This 1937 Delage DB-120 Coach Aerosport will be offered at the RM Sotheby’s Monterey sale. Get all the latest auto industry news in the Executive Briefing.
Today’s headlines:
+ Nearly one in five new vehicle loans now includes a monthly payment of $1,000 or more, according to Experian, while more than a third of the loans now stretch past six years. More at CBT News.
+ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a probe into about 115,000 Rivian R1S and R1T electric vehicles over potential rear toe link failures. More at The Globe and Mail.
+ Volkswagen will no longer offer vehicles with traditional manual transmissions in the United States starting with the 2027 model year as it discontinues the stick-shift Jetta GLI. More at Car and Driver.
+ Felix Rosenqvist and Meyer Shank Racing earned $3.43 million for winning Sunday’s Indianapolis 500 million from a purse that grew by 50 percent to $30,906,400. More at Racer.
+ Demand for electrified cars kept Europe’s auto market growing in April, offsetting weaker gasoline and diesel demand and helping Chinese brands extend their market share. More at World Auto Forum.
+ Shares in Ferrari fell almost 8 percent after the styling of its first fully electric vehicle, the Luce, was universally panned by industry analysts and social media influencers. More at Yahoo! Finance.
+ In an exclusive interview with The Drive, Stellantis Head of American Brands Tim Kuniskis said returning the 5.7-liter Hemi V8 to the Grand Cherokee “doesn’t make sense.” More at The Drive.
+ Despite booming sales, Xiaomi lost roughly $5,600 per car sold in the first first quarter of 2026, a massive jump from the $900 vehicle loss in the same period last year. More at Autoblog.
+ RFK Racing plans to continue fielding three full-time NASCAR Cup Series entries in. 2027 regardless of whether the team is able to secure a third charter before next season. More at Jayski.
+ RM Sotheby’s will offer a selection of European classic sports cars from the Jim Patterson collection, including Bugatti and Talbot Lago, at its annual Monterey auction. More at Old Cars.
Photo courtesy of RM Sotheby’s.
Review the previous MCG Executive Briefing from May 25 here.
Join Mac’s Motor City Garage on Facebook and X to receive notices when every new story is published.
NHTSA recently opened Preliminary Evaluation PE26‑004 into 114,922 R1 vehicles after receiving two VOQs reporting left‑rear toe‑link separation while driving, including one crash, to determine whether escalation to a NHTSA Engineering Analysis is warranted. This PE overlaps Rivian’s January 2026 recall (26V‑003) that covered 19,641 R1 vehicles due to incorrectly assembled rear toe links that could separate while driving.
According to Rivian’s federal lobbying filings, the company spent over $7 million in D.C. since 2021. Their filings consistently mention:
•EV tax credits/manufacturing incentives
•Battery supply chain/critical minerals policy
•Autonomous‑vehicle/ADAS regulation
•Charging infrastructure funding/standards
•Federal transportation/industrial policy.
Rivian’s lobbying disclosures show who they lobby:
•U.S. Congress- House & Senate
•USDOT
•NHTSA
•Department of Energy (DOE)
•EPA
•Executive Office of the President
•Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
•Department of Commerce
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2024&id=D000064164
I betcha’ that the root cause of the Rivian R1 toe‑link bolt failures is the bolt is effectively too long for the joint stack‑up. The excess shank length increases the bolt’s bending leverage when the toe‑link joint is misaligned during assembly, turning what should be a pure clamp‑load fastener into a flexing beam. Each suspension, braking and acceleration cycle then adds bending stress, producing fatigue cracks at the first thread root until the bolt snaps and the rear wheel abruptly changes toe angle, potentially violating the driver’s expectations and causing a crash…
Known Rivian NHTSA Safety Recalls Since 2021:
(Recall ID# — Date — Subject Vehicle Total — Defect Description)
■26V003 — May 27, 2026 — 19,641 — Rear toe-link seperation
■25V085 — Feb 13, 2025 — 17,260 — Headlight low beams may fail
■25V816 — Nov 25, 2025 — 34,824 — EDV seat-belt pretensioner cable
■24V827 — Nov 1, 2024 — 5,128 — Exterior lighting deactivated
■24V686 — Sep 13, 2024 — 33 — Missing cruise‑control markings
■24V458 — Jun 20, 2024 — 666 — Incorrect weight‑capacity label
■24V408 — Jun 5, 2024 — 1,723 — Side‑curtain airbags may not deploy
■24V367 — May 23, 2024 — 2,334 — Improperly aimed headlights
■24V319 — May 9, 2024 — 127 — Missing dashboard airbag warning label
■23V883 — Dec 21, 2023 — 7,873 — Auto‑hold or park may not activate
■23V783 — Nov 21, 2023 — 1,463 — Defroster/defogger controls deactivated
■23V233 — Mar 31, 2023 — 5,030 — Reduced reverse‑light visibility
■23V159 — Mar 9, 2023 — 30 — Side‑curtain airbag improperly secured
■23V109 — Feb 22, 2023 — 12,716 — Passenger airbag may deploy improperly
■22V744 — Oct 6, 2022 — 12,212 — Steering knuckle/control arm may separate
■22V641 — Aug 25, 2022 — 207 — Improperly secured front seat‑belt anchor
■22V319 — May 10, 2022 — 473 — Improperly calibrated passenger OCS
Source: Google a.i.
