News
Tesla Cybertruck isn’t better than 1949 technology when it comes to off-roading, says popular Trucking channel
The Tesla Cybertruck is, without a doubt, one of the most discussed vehicles in recent memory. The pickup’s polarizing and robust design has vehicle fanatics raving about the possibility of changing the tune of the American truck market today. In a recently published video from The Fast Lane Car YouTube channel, the team discussed why they believe the Cybertruck will fail to be an effective mode of off-road transportation. They highlight its heavy-weight and low-body design as two of the reasons it will fall short of impressively navigating through rocks and trails.
“If you look at what you need for off-road ability, you need ground clearance, you need gearing, you need articulation, you need underbody protection, right?” The trucking experts add, “If you look at the off-road tech, the stuff that you needed back in 1949 is the stuff you still need in 2020-2021.”
Typically, offroading vehicles that find success in challenging terrain have short wheelbase are lightweight and tend to told hold higher-than-normal ground clearances that assist in traveling over sharp crests on trails. TFL’s Tommy Mica highlights these attributes during the video, stating that an offroading vehicle’s biggest enemy is weight.
“Just like on-road, the enemy to off-road is weight. The lighter the weight, the easier it is to crawl up obstacles to maneuver difficult situations. The Cybertruck is going to be huge and is going to be monstrously heavy,” Mica says.
While it is ideal to have a lighter vehicle for offroading situations, that does not mean a heavy car will have issues 100% of the time. In fact, there are many vehicles that hold a weight that is similar to the Cybertruck’s estimated 5,000-6,500 pound curb rating. One is the 2019 Ford F-150 Raptor, a truck that was recognized by Popular Mechanics as one of the top 12 best off-road vehicles available. Weighing in at over 5,500 pounds, the Raptor has been spotted climbing intimidating stretches of steep offroading trails without much of an issue.
Additionally, Mica states that the Cybertruck’s low ground clearance will inhibit the vehicle’s ability to navigate over steep land grades and sharp objects on a trail. However, the Cybertruck’s 16″ ground clearance is higher than the 8.7″ measurement of the top-ranked 2019 Ram 1500 Rebel from Dodge and the previously mentioned F-150 Raptor’s 11.5″ clearance.
TFL tested a Long-Range configuration of the Model X in its off-road tests. Citing a diminished loss of range due to increased power usage, and increased worry over puncturing the vehicles underbody battery pack made their experience not-so-memorable. However, the Model X was never aimed toward off-road performance specifically. While the electric SUV does have traction control capabilities that have performed well on off-road courses in the past, the Model X was not meant for navigating through vicious trails of rocks, branches, and uneven terrain.
Even so, using the Model X’s performance as an off-road vehicle as the basis to prove the Cybertruck’s inability to function on trails just seems silly. The two cars maintain entirely different packages. Comparing a Ford Escape’s off-road performance to the F-150 Raptor’s wouldn’t be justifiable either, as the two vehicles are completely different and aimed toward different functions.
Besides, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has stated that the Cybertruck’s size and dimensions are not finalized. In early December 2019, Musk said the width and length would both be revised to fit inside a residential garage. “We can prob reduce width by an inch & maybe reduce length by 6+ inches without losing on utility or aesthetics,” Musk said.
The Cybertruck’s off-road performance won’t be solidified until the release of its Dual and Tri motor variants in 2021. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the electric truck will be more than capable of holding its own in tight terrain, especially considering its most powerful variant packs a tremendous punch.
Watch The Fast Lane Car’s video mentioning the Cybertruck’s offroading ability below.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
