News
Tesla gets its first negative review from a police force standpoint
Tesla vehicles have been adopted by several police forces across the United States, and they have widely been met with positive reviews, mainly driven by cost savings and performance advantages.
However, one department has found the Tesla fleet to be less than ideal, even going as far as saying “(they) do not appear to the be the ‘patrol cars of the future.’”
In 2019, the Menlo Park, California City Council voted 3-2 to adopt a Sustainable Fleet Policy in 2020. The Model Y Long Range was chosen as the vehicle for the Menlo Park Police Department, beating out the Ford Mustang Mach-E and some other EVs.
Three units make up the EV portion of the Menlo Park Police Fleet.
Teslas need to be outfitted and modified for police use. Lights, sirens, seats, specialized seatbelts, communications equipment, a gun rack, window guards, and ballistic door panels are all equipped to make it a full-fledged law enforcement vehicle.
Tesla Model Y showcased at Menlo Park Police employee appreciation event
Outfitting a Tesla Model Y was roughly $12,700 more expensive than a Ford Explorer Hybrid, and the difference when also factoring in the initial cost of the vehicle came to $25,355, a 33 percent increase for the Tesla compared to the Ford.
Other police departments have canceled out the difference in initial cost after just a year of operation.
Officers also said the “small interior space” and “smart car” features, along with the low vehicle profile all made things more difficult.
Space Constraints
In terms of space constraints, after the vehicle is outfitted for patrol use, there is a “reduce amount of space for an officer in full patrol gear.” The report, released by the Menlo Park City Council, said:
“The width of duty belts and bulletproof vests do not fit well in the bucket seat and the height of the center console required larger officers to sit at an angle or with their sidearm pinned and inaccessible while in the vehicle. The equipment overhangs the passenger seat making it nearly unusable. This is not an immediate issue, as the current patrol operations do not deploy two officers in every vehicle, but would limit the ability to transport personnel or change operations in the future. In particular, the passenger seat space would not allow training officers to comfortably sit next to a trainee for a 12-hour shift, preventing field training for new officers. The rear seats provide very little room for anyone detained or transported in the back of the car.”
“Smart Car” Challenges
The Menlo Park PD listed Autopilot interference, lighting controls, and proximity locking, sleep mode, and self-closing doors as disadvantages:
“The following “smart” features of the Teslas created challenges for patrol operations:
-
- Autopilot interference: There is a delay when officers shift into drive; and on occasion the Teslas automatically stop when an officer attempts to pull off to the side of the road to approach vehicles or people.
- Lighting controls (tablet): Tesla does not allow direct access to the system; officers need to use a multistep touch screen process to follow standard practice to dim their lights upon approach at night.
- Proximity locking, sleep mode and self-closing doors: The car knows when the key is, or is not, present within an effective range. The cars will not lock if the key, or enabled smartphone, are near the vehicles and will conversely lock if the key or smartphone is away from the vehicle.”
According to Almanac News, Menlo Park’s local news, the City Council approved the purchase of a Chevrolet Blazer for a future Police vehicle. It appears the Department is just not set on the Tesla for police use.
“I am very proud that we tried the Teslas, and not everything works,” Betty Nash, a Council member, said. “I appreciate all the work that the police department did with working through all the bumps.”
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
