Lucid’s unveiling of the Air was impressive; there is no doubt about that. It has all the ingredients for a great electric car: Speed, power, capability, luxuriousness, range, quality engineering, and a team of highly-dedicated engineers who are working to improve upon the already solid foundation that the company has laid down.
Immediately, what thought came to my mind while watching the presentation was, “They’re legit.” It is evident that Lucid was taking things seriously and was not using a bunch of fancy B-roll and suspenseful music to sell a product that wasn’t in production. No way. Lucid was dead serious about their car, and they recognize that until production begins and the Air starts being delivered to consumers, they haven’t accomplished a damn thing.
That’s a refreshing mindset in today’s day and age. To be honest, I understand a lot of companies are coming out and saying that they’re the next big thing. They’re the next Tesla, and their EV platform is the one that is going to solve all the problems.
These claims have come up empty time and time again. But Lucid definitely took a different approach. While describing and laying out the Air piece by piece for viewers to gauge thoughts on, the company’s CEO Peter Rawlinson was vocally supportive of Lucid’s efforts this far. However, he knows that the hard work is far from over. Just ask Elon Musk, who called Model 3 manufacturing “production hell” a few years ago.
That is what is super respectable about Lucid. They know that production is the real test, and it is one that never ends. After manufacturing begins and cars are delivered, there will be room for celebration, and there will be time to look at the accomplishments over the last five years. Until then, it’s hard work and grinding it out.
But it begs the question, can Lucid catch up to Tesla? Is this possible?
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.
Tesla has a considerably-sized head start by a few years over Lucid, and Tesla has already been given the nod that it has a multi-year advantage over some of the biggest companies in the world. Volkswagen and Audi have both admitted it in the past, but their focus has not primarily been on EVs. Gas cars have filled the minds of VW CEOs for years.
Ever since VW has started manufacturing the ID.3 and ID.4, they have been plagued with a variety of issues that have been software related. Volkswagen has fantastic engineering, and the problems they have faced have been hindering the company’s ability to release a quality EV promptly.
Now, VW has an extensive and successful history in automotive manufacturing. While they have only a few years of experience with developing electric cars, they have still stumbled from time to time, and this is after having so many years of manufacturing experience.
Lucid could experience some of those problems when the production of the Air begins. These issues could be a big problem because they may delay the ultimate delivery date of the Dream Edition, which is Spring 2021.
However, there is a chance that Lucid has worked out all of the kinks. Let’s not forget that Lucid didn’t spring up overnight. It was originally Atieva and was founded in 2007. It seems that a lot of the significant work was done when Peter Rawlinson came on, who worked for Tesla and helped with the Model S.
Rawlinson is a seasoned and experienced veteran, and he has done some awe-inspiring things with Lucid thus far. But is there a chance that Lucid can catch up to Tesla? Sure, but what proof is there that they have a chance?
First off, it is the range. 517 miles of range in the Air, which is impressive considering it is only a 113 kWh battery pack. This is an unheard-of amount of traveling distance in an EV and is considerably more than the Model S’ 402-mile rating. Next, the performance of the Air is critical to the company’s competition with Tesla. The Air is faster than the Model S Performance, but will it be faster than the Plaid Mode Model S? It is unknown, but many seem to think that the newly-engineered flagship sedan from Tesla will be the perfect answer to the Air. Whether that becomes a reality or not remains to be seen.
What is ultimately essential with the development of the Air is we can see that real EV manufacturers are coming to light with competitive products. For so long, legacy automakers have pumped out half-hearted attempts at producing an electric car. They throw a low kWh battery pack into a sedan, give it 100 miles of range and call it “the next big thing.” News flash: it isn’t. If you want to compete in this sector, you have to give consumers a reason to want your vehicle over a Tesla, which is really the benchmark at this point, especially since the Model 3 is widely affordable.
Lucid answered a lot of those questions on Wednesday night. They proved that their car is worth it, and they have plenty of things that could be “better” than what Tesla has to offer. But, it might not be for long, because Elon Musk is the master at taking the wind from a competitor’s sails when a new product is launched.
In reality, anything can happen. But the good news is the fact that Tesla now has a real competitor who seems to be serious about EV manufacturing. There is no goal way down the road for production, and their car works and is tested. With the competition, Tesla could see its best days yet, and Lucid could ultimately be another driving force behind widespread EV adoption.
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!
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
