News
Tesla Cybertruck bed frame crushes myth of pickup's alleged inability to do 'real work'
There is no doubt that over the years, pickup trucks — once built exclusively for heavy-duty work and utility — have pretty much become massive luxury vehicles that feature posh interiors and a smooth ride. Even the Ford F-150, America’s number one pickup, has spawned off variants like the Platinum and Limited trims that are more optimized for comfort than rugged, no-nonsense work.
This is one of the reasons why the Tesla Cybertruck attracted some dismissal and ire among pickup truck purists when it was unveiled. Tesla is known as a premium vehicle manufacturer, and its electric cars, while at times lacking the usual luxury finishes of their Audi and Mercedes-Benz counterparts, are still considered by some as “luxury” vehicles. Teslas are known and expected to be quick, tech-focused, and fun to drive. But as actual work vehicles? Not so much.
The Tesla Cybertruck is unlike any other pickup truck available in the market today. With an XY design that echoes the 80’s science fiction movies and a theme that is centered on the company’s mastery of in-vehicle tech, the Cybertruck is every bit a Tesla as its stablemates: the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y. Thus, despite the truck’s tough looks and impressive specs, the all-electric pickup truck received some criticism for allegedly being a vehicle that simply cannot be used for any “real work.”
This reaction was so notable that it did not take long before it became evident that the Cybertruck may end up having a “Cowboy Problem,” which refers to longtime pickup truck veterans possibly avoiding the vehicle due to its lack of utility and real-world use. But inasmuch as this may be the case, the fact remains that the Cybertruck is designed to have as much utility as the best pickups on the market. This means that Tesla designed the vehicle to be used for a variety of functions, from family trips to serious construction work.
A teaser for this was stealthily hinted at by Tesla during the pickup’s unveiling event, which was eventful on its own right with its meme-worthy moments. During a point in the Cybertruck’s presentation, Elon Musk quickly went over a slide that featured the vehicle with various attachments. One featured the Tesla ATV, another featured an overlanding kit that included a stove, and another featured a large trailer. Most interestingly, another image featured the Cybertruck in a construction site with what appeared to be a bed rack or a ladder rack.
Elon Musk has already stated that the Cybertruck will have several attachments that will make it into an ideal vehicle for a variety of purposes. The Tesla CEO, for one, mentioned that the Cybertruck would have a fold-out solar attachment that would allow the truck to recharge about 30 to 40 miles worth of range per day when parked outdoors. With this in mind, the addition of a custom ladder rack for the Cybertruck is definitely possible. A bed or ladder rack, after all, is an extremely valuable tool for the Cybertruck that would allow owners to transport large items to construction sites.
Transporting large items safely requires vehicle owners to make sure that their cargo is secured properly. When transporting items like ladders, some pickup drivers drive with their tailgate down and their cargo secured with bungee cords, ropes, or tie-downs. This is pretty risky, as the items may fall off during transit. Using a ladder rack reduces the chances of these events happening, while ensuring that cargo space is maximized. This will be incredibly valuable for Cybertruck operators, as the all-electric pickup is capable of carrying 3500 lbs. worth of payload.
What is rather interesting with the Cybertruck’s ladder rack is that it seems to follow the vehicle’s angular, XY theme. A look at Tesla’s teaser image of the Cybertruck’s bed or ladder rack shows a simple design, suggesting that the production of the item will probably not cost much. This could result in the Cybertruck’s ladder or bed rack being priced competitively versus other popular racks in the market. This would likely make the Cybertruck even more successful among contractors, as they would be able to maximize the massive vehicle’s generous storage and cargo capacity, while enjoying its low operating costs and its impressive specs.
H/T Earl Banning.
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
