News
The saga continues with Model X driver involved in Montana crash
Mr. Pang is back this time with a second open letter to Tesla
The Tesla Model X driver involved in a Montana crash while using Autopilot is stirring up controversy once again this time asking Tesla Motors to reveal additional details from the incident. It seems that language differences play a large role in this dispute. Acting as his representative, Steven Xu sent us a second open letter Mr. Pang penned to Elon Musk, in which he takes issue with Tesla’s account of the accident. The open letter reads as follows:
Here is the second letter from my friend, Mr.Pang.
To Tesla Team:
It has been weeks since I published the letter. No one has ever tried to contact us and discus about the crash. To fully understand the reason that caused this crash is critical for all tesla drivers. After awhile tesla published a response towards our letter. Most of parts are fit into the story. However there are few points that I would like to point out.
“From this data, we learned that after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes. This is contrary to the terms of use when first enabling the feature and the visual alert presented you every time Autosteer is activated.”
I admit that my hands were out of steering wheel after I engaged autopilot. The reason that I was doing that is because I put too much faith in this system. I also believe most Tesla driver would do the something when they
engage autopilot including Elon. The problem here is that Tesla had over advertised this feature by calling it “autopilot”. This feature should named “advance driving assistant”. It is possible that Tesla had known accident like this would come sooner or later. Tesla might think that setting up the term by saying “please put hands on steering wheel at all time” would be response free for Tesla.
2、 As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted you to put your hands on the wheel.
The road condition was better than fine. Lane mark is absolutely clear. Road is flat and there is no incoming car. No matter what my sight was never out of the road. However everything was happened too fast for me to take control. Everything happened in less than a second.
3、No steering torque was then detected until Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action. Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow, and you applied the brake pedal.
No one should avoid the cause of the malfunction of autopilot feature. Since you start explaining it, I realize that you are implying that some sort of force was applied to the steering wheel by me. I had no idea how Tesla got this clue. There are two points I want to make here. First, my hands were not on the steering wheel. Second no obstacle was on the road to alter the steering wheel direction. The one and the only one that was taking control of this entire vehicle and steering it away from the road is autopilot software itself. Somehow I realize if my hands were on the steering wheel with a force, would Tesla blame me for the collision? To me it looks like that if an accident occur by autopilot, either hands are on or not on the steering wheel, Tesla can always find a way out by saying “abrupt steering action”.
Tesla also claimed that “abrupt steering adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow.”
This is nowhere near the truth. The real thing is that vehicle was NEVER attended to slow from hitting the first pole towards the last. It only took about a second to hit 12 wood poles. I believe if it wasn’t me who brake the vehicle it would continued cruising. Mr. Huang was injured severely due to high speed impact.
Tesla as a global impact company should respect the truth of every incident. Nothing is more important hand human life. Lying or manipulating towards public about what really happened is unacceptable.
Weeks ago I got contacted by Tesla regarding this accident. Since you cannot find a mandarin translator, we rearranged the call again in four hours. However that was the last time when Tesla tries to contact me. What I am asking is to fully reveal the driving data from the collision. Reliability of Autopilot software matters to hundreds and thousands of Tesla drivers. I wish to know the entire story about what really happened on us on that collision.
Thanks
Sincerely
Mr. Pang
Steven Xu pointed us to comments being made on the Tesla Motors Club forum that seemingly offers Mr. Pang no support at all. In fact, based on those comments, there almost seems to be a cultural bias in play in this situation. One wonders if perhaps things would seem different if they were driving a car in China that only displayed instructions in Mandarin.
Pang’s complaint is very similar to one lodged by a Chinese customer last month whose Tesla crashed on the highway on the way to work. He claimed that the salesman he spoke to before purchasing his car told him specifically that the car could drive itself and proved it by driving with his hands off the wheel during a test drive. Tesla later amended the language it uses to describe its Autopilot system on its Chinese website. It’s possible that same linguistic confusion has a bearing on Mr. Pang’s unfortunate accident.
At this point, it seems the matter will be handled by insurance companies and lawyers. Tesla apparently has had no further contact with Pang. Through Steven, Pang says, “Weeks ago I got contacted by Tesla regarding this accident. Since you cannot find a Mandarin translator, we re-arranged the call again in four hours. However, that was the last time when Tesla tries to contact me.
“What I am asking is to fully reveal the driving data from the collision. Reliability of Autopilot software
matters to hundreds and thousands of Tesla drivers. I wish to know the entire story about what really happened on us on that collision.”
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Boring Company studying potential Giga Nevada tunnel: report
The early-stage feasibility work was funded by a state-affiliated economic group as officials searched for alternatives to worsening traffic and accidents along Interstate 80.
Elon Musk’s tunneling startup, The Boring Company, has been studying a potential tunnel system connecting Reno to Tesla Gigafactory Nevada, as per documents obtained by Fortune. The early-stage feasibility work was funded by a state-affiliated economic group as officials searched for alternatives to worsening traffic and accidents along Interstate 80.
Potential Giga Nevada tunnel
Documents reviewed by Fortune showed that The Boring Company received $50,000 in October to produce conceptual designs and a feasibility report for a tunnel beneath a nine-mile stretch of highway leading to Gigafactory Nevada. The payment came from the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN), a nonprofit that works with the state to attract and expand businesses.
The proposed tunnel was one of several transportation alternatives being explored to address rising congestion and accidents along Interstate 80, which serves the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. The massive industrial park houses major employers, including Tesla and Panasonic, both of which had been in contact with the Nevada Governor’s Office regarding potential transportation solutions.
