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
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
News
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Even Tesla China seems to have caught the Optimus V3 fever, with the electric vehicle maker teasing the impending arrival of the humanoid robot on its official Weibo account.
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Tesla China hypes up Optimus V3
Tesla China noted on its Weibo post that Optimus V3 is redesigned from first principles and is capable of learning new tasks by observing human behavior. The company has stated that it is targeting annual production capacity of up to one million humanoid robots once manufacturing scales.
During the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production to free up factory space for the pilot production line of Optimus V3.
Musk later noted that Giga Texas should have a significantly larger Optimus line, though that will produce Optimus V4. He also made it a point to set expectations with Optimus’ production ramp, stating that the “normal S curve of manufacturing ramp will be longer for Optimus.”
Tesla China’s potential role
Tesla’s decision to announce the Optimus update on Weibo highlights the importance of the humanoid robot in the company’s global operations. Giga Shanghai is already Tesla’s largest manufacturing hub by volume, and Musk has repeatedly described China’s manufacturers as Tesla’s most legitimate competitors.
While Tesla has not confirmed where Optimus V3 will be produced or deployed first, the scale and efficiency of Gigafactory Shanghai make it a plausible candidate for future humanoid robot manufacturing or in-factory deployment. Musk has also suggested that Optimus could become available for public purchase as early as 2027, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
“It’s going to be a very capable robot. I think long-term Optimus will have a very significant impact on the US GDP. It will actually move the needle on US GDP significantly. In conclusion, there are still many who doubt our ambitions for creating amazing abundance. We are confident it can be done, and we are making the right moves technologically to ensure that it does,” Musk said during the earnings call.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
