For years, many traditional carmakers seemed content to ignore the quiet storm gathering in China’s automotive sector. The rise of new Chinese manufacturers barely registered on their radar, as if the disruption that had shaken the tech world could never reach the showroom floor.

Read: Ford Chief Says China Leads US By 10 Years In EV Batteries, Needs Their IP

That illusion has now been thoroughly dispelled. Most major automakers now grasp the scale of disruption these Chinese brands are set to bring to the global car market, and among the most outspoken voices acknowledging it is Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley

Over the past year, Farley has been quite outspoken in his belief that Chinese brands have developed a significant lead in the electrification race.

How Big Is The Threat?

At one point, he was even driving a Xiaomi SU7 every day, not as a stunt but out of genuine admiration. For Farley, the challenge from China eclipses even the Japanese surge of the early 1980s.

“I think it’s exactly the same thing, but it’s on steroids,” Farley told Business Insider. “They have enough capacity in China with existing factories to serve the entire North American market, put us all out of business. Japan never had that. So, this is a completely different level of risk for our industry.”

In 1980, Japan produced over 11 million vehicles, a surge that prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to impose voluntary export limits on Japanese imports. Today, the circumstances are different but the unease feels familiar.

Chinese EVs are currently barred from sale in the United States, insulating local brands for the moment. Yet Ford, operating on a global stage, can’t rely on geography for protection.

The Chinese Tech Advantage

“[The Chinese] have far superior in-vehicle technology. Huawei and Xiaomi are in every car. You get in, you don’t have to pair your phone. Automatically, your whole digital life is mirrored in the car,” Farley added.

“We are in a global competition with China, and it’s not just EVs. If we lose this, we do not have a future Ford. The Chinese are the 700-pound gorilla in the EV industry. It is completely dominating the EV landscape globally and more and more outside of China.”

For now, Trump-era regulations, including the removal of the federal EV tax credit worth up to $7,500, have impacted demand for electric vehicles in the United States.

Still, Farley sees the slowdown as temporary. He expects EVs to hold about 5 percent of the U.S. market in the short term but believes that number will rise as lower-cost models reach production and public perception catches up with the technology.

Around 80 percent of global energy production today comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. Combustion, or the process of converting stored chemical energy into thermal energy through burning, is vital for a variety of common activities including electricity generation, transportation, and domestic uses like heating and cooking — but it also yields a host of environmental consequences, contributing to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Sili Deng, the Doherty Chair in Ocean Utilization and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is leading research to drive the transition from the heavy dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy with storage.

“I was first introduced to flame synthesis in my junior year in college,” Deng says. “I realized you can actually burn things to make things, [and] that was really fascinating.”

Deng says she ultimately picked combustion as a focus of her work because she likes the intellectual challenge the concept offers. “In combustion you have chemistry, and you have fluid mechanics. Each subject is very rich in science. This also has very strong engineering implications and applications.”

Deng’s research group targets three areas: building up fundamental knowledge on combustion processes and emissions; developing alternative fuels and metal combustion to replace fossil fuels; and synthesizing flame-based materials for catalysis and energy storage, which can bring down the cost of manufacturing battery materials.

One focus of the team has been on low-cost, low-emission manufacturing of cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion batteries play an increasingly critical role in transportation electrification (e.g., batteries for electric vehicles) and grid energy storage for electricity that is generated from renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Deng’s team has developed a technology they call flame-assisted spray pyrolysis, or FASP, which can help reduce the high manufacturing costs associated with cathode materials.

FASP is based on flame synthesis, a technology that dates back nearly 3,000 years. In ancient China, this was the primary way black ink materials were made. “[People burned] vegetables or woods, such that afterwards they can collect the solidified smoke,” Deng explains. “For our battery applications, we can try to fit in the same formula, but of course with new tweaks.”

The team is also interested in developing alternative fuels, including looking at the use of metals like aluminum to power rockets. “We’re interested in utilizing aluminum as a fuel for civil applications,” Deng says, because aluminum is abundant in the earth, cheap, and it’s available globally. “What we are trying to do is to understand [aluminum combustion] and be able to tailor its ignition and propagation properties.”

Among other accolades, Deng is a 2025 recipient of the Hiroshi Tsuji Early Career Researcher Award from the Combustion Institute, an award that recognizes excellence in fundamental or applied combustion science research.

© Photo: John Freidah/MIT MechE

Slate Auto is already treading water after its launch earlier this year. The removal of tax incentives makes its debut offering far less financially appealing than it would’ve otherwise been., and that’s a pretty big deal for a model that is build around it’s affordable pricing.

While it can’t control subsidies, the EV startup, backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, can control how easy it is to own one of its vehicles. To that end, it’s just announced that it’ll give customers access to the Tesla Supercharger network and some 4,000 service locations on day one.

More: This Is Who’s Actually Reserving Slate’s New EV

Like many other EV companies, Slate will sell directly to consumers. Without dealers, the brand would need to build and staff its own service locations. Now, a deal with RepairPal allows it to offer a network of roughly 4,000 independent repair shops across the USA for maintenance and repairs as needed.

According to Slate, these independent shops will handle everything from routine maintenance to accessory installations and even high-voltage repairs. Each one will get Slate-specific training, too.

Also: Would You Really Pay $28K For A Crank Window EV With No Speakers?

In addition, the company is launching its long-promised Slate University, an online and app-based hub for tutorials, repair videos, and owner education. The platform will cater to both customers and service technicians.

Slate expects it to offer an evolving library of how-to guides and even some certification courses. “We want owners to feel confident before they even arrive at a service appointment,” CEO Chris Barman told Newsweek.

Supercharging the Experience

Charging is another area where Slate doesn’t want to over complicate things. Its product offerings will use the North American Charging Standard (NACS), giving drivers direct access to Tesla’s Supercharger network that consists of over 25,000 fast chargers nationwide and is widely regarded as the most reliable.

Essentially, Slate owners should have no issue going coast to coast so long as they’re okay with frequent stops due to the truck’s modest maximum range of 240 miles.

Also: Slate May Be About To Price Itself Out Of The EV Market

Production is set to begin late next year in Warsaw, Indiana, and Slate says that it already has over 100,000 reservations.

While we wait to see how many of those will actually convert to sales, it’s nice to see a new car company thinking ahead about the ownership experience. 

Sources: Slate, Newsweek

The automotive industry never stays still for long. While electric vehicles are growing in popularity around the globe, they’re facing serious headwinds in the US.

The federal government is no longer subsidizing them, gas cars are no longer facing harsh penalties for missing economy regulations, and their pricing is still higher on average than that of an ICE car. Despite all that, Ford’s former CEO, Mark Fields, believes EV adoption will continue to steadily climb.

Is Growth Still Coming?

Speaking with CNBC on Friday, Fields said he expects “gradual growth” in all-electric vehicle demand after the Trump administration’s September decision to end the $7,500 new and $4,000 used EV tax credits.

The former Ford chief, who led the company from 2014 to 2017, believes long-term adoption remains inevitable as consumers increasingly shift toward renewable energy sources.

Read: Kia’s Coming After The Golf R With Nothing But Electricity

“You’re going to see these grow over time, but it’s not going to be at the pace that the automakers thought,” Fields said. “That’s why you’re seeing these big impairment charges that both Ford and GM and others have taken.”

GM announced that it’s taking a $1.6 billion charge associated with ‘strategic realignment’ of its EV game plan.

