An insurance company wanted to prove that Tesla batteries catch on fire and performed a test without the battery. Yes, you read that right. Axa Insurance put on a show marketed as a crash test and admitted to 24auto.de that there were no batteries in the tested videos.
you can’t make this up:
insurer @AXA tries demonstrating the 🔥 dangers of EVs.
a Tesla Model S goes up in flames – but the battery had been removed beforehand.
how did it burn then? 🤔
why, the car was set ablaze by pyrotechnics, of course 🧨🤷♂️— stekkerauto 🚗⚡️ (@stekkerauto) August 30, 2022
According to a statement by the Axa, EVs can pose a risk of fire due to the batteries. However, Axa chose to perform these tests ‘proving’ it by not including the batteries. Instead, they set the car on fire in a different way.
Axa told 24auto.de that it would have been too dangerous to demonstrate an actual battery fire so they removed the battery cells before the tests. This same reasoning applied to their decision to ignite the fire of a Tesla Model S with pyrotechnics.
“For safety reasons, it was not possible to ignite a real battery fire at an event with around 500 people, which is why a fire with pyrotechnics was staged.”
“We wanted to use the fire the accident researchers: on the one hand point out the danger of a cell fire, which can result from damage to the underside of the electric car, and on the other hand point out the problems with fires in electric vehicles in general. Fortunately, fires are very rare in electric cars as well as in conventional combustion engines. In the rare case of a battery fire, so-called thermal runaways can.”
Michael Pfäffli, head of accident research at AXA Switzerland, said that the high torque found in most EVs could result in unwanted, jerky acceleration and loss of control. During the crash test, it was assumed that the driver would lose control of the Tesla which would then roll over on a traffic island.
After the crash, Axa noted that the passenger side was intact but the underbody was badly damaged. Axa researchers also noted that the drive battery was very well protected but could still pose a fire hazard.
The photo provided by Axa and the videos made available to the media show the EV on fire. pic.twitter.com/E2NTqCnSZ1
— stekkerauto 🚗⚡️ (@stekkerauto) August 30, 2022
I have so many questions…
How can you claim that something catches on fire and then do a test without that object? And honestly, anything will catch on fire if you set it on fire. Except for water unless the water is contaminated with something flammable.
In my opinion, this so-called test combined with the claim that fires are rare with conventional combustible engines is just FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Another question. How is it legal for any company to openly test a vehicle in this manner on public roads? If they were worried about safety, they shouldn’t be testing and setting cars on fire in places where innocent people could get hurt. Did they have a permit or some type of agency approval for testing?
Tesla owners get criticized for using Full Self-Driving Beta but it’s okay for insurance companies to stage car fires on public roads?
One last question. Would Axa have come out and admitted that this whole thing was staged if 24auto.de hadn’t asked them? They presented the photo to the media which would have harmed Tesla’s reputation. So the question has to be asked, what were Axa’s real motives here?
Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk
Brazil Supreme Court orders Elon Musk and X investigation closed
The decision was issued by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes following a recommendation from Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet.
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court has ordered the closure of an investigation involving Elon Musk and social media platform X. The inquiry had been pending for about two years and examined whether the platform was used to coordinate attacks against members of the judiciary.
The decision was issued by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes following a recommendation from Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet.
According to a report from Agencia Brasil, the investigation conducted by the Federal Police did not find evidence that X deliberately attempted to attack the judiciary or circumvent court orders.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet concluded that the irregularities identified during the probe did not indicate fraudulent intent.
Justice Moraes accepted the prosecutor’s recommendation and ruled that the investigation should be closed. Under the ruling, the case will remain closed unless new evidence emerges.
The inquiry stemmed from concerns that content on X may have enabled online attacks against Supreme Court justices or violated rulings requiring the suspension of certain accounts under investigation.
Justice Moraes had previously taken several enforcement actions related to the platform during the broader dispute involving social media regulation in Brazil.
These included ordering a nationwide block of the platform, freezing Starlink accounts, and imposing fines on X totaling about $5.2 million. Authorities also froze financial assets linked to X and SpaceX through Starlink to collect unpaid penalties and seized roughly $3.3 million from the companies’ accounts.
Moraes also imposed daily fines of up to R$5 million, about $920,000, for alleged evasion of the X ban and established penalties of R$50,000 per day for VPN users who attempted to bypass the restriction.
Brazil remains an important market for X, with roughly 17 million users, making it one of the platform’s larger user bases globally.
The country is also a major market for Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service, which has surpassed one million subscribers in Brazil.
Elon Musk
FCC chair criticizes Amazon over opposition to SpaceX satellite plan
Carr made the remarks in a post on social media platform X.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr criticized Amazon after the company opposed SpaceX’s proposal to launch a large satellite constellation that could function as an orbital data center network.
Carr made the remarks in a post on social media platform X.
Amazon recently urged the FCC to reject SpaceX’s application to deploy a constellation of up to 1 million low Earth orbit satellites that could serve as artificial intelligence data centers in space.
The company described the proposal as a “lofty ambition rather than a real plan,” arguing that SpaceX had not provided sufficient details about how the system would operate.
Carr responded by pointing to Amazon’s own satellite deployment progress.
“Amazon should focus on the fact that it will fall roughly 1,000 satellites short of meeting its upcoming deployment milestone, rather than spending their time and resources filing petitions against companies that are putting thousands of satellites in orbit,” Carr wrote on X.
Amazon has declined to comment on the statement.
Amazon has been working to deploy its Project Kuiper satellite network, which is intended to compete with SpaceX’s Starlink service. The company has invested more than $10 billion in the program and has launched more than 200 satellites since April of last year.
Amazon has also asked the FCC for a 24-month extension, until July 2028, to meet a requirement to deploy roughly 1,600 satellites by July 2026, as noted in a CNBC report.
SpaceX’s Starlink network currently has nearly 10,000 satellites in orbit and serves roughly 10 million customers. The FCC has also authorized SpaceX to deploy 7,500 additional satellites as the company continues expanding its global satellite internet network.
Energy
Tesla Energy gains UK license to sell electricity to homes and businesses
The license was granted to Tesla Energy Ventures Ltd. by UK energy regulator Ofgem after a seven-month review process.
Tesla Energy has received a license to supply electricity in the United Kingdom, opening the door for the company to serve homes and businesses in the country.
The license was granted to Tesla Energy Ventures Ltd. by UK energy regulator Ofgem after a seven-month review process.
According to Ofgem, the license took effect at 6 p.m. local time on Wednesday and applies to Great Britain.
The approval allows Tesla’s energy business to sell electricity directly to customers in the region, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
Tesla has already expanded similar services in the United States. In Texas, the company offers electricity plans that allow Tesla owners to charge their vehicles at a lower cost while also feeding excess electricity back into the grid.
Tesla already has a sizable presence in the UK market. According to price comparison website U-switch, there are more than 250,000 Tesla electric vehicles in the country and thousands of Tesla home energy storage systems.
Ofgem also noted that Tesla Motors Ltd., a separate entity incorporated in England and Wales, received an electricity generation license in June 2020.
The new UK license arrives as Tesla continues expanding its global energy business.
Last year, Tesla Energy retained the top position in the global battery energy storage system (BESS) integrator market for the second consecutive year. According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest rankings, Tesla held about 15% of global market share in 2024.
The company also maintained a dominant position in North America, where it captured roughly 39% market share in the region.
At the same time, competition in the energy storage sector is increasing. Chinese companies such as Sungrow have been expanding their presence globally, particularly in Europe.
Brazil Supreme Court orders Elon Musk and X investigation closed
FCC chair criticizes Amazon over opposition to SpaceX satellite plan
