News
Tesla Cybertruck is in the crosshairs of many but Elon Musk isn’t worried
There is a point to be argued that the attention attracted by the Tesla Cybertruck is a double-edged sword. Granted, the vehicle has captured the interest of both the EV and traditional auto community primarily due to its stark XY design, but with this comes a ton of scrutiny from all sides. And in the months since its unveiling, the Cybertruck has received a healthy dose of scrutiny.
Critics pointing out negatives about Tesla’s upcoming vehicles is nothing new, and in the Cybertruck’s case, some of these were unfounded. Yet there were valid concerns about the vehicle. The truck is massive, for example, to the point where AR simulations of the vehicle indicated that it would not fit in an average 20×20 garage in the United States. Others, interestingly enough, questioned the vehicle’s capabilities as a legitimate off-roader due to its weight.
In true Tesla fashion, the electric car maker appears to have taken it upon itself to make sure that it addresses these criticisms. Elon Musk, for one, noted in a recent Twitter post that the Cybertruck’s production version would be about 3% smaller than the vehicle featured at the unveiling. Such a reduction will likely not affect the spaciousness or utility of the all-electric pickup, but it will enable the Cybertruck to fit in conventional garages.
This automatically opens up a whole new market for the Cybertruck. Following its unveiling, members of the Tesla community who were fortunate enough to experience a test ride in the vehicle noted that the Cybertruck is incredibly large. Thus, it did not take long before reservation holders indicated that they would likely keep the truck outside their garage due to its size. With a 3% reduction in size, this does not have to be the case.
Adjustments to the Cybertruck’s window sill height also makes the vehicle less intimidating for both passengers and drivers. With a lower window sill height, the Cybertruck will feel less like a vehicle that’s essentially swallowing its occupants. For territories beyond the US where large trucks are not as common, this particular detail would likely be appreciated by potential buyers.
Apart from adjustments to its size, Elon Musk mentioned that the Cybertruck’s air suspension system would be completely different from those used in the Model S and Model X. This suggests that unlike the two flagships, both of which are designed for the city, the Cybertruck’s suspension is intended to be used under rough and tough conditions. Musk said as much, stating that the Cybertruck is being designed to dominate in events like the Baja 1000, an off-road racing series where the auto industry’s best trucks compete against each other.
Just recently, truck enthusiasts from The Fast Lane Car YouTube channel expressed their doubts about the Cybertruck’s off-road capability due to the vehicle’s “monstrous” weight and lack of low-speed gearing. The hosts even mentioned the vehicle’s ground clearance. This is quite surprising as the Cybertruck’s 16″ ground clearance dwarfs that of popular trucks like the Ford F-150 Raptor, matching monster trucks like the Hummer H1, a military vehicle that’s pretty much just converted for civilian use.
One thing that critics are prone to forget is the fact that Tesla never remains in one place. Yes, the Cybertruck may be a bit too large when it was unveiled, but this does not mean that its size could not be reduced. The vehicle may look heavy and daunting, but perhaps it would be lighter than expected when it gets to production thanks to better battery technology. And with suspension improvements hinted at by Elon Musk, the Cybertruck could very well set the standard for all-electric off-road vehicles for years to come.
It is easy to dismiss Tesla’s efforts because of the company’s lack of experience compared to veterans in the auto industry. But underestimating Tesla is a grave mistake. One just needs to look at the premium midsize sedan market to see this point. Prior to the Model 3, for example, the BMW 3-Series seemed like a wall that could not be broken. As it turned out, even established cars like the BMW M3 could be bested, and later, even dominated. With this in mind, popular off-roaders today are best advised not to underestimate the Cybertruck.
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
