News
Tesla Cybertruck first ride impressions: Musk’s futuristic pickup is everything I thought it wasn’t
Tesla’s new Cybertruck is as much of an all-electric pickup truck for the adventurous early adopter and high-tech consumer, as it is an aristocratic armored battle machine for a dystopian future. At least that was my first impression after taking the first test ride in Elon Musk’s seven-year-in-the-making baby on Thursday night in Los Angeles.
Riding through the backlot of Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX headquarters, it didn’t immediately register in my head that this spirited test ride was taking place inside a bulletproof truck that’s the size of a Ford F-150 SuperCab. Spanning 231.7 inches long, 79.9 inches wide, and 75.0 inches tall, Tesla’s Cybertruck isn’t exactly small and certainly won’t be someone’s second Tesla sharing the average home garage. This thing is going on the driveway.
The auto-presenting door handles are reminiscent of the Tesla Model S and run flush against Cybertruck’s DeLorean-style stainless steel body. Not any regular stainless steel. Musk’s brainchild is fortified by ultra-hard 30X Cold-Rolled stainless-steel that Tesla calls the Exoskeleton.
As we climbed into the cyberpunk “Blade Runner” inspired truck, a satisfying thud from closing the door jarred my memory that Tesla’s Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen just slammed a sledgehammer against them. This thing’s a beast.
And we’re about to take off.
The ever-so familiar feeling of instant acceleration from an all-electric powertrain would follow. We blasted down Jack Northrop road in Tesla’s dual-motor prototype, reaching 60 mph from a gradual 20 mph roll in roughly 4 seconds. Tesla claims a 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds for the dual-motor variant, while a tri-motor configuration will be able to eclipse it in 2.9 seconds.
The sounds of Cybertruck’s big, knobby tires clawing at the road are a reminder that no noises go unnoticed in an electric vehicle.
Tesla’s DNA for interior design that’s characterized by extreme minimalism, combined with high-tech features, carried through to its electric Cybertruck. A single 17-inch center-mounted touchscreen acts as the main command center for this heavyweight. Tesla didn’t release details on Cybertruck’s weight, however judging by the similarity in size to a Ford pickup, and taking into account a battery pack that can support up to 500 miles of range, one can presume that Tesla’s “Supertruck” will top the scales at nearly three tons. The rearview “mirror” is actually a digital display that projects video captured from a rear-facing camera. This allows for greater visibility, especially when cargo’s on board such as a Tesla All-terrain Vehicle. Because the truck’s vault can also be covered and used for closed storage, having a camera that streams video to the rearview mirror is of utmost importance.
-
- (Credit: Tesla)
-
- Tesla Cybertruck 6.5 ft pickup bed “Vault” (Photo: Teslarati)
The dashboard and center console were very reminiscent of the Tesla Model 3. The interior was comprised of an airy glass roof, seating for five adults with the option to have a sixth seat in place of the front center armrest, and not much else.
Looking out through the narrow rear window and Cybertruck’s stainless steel finish comes into focus once again. What is traditionally referred to as the pickup bed, Tesla is calling this 6.5 feet long space a vault. A sleek set of lights runs alongside the vault and illuminates any content that’s inside.
With a starting price of $39,900 for the single motor Cybertruck and just under $50,000 for the dual-motor all-wheel drive variant, Tesla’s pickup truck is priced competitively in the top-selling automotive category in the US.
Will Cybertruck appeal to the existing Ford and Dodge pickup truck demographic as we know it? Probably not. But that’s okay. Its polarizing look that elicits feelings of both I love you and I hate you, takes some time to process before becoming a buyer.
Similar to Musk’s mission to showcase an alternative to the traditional minivan with something utterly over-engineered like the Model X, Tesla aims to do what the Falcon-winged SUV did for the soccer Mom, as it looks to do with the DIY-savvy early adopter who also happens to be a bit handy. Make no mistake, Musk’s Blade Runner truck won’t be replacing the Ford F-150 anytime soon.
Also, make no mistake, Tesla Cybertruck is as badass as they come and won’t have much competition when it becomes the official truck of Mars.
I love you. I hate you. I love you again.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
