News
Tesla’s next-gen Roadster will have a rival when it enters production, and it’s German-bred
Just like the Model S and the Model 3, Tesla’s next-generation Roadster has the potential to disrupt an industry. In the case of the Roadster, this would be the supercar market — a segment dominated mainly by premium, high-performance vehicles from Europe. With its specs and its price, the Roadster would likely start making waves among supercar enthusiasts once it enters production sometime in 2020.
If recent reports from Germany are any indication, though, a legitimate rival to Tesla’s “hardcore smackdown” to gasoline cars would be waiting for it when it starts rolling off the production floor. In an announcement earlier this month, German automaker Audi noted that it would be bringing its next-generation PB18 e-tron all-electric supercar to low-volume production. With just around 50 units of the vehicle expected to be built, the PB18 e-tron would likely arrive at the market just in time, or even ahead, of the next-gen Tesla Roadster.
Audi’s PB18 e-tron supercar was unveiled last summer, with the German carmaker hyping the vehicle as a car equipped with the best technologies available today, such as an 800-volt charging system and solid-state batteries that can be fully charged in 15 minutes. At the recently-held Mission Zero Event in Amsterdam, Audi boss Bram Schot announced that the supercar, which was initially speculated to be a one-off prototype, would actually be entering low-volume production.
In a press release for the PB18 e-tron, Audi noted that the supercar would be equipped with three electric motors that deliver a power output of 150 kW to the front axle and 350 kW to the rear. Maximum output for the vehicle is 500 kW, though drivers can boost this to 570 kW during operation. Thanks to the electric motors’ combined torque of up to 830-newton meters (612.2 lb-ft), the German-bred electric supercar can accelerate from 0-60 mph in “scarcely more than 2 seconds.”
While certainly impressive, though, Audi’s upcoming all-electric supercar does fall short when compared to some of the next-generation Tesla Roadster’s specs. The Audi PB18 e-tron, for one, comes with a 95 kWh battery pack, which the company states will give the vehicle 500 km (310 miles) of range per charge. The next-generation Tesla Roadster, on the other hand, is equipped with a 200 kWh battery pack that gives the vehicle a range of 1000 km (620 miles) per charge. That said, Audi’s upcoming all-electric supercar is also capable of 350 kW charging, which should make up for the vehicle’s otherwise average range.
Tesla’s next-generation Roadster. (Photo: Tesla)
Performance figures aside, the Audi PB18 e-tron would likely be priced higher than the Tesla Roadster. With a limited production of just 50 vehicles, Audi could charge top dollar for its all-electric supercar. Thus, it would not be surprising if the PB18 e-tron ends up commanding a price closer to the Rimac C_Two (also a low-volume all-electric supercar priced at $2.1 million) than its Silicon Valley-bred rival. In this sense, the next-generation Tesla Roadster would still be far more attainable than the PB18 e-tron, considering the vehicle’s starting price of $200,000 for the base variant.
Elon Musk notes that the next-generation Tesla Roadster is a supercar designed to take away the halo effect that gas cars have in the performance segment. In classic Elon Musk form, though, the Tesla CEO has announced some pretty crazy ideas for the upcoming vehicle, including a “SpaceX package” that would allow the Roadster to have “hovering” abilities. The base version of the next-gen Tesla Roadster already boasts a 0-60 mph time of 1.9 seconds and a top speed above 250 mph. With the SpaceX package, the vehicle’s specs would likely look, quite literally, out of this world.
Watch Audi’s teaser for the PB18 e-tron supercar in the video below.
https://youtu.be/el-4dupoIWg
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
