Race Strategy & Analytics Intern - IndyCar

GM recycles EV batteries to secure critical mineral supply. September 29, 2026 Melissa Flaherty, Director of Sustainable EV Battery Ecosystem at GM, says battery EV partnerships are essential to building long-term sustainability General Motors (GM) is testing a new model for the procurement of critical battery materials, using recovered minerals from end-of-life EV batteries to feed new vehicle production. The closed-loop pilot, completed with Cirba Solutions and other partners, produced battery cells containing cathode active material made with 100% recycled nickel, cobalt and manganese. Melissa Flaherty, Director of Sustainable EV Battery Ecosystem at GM, says: "This pilot shows that the value of an EV battery can extend well beyond its first life - and that strong partnerships across the battery ecosystem are essential to building a more circular, resilient future for battery technology." Building a closed-loop supply chain. GM recovered 80 end-of-life EV batteries through the pilot, working with Cirba Solutions to recycle them into "black mass", a material produced through the and separation of lithium-ion batteries. That material was subsequently converted into more than 12 metric tonnes of cathode active material containing recycled nickel, cobalt and manganese. The material was then tested against the quality, safety and performance standards required for EV use. Ultium Cells produced new battery cells, before GM assembled battery modules and packs at Factory ZERO and Spring Hill. The first vehicles using the recycled materials have now entered production. Procurement alongside raw materials. GM worked across recycling, materials processing and battery manufacturing, with Cirba Solutions, Ultium Cells, LG Energy Solution and others involved in the process. The automotive giant says raw materials represent one of the largest cost drivers in battery cells, meaning recovered minerals could support lower costs while reducing reliance on newly extracted supply. GM is also extending battery value through remanufacturing and refurbishment, with programmes designed to reuse more than 70% of pack components. Around 10,000 second-life GM batteries are being deployed with Redwood Materials in energy infrastructure. Key procurement takeaways * GM has completed a closed-loop EV battery recycling pilot. * 80 end-of-life GM EV batteries were recovered for the programme. * More than 12 metric tonnes of cathode active material were produced. * The new material contains 100% recycled nickel, cobalt and manganese. * Cirba Solutions, Ultium Cells and LG Energy Solution were among the partners. * GM is also deploying around 10,000 second-life batteries with Redwood Materials. Circularity changes procurement strategy. GM is consistently integrating advanced technology and supplier capabilities across manufacturing. Its partnership with NVIDIA in 2025 has already placed AI, simulation and digital manufacturing within its technology procurement objectives, including digital twins and factory automation. GM says the pilot provides data and experience for further development as more EV batteries reach the end of their useful lives. GM's key partners. Micron Technology: Signed a long-term agreement for semiconductors, NOR flash and storage platforms, mitigating potential vehicle production disruptions caused by chip shortages driven by AI data center growth. Lockheed Martin: Partnered with GM's defense division to bolster defense supply networks, expand munitions manufacturing and share commercial infrastructure. Vianode: Teamed up to procure synthetic graphite, aimed at localising EV battery material sourcing and minimising reliance on foreign trade channels. Company Portals

Looser Fuel Economy rules hand Ford and GM room to slow EV push. Washington's revised fuel economy standards loosen the timetable pushing automakers toward electrification. Ford and GM shares still closed lower on Sept. 28, 2026, in a broadly down market. New U.S. fuel economy rules reduce the pressure on automakers to shift their lineups toward electric vehicles as quickly, a change that directly affects Ford (F) and General Motors (GM), whose shares closed at 12.38 and 80.64 respectively on Sept. 28, 2026. A change in how Washington sets fuel economy standards has given Detroit's two largest automakers something they have been asking for since the electric vehicle demand curve flattened: time. New U.S. fuel economy rules ease the pressure on automakers to move their lineups toward electric vehicles as quickly, a shift that lands squarely on the product plans of Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) - the two companies that have committed the most capital to battery plants, dedicated EV platforms and the supply chains behind them. The regulatory arithmetic matters more than it sounds. Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, or CAFE, set a fleet-wide miles-per-gallon target that each manufacturer must hit across everything it sells. Automakers that fall short pay civil penalties or buy compliance credits from cleaner rivals. Because full-size pickups and body-on-frame SUVs are the profit engine of both Ford and GM, and because those vehicles drag a fleet average down, the practical function of a tightening CAFE curve has been to force high-volume EV sales whether or not customers were lined up for them. Loosen the curve and that forcing function weakens. Where the shares finished on the day. The news did not rescue either stock from a broadly negative session. Ford closed at 12.38, down 2.60% from its prior close of 12.71, having traded between 12.29 and 12.67. General Motors closed at 80.64, down 2.41% from 82.63, with a day range of 