Ford’s current CEO, Jim Farley, also said earlier this month that the loss of tax credits could halve US EV sales in the near term. Like Fields, Farley believes adoption rates will continue to climb as more affordable models show up.

The former said that automakers “went full bore” into EVs without fully understanding customer demand. “You’re going to see more [charges] going forward as the industry adjusts to a new demand curve,” he commented.

More: EV Sales Will Collapse 60% In October, J.D. Power Forecasts

That said, not everybody agrees that cutting subsidies will affect adoption as strongly as anticipated.

Former Tesla global sales chief Jon McNeill told CNBC earlier this month that European markets continued to grow despite similar subsidy rollbacks. It’s thus plausible that the US market could pick back up once buyers adjust to the new prices. 

For Rivian’s earliest customers, timing proved to be an expensive lesson. In early 2022, the young EV maker frustrated reservation holders by announcing steep price hikes for the R1T pickup and R1S SUV just before their launch. As it turns out, that decision came with a hefty price tag of its own.

This week, Rivian confirmed it would pay $250 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed shortly after those price increases were made public.

Read: Rivian Rethinks Doors Only After Tesla Traps Put Design Flaws In Spotlight

In March 2022, Rivian revealed that prices for the R1T would climb from $67,500 to $79,500, while the R1S would rise from $70,000 to $84,500. Price adjustments aren’t unusual in the auto industry, but few companies raise figures that sharply, Tesla’s occasional curveballs aside.

The real misstep came when Rivian initially applied the new prices to existing reservations. That move hit early adopters who had placed their deposits months earlier the hardest, and it didn’t sit well with them.

Rivian reversed course within days, sparing existing customers from the higher prices and limiting the increases to new buyers. But the damage was done.

Soon after, a lawsuit accused the company of including misleading statements and cost estimates in filings made before its 2021 IPO about the true expenses involved in producing the R1 lineup.

Now, Rivian has agreed to settle the case. The company will pay $250 million in total, with $67 million covered through its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and the remaining $183 million drawn from its cash reserves. The agreement still awaits final approval from the court.

Rivian maintains that it denies all allegations and states the settlement “is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing.”

Anyone who acquired Rivian Class A common stock between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022, qualifies as part of the settlement group.

The settlement comes at the worst possible time for the car manufacturer. While it had $4.8 billion in cash and equivalents at the end of June, it needs all the money it can get to successfully launch the mid-size R2, which could prove to be a make-or-break moment for the automaker.

A slowing EV market has prompted Rivian to slash more than 600 jobs across its workforce, despite the company’s expansion plans and having several new models in the pipeline.

The layoffs, which represent about 4.5 percent of Rivian’s staff, were announced soon after the company lowered its delivery forecast for the year, now expecting to sell fewer vehicles than in both 2023 and 2024.

Read: Rivian Axes Staff As Trump’s Policies Rip A Hole In Its Revenue Plans

Most of the reductions are being made across commercial teams in Rivian’s servicing and sales divisions. Additionally, Chief executive RJ Scaringe told employees in an internal memo that the company is consolidating several departments into a single marketing organization, with Scaringe temporarily taking the helm himself.

“These are not changes that were made lightly,” Scaringe wrote. “With the changing operating backdrop, we had to rethink how we are scaling our go-to-market functions. This news is challenging to hear, and the hard work and contributions of the team members who are leaving are greatly appreciated.”

These job cuts, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, come just a month after Rivian made a separate round of layoffs, cutting approximately 225 jobs, also targeting its sales and service operations in both the United States and Canada.

Sales Crunch

Rivian reported a record 13,201 sales in the third quarter, marking a 32 percent rise over the previous period. That figure, however, was partly inflated by customers rushing to buy before the federal EV tax credit expired.

Deliveries are expected to drop sharply in the final quarter, with Rivian forecasting year-end sales between 41,500 and 43,500 vehicles. By contrast, the company delivered 50,100 units in 2023 and 51,579 in 2024, signaling a noticeable downturn as the broader EV market settles into a slower growth phase.

Next year, the electric car manufacturer plans to start production of the long-awaited R2. The upcoming model will be smaller than the current R1T and R1S and is expected to start at around $45,000. After it hits the market, Rivian will follow it up with the R3, R4, and R5.

Under the Biden administration, carmakers enjoyed four years of predictable policy and a clear push toward electrification. Since 2005, some form of tax credit has existed to reward buyers of low-emission vehicles. Then came January.

Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office promptly threw a wrench into that setup, with his administration scrapping the EV tax credit, lifting penalties for exceeding emissions targets, and generally adopting an anti-EV posture that left automakers recalibrating overnight.

Now, car manufacturers are facing an uphill climb. Following the removal of the federal EV tax credit at the end of September, General Motors says it has already seen a “significant” decline in demand. Even so, the company expects things to settle into a more predictable rhythm soon enough, lbeit at a lower pitch than before.

Read: EV Tax Credit Loss Will Cost GM $1.6 Billion

“EV demand is going to be pretty choppy for the near future, we think, as we come out of the $7,500 and what we’ve already seen in October with some pretty significant pullback in demand,” GM chief financial officer Paul Jacobson said during a recent earnings call. “We do think that the EV market is going to stabilize from a supply standpoint.”

Jacobson added that emissions regulations had turned parts of the EV market into a clearance aisle, with some brands practically giving away electric cars just to rack up environmental credits.

“We had a number of competitors out there that really were selling EVs for whatever they could get for them because they really wanted to get the credits on the environmental side,” he said.

While he didn’t call anyone out by name, Jacobson was referring to the regulatory credits automakers could earn from selling EVs under the previous scheme. If they failed to bring about enough credits or didn’t purchase them from a brand like Tesla, they faced fines.

GM’s EV Future

Moving forward, GM appears confident in the future of EVs. Chief executive Mary Barra refers to them as the company’s “North Star” and said the company won’t “know what true EV demand is” until early next year.

Despite the uncertainty, GM doesn’t plan to discontinue any of its current models and will focus on reducing costs over the coming years. For example, it’s working on reducing complexity and commonizing parts across its dedicated EV platform.

“We’re [also] investing in new battery technologies, LMR (lithium manganese rich), that will allow us to take cost out of the vehicle in a significant fashion,” said Barra.

The auto industry has entered a new phase, one where old hierarchies no longer guarantee dominance. Long gone are the times when legacy automakers could dismiss emerging new rivals from China.

Read: GM Quietly Plots A Family Of Low-Cost EVs After New Bolt

Now, a company like General Motors knows it needs to move faster and think sharper to keep pace with China’s electric vehicle powerhouses. According to its president, that means building new models at a speed that would once have seemed impossible.

On average, a new model from a Chinese EV brand has a typical development cycle of between 22 and 28 months, far quicker than the 32–48-month average for western automakers. GM president Mark Reuss knows the speed of its new competitors is something they need to match.

How Fast Is Fast Enough?

“I would say we can learn a lot from the speed,” he told InsideEVs during a recent podcast. “I don’t think that copying each other and trying to price each other out of the market is necessarily a great thing.”

Reuss noted that Chinese brands often use the same base of suppliers and can quickly adopt innovations, helping to speed up development times. However, he acknowledged that it can be difficult for these carmakers to make money unless they also sell batteries.

