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.
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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