Emails obtained through public records requests showed that Tesla and Panasonic have also supported a separate commuter rail study that would use existing freight rail alongside the Interstate. It remains unclear if The Boring Company’s feasibility report had been completed, and key details for the potential project, including tunnel length, cost, and if autonomous Teslas would be used, were not disclosed.
Relieving I-80 congestion
Traffic and accidents along I-80 have increased sharply as data centers and new businesses moved into the 107,000-acre industrial center. State transportation data showed that the number of vehicles traveling certain stretches of the highway during peak hours doubled between January and July 2025 alone. Roughly 22,000 employees commute daily to the industrial park, with nearly 8,000 working for Tesla and more than 4,000 for Panasonic at the Giga Nevada complex.
Bill Thomas, who runs the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, shared his thoughts about safety concerns in the area. “At this point in time, there’s about (one accident) every other day,” he said. He also noted that he is supportive of any projects that could alleviate traffic and accidents on the Interstate.
“We’re not paying for it. I’m not involved in it. But I understand there are conversations exploring whether that could be done. If there’s a private solution that helps the problem and improves safety, as far as I’m concerned, more power to them,” Thomas stated.
News
Tesla might have built redundancies for Cybercab charging
When Tesla unveiled the Cybercab in 2024, the company noted that the autonomous two-seater would utilize wireless charging.
A newly spotted panel on Tesla’s Cybercab prototype may point to a practical backup for the vehicle’s wireless charging system as it nears mass production.
Tesla watchers have speculated that the panel could house a physical NACS port, which would ensure that the autonomous two-seater could operate reliably even before the company’s wireless charging infrastructure is deployed.
Cybercab possible physical charge port
The discussion was sparked by a post on X by Tesla watcher Owen Sparks, who highlighted a rather interesting panel on the Cybercab’s rear. The panel, which seemed to be present in the prototype units that have been spotted across the United States recently, seemed large enough to house a physical charge port.
When Tesla unveiled the Cybercab in 2024, the company noted that the autonomous two-seater would utilize wireless charging. Since then, however, Tesla has remained largely quiet about the system’s rollout timeline. With the Cybercab expected to enter production in a few months, equipping the vehicle with a physical NACS port would allow it to charge at Superchargers nationwide without relying exclusively on still-undeployed wireless chargers.
Such an approach would not rule out wireless charging long-term. Instead, it would give Tesla flexibility, allowing the Cybercab to operate immediately at scale while wireless charging solutions are rolled out later. For a vehicle designed to operate continuously and autonomously, redundancy in charging options would be a practical move.
Growing Cybercab sightings
Recent sightings of the Cybercab prototype in Chicago point to the same design philosophy. Images shared on social media showed the vehicle coated in road grime, while its rear camera area appeared noticeably cleaner, with visible traces of water on the trunk.
The observation suggests that the Cybercab is equipped with a rear camera washer. As noted by Model Y owner and industry watcher Sawyer Merritt, this is a feature Tesla owners have requested for years, particularly in snowy or wet climates where dirt and slush can obscure cameras and degrade the performance of systems like FSD.
While only the rear camera washer was clearly visible, the sighting raises the possibility that Tesla may equip additional exterior cameras with similar cleaning systems. For a vehicle that operates without a human driver, after all, maintaining camera visibility in all conditions is essential. Ultimately, the charge-port speculation and camera-washer sightings suggest Tesla is approaching the Cybercab with practicality in mind.
News
Tesla Model Y dominated China’s NEV sales in December 2025
As per sales data from China, the all-electric crossover finished first among the country’s best-selling EVs and plug-in hybrids.
The Tesla Model Y ranked as China’s top-selling new energy vehicle in December, leading an intensely competitive market packed with strong domestic brands.
As per sales data from China, the all-electric crossover finished first among the country’s best-selling EVs and plug-in hybrids. The Model 3 also placed within the country’s top ten vehicles.
Model Y leads China’s NEV rankings
The graphic, shared on X and sourced from Chinese auto industry data aggregator Yiche, listed the top 20 best-selling new energy vehicles in China for December. Tesla’s Model Y claimed the No. 1 position with roughly 65,874 units sold, finishing well ahead of a field dominated by domestic manufacturers such as BYD, SAIC-GM-Wuling, and Xiaomi.
The chart also showed strong performances from other high-volume models, including BYD’s Qin Plus, which sold 46,837 units during the month. Tesla’s Model 3 ranked eighth overall, with just under 28,000 units sold, placing it ahead of numerous locally produced competitors despite its rather premium price.
Tesla China’s strong December
Tesla China had a stellar December 2025. During the month, Tesla sold 97,171 vehicles wholesale in China, as per data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The result marked Tesla China’s second-highest monthly total on record, trailing only November 2022’s peak of 100,291 units.
December’s wholesale figure represented a 3.63% increase from the same month a year earlier and a 12.08% jump from November. Industry watchers have suggested that part of the surge was driven by Tesla pulling deliveries forward to allow customers to benefit from more favorable purchase tax policies before year-end.
Despite this, December’s results suggest that Tesla’s Model Y and Model 3 remain highly competitive offerings in China, which is extremely impressive considering the competition from domestic players and their still premium price.
Elon Musk’s Boring Company studying potential Giga Nevada tunnel: report
Tesla might have built redundancies for Cybercab charging
