This weekend, a tragic crash involving a 2019 Tesla Model S ended up claiming the lives of two individuals, a 59-year-old and a 69-year-old, both of whom are yet to be identified. Considering the nature of the case and partly due to the involvement of a Tesla, the incident has been covered by both local and national media outlets. This became quite notable in social media platforms, where the crash has been linked to Autopilot.
Two killed in huge blaze after driverless Tesla on autopilot crashes into tree https://t.co/JcwWM9hZAf pic.twitter.com/kvwUdg5ety
— New York Post (@nypost) April 18, 2021
This guide presents what is currently known about the tragic incident, as well as some commentary and videos from EV owners who have attempted to replicate (at least to a degree) the alleged events that led up to the tragic Model S crash.
What happened?
On Saturday night, a 2019 Model S crashed into a tree at about 11:25 p.m. in the Carlton Woods Subdivision on Hammock Dunes Place in Houston, Texas. According to authorities, the Model S crashed into a tree after failing to navigate a turn at high speed near 18 Hammock Dunes Place. The collision resulted in a fire that took the local fire department about four hours and over 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish. Investigators have found two victims from the incident, one sitting on the passenger seat and another in the back seat.
What did witnesses say?
KPRC 2 reporter Deven Clarke was able to speak to one of the victims’ brother-in-law, who stated that the Tesla owner and a friend simply wanted to take the car out for a spin. The brother-in-law remarked that there were just two people in the vehicle. He also added that the Tesla owner backed out of the driveway and then may have hopped in the back seat before crashing a few hundred yards down the road. The owner was reportedly the person found in the back seat of the car.
What has the police said?
In a statement to KHOU-11, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman remarked that deputies who recovered the Tesla are certain that the vehicle had no driver when it collided with the tree. He also emphasized that some of the authorities who responded to the incident were reconstructionists, and that they were very confident that there was no one driving the vehicle when it crashed.
-
“They are 100% certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact. They are positive. And again, the height from the back seat to the front seat, that would be almost impossible, but again our investigators are trained. They handle collisions. Several of our folks are reconstructionists, but they feel very confident just with the positioning of the bodies after the impact that there was no one driving that vehicle,” Herman said.
Was Autopilot involved?
Despite the inflammatory social media posts from some media outlets, it has not been determined yet if Autopilot had been active in the Model S when it collided with the tree. It should be noted that the roads in the Carlton Woods Subdivision on Hammock Dunes Place do not seem to have visible lane lines, which is a requirement for Autopilot’s activation. Regular cruise control could be activated in such areas as per videos from Tesla owners, but Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features are generally inaccessible in a residential area, at least in their current state.
This should dismiss the idea that AP was somehow the cause of this horrific incident. I pray for the family and friends of the deceased. Let’s trust the real investigators will discover what really happened here. pic.twitter.com/0tp8Vbh6fH
— Mikey Likes (@mliebow) April 18, 2021
Is the NTSB investigating the incident?
In a statement to Bloomberg, National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson Chris O’Neil confirmed that the NTSB does not plan to open a new probe about the tragic incident.
What happens when Autopilot is engaged and a driver unbuckles the seatbelt?
One scenario that has been suggested is that the driver might have activated Autopilot and jumped into the back seat. This would have been a tricky maneuver as the driver would have had to unbuckle himself, which results in Teslas engaging their alerts and eventually coming to a stop. Such a scenario was demonstrated by FSD Beta user @brandonee916.
-
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
