News
How Tesla’s Elon Musk dunks on the competition just as their momentum builds
It’s an emotion-filled, intense game. When you’re down the court. In the zone. Elon Musk goes up for the slam and WHAM!
Just when you least expected it.
Oh, that’s gotta hurt.
The script plays out time and time again. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk bursts into action. Like a runaway freight train. But with intent. Strategy. Musk charges in with a timely announcement to derail the momentum of his competition, just as they’re about to gain traction. Cheers for the competition become silence.
We were reminded of Musk’s mastery of the game this past week when a timely leaked email would inform the world that Tesla was preparing for volume production of its highly-anticipated Semi truck. Shares of Tesla shot up past $1,000 to raise the bar on its all-time high, while any trace of attention on a competing rival – Nikola – would be lost.
Electric-hydrogen commercial truck maker Nikola had just come off of a momentous week after going public in its Initial Public Offering.
While Musk’s announcement was surely a positive one for Tesla, there may have been some intent behind it. Just as Nikola’s stock began to climb, Musk derailed their momentum by announcing Tesla’s plan to prioritize the Semi truck production. It’s a classic page out of Musk’s successful playbook to leverage a competitor’s momentum, as media centers the conversation around a particular industry, before ripping the ball away from the competition and go in for the slam dunk. It has happened throughout his storied career. And it will continue to do so.
————————————
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future. Please consider subscribing. It’s FREE!
————————————
Porsche Taycan. We drove it. We appreciated it and we were on the bandwagon that the Porsche Taycan and its “repeatable performance” was destined for the famed Nürburgring. It was one of the first stories I covered as a writer for Teslarati and I can remember it pretty vividly. The Taycan hit the Green Hell in Germany in August and reportedly set a track record for a four-door production vehicle. However, that story wouldn’t last long.
Not more than a couple of weeks later, on September 5, Musk announced the Model S would be arriving at the Nürburgring to test its performance at the notoriously difficult racetrack. But it surely didn’t stop there. Musk then stated that Tesla had been developing an entirely new version of the Model S behind the scenes and that the wide-body design was a brand new tri-motor setup of the company’s flagship sedan. It was called “the Plaid Powertrain,” and it ripped through the Ring in record time.
Just as Porsche was starting to gain some momentum as an EV competitor to Tesla, Musk ripped their title right out from under them. Within a few weeks, everyone was done talking about the Taycan and wanted to know more about the Plaid Model S. As of right now, it is still a car that has is relatively face-value details available, but we all know it is going to be fast.
Next, Rivian’s momentum was surely derailed by Musk when the company decided to unveil the Cybertruck. Rivian’s R1T was going to be “the next big thing” in the consumer pickup truck segment. Personally, I was pretty impressed with how many people knew about Rivian, because many friends who have little interest in the automotive sector as a whole knew who Rivian was. In California, this wouldn’t be as impressive. But I live in Pennsylvania, and it was pretty cool to hear people talk about Rivian in such a mainstream manner.
In November, Rivian had been holding more reservation events, developing its production facilities, filing patents, and really establishing itself as a real leader in the EV pickup market. Then came along the Cybertruck.
The Cybertruck’s design and its dystopian-like unveiling event were enough to derail Rivian’s momentum. Nobody was talking about Rivian, and even to this day nearly eight months later, the Cybertruck is still the hot topic. While Rivian remains a relevant character in the electric pickup truck community, the casual electric car fan is sharing articles about the Cybertruck, and not the R1T.
I’ll be honest, the space race rivalry between Musk and Bezos isn’t something I’ve followed as closely as the automotive stuff. But I remember when Bezos was on CNN in 2015 talking about his Blue Origin rockets being the first fully reusable rockets in the world. But SpaceX had successfully landed a reusable rocket in 2012. Not to mention, Musk’s words were often times reused by Bezos, who would pawn them off as his own idea. A video of that is available here.
https://youtu.be/Qe_TTI64fJA
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Musk has used other companies to time his announcements for groundbreaking products. He did it with the Plaid Model S, he did it with the Cybertruck, and he did it with the Semi. Momentum building is especially difficult in automotive manufacturing simply because most companies all share the same features and commonalities. It takes something truly special for people to get excited.
Elon has developed an interesting way to spread the word about his new products, and he’s basically used other companies to do it. Some might call it timely, some might call it rude. I call it smart.
—————————————————–
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
—————————————————-
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
