Lucid hosted an impressive unveiling event of the Air on September 9th, showing the vehicle’s four different configurations and the remarkable performance specifications of the Dream Edition. With 517 miles of range and some of the fastest acceleration rates ever seen on an electric vehicle, the EV community widely speculated on how Tesla would manage to compete with Lucid’s newly-introduced technology and speed, and the Cybertruck seems to fit the bill.
The Cybertruck from Tesla would match Lucid’s range and performance specifications, while also offering versatility for tasks such as construction and camping. The Lucid Air Dream Edition also doesn’t have something that the Cybertruck does: affordability.
The Tesla Cybertruck Tri-Motor variant starts at $69,990 while offering 500+ miles of range and 0-60 times that are under 2.9 seconds. To obtain a Dream Edition Air, consumers will pay $100,000 more.
The consumer base of the two vehicles will likely be vastly different. The Cybertruck’s affordability across its three variants will prove to be a bigger seller, especially considering the truck has an estimated 500,000+ pre-orders ahead of its planned initial production phase.
Lucid will attract luxury car buyers across all of their variants for the Air. Its high-quality interior, executive rear seats, high-tech features, and sleek sedan design all make for a perfect car for those who are willing to spend a little extra.
But the Cybertruck’s tech shows one thing, and it is the fact that Tesla is capable of competing with Lucid in terms of range and performance.
On top of that, Tesla’s timeframe for the production of the Cybertruck was moved up to May 2021, which is around the same time that Lucid plans to begin deliveries of the Air’s Dream Edition.
A few months ago, Teslarati reported that Elon Musk has a tendency to announce big developments as other automakers are gaining momentum. When Nikola started to see traction with its Semi trucks, Musk announced that the Tesla Semi would begin “volume production” in a timely fashion.
-
- Credit: Twitter | @zfescht
-
- The Tesla Semi visits Yandell Truckaway. (Photo: Arash Malek)
The Cybertruck also pulled wind from the sails of Rivian, who had planned to introduce the first fully-electric pickup to the market with the R1T. However, the Cybertruck took over a massive amount of the appeal because of its unique design and sci-fi event, which captured the attention of millions.
In the grand scheme of things, Tesla has the Cybertruck, and it plans to offer it in the U.S. market where the pickup is widely popular. It is more affordable, offers impressive range ratings that are comparable with the Air, and has excellent performance. It is sure to capture a broad consumer group because of its specifications.
Meanwhile, the Air will appeal to luxury sedan buyers, who are not necessarily worried about performance. These buyers look for exclusivity, brand prestige, build quality, and a high-end consumer experience, according to Limelight. Lucid will be able to offer all of these things apart from prestige, simply because of its startup label. However, electromobility will appeal to some high-end car buyers, and the Air could be the answer to those needs.
Although the Cybertruck and Air are two different cars completely, Tesla is proving outright that it is capable of creating a truck that has versatility and a useful platform, while offering comparable performance and range specifications for significantly less money.
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
