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.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
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 short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
