News
The Boring Company’s skeptics need to calm down about the LVCC Loop
The Boring Company’s Las Vegas Convention Center Loop has been completed, and as with every other project from Elon Musk, the initiative has attracted a barrage of criticism from skeptics, some of whom have ridiculed and mocked the transport tunnel system. But just like SpaceX critics who insisted that orbital rockets would never land on a drone ship in the middle of the ocean, or Tesla skeptics who insisted that the Model 3 was a lemon that no one would buy, The Boring Company’s critics may very well be missing a crucial point.
The criticisms surrounding the LVCC Loop are vast, with publications like CNET noting that the system was “disappointing” and “lame” due to its capability to only transport 4,400 people from a fleet of 62 Teslas. VICE described coverage of the LVCC Loop as the “most embarrassing news clip in American transportation history.” Tech publication Futurism argued that the LVCC Loop is “incredibly inefficient.” Even dedicated EV blogs have dismissed the project as “boring.”
And these are just from some publications. A look at the reactions from social media would show numerous users, including the usual band of Tesla and SpaceX skeptics, calling out the LVCC Loop for being yet another example of why Elon Musk is a failure. This became particularly notable after celebrity Kylie Jenner posted a short video of a trip in the Las Vegas tunnels. But amidst the frothing mouths of anti-Elon Musk individuals and those that simply disbelieve the potential of The Boring Company lies one key point—the LVCC Loop, at its current state, is not the end-all and be-all of the tunneling startup’s ambitions.
One thing that Boring Company critics typically forget is the fact that the LVCC Loop’s tunnels are incredibly cheap and quick to build. It’s rarely brought up now, but The Boring Company was one of two companies that were shortlisted for the Las Vegas Convention Center transport system. The other company was Austria-based Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, which proposed a traditional above-ground campus transit system estimated to cost $215 million to complete. The LVCC Loop was completed for $52.5 million. It’s scalable as well, with the LVCC Loop easily being expanded into the larger, more expansive Vegas Loop.
While the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop’s current iteration is a conservative version of Elon Musk’s ambitious tunnel concepts, the core of The Boring Company’s innovation is present in the project. This is because ultimately, The Boring Company’s goal is to make tunneling quicker and more efficient. In this regard, the startup was able to accomplish its goals, and that’s without using its flagship tunnel boring machine. As per previous reports, The Boring Company used Godot+, an upgraded version of its first TBM, to complete the LVCC Loop.
Kylie Jenner showing off The Boring Company tunnel in Las Vegas 👀
🔥 @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/wwN0yc9zIx
— SAINT (@saint) April 14, 2021
The Boring Company is hard at work developing Prufrock, a next-generation, all-electric tunnel boring machine that’s designed to be capable of digging 1 mile per week, or about six times faster than Godot+. Prufrock is designed to begin tunneling within 48 hours of its arrival onsite as well, making its deployments very easy and quick. Machines such as Prufrock, and the incredibly low cost of its tunnels, are The Boring Company’s true disruption.
This is incredibly impressive considering that Godot+ is no slouch. While speaking to German publication Manager Magazin, Martin Herrenknecht, the founder of Herrenknecht AG, dismissed The Boring Company, stating that Elon Musk’s TBMs were only capable of drilling 20 meters in one week. In a statement to Teslarati, an individual familiar with the matter clarified that Herrenknecht’s information was inaccurate, as Godot+ had already managed to dig over 40 meters in one day.
Perhaps the most notable factor to point out amidst the intense criticisms against the LVCC Loop is the fact that the system will most definitely not stay the way it is today. Yes, it only deploys Teslas that are still driven by human drivers for now, but that will soon improve with the use of Autopilot. Yes, the system only has a capacity of 4,400 people per hour with 62 Teslas today, but the vehicles could soon travel quicker, and larger transport pods that hold 16 people per vehicle could improve the system’s capacity. It’s just a bit hard to see these things, or even acknowledge them, if one were already under the notion that The Boring Company is fraudulent, because Elon Musk.
The Boring Company is only getting started. The LVCC Loop could also be considered as a proof of concept, and it will be expanded to other areas in Las Vegas. Improvements to the LVCC Loop, such as the deployment of more Teslas and the use of Autopilot, could also be implemented quickly. Similar tunnels could be built in Florida soon as well. And once Prufrock is deployed, and once other low-cost tunnels are constructed at speeds that have never been seen before, The Boring Company’s skeptics might very well find themselves in the same boat as those who were absolutely certain that orbital rockets could not land on an autonomous barge, or that electric vehicles are simply not feasible.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
