Tesla’s next-generation Roadster is designed to be the halo car that outperforms the world’s top supercars in speed, power, and range while shattering world records in the making. But beyond its promised vertigo-inducing performance specifications, the vehicle’s looks competes with the best exotics with its low profile, wide stance, and sleek, aerodynamic lines.
The Silicon Valley electric carmaker appears to have one working prototype of the next-generation Roadster that’s painted in a rich, blazing red. It’s not quite the signature red paint job featured in Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster that was sent on a journey to Mars, but the paint scheme of the prototype is unmistakable and eye-catching. Tesla also appears to have two to-scale models of the next-gen Roadster as well — a midnight silver-esque one featured during the unveiling last November and a white multicoat Roadster that was unveiled in the 2018 Annual Shareholder Meeting.
Considering the next-gen Roadster’s design, there’s arguably not a single color that wouldn’t be jaw-dropping on the all-electric supercar. Graphic designer Miguel Castro exhibited some creativity after the vehicle’s unveiling by envisioning how the Roadster would look in several colors, including “Electric Blue”.
Teslarati‘s very own Reese Wilson also reimagined the 2020 Roadster in a menacing matte black. But matte-colored Teslas won’t be making their way to the factory paint shop anytime soon.
YouTuber and renown tech reviewer Marques Brownlee, and devout fan of matte black everything, digs deeper to find out why Tesla might be sticking to the more traditional glossy paint. In his recent tour of Tesla’s Fremont factory with CEO Elon Musk, Marques asked Musk if Tesla would ever offer a matte black option for its vehicles, particularly since the company did showcase a matte Model 3 prototype when the electric sedan was initially unveiled. Elon Musk’s response was encouraging, at least for the future.
“I actually like the aesthetics of matte. It’s really tricky to repair matte. With gloss, you can polish it out. With matte, if you get like a little ding, it’s really hard to then rematch so it looks like an even matte. We’d like to do matte in the future, but right now, for example, the paint shop is really operating at full tilt, so adding any complexity to the paint shop would not be wise right now, but I think it will be a cool thing to do in the future,” Musk said.
One of the areas that Tesla has struggled in with regards to the Model 3 production ramp was the Fremont factory’s paint shop. In the Q2 2018 earnings call, Musk noted that Tesla is “figuring out how to make the paint shop a lot simpler and general assembly a lot simpler” as the company starts producing the Model 3 in even higher volumes. Tesla’s appears to have made progress with its paint shop improvements since then, as evidenced by the company uploading a rather lighthearted video of a cow udder-like robot used for painting the Model 3.
There is a pretty good chance that Tesla would not be offering matte black as an option for the next-gen Tesla Roadster. Nevertheless, some owners of the all-electric supercar who are fond of the color would likely use wraps as a way to make their vehicles more unique. One of these is Unplugged Performance’s Burnt Orange wrap for the Tesla Model S, which is pretty eye-catching in its own right.
The next-gen Roadster would most likely shatter a lot of competition when it starts rolling out to customers in 2020, especially since the vehicle’s insane specs announced by Musk during its unveiling is true only for the supercar’s base model. Musk has since mentioned another trim for the next-gen Roadster, and that would be even crazier in terms of raw power and speed. That trim is the SpaceX option, a variant of the Roadster that would literally feature rocket tech from SpaceX, Musk’s private space venture. To boost the vehicle’s performance, Musk plans on using Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPV), which are used in SpaceX’s first-stage rocket boosters during re-entry and landing.
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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
