News
Tesla Model X frozen lake mystery gets solved, and the truth is stranger than fiction
Back in 2019, a picture of a charred Tesla Model X in the middle of a frozen lake in Vermont resulted in a lot of electric vehicle enthusiasts scratching their heads in confusion. Very few details were made public, though the police noted back then that the owner of the vehicle drove the Model X to the lake, where it supposedly struck a rock and caught fire.
The incident was pretty strange, partly because the car fully burned up without melting the ice and falling into the frozen lake. Little information was also available about the owner of the vehicle, though it was reported that no one was injured in the incident. Recently, the mysteries surrounding this peculiar Model X fire were explained, and by the Department of Justice, no less. Needless to say, the truth in this particular Model X fire was stranger than fiction.
According to the US Attorney’s Office in Vermont, the Model X was actually part of a pretty expansive scam executed by 32-year-old Michael A. Gonzalez of Colchester, Vermont. The scam involved Gonzalez acquiring Teslas by exploiting a procedure adopted by the company that allowed him to take deliveries of vehicles before his bank transfer was fully cleared.
As per a report from Seven Days, Gonzalez’s breakthrough came in September 2018, when he reserved a Tesla Model 3 that cost $58,200. To acquire the vehicle, the scammer paid Tesla a $2,500 downpayment and set up an automated payment scheme to draft the vehicle’s monthly payments. Tesla delivered the Model 3, and days later, Gonzalez’s fund transfers were rejected by the bank. The vehicle was taken around December 2018 to a used car dealership, where Gonzalez sold it for $42,500.
Fresh from his successful scam, Gonzalez decided to go for a bigger prize next: a Tesla Model X. Using the same playbook, he was able to acquire a Model X worth $144,200. Tesla delivered the vehicle, and weeks later, Gonzalez was able to sell the all-electric SUV through Craigslist for $90,000.
According to investigators, the Model X that ended up on the frozen lake was actually the third Tesla in Gonzalez’s scheme. It was a vehicle worth $152,663, the scammer’s most expensive yet. But while he was able to pick up the car in Tampa, Tesla did not provide Gonzalez with the ownership paperwork needed to register or resell the car. In response to this, Gonzalez reportedly took the car to a frozen section of Shelburne Bay, where it was later found in flames.
The gutsy Gonzalez actually filed an insurance claim for the Model X’s loss, but he never showed up for a required examination under oath where he was required to bring the electric vehicle’s certificate of ownership. Ultimately, the claim was denied.
Not to be discouraged, Gonzalez went for a fourth Tesla in March 2019, another Model X for $136,710. This time around, he used another person’s driver’s license and another address. Tesla delivered the vehicle, and it was registered with the Vermont DMV. Gonzalez then transferred the Model X’s title under his own name, claiming that he had acquired it through an “even trade” with an $8,200 2013 Kia Optima. The Model X was sold on eBay for $99,400.
Unfortunately for Gonzalez, his streak ended when he initiated his scam for the fifth time in July 2019. Tesla eventually hired a repossession company, and the vehicle was tracked to a Burlington garage. The scammer fled, though he was later arrested in February 2020 on a separate gun charge. Upon his release, he had the Tesla towed from a storage facility for what he believed was another sale. The Seabrook Police Department was not having it by this time, and they proceeded to impound the Model X.
As per the US Department of Justice, Gonzalez is currently being charged with five counts of possessing and selling stolen motor vehicles. He is ordered detained by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin J. Doyle pending a detention hearing next week, and he is at risk of facing ten years in prison for each count of possessing and selling stolen cars.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with account tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
