News
TX fire chief slams inaccurate Tesla crash coverage with firsthand details on Model S fire
Immediately following the fatal Tesla crash in Texas this weekend, reports from both local and national media outlets emerged citing the statements of Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman, who remarked that police were 100% certain that there was no one in the driver seat of the ill-fated Model S when it crashed. Herman also commented that the Tesla fire was so severe that it took over 30,000 gallons of water and four hours to extinguish the flames from the crash, and that firefighters had to reach out to the EV maker for help in battling the fire.
These statements have since been debunked (at least to some degree) by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who noted that data logs that have been recovered so far from the ill-fated Model S indicate that Autopilot was not enabled during the crash, and that the vehicle did not have any Full Sell-Driving functions activated. Musk’s update essentially threw a wrench on the pervading narrative that Autopilot likely caused the tragic crash.
Your research as a private individual is better than professionals @WSJ!
Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled & this car did not purchase FSD.
Moreover, standard Autopilot would require lane lines to turn on, which this street did not have.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2021
And now, even the reports about the Tesla fire have been thrown into question–by the man whose team extinguished the blaze no less. In a statement to the Houston Chronicle, Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, noted that contrary to some reports in the media, the Tesla Model S fire did not burn out of control for four hours.
Interestingly enough, Buck remarked that his team actually managed to put down the fire within two to three minutes, which was enough for authorities to see that there were occupants in the vehicle. After these first two to three minutes, it was only a matter of keeping the batteries as cool as possible by pouring small amounts of water into the damaged battery pack. Buck described the fire department’s strategy in the following statement.
“With respect to the fire fight, unfortunately, those rumors grew way out of control. It did not take us four hours to put out the blaze. Our guys got there and put down the fire within two to three minutes, enough to see the vehicle had occupants. After that, it was simply cooling the car as the batteries continued to have a chain reaction due to damage.
“We could not tear it apart or move it around to get ‘final extinguishment’ because the fact that we had two bodies in there and it was then an investigation-slash-crime scene. We had to keep it cool, were on scene for four hours, but we were simply pouring a little bit of water on it. It was not because flames were coming out. It was a reaction in the battery pan. It was not an active fire,” Buck said.
As for the rumors that the fire department had to call a Tesla hotline for tips on how to handle a battery fire, the Fire Chief stated that these reports were untrue. “We did not (call Tesla), and I do not know where (that rumor) came from. There is a chance someone else did, maybe the Harris County Fire Marshal, but we did not call (Tesla). Tesla has an emergency manual for first responders,” Buck said. He also noted that he is not aware of Tesla having a hotline for tips on how to control a battery fire.
Buck also provided some new details about the Model S crash and how the fire department was involved. According to the fire chief, the first calls about the incident did not involve reports about a car at all. Instead, initial reports were about a fire in the woods. And while the Model S fire was notable when the firefighters arrived, it only took minutes to control the blaze from the vehicle.
“The first calls that came in were a fire in the woods. Then we got at 9:30 p.m. where we got the first call when someone said, ‘I see a car in a tree, and it is on fire. They reported a car hit a tree, and it had exploded… That is when we added extra units (to the response). There is a big lake, and (the accident) was just to the left of the lake, closer to the exiting part of the street, not the end of the cul de sac. It was at an undeveloped lot.
“(The Tesla) was heavily involved in flames. When the fire was put out, it was noticed there were two bodies (inside), and they were deceased. They continued extinguishment of the woods around (the car), putting out the trees and pine needles and what have you. I was there probably five to 10 minutes after that and at that point, every once in a while, the (battery) reaction would flame and it was mainly keeping water pouring on the battery,” Buck explained, adding that this was a process recommended by Tesla in cases of burning batteries.
While a number of the initial reports about the tragic Tesla crash this weekend have been debunked by Elon Musk and now, the fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, the incident continues to attract some degree of drama. As per recent reports, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman has stated that investigators would be serving a search warrant on Tesla to gain all data from the ill-fated Model S. Federal regulators from the NHTSA and NTSB have also launched an investigation into the crash.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
