Connect with us

News

Tesla Model 3 selected over Chevy Tahoe as fire chief’s new command vehicle

(Credit: Kennebunkport Fire Department via Tammy Wells/Facebook)

Published

on

With the Tesla Model 3 proving itself as a viable alternative to gas-guzzling police vehicles across the globe, it appears that other key organizations such as fire departments are now looking to utilize the all-electric sedan for their operations. Among the most recent places to do this was Kennebunk, Maine, which recently revealed that it has acquired a Model 3 as a command vehicle for the city’s fire chief.

Interestingly enough, Kennebunk Fire Department Chief Jeff Rowe had been looking to acquire a Chevy Tahoe as his next command vehicle when he heard a presentation at the local Rotary Club about the effects of environmental changes. Kennebunk already has committed to energy efficiency, being one of the signatories of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Other vehicles were then considered, including the Model 3 itself.

Some say it's mystic….It's electric Boogie woogie, woogie! Way to go Chief Rowe! #marciagriffithsPosted by Kennebunkport Fire Department on Friday, August 7, 2020

However, the Model 3 was more expensive than the Tahoe, and it was above Efficiency Maine’s ceiling, which would have given the vehicle a $7,500 incentive. But it appears that Rowe was really set to drive an electric car, as a Tesla representative later contacted the fire chief about the Model 3’s options. As it turned out, if the fire department ordered a variant with a base white color, the all-electric sedan could meet the threshold for the state’s incentives.

The Kennebunk Fire Department ultimately acquired a Model 3 Dual-Motor AWD variant. The purchase ultimately cost $41,490 including the $7,500 state incentive. This made the Model 3 only $2,000 more than a Chevy Tahoe, and that difference is easily leveled out by the all-electric car’s gas savings. Rowe drives about 9,000 to 10,000 miles annually, after all, which translates to about $1,500 a year on gas. The Model 3, on the other hand, is expected to raise the fire department’s electric bill by $30 per month, which translates to about $360 per year.

For now, the Tesla Model 3 command unit is being used primarily by Rowe, as well as other fire department personnel. It’s used for traveling to inspections, fire calls, related meetings, and out-of-town events. The department is also building a slide-out office at the rear trunk of the Model 3 as a command center of sorts where the chief could keep track of updates at fire scenes. The Model 3’s command center is smaller than those found in SUVs, Rowe noted, though it was quite comparable to the Ford Crown Victorias that were used by the department before.

Advertisement

In a press release, Rowe noted that his transition to the Model 3 actually proved to be quite smooth. There are charging stations in the city, and a Level 2 charger had been installed at the fire department. According to the chief, he typically plugs in the Model 3 when he arrives at work in the morning, and the vehicle is usually fully-charged by noon. He also mentioned that the Model 3 behaves quite nicely on the road, since there’s no wait or hesitation when he presses on the accelerator. There’s just the rush of instant torque propelling the Dual-Motor AWD Model 3 from 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla to appeal jury verdict that held it partially liable for fatal crash

Tesla will appeal the decision from the eight-person jury.

Published

on

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla will appeal a recent jury verdict that held it partially liable for a fatal crash that occurred in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019.

An eight-person jury ruled that Tesla’s driver assistance technology was at least partially to blame for a crash when a vehicle driven by George McGee went off the road and hit a couple, killing a 22-year-old and injuring the other.

The jury found that Tesla’s tech was found to enable McGee to take his eyes off the road, despite the company warning drivers and vehicle operators that its systems are not a replacement for a human driver.

The company states on its website and Owner’s Manual that Autopilot and Full Self-Driving are not fully autonomous, and that drivers must be ready to take over in case of an emergency. Its website says:

“Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.

Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to ‘keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’ and to always ‘maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.’ Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.

You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
Despite this, and the fact that McGee admitted to “fishing for his phone” after it fell, Tesla was ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages.

Tesla attorney Joel Smith said in court (via Washington Post):

“He said he was fishing for his phone. It’s a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is he dropped his cell phone.”
In total, Tesla is responsible for $324 million in payouts: $200 million in punitive damages, $35 million to the deceased’s mother, $24 million to their father, and $70 million to their boyfriend, who was also struck but was injured and not killed.

The family of the deceased, Naibel Benavides Leon, also sued the driver and reached a settlement out of court. The family opened the federal suit against Tesla in 2024, alleging that Tesla was to blame because it operated its technology on a road “it was not designed for,” the report states.