“They benchmark the heck out of each other, and then they will copy it and put it into production, so it’s a very rapid cycle because of that,” he said. “There are a lot of companies that come and go, and they come and go often. Unless you’re selling batteries, it’s a pretty tough financial deal to make money over there.”

GM is far from the only car manufacturer that needs to speed up development times. Last month, Audi said it was going “China speed” with the development of the next-generation TT, aiming to launch it just 30 months after the project was approved

Less than two weeks later, BMW raised the stakes, claiming that even Chinese firms can’t match its momentum as it develops the Neue Klasse vehicles. The Bavarian company has pledged to roll out 40 new and updated models within the next two years, signaling again that the global race for speed in electric vehicle development is very much underway

In politics, few things vanish faster than inconvenient promises. Policies that once seemed carved in stone tend to crumble the moment the weather changes. The US may have stepped back from its federal EV tax credits, but in the heart of Europe’s car industry, the story is moving in the opposite direction.

Two years after Germany scrapped its incentives for electric vehicles, a move that triggered a sharp drop in demand as we widely reported, the country is preparing to bring them back. The new purchase program will take effect in January 2026.

Renewed Push For Affordability

The new scheme will be introduced at a pivotal time for the European car industry as it struggles with US-imposed import tariffs and new competition from China.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz revealed earlier this week that €3 billion ($3.5 billion) will be allocated for zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives through 2029, targeting low- and middle-income households.

Read: Germany’s EV Sales Crash 28% In First Full Year Without Subsidies

It’s understood that the program will offer incentives worth up to €4,000 ($4,600) on the purchase of a new EV that’s priced under €45,000 ($52,600). That is a big change from the previous scheme that had a higher price limit of €65,000 ($76,000).

Importantly, plug-in hybrid vehicles will not be included in the program, although used EVs will, for the first time, be eligible, too according to German media, as reported by Autonews.

Who Qualifies

While some finer details about the program are still being ironed out, an income cap of around €45,000 ($52,600) is expected. While speaking about the new incentives, Social Democratic Party secretary-general Tim Kluessendorf said that “everyone must be able to afford the [electric] transition.”

“What is important to me in designing the subsidy program is that it must benefit the German and European automotive industry in particular,” he added. “The Ministry of the Environment will ensure that this is the case. The future is electric, and we want it to be written in Germany.”

The remark suggests the incentives could be limited to vehicles produced by European manufacturers, though no official confirmation has been made. We’ll have to wait and see if this case, but the local car industry could do with all the help it can get at the moment.

Germany’s previous EV subsidy scheme paid out roughly €10 billion ($11.7 billion) to buyers between 2016 and 2023 before being shut down due to budget constraints.

The removal of the federal electric vehicle tax credit at the end of September is set to cost General Motors as much as $1.6 billion in the next quarter, a direct result of the adjustments it must make to its electric vehicle strategy.

This follows Ford’s recent announcement that it will write down up to $400 million in manufacturing assets and reduce $1.5 billion in EV-related spending, scaling back projects including a three-row electric SUV and a full-size electric pickup.

Industry Recalibration

In its third-quarter report, GM confirmed that its board of directors had approved $1.6 billion in charges tied to what it described as the “strategic realignment of our EV capacity and manufacturing footprint to consumer demand.”

Read: GM Pulls Off Its Strongest US Comeback In A Decade But One Brand Is Slipping

The company specified that $1.2 billion of that amount relates to adjustments in its EV capacity, while the remaining $400 million stems “primarily from contract cancellation fees and commercial settlements associated with EV-related investments, which will have a cash impact.”

GM also noted that “it is reasonably possible that we will recognize additional future material cash and non-cash charges that may adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.”

GM emphasized that the measures it’s taking will not affect its existing range of electric models sold under the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac brands.

Electric vehicle sales in the United States climbed sharply through the third quarter, yet GM cautioned in its filing that it expects “the adoption rate of EVs to slow” due to “the termination of certain consumer tax incentives for EV purchases and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations.”

During the July-September period, GM’s sales of electric vehicles rose 107 percent and have increased 105 percent year-to-date. In Q3, it sold a total of 66,501 EVs, and Chevrolet cemented its position as the second-largest EV brand in the country. In addition, the Equinox EV was the best-selling non-Tesla-branded electric vehicle.

The South Korean government is none too pleased with Hyundai’s massive US investments, particularly as tensions linger with the Trump administration over a new trade deal. Indeed, one lawmaker has even gone so far as to accuse Hyundai of trying to curry favor with President Donald Trump.

Just two weeks after Hyundai’s massive plant in Georgia was raided by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and hundreds of Korean workers were detained, the automaker announced plans to boost its American investments by 32 percent, bringing the total to $11.6 billion.

This move landed awkwardly back home. Many in South Korea had warned that the raid could discourage local companies from expanding into the United States, and Hyundai’s timing only added to the unease.

Read: Turns Out 300 Of The ‘Illegal Aliens’ Detained At Hyundai Plant Are Koreans

While recently speaking with members of the press, South Korea’s industry minister Kim Jung-kwan described the timing of the investments as “deeply regrettable.”

“We told Hyundai that [its] conduct was deeply regrettable, especially considering that our efforts have been made for the sake of Hyundai and Kia’s industry,” Kim said. “I believe that Hyundai now fully understands the Korean public sentiment.”

According to the South China Morning Post, Korean officials have clashed with US counterparts over roughly $350 billion in American investments as Seoul seeks lower tariffs on Korean cars.

Who Benefits Most?

According to independent lawmaker Kim Jong-min, Hyundai’s investments weakened Korea’s leverage during trade talks. “Isn’t the Korea-US tariff negotiation essentially a negotiation concerning Hyundai?” he asked.

“Since Hyundai is the main player in this issue, I believe that the way Hyundai responded was not helpful to the negotiations.”

Hyundai has been particularly active on the investment front this year. In March, it pledged $21 billion to strengthen its automotive, steel, and robotics businesses. By August, that figure had grown to $26 billion, with a promise to create 25,000 direct jobs in the United States by 2028.

Sources: South China Morning Post

China isn’t pleased about the 100 percent tariffs that Canada imposed on its imports, including electric vehicles, in October last year. Seeking to persuade Ottawa to reconsider, Beijing has offered to lift its own retaliatory tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods.

Even so, Canada’s automotive parts industry head has cautioned against easing the restrictions, warning that doing so could open the door for low-cost Chinese EVs to flood the market.

Trade Tensions at Full Charge

When the tariffs were first introduced, Canada described them as measures to safeguard national security and defend domestic manufacturing. Officials also argued that China’s electric vehicle industry benefited from unfair state subsidies.

Beijing’s reaction was swift. The People’s Republic struck back with tariffs on Canadian agriculture, imposing a 100 percent rate on canola oil and meat, along with a 75.8 percent duty on canola seed.

Read: Canada Might Let Chinese EVs In And The Reason Has Nothing To Do With Cars

According to Chinese ambassador Wang Di, Beijing is ready to roll back the tariff measures if Canada does the same.

“If Canada removes the unilateral unjustified tariffs on Chinese products, China will also reciprocate accordingly,” he said, “and if the EV tariffs are removed, then China will also remove the tariffs on the relevant products of Canada.”

The Canadian government says it is conducting an informal review of its tariffs on Chinese EVs, CTV News reports. It adds that since the trade dispute started, exports from Saskatchewan dropped 76 percent in August from the year prior.

Both the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have called for tariffs to be lowered to protect the local canola industries.

