It is tough being Tesla. In a world where cars are becoming electric, just as the company initially intended when its mission began 18 years ago, Tesla is the top dog at the moment. Every car company in the world is nipping at its heels in an attempt to catch up to Elon Musk’s car company. However, recent developments have inspired me to look at a different kind of competition that Tesla is facing, something that feels somewhat unjust in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, it’s not from another car company, it’s from federal investigators and Tesla skeptics who continue to magnify the company’s accidents, all because there is the possibility that a car involved in an accident may have been operating on Autopilot.
Earlier this week, a Model Y was involved in a crash in Michigan. What turned out to be a case of reckless driving was initially blamed on the possibility of Autopilot by mainstream media sources. Unfortunately for them, their credibility regarding Tesla vehicles continues to be chipped away as they sacrifice long-term trustworthiness in the field of electric vehicles for short-term viewership. A Tesla was in fact in an accident in Detroit, and yes, the NHTSA was investigating it. There’s no reason to go any more broad than that.
Unfortunately, Tesla’s rollout of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving has put the company at risk for these types of stories. Anytime a Tesla crashes, the first thing that is planted in people’s minds is the possibility that the car may have been using the semi-autonomous driving functionalities. Why? Human beings are still responsible for operating the car even when the vehicle is utilizing the state-of-the-art technology. It is in no way the car’s fault when the driver is still responsible for the ultimate operation of the vehicle. It’s like blaming a fork for obesity, in my eyes.
While it is unfortunate that there have been deaths due to Autopilot, there are instances where gross negligence from the driver is truly the cause of an accident. For example, in a case where speed and reckless driving is truly the factor, there needs to be an immediate clarification by investigating officers. Perhaps Tesla could provide some clarification to authorities in some kind of system where officers could give the VIN of a vehicle involved, and Tesla could determine immediately whether the car was operating using its driver assistance features. Obviously, there may be a better way. But in the short-term, especially in the early days of the FSD Beta, the credibility of the vehicle’s systems is extremely important for future rollouts.
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.
Statistically, Tesla vehicles are much safer than human drivers, to begin with. Recent Q4 2020 Safety Report statistics from Tesla show that one accident occurred with Autopilot every 3.45 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles. Isn’t that enough to prove Autopilot is a better option than human driving? By the way, it only gets more accurate and precise with every mile driven thanks to its Neural Networks that attain new data.
The exposure Tesla receives after one of these tragic accidents is likely what is the most frustrating. Immediately, people jump to conclusions and assume the car was responsible for the issues. It’s interesting though because I can’t ever recall a single instance of media jumping all over an issue with SuperCruise or any of the other numerous driver assistance systems that are out on the market today. I am sure there has been coverage, I just can’t recall any instance where it has been a national headline like Tesla seems to be included in on a regular basis.
In all honesty, it is just extremely frustrating to know that there is so much focus on Tesla’s shortcomings instead of its broad successes. I am a TSLA investor, but I am also extremely critical of the company at times, and I believe it is because of my holdings. There are times I would do things differently. I was vocal about my distaste for not telling any Model Y LR RWD reservation holders that their cars weren’t going to be made. I am upset that there is relatively no communication with Model S Plaid reservation holders regarding their steering wheels. I am not a fan that we’ve been told Semi/Roadster production is imminent on numerous occasions but we are still sitting here with neither of those vehicles. I get the bottlenecks, but I think those things have just frustrated me personally.
I’m glad Tesla spends $0 on advertising. The news outlets & media don’t deserve Teslas money. It’s better used growing the company & for things like building next-gen factories. Ford and GM alone will spend over $5B this year on US advertising. The bias is clear and money talks.
— Sawyer Merritt ?? (@SawyerMerritt) March 17, 2021
However, I am also going to admit when things are just plain unfair, and Tesla is a victim of that on so many occasions. I don’t know if that has to do with oil money lining the pockets of MSM, or it is just an attempt to derail a company that has really disrupted the automotive industry. I won’t speculate. There is, of course, a reason for the investigations that could be beneficial. It could just be an attempt to learn from the mistakes of Tesla and pass them along for future instances. Unfortunately, there will be more accidents with self-driving software, and it will go far beyond Tesla. However, Tesla is the only company with a robust self-driving program, so the microscope almost needs to be on them at times, but that’s where this whole situation really gets sticky.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