80.43 to 82.69. Both finished at or near the low end of their day's range. The wider tape was red as well, though less so. The S&P 500 tracker (SPY) closed at $765.61, off 0.74%; the Dow 30 fund (DIA) ended at $514.02, down 0.67%; and the Nasdaq 100 fund (QQQ) closed at $736.53, down 1.07%. All figures are as of the last trade at 20:00 GMT on Sept. 28, 2026. Ford and GM each fell more than three times the Dow's decline on the day, which is a reminder that regulatory relief is not the only variable moving auto shares and that a rules change with a multi-year payoff does not reliably show up in a single session's print. What compliance relief actually buys an automaker. There are three distinct forms of relief embedded in a softer standard, and they arrive on different timetables. * Cash that would have gone to penalties or credits. Money spent buying regulatory credits from EV-heavy manufacturers is a pure transfer out of the income statement with no product attached. A lower target shrinks or eliminates that line. * Freedom on the product cadence. Vehicle programs are locked years ahead. If an EV crossover was being launched partly to average down a fleet number rather than because dealers were clamoring for it, that program can be delayed, resized or repositioned toward a hybrid. * Flexibility on capital already committed. Battery capacity, tooling and joint ventures are the hardest commitments to unwind. Relief here shows up less as cancellation and more as slower ramp rates and deferred second phases. The first is immediate and hits the P&L. The second takes model years to show. The third is where the largest dollar figures sit and where investors should watch hardest, because a paused battery line still carries depreciation. The strategic risk of taking the breathing room. Easier rules are not unambiguously good news for Ford and GM, and the market's reaction on the day is consistent with that ambivalence. A softer U.S. standard changes nothing about the cost curve of batteries globally, nothing about the pace at which Chinese manufacturers are scaling, and nothing about emissions rules in other markets where both companies sell. An automaker that treats the relief as permission to stop learning how to build an affordable EV is trading a near-term margin benefit for a competitive gap later. Easier rules are not unambiguously good news for Ford and GM, and the market's reaction on the day is consistent with that ambivalence. There is also policy risk in the other direction. Fuel economy targets in the United States have been revised by successive administrations, and a standard that loosens can tighten again. Product planners know this, which is why the likely corporate response is hedging - more hybrids, more flexible assembly lines, slower but not abandoned EV programs - rather than a wholesale retreat. The companies that handled the last several rounds of CAFE revisions best were the ones that built lineups robust to the rules changing again, not the ones that optimized for whatever the current number happened to be. The shift was reported by GuruFocus. The disclosures that will show whether anything changed. Talk about breathing room is cheap; the evidence will be in filings and operational decisions. Specific things to look for: * Capital expenditure guidance. Any downward revision to planned EV-related capex, or a reallocation toward internal combustion and hybrid programs, is the cleanest signal that the relief is being banked. * Regulatory credit line items. Both companies disclose compliance costs. A shrinking outlay would show relief converting into earnings. * Battery joint venture ramp schedules. Delays, phase deferrals or renegotiated offtake terms with cell partners are the real-world expression of a slower EV plan. * Hybrid mix. A rising share of hybrids in the truck and SUV lineup would indicate the companies are using the flexibility to meet customers where demand actually is. * EV pricing and incentives. If the pressure to move EV volume falls, discounting on those models may ease - which would help per-unit economics even at lower volumes. How to read the pair from here. Ford and GM are both trading as cyclical industrials with an expensive transition attached. Anything that reduces the cost of the transition without reducing the cash generation of the truck business is, on the arithmetic, a positive for owners of the equity. But the day's price action shows the market is not treating it as a re-rating event, and that is a reasonable stance: the benefit arrives over model years, not quarters, and it is contingent on rules that have proven changeable. The more durable question for both stocks is whether the companies use the time to close the manufacturing cost gap on electric vehicles or simply to defer the problem. That answer will come from capital allocation, not from Washington. Key facts. * Ford (F) last close: 12.38, -2.60% on the day (as of 20:00 GMT, Sept. 28, 2026) * General Motors (GM) last close: 80.64, -2.41% on the day (as of 20:00 GMT, Sept. 28, 2026) * Policy change: New U.S. fuel economy rules reduce pressure to shift lineups toward EVs as quickly * Market backdrop: S&P 500 (SPY) $765.61, -0.74%; Dow (DIA) $514.02, -0.67%; Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) $736.53, -1.07% Frequently asked questions. What changed in U.S. fuel economy rules? New U.S. fuel economy standards ease the pressure on automakers to move their lineups toward electric vehicles as quickly as prior rules required. Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules set a fleet-wide mileage target each manufacturer must meet across all vehicles sold; a looser target reduces how many low- or zero-emission vehicles a company must sell to stay compliant. How did Ford and GM shares close on the day? Ford (F) closed at 12.38, down 2.60% from a prior close of 12.71, with a day range of 12.29 to 12.67. General Motors (GM) closed at 80.64, down 2.41% from 82.63, trading between 80.43 and 82.69. Both figures reflect the last trade at 20:00 GMT on Sept. 28, 2026, with the market closed. Why did the stocks fall if the news is favorable? The benefits of regulatory relief accrue over model years rather than quarters, and the broader market was lower on the day, with the S&P 500 tracker down 0.74% and the Nasdaq 100 fund down 1.07%. Rules that loosen can tighten again under a later administration, so investors may discount the change rather than treat it as a re-rating event. What is CAFE and why does it matter to truck makers? CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It requires automakers to hit an average fuel-efficiency figure across everything they sell, with penalties or credit purchases if they fall short. Full-size pickups and large SUVs pull that average down, so companies whose profits depend on those vehicles have had to sell electric models to offset them. Does easier regulation mean Ford and GM will cancel EV programs? Nothing in the rules change requires cancellation, and the more likely corporate response is hedging: slower ramp rates, deferred second phases of battery capacity, more hybrids and flexible assembly lines. Capital already committed to cell plants and tooling is difficult to unwind, and standards have been revised repeatedly, so product planners typically build lineups that survive further changes. What disclosures would confirm the companies are banking the relief? Watch capital expenditure guidance for downward revisions to EV spending, regulatory compliance cost line items for shrinking outlays, battery joint venture ramp schedules for delays or renegotiated terms, the hybrid share of the truck and SUV lineup, and EV incentive levels, which could ease if the pressure to push electric volume declines.

Why windshield pillars on modern cars got so thick they're now A genuine safety risk. Kiran Menon Mon, September 28, 2026 at 7:25 PM PDT If you're among the drivers complaining about outward visibility, perhaps your A-pillars are contributing to that conversation. From Chevy Bolts to Tesla Model Ys, there are countless debates online about how A-pillars in these cars are creating blind spots and near misses. Unlike cars from yesteryear, modern automobiles have much thicker A-pillars, which, if you didn't know, are the structural supports on either side of your car's front windshield. As you may have guessed already, a major reason for their increased thickness has to do with occupant safety during a rollover. Around 2009, the NHTSA issued a mandate (phased in late 2012 and running through 2017) that required vehicle roofs to withstand three times their own weight. This was fairly similar to how IIHS evaluated roof strength, a stricter test which the organization started in 2009 and discontinued in 2022. The reason for this discontinuation? Nearly all modern vehicles were earning good ratings, which means they were capable of withstanding a force of at least four times their own weight before a plate created a 5-inch dent-hole in the roof. As you may well know, passenger vehicles are pretty heavy these days, especially if you consider EVs. Dare Incite D remind you of the near-9,000-pound GMC Sierra EV or the hulking Hummer EV? According to Brian Latouf, former director of structure integration and body systems computer-aided engineering at General Motors (via Wards Auto), "It's pretty tight in there. You have to have certain cross-sectional space [inside an A-pillar for it] to be structurally stable under higher loads." Not only is roof strength a contributing factor, but since the A-pillars also integrate airbags, speakers, a bunch of wiring, and even grab handles (in certain trucks and SUVs), they eventually grew in size. Then there is the fact that the A-pillars have padding and other bits of trim to be soft enough to meet federal head-impact standards. A closer look at A-Pillar visibility issues and how they manifest. Depending on the vehicle and the angle, it's entirely possible to miss someone on their bicycle or a pedestrian, especially if you're making a left turn. This hazard can be a problem on the passenger side as well. You may or may not have experienced this firsthand, but it wouldn't be wrong to call it a genuine problem. While some modern cars get blind-spot and pedestrian detection systems, they may not work all the time reliably. Take ilovecostcopizza's Reddit post, for example. The A-pillar blind-spot almost caused the Redditor to hit a four-year-old kid. This Redditor claims that his car, a Tesla Model Y, did not bother with any kind of warnings. A-pillar visibility can be even more of an issue if you're vertically challenged. According to The Wise Drive, the further you move the driver's seat forward, the closer you are to the A-pillar and the more it obscures your overall visibility. Although automakers like Toyota and GM have been touting various innovations to make virtually "see-through" A-pillars, as of now, these are mostly patents and research prototypes that might possibly end up in future models. While not as fancy or high-tech as these concepts, if your car's A-pillar is currently bothering you, the primary solution is to peek around it and double-check. Despite automotive safety coming a long way since the days of yore, the question Incite D ought to be asking is: should the idea of increased passenger safety be at the expense of potentially harming walking pedestrians and-or cyclists? Inside or outside, they are all humans, after all.