News
Tesla Model Y mishap shows urgent need for aggressively better quality control
Tesla currently stands at the top of the auto market, and for good reason. Its vehicles provide an experience unlike any other, their performance is incredible for their price, and their tech is top-notch. Yet as the company pursues its target of delivering 500,000 cars this year, something is becoming evident: Tesla needs to aggressively emphasize its quality control, especially with regards to the Model Y.
Just recently, EV enthusiast u/Indescribables shared a verified anecdote at the r/TeslaMotors subreddit, stating that their new all-electric crossover lost its glass roof while they were driving in California’s 238 highway. According to the Tesla owner, he and his dad started noticing some wind noise inside the cabin while they were driving. They initially thought that a window had been open, but before they could check, the Model Y’s entire glass roof reportedly got blown off.
After overcoming the initial shock of the incident, the pair drove back to the Tesla delivery center. Upon inspection, the manager at the Tesla location reportedly noted that the incident was caused by either a faulty seal on the glass roof, or someone from the factory forgot to seal the roof on. The new Tesla owners were then given a loaner as well as the option to repair or replace the Model Y. The pair declined a repair, instead opting to have the vehicle replaced.
So Tesla’s quality control is really bad. Our brand new model y’s entire roof just fell off from r/teslamotors
Granted, such an account is strictly anecdotal, but it does highlight a notable point of improvement for Tesla. As the company grows, after all, the electric car maker must make it a point to ensure that its quality control matches its pace of innovation. This ensures that every new Tesla owner gets to experience the same type of experience that has inspired such a strong and dedicated following for the company and its CEO, Elon Musk. This becomes challenging if some vehicles end up leaving the factory without being properly checked for potential build issues.
This is especially notable with this recent Model Y mishap, since Elon Musk himself has proven in the past that he is not content with Tesla making cars that have subpar build quality. During the middle of the Model 3’s “production hell” in 2018, reports were abounding that some vehicles being delivered to customers were not up to par in quality compared to the company’s previous cars like the Model S. Musk then sent a letter to Tesla employees calling for vast improvements in build quality. Musk’s intent was clear.
“We will keep going until the Model 3 build precision is a factor of ten better than any other car in the world. I am not kidding… Our car needs to be designed and built with such accuracy and precision that, if an owner measures dimensions, panel gaps, and flushness, and their measurements don’t match the Model 3 specs, it just means that their measuring tape is wrong,” Musk wrote.
Tesla Convertible???
The improvements in the Model 3’s build quality did not happen overnight, but once the company was able to get better, even legacy auto veterans could not deny that the all-electric sedan was being built with world-class standards. Longtime GM executive Bob Lutz, who is typically critical of Tesla, pretty much threw in the towel when he encountered a Model 3 in the wild. The following excerpt from a post Lutz shared on Road and Track explains his observations best.
“When I spied a metallic-red Model 3 in an Ann Arbor parking lot, I felt compelled to check it out. I was eager to see the oft-reported sloppy assembly work, the poor-fitting doors, blotchy paint, and other manifestations of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘production hell’ with my own eyes.”
“But, when next to the car, I was stunned. Not only was the paint without any discernible flaw, but the various panels formed a body of precision that was beyond reproach. Gaps from hood to fenders, doors to frame, and all the others appeared to be perfectly even, equal side-to-side, and completely parallel. Gaps of 3.5 to 4.5mm are considered word-class. This Model 3 measured up,” Lutz wrote.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla, especially the Model 3, enjoys widespread support from its consumer base. A thorough study from Bloomberg which polled 5,000 Model 3 owners found that buyers of the all-electric sedan were extremely happy about their cars despite the occasional cosmetic issue. Almost 99% of Model 3 owners remarked that they would recommend the car to friends and family. These are remarkable results, and it speaks volumes about the disruption that Tesla is really bringing to the auto market.
But the company could do better. Adopting a more aggressive quality control system is one way to do this.
Tesla has grown at a pace that is almost unprecedented, transitioning from a maker of premium cars like the Model S and Model X to a mass-market automaker that produces the Model 3 and Model Y in but a few years. With this transition came challenges, as evidenced in the well-documented “production hell” that Tesla experienced during the initial Model 3 ramp. The company has since overcome its quality issues with the Model 3, but it appears that the same pattern is somewhat happening with the Model Y’s ramp. This has to improve.
Considering the company’s goals, from its 1-million-vehicle-per-year target and more importantly, its mission, Tesla must simply not tolerate errors such as releasing a vehicle without proper glass roof sealant to delivery centers. These errors must be beneath Tesla’s Fremont plant at this point, especially since cars from the company’s China factory, Giga Shanghai, have been heavily praised for their build quality, as per data from Chinese quality complaint company CheZhiWang.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