A Divided Response

Still, Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, has pushed back against any move to abandon the tariffs on Chinese EVs.

“I am reminding (the premiers) publicly, that if Canada is in a trade war with a country, then the response has to be a Canadian response,” he told CTV.

“These Chinese EVs are not made for profit, they are subsidized. We’re in the middle of a game, and the only thing that changed… was the Chinese ambassador said, ‘If you do this, we’ll give you that.’ And last time I checked, the Chinese ambassador was sent from Beijing, not from Ottawa.”

Sources: CTV News

Moments after Ferrari revealed the first details of its long-awaited EV, currently known as the Elettrica, the company’s shares took a sharp dive on the Italian stock market, marking its worst trading day on record.

However, the sell-off wasn’t triggered by the car’s reveal or by news of fewer electrified models in Ferrari’s future lineup, but by weaker-than-expected financial results and a cautious outlook that rattled investors.

Markets React Sharply

The Italian brand’s shares plunged 16.1 percent after its annual Capital Markets Day and ended the day down 15.4 percent on the Milan stock exchange. They also fell by a considerable 15 percent on the New York Stock Exchange, higher than its previous largest single-day decline of 12.4 percent from February 2016.

Read: Ferrari Found A Way To Make Fake EV Noise Sound Honest

The company said it expects a net revenue of at least €7.1 billion ($8.2 billion) this year, slightly higher than a previous forecast of more than €7 billion.

It also confirmed that its net revenue is expected to increase to roughly €9 billion ($10.4 billion) in 2030 and predicts an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) of at least €3.6 billion ($4.1 billion) by 2030.

As reported by CNBC, analysts from Citi commented that Ferrari’s updated guidance “falls below our ‘lower growth case’ estimates from our CMD preview and reflects conservatism from management, we think.”

Ferrari Elettrica

Lower EV Ambitions

Perhaps the most noteworthy announcement made by Ferrari is related to its electrification plans. In 2022, Ferrari announced that 40 percent of the vehicles it sold would have battery-electric powertrains by 2030. However, like many other car manufacturers, it has been forced to wind back these ambitions due to a slowdown in EV uptake in key global markets.

Now, Ferrari believes that pure-ICE models will account for approximately 40 percent of its sales, hybrid-powered ones for another 40 percent, and EVs for the remaining 20 percent in 2030. This means that Ferrari now expects to sell half as many EVs in 2030 as it had initially anticipated.

The company attributed the change to its “client centricity approach, the current environment and its expected evolution.”

The reception to the Elettrica may force Ferrari to adjust EV sales targets in the near future. The upcoming model’s underpinnings were shown during the event, alongside confirmation that it will deliver over 986 hp and have more than 329 miles (530 km) of driving range. Ferrari says it’ll hit 62 mph (100 km/h) in 2.5 seconds and reach a 193 mph (310 km/h) top speed.

Found beneath the skin of the new model will be a sizeable 122 kWh battery pack with an energy density of 195 Wh/kg at pack level and 305Wh/kg at cell level. It will also feature an 800-volt electrical architecture that supports 350 kW DC fast charging.

Jerome Dillard, executive director of Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) (left) holds book discussion with author and activist Bianca Tylek (right). (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“We’re talking about a major, major industry in our society today,” activist and writer Bianca Tylek told a group of about 20 people who packed a room at Madison’s Lake City Books Monday night. At the Q&A and book signing event, hosted by Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), Tylek — described as a leading expert in the prison industry — discussed her new book The Prison Industry: How It Works and Who Profits, offering her insights into what she called a $80-90 billion industry in America. 

“This is just a massive industry of folks who are using the correctional system to essentially extract either wealth or resources either from public coffers, or from low-income … communities that are directly impacted by incarceration,” said Tylek, who also founded and leads the non-profit organization Worth Rises, which works to confront and reform the prison industry. Tylek’s book delves into multiple aspects of the prison industry from food distribution to telecommunications and examines privatization, who profits and the lives of the people who are directly affected. 

The discussion was moderated by Jerome Dillard, EXPO’s executive director, who sat beside Tylek asking  questions. Dillard called Tylek “my daughter in the movement,” and spoke of his admiration for her work and her spirit in fighting for change within the prison system. 

Dillard described attending an event in Appleton last week with Tylek where he was invited to receive an award, “not knowing what we were going into,” and realizing it was a Wisconsin Correctional Association conference. 

“I just couldn’t believe all the industries that were there with tables, and tabling the event with new devices and all this,” said Dillard. “I left there really broken and heavy. These conferences opened my eyes to how big this industry is … that individuals are capitalizing on human misery.” Conference tables displayed new kinds of spit masks and shock gloves to prospective correctional customers, some of whom made joking comments about using the devices on the job. “It just blew me away, you know, that she’s bragging about punishing and torturing people in their care,” said Dillard, recalling a woman who made such remarks. 

Tylek said that there are over 1,400 manufacturers of correctional and policing equipment nationwide. “Every single state has a correctional conference,” said Tylek. “Every single state has a sheriff’s association,” as well as conferences and associations dedicated to jails, parole and other aspects of the correctional system. Tylek recalled attending the American Correctional Association conference, one of the largest in the nation, where she saw an exhibit hall “with hundreds of corporations” with their own exhibit tables. 

“And not just tables,” Tylek told the crowd. “Probably the wildest thing I saw was one company drive a full bus into the convention center, where staff from correctional institutions could step onto the bus and play with all the equipment and trinkets that they were selling. And they gave out free raffle tickets and all these things, and probably the grossest thing that I experienced was all the tickets to private events. And I made my way up to a private event for Securus.” Tylek said that the company is one of the nation’s two largest prison telecommunication companies, and was one of the largest sponsors of the conference that year. “And they had a happy hour that involved a full open bar,” said Tylek, “a full swing dance performance, everyone just having the most joyous time of all. All while on the walls there were the kiosks, the tablets, the phone devices that you could go and speak to a Securus representative while you have your cocktail. And all of this built on about 2 million people who are sitting in a cage somewhere who will never see this, who don’t get to enjoy these luxuries in any of this. It’s heartbreaking, and it’s repulsive, I think, more than anything.”

Later, Tylek elaborated more on how companies use things like gifts and luxury vacations to grow their relationships with correctional and law enforcement leaders. “At conferences, you would get these private event tickets,” she said. At one such event, she recalled, attendees were given hand-rolled cigars. “That’s just the legal stuff that looks gross,” said Tylek. There are also “questionably legal” practices, such as offering “training cruises” in the Caribbean for prison and sheriff staff in brochures distributed during contract bidding processes. 

On the dark end of the spectrum is bribery, such as the case of a Mississippi prison commissioner who was involved in a bribery and kickback scheme with private prison companies. Tylek highlighted how in Mississippi, a prison commissioner went on to work for a private prison company as a lobbyist. Similar revolving doors exist between the prison industry, especially private prisons, Homeland Security and immigration agencies, said Tylek.

Tylek described the rise of  the prison industry as a relatively new phenomenon in America. Prior to the abolition of slavery, she said, the prison population was predominantly white, and only shifted to being predominantly Black in the decades after abolition — a move  to “re-confine and re-enslave” Black people. Prison populations continued to grow into the 1970s and 80s, leading into the War on Drugs. “Really around the 1980s is when you start to see industry recognize a potential opportunity,” said Tylek. 

