News
Elon Musk’s Boring Company gets stern dismissal from tunneling veteran: ‘Something like that doesn’t work’
Elon Musk’s companies have a pretty strong tendency to attract their own fair share of critics, including those in notable positions in their respective industries. This was the case with Tesla and its electric vehicles, and the same was true with SpaceX and its reusable orbital-class rockets. The Boring Company, another one of Elon Musk’s ventures, is now gathering its own skeptics as well, with Martin Herrenknecht, the founder of Herrenknecht AG, one of the world’s premier tunnel boring machine (TBM) makers, recently expressing his doubts about the tunneling startup.
German business publication Manager Magazin recently interviewed Herrenknecht. When asked about Elon Musk’s tunneling aspirations with The Boring Company, the Herrenknecht AG founder was dismissive, noting that he believes the Tesla and SpaceX CEO is overrated, at least when it comes to tunnel construction. The executive added that his company’s TBMs are far more advanced than the Boring Company’s tunneling machines today.
“For my industry, I see Musk above all as a skillful whisker. He claims that he can build tunnels faster and cheaper than others and is causing a stir. On his reference project in Las Vegas, Musk drilled 20 meters in one week. We can do the same route in one day,” he said. (Despite Herrenknecht’s statement, Teslarati has been informed that The Boring Company has already managed to dig 40 meters in a 24-hour period using its first machine, Godot.)
Explaining further, Herrenknecht noted that it would be very challenging for Elon Musk to become competent in the tunneling industry. The executive noted that he believes The Boring Company will not reach the same heights as Musk’s other ventures like Tesla and SpaceX in the next ten years or so due to the complexity of the tunneling segment. “I think the degree of difficulty and complexity in tunneling are higher,” Herrenknecht remarked.
Interestingly enough, the executive also shared a personal anecdote about Elon Musk himself. As per Herrenknecht, Musk actually approached Herrenknecht AG for the potential purchase of a tunnel boring machine for The Boring Company in the past. However, during the negotiations, Elon Musk reportedly exhibited “strange business behavior,” leaving the room for long periods and suggesting numerous ideas. Musk was also adamant in reducing the price of TBMs from $10 million to just $2 million.
“It was pretty chaotic because he left the room several times for a long time and kept coming up with different ideas… Something like that doesn’t work,” Herrenknecht said.
Needless to say, The Boring Company did not purchase a TBM from Herrenknecht AG. The tunneling startup did manage to purchase its tunneling machines from another company, the first of which was used to complete a test tunnel in Hawthorne, CA. Elon Musk has also announced that The Boring Company is working on developing an all-electric TBM called Prufrock, which has the potential to dig tunnels significantly faster than the industry’s best today.
Elon Musk’s ill-fated meeting with Herrenknecht AG echoes some elements of the Tesla CEO’s meeting with the Russians in 2001. Back then, Musk was aiming to purchase intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be used to launch some payloads to space. The discussions ultimately broke down because of the missiles’ cost, and on the trip back to the United States, Musk figured that building rockets would be feasible. SpaceX was founded the year later, and the rest is history.
It remains to be seen if The Boring Company would be the disruptor that Elon Musk plans it to be. That being said, skeptics of the tunneling startup today seem to be following the same patterns as Tesla and SpaceX’s critics, most of whom have been proven wrong over the years. If any, Herrenknecht’s references to the Tesla CEO’s aggressive cost-cutting demands and out-of-the-box ideas are classic Elon Musk. And just like critics before him, the executive reacted adversely to the CEO.
-
It would then be interesting to see if The Boring Company, at least in the coming years, could rise enough to challenge the titans of the TBM industry, just like its fellow Elon Musk-led companies Tesla and SpaceX. At least for now, history seems to favor Elon Musk and his bold companies, all of which are noted and respected for their unorthodox nature and aggressive strategies.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
