Back when the Model 3 was unveiled, Tesla immediately attracted a good amount of criticism over the vehicle’s design. Arguments against the all-electric sedan were many, with arguments being presented against its utilization of a single 15” center display and its hyper-minimalistic interior. The vehicle’s glovebox, which could only be opened through the touchscreen, also attracted its own fair share of eyebrows.
‘Crazy’ and ‘Impractical’ Ideas
To a good number of car enthusiasts, the idea of a glovebox that can’t even be opened manually was insane. Practically all vehicles in the market, from affordable econoboxes from Japan to luxury cars from Germany employ a manual latch for the glovebox, after all. It was something that was so simple, so traditional, and here Tesla was stubbornly refusing to follow along.
It would be pretty easy to put a manual latch on the glovebox, so Tesla’s insistence on an electronically-operated mechanism seemed almost like hubris on the EV maker’s part. Tesla did roll out changes to the Model 3’s glovebox, such as a feature that automatically opens the storage area in the event of a crash. This was rolled out following an incident where a Model 3 was involved in an accident that shattered the 15” display, giving the driver a very difficult time accessing the vehicle’s title and insurance papers.
Over the years, Tesla has added numerous features to the Model 3. These include Sentry Mode, which actively monitors a vehicle’s surroundings, and TeslaCam, which acts as a built-in dashcam for the all-electric sedan on the road. The videos were saved on a flash drive that drivers would need to insert into the front USB port of the Model 3. The feature is incredibly useful, though it requires some work on the part of Tesla’s customers. This was perhaps the reason why the use of features like Sentry Mode and TeslCam are not universally used by drivers. This may change soon with the introduction of the 2021 Model 3.
Pieces of a Puzzle
For the Model 3 “refresh,” Tesla introduced a number of key updates, from a new center console and new Aero Wheels to new headlights. Minor updates were also introduced, such as a USB port inside the glovebox. A video from Hong Kong featuring a 2021 Model 3 further revealed that the USB port inside the glovebox already has a 64 GB flash disk in it. This incredibly minor change, which almost feels like an afterthought considering the Model 3’s major updates, makes features like Sentry Mode and TeslaCam much easier to use.
This makes the Model 3 more secure as well, as even thieves that are familiar with Teslas will no longer have any way to access the flash drive that contains the vehicle’s video recordings. Prior to the “refresh,” thieves could simply rip out the flash drive that holds Sentry Mode’s recordings, which is quite unlikely but still plausible. This will no longer be true with the 2021 Model 3, especially as Tesla has already added an extra layer of security in the form of “Glovebox PIN,” which was previously released through an over-the-air software update.
What is quite remarkable is that these improvements would not work as well as they do now if Tesla had included a manual latch for the Model 3’s glovebox. It was difficult to see the point behind Tesla’s stubborn refusal to include something as simple as a physical glovebox latch during the vehicle’s initial launch and release, but it appears that the feature, or lack thereof, was something that would be useful years into the vehicle’s release.
The Long Game
This is something that has become much of a theme in the Tesla story. The company or its CEO does something, and critics pounce on the opportunity to squeeze in a few shots. Products are rolled out and improved through over-the-air updates, and before the dust settles, Tesla and Elon Musk’s once-controversial strategies end up making sense. This was the case with the Model 3’s glovebox, and it would likely be true for other controversial aspects of Tesla’s vehicles as well, such as the Cybertruck’s design and novel features.
Ultimately, this tendency could very well be explained by the fact that Tesla simply looks farther ahead than any of its critics. Tesla skeptics may focus on what the company is doing now, or the state of its products today, but Elon Musk and his team are always looking into the future. This may very well be the reason why even Wall Street analysts seem to have a difficulty understanding Tesla’s business. Just recently, for example, Morgan Stanley upgraded TSLA stock to an “Overweight” rating. According to the financial firm, this is due to Tesla’s business expanding from carmaking to other segments such as software. This is something that longtime TSLA bulls have been highlighting for years.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla may continue to confound skeptics for years to come. Just like the Model 3’s glovebox, the company is still rolling out strategies and products that don’t make sense for skeptics, such as the FSD beta and features like Smart Summon. A look at Autopilot’s subpar scores in tests from organizations such as Consumer Reports highlight this point. Yet just like the humble Model 3 glovebox, perhaps features like Summon could serve a higher purpose years down the road.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
