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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
