News
SpaceX’s returning Hyperloop champion prepares to hit 372 mph on July 21 competition
For the fourth year in a row, SpaceX will be holding its Hyperloop Pod Competition. The event, which features teams of students from universities across the globe, is expected to raise the game this year, with returning champion TUM Hyperloop (formerly WARR Hyperloop) from the Technical University of Munich looking to hit half the speed of sound with its upgraded pod.
TUM has been competing in SpaceX’s Hyperloop Pod Competitions since the first tournament was held in 2015. The team has created a reputation for creating incredibly quick pods over the years, even beating the 240 mph record set by Virgin Hyperloop in 2018 with an impressive 290 mph run. Even more notable was that TUM was able to accomplish this feat at SpaceX’s Hyperloop test track, which is only 0.8 miles long.
Inasmuch as this was impressive, the student team from Munich is not resting on their laurels this year. SpaceX requires returning participants to the Hyperloop Pod Competition to introduce upgrades and revisions to their past pod designs, and that is exactly what TUM did. The new pod, christened simply as Pod IV, is almost 1.70 meters (5.57 feet) long, 50 cm (19.6 inches) wide and weighs approximately 70 kg (154 lbs), almost 8 kg (17.6 lbs) lighter than 2018’s Pod III, which hit a record-setting speed of 290 mph the previous year.
In a press release, TUM Hyperloop Team Manager Toni Jukic stated that the team is looking to hit a highly ambitious goal this year. “This year we plan to reach at least half the speed of sound, over 600 kilometers per hour (372 mph),” he said. Putting that figure into perspective, Pod IV would have to go 40% faster than its pod last year, hitting 372 mph and decelerating to zero in 0.8 miles.
Ambitious goal aside, this year will likely not be easy for TUM Hyperloop, especially considering that among its competitors is the UNSW Hyperloop team from Australia, which has a pretty unique experience in terms of rapid sustainable transportation. The UNSW has seen success in other innovative transport solutions, with students from the university’s Sunswift team setting a new efficiency record at the World Solar Challenge using a solar racing car that completed a 4,100 km (2,500 mile) journey across Australia in just six days.
In a statement to The Driven, UNSW Hyperloop team manager Harry Zhang noted that the team had to work really hard to make it to SpaceX’s competition. “It was quite grueling because we had to apply to compete, then do several design packages over the summer and then finally get accepted in February to be invited to go to SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California. The people who do compete and make it through the multiple rounds of elimination are quite revered in engineering around the world,” he said.
Another team that TUM Hyperloop would likely need to watch out for is Team Delft from the Netherlands. Delft won the coveted overall best pod award in SpaceX’s first Hyperloop Competition, and it was able to reach the finals last year together with TUM (then called Team WARR) and Team EPFLoop from Switzerland. Unfortunately, Delft experienced major issues in the finals, resulting in the team’s pod reaching speeds of only 88 mph before stalling. With a chance at redemption this year with a new, improved pod, Delft Hyperloop could be returning to the SpaceX Hyperloop Competition with a purpose.
The SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition is scheduled to be held on July 21, 2019 at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA. Similar to last year’s competition, participants for this year’s tournament will be judged on one key metric: top speed.
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
