News
SpaceX Hyperloop Competition: Top 3 teams duke it out for fastest pod
Hawthorne councilmembers, members of the California Assembly, and Hawthorne Mayor Alex Vargas were in attendance at the headquarters of SpaceX and The Boring Company for their jointly-hosted Hyperloop Competition 2.
The second such Hyperloop competition sponsored by Elon Musk, the eight months that separated them were filled to the brim with press coverage of The Boring Company (TBC), which has begun to seriously develop an experimental tunnel beneath a central street in Hawthorne, CA. Most intriguingly, TBC publicly acknowledged that it is now pursuing the development of its own form of Hyperloop technology, originally developed and released as a white paper by Elon Musk, albeit with tunnels rather than above-ground vacuum tube constructs.
Update: Watch Elon Musk award this team for having the fastest Hyperloop pod at 202 mph
The second competition was focused on one goal, above all others: top speed. The final three teams chosen for testing in SpaceX’s mile-long vacuum tube were as international as ever. Paradigm Hyperloop, a continuation of the Openloop team from Competition 1, is composed of 26 students from the northeastern U.S. and Canada, designed a pod that made use of air bearings to levitate and was intended to travel as fast as 200 mph through SpaceX’s test track. While not yet officially confirmed, a livestream suggested that their pod reached a maximum speed of approximately 100 km/h or 62 mph. While nowhere near its purported top speed, a member of Paradigm Hyperloop said that the team’s pod “levitated perfectly” and that the test generally went great. Their pod was one of the largest, weighing in at almost a metric ton.
SwissLoop, a team of 40 or so students from Swiss university ETH Zurich, developed a pod that levitated with permanent magnets and was propelled by compressed air, sort of like a rocket. SwissLoop’s SpaceX adviser, a mechanical engineer focused on reusing Falcon 9s on normal days, praised the group’s engineering and construction of the pod during a livestream on Facebook. SwissLoop experienced some technical difficulties while Musk waiting to provide the countdown in Swiss German, and he quipped about connectivity issues that the team was having with their pod. Musk later announced that due to those technical difficulties, SwissLoop’s pod would be removed for troubleshooting and WARR Hyperloop would conduct the second live test.
Pod problem. Developing futuristic transport isn't quick. #Hyperloop pic.twitter.com/QJAngYvCbP
— Jack Stewart (@stewart_jack) August 27, 2017
WARR Hyperloop, the victors of the first Competition, prepared their Pod ii to be tested on Sunday afternoon. One of the smallest pods at only 190 lb, the vehicle was intended to have a top speed of approximately 225 mph – a speed it was reported to be capable of reaching in 12 seconds. Designed by students from the Technical University of Munich, the pod was propelled with a 50 kW electric motor connected to polyurethane wheels. While the method of levitation was not specified, it is understood to be a system of permanent magnets similar to SwissLoop’s implementation. WARR is a German organization and stands for Scientific Workgroup for Rocketry and Spaceflight in English.
Elon Musk somewhat controversially revealed that The Boring Company had received “verbal approval” for an underground Hyperloop between Washington D.C. and New York City, appearing to acknowledge some form of back-room deal with the federal government. He later clarified in a series of tweets and replies that the approval was extremely preliminary and unofficial and that The Boring Company was hard at work beginning to form relationships with the numerous municipalities that would be involved along the proposed route. The several Hyperloop-related companies that formed following Musk’s white paper have been reluctant to make room for a new, Musk-headed competitor in the ring, but The Boring Company is aggressively pushing ahead with their demonstration tunnel in Hawthorne, CA and has successfully applied for the initial permits that will be required.
Mirroring Elon’s typically positive opinion of competition, he bid Hyperloop One and all other companies trying to revolutionize transportation the best of luck during Competition 2. Competition 2 is guaranteed to provide SpaceX and The Boring Company an inside glance at some of the best emerging engineering talent. Hosting the competition is quite possibly the most suave and effective method of recruitment one can readily imagine, with all promising teams generally being given private tours of both The Boring Company and SpaceX facilities.
I hope they and any others trying to advance transport technology succeed
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 27, 2017
Meanwhile, stay tuned for the two max speed pod tests to come later this afternoon. There is no live coverage from SpaceX itself, but SwissLoop has been kind enough to livestream several of the main events on their Facebook page. You can also follow a live Facebook stream here. Follow along live there and check back at Teslarati for coverage of the events!
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
