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.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
