News
Tesla says ‘brake failure’ protestor vandalized Model 3, refused third-party testing
Tesla is navigating through a difficult bout with an owner in Shanghai, China, named Zhang Yazhou, who appeared at the Shanghai Auto Show last week in protest of what she claimed was a faulty Model 3 braking system. Tesla has now issued a more lengthy and detailed description of their encounters with Mrs. Zhang, revealing that she not only vandalized her own car with red spray paint, but she also denied any requests made by Tesla to have an independent, third-party company investigate whether the Model 3 had braking issues.
On April 19th, Zhang climbed on top of a Model 3 that was positioned at the Tesla booth at the Shanghai Auto Show. Wearing a shirt that said “Tesla Brake Failure,” Zhang yelled “Tesla brakes failed me” to a crowd of spectators who surrounded the all-electric sedan. As a result, Tesla has released several responses, including data from the accident that showed the driver, who was actually Zhang’s father, was driving at a speed that was above the posted speed limit and engaged the braking system successfully on more than 40 occasions in the half-hour leading up to the accident.
Now, Tesla is making more attempts to reveal the story to the public and is revealing its interactions with Zhang.
The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin
On Tesla’s official Weibo page, the company stated that Zhang talked to Tesla on April 27th, and the automaker was willing to continue communicating and try to come to a solution. After a five-day stint with the Police following the protest, Zhang returned home and told Tesla reps, “I just came back. I need to adjust. I hope you can show an attitude that really solves the problem. When you have this attitude, we will communicate.”
Tesla revealed that Zhang was in the passenger’s seat during the accident and that traffic police came to the conclusion that the driver, Zhang’s father, was “fully responsible for the accident because he did not maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front.” After the vehicle arrived at a local service shop for repairs on February 22, Tesla says Ms. Zhang put a seal on the vehicle three days after its arrival so nobody could enter the car. Tesla says that Zhang believed the vehicle’s data could be tampered with, and this was the reason for the seal being placed on the doors. Zhang had the still-wrecked vehicle towed to Tesla’s Zhengzhou Fotamen showroom on March 5th, where it would be sitting in the public for everyone to see.
Zhang’s door seals (Credit: Tesla | Weibo)
The following day, Zhang placed a banner that read “Brake Failure” on the car, and Tesla began offering Zhang the option of having third-party inspectors take a look at the car on their dime. Zhang refused, saying that she was not interested in having the car looked at by “non-accredited third-party testing agencies,” and warned that Tesla should “look for pressure from the media” if the car wasn’t returned.
Zhang placed a banner on the car that said “Brake Failure” as the Model 3 sat in front of its Zhengzhou Fotamen showroom. (Credit: Tesla | Weibo)
Zhang then came back to the showroom where her car was located and spraypainted the exterior of her wrecked Model 3 with red paint. The words once again said, “Brake Failure.”
“The Tesla staff are still actively communicating with Ms. Zhang, trying to find a solution, and negotiating with her husband, Mr. Li, hoping to minimize the impact and help her maximize the benefits within a reasonable range. Mr. Li made it clear that he still has a “team” from Beijing assisting him, and being helped by others in “cooperating” with others can only be obedient,” Tesla added. Zhang resealed her vehicle on March 21st.
Zhang spraypainted her wrecked Model 3 with red paint, with the words “Brake Failure” present on the driver’s side of the car. (Credit: Tesla | Weibo)
According to Tesla, Zhang then had the car towed to the Zhengzhou Dahe Auto Show, where two hired models stood beside the car. Zhang then made her appearance at the Shanghai Auto Show on April 19th. Tesla says that it is still working to iron out the situation and work with Zhang and her husband, who is identified as Mr. Li. Tesla sent a sealed version of the vehicle data that was available 30 minutes before the accident occurred to Zhang’s house.
“Since February, we have been doing our best to actively communicate with Ms. Zhang and her family. We sincerely hope that we can promote vehicle inspection as soon as possible and give a result to the friends who care about Tesla,” the company concluded.
You can read Tesla’s full response here.
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
