News
Tesla Model 3 dominates as qualifying leader in historic Pikes Peak run
The Unplugged Performance team and veteran racer Randy Pobst had planned to adopt a pretty conservative strategy for their modified Tesla Model 3 Performance’s first Pikes Peak run. The vehicle, after all, just had its suspension settings adjusted, and both team and driver wanted to validate how well the changes performed on the course. For the Model 3’s first run up Pikes Peak, the plan was to lift off on the straights to conserve battery for the second run, which would be flat out.
Needless to say, this plan did not end up being followed. At all.
Randy Pobst and Unplugged’s Model 3 Performance Ascension-R launched off into the Pikes Peak course for their first climb, and soon, it became evident to the racing veteran that the car was already almost perfectly dialed in. It was then that Pobst decided to forgo the initial plan and just attack the course at full power. With the veteran racer unleashed, the Model 3 completed the run in 4:15, finishing first place in the Exhibition class. Two other Teslas, a heavily modded widebody Model 3 driven by Joshua Allan and a Model 3 Performance driven by Blake Fuller, finished second and third
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
As noted by Unplugged Performance CEO Ben Schaffer, he and his team were astounded to see Randy’s 4:15 time for his first run. The team had been targeting a time of 4:30 considering their planned strategy, but ultimately, what mattered was that the veteran racecar driver had tons of fun in his first climb of the day. Pobst did suggest some tweaks to the Model 3’s settings after, asking the Unplugged team to add a bit more compression and rebound tuning. But when those changes were done, the father of Track Mode was off for his second hill climb attempt.
Randy Pobst pushed the Model 3 Performance as hard as he could on his second run, and the results, as could be seen in the video below, were simply astounding. With the veteran racer behind the wheel and Unplugged’s parts performing as designed, the Model 3 Performance Ascension-R was able to complete the Pikes Peak run in a stunning 4:12. In second place was Blake Fuller’s Model 3 Performance, which completed the climb in 4:39. Unfortunately, the widebody Model 3 driven by Joshua Fuller retired after it went off track.
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
-
- Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
Randy Pobst takes on Pikes Peak in the Tesla Model 3 Performance. (Credit: Unplugged Performance)
What was particularly astounding about Randy Pobst’s 4:12 Pikes Peak Hill Climb run was the fact that the Model 3’s time was only a few seconds off from the record set by the fastest Open Wheel car in the event, which completed the climb in 4:07. The category in hosts some of the craziest purpose-built Pikes Peak machines in the industry, so it was quite surprising to see the Model 3, which only had Unplugged Performance’s Ascension-R modifications, performing in the level of Open Wheel vehicles. In fact, had the Model 3 been competing in the Open Wheel category, it would have finished the day in 3rd place. That’s a pretty insane thought.
“What surprised us the most today (besides capturing 1st place in qualifying) was how we compared to the other group running our section of the mountain. We ran with the Open Wheel cars and that group has some huge power and very lightweight cars. The fastest Open Wheel car was Clint Vahsholtz who ran a 4:07. If we were racing in the Open Wheel division, we would have qualified 3rd place which is pretty insane given how extreme those purpose-built cars are for this event,” Ben Schaffer said.
After dominating the Exhibition class in the event’s first day, Randy Pobst noted that the Tesla Model 3 is arguably the best car he has driven at Pikes Peak to date. This is no small statement, seeing as the legendary driver had climbed the challenging, dangerous course multiple times in the past behind the wheel of the industry’s most aggressive vehicles. “It was quite an honor to hear that from such a legendary driver that we respect so dearly,” the Unplugged CEO said.
Watch Randy Pobst’s stunning Pikes Peak run in the Tesla Model 3 in the video below.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
