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.”
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
