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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
