News
Tesla’s proven anti-pandemic safety plan has fallen on deaf ears amid an anti-Elon Musk narrative
One of the most remarkable things that one can witness is the birth and spread of a narrative. Narratives are powerful, as they are capable of affecting and perhaps even changing the perception of people on a particular person or topic. Such a narrative is forming in the Tesla-sphere today: one that completely ignores a company’s proven efforts to battle the coronavirus, and one that brands the electric car maker’s CEO as a de facto villain that cares not for his employees.
Amidst the ongoing issues surrounding the reopening of the Fremont factory, Tesla publicly shared a Return to Work Playbook that it will be using to protect and prevent its workers from contracting the coronavirus. The strategies outlined in the playbook are modeled after the company’s efforts in Gigafactory Shanghai, which successfully battled the virus when it was ravaging China. Tesla’s Shanghai plant was barely affected by the pandemic, and it is back in full operations today.
Alameda County officials have not given Tesla the green light to resume operations in the Fremont plant, a factor that has resulted in heated online discussions between Elon Musk, TSLA critics and supporters, and local government officials. County officials argue that Tesla is yet to meet certain guidelines that would allow its formal approval to reopen the Fremont factory, but no details about these criteria have been released thus far. This has resulted in a rather sticky situation. The county says Tesla is not fulfilling safety guidelines, but it would not specify which.
Strangely enough, Alameda County has also not discussed which parts of Tesla’s Return to Work Playbook are inadequate. A look at the playbook shows several intensive safety protocols that the company will be adopting to prevent the spread of the virus. But even the existence of the playbook itself, and more importantly, its contents, do not seem to be acknowledged by representatives of Alameda County when they speak against the electric car maker’s intentions to reopen the Fremont plant.
CEO Elon Musk has ordered Tesla’s Fremont factory to reopen despite opposition from Alameda County officials. Musk even noted that if anyone were to be arrested due to the factory’s reopening, it should only be him. Such a move has triggered a wave of negative coverage on the CEO, with some articles claiming that Musk is “asking” to be arrested, or “daring” law enforcement to apprehend him. A narrative has also formed suggesting that Tesla and Musk are “forcing” Fremont’s employees to build cars without any regard for public safety. A report from The Washington Post even quoted a Fremont factory worker who reportedly stated that “we are extremely frustrated, angry, scared, that Elon is putting his cars before his workers.”
Such a narrative is compelling, of course, and it makes for a good story. Every tale needs a villain, and Musk, with his outspoken, controversial remarks about the ongoing lockdown, is the perfect target. What is missing from this narrative is the fact that Musk himself has been quoted time and time again, in both spoken and written form, that workers at the plant are not forced to come to work at all. “I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work. I will personally be at work, but that’s just me. Totally ok if you want to stay home for any reason,” Musk wrote back in March.
A look at the social media feeds from Fremont factory workers paint a much less controversial picture amidst the facility’s reopening as well. Inasmuch as mainstream reports today are running with a narrative that suggests Tesla is forcing employees to catch the virus or perish for the sake of Musk’s pockets, such sentiments do not seem universal for the company’s workforce. Some workers at the factory have noted that they appreciate that work is being resumed, and that the company is indeed following through with its stringent anti-pandemic strategies.
But such a scenario does not paint a narrative that is as compelling as a Machiavellian CEO forcing thousands of employees to perish for his personal profits. If Tesla is simply using a playbook that is tried and tested in Shanghai, and if workers are actually appreciative of the factory’s reopening, the anti-Elon Musk narrative gets lost. If there are no evil CEOs and mass numbers of employees being abused, Tesla’s Fremont facility becomes just a regular car production facility that is reopening its doors after a shutdown: one that is no different than car factories that are already open or are poised to reopen in the coming days.
Unfortunately, the draw of Musk and Tesla and their surrounding narratives are simply too tempting to ignore.
Tesla Return to Work Playbook by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