That’s the  era during which most of the private prison companies featured in her book began to emerge. Private prison industry representatives helped craft some of the nation’s most punitive laws such as three-strikes laws, truth in sentencing and mandatory minimums, which helped grow the prison population. “Those three pieces of model legislation were drafted by the prison industry, and specifically by private prison executives,” said Tylek. 

The consequences have been devastating for individuals and families, and also ripple out into society. “The impact of the prison industry bleeds far beyond prison walls,” Tylek said. Among those ripple effects are the cost borne by families that put money on the books for incarcerated loved ones to have food and hygiene supplies or simply to communicate, incarcerated people who work long hours for 14 cents an hour on average, missed child support payments from incarcerated parents and victims who don’t receive restitution. In addition, many small towns which once saw prisons as economic saviors now see them as burdens. 

“In the end, all of us are impacted,” said Tylek. “When we exploit people who are incarcerated, or we have a system that wants to put more people behind bars and for longer because a few stand to benefit, then socially we are all harmed by that.” 

Yet a space ripe with so many problems also invites solutions. In several states, Tylek has been involved in movements to make phone calls to incarcerated people free and in more than one of those places, that effort succeeded. “Something that everyone can understand is what’s the importance of a phone call home,” Tylek told her bookstore audience. Families of incarcerated people often face significant financial challenges, including debt, income loss and unemployment. 

In 2017, Tylek began to focus on the prison telecommunications industry. “We led the first successful campaign to make communication completely free in a jail system,” said Tylek. That was in New York, and affected the infamous Rikers Island jail. From 2019 to 2023, Tylek’s organization Worth Rises pushed for free jail calls in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Massachusetts, free prison calls in Connecticut, California, Colorado, Minnesota. Free prison calls were enshrined in the CARES Act as a result of that work. “We’ve been able to save families $600 million to date,” Tylek said, “and generate over 3 billion additional call minutes between people who are incarcerated and their loved ones.”

Dillard recalled celebrating some of those victories with Tylek, but the fight continues. “We’re in a dozen more states trying to fight for the exact same legislation to make communication free in our prisons and jails,” said Tylek. “The outcomes that we get are life-changing. In Connecticut we saw phone volume increase by over 120% overnight. In New York just recently, first data’s coming back and we are north of 40% increases in calling.” Some of that difference is also due to inconsistent call rates across different states, with incarcerated people being charged 2.8 cents per minute in New York versus people in Connecticut who were paying 32.5 cents per minute. 

“No matter where it happens, the change is substantial,” said Tylek. “These are real people with real lives. We have talked to families whose autistic child stopped speaking when her father went to prison. And when phone calls became free and he could call home again she started speaking again, her child development changed, she started engaging more in school, and now she’s flourishing, all off a simple phone call.”

Those kinds of victories can be replicated elsewhere. A campaign was launched earlier this year to make jail calls free in Racine County, and La Crosse became the first Wisconsin county to provide free jail calls earlier this year. 

“What I love about the examples in Wisconsin is that we had nothing to do with them,” Tylek said, drawing laughter from the audience in Madison. “My biggest goal has been for this movement to take itself.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rivals for decades, BMW and Mercedes largely fish in the same pool. But while one of the big German brands saw its catch rate tumble, the other is soon going to need a bigger boat, judging by sales figures released this week.

Mercedes shifted 441,500 cars in Q3 (plus 83,800 vans), a drop of 12 percent on the same quarter in 2024, while BMW moved 514,620 BMW-branded vehicles, representing a rise of 5.7 percent. Factor in the BMW Group’s other brands, including Rolls Royce, BMW M and Mini, and total sales hit 588,300, or 8.8 percent more than in Jul-Sep last year.

Related: BMW Somehow Sold Fewer Electrified Cars Than Last Year

What’s really interesting is how differently the two brands performed in certain key markets. In the US for instance, which has been impacted by tariffs this year, it’s probably not a surprise to see that Mercedes sales dropped 17 percent to 70,800 units.

But turning that logic on its head, BMW actually grew its US sales by a whopping 24.9 percent in the same period to 297,247.

And even in China, where both brands – like many Western automakers – are having a tough time, Mercedes fared much worse. Benz sales sank by a shocking 27 percent but BMW escaped with an 11 percent drop. Still terrible, but much less so.

BMW vs Mercedes Sales Q3

The electric (and electrified) numbers deepen the divide. For Mercedes, battery-electric vehicle (BEV) deliveries flatlined. The company delivered 42,600 BEVs in Q3, essentially holding steady year-on-year as it battles cost pressures, tariff headwinds, and intensifying EV competition in China.

BMW’s story is more complicated. The BMW Group’s electrified portfolio (including BEV + PHEV) showed healthy growth overall, as it moved 151,282 electrified units in Q3, up 8 percent. But they were down 2.8 percent in the US. Full EV sales in that same period fell by 0.6 percent to 102,864 units globally, though they’re up 10 percent YTD.

Both automakers have some crucial new products coming through including the GLC with EQ Technology and iX3, so it’ll be fascinating to see how those cars impact next year’s numbers.

BMW vs Mercedes sales by region

BMW sales split

Ford is preparing to expand its EV lineup in a way that could reshape how the company builds and markets its vehicles. And according to CEO Jim Farley, the upcoming mid-size electric pickup won’t just be another truck, but something designed to stretch beyond the typical template.

While the company remains cautious about how the loss of federal tax credits may affect demand, development is moving ahead on the new Universal EV Platform. This fresh architecture will debut with a $30,000 mid-size pickup truck, first mentioned in August, and now detailed further by Ford’s top executive.

Not Just a Truck

During a recent interview with The Verge’s podcast, Farley explained that the pickup will be the first model underpinned by the new architecture “but it’s not really a pickup. I would say it’s a new silhouette.”

It’s hard to know exactly what Ford’s head honcho means, as the teaser image Ford released earlier this year suggested a conventional truck shape, one instantly recognizable across all segments with the exception of the outlier Tesla Cybertruck.

Read: $30K Ford Electric Truck Coming In 2027 Is Seriously Bad News For Slate

Farley added that the new EV “has more room than a RAV4, the best-selling passenger car in the US. That doesn’t include its trunk and pickup truck bed”. The teaser indicated it’ll hit the market with a dual-cab design, helping to ensure that the second row has enough room for adult passengers.

Fun First, Utility Second

It’s not just space that Ford is promising. Farley noted that the vehicle will be rear-wheel drive, “very fast,” and “super fun to drive,” which isn’t the case for most pickup trucks. Not only that, but it will offer a “digital experience that no one’s seen – at least that we’ve seen – even in China.”

“The digital experience is quite different for customers,” Farley said. “I think the whole package is something that has not been offered in the US or anywhere else to date. I think this first product is quite revolutionary.”

Building EVs Differently

It’s not just the technology of the model that is promising to be revolutionary; the Universal EV Platform will be brought to life on an all-new form of assembly line and be made of three large cast pieces.

The revolution isn’t limited to the product itself. Ford plans to manufacture the Universal EV Platform in a new way, using just three large castings to form the vehicle’s structure. The process will involve 20 percent fewer parts, cut plant workstation needs by 40 percent, and speed up assembly at the Louisville facility by a similar margin.

Farley underlined the ambition of this approach. “No one has ever built a car in three pieces,” he said. “No one’s offered their own electric architecture at this price. We’ve never done it. We’ve never had two large unit castings and high quality. No one’s done it. Tesla’s talked about it, but it hasn’t done it. In fact, our manufacturing process has radically moved on beyond what Tesla’s ever shown in its unboxing. So, there’s a lot of risk here. This is not a guarantee that Ford’s going to get this done.”