Despite the disclosures and warnings Tesla lists in numerous places to its drivers and users of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, as well as all of its active safety features, the operator remains responsible for paying attention.

CEO Elon Musk confirmed it would appeal the jury’s decision:

The driver being distracted is a big part of this case that seemed to be forgotten as the jury came to its decision. Tesla’s disclosures and warnings, as well as McGee’s admission of being distracted, seem to be enough to take any responsibility off the company.

The appeal process will potentially shed more light on this, especially as this will be a main point of emphasis for Tesla’s defense team.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk echoes worries over Tesla control against activist shareholders

Elon Musk has spoken on several occasions of the “activist shareholders” who threaten his role at Tesla.

Published

on

Credit: xAI | X

Elon Musk continues to raise concerns over his control of Tesla as its CEO and one of its founders, as activist shareholders seem to be a viable threat to the company in his eyes.

Musk has voiced concerns over voting control of Tesla and the possibility of him being ousted by shareholders who do not necessarily have the company’s future in mind. Instead, they could be looking to oust Musk because of his political beliefs or because of his vast wealth.

We saw an example of that as shareholders voted on two separate occasions to award Musk a 2018 compensation package that was earned as Tesla met various growth goals through the CEO’s leadership.

Despite shareholders voting to award Musk with the compensation package on two separate occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied the CEO the money both times. At one time, she called it an “unfathomable sum.”

Musk’s current stake in Tesla stands at 12.8 percent, but he has an option to purchase 304 million shares, which, if exercised, after taxes, he says, would bump his voting control up about 4 percent.

However, this is not enough of a stake in the company, as he believes a roughly 25 percent ownership stake would be enough “to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he said in January 2024.

Musk’s concerns were echoed in another X post from Thursday, where he confirmed he has no current personal loans against Tesla stock, and he reiterated his concerns of being ousted from the company by those he has referred to in the past as “activist shareholders.”

Elon Musk explains why he wants 25% voting share at Tesla: “I just want to be an effective steward of very powerful technology”

The CEO said during the company’s earnings call in late July:

“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”

The X post from Thursday said:

There is a concern that Musk could eventually put his money where his mouth is, and if politicians and judges are able to limit his ownership stake as they’ve been able to do with his pay package, he could eventually leave the company.

The company’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve Musk’s pay package. A vast majority of those who voted to get Musk paid still want him to be running Tesla’s day-to-day operations. Without his guidance, the company could face a major restructuring and would have a vastly new look and thesis.

Continue Reading

News

People are already finding value in Tesla Robotaxi services

Tesla initially launched its Robotaxi service in Austin, though the company more recently launched it in the Bay Area.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s Robotaxi service is still in its earliest days, but some consumers are already finding surprising value in the autonomous ride-hailing system. 

This was hinted at in recent comments on social media platform X. 

Robotaxi Ramp

Tesla initially launched its Robotaxi service in Austin, though the company more recently launched it in the Bay Area. Tesla’s geofence for its Robotaxi service in the Bay Area is massive, covering several times the area that is currently serviced by rival Waymo. 

As noted by the EV community members on social media, going end-to-end in Tesla’s Bay Area geofence would likely take over an hour’s worth of driving. That’s an impressive launch for the Robotaxi service in California, and considering Tesla’s momentum, its California geofence will likely grow substantially in the coming months.

Secret Advantage

As noted by Tesla owner and photographer @billykyle, the Tesla Robotaxi service actually has key advantages for people who travel a lot for their work. As per the Tesla owner, using a Robotaxi service would give back so much of his time considering that he gets about 5-7 shoots per day at times. 

Advertisement

“I’ve been reflecting on how much of a game changer this is. As a photographer that runs my own business, servicing clients all around the Philadelphia area, I could ditch having a car and let an autonomous vehicle drive me between my 5-7 shoots I have per day. This would give me so much time back to work and message clients,” the photographer wrote in a post on X.

The Tesla owner also noted that the Robotaxi service could also solve issues with parking, as it could be tricky in cities. The Robotaxi service’s driverless nature also avoids the issue of rude and incompetent ride-hailing drivers, which are unfortunately prevalent in services such as Uber and Lyft. Ultimately, just like Unsupervised FSD, Tesla’s Robotaxi service has the potential to reclaim time for consumers. And as anyone in the business sphere would attest, time is ultimately money.

Continue Reading

Trending