Connect with us

News

Tesla teardown specialist Sandy Munro lays the law on TSLAQ over false allegations

(Credit: Munro Live/YouTube)

Published

6 years ago

on

When Sandy Munro started his analysis of an early production Tesla Model 3, he was aghast at the vehicle’s quirks, and he made his disapproval known. Munro did not pull his punches back, pointing out the vehicle’s build quality issues and outlining exactly what was wrong with the all-electric sedan. Yet as soon as his analysis took him beyond the Model 3’s bodywork, Munro found something remarkable: Tesla’s tech was beyond everyone else’s in the automotive industry, and it’s not even close.  

By the time he was finished tearing down the Model 3, Munro was already quite impressed with Tesla. Everything, he noted, from the Model 3’s suspension down to its batteries was on point, and the company’s tech was insane. Munro suggested that if Tesla had only paid more attention to its basics like build quality, the electric car maker would have wiped the floor with legacy automakers. These developments could all be reviewed through Munro’s multiple appearances at Autoline After Hours, where he is featured as a guest from time to time. 

Munro and his company, Munro and Associates, eventually took on their next Tesla project by tearing down an early production Model Y. The veteran was gracious enough to share his insights on the vehicle through a series that he and his team uploaded on YouTube. The video series documented every step of the Model Y’s teardown process, and while Munro still observed a number of build quality-related points for improvement in the all-electric crossover, he was impressed overall. So impressed, in fact, that Munro opted to share his enthusiasm for the vehicle openly. Recent videos even include “tips” for Tesla that could improve their vehicles further. 

Advertisement

This did not sit well with Tesla critics, particularly the online TSLAQ group. Tesla critics and short-sellers are known to propagate the occasional conspiracy theory, whether that involves accusations of abuse by the Tesla CEO to alleged cover-ups by government agencies that are supposedly paid by the electric car maker to do their bidding. Granted, most of these conspiracy theories are just noise, but sometimes, this noise can result in very real repercussions. Unfortunately, this exact thing happened to Sandy Munro. 

When it became evident that Munro was openly supportive of Tesla and the Model Y, it did not take long for the TSLAQ Twitter community to insinuate that the teardown expert was actually being paid by the electric car maker for good publicity. Notable short-sellers joined in on the insinuations, TSLAQ trolls dared Munro to file a lawsuit against them, and some members of the media who are known to be critical of the electric car maker brought up the fact that the teardown expert’s stance on Tesla changed over time. 

These, of course, neglect to explore one possible explanation for Munro’s shift on his stance about Tesla. While Munro was openly critical of the Model 3 during his first look at the car, he was eventually won over by the tech and innovation that was put into the vehicle. The Model Y, which followed the Model 3, embodied many of Munro’s own points for improvement that he raised during his analysis of the all-electric sedan. Perhaps, just perhaps, Tesla is improving as an automaker, and the company’s electric cars are really in the bleeding edge of automotive tech. 

Ever the fighter, Munro has posted a stern response to the insinuations leveled against him by Tesla critics. In a YouTube video, Munro laid down the law on TSLAQ, declaring that neither he nor his company is being paid to talk positively about the electric car maker. And in true Munro fashion, the teardown expert came with evidence, explaining exactly how innovations like the Octovalve are only possible in a company that works like Tesla. Following is his statement. 

Advertisement

“Munro and Associates is not, I repeat, is not paid by Tesla to say or do or receive anything that we have. I know that some people are saying things like that. They don’t know what they’re talking about. I have to try and defend myself periodically, and this is it. So, I can tell you a little something right now that the Tesla haters or basically the people that are trying to drive me out of business are saying — that Tesla would never tell you. 

“So this is part of the Octovalve. And what we’ve noticed is, we had one of our customers come in with a brand new Tesla. It was built about one month ago and we noticed that their product, the product that you’re seeing here — the aluminum supermanifold — their product had 13 design changes associated with it. Thirteen. I’m going to tell you. I couldn’t get one design change through in a year when I was at Ford Motor Company. They (Tesla) did 13 in three months. That’s why they’re kicking some serious butt.

“Another thing that we found was when we got our vehicle, there was no shroud around the compressor. Their vehicle had an excellent design for a shroud, and it looked spectacular. Now am I saying things that Tesla told me to tell you? I don’t think so… Munro and Associates and myself as the number one associate, we are in this strictly for the right reasons. I am not bought by anyone. No one in this company is bought by anyone. We are a consulting house that tells the truth all the time — good, bad, or ugly — and I’m just starting to find out about this. It’s all crap. Don’t believe any of it.” 

Most of the tweets posted online which suggested that Munro was a paid shill for Tesla have already been deleted, though some screenshots of the posts have made the rounds online. It is through these that it was revealed that Sandy Munro has started preparing a lawsuit to hold the TSLAQ members liable for damages, seeing as one of his key clients was affected by the accusations. Based on a message sent by the veteran teardown specialist to a key Tesla critic, it appears that Munro is dead serious, and he is looking to hold those involved in the issue accountable. 

Advertisement

Watch Munro’s statement on the allegations in the video below. 

Related Topics:

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

tesla-asia-model-3
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.

The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.

The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.

Musk said:

“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:

“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.

There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.

Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:

…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history

SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.

Published

1 day ago

on

April 23, 2026

By

US Golden Dome space defense system (Concept render by Grok)

SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.

The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.

Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.

The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.

The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.

Continue Reading