News
Tesla Model X easily tows Chevy Silverado 1500 from Supercharger in ‘De-ICE-ing’ feat
There is no denying that Tesla’s electric cars are bound to be polarizing for a long time to come. Operating independent of gasoline, the vehicles are practically a stand against the fossil fuel industry. Being sleek, powerful and quick, the cars also go against the notion that electric cars are boring and slow. Unfortunately, as Teslas become more commonplace with the ramp of the Model 3, the vehicles appear to be attracting more resistance from the anti-EV community as well.
Last month, several members of the Tesla community went online to share their experiences with a practice colloquially known as “ICE-ing,” which involves gasoline and diesel powered vehicles blocking access to a Supercharger. While some of these incidents might be the result of an honest mistake, some ICE-ing incidents are undoubtedly intentional. Noted TSLA short Mark Spiegel, for example, has proudly shown off his Porsche Boxster S blocking a Supercharger stall earlier this year. Tesla owners u/Leicina and u/BarcodeOfficial from the r/TeslaMotors subreddit uploaded photos of stations being intentionally blocked by pickup truck drivers as well. As noted by the Tesla owners, some of the truck drivers were even verbally harassing EV owners.
-
- Pickup trucks ICE-ing a Tesla Supercharger. (Photo: BarcodeOfficial/Reddit)
-
- Pickup trucks ICE-ing a Tesla Supercharger. (Photo: Leicina/Reddit)
-
- Tesla short-seller Mark Spiegel blocking a Supercharger station. (Photo: Mark Spiegel/Twitter)
Amidst these annoying (and disturbing to a point) incidents, one thing that these pickup truck drivers could easily forget is that Tesla’s electric cars are actually loaded with a lot of power, and they have the weight to back it up. Being equipped with electric motors, Tesla’s vehicles have a lot of torque, and thanks to their massive battery packs, they are also very heavy. The Tesla Model X, for example, was at its lightest at 5,072 pounds, and that was when the company was still selling the 60D variant. Thus, in theory, a Tesla should be able to tow an offending vehicle out of a Supercharger station if needed, or as a last resort in the event of an emergency.
Such a theory was recently put to the test by Tesla Model X 90D owner Patrick Lawson. In a video posted on his Tesla Trip YouTube channel, Patrick opted to see if his all-electric SUV would be able to tow a full-sized pickup truck out of a Supercharger. Fortunately for the Model X owner, his sister recently acquired a 2014 Chevrolet 1500 Silverado, and she was more than willing to see if her 5,104-lb pickup could be towed by the electric vehicle. Patrick opted to conduct the experiment at an empty Supercharger in Loveland, CO, and to make the scenario even more challenging; he opted to engage the truck’s emergency brake, simulating a situation where a driver intentionally leaves a vehicle parked for an extended period of time.
In the video, Patrick could be seen hooking up his Model X to the Chevy Silverado 1500, then slowly driving away, pickup truck in tow. From what could be seen in the experiment, the entire ‘De-ICE-ing” process was effortless for the all-electric SUV, with Patrick noting in a conversation with Teslarati that he had to “show constraint” as he “gently pressed on the Model X’s accelerator” to ensure that both vehicles don’t get damaged. The Model X did not have to engage Slip Start before it towed the Silverado as well, and no warnings were present on the vehicle while it was pulling the full-sized pickup. Ultimately, Patrick noted that entire “De-ICE-ing” process only took around five minutes.
With the ramp of the Model 3, Tesla’s electric cars are becoming more prevalent. Unfortunately, acts like ICE-ing Superchargers would likely continue as well. And it’s not just ICE-ing either. Some Tesla owners, among them racecar driver Leilani Münter, have noted on Twitter that she had been “coal-rolled” multiple times while driving in her Tesla. In a tweet, Elon Musk described these situations as “bizarre.”
Inasmuch as ICE-ing, or coal-rolling for that matter, is an annoyance that could escalate into something more dangerous, there is very little that the anti-EV crowd can do to stop the spread of electric cars. Countries across the globe such as China, which are large markets for the auto industry, are shifting to electric vehicles, and so are regions like Europe. Thanks to cars like the Model 3, electric vehicles are becoming more and more attainable as well. Coupled with a grid that is shifting towards cleaner energy, it would only be a matter of time before the auto industry shifts completely to electric.
Watch Patrick Lawson’s video of his Tesla Model X “de-ICE-ing” a Supercharger below.
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
