News
Tesla teardown specialist Sandy Munro lays the law on TSLAQ over false allegations
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.
#MunroAssociates Tips For #Tesla E3 – Night Vision HUD & Wire Reductionhttps://t.co/WlzodSDwWO pic.twitter.com/5dDEu9LzU9— Munro & Associates (@MunroAssociates) July 25, 2020
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.
“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.
Watch Munro’s statement on the allegations in the video below.
Elon Musk
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit
Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.
Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.
Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.
Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.
The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”
Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”
The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.
Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.



