News
Driver of Model X crash in Montana pens open letter to Musk, calls Tesla drivers “lab rats” [Updated]
Pang, the driver of the Model X that crashed in Montana earlier this month has posted an open letter to Elon Musk and Tesla asking the company to “take responsibility for the mistakes of Tesla products”. He accuses Tesla for allegedly using drivers as “lab rats” for testing of its Autopilot system.
In an email sent to us and also uploaded to the Tesla Motors Club forum, Pang provides a detailed account of what happened the day of the crash. He says he and a friend drove about 600 miles on Interstate 90 on the way to Yellowstone National Park. When he exited the highway to get on Montana route 2, he drove for about a mile, saw conditions were clear, and turned on Autopilot again. Pang describes what happened next as follows:
“After we drove about another mile on state route 2, the car suddenly veered right and crashed into the safety barrier post. It happened so fast, and we did not hear any warning beep. Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed. I managed to step on the break, turn the car left and stopped the car after it crashed 12 barrier posts.
“After we stopped, we heard the car making abnormal loud sound. Afraid that the battery was broken or short circuited, we got out and ran away as fast as we could. After we ran about 50 feet, we found the sound was the engine were still running in high speed. I returned to the car and put it in parking, that is when the loud sound disappeared.”
Pang goes on to explain how his Tesla Model X driving on Autopilot continued to travel on its own even after veering off the road and crashing into a roadside stake. “I was horrified by the fact that the Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash. After we crashed on the first barrier post, autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. What if it is not barrier posts on the right side, but a crowd?”
Photo credit: Steven Xu
After the accident, Tesla reviewed the driving logs from the Model X and reported that the car was operating for more than two miles with no hands on the steering wheel, despite numerous alarms and warnings issued by the car. Pang says he never heard any audible warnings. Comments on TMC range from the incredulous to the acerbic. Most feel Teslas simply don’t operate the way Pang said his car did. Among other discrepancies, the cars are designed to put themselves in Park if the driver’s door is opened with no one in the driver’s seat.
But that hasn’t stopped Pang from voicing his strong opinions on Tesla’s Autopilot system. “It is clear that Tesla is selling a beta product with bugs to consumers, and ask the consumers to be responsible for the liability of the bugging autopilot system. Tesla is using all Tesla drivers as lab rats.”
A car that crashes but continues to accelerate is certainly a scary thought. There is no way to resolve the discrepancy between what Pang says happened and Tesla’s account of what occurred. In an updated email sent to us by friend and english translator for Mandarin speaking Pang, Tesla has reached out to Pang to address the matter.
The original open letter from Pang reads as follows:
A Public Letter to Mr. Musk and Tesla For The Sake Of All Tesla Driver’s Safety
From the survivor of the Montana Tesla autopilot crash
My name is Pang. On July 8, 2016, I drove my Tesla Model X from Seattle heading to Yellowstone Nation Park, with a friend, Mr. Huang, in the passenger seat. When we were on highway I90, I turned on autopilot, and drove for about 600 miles. I switched autopilot off while we exited I90 in Montana to state route 2. After about 1 mile, we saw that road condition was good, and turned on autopilot again. The speed setting was between 55 and 60 mph. After we drove about another mile on state route 2, the car suddenly veered right and crashed into the safety barrier post. It happened so fast, and we did not hear any warning beep. Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed. I managed to step on the break, turn the car left and stopped the car after it crashed 12 barrier posts. After we stopped, we heard the car making abnormal loud sound. Afraid that the battery was broken or short circuited, we got out and ran away as fast as we could. After we ran about 50 feet, we found the sound was the engine were still running in high speed. I returned to the car and put it in parking, that is when the loud sound disappeared. Our cellphone did not have coverage, and asked a lady passing by to call 911 on her cellphone. After the police arrived, we found the right side of the car was totally damaged. The right front wheel, suspension, and head light flied off far, and the right rear wheel was crashed out of shape. We noticed that the barrier posts is about 2 feet from the white line. The other side of the barrier is a 50 feet drop, with a railroad at the bottom, and a river next. If the car rolled down the steep slope, it would be really bad.
