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
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
