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.
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
