News
Tesla’s 75 kWh battery pack removal opens doors to ‘Track Mode’ for Model S & X
In a recent update on Twitter, Elon Musk announced that Tesla would be discontinuing the 75 kWh variants of the Model S and Model X. Starting this coming Monday, Tesla’s two flagship vehicles would only be offered at 100 kWh and 100 kWh Performance versions, widening the price gap between the cars and the company’s newest offering — the Model 3.
In a way, retiring the 75D line seems to be the right decision for Tesla. After all, the Model S 75D, which is priced at $76,000 before options, pretty much overlaps with the price of a fully-loaded Model 3 Performance. That said, this change also results in the base price of the Model S and Model X increasing significantly. The Model S 100D — the vehicle’s base version starting Monday — would start at $94,000, while the Model X 100D would start at $97,000, far higher than the Model X 75D’s starting price of $82,000.
Starting on Monday, Tesla will no longer be taking orders for the 75 kWh version of the Model S & X. If you’d like that version, please order by Sunday night at https://t.co/46TXqRJ3C1
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2019
Apart from widening the gap between the more affordable Model 3 and the flagship Model S and X, though, the retirement of the 75 kWh battery pack also opens the doors to a very likely battery upgrade for the full-size sedan and SUV. The Model S and X, after all, are still equipped with 18650 cells, which are smaller and a bit older than the 2170 cells being used on the Model 3. These cells are also imported from Panasonic’s facilities in Japan, instead of being produced in Gigafactory 1.
By retiring the 75 kWh battery pack, Tesla would give itself an opportunity to roll out the newer cells to its flagship vehicles. The 2170 cells, for one, would probably even allow the Performance-branded Model S and X to handle extended track driving. Part of the reason behind the current generation Model S and X’s inability to be competitive on the track, after all, is their batteries, which have a tendency to overheat after a few laps around a closed circuit. This particular issue has been largely addressed by Tesla with the Model 3 and its 2170 cells, as evidenced by the vehicle’s dedicated Track Mode setting.
A Track Mode feature for the Performance Model S and X would make the vehicles even more fearsome than they already are. Even with their general inability to be driven on a racecourse, the Model S and Model X have nonetheless developed a reputation as monsters in straight-line races over the years. Equipped with a battery that has the same tech as the Model 3 — from its 2170 cells to its clever cooling systems — the Model S and X would be downright frightening.
Apart from opening the doors to Track Mode, an update to 2170 cells would likely result in more range for the Model S and Model X as well. This is something that Tesla could definitely use as a selling point for its flagship vehicles, considering that the competition, including the Porsche Taycan and the Jaguar I-PACE, are still pretty much competing against the bar set by vehicles that were created during the 18650 cell era. One can only speculate how much range a Long Range version of the Model S would have if it were equipped with 2170 cells. Perhaps even a 400-mile range? Such a scenario is plausible.
Hidden within this new update from Elon Musk, though, is something that bodes well for the company’s upcoming vehicle — the Model Y. Seeing as Tesla retired the Model X 75D, the company’s only SUV in its lineup now starts at $97,000. That’s very expensive, and this price notably reduces the size of the vehicle’s potential consumer base in an incredibly popular segment. By adopting this strategy at this point, Tesla appears to be hinting at the release of another, more affordable SUV that can compete more aggressively than the entry-level Model X. This vehicle, of course, would be the Model Y.
The Model Y has been in the rumor mill for some time now. In recent months, though, Elon Musk has provided a number of updates on the vehicle. During the company’s third-quarter earnings call, for one, Musk mentioned that he had already approved the construction of the Model Y’s alpha prototype. Musk has also joked that the upcoming SUV would be unveiled this 2018, perhaps sometime in the first half of the year.
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