Car buyers might be feeling the pinch of limited supply, but Honda’s sales figures show that demand for its lineup remains strong. Together with Acura, the group moved 105,097 vehicles in September, despite tighter inventories across popular models. The real standout was the Passport, which is having its best year ever. On the flip side, Acura’s ZDX, which was recently discontinued after just a single year on the market, struggled.

More: Should The Next Honda Ridgeline Look Like The New Passport?

Total Honda sales reached 95,391 for the month, which is virtually unchanged from last September at just 0.3 percent lower. Looking at the bigger picture, year-to-date deliveries are up 4.1 percent. Passport demand has been a major driver, with sales up 75.5 percent for the year and a striking 108.8 percent for September alone. Nearly 80 percent of buyers are choosing the rugged TrailSport trim, suggesting that Honda’s more adventurous positioning has struck a chord.

SUV Strength

The CR-V continued its domination with over 28,000 sales in September, more than half of which were hybrids, while the Pilot and HR-V chipped in another 20,000 sales combined. On the passenger car side, Honda sold almost 30,000 sedans and coupes in September.

Accord and Civic hybrids made up 47 percent and 36 percent respectively. Electrified models in general set a new monthly record (32,387), thanks in part to the rollout of the Prologue EV.

Acura’s Mixed Bag

Acura, meanwhile, moved 9,706 vehicles in the ninth month of the year. That’s actually a drop in sales year over year of 2.2 percent. The Integra held firm at sales of over 1,500 units. The MDX and RDX combined for over 4,800 deliveries, and the ADX is, according to the brand, “capturing a segment-leading nearly 30% of retail sales”.

On the downside, the ZDX continues to be the white elephant in the lineup, experiencing a 61.3 percent drop in September sales year over year. While that might sound excessive, in cold hard units, that’s a drop from 979 units in 2024 to just 395 this year.

Since the start of the year, Acura has delivered only 11,915 examples. To put that into perspective, Honda has already sold more than three times as many Prologues in the same period. With numbers that lopsided, it is not surprising production of the ZDX has already been cut short.

In another galaxy not that long ago, conversations about contracting school transportation focused solely on the yellow school bus. Not anymore. Today’s discussions, while still centering on school buses, have evolved to include the growth of alternative vehicles such as vans, sedans and SUVs.

Many of these are operated by third-party companies with no previous school bus experience. Traditional school bus contractors also now offer this form of transportation, and that has led the industry to do something that is even more historic. As previously reported, the National Congress on School Transportation in May for the first time approved non-school bus recommendations. This month, I talk with the recent alternative transportation writing committee chair, Tyler Bryan.

He is the education associate for the Delaware Department of Education and de facto state director of student transportation. Bryan is also the president-elect for the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, which organizes NCST.

He told me that this topic has been of great interest to him because Delaware, like all states, is grappling with alternative transportation for schoolchildren and how to provide training and oversight. A couple of states have strong laws or regulations, such as California’s inclusion of mandatory pre-employment drug and alcohol testing among the provisions that go into effect this month. But most states do not. Hence, the writing committee was formed at the behest of my good friend and renowned expert in transporting students with disabilities and preschoolers, Linda Bluth, TSD Conference tenured faculty emeritus and long-time magazine contributor.

The main issues discussed at NCST were driver credentialing, vehicle inspection and student behavior management, as the intent of the recommendations is to more align vans and the like with what is required to operate a school bus. These are much needed aspects of alternative transportation and reasons why recommendations needed to be made in the national school transportation specifications and procedures.

In the meantime, one of the vital aspects of alternative transportation that had not been addressed, at least to the liking of certified child passenger safety technicians I have spoken with, is the issue of child safety restraint systems on these alternative transportation vehicles. The NHTSA-sponsored, eight-hour, hands-on Child Passenger Safety on School Buses seminar that is presented again at STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, this month and returns to the TSD conference in Frisco, Texas, in November provides everything a student transporter or a child passenger safety technician needs to know about the differences with CSRS in school buses, compared to other vehicles.

The training also demonstrates how to properly and safely secure students in a variety of CSRSs, whether those are traditional rear- or forward-facing car seats for infants and toddlers, the various safety vests and harnesses that students with disabilities might need, or proper securement and support in wheelchairs.

CPSTs I’ve spoken with were at first dismayed that initial industry conversations on alternative transportation lacked focus on CSRS. In the run up to NCST, a NASDPTS paper on alternative transportation did not mention the need for training alternative transportation providers on correct CSRS usage (Indiana is the only state that requires CSRS for preschool children riding in school buses.) Those same CPSTs expressed relief when CSRS training did make it into the NCST proposal in Des Moines, Iowa, where state delegates approved it.

That was a win for the industry. It gives the guidance that alternative transportation companies as well as school districts need when increasingly transporting students with disabilities, out-of-district students, and preschoolers in non-school bus vehicles. Already we have seen proactive measures taken by providers when it comes to managing student behavior. EverDriven announced earlier this year it is requiring video cameras in all vehicles. Ostensibly in response to the CSRS inclusion in the national specifications, HopSkipDrive last month said it was offering new rider assistants and a “car seat program” in addition to wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

The new industry recommendations that give best-practice guidance on alternative transportation could be a defining moment in the industry’s evolution.You can bookmark that, literally. The updated National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures manual is expected to be available later this summer.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the July 2025 issue of School Transportation News.

---

Related: NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety
Related: NASDPTS’ Weber Provides EXPO Attendees with Updates from NCST
Related: (STN Podcast E266) Recap STN EXPO West: It All Comes Back To Safety & Training
Related: Update: NHTSA Seeks Fix to Child Safety Restraint Standard Affecting School Buses

The post Securing Industry Wins appeared first on School Transportation News.

On May 6, MIT AgeLab’s Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, celebrated 10 years of its global academic-industry collaboration. AVT was founded with the aim of developing new data that contribute to automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and insurers’ real-world understanding of how drivers use and respond to increasingly sophisticated vehicle technologies, such as assistive and automated driving, while accelerating the applied insight needed to advance design and development. The celebration event brought together stakeholders from across the industry for a set of keynote addresses and panel discussions on critical topics significant to the industry and its future, including artificial intelligence, automotive technology, collision repair, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle safety policy, and global competitiveness.

Bryan Reimer, founder and co-director of the AVT Consortium, opened the event by remarking that over the decade AVT has collected hundreds of terabytes of data, presented and discussed research with its over 25 member organizations, supported members’ strategic and policy initiatives, published select outcomes, and built AVT into a global influencer with tremendous impact in the automotive industry. He noted that current opportunities and challenges for the industry include distracted driving, a lack of consumer trust and concerns around transparency in assistive and automated driving features, and high consumer expectations for vehicle technology, safety, and affordability. How will industry respond? Major players in attendance weighed in.

In a powerful exchange on vehicle safety regulation, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former chief safety innovation officer of Zoox, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, challenged industry and government to adopt a more strategic, data-driven, and collaborative approach to safety. They asserted that regulation must evolve alongside innovation, not lag behind it by decades. Appealing to the automakers in attendance, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments on automatic emergency braking as a model for future progress. “That’s a way to do something important and impactful ahead of regulation.” They advocated for shared data platforms, anonymous reporting, and a common regulatory vision that sets safety baselines while allowing room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual road fatalities demand urgency — what’s needed is a move away from tactical fixes and toward a systemic safety strategy. “Safety delayed is safety denied,” Rosekind stated. “Tell me how you’re going to improve safety. Let’s be explicit.”

