News
Tesla is pushing the limits of its proven Gigafactory formula in Texas
Tesla has, for all intents and purposes, developed a strategy for building its Gigafactories in a quick and efficient manner. This was shown in Gigafactory Shanghai, which started mass production of the Made-in-China Model 3 within a year after its groundbreaking ceremony, and in Giga Berlin, which is now also taking form despite the trickle of permits from German authorities.
Tesla’s Gigafactory formula seems to have been inspired by GA4, a “tent”-based Model 3 production line constructed in the Fremont Factory grounds as a way for the company to manufacture more vehicles during a period described by Elon Musk as “production hell.” The concept of GA4 was simple. Cars are progressively assembled as they pass through the sprung structure, while supplies are delivered through the loading bays at the side.
A look at Gigafactory Shanghai suggests that the facility is but a more permanent and evolved form of GA4, from its straightforward vehicle assembly process to its numerous loading bays. This was true for both the first and second phases of the facility, which produce the Model 3 and Model Y, respectively. Giga Shanghai’s construction was extremely rapid, with crews working 24/7 to finish the Phase 1 building’s factory shell. Once this was done, equipment was installed, and trial production of Model 3 test units started.
Gigafactory Berlin appears to be following a relatively similar pattern. During the massive facility’s buildout, it seemed that equipment was only installed after the complex’s buildings themselves were nearing completion. Granted, part of this may be due to the fact that Giga Berlin had to be constructed according to the permits that the facility receives. But despite this, the German plant seems to be progressing at a pattern that is quite similar to its China-based counterpart.
This does not seem to be true for Gigafactory Texas at all. Over the past months and as the facility enters its eighth month of construction, the activities surrounding Giga Texas have been incredibly interesting. In January, shipments from IDRA, the company behind the Model Y’s massive Giga Press in the Fremont Factory, were spotted in the complex. What appeared to be robots for vehicle production lines were spotted not long after.
Recent flyovers of the Gigafactory Texas complex suggest that there is now a steady stream of equipment being delivered and possibly being installed on the site. This was evident in a recently shared video from the Terafactory Texas YouTube channel, which captured images of what seemed to be Model Y Body-in-White machines being moved around the area.
It should be noted that Gigafactory Texas has only been under construction for eight months, and a significant part of its factory shell is yet to be completed. Despite this, Tesla already seems intent on initiating the installation and setup of its production equipment. This includes its Giga Press machines, which would produce the Model Y’s single-piece rear underbody.
This strategy would require a great deal of synchronization, of course. But if successfully done, such a system could result in Giga Texas being built at a rate that’s significantly faster than Giga Shanghai or Gigafactory Berlin.
Overall, it appears that over the years, Tesla has come up with a solid formula that enables the company to build its Gigafactories quickly. But in true Elon Musk fashion, Tesla seems to be determined to improve a proven formula nonetheless. Gigafactory Texas is quite fascinating in this sense, as it could very well be a project that demonstrates once and for all that it takes boldness and a constant urge to innovate to truly change the industry.
Watch a recent flyover of the Gigafactory Texas complex in the video below.
https://youtu.be/kaKI7aMG6_k
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
