News
Tesla Model S firetruck crash in California: What we know so far
All eyes are on Tesla once more, after a Model S traveling at highway speeds crashed into a parked fire truck in Culver City, California earlier this week. The collision, which allegedly happened while the car was on Autopilot, has incited renewed debates, criticisms, and an upcoming government probe on Tesla and its evolving driving-assist software.
As more details about the accident emerge, here is a brief discussion on the latest and most pertinent information relating to the recent Model S collision.
The accident
As we stated in a previous report, the Tesla Model S was traveling at 65 mph on Interstate 405 on Monday morning when it crashed into a stationary fire truck. The emergency vehicle was parked on the road after being deployed to a separate accident in the area.
The driver of the electric car was able to walk away unharmed from the accident. Upon being questioned by the authorities, the Model S driver stated that the vehicle was on Autopilot when it collided with the parked fire truck. Tesla released a brief statement on Monday, stating that Autopilot is intended only to be used by an attentive driver.
More details emerge
As the online forum community continued to debate about the benefits and risks of Tesla’s Autopilot software, a member of the r/TeslaMotors subreddit who claimed to know the driver of the crashed Model S spoke up and provided some details about the accident. According to the Redditor, the Model S was traveling behind a pickup truck with Autopilot engaged. Due to the truck’s size, the Tesla’s driver was unable to see beyond the vehicle in front.
“The driver of the Tesla is my dad’s friend. He said that he was behind a pickup truck with AP engaged. The pickup truck suddenly swerved into the right lane because of the firetruck parked ahead. Because the pickup truck was too high to see over, he didn’t have enough time to react.” notes mikhpat.
Tesla Model S crashes into a stationary firetruck [Credit: Culver City Fire Department via Twitter]
Tesla’s Autopilot system allegedly did not have enough time to react while driving at 65 mph. The driver stated that the Model S’ emergency braking system might have activated moments before the car hit the emergency vehicle, but he could not be certain, according to mikhpat‘s statement.
“As for the 65mph detail, the braking system could’ve intervened before the collision, but there’s no way he could tell.”
-
The impact was strong enough to push the steering wheel two feet into the cabin, however. The Model S driver had some minor cuts and bruises from the accident but was otherwise unharmed. According to the Redditor, the driver admits that he was at fault for not paying close attention to the road. The Model S owner also refused to blame Tesla for the accident.
While it’s still unconfirmed if Tesla’s Autopilot suite, including Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer, was activated at the time of the accident, Tesla’s Model S Owner’s Manual warns of a similar scenario that would not be detected by the driving-assist system.
According to the About Drive Assistance section of the owner’s manual:
“Traffic-Aware Cruise Control cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object is in front of you instead.”
The warning appears to mimic the exact situation being described by Redditor mikhpat.
The investigations begin
As the online forum community exploded amidst heated debates on who is to blame for the recent Model S collision, the US National Transportation Safety Board announced that it is sending two of its investigators to California to study the crash. According to the NTSB, the investigators will be examining both “driver and vehicle” factors in Monday’s accident.
By Tuesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it is also sending a team of investigators to California to evaluate the recent accident, as well as to assess any “lessons learned” from the crash, as noted in a Bloomberg report. The NHTSA did not specify which team of investigators it was sending to California, but expectations are high that the regulating body would be deploying its Special Crash Investigations unit.
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