Drawing inspiration from aviation’s exemplary safety record, Kathy Abbott, chief scientific and technical advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration, pointed to a culture of rigorous regulation, continuous improvement, and cross-sectoral data sharing. Aviation’s model, built on highly trained personnel and strict predictability standards, contrasts sharply with the fragmented approach in the automotive industry. The keynote emphasized that a foundation of safety culture — one that recognizes that technological ability alone isn’t justification for deployment — must guide the auto industry forward. Just as aviation doesn’t equate absence of failure with success, vehicle safety must be measured holistically and proactively.

With assistive and automated driving top of mind in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automotive News offered a pragmatic diagnosis. With companies like Ford and Volkswagen stepping back from full autonomy projects like Argo AI, the industry is now focused on Level 2 and 3 technologies, which refer to assisted and automated driving, respectively. Tesla, GM, and Mercedes are experimenting with subscription models for driver assistance systems, yet consumer confusion remains high. JD Power reports that many drivers do not grasp the differences between L2 and L2+, or whether these technologies offer safety or convenience features. Safety benefits have yet to manifest in reduced traffic deaths, which have risen by 20 percent since 2020. The recurring challenge: L3 systems demand that human drivers take over during technical difficulties, despite driver disengagement being their primary benefit, potentially worsening outcomes. Bigelow cited a quote from Bryan Reimer as one of the best he’s received in his career: “Level 3 systems are an engineer’s dream and a plaintiff attorney’s next yacht,” highlighting the legal and design complexity of systems that demand handoffs between machine and human.

In terms of the impact of AI on the automotive industry, Mauricio Muñoz, senior research engineer at AI Sweden, underscored that despite AI’s transformative potential, the automotive industry cannot rely on general AI megatrends to solve domain-specific challenges. While landmark achievements like AlphaFold demonstrate AI’s prowess, automotive applications require domain expertise, data sovereignty, and targeted collaboration. Energy constraints, data firewalls, and the high costs of AI infrastructure all pose limitations, making it critical that companies fund purpose-driven research that can reduce costs and improve implementation fidelity. Muñoz warned that while excitement abounds — with some predicting artificial superintelligence by 2028 — real progress demands organizational alignment and a deep understanding of the automotive context, not just computational power.

Turning the focus to consumers, a collision repair panel drawing Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi from Caliber Collision, and Mike Nelson from Nelson Law explored the unintended consequences of vehicle technology advances: spiraling repair costs, labor shortages, and a lack of repairability standards. Panelists warned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles now require costly and complex sensor recalibrations — compounded by inconsistent manufacturer guidance and no clear consumer alerts when systems are out of calibration. The panel called for greater standardization, consumer education, and repair-friendly design. As insurance premiums climb and more people forgo insurance claims, the lack of coordination between automakers, regulators, and service providers threatens consumer safety and undermines trust. The group warned that until Level 2 systems function reliably and affordably, moving toward Level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.

While the repair panel emphasized today’s urgent challenges, other speakers looked to the future. Honda’s Ryan Harty, for example, highlighted the company’s aggressive push toward sustainability and safety. Honda aims for zero environmental impact and zero traffic fatalities, with plans to be 100 percent electric by 2040 and to lead in energy storage and clean power integration. The company has developed tools to coach young drivers and is investing in charging infrastructure, grid-aware battery usage, and green hydrogen storage. “What consumers buy in the market dictates what the manufacturers make,” Harty noted, underscoring the importance of aligning product strategy with user demand and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as fast as the industry allows, and emphasized the need to shift from cost-based to life-cycle-based product strategies.

Finally, a panel involving Laura Chace of ITS America, Jon Demerly of Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi/VW Group, and Anant Thaker of Aptiv covered the near-, mid-, and long-term future of vehicle technology. Panelists emphasized that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment, and regulatory modernization must evolve together. Despite record bicycle fatality rates and persistent distracted driving, features like school bus detection and stop sign alerts remain underutilized due to skepticism and cost. Panelists stressed that we must design systems for proactive safety rather than reactive response. The slow integration of digital infrastructure — sensors, edge computing, data analytics — stems not only from technical hurdles, but procurement and policy challenges as well. 

Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to re-center the consumer in all conversations — from affordability to maintenance and repair. With the rising costs of ownership, growing gaps in trust in technology, and misalignment between innovation and consumer value, the future of mobility depends on rebuilding trust and reshaping industry economics. He called for global collaboration, greater standardization, and transparent innovation that consumers can understand and afford. He highlighted that global competitiveness and public safety both hang in the balance. As Reimer noted, “success will come through partnerships” — between industry, academia, and government — that work toward shared investment, cultural change, and a collective willingness to prioritize the public good.

© Photo: Kelly Davidson Studio

Across a career’s worth of pioneering product designs, Doug Field’s work has shaped the experience of anyone who’s ever used a MacBook Air, ridden a Segway, or driven a Tesla Model 3.

But his newest project is his most ambitious yet: reinventing the Ford automobile, one of the past century’s most iconic pieces of technology.

As Ford’s chief electric vehicle (EV), digital, and design officer, Field is tasked with leading the development of the company’s electric vehicles, while making new software platforms central to all Ford models.

To bring Ford Motor Co. into that digital and electric future, Field effectively has to lead a fast-moving startup inside the legacy carmaker. “It is incredibly hard, figuring out how to do ‘startups’ within large organizations,” he concedes.

If anyone can pull it off, it’s likely to be Field. Ever since his time in MIT’s Leaders for Global Operations (then known as “Leaders in Manufacturing”) program studying organizational behavior and strategy, Field has been fixated on creating the conditions that foster innovation.

“The natural state of an organization is to make it harder and harder to do those things: to innovate, to have small teams, to go against the grain,” he says. To overcome those forces, Field has become a master practitioner of the art of curating diverse, talented teams and helping them flourish inside of big, complex companies.

“It’s one thing to make a creative environment where you can come up with big ideas,” he says. “It’s another to create an execution-focused environment to crank things out. I became intrigued with, and have been for the rest of my career, this question of how can you have both work together?”

Three decades after his first stint as a development engineer at Ford Motor Co., Field now has a chance to marry the manufacturing muscle of Ford with the bold approach that helped him rethink Apple’s laptops and craft Tesla’s Model 3 sedan. His task is nothing less than rethinking how cars are made and operated, from the bottom up.

“If it’s only creative or execution, you’re not going to change the world,” he says. “If you want to have a huge impact, you need people to change the course you’re on, and you need people to build it.”

A passion for design

From a young age, Field had a fascination with automobiles. “I was definitely into cars and transportation more generally,” he says. “I thought of cars as the place where technology and art and human design came together — cars were where all my interests intersected.”

With a mother who was an artist and musician and an engineer father, Field credits his parents’ influence for his lifelong interest in both the aesthetic and technical elements of product design. “I think that’s why I’m drawn to autos — there’s very much an aesthetic aspect to the product,” he says. 

After earning a degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, Field took a job at Ford in 1987. The big Detroit automakers of that era excelled at mass-producing cars, but weren’t necessarily set up to encourage or reward innovative thinking. Field chafed at the “overstructured and bureaucratic” operational culture he encountered.

