News
Tesla Cybertrucks head out of Giga Texas, mystery structure revealed
A recent drone flyover of Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas shows fewer Cybertrucks than last week, along with the host sharing some insights into what a recently spotted mystery structure could be.
In the video, shared by Giga Texas observer and drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer on Monday, you can see fewer Cybertruck units around the site than last week, along with trucks in the outbound lot being loaded up with the vehicles to be shipped to customers. The video also details a number of other ongoing construction projects at the site, despite being a little foggy.
Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube
One such project includes a mystery structure on the plant’s south end, which Tegtmeyer and others have been trying to identify to no avail over the past few weeks. However, Tegtmeyer and some of his viewers have now spotted a few permits indicating that it appears to be a structural platform for a cooling tower, which will be used on the South End extension of the factory.
Tegtmeyer also talks about two other major construction projects, including a baghouse air filtration system, and preparations for a major air ducting system above the body-in-white part of the factory’s server room. While he notes that there have been reports of a potential Dojo project at the site requiring substantial cooling efforts, Tegtmeyer says he hasn’t been able to confirm whether that’s what this is or not.
See the full video from Tegtmeyer’s YouTube channel below.
The Cybertrucks are seen being shipped out after the company had to pause deliveries and issue a recall last week, due to an issue with the accelerator pedal. The issue takes very little time for Tesla Service technicians to fix, only requiring the installation of a small rivet at the pedal’s base.
It also comes as Tesla continues to ramp up production of the Cybertruck at Giga Texas, with the company seemingly nearing a weekly production rate of 1,000 units. This milestone has also been predicated on Tesla’s ability to build 1,000 Cybertrucks’ worth of 4680 battery cells per week, an achievement which it reached in March.
CEO Elon Musk and Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy recently weighed in on both in-house 4680 cell production and its supplier relationships during the Q1 2024 earnings call:
“You know, we’re making good progress on that,” said Musk in response to a question on the cell’s in-house production ramp. “But I don’t think it’s super important for at least in the near term. As Lars said, we think it will exceed the competitiveness of suppliers by the end of this year. And then we’ll continue to improve.”
“I think it’s important to note also that like the [4680] ramp right now is relevant to the Cybertruck ramp,” Moravy added. “And so, like we’re not going to just randomly build 4680s unless we have a place to put them. And so, we’re going to make sure we’re prudent about that.”
“But we also have a lot of investments with all our cell suppliers and vendors. They’re great partners, and they’ve done great development work with us, and a lot of the advancements in technologies and chemistry, they’re also putting into their cells.”
Tesla shares new Cybertruck features: Diff locks, Baja Mode, CyberTent Mode, and more
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
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
