News
NTSB Prelim Report on fatal Tesla Model X crash: 8-seconds before impact
The National Transportation Safety Board has issued a preliminary report on the tragic Tesla Model X crash near Mountain View, CA in March. The NTSB’s preliminary report provided details about the circumstances leading up the accident, as well as observations about the all-electric SUV’s battery pack five days after the crash.
According to the NTSB, preliminary recorded data revealed that the Tesla Model X had its Autopilot engaged with Traffic-Aware Cruise Control set to 75 mph at the time of the accident. The vehicle collided into the crash attenuator, rotating it counterclockwise, removing the front part of the vehicle, and causing subsequent collisions with a 2010 Mazda 3 and a 2017 Audi A4. The NTSB noted that the vehicle’s performance data revealed the following.
The aftermath of the Tesla Model X’s fatal crash. [Credit: S. Engleman/NTSB]
- Autopilot was engaged on four separate occasions during the 32-minute trip. The driver-assist feature was engaged for the last 18 minutes 55 seconds before the collision.
- During the 18 minute, 55-second period, the Model X provided two visual and one auditory alert advising the driver to place his hands on the car’s steering wheel. The alerts were triggered more than 15 minutes prior to the accident.
- For the last 6 seconds before the collision, the Model X’s driver did not have his hands on the steering wheel.
- At 8 seconds before the crash, the Model X was following a lead vehicle at about 65 mph. At 7 seconds, the Model X began moving left while still following a lead vehicle. At 4 seconds, the Tesla was no longer following a car. At 3 seconds before the accident, the Model X’s speed increased from 62 mph to 70.8 mph. The vehicle’s emergency braking and evasive steering did not engage.
- During the collision sequence, the Model X’s lithium-ion battery was breached, causing a fire. The flames were extinguished after the Mountain View Fire Department applied about 200 gallons of water and foam during a period of fewer than 10 minutes. In the afternoon, the battery emanated smoke and audible venting was heard, though no flames were observed.
- On March 28, 5 days after the accident, the Model X’s battery pack reignited. The San Mateo Fire Department extinguished the fire.
The NTSB noted in its preliminary report that it is continuing work with the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation in investigating the accident. The NTSB stated that all aspects of the crash remain under investigation, and that it intends to issue safety recommendations to prevent similar incidents from taking place.
Tesla and the NTSB initially worked together in investigating the fatal Model X accident. The electric car company and the safety board eventually parted ways, however, due to Tesla’s decision to release crash data before the NTSB’s investigation was complete. Among the information Tesla released was that the driver did not have his hands on the wheel during the final 6 seconds leading up to the accident — information that has been reiterated in the NTSB’s preliminary report.
According to a Tesla, it opted to withdraw from its party agreement with the NTSB since collaboration with the safety board prevents the public release of safety information until the investigation was finished. People familiar with the matter, however, noted that the NTSB was the one which opted to terminate its collaboration with Tesla, according to a Bloomberg report.
In an update after the accident, Tesla highlighted that the absence of a crash attenuator — a highway safety device designed to absorb the impact of a collision — was already damaged when the Model X collided with the concrete barrier. In a statement to ABC7 News, Wil Huang, the brother of the ill-fated Model X driver, noted that a working crash attenuator would have saved his brother’s life. Later statements from CalTrans revealed that safety device had been left unrepaired for 11 days before the tragic Model X accident.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