Concerning this crash accident, we want to make several things clear:
1. We know that while Tesla autopilot is on but the driver’s hand is not on the steering wheel, the system will issue warning beep sound after a while. If the driver’s hands continue to be off the steering wheel, autopilot will slow down, until the driver takes over both the steering wheel and gas pedal. But we did not hear any warning beep before the crash, and the car did not slow down either. It just veered right in a sudden and crashed into the barrier posts. Apparently the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash. The car was running between 55 and 60 mph, and the barrier posts are just 3 or 4 feet away. It happened in less than 1/10 of a second from the drift to crash. A normal driver is impossible to avoid that in such a short time.
2. I was horrified by the fact that the Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash. After we crashed on the first barrier post, autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. What if it is not barrier posts on the right side, but a crowd?
3. Tesla never contacted me after the accident. Tesla just issued conclusion without thorough investigation, but blaming me for the crash. Tesla were trying to cover up the lack of dependability of the autopilot system, but blaming everything on my hands not on the steering wheel. Tesla were not interested in why the car veered right suddenly, nor why the car did not slow down during the crash. It is clear that Tesla is selling a beta product with bugs to consumers, and ask the consumers to be responsible for the liability of the bugging autopilot system. Tesla is using all Tesla drivers as lab rats. We are willing to talk to Tesla concerning the accident anytime, anywhere, in front of the public.
4. CNN’s article later about the accident was quoting out of context of our interview. I did not say that I do not know either Tesla or me should be responsible for the accident. I might consider buying another Tesla only if they can iron out the instability problems of their system.
As a survivor of such a bad accident, a past fan of the Tesla technology, I now realized that life is the most precious fortune in this world. Any advance in technology should be based on the prerequisite of protecting life to the maximum extend. In front of life and death, any technology has no right to ignore life, any pursue and dream on technology should first show the respect to life. For the sake of the safety of all Tesla drivers and passengers, and all other people sharing the road, Mr. Musk should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly investigate the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for the mistakes of Tesla product. We are willing to publicly talk to you face to face anytime to give you all the details of what happened. Mr. Musk, you should immediately stop trying to cover up the problems of the Tesla autopilot system and blame the consumers.
Tesla’s Response on TMC
TM Ownership, Saturday at 12:11 PM
Dear Mr. Pang,
We were sorry to hear about your accident, but we were very pleased to learn both you and your friend were ok when we spoke through your translator on the morning of the crash (July 9). On Monday immediately following the crash (July 11), we found a member of the Tesla team fluent in Mandarin and called to follow up. When we were able to make contact with your wife the following day, we expressed our concern and gathered more information regarding the incident. We have since made multiple attempts (one Wednesday, one Thursday, and one Friday) to reach you to discuss the incident, review detailed logs, and address any further concerns and have not received a call back.
As is our standard procedure with all incidents experienced in our vehicles, we have conducted a thorough investigation of the diagnostic log data transmitted by the vehicle. Given your stated preference to air your concerns in a public forum, we are happy to provide a brief analysis here and welcome a return call from you. 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. As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted you to put your hands on the wheel. 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.
Following the crash, and once the vehicle had come to rest, the passenger door was opened but the driver door remained closed and the key remained in the vehicle. Since the vehicle had been left in Drive with Creep Mode enabled, the motor continued to rotate. The diagnostic data shows that the driver door was later opened from the outside and the vehicle was shifted to park. We understand that at night following a collision the rotating motors may have been disconcerting, even though they were only powered by minimal levels of creep torque. We always seek to learn from customer concerns, and we are looking into this behavior to see if it can be improved. We are also continually studying means of better encouraging drivers to adhere to the terms of use for our driver assistance features.
We are still seeking to speak with you. Please contact Tesla service so that we can answer any further questions you may have.
Sincerely,
The Tesla team
Tesla’s Cybercab has taken a significant step toward production with new technical details emerging from 2026 EPA certification documents.
The filings, which include a Certificate of Conformity issued in late May, provide the most comprehensive public look yet at the purpose-built autonomous vehicle designed for high-volume, low-cost ride-hailing operations.
