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.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
