, with some unique tech I had never encountered before. Be sure to check out my full video review below.
The Meepo Go is a versatile skateboard built for everyone
The Go electric skateboard from Meepo comes in one standard design. It usually has an MSRP of $699, but it is currently on sale for $569, so now is an excellent time to buy.
Features at a glance:
- Bamboo and fiberglass deck provides durability, flexibility, and stability, suitable for heavier riders over 200 lbs.
- Impact-resistant plates and a scratch-resistant underside.
- Dual belt drive 1500 watt stator 4230 motors
- 12s2p 345.6WH/8AH battery with flame-retardant and water-resistant protection
- JK-FOC24B Electronic Speed Controller (ESC)
- Offers smooth, jerk-free acceleration with customizable speed and braking settings
- Four-speed modes:
- L: 12 mph (20 km/h)
- E: 20 mph (32 km/h)
- S/S+: 28 mph (45 km/h) (S+ adds faster acceleration)
- Adjustable braking intensity
- Top Speed 28 mph (45 km/h)
- Range: Up to 20 miles (32 km)
- Incline capabilities: 30%
- 2-year warranty
Electrek‘s take
Meepo is an exciting electric skateboard manufacturer whose goal is to make this particular form of travel accessible to anyone and help reduce carbon emissions. You know we love that.
The company has built hundreds of thousands of electric boards, all of which are rigorously tested and constantly revamped for better quality and efficiency. For my first-ever encounter with Meepo, I was sent its Go electric skateboard – a sort of all-in-one deck designed to support heavier riders.
I didn’t realize this was a heavy rider board until I read its description on the website. I don’t think that was the reason Meepo recommended this one, but it’s nice to know I wouldn’t have to worry about breaking the Go for being too heavy (I’m only 200 pounds right now, okay?).
The unboxing was incredibly simple. You first unwrap your shiny new, assembled Meepo Go deck, complete with wheels, trucks, motors, and battery. Below that is some instructions, a charger with cables, a couple of adjustment tools, plus two extra motor belts.
Last but not least is Meepo’s J6S ergonomic remote. According to Meepo, the remote’s upgraded control logic allows riders to double-click to change speed modes, reducing accidental toggles, and can stay connected to the board at a max range of 46 meters.
My full haul is pictured above and in the video below. Zero assembly is required; simply plug and play. The Meepo Go electric skateboard can recharge when fully drained in four hours.
Aside from its sturdy design, thanks to a Bamboo and fiberglass deck, I found the Meepo Go quite aesthetically pleasing. I liked its unique grip tape design and carved-out handle for easier carrying (see below).
Once the Meepo skateboard was fully charged, it was time to power up and take it out for a first spin. My initial impression was just how smooth a ride the Go is, thanks in part to its wheels, which Meepo recently revamped to enable better wet-weather traction and anti-slip capabilities.
The trucks initially took some getting used to as they are 45-degree as opposed to 50-degree on traditional configurations, but once I got used to the difference, I felt much more stable at high speeds and making sharp turns. Meepo also provided a truck tool to tighten or loosen your configuration to your preferences.
The Meepo Go’s dual 4230 brushless motors combine for a total output of 3,000 watts, offering a top speed of up to 28 mph or 45 km/h. While that’s pretty damn fast for an electric skateboard, Meepo said “not so fast” to new riders for their own safety.
Go riders must travel 10 km (6.2 miles) in the lower two “L” and “E” speed modes to unlock the S and S+ modes, which allow the 28 mph top speed and higher acceleration. S mode was honestly too fast for my liking, but it was nice to know I had those speed capabilities whenever I’m feeling saucy. The truth is, at my age and skill level, I’m beyond satisfied cruising and carving around 20 mph.
Luckily, the Meepo Go electric skateboard delivers both speed options and then some.
The Meepo Go also allows you to customize its braking intensity from 0% to 100%. This is a feature I had never personally seen on an electric skateboard that genuinely impressed me. It just adds to the overall smoothness this deck provides on all levels.
As mentioned in the key features above, the Go’s dual motors are powered by an eight-amp-hour battery, which enables an all-electric range of up to 20 miles or 32 km.
Aside from speeds nearing 30 mph, you really feel the Meepo Go’s capability on hills. It was configured to tackle 15-degree (30%) inclines with ease, and having tested it, it’s true.
What may be most impressive about this particular Meepo skateboard is its advanced JKFOC-24B electronic skate controller (ESC), which is essentially the brain of the entire powertrain.
The ESC delivers smooth acceleration with no jerking or lag. It also enables full user customization of acceleration, top speed, and braking sensitivity, so once you get comfortable, you can tailor every aspect of your riding experience to your liking. This is another super cool feature that was new to me personally.
Overall, the Meepo Go is smooth, powerful, and very tech-forward. With more than enough speed, I truly enjoyed the lag-free cruising and carving of the 45-degree trucks and the ease of use of its ergonomic remote.
I was genuinely impressed by the tech used to customize this skateboard, enabling anyone to customize their ride. As such, I’d highly recommend the Meepo Go because of its feel, utility, and universal rideability for virtually everyone, not to mention its competitive pricing.
If you’d like to try out the Meepo Go electric skateboard for yourself, click here. Be sure to check out my full video review below.
Buy a Meepo Go Electric Skateboard
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike