News
The saga continues with Model X driver involved in Montana crash
Mr. Pang is back this time with a second open letter to Tesla
The Tesla Model X driver involved in a Montana crash while using Autopilot is stirring up controversy once again this time asking Tesla Motors to reveal additional details from the incident. It seems that language differences play a large role in this dispute. Acting as his representative, Steven Xu sent us a second open letter Mr. Pang penned to Elon Musk, in which he takes issue with Tesla’s account of the accident. The open letter reads as follows:
Here is the second letter from my friend, Mr.Pang.
To Tesla Team:
It has been weeks since I published the letter. No one has ever tried to contact us and discus about the crash. To fully understand the reason that caused this crash is critical for all tesla drivers. After awhile tesla published a response towards our letter. Most of parts are fit into the story. However there are few points that I would like to point out.
“From this data, we learned that after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes. This is contrary to the terms of use when first enabling the feature and the visual alert presented you every time Autosteer is activated.”
I admit that my hands were out of steering wheel after I engaged autopilot. The reason that I was doing that is because I put too much faith in this system. I also believe most Tesla driver would do the something when they
engage autopilot including Elon. The problem here is that Tesla had over advertised this feature by calling it “autopilot”. This feature should named “advance driving assistant”. It is possible that Tesla had known accident like this would come sooner or later. Tesla might think that setting up the term by saying “please put hands on steering wheel at all time” would be response free for Tesla.
2、 As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted you to put your hands on the wheel.
The road condition was better than fine. Lane mark is absolutely clear. Road is flat and there is no incoming car. No matter what my sight was never out of the road. However everything was happened too fast for me to take control. Everything happened in less than a second.
3、No steering torque was then detected until Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action. Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow, and you applied the brake pedal.
No one should avoid the cause of the malfunction of autopilot feature. Since you start explaining it, I realize that you are implying that some sort of force was applied to the steering wheel by me. I had no idea how Tesla got this clue. There are two points I want to make here. First, my hands were not on the steering wheel. Second no obstacle was on the road to alter the steering wheel direction. The one and the only one that was taking control of this entire vehicle and steering it away from the road is autopilot software itself. Somehow I realize if my hands were on the steering wheel with a force, would Tesla blame me for the collision? To me it looks like that if an accident occur by autopilot, either hands are on or not on the steering wheel, Tesla can always find a way out by saying “abrupt steering action”.
Tesla also claimed that “abrupt steering adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow.”
This is nowhere near the truth. The real thing is that vehicle was NEVER attended to slow from hitting the first pole towards the last. It only took about a second to hit 12 wood poles. I believe if it wasn’t me who brake the vehicle it would continued cruising. Mr. Huang was injured severely due to high speed impact.
Tesla as a global impact company should respect the truth of every incident. Nothing is more important hand human life. Lying or manipulating towards public about what really happened is unacceptable.
Weeks ago I got contacted by Tesla regarding this accident. Since you cannot find a mandarin translator, we rearranged the call again in four hours. However that was the last time when Tesla tries to contact me. What I am asking is to fully reveal the driving data from the collision. Reliability of Autopilot software matters to hundreds and thousands of Tesla drivers. I wish to know the entire story about what really happened on us on that collision.
Thanks
Sincerely
Mr. Pang
Steven Xu pointed us to comments being made on the Tesla Motors Club forum that seemingly offers Mr. Pang no support at all. In fact, based on those comments, there almost seems to be a cultural bias in play in this situation. One wonders if perhaps things would seem different if they were driving a car in China that only displayed instructions in Mandarin.
Pang’s complaint is very similar to one lodged by a Chinese customer last month whose Tesla crashed on the highway on the way to work. He claimed that the salesman he spoke to before purchasing his car told him specifically that the car could drive itself and proved it by driving with his hands off the wheel during a test drive. Tesla later amended the language it uses to describe its Autopilot system on its Chinese website. It’s possible that same linguistic confusion has a bearing on Mr. Pang’s unfortunate accident.
At this point, it seems the matter will be handled by insurance companies and lawyers. Tesla apparently has had no further contact with Pang. Through Steven, Pang says, “Weeks ago I got contacted by Tesla regarding this accident. Since you cannot find a Mandarin translator, we re-arranged the call again in four hours. However, that was the last time when Tesla tries to contact me.
“What I am asking is to fully reveal the driving data from the collision. Reliability of Autopilot software
matters to hundreds and thousands of Tesla drivers. I wish to know the entire story about what really happened on us on that collision.”
Elon Musk
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show.
Tesla showcased its Optimus humanoid robot at the 2026 Appliance & Electronics World Expo (AWE 2026) in Shanghai. The event opened Thursday and featured several Tesla products, including the company’s humanoid robot and the Cybertruck.
The display was reported by CNEV Post, citing information from local media outlet Cailian and on-site staff at the exhibition.
Tesla’s humanoid robot was presented as part of the company’s exhibit at the Shanghai electronics show. On-site staff reportedly stated that mass production of the robot could begin by the end of 2026.
Tesla previously indicated that it plans to manufacture its humanoid robots at scale once production begins, with its initial production line in the Fremont Factory reaching up to 1 million units annually. An Optimus production line at Gigafactory Texas is expected to produce 10 million units per year.
Tesla China previously shared a teaser image on Weibo showing a pair of highly detailed robotic hands believed to belong to Optimus. The image suggests a design with finger proportions and structures that closely resemble those of a human hand.
Robotic hands are widely considered one of the most difficult engineering challenges in humanoid robotics. For a system like Optimus to perform complex real-world tasks, from factory work to household activities, the robot would require highly advanced dexterity.
Elon Musk has previously stated that Optimus has the capability to eventually become the first real-world example of a Von Neumann machine, a self-replicating system capable of building copies of itself, even on other planets. “Optimus will be the first Von Neumann machine, capable of building civilization by itself on any viable planet,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Elon Musk
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
Tesla is reportedly designing its Cybercab production line to manufacture hundreds of the autonomous vehicles each week once mass production begins. The effort is underway at Gigafactory Texas in Austin as the company prepares to start building the Robotaxi at scale.
The details were reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter.
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
People reportedly familiar with Tesla’s plans stated that the company has been growing its staff and bringing in new equipment to start the mass production of the Cybercab this April.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s upcoming fully autonomous two-seat vehicle designed without a steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle is intended to operate primarily as part of Tesla’s planned Robotaxi ride-hailing network.
“There’s no fallback mechanism here. Like this car either drives itself or it does not drive,” Musk stated during Tesla’s previous earnings call.
Tesla has indicated that Cybercab production could begin as soon as April, though Elon Musk has noted that early production will likely be slow before ramping over time. Musk has stated that the Cybercab’s slow ramp is due in no small part to the fact that it is a completely new vehicle platform.
Tesla’s Cybercab is designed to work with the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and support its planned autonomous ride-hailing service. The company has suggested that the vehicle could cost under $30,000, making it one of Tesla’s most affordable models if produced at scale. Musk has confirmed in a previous X post that the vehicle will indeed be offered to regular consumers at a price below $30,000.
Musk has previously stated that Tesla could eventually produce millions of Cybercabs annually if demand and production capacity scale as planned.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
Tesla showcases Optimus humanoid robot at AWE 2026 in Shanghai
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