At its core, the Cybercab is a front-wheel-drive electric vehicle powered by a single 163 kW (219 horsepower) AC permanent magnet motor. Despite its modest output, prioritizing efficiency and cost over neck-snapping acceleration, the vehicle boasts a strong power-to-weight ratio thanks to its lightweight curb weight of 3,113 pounds and a GVWR of 3,730 pounds.
It operates on a 326-volt electrical architecture with a compact ~48 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The standout revelation is the vehicle’s exceptional efficiency, which Tesla has routinely flexed in the past.
EPA lab tests list an equivalent all-electric range of 418 miles combined and 375 miles on the highway. Tesla has previously targeted around 300 miles of real-world range, and analysts expect the final EPA-rated figure to land near 280-300 miles after adjustment factors.
At a certified 165 Wh/mi in earlier testing, the Cybercab is reportedly the most efficient EV ever produced, significantly outperforming vehicles like the Lucid Air Pure.
New information about @Tesla‘s Cybercab has been revealed in public EPA documents.
• Front-wheel drive
• Battery capacity: ~48 kWh
• 219 horsepower
• Curb weight: 3,113 lbs
• GVWR: 3,730 lbs
• Motor power: 163kW
• Voltage: 326vEquivalent All Electric Range is listed at… pic.twitter.com/D4gkJJTj25
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
This efficiency stems from deliberate design choices tailored for robotaxi duty. The two-seater features a highly aerodynamic shape, minimal weight, which is aided by structural battery integration of what are likely 4680 cells, and no steering wheel or pedals in its fully autonomous configuration.
For ride-hailing fleets, where average trips are short, and can be just five or ten miles, the smaller battery enables faster charging cycles, lower material costs, and reduced vehicle price, a key to Tesla’s goal of a ~$30,000 production cost.
Implications for Autonomous Mobility
These specs underscore Tesla’s strategy: maximize utilization and minimize operating expenses. A ~48 kWh pack could support dozens of short rides per charge, with energy costs potentially dropping below 20 cents per mile at scale. Front-wheel drive simplifies manufacturing and maintenance compared to dual-motor AWD setups in passenger Teslas.
The 219 hp motor provides ample performance for urban and highway speeds without excess, addressing questions about why such power is needed in a “slow” autonomous vehicle. Quick merges and hill climbing still matter for safety and passenger comfort.
Production has already begun at Giga Texas, with EPA certification clearing the path for U.S. deployment. While unsupervised Full Self-Driving remains the critical hurdle, these details paint a compelling picture of a vehicle engineered from the ground up for the robotaxi future: affordable to build, cheap to run, and capable of delivering strong range on a fraction of the battery capacity found in today’s EVs.
As Tesla ramps toward volume output, the Cybercab could reshape urban transportation economics.
Tesla Cybercab, the all-electric ride-hailing-geared vehicle void of a steering wheel and pedals, has achieved a significant regulatory milestone. The vehicle has officially secured an EPA Certificate of Conformity for the 2026 Cybercab, classifying it as a battery electric Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV).
This certification confirms full compliance with federal Clean Air Act emission standards, paving the way for legal sales and operation across the United States.
A Certificate of Conformity (CoC) is a critical document issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to vehicle manufacturers. It certifies that a specific class of vehicles meets all applicable federal emission requirements for the model year.
We have reported on several of them in the past, and it’s a good sign that a vehicle is close to being available to the public.
Every vehicle sold in the U.S. must carry this approval, which covers exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and refueling standards. For battery electric vehicles like the Cybercab, it verifies zero tailpipe emissions and compliance with stringent testing protocols. The certificate, issued and effective May 26, 2026, was part of the EPA’s recent bi-weekly upload, detailing the Cybercab’s evaporative/refueling family and exhaust compliance.
It also revealed some other very important information, as the Cybercab’s “Charge Depleting Range” was rated at just over 418 miles. This was for city driving, while the highway range depletion test revealed just over 375 miles of range:
Highway miles for Charge Depleting Range was just over 375 miles
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 15, 2026
This EPA approval is a foundational step for Tesla’s autonomous ambitions. While emission certification is standard for any new EV, it signals that the Cybercab is progressing through the full federal compliance process.
