News
Tesla’s Elon Musk details Model Y manufacturing improvements, insight on design
Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently revealed improvements the all-electric car maker has made to its production process for the Model Y crossover SUV. In an interview on Ride the Lightning podcast, hosted by Ryan McCaffrey, Musk discussed lessons learned from Tesla’s prior transition from the Model S to the Model X as applicable to the Model Y, as well as decisions made from the vehicle’s outgrowth of the Model 3. He additionally provided some insight on the design decisions behind the Model 3, which also carry over to the Model Y’s design.
Musk and McCaffrey’s discussion about the Model Y production process began with the question, “What are the biggest lessons learned from the Model 3 program that you’re applying to the Model Y?” However, Musk indicated that a more relative learning comparison came from Tesla’s design of the Model X and its departure from the Model S.
“The Model X ended up being a radical departure from the S…with the Model Y, we wanted to avoid the technology bandwagon we had with the X. It should have been easy going from S to X, but instead, it was hell because of so many new technologies…It would be too risky to the company to do that with the Y,” Musk explained.
I'm celebrating episode 200 of Ride the Lightning, my weekly @Tesla podcast, in THE BEST way possible: a 1-hour interview with @elonmusk himself! 🥳 I can't wait to share our conversation with all of you! It airs this Sunday, June 2 @ 9am ET/6am PT on major podcast services. 🚗⚡️ pic.twitter.com/V0nFrU03Ir
— Ryan McCaffrey (@DMC_Ryan) May 30, 2019
The Model Y crossover needed to address the flexibility expected of vehicles in its class such as cargo capacity, seating for 6 or 7 people, and more ride height than a sedan. Tesla addressed these features while also keeping in mind the effect on battery range a larger vehicle might have, according to Musk.
“We tried to make the car as similar to the [Model 3] as possible except in the case where a change was necessary to achieve SUV functionality…[all] while still having a low drag coefficient and not increasing the frontal area too much,” he detailed. Overall, Musk concluded that CdA (automobile drag coefficient) and mass of the Model Y only affect 8-10% of the battery range when compared to the Model 3.
The design of Tesla’s Model Y and lessons learned from Model 3 production also led to some manufacturing improvements for the electric crossover. Musk detailed how the Model Y underbody was switched to aluminum casting instead of stamped steel and aluminum pieces, which greatly simplifies the moving parts involved in making the vehicle.
This change effectively means that initially, using two castings to make the structure will take the process from 70 parts to 4 (castings plus joiners), and once the “big” casting machine comes into operation, the process will have brought the process from 70 parts to 1 (casting only). Using casting over stamping reduces the weight of the Model Y, improves MHB (heat produced), lowers cost due to the smaller number of parts necessary, and significantly drops capital expenditure on robots.
As for the manufacturing location of the Model Y, Musk said the decision was not quite final, but the default place was Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, with the runner-up being Gigafactory 1 in Sparks, Nevada. Producing the Model Y in Fremont would be the fastest way to bring the crossover SUV into production, according to Musk. “One choice isn’t natural over other,” he said. Freemont is producing the Model 3 and the two vehicles share 75% of their components, but Gigafactory 1’s location has a lower cost of living, meaning an overall better value for Tesla.
The similarities between the Model Y and Model 3 being what they are, Musk also discussed with McCaffrey some of the design decisions that initially went into creating the Model 3. In response to the question, “What’s the toughest design decision you had to make on Model 3?”, the CEO cited two primary factors that went into the midsize sedan’s creation: the touchscreen and the nose design.
Reducing the number of screens from two in the Model S to one in the Model 3 came with some pushback, Musk explained. However, he felt that owners would prefer an open view of the road, and everything needed while driving could be fit onto one screen.
This background brought up community rumors about a heads-up display (HUD) being included in Tesla’s vehicles. On the subject, Musk set the record straight – there was never any plan to include a HUD, nor will one be added in the future. He simply doesn’t like them, and the move to self-driving makes them pointless. “We discussed it, but I’ve tried various heads up displays and found they were annoying,” he said. “We felt the car would increasingly go to self-driving…As things are approaching autonomy, why project things you don’t even care about on the screen?”
Something that customers do care about, though, is the look of their car. Musk detailed the difficulties in making an attractive design for the Model 3, which wasn’t easy thanks to the lack of a front grill on the vehicle. “You don’t want to have the nose to look like Voldemort…You’ve got to get some character or it does not look good.”
Also mentioned was the decision to reduce the width of the Model 3 to 185 cm over the 195 cm of the Model S to help sell more cars in Japan. The country’s parking machines only accept cars up to 195.4 cm wide, which leaves very little wiggle room in the manufacturing process to meet. The change to 185 cm meant that any Tesla Model 3 could fit in any parking garage in Japan.
The Model Y is set to begin production in 2020, and reservations are currently open on Tesla’s website.
Listen to McCaffrey’s full Ride the Lightning podcast interview here.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
