News
Tesla Model S Plaid fire: Strange observations and claims to date
Details about the Tesla Model S Plaid fire on Tuesday are starting to emerge. Similar to other dramatic electric vehicle fires, the details and observations emerging about the Tesla Model S Plaid fire are very interesting.
Accounts of the Model S Plaid fire have been shared by an EMT that reportedly responded to the incident, the chief fire officer for the Lower Merion Township Fire Department in Pennsylvania, and the lawyers representing the Model S Plaid owner.
With this in mind, it is pertinent to provide a view of what each party has stated about the incident so far. Going through each statement would potentially make it a lot easier to come up with a legitimate narrative in the future, especially as official investigations into the fire conclude. That being said, here are the accounts that have been shared on the Tesla Model S Plaid fire earlier this week.
What happened?
The Tesla Model S Plaid caught fire in Haverford, Pennsylvania on June 29, 2021. The vehicle, which was a Plaid variant based on the remains of its rear badge, was engulfed in flames when fire crews arrived. A Facebook post from the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company indicated that two fire engines were deployed for the incident. Firefighters were at the scene for about three hours, though the vehicle was cooled down for almost 90 minutes to ensure that the batteries were safe.
“Engine 24 with a crew of 7 arrived on scene simultaneously with Engine 25. Due to prior training classes on Tesla Vehicle Fire emergencies, Engine 24 laid a 5 inch supply line into the scene so that we could keep a continual water stream on the fire to extinguish the fire and cool the batteries down to ensure complete extinguishment. Engine 24 and Engine 25 both deployed hand lines to extinguish the fire, each maintained a dedicated water source and continued to cool the vehicle down for almost 90 minutes. Firefighters were on scene for just over 3 hours dealing with this emergency. Nobody was hurt in the incident, and both crews worked hard in the high heat/humidity to mitigate the incident,” the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company wrote.
Interestingly enough, this statement, as well as the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company’s Facebook post about the Model S Plaid fire has been taken offline. A look at the fire department’s Facebook page and its official website would reveal that the post about the Tesla fire has now been deleted.
A First Responder’s Account
As the story of the Model S Plaid fire gained ground, the incident started to attract a lot of attention on social media as well. On Reddit, u/wilyson, who claimed to be an EMT who responded to the fire, noted that the report they received about the incident was downright strange. According to the EMT, the person who reported the fire stated that the car was driving uphill without an occupant while it was ablaze. The owner was reportedly nowhere to be found. This was a rather dramatic image, and it promptly fueled speculations among the anti-EV crowd about “self-driving” cars catching fire.
Quite understandably, the EMT noted that he could not provide many details as the police are not releasing more information yet. That being said, the EMT later noted that car fires are very common and that electric vehicles are actually incredibly safe.
The Fire Chief’s Account
As noted in a CNBC report, chief fire officer for the Lower Merion Township Fire Department in Pennsylvania Charles McGarvey stated that the Tesla Model S caught fire on Tuesday while the driver was still at the wheel of the vehicle. According to the fire chief, firefighters eventually removed the Model S Plaid to a complex to safely store it overnight. The vehicle’s owner had since taken the remains of the vehicle from the facility, as per McGarvey, and will have the car investigated independently to determine the cause of the blaze.
The fire chief also stated that his teams had been in touch with Tesla and that some information about the incident should be made public soon. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesperson also noted that it was aware of the incident and that it is now in touch with relevant agencies and Tesla to gather more information about the fire. “If data or investigations show a defect or an inherent risk to safety exists, NHTSA will take action as appropriate to protect the public,” the NHTSA spokesperson said. The NTSB is not conducting an investigation to date.
The Lawyers’ Account
The Model S Plaid owner’s lawyers, Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles, and Jason Setchen of Athlete Defender in Miami, have since mobilized to share details about the incident as well. In a statement to CNBC, the attorneys stated that the Tesla owner initially noticed smoke coming from the back of the Model S Plaid. Following this, the owner reportedly tried to unlock and open the vehicle’s doors, but he ended up having to force his way out of the car as the locks seemed to malfunction. The lawyers noted that after the Tesla owner left his car, the Model S began to move on its own while flames engulfed it.
Geragos Global attorney Ben Meiselas later posted a tweet sharing an image of the burning Model S. As per the lawyer, “Our firm & @AthleteDefender represent an exec who purchased new Tesla Plaid Model S, which was 1/250 shipped. On Tuesday it spontaneously combusted. Our client was trapped & could have died. We tried reaching out to Tesla & have been ignored so far. This is car after escape.”
Interesting (and strange) details
Overall, the Model S Plaid fire in PA features a number of interesting accounts that may not necessarily line up perfectly. The EMT that initially shared details about the incident mentioned that the Model S owner was nowhere to be found. The lawyers, on the other hand, shared an image reportedly taken immediately after the owner escaped, suggesting that the Tesla owner was on the scene of the blaze. As per the Model S Plaid’s Owner’s Manual, the vehicle is also equipped with a manual door release that should make it easy for occupants to vacate the car in case of an emergency. This seems to be a bit overlooked by the owner’s lawyers, who noted that their client was trapped inside the car.
Of course, the idea of a car driving on its own uphill while being engulfed in flames is quite strange, considering that neither Tesla’s Autopilot nor Full Self-Driving suite have such features. The only function that may have worked similarly is Smart Summon, but the vehicle was burning on a public street, an area where Smart Summon should have been unavailable.
We’ll definitely keep a pulse on this incident, as well as any details that may emerge as investigations go on, so do keep Teslarati on your radar as we follow developments in this event.
Do you have anything to share with the Teslarati Team? We’d love to hear from you, email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
