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 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
