News
Tesla owner shares FSD purchase concerns after vandals set Model X on fire
When Tesla owner Den Dal plugged his family’s 2018 Model X Long Range at a public charger during a recent business trip to Düsseldorf, Germany, he had no idea that it would be the start of a grueling ordeal. Twenty-four hours after plugging in his Tesla, Dal was left with a burned Model X, an FSD purchase that seemed to be up in the air, and a plausible arson incident that seemingly targeted the all-electric SUV.
Den Dal had rented an apartment for his business trip to Düsseldorf which was close to a row of public chargers that his Model X could be plugged in. Unfortunately, all of the public charger’s stalls were being blocked by fossil fuel cars on that day. This resulted in the Tesla owner plugging his Model X at another public charger, which was farther away, about 600 meters from the rented apartment.
The rates of the station were notably higher than Tesla’s charges for its Supercharger Network, but the location at least had a free stall for the all-electric SUV. Dal plugged in his vehicle and went back to his rented apartment, expecting to find his Model X charged and ready to go the next morning.
What he saw was not what he expected at all. To the Tesla owner’s shock, he found his Model X torched, and the burns on the vehicle suggested that it had been deliberately set on fire. A note from the police was placed on the windshield of the all-electric SUV, notifying the Tesla owner that he should head over to the station as soon as possible.
Unfortunately for the Tesla owner, his vehicle did not have a USB drive that was linked to its Sentry Mode feature. Thus, while Sentry Mode was active during the incident, no videos were retrieved from the Model X. The police also stated that there were no local cameras around the public charging station. No other Teslas were in the area either, which may have helped if they were running Sentry Mode as well.
Based on the specifics of the incident, it does appear that the Model X was singled out and deliberately burned. In the street where the vehicle was charging, there were more than 60 cars, some of which were premium vehicles and most of which were from German automakers, yet none were touched. Dal later found out that before his Model X was set on fire, another bike parked in the same area had been torched as well. Local firefighters who responded to the scene also saw where the flames started.
Quite amazingly, the Model X remained drivable despite being burned, which suggested that the vehicle’s batteries and powertrain were still intact after the incident. Describing the vehicle’s status in a message to Teslarati, Dal noted that the interior smelled particularly bad since chemicals of the cooling system seemed to have entered the cabin, as per observations from a Tesla Service Center. Tesla has not provided an update to the Model X owner yet, though there is a pretty good chance that the vehicle may be a total loss.
Dal is a supporter of Tesla and the company’s mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy, and he purchased Enhanced Autopilot and the Full Self-Driving suite for his Model X despite knowing that the systems’ full features will be rolled out at a later time. That being said, Dal has notable concerns about his FSD purchase after his Model X was set aflame.
The Tesla owner had purchased FSD at a time when Tesla had a discount for the suite, and as such, the system was not insured with the vehicle. From this standpoint, it appears that while the Model X may be insured, its Full Self-Driving system was not. Dal is thus concerned that his FSD purchase will not be carried over if he does purchase another Tesla, which is unfortunate considering that he has not really been able to use much of what Autopilot and Full Self-Driving have to offer yet.
Dal resides in Europe, a region where regulations have forced Tesla to essentially cripple some key features of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving suite. This results in key FSD capabilities such as Navigate on Autopilot with automatic lane changes and Smart Summon being practically impossible to roll out unless revisions are implemented in the region’s regulations. Tesla is doing what it can to address these regulations, but in the meantime, owners such as Dal, who have purchased FSD with their vehicle, are in a limbo of sorts.
Adding insult to injury, the Tesla owner has unfortunately been subjected to some online attacks from the electric car maker’s critics since posting about his experience online. Some have accused Dal of simply trying to attract attention, while others were insisting that the Model X’s batteries combusted on their own. The former point simply lacks basic empathy, while the latter seems farfetched considering that the Model X remained drivable even after it was torched.
For now, Dal is simply hoping that Tesla could provide a resolution for his vehicle and his FSD purchase. The Tesla owner noted that he would like to acquire another Model X if his SUV is totaled, though he looks forward to hearing about an update from the electric car maker soon.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
