News
Tesla Cybertruck to be ‘Elon Musk’s first disaster,’ according to Jim Cramer
Since November 2019, arguably the most frequently-discussed electric vehicle coming to the market has been the Tesla Cybertruck. The first pickup from Elon Musk’s electric car company shocked nearly everyone who tuned in to the live event streamed nearly two years ago as the Tesla frontman and the company’s Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen rolled out the Cyberpunk-inspired pickup onto the stage in Hawthorne, California. However, despite having over 1.2 million pre-orders thus far, the truck is not making everyone turn their heads and throw $100 down to reserve one. One of those people is Tesla investor and Musk fan Jim Cramer, who said that the truck is bound to be Musk’s “first disaster.”
While fielding questions regarding Tesla’s AI Day last week during an interview on Wall Street, Cramer averted commenting very much on the Tesla Bot that Elon Musk said the company would bring in 2022 in a prototype form and instead focused on the Cybertruck. His comments were unfavorable toward the all-electric pickup, with Cramer recommending that consumers opt for a more traditional pickup style in the Ford F-150 Lightning as the Cybertruck is “ugly.”
“I saw the actual pickup truck,” Cramer said when speaking about the Cybertruck. “Go buy an F-150. I mean, this thing is not just ugly…You have got to love Tesla to get this thing,” Cramer added.
There is no doubt that the Cybertruck has an unorthodox and “polarizing” look, as many people have described the truck. Still, this was the point of the design. One of the first portions of Musk’s presentation in November 2019 had to do with the traditional automakers and how their pickups stood apart from others. Taking manufacturer badges away from the truck makes it more difficult to tell each model apart. The traditional design has been broken down to a rectangular driver’s cabin and a bed, with relatively the same shapes and angles shared amongst the major pickup truck designs in the United States.
This is where Tesla decided that an orthodox pickup may not be the best option. Instead, Tesla went with a futuristic design, covered in ultra-strength stainless steel alloy and equipped with resilient glass and, potentially, solar panels on the tonneau for additional range.
Tesla Cybertruck’s Solar Panel Tonneau Cover comes to life in new patent
Cramer is still a Tesla supporter, he says, especially as the automaker has avoided massive failures with its product. Specifically mentioning the recent Chevrolet Bolt EV recall due to faulty batteries, Cramer believes Tesla is one of the major players in the sector, especially in terms of autonomous driving. “I still like Tesla because I think it’s been unfair the way their autonomous driving has been handled. There are many more accidents from drunk drivers. But I recognize…I think this pickup truck is going to be a disaster, his first disaster.”
Interestingly, Cramer and Musk share a similar but not an identical point of view on the Cybertruck. While Cramer is undoubtedly convinced the Cybertruck will fall flat, Musk has stated in the past that the truck could be a flop due to its unfamiliar design. However, 1.2 million reservations for the truck say differently.
The Ford F-150 Lightning will be the company’s second EV to the market, following the Mustang Mach-E. The truck has already amassed an impressive 120,000 pre-orders, according to Ford’s Q2 2021 Earnings Call. Sporting a traditional pickup design, the two options on the market may be the perfect recipe for accelerating the transition to sustainable energy as the traditional and unorthodox designs should cater to consumers and what they’re looking for in a new vehicle.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
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