According to Copilot, Rivian has received an estimated $3.3 billion in public subsidies and tax incentives. Georgia accounts for roughly $1.60 billion tied to the Stanton Springs factory. Illinois accounts for about $1.54 billion through plant‑expansion at Normal near Chicago. Kentucky has provided $5 million in tax credits incentives for Shepardsville. Michigan has provided $2 million in incentives for Rivian supplier Adient in Plymouth.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/rivian-automotive
The Monroney Loophole- under U.S. federal law, all Rivian vehicles are “light trucks,” not passenger SUVs, because their GVWR is over 8,500 lb. Google claims the maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) for all consumer Rivian R1 vehicles is exactly 8,532 pounds. This places it in the same federal regulatory weight class as three-quarter-ton commercial work trucks like the Ford F-250, Ram 2500, or a Chevy Silverado 2500.
Engineering the GVWR to be just over 8,500 pounds allows Rivian to legally bypass all American Automobile Labeling Act requirements to disclose the exact percentage of domestic vs. foreign parts sourcing on the window sticker. Rivian is the only consumer EV marketed as an SUV engineered to sit just barely above this threshold.
mr. internet claims this bit of intellectual masturbation cost over a million dollars:
https://thebrakereport.com/revolutionary-insights-into-brake-lining-life-for-evs/
Ya’ll don’t need a million‑dollar study to know if regen braking is “downshifting” for EVs (running an electric motor backwards as a generator swaps kinetic energy for resistance) and downshifting saves brakes, then regen saves brakes, duh. According to findings, if a manufacturer ran ICE veh brakes through this test scenerio, it spit out a lifespan of 29,000 miles while EV brake linings lasted 230,000 miles with regen.
Someone spent big money to run a modified SLACT brake‑wear test to create a SAE white paper to legally claim a 230,000-mile real-world life span for EV brake linings over ICE, on paper…
According to SEC filings, Rivian raised aproximately $11.9 billion from its 2021 IPO, $13.7 billion after underwriters exercised their full option.
https://www.rwbaird.com/transactions/investment-banking/dealcard/5925/
EV regenerative braking has no ABS capability, a single electric motor cannot pulse or manage slipping wheels independently on low coefficient of friction surfaces. Heavy motor components possess too much rotational inertia to cycle torque like hydraulic valves, forcing the software to instantly shut off all motor resistance during a skid.
This leaves a massive 8,500+ lb vehicle sailing forward with little or no deceleration for a critical lapse on slick pavement. The entire stopping burden shifts to downsized brake pads clamping cold iron rotors, and can cause catastrophic stopping distances that far exceed traditional gas vehicles.
But as usual, carbon accounting and software theory trumps all logic and reality again. FMVSS does not mention regen nor ABS/regen blending. FMVSS tests and regulates the hydraulic brakes ONLY. Regen is not treated as part of safety at NHTSA.
Heavy EVs on slick surfaces will experience regen dropout, followed by hydraulic takeover, which delays decel when pad knock‑back or cold pads are present. An emergency stop is mass‑limited and traction dependant, and this regen behavior is unregulated under FMVSS.
When EV regenerative braking causes wheel slip, the ECU detects the slip and shuts off regen. The ABS/ESC module then applies hydraulic brake pressure automatically, even though the driver is not pressing the brake pedal. This automatic brake application can violate driver expectations and can surprise the driver during an emergency event.
The mechanism exists- regen induced wheel slip can trigger automatic hydraulic braking with no human driver brake pedal input. This is recorded in EDR crash data. Forensic crash reports document these events but interestingly never attribute EV crashes to any driver expectation violations…
Copilot a.i. reply regarding your comment, “Regenerative braking depends on motor drag. ABS depends on wheel slip. When the wheels start to slip, the ABS unit cuts torque to keep the wheels turning. The moment regen drops, the system must replace the lost drag with hydraulic pressure. That handoff is fast on paper but rough in real motion. The driver feels a surge, a dip, or a shift in pedal force. The car feels like it changed its mind mid‑stop.
The conflict sits in the timing. Regen fades when the wheel loses grip. ABS steps in with hydraulics. The control units talk, but not with perfect unity. A gap forms. A spike forms. A pulse forms. The driver did nothing wrong, yet the system behaves as if the driver made a mistake. The record shows a clean sequence of commands, but the human in the seat feels the break in the chain.
This is not a mystery. It is the cost of stacking two braking systems with different rules and asking them to act as one, and the EDR logs the conflict, while post-crash investigation often treats it as driver error based on the views of people who were not present in the moment and the opinions of programmers who wrote the ECU subroutines.”
G.L.I.T.C.H. — Gap in Linked Internal Tractive Computer Handoff:
A break in the braking sequence that occurs when regenerative braking drops during wheel slip and the ABS unit takes control. The system shifts from electric motor drag to hydraulic pressure, but the internal tractive computer software does not stay aligned and gaps forms in the handoff. The result can be a pulse, surge, acceleration, or loss of expected deceleration that the human driver did not command. The EDR shows the torque data, the hydraulic data and if you are wearing your seatbelt, yet the event is judged as driver error instead of a computer control handoff that failed to stay intact.
Parts of this problem have been documented, but not as a single, unified “defect” and not in the clear, plain‑language way our G.L.I.T.C.H. describes it. What has been documented to date is scattered across recalls, technical white papers, NHTSA complaints, and acadmic studies, each describing a piece of the regen/ABS conflict mystery without naming the whole pattern…