News
Tesla coverage turns negative a week before crucial Earnings Call
Tesla news coverage this week has been especially negative, and the timing of it, which comes a week before arguably the most anticipated Earnings Call in recent memory. With Tesla reporting production and deliveries that were well over Wall Street’s consensus, anticipation for the Q1 2021 Earnings Call is slightly higher than usual, and the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is at an all-time high.
There are always a few negative Tesla stories every week. It might involve a story about some owners who didn’t receive adequate customer service, it might be about a production bottleneck that Tesla is encountering. However, these are relatively micro-scale issues that are resolved within a matter of days in most cases. This week, the news has been geared toward more disruptive, long-term, macro-level issues, like a very public car accident that has both sides of the Tesla circle butting heads, a test from a very well-known product review company that has to do with the aforementioned accident, and other safety issues that have resulted by a rumored irresponsible driving speed by a customer in China. Whether you agree with it or not, there seems to be a more coordinated attack on something that Tesla does well, which is to keep its drivers and owners safe. One of the strongest points of Tesla’s overwhelmingly successful venture into the automotive industry thus far was the company’s ability to keep vehicle occupants safe in the event of a crash, and also roll out software and semi-autonomous driving functionalities that aim to improve consumer safety in revolutionary ways.
This is a preview of our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
This doesn’t always turn out to be what the media wants to report, however. The week before the Q1 Earnings Call, it was relatively impossible to notice that the tide turned negative on Tesla news coverage. While it is understandable that a violent automobile crash that took the lives of two men should be covered, it captured national headlines and dominated news coverage across the world for several days. Interestingly, I don’t remember such widespread news coverage for the Ford Death Wobble.
Journalists find stories and then build upon them for other sorts of coverage. It’s spin-off coverage where readers get to see how creative the mind of a writer is. There are millions of stories that could be written based on the recent automobile accident. However, a majority of them were negative, and it doesn’t necessarily come down to truth, it comes down to perception. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that many of the journalistic coverages were completely accurate simply because of Autopilot’s misunderstood capabilities in the real world. I still receive questions and comments daily from those who I talk to who believe Teslas are capable of driving themselves. What is even more frustrating is that, at times, owners and drivers, who should have the company’s best interest at heart, spread content, Tik Toks, and other forms of social media portraying that their all-electric car can drive them from Point A to Point B while they sit in the back seat and take a nap. This kind of content is irresponsible, immoral, and wrong. Acting like a Tesla can drive itself completely just for few thousand views is a selfish act that puts the hard work of Tesla engineers at risk for losing all of their work.
That brings me to the unfortunate accident in Texas. We don’t know, yet, what the exact cause of the accident was. We don’t know who was in the driver’s seat, if AP was being tricked, or if it was even on at this point. Most evidence would likely indicate that AP couldn’t have been activated due to the lack of road lines, and the rate of travel isn’t something that AP would let the driver do, to begin with. Eventually, we will have all the facts of this story, and we will be able to accurately say who or what was responsible. But as of right now, those things cannot be speculated against.
Still, news sources are claiming that this car was “driverless,” which is a complete nonsensical narrative considering there are many boundaries that would require a driver to be present during the vehicle’s operation. This didn’t stop Consumer Reports from putting together one of the most ridiculously biased tests I have ever come across. I felt that it simply proved Tesla Autopilot would only be tricked in extreme circumstances, by not following the automaker’s directions and trying to outsmart one of the most capable semi-autonomous driving programs in the world.
The obvious effort to derail Tesla’s momentum is being noted by the fans, followers, and owners of the company. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. In my perspective, for years, MSM has been driving home the point of global climate change, using it as a way to scare people into change. While I believe that fear isn’t always the best way to convince a large group of people to do something, I think climate change is a real issue and it will affect people for generations to come. With cars being such a large contributor to the problem, you’d think the media, the same interests that have been preaching the dangers of carbon emissions for years, would report car companies who are working to transition the automotive industry to electrification, would get a “fair shake.” This just hasn’t been the case.
Trust me, I am a critic of Tesla when it is warranted. I have experienced issues with their customer service department personally, and I have been highly critical of their handling of other issues with its vehicles. I have spoken many times about the LR RWD Model Y and how it was a disgrace for Tesla to keep these pre-orderers in limbo for years. However, there are statistics that prove FSD and AP’s ultimate task: to make driving safer. Most recently, the Q1 2021 Safety Report showed Autopilot was nearly 10 times safer than a human driver. You don’t see mainstream media covering this, but you’ll notice automotive blogs and news outlets taking full advantage of the statistics, which prove Tesla’s mission is becoming more real with every mile driven.
With the momentum Tesla posted with the Production and Deliveries report, I think many people were expecting a big financial quarter. The timing of the negative news is eye-opening, and it seems to be a coordinated effort to perhaps slow down Tesla’s momentum moving forward. Tesla is gunning for yet another consecutive quarter, bringing the total to seven straight if things go well on Monday. Whether Wall Street will recognize the impressive tone of this feat, we’ll see. However, media coverage has done all it can to bring Tesla’s chances of a great quarter down, but with developments, demand, and deliveries all in healthy figures, there doesn’t seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
