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.
News
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm.
Swedish labor unions are considering whether to file a police report related to a newly opened Tesla Megapack Supercharger near Stockholm, citing questions about how electricity is supplied to the site. The matter has also been referred to Sweden’s energy regulator.
Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm. Unlike traditional charging stations, the site is powered by an on-site Megapack battery rather than a direct grid connection. Typical grid connections for Tesla charging sites in Sweden have seen challenges for nearly two years due to union blockades.
Swedish labor union IF Metall has submitted a report to the Energy Market Inspectorate, asking the authority to assess whether electricity supplied to the battery system meets regulatory requirements, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). The Tesla Megapack on the site is charged using electricity supplied by a local company, though the specific provider has not been publicly identified.
Peter Lydell, an ombudsman at IF Metall, issued a comment about the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. “The legislation states that only companies that engage in electricity trading may supply electricity to other parties. You may not supply electricity without a permit, then you are engaging in illegal electricity trading. That is why we have reported this… This is about a company that helps Tesla circumvent the conflict measures that exist. It is clear that it is troublesome and it can also have consequences,” Lydell said.
Police report under consideration
The Swedish Electricians’ Association has also examined the Tesla Megapack Supercharger and documented its power setup. As per materials submitted to the Energy Market Inspectorate, electrical cables were reportedly routed from a property located approximately 500 meters from the charging site.
Tomas Jansson, ombudsman and deputy head of negotiations at the Swedish Electricians’ Association, stated that the union was assessing whether to file a police report related to the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. He also confirmed that the electricians’ union was coordinating with IF Metall about the matter. “We have a close collaboration with IF Metall, and we are currently investigating this. We support IF Metall in their fight for fair conditions at Tesla,” Jansson said.
News
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45.”
Tesla’s Hardware 4.5 computer appears to have surfaced in newly delivered Model Y vehicles, prompting fresh speculation about an interim upgrade ahead of the company’s upcoming AI5 chip.
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45,” suggesting Tesla may have quietly started rolling out revised autonomy hardware.
Hardware 4.5 appears in new Model Y units
The potential Hardware 4.5 sighting was first reported by Model Y owner @Eric5un, who shared details of a Fremont-built 2026 Model Y AWD Premium delivered this January. As per the Model Y owner, the vehicle includes a new front camera housing and a 16-inch center display, along with an Autopilot computer labeled “AP45” and part number 2261336-02-A.
The Tesla owner later explained that he confirmed the part number by briefly pulling down the upper carpet liner below the Model Y’s glovebox. Other owners soon reported similar findings. One Model Y Performance owner noted that their December build also appeared to include Hardware 4.5, while another owner of an Austin-built Model Y Performance reported spotting the same “AP45” hardware.
These sightings suggest that Tesla may already be installing revised FSD computers in its new Model Y batches, despite the company not yet making any formal announcements about Hardware 4.5.
What Hardware 4.5 could represent
Clues about Hardware 4.5 have surfaced previously in Tesla’s Electronic Parts Catalog. As reported by NotATeslaApp, the catalog has listed a component described as “CAR COMPUTER – LEFT HAND DRIVE – PROVISIONED – HARDWARE 4.5.” The component, which features the part number 2261336-S2-A, is priced at $2,300.00.
Longtime Tesla hacker @greentheonly has noted that Tesla software has contained references to a possible three-SoC architecture for some time. Previous generations of Tesla’s FSD computer, including Hardware 3 and Hardware 4, use a dual-SoC design for redundancy. A three-SoC layout could allow for higher inference throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Such an architecture could also serve as a bridge to AI5, Tesla’s next-generation autonomy chip expected to enter production later in 2026. As Tesla’s neural networks grow larger and more computationally demanding, Hardware 4.5 may provide additional headroom for vehicles built before AI5 becomes widely available.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is getting cited by OpenAI’s ChatGPT
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia.
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by rival xAI, which was founded by Elon Musk. The citations appeared across a limited set of queries.
Reports about the matter were initially reported by The Guardian.
Grokipedia references in ChatGPT
Grokipedia launched in October as part of xAI’s effort to build an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become less centrist over the years. Unlike Wikipedia, which is moderated and edited by humans, Grokipedia is purely AI-powered, allowing it to approach topics with as little bias as possible, at least in theory. This model has also allowed Grokipedia to grow its article base quickly, with recent reports indicating that it has created over 6 million articles, more than 80% of English Wikipedia.
The Guardian reported that ChatGPT cited Grokipedia nine times across responses to more than a dozen user questions during its tests. As per the publication, the Grokipedia citations did not appear when ChatGPT was asked about high-profile or widely documented topics. Instead, Grokipedia was referenced in responses to more obscure historical or biographical claims. The pattern suggested selective use rather than broad reliance on the source, at least for now.
Broader Grokipedia use
The Guardian also noted that Grokipedia citations were not exclusive to ChatGPT. Anthropic’s AI assistant Claude reportedly showed similar references to Grokipedia in some responses, highlighting a broader issue around how large language models identify and weigh publicly available information.
In a statement to The Guardian, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that ChatGPT “aims to draw from a broad range of publicly available sources and viewpoints.” “We apply safety filters to reduce the risk of surfacing links associated with high-severity harms, and ChatGPT clearly shows which sources informed a response through citations,” the spokesperson stated.
Anthropic, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. As for xAI, the artificial intelligence startup simply responded with a short comment that stated, “Legacy media lies.”
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
