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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
