News
Tesla’s Cybertruck is not a bet-the-company vehicle, and it should scare TSLA critics
The Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) Cybertruck’s unveiling event could have easily gone better, with the vehicle’s disruptive specs and pricing pretty much getting pushed to the background by media coverage of the pickup’s less-than-stellar Armor Glass demonstration. Cracked windows aside, the fact remains that the Cybertruck starts at $39,990, a price that’s as aggressive as the vehicle’s almost brutalist design. It’s also a price that shows that Tesla is at a point where it actually can experiment and be bolder than usual. This should scare TSLA critics.
The Cybertruck is a massive vehicle, as long as a Ford F-150 and far more powerful as teased by the company’s tug-of-war demo that it briefly showed during the pickup’s unveiling. It’s also unapologetically futuristic, with a 17″ landscape infotainment screen that’s not found in any of Tesla’s other vehicles. It has pop-out door handles that are directly inspired by the premium-priced Model S as well. And these are just the tip of the iceberg, as the Cybertruck has a ton of other features and capabilities that make it a great vehicle for work and play.
Yet, the monster of a truck that Tesla unveiled starts at a price that’s just slightly above the base price of the Model 3 sedan. There was a reason why gasps could be heard at the vehicle’s unveiling when the Cybertruck’s pricing was revealed. Elon Musk has noted during his interview with Tesla owner-enthusiast Ryan McCaffrey last June that the Cybertruck will start at $49,000 at the most. Absolutely no warning was given that Tesla was going for a far more aggressive starting price, especially considering the vehicle’s built-in tech such as its adaptive suspension and basic Autopilot capabilities.
The fact that the Cybertuck is designed in such a polarizing manner suggests that Tesla has some funding to spare. By releasing such a vehicle, the electric car maker has shown the auto market that it is at a point where it can be bold and take ridiculous risks such as releasing a truck that looks nothing like a conventional pickup. Elon Musk has admitted as much, noting during an appearance at veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher’s Recode Decode podcast that if the Cybertruck were to fail, Tesla will make a more conventional truck. Musk’s words then, spoken over a year ago, rings true today.
“I’m personally super-excited by this pickup truck. It’s something I’ve been wanting to make for a long time. And I’ve been iterating sort of designs with Franz. If there’s only a small number of people that like that truck, I guess we’ll make a more conventional truck in the future. I think this is the kinda thing the consumer would want to buy, even if they don’t normally buy a pickup truck. So, anyway, that’s personally I’m most excited about. But like I said, it could be just like, okay, I weirdly like it and other people don’t. That’s possible. But we’re gonna make it anyway, and then we will just have a niche audience, I don’t know. But if it does, then we’ll make a more conventional pickup truck,” Musk said.
Tesla has, for the most part over the years, operated with limited resources. Elon Musk is a risk-taker, and some of these were so notable that they were considered as “bet-the-company” situations. The Model 3 was one of these, with Musk noting that if the all-electric sedan were had failed, it would have likely ruined Tesla for good. Considering the bold direction that the company took with the Cybertruck, as well as Elon Musk’s statements last year, it definitely appears that the all-electric monster pickup that Tesla just unveiled is not a bet-the-company vehicle. It is a truck that would be great if it succeeded, but it is also a vehicle that could be replaced if it were to fail.
This should be a chilling thought for Tesla critics, particularly those who feverishly wait for the next quarter’s numbers in their excitement to see TSLA stock drop. After all, if the Cybertruck were to fail and if Tesla were to make a conventional pickup truck, there is a good chance that the company’s more traditional truck would be even more aggressively priced. Such a pickup would likely outperform diesel-powered rivals as well in classic Tesla fashion as well. Such a truck, combined with Tesla’s ever-growing charging infrastructure and its ever-evolving Autopilot system, would have the potential to clean house in a manner that is not as kind as the Cybertruck, which will always be polarizing.
Tesla is a resilient company, one that weathered one of the worst financial crises in recent history, and it’s led by a man that’s hell-bent on pushing sustainable transportation by proving that electric cars are better in every way than fossil fuel-powered vehicles. It’s best to note that a Tesla with limited resources has proven that it can still disrupt established industries with well-designed, safe, and feature-rich electric cars. A Tesla with resources to spare? That’s a downright frightening idea if one is a TSLA critic.
Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.
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
