News
Tesla Model 3 modules are comparable to F-35 flight controller, says expert
Tesla Model 3 critic and Detroit veteran Sandy Munro discussed much of the results of his company’s teardown of the electric car in a recent episode of Autoline After Hours. In a lengthy discussion with the network’s panel, Munro explained what he liked about electric car, even gushing at one point and saying that the Model 3 electronics are comparable to a flight controller found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth multirole fighter.
In his most recent Autoline interview, Munro noted that his team is almost finished with its analysis and teardown of the electric car. While the Detroit veteran still maintained that he doesn’t have much good to say about the vehicle’s mechanical components, the Model 3’s electronics, battery, and suspension are a completely different matter.
According to Munro, the Model 3’s Automatic Drive Modules are a class above the industry, featuring a design architecture that is usually found on high-end electronics and government-grade machines. Munro even compared the Model 3’s drive module to the flight controller of the F-35, which he is familiar with due to his company’s work for the US military.
“If you look at this thing, this is cellphone technology. This is the technology we would see in really high-end computers, normally for the government. When you look at this, you’re looking at the same kind of technology you’d see on a flight controller for an F-35, and we kind of know a little bit about that too. We do work for the military. Everything here smacks of cellphone technology and defense technology,” Munro said.
The Detroit veteran further stated that Tesla could very well be the leader in battery tech today. According to Munro, prior to tearing down the Model 3, he believed that LG’s battery modules used in the Chevy Bolt EV are the best in the industry. Tesla’s batteries, however, are on a completely new level. Munro was particularly impressed with the differential between each one of the Model 3’s battery blocks.
“We went through there, and the difference was .2 milliamps. Holy, nobody can balance batteries that close. Nobody. Nobody’s ever done that,” Munro said.
Apart from the Model 3’s battery and its electronics, Munro also noted that the suspension for the Model 3 was excellent. The teardown specialist went so far as to state that the person who designed the car’s suspension could easily be an “F1 prince.”
A close-up of the Automatic Drive Module of the Tesla Model 3. [Credit: Autoline Network/YouTube]
“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that’s where they are. And that’s the good thing for the auto industry because if it would have just been a normal car from the mechanical side, from, like I say, the dinosaur technologies; if it came out decent with all the other stuff, they’d mop the floor with everybody,” he said.
Overall, Munro ultimately concluded that the Model 3 is a car that the industry should not dismiss, and that anyone in the automotive business who chooses to ignore Tesla’s progress is doing so at their own peril.
“Anybody that doesn’t look at the electronics on the Tesla (Model) 3 is out of his mind. They’re in peril. This is not some Mickey Mouse outfit that you can just dismiss. Anybody that’s in the car industry that ignores this car is doing it at their own peril,” Munro said.
“This is big stuff. This is not inching up. This is revolutionary, and everybody else is sitting there twiddling their thumbs.”
Sandy Munro is the CEO of Munro & Associates, a company specializing in vehicle teardowns and analysis. Previously featured in two of Autoline’s YouTube segments about the Model 3, Munro took a very critical stance on the electric car’s build quality, calling the Model 3 a “miserable job” and admitting that he “hated” some of the vehicle’s design elements. In a later video about the Model 3’s ride and drive, however, Munro admitted that while the vehicle’s fit and finish were horrible, its handling and performance were great.
Watch Autoline After Hours’ episode featuring Sandy Munro and the general results of his company’s Model 3 teardown in the video below.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
