News
Opinion: Tesla Model S Plaid’s ‘packaging symphony’ shows need for a flagship design update
When rumors of the Tesla Model S Plaid started emerging, many were excited to see the company’s new flagship sedan. It takes something special, after all, to dethrone the Model S “Raven” Performance, a vehicle that is already capable of humbling supercars on the quarter-mile. But while the specs of the Plaid definitely did not disappoint, one could not deny that the car’s exterior left much to be desired.
The Tesla Model S Plaid, to put it bluntly, looks very similar to the Model S “Raven” Performance. Save for a slightly wider stance and some updated accents here and there, the car looks nearly identical to its predecessor. This was something that Tesla critics immediately pounced on, and it was something that could have been avoided. The Model S Plaid, after all, is a revolutionary car in its own right. Its ongoing teardown continues to prove it.
A “Packaging Symphony”
Auto veteran Sandy Munro of Munro & Associates is currently in the process of tearing down and analyzing every aspect of the Model S Plaid, and so far, the expert has been impressed with the vehicle. A recent video posted on the Munro Live YouTube channel showcased the Model S Plaid’s rear motor assembly, and as per one of the team’s experts, the vehicle’s rear cradle and electric drive module are nothing short of a “packaging symphony.”
The Munro team’s thoughts on the Model S Plaid were unsurprising, considering that the vehicle is filled to the brim with new innovation. The team even concluded in its rear cradle review that compared to its predecessors, the Model S Plaid is really a new generation vehicle. And in a lot of ways, the car does show it. Its specs are on a completely different level compared to the numbers achieved by the Model S “Raven” Performance, and the Plaid’s interior is fully revamped as well.
Considering that the Model S Plaid is also a completely different car beneath the hood, one could find it unfortunate that Tesla opted to package all this innovation in a body that, while now iconic, is getting a little bit long in the tooth. This is not to say that the Model S’ look is no longer attractive, of course. The Model S is still a beautiful car and its lines are now timeless, but it’s hard to shake the idea that for a vehicle like the Plaid, it would have been better if Tesla implemented just as much updates in the vehicle’s exterior as it did with the car’s interior.
Missed Opportunities
This is especially strange since, in the months leading up to the Model S Plaid’s official release, the internet was abuzz with fan renders of what the updated vehicle could look like. Some were radical, but most were subtle enough that they would not look out of place in Tesla’s lineup. Very few could have predicted the vehicle’s actual design, however, as the Plaid was pretty much identical to the Model S “Raven” Performance.
There is no doubt that the sheer engineering involved in the Model S Plaid’s creation is absolutely insane. Every square inch of the car’s interior and everything behind the hood of the vehicle proves this. It’s just a bit surprising — if not a tad bit disappointing — that Tesla opted to simply maintain the status quo with the vehicle’s exterior, which is something that the company rarely does. Tesla made a name for itself as an automaker that does what it thinks is best, after all, regardless of what the rest of the auto sector thinks. The Cybertruck’s brutalist XY design is an example of that.
Even in a company like Tesla, with a mission as important as those outlined by CEO Elon Musk, it does not hurt to put extra effort in packaging the company’s most formidable vehicles in a body that looks the part. Tesla already did that with the next-generation Roadster, and there is no reason why the company could not do that for its flagship sedan and SUV. The Model S and Model X Plaid would likely be successful in their respective segments — their specs and performance are just that good — but just imagine how much more successful the vehicles could be if their exteriors were redone as much as their interior and tech.
Watch Munro Live‘s teardown of the Model S Plaid’s rear cradle and electric drive module in the video below.
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
