News
Aspiring Tesla rival Byton claims better tech, break even goal in 2-3 years after first EV production
Like several aspiring Tesla rivals before it, Byton aims to beat the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker at its own game. This means better tech, a lower price point, and a solid path to profitability without any of the growing pains that Tesla experienced over the years. Byton CEO Daniel Kirchert believes that his company has the goods to meet these goals, and perhaps even more.
In a recent interview, Kirchert noted that when preparing the M-Byte, Byton’s first vehicle, the CEO stated that the company focused so much on tech that it is poised to outdo Tesla in the segment. “We tried to jump at least one or two steps further,” he said, emphasizing that the company wanted to create a “smart device on wheels” with its first production vehicle.
Byton caught headlines when it unveiled its first concept vehicle’s interior, which was dominated by a massive display that stretched across the dashboard. The company has adopted this design on the M-Byte, which will likely be a competitor to the Tesla Model Y, Jaguar I-PACE, and the Ford Mustang Mach-E. Thus, the vehicle will have a 48-inch dashboard display, a touchpad on the steering wheel, and over-the-air updates.
For the Byton CEO, the M-Byte’s interior concept will be a “game-changer.” Far from being distracting, Kirchert stated that the 48-inch display would be the complete opposite of distracting. He noted that the massive screen would not obstruct the driver’s view while allowing drivers to quickly move their eyes from the road to the display and back. And since the display is 48 inches, it would be easier to read and comprehend the information on the screen.
But this is not all. The CEO also noted that it intends to avoid Tesla’s mistakes with the Model 3’s mass production, which was overly-automated at first. Thus, the company will follow tried and tested methods to build its cars. This, according to Kirchert, will allow Byton’s vehicles to have the same level of build quality with Germany’s best, such as Mercedes-Benz and BMW. In what appeared to be a slight stab at Tesla, the CEO also mentioned that the company would break even far quicker than the Elon Musk-led company.
“We were convinced right from the beginning that we won’t have 10 or 15 years to reach break-even,” he said. A company representative has further noted that Byton is aiming to reach the break-even point two to three years after it starts selling the M-Byte.
To make this possible, Kirchert noted that Byton would have to mass-produce the M-Byte in large numbers. This is the primary reason why the company is pricing the all-electric SUV at around $50,000, which is closer to the Model Y than other premium rivals like the Jaguar I-PACE.
It should be noted that while the Byton CEO’s statements are very optimistic, it is far more challenging to walk the walk than it is to talk the talk. Byton is not the only aspiring Tesla rival that has emerged. The line is long with companies such as Faraday Future and Lucid Motors. But despite the emergence of these companies, as well as the arrival of competing cars from established automakers such as the Audi e-tron, there are very few legitimate competitors to Tesla’s electric vehicles, even older ones like the Model S and Model X.
With this in mind, Byton may still need to learn a thing or two in practice before it can have a legitimate shot at beating Tesla at its own game. Still, the arrival of the M-Byte should be welcomed, as it is yet another electric vehicle that can help in getting petrol-powered SUVs off the road.
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
