News
Tesla’s sure-footed Model Y approach is the crossover market’s ultimate Trojan Horse
The future of the crossover market may have already started changing–the auto industry has just not realized it yet. Signs of this shift could be found beneath the surface of the Tesla Model Y, a crossover that represents the years of experience in vehicle making that the Silicon Valley-based company gained since it started building cars over a decade ago.
The Model Y could almost be described as Tesla’s most unassuming vehicle based on its exterior. Featuring a very similar design as the Model 3 and lacking the flashy features of the Model X, the Model Y looks very understated. This is one of the reasons why it was so easy for critics to dismiss the Model Y. Some, on account of the crossover’s Model 3-based design during its unveiling, even flat-out insisted that the Model Y does not exist.
The Model Y is currently undergoing a thorough teardown and analysis from automotive specialist Sandy Munro of Munro and Associates. The progress of the Model Y teardown has been incremental due to the ongoing pandemic, but the sections of the vehicle that have already undergone analysis all show one theme: the Model Y is the representation of Tesla’s refinements to its vehicle production process over the years, regardless of how minor they might be.
This could be seen in a comparison of the Model Y and the Model 3’s headliner. A look at the first-production Model 3’s headliner shows that Tesla seemed to have gone for a more traditional approach for the component, such as using glue to set specific parts in position. Tesla used a more unique injection-molded headliner for the Model Y, which eliminates the need for much of the glue used in the Model 3’s component. A hefty dose of Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH) countermeasures were also found on the crossover. Overall, the Model Y shows a far more sure-footed Tesla, one that has solid experience in carmaking.

Elon Musk has noted on Twitter that teardown experts like Munro will likely find many pleasant surprises in the Model Y, and so far, this does seem to be the case. While the vehicle still has areas for improvement, the fact remains that the crossover, which is still in its first production, is already far more refined than its predecessor. From its novel Octovalve system to its use of rigid wiring that can be set by robots on a fully-automated line, the Model Y seems to be Tesla’s most forward-thinking vehicle yet. And this could make all the difference.
The Model Y is competing in the crossover segment, which is highly competitive but incredibly lucrative. Just like the pickup truck market, there are vehicles that have become legends in the crossover industry, from affordable entries such as the Toyota RAV4 to premium SUVs like the Porsche Macan. The Model Y is designed to compete in this market and offer potential customers a compelling alternative to tried and tested vehicles. Considering its price, its tech, and the fact that it seems to be designed very well, the Model Y will likely have more than a fighting chance to compete.
Tesla has a habit of making a vehicle that ends up becoming a Trojan horse of sorts. The Model 3 is one of these, as the car ended up disrupting the midsize premium sedan market to such a degree that sales of rivals like the BMW M3 have been decimated, despite critics largely dismissing Tesla in the lead up to its release. But unlike the Model 3’s first production units, even the Model Y’s first run already shows a certain degree of maturity in vehicle design and manufacturing. The Model Y will only get better with time as Tesla continues to refine little aspects of the vehicle, but even at its current state, the all-electric crossover is already something that is out of the ordinary.
And that is the biggest irony of all. Legacy automakers appear to have adopted a pretty dismissive approach to the Model Y. Save for Ford, which has unveiled the Mustang Mach-E, and Porsche, which has announced an all-electric Macan, the premium all-electric crossover market seems strangely open for domination. Just like with the Model 3, legacy auto appears to be all-too-willing to make way for the Model Y. And just as before, by the time competitors realize the all-electric crossover’s true potential, there is a very good chance that they will be late, just as the Model 3’s rivals like the BMW i4 are late today.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
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
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
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.