Elon Musk
Tesla’s Q1 delivery figures show Elon Musk was right
On the surface, the numbers reflect a mature EV market facing competition, softening demand, and the loss of certain incentives. Yet they also quietly validate a prediction Elon Musk has repeated for years: Tesla’s traditional auto business is becoming far less central to the company’s future.
Tesla reported its Q1 delivery figures on Thursday, and the figures — solid but unspectacular — show that CEO Elon Musk was right about what the company’s most important production and division would be.
We are seeing that shift occur in real time.
Tesla delivered 358,023 vehicles in the first quarter of 2026, according to the company’s official report released April 2.
The figure represents modest year-over-year growth of roughly 6 percent from Q1 2025’s 336,681 deliveries but a sharp sequential drop from Q4 2025’s 418,227. Production reached 408,386 vehicles, while energy storage deployments hit 8.8 GWh.
On the surface, the numbers reflect a mature EV market facing competition, softening demand, and the loss of certain incentives. Yet they also quietly validate a prediction Elon Musk has repeated for years: Tesla’s traditional auto business is becoming far less central to the company’s future.
Musk has long argued that vehicles alone will not define Tesla’s value.
Optimus Will Be Tesla’s Big Thing
In September 2025, Musk stated bluntly on X that “~80% of Tesla’s value will be Optimus,” the company’s humanoid robot.
He has described Optimus as potentially “more significant than the vehicle business over time.” Those comments were not abstract futurism. In January 2026, during the Q4 2025 earnings call, Musk announced the end of Model S and X production, framing it as an “honorable discharge,” he called it.
Those are the biggest factors.
~80% of Tesla’s value will be Optimus.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2025
The Fremont factory space, once dedicated to those flagship sedans, is being converted into an Optimus manufacturing line, with a long-term target of one million robots per year from that single facility alone.
The Q1 2026 numbers arrive at precisely the moment this strategic pivot is accelerating. Model 3 and Y deliveries totaled 341,893 units, while “other models” (including Cybertruck, Semi, and the final wave of S/X) added 16,130.
Growth is no longer explosive because Tesla is no longer chasing volume at all costs. Instead, the company is reallocating capital and factory floor space toward autonomy, energy storage, and robotics, businesses Musk believes will command far higher margins and enterprise value than incremental car sales.
Delivery Hits and Misses are Becoming Less Important
Wall Street’s pre-release consensus had pegged deliveries near 365,000. Coming in below that estimate might have rattled investors focused solely on automotive metrics. Yet Musk’s thesis has never been about maximizing quarterly vehicle shipments.
Tesla, he has insisted, “has never been valued strictly as a car company.”
The modest Q1 auto performance, paired with the deliberate wind-down of legacy programs and the ramp of Optimus, underscores that point. While EV demand stabilizes, Tesla is building the infrastructure for Robotaxis and humanoid robots that could dwarf today’s car business.
The future is here, and it is happening. It’s funny to think about how quickly Tesla was able to disrupt the traditional automotive business and force many car companies to show their hand. But just as fast as Tesla disrupted that, it is now moving to disrupt its own operation.
Cars, once the only recognizable and widely-known division of Tesla, is now becoming a background effort, slowly being overtaken by the company’s ambitions to dominate AI, autonomy, and robotics for years to come.
Critics may still view the shift as risky or premature. But the Q1 figures, solid but unspectacular in the auto segment, illustrate exactly what Musk has been signaling: the era when Tesla’s valuation rose and fell with every Model Y delivery is ending.
The company’s long-term bet is on AI-driven products that turn vehicles into high-margin robotaxis and factories into robot foundries. Thursday’s delivery report did not just meet the market’s tempered expectations; it proved Elon Musk was right all along.
The car business, once everything, is quietly becoming an important piece of a much larger puzzle.
Tesla has finally clarified the situation regarding the viral crash in Texas where a Model 3 slammed into a home.
CEO Elon Musk replied to reports on Monday that stated the crash was due to the company’s Full Self-Driving or Autopilot suite, which seemed unlikely to those who are familiar with it. Video showed the car slamming into a house at an excessive rate of speed, making it highly unlikely the crash was due to the suite’s operation, as it does not travel at those speeds in residential areas.
Musk said:
“This makes no sense. FSD drives slowly through neighborhood streets, and this was a high-speed crash!”
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, added context, revealing that the company’s data shows the driver “manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.”
He revealed the speed reached by the car was 73 MPH, and the accelerator was still pressed “even after the crash.”
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
Authorities are reportedly investigating “whether Tesla’s Autopilot system played a role after a Model 3 left the roadway…slammed through a brick house at high speed and fatally struck Matha Avila as she sat inside,” the New York Post reported.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is now investigating the crash. Tesla will work with the agency to provide them with whatever information they need in order to clarify the cause of the crash.
Similarly, Tesla had claims of a fatal accident in Harris County, Texas, a few years ago. Early reports indicated that Full Self-Driving was the cause of the crash. After the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) worked with Tesla, the agency proved there was “no use of the Autopilot system at any time during this ownership period of the vehicle, including the time frame up to the last transmitted timestamp on April 17, 2021.”
Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws have default speed limits of 30 MPH in residential streets.
This appears to be a similar situation. However, an investigation will prove what happened for sure.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Mississippi.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
SpaceX makes $20 billion move to optimize its balance sheet
