News
Tesla and EVs’ popularity pushes car carrier companies to seek higher weight limits
With the transition to electric vehicles now inevitable, car carrier companies are urging politicians and the Biden administration to raise the truck weight limitations on the United States’ highways. By doing so, car carrier companies could transport more electric vehicles. But inasmuch as the proposal seems sound, the rail sector and safety activists strongly oppose the idea, with critics arguing that heavier trucks mean more dangerous roads.
It should be noted that even before electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y became mainstream, American vehicles were already getting heavier. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the average weight of automobiles and trucks on US highways has grown from 3,200 pounds to 4,200 pounds during the last 40 years. That was far before vehicles like the Tesla Model S surged in popularity.
For now, electric vehicles comprise less than 1% of the cars on US roads, but US President Joe Biden and his administration have pushed for half of vehicle sales by 2030 to be comprised of EVs. This is great for the environment, but pushing more EVs has an aftereffect of sorts. Since electric cars are heavier than their combustion-powered counterparts due to their large batteries, car carrier companies simply cannot transport as many of them as quickly under the current weight limits for car carrier trucks on the road, according to an Autoblog report.
Sarah Amico, executive chairman of Jack Cooper, one of the largest car carrier companies in North America, outlined some risks that come if the US government’s road weight limits maintain the status quo. “The truth is we will not be able move as many electric vehicles under the current weight limit. That could mean more trucks on the road, delays in orders, and increased costs,” Amico said.
Trailers in the United States today are restricted by federal highway safety standards to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. And with the growing prevalence of EVs, the car hauling industry has pushed its lobbying efforts in an attempt to update the restrictions. The effort has some supporters, such as Illinois Republican lawmaker Rodney Davis, who serves on the House Transportation Committee. Davis noted that the auto transporter industry is looking to raise the weight limit on roads by about 5-10%.
“The auto transporter industry needs a modest 5% to 10% weight variance. Otherwise, an already-challenged supply chain will require more tractor-trailer rigs on the nation’s highways to deliver the same number of finished vehicles. That means more miles driven, more wear and tear on our roads, more fuel used, and more emissions,” he said.
While an extra 8,000 pounds may not sound like much, it could be the difference maker that could allow transporters to carry the same number of EVs as their ICE-powered counterparts. The Ford F-150 Lightning is about 1,600 pounds heavier than its gas-powered sibling, for example, and the Volvo XC40 Recharge SUV weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the combustion-powered Volvo XC40.
The efforts of car carrier companies, however, have met strong opposition from critics. Among these critics are the companies’ rivals in the freight rail industry, as well as safety experts who argue that heavier trucks are more difficult to stop, easier to roll, and cause more wear and tear on roads. Cathy Chase, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, mentioned some of these reservations. “With any incremental change comes incremental danger, and that results in more fatalities,” Chase said.
But while the concerns of skeptics are reasonable, the use of all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi should address a number of safety concerns about heavier vehicles on the road. Electric trucks, after all, utilize systems such as regenerative braking to help the vehicles stop safely. The rollout of systems like Autopilot and FSD could also be a difference-maker in the safety of trucks, as they could ensure that pedestrians and other commuters are as safe as possible on the road.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
