News
The Tesla Cybertruck’s looks are not as big of a deal as critics think
Just recently, Elon Musk acknowledged on Twitter that the Tesla Cybertruck might be a flop simply because it is so unlike anything else on the market. This has resulted in numerous Tesla skeptics predicting that the all-electric pickup truck’s design is so out there that the vehicle would be the company’s first true failure. Such sentiments, however, may be overblown, as the Cybertruck’s looks may not be as big of a deal as critics think.
Numbers Don’t Lie, and Specs Matter
The Cybertruck is a pickup truck, even if it does not look like a traditional truck. This means that it is designed to be capable enough to handle tasks that are typically expected of pickups. This is the reason why the Cybertruck has a large 6.5-foot bed, 100 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage, up to 3,500 lbs of payload capacity, and a towing capacity of up to 14,000 pounds. These matter, especially among buyers who actually use their pickup trucks for work.
These specs are pretty hard to beat. Even the Ford F-150 Lightning, which seems to be on track to become one of the most popular all-electric pickup trucks in the market, does not match up to the Cybertruck’s specs. Even if rumors are true and the Ford F-150 Lightning really has a range above 400 miles per charge, the Cybertruck’s tri-motor variant is listed with a range of over 500 miles. Tesla has so far not disappointed when it comes to its vehicles’ EPA-rated miles.
A Reliable, Rapid Charging Network Matters
During Car and Driver‘s recent “EV 1000” test, it was revealed that the US’ best electric vehicle rapid charging infrastructure is still the Tesla Supercharger Network. There are other networks that provide rapid charging services, but few if any could match the Supercharger Network’s ease of use, reliability, and sheer size. This matters a lot for all-electric pickup trucks, many of which would likely not achieve their rated range due to the cargo they carry or the items they tow anyway.
What is rarely mentioned is that Teslas are not only compatible with the Supercharger Network. Teslas can also charge at EVgo and Electrify America stations, to name a few. This means that the Cybertruck could charge at the same rapid charging stations as rivals like the F-150 Lightning on top of the Supercharger Network. This is a notable advantage, and one that would likely be appreciated by those who drive the all-electric truck.
Looks May Not Matter As Much
One has to get this point out of the way. Trucks are tough vehicles that are widely expected to handle the worst that the elements can offer. The Cybertruck could definitely be described as ugly, but it’s just like other pickups in the market in the way that it’s not necessarily competing with exotic supercars in the looks department. Elon Musk may have a point when he noted that pickups have generally looked the same over the decades, and it might be time for something new.
The Cybertruck is designed to weather the worst that the elements can offer, and with its thick stainless steel exoskeleton and tank-like appearance, it definitely ticks off the boxes in the toughness department. With this in mind, reasons like “but it looks so weird” and “I’m not comfortable with its looks” almost sound pretty lame. Even businesses that operate fleets of pickup trucks would probably prefer a vehicle that’s superior in specs and price, after all, even if its looks leave some to be desired.
Besides, different does not necessarily mean that something will be a flop. Just look at the Nissan Juke. No one can deny that it looks extremely weird, but it has sold over 1 million units in the first decade of its production. Why was this so? Because it’s a dang fun car and it’s quirky, and it does crossover things in a very good crossover way. It’s fairly reliable, sturdy, and cheap to maintain. Other drivers on the road would be hard-pressed to ignore it too, for better or for worse.
An iPhone Lesson
A pretty popular anecdote in the mobile phone industry involves the first-generation iPhone and how it was received by critics. Back then, the term “smartphone” generally referred to a fairly large handheld device with a full physical keyboard and some email capabilities. Then came a block of glass with an onscreen keyboard that offers no tactile feedback when typing. This attracted its own fair share of skeptics, many of whom felt like the device was just too strange to be a serious threat to the mobile phone giants at the time, such as Nokia and Blackberry.
Just check out this section from a 2007 review from TechCrunch, which was skeptical of the iPhone’s keyboard. “That virtual keyboard will be about as useful for tapping out emails and text messages as a rotary phone. Don’t be surprised if a sizable contingent of iPhone buyers express some remorse at ditching their BlackBerry when they spend an extra hour each day pumping out emails on the road,” the publication wrote.
So can the Cybertruck be a flop? It may, though unofficial trackers estimate that over 1 million reservations for the vehicle have been filed to date. But even if the vehicle does turn off many buyers such as die-hard truck guys who swear by their F-150s’ looks, the fact remains that the Cybertruck does not need the support of avid truck aficionados to be successful. It just has to show the world that it is a viable product with superior specs and durability at a reasonable price point. If it accomplishes this, then the Cybertruck would likely be fine.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
