News
Tesla’s Cybertruck strategy is paving the way for pilot production that’s closer to home than expected
Elon Musk may still have accuracy issues when estimating the rollout dates of products like the Full Self-Driving Beta, but there is no denying that the Tesla CEO is starting to learn the art of sandbagging, at least to some degree. This is something that Elon Musk appears to be doing with the Tesla Cybertruck’s upcoming production, which is expected to begin its trial phases either late 2021 or early next year. Musk has been pretty conservative about the all-electric pickup trucks’ production in Gigafactory Texas, but if a recent report from the EV community is any indication, Tesla may have an ace up its sleeve for its Cybertruck rollout.
The Tesla Cybertruck has always been fated to be built in Gigafactory Texas, so much so that the facility was known in the electric vehicle community in the past as the “Cybertruck Gigafactory.” Yet over the months and as production equipment was spotted on the massive Texas-based complex, it became evident that it would not be the Cybertruck that would be produced first in Giga Texas. It would be the Model Y. This was hinted at by the Model Y Giga Press machines that have been spotted in the area.
The idea of Giga Texas starting its operations with the Model Y makes sense considering the demand for the all-electric crossover and the fact that the Fremont Factory is stretched thin as it is. However, it would not be an exaggeration to note that a good number of Tesla enthusiasts were a bit disappointed that the Texas-based facility would not be launching its operations with the production of the Cybertruck, a vehicle that seemed to be explicitly designed for Giga Texas production.
Fortunately, it appears that Tesla may have a plan to ensure that Cybertruck production in Gigafactory Texas does not get too delayed. Just recently, a number of EV community members such as FSD Beta user @WholeMarsBlog were informed that Tesla is already making the necessary moves to develop the Cybertruck’s prototype production lines. This reportedly involves Tesla building a pilot line for the all-electric pickup truck in the Fremont Factory. With such a prototype line in place at Fremont, Tesla could hit the ground running in Giga Texas.
These reports were immediately echoed by other EV community members, some of whom cited information reportedly related by Tesla employees from the Fremont Factory. Some have even remarked that Tesla employees moving to Texas due to the Cybertruck factory would be relocating to the Lone Star State around the end of May. Granted, these updates should be taken with a grain of salt, but they still highlight the fact that Tesla may actually have a pretty solid plan to ensure that the Cybertruck enters mass production as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
While unorthodox, Tesla’s recently reported strategy for the Cybertruck’s rollout actually makes quite a lot of sense. Having a line in Fremont for prototype validation vehicles would all but ensure that the Cybertruck’s lines in Gigafactory Texas would not require any substantial changes or adjustments when they are activated for mass production. But this is not all. The Fremont Factory is also a stone’s throw away from Tesla’s Roadrunner site, where the company is currently developing and ramping the production of its custom dry-electrode, tabless 4680 cells—the batteries that would most likely be used on the Cybertruck.
What’s particularly interesting about these recent updates is the fact that Elon Musk appears to be sandbagging the expectations surrounding the Cybertruck or Tesla’s 4680 battery cells. Unlike his typical tweets about the development of FSD features like Summon, Musk’s updates about the Cybertruck over the past months have been scarce and vague at the most. His estimated timeframes for the truck have been conservative as well. That being said, if Tesla is indeed preparing to start a pilot line in Fremont for the Cybertruck, then the company could very well be holding an ace up its sleeve—one that could shake the electric pickup market to its core when it is played.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