The experience was frustrating at times, but also valuable and clarifying. He realized that he “wanted to work with fast-moving, technology-based businesses.”

“My interest in advancing technical problem-solving didn’t have a place in the auto industry” at the time, he says. “I knew I wanted to work with passionate people and create something that didn’t exist, in an environment where talent and innovation were prized, where irreverence was an asset and not a liability. When I read about Silicon Valley, I loved the way they talked about things.”

During that time, Field took two years off to enroll in MIT’s LGO program, where he deepened his technical skills and encountered ideas about manufacturing processes and team-driven innovation that would serve him well in the years ahead.

“Some of core skill sets that I developed there were really, really important,” he says, “in the context of production lines and production processes.” He studied systems engineering and the use of Monte Carlo simulations to model complex manufacturing environments. During his internship with aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, he worked on automated design in computer-aided design (CAD) systems, long before those techniques became standard practice.

Another powerful tool he picked up was the science of probability and statistics, under the tutelage of MIT Professor Alvin Drake in his legendary course 6.041/6.431 (Probabilistic Systems Analysis). Field would go on to apply those insights not only to production processes, but also to characterizing variability in people’s aptitudes, working styles, and talents, in the service of building better, more innovative teams. And studying organizational strategy catalyzed his career-long interest in “ways to look at innovation as an outcome, rather than a random spark of genius.”

“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”

Learning while leading

After leaving Ford in 1993, Field worked at Johnson and Johnson Medical for three years in process development. There, he met Segway inventor Dean Kamen, who was working on a project called the iBOT, a gyroscopic powered wheelchair that could climb stairs.

When Kamen spun off Segway to develop a new personal mobility device using the same technology, Field became his first hire. He spent nearly a decade as the firm’s chief technology officer.

At Segway, Field’s interests in vehicles, technology, innovation, process, and human-centered design all came together.

“When I think about working now on electric cars, it was a real gift,” he says. The problems they tackled prefigured the ones he would grapple with later at Tesla and Ford. “Segway was very much a precursor to a modern EV. Completely software controlled, with higher-voltage batteries, redundant systems, traction control, brushless DC motors — it was basically a miniature Tesla in the year 2000.”

At Segway, Field assembled an “amazing” team of engineers and designers who were as passionate as he was about pushing the envelope. “Segway was the first place I was able to hand-pick every single person I worked with, define the culture, and define the mission.”

As he grew into this leadership role, he became equally engrossed with cracking another puzzle: “How do you prize people who don’t fit in?”

“Such a fundamental part of the fabric of Silicon Valley is the love of embracing talent over a traditional organization’s ways of measuring people,” he says. “If you want to innovate, you need to learn how to manage neurodivergence and a very different set of personalities than the people you find in large corporations.”

Field still keeps the base housing of a Segway in his office, as a reminder of what those kinds of teams — along with obsessive attention to detail — can achieve.

Before joining Apple in 2008, he showed that component, with its clean lines and every minuscule part in its place in one unified package, to his prospective new colleagues. “They were like, “OK, you’re one of us,’” he recalls.

He soon became vice president of hardware development for all Mac computers, leading the teams behind the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro and eventually overseeing more than 2,000 employees. “Making things really simple and really elegant, thinking about the product as an integrated whole, that really took me into Apple.”

The challenge of giving the MacBook Air its signature sleek and light profile is an example.

“The MacBook Air was the first high-volume consumer electronic product built out of a CNC-machined enclosure,” says Field. He worked with industrial design and technology teams to devise a way to make the laptop from one solid piece of aluminum and jettison two-thirds of the parts found in the iMac. “We had material cut away so that every single screw and piece of electronics sat down into it an integrated way. That’s how we got the product so small and slim.”

“When I interviewed with Jony Ive” — Apple’s legendary chief design officer — “he said your ability to zoom out and zoom in was the number one most important ability as a leader at Apple.” That meant zooming out to think about “the entire ethos of this product, and the way it will affect the world” and zooming all the way back in to obsess over, say, the physical shape of the laptop itself and what it feels like in a user’s hands.

“That thread of attention to detail, passion for product, design plus technology rolled directly into what I was doing at Tesla,” he says. When Field joined Tesla in 2013, he was drawn to the way the brash startup upended the approach to making cars. “Tesla was integrating digital technology into cars in a way nobody else was. They said, ‘We’re not a car company in Silicon Valley, we’re a Silicon Valley company and we happen to make cars.’”

Field assembled and led the team that produced the Model 3 sedan, Tesla’s most affordable vehicle, designed to have mass-market appeal.

That experience only reinforced the importance, and power, of zooming in and out as a designer — in a way that encompasses the bigger human resources picture.

“You have to have a broad sense of what you’re trying to accomplish and help people in the organization understand what it means to them,” he says. “You have to go across and understand operations enough to glue all of those (things) together — while still being great at and focused on something very, very deeply. That’s T-shaped leadership.”

He credits his time at LGO with providing the foundation for the “T-shaped leadership” he practices.

“An education like the one I got at MIT allowed me to keep moving that ‘T’, to focus really deep, learn a ton, teach as much as I can, and after something gets more mature, pull out and bed down into other areas where the organization needs to grow or where there’s a crisis.”

The power of marrying scale to a “startup mentality”

In 2018, Field returned to Apple as a vice president for special projects. “I left Tesla after Model 3 and Y started to ramp, as there were people better than me to run high-volume manufacturing,” he says. “I went back to Apple hoping what Tesla had learned would motivate Apple to get into a different market.”

That market was his early love: cars. Field quietly led a project to develop an electric vehicle at Apple for three years.

Then Ford CEO Jim Farley came calling. He persuaded Field to return to Ford in late 2021, partly by demonstrating how much things had changed since his first stint as the carmaker.

“Two things came through loud and clear,” Field says. “One was humility. ‘Our success is not assured.’” That attitude was strikingly different from Field’s early experience in Detroit, encountering managers who were resistant to change. “The other thing was urgency. Jim and Bill Ford said the exact same thing to me: ‘We have four or five years to completely remake this company.’”

“I said, ‘OK, if the top of company really believes that, then the auto industry may be ready for what I hope to offer.’”

So far, Field is energized and encouraged by the appetite for reinvention he’s encountered this time around at Ford.

“If you can combine what Ford does really well with what a Tesla or Rivian can do well, this is something to be reckoned with,” says Field. “Skunk works have become one of the fundamental tools of my career,” he says, using an industry term that describes a project pursued by a small, autonomous group of people within a larger organization.

Ford has been developing a new, lower-cost, software-enabled EV platform — running all of the car’s sensors and components from a central digital operating system — with a “skunk works” team for the past two years. The company plans to build new sedans, SUVs, and small pickups based on this new platform.

With other legacy carmakers like Volvo racing into the electric future and fierce competition from EV leaders Tesla and Rivian, Field and his colleagues have their work cut out for them.

If he succeeds, leveraging his decades of learning and leading from LGO to Silicon Valley, then his latest chapter could transform the way we all drive — and secure a spot for Ford at the front of the electric vehicle pack in the process.

“I’ve been lucky to feel over and over that what I’m doing right now — they are going to write a book about it,” say Field. “This is a big deal, for Ford and the U.S. auto industry, and for American industry, actually.”

© Photo courtesy of the Ford Motor Co.