News
Tesla rivals Rivian and Lucid receive harsh prediction from Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Tesla has survived through a tough, long, and treacherous road to profitability and electric vehicle dominance. Unfortunately for rivals Rivian and Lucid, Musk does not see the same bright light at the end of the tunnel, based on comments made on his social media platform X last night.
As both Rivian and Lucid reported earnings for Q4 2023 last night, Musk took to Twitter to discuss his impressions of both companies and how long they might last before things could come to a crashing halt.
In short, it does not look like an optimistic sentiment shared by Musk was in the plans. Both predictions seem to indicate eventual bankruptcy and potentially the end of operations, which would bring Tesla’s lead in the EV movement in the U.S. to a point of overwhelming dominance. Rivian and Lucid are two pure EV companies that continue to fight through tough economic times and challenging growth periods.
Rivian
Rivian and Tesla are somewhat complementary to one another, both contributing to the EV movement with a focus on expanding product lines, offering cheaper vehicles, and creating somewhat of a “brand,” specifically catering to those interested in supporting companies hellbent on bringing EVs to the forefront.
While the two have had a tumultuous past, including an employee poaching lawsuit, Tesla and Rivian are widely considered the two best EV companies in the United States, and there seems to be mutual respect there.
Rivian sets 2024 goals, including a 57,000 production target
However, Rivian is still navigating through tough times, ramping production and trying to race to profitability as fast as possible.
During its earnings call last night, it did indicate that it is still losing money on every car it builds, which is not uncommon in early operations. Musk believes, based on data, that Rivian would have roughly six quarters left before bankruptcy would have to be considered:
Current trajectory has them bankrupt in ~6 quarters. Maybe that trajectory will change, but so far it hasn’t. pic.twitter.com/tNNijQ3KwT
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2024
The problem with Rivian, according to Musk, is not their product.
“Their product design is not bad,” Musk said, “but the actual hard part of making a car company work is achieving volume production with positive cash flow.”
Lucid
Lucid and Tesla are a different story entirely.
Evident from comments made by Musk for several years about Lucid CEO/CTO Peter Rawlinson’s job title with the Model S program at Tesla, there is still hostility between the two.
Musk has said that Rawlinson left Tesla when things got truly difficult, and it seems he still holds a bit of a grudge because of it.
Lucid posts Q4 2023 results, posts conservative FY 2024 target
Rawlinson’s Lucid is still alive mostly due to a strong investor in the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, or PIF, which is the reason the company built a production facility in the country. It also is building cars for certain government organizations in Saudi Arabia.
Musk was sure to point out that Lucid’s survival is purely because of the PIF’s involvement:
Their Saudi sugar daddy is the only thing keeping them alive
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2024
What if Rivian and Lucid actually do shut their doors?
While Tesla fans might see it as a way to dominate EV sales figures once again, and as a feather in their cap that the company they invested in survived, it would be bad to see both of these companies cease operations.
In reality, competition in the market is a positive. It pushes companies to innovate and creates product diversity, giving a wide variety of options for customers.
Additionally, the EV movement would take a huge blow if two major companies could not stay afloat. Rivian is the company with the better outlook because it is showing growth and progress in its EV efforts, but Lucid has heavy financial backers with essentially limitless money.
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
