Connect with us

News

Tesla owner shares FSD purchase concerns after vandals set Model X on fire

(Credit: Den Dal/Twitter)

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Advertisement
-

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk

Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.

Published

on

By

Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter

Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.

Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.


SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.

Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.

The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.

SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.

Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day

FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.

Published

on

By

Rendering of Elon Musk overlooking a Starship fleet (Credit: Grok)

The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.

A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.

The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.

Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.

As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.

Continue Reading