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.
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
