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
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Elon Musk
Tesla bull sees odds rising of Tesla merger after Musk confirms SpaceX-xAI deal
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
A prominent Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) bull has stated that the odds are rising that Tesla could eventually merge with SpaceX and xAI, following Elon Musk’s confirmation that the private space company has combined with his artificial intelligence startup.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The view is this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together…..and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives wrote in a post on X.
Ives’ comments followed confirmation from Elon Musk late Monday that SpaceX has merged with xAI. Musk stated that the merger creates a vertically integrated platform that combines AI, rockets, satellite internet, communications, and real-time data.
In a post on SpaceX’s official website, Elon Musk added that the combined company is aimed at enabling space-based AI compute, stating that within two to three years, space could become the lowest-cost environment for generating AI processing power. The transaction reportedly values the combined SpaceX-xAI entity at roughly $1.25 trillion.
Tesla, for its part, has already increased its exposure to xAI, announcing a $2 billion investment in the startup last week in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
While merger speculation has intensified, notable complications could emerge if SpaceX/xAI does merge with Tesla, as noted in a report from Investors Business Daily.
SpaceX holds major U.S. government contracts, including with the Department of Defense and NASA, and xAI’s Grok is being used by the U.S. Department of War. Tesla, for its part, maintains extensive operations in China through Gigafactory Shanghai and its Megapack facility.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