Tesla has already equipped prototypes with federal compliance stickers affirming adherence to safety, bumper, and theft-prevention standards via self-certification under FMVSS rules. This bypasses the traditional 2,500-vehicle exemption cap that previously constrained low-volume autonomous testing.
Production of the Cybercab ramped up at Giga Texas starting in early 2026, with volume targets aiming for hundreds of units per week and long-term ambitions of millions annually. The two-seater, steer-by-wire vehicle, lacking a steering wheel and pedals, features a sleek, minimalist design optimized for Robotaxi service.
Priced under $30,000 at unveiling, it promises operating costs as low as $0.20–$0.40 per mile once scaled. Tesla has routinely flexed it as one of the most efficient vehicles of all time.
Regulatory progress extends beyond the EPA. The NHTSA has streamlined approvals for control-free vehicles, benefiting the Cybercab. Tesla operates supervised and unsupervised Robotaxi services in Texas cities like Austin, Dallas, and Houston using its fleet. California recently updated rules for driverless operations, including enforcement mechanisms for violations. Additional state-by-state approvals will be needed for nationwide rollout.
This EPA green light reduces a key barrier, building confidence among regulators, partners, and investors.
It underscores Tesla’s strategy of designing the Cybercab from the ground up for full compliance rather than retrofitting existing platforms. Challenges remain in scaling unsupervised autonomy, mapping approvals, and public acceptance, but the certification marks tangible momentum toward transforming urban mobility.
With prototypes already testing on public roads and production accelerating, the Cybercab edges closer to redefining transportation. Tesla’s integrated approach—combining hardware simplicity, software prowess, and regulatory diligence—positions it uniquely in the robotaxi race.
SpaceX executed its first Falcon 9 launch since going public on June 15, a routine yet symbolically powerful Starlink mission from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.
Liftoff of the Falcon 9 booster B1093, on its 14th flight, occurred at approximately 8:34 a.m. PDT from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E), deploying 24 Starlink V2 Mini Optimized satellites into low-Earth orbit.
The first stage successfully landed on the droneship “Of Course I Still Love You” in the Pacific Ocean, underscoring the company’s unmatched reusability track record.
Watch Falcon 9 launch 24 @Starlink satellites to orbit from California https://t.co/meDwb05qOE
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 15, 2026
This mission comes just three days after SpaceX’s historic IPO on June 12, which shattered records as the largest ever. The company raised $75 billion by pricing shares at $135, with trading under ticker SPCX on Nasdaq opening at $150 and closing at $160.95—a 19 percent gain—valuing SpaceX at over $2.1 trillion.
The launch highlights the seamless transition from private innovator to public powerhouse. SpaceX, founded in 2002, has revolutionized access to space with over 650 Falcon 9 flights and a massive Starlink constellation now serving millions globally.
As a public company, it faces new pressures: quarterly earnings, shareholder scrutiny, and expectations to accelerate Starship development for Mars ambitions and deeper NASA partnerships. Yet the market response signals strong confidence in its dominance, as launch costs are slashed by 95 percent, rapid satellite deployment, and a backlog of government and commercial contracts.
SpaceX maintains bold advertising push for Starlink, contrasting Tesla’s minimalistic approach
Analysts view today’s flight as business as usual, but it carries extra weight. With shares volatile in early trading days, successful operations reassure investors that core capabilities remain unaffected by public status.
SpaceX now operates under heightened transparency, potentially unlocking capital for ambitious goals like Starship orbital tests and global broadband expansion.
Challenges loom, including regulatory hurdles for megaconstellations, competition in reusable rockets, and orbital debris concerns. Nevertheless, this morning’s flawless execution reinforces SpaceX’s trajectory.
As Musk often notes, the company’s mission—to make humanity multiplanetary—now aligns with Wall Street’s growth demands. The stars, it seems, are aligning for both.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
Tesla Cybercab snags huge regulatory green light that readies it for public roads
