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
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
