World's best-selling car is now even better as Tesla updates Model Y
Of course, there wasn't a lot wrong with the Model Y prior to the latest upgrade, hence it claimed the mantle of the world's best selling car in 2023 and 2024.
But it's a competitive market and Tesla was determined to continue striding ahead.
The Tesla Model Y Launch Edition has clean and confident lines This likeable SUV has undergone extensive re-engineering to maximise efficiency, comfort, connectivity, and safety, with a completely redesigned interior and exterior.
The Model Y is a very efficient electric car, with a range to rival the best electric SUVs.
The AWD Launch Edition, tested here, offers a WLTP-certified range of 353 miles.
Charging speeds of 250kW are among the best, meaning you should be able to add around 150 miles of range in 15 minutes at a Supercharger.
The Supercharger network is reassuring for Tesla drivers when it comes to charger availability The suspension, wheels and tyres have also been updated to ensure a smoother and quieter ride.
The first thing you notice is the redesigned exterior, featuring improved aerodynamics.
It features a lower front-end with a full-width, three-piece lightbar. Below it, a redesigned front fascia enhances width and stability, integrating aerodynamic ducts for improved efficiency.
At the rear, an innovative 1.6m lightbar uses indirect reflected lighting, making it one of the industry's largest.
The redesigned tailgate looks smart The redesigned tailgate, spoiler, and extended diffuser enhance aerodynamics, stability, and impact protection. A revamped tow hitch features a quick-release cover for ease of use.
Tesla Vision, relying solely on cameras and neural networks, gives the Model Y an edge in aerodynamic development.
Other new aerodynamic features include a thermoplastic rear spoiler and ultra-efficient 19-inch wheels.
A new front camera, now integrated into the fascia, provides an expanded view, complete with a fluid washer and heating for fog prevention and defrosting.
The Model Y remains the most efficient SUV in its class, with the Rear-Wheel Drive variant achieving just 13.9kWh/100km—lower than many small city cars.
With Tesla's Supercharger network and Trip Planner, long-distance travel feels stress-free.
The cabin has an uncluttered feel In terms of the cabin, a strong emphasis has been placed on interior refinement.
It's a pleasant and relaxing place to be, with premium aluminium and textile materials found throughout, along with ambient lighting that each driver can customise to their own liking.
One criticism of previous models was that wind noise at high speeds was a little intrusive. Tesla has tackled that issue with 360-degree acoustic glass and other sound-dampening materials, reducing road and wind noise by as much as 22 per cent.
Ride comfort has been improved with a stiffer body, redesigned suspension geometry, and damping tech.
The vehicle has a mature and sleek appearance from all angles A refined front suspension and steering ratio has boosted highway stability, while optimised rear suspension reduces impact harshness and improves ride quality over rough roads.
The redesigned front seats are more comfortable and better ventilated than before, while the new centre console features smooth-sliding aluminium doors, extra storage, and cupholders.
The cabin remains minimalist and uncluttered, but a design flourish comes in the form of aluminium accents that now enhance the steering wheel, door trims, and instrument panel.
Steering wheel controls offer quick access to key functions, while a precision-engineered indicator stalk ensures effortless use.
The upgraded Tesla audio system delivers an immersive experience with up to 16 speakers.
It's not easy to make significant improvements to the world's best selling car, but Tesla has achieved just that.
Tesla Model Y Launch Edition
RANGE: 353 miles (WLTP)
TOP SPEED: 125 mph
0-60MPH: 4.1 seconds
PAINT COLOURS: Black and Quicksilver
INTERIOR: Black
WHEELS: 20' Helix 2.0 Wheels
ACCESSORIES: Tow hitch included
PRICE: Launch Edition no longer available for sale but was originally £60,990.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Elon Musk's proposed new political party could focus on a few pivotal congressional seats
The new US political party that Elon Musk has boasted about possibly bankrolling could initially focus on a handful of attainable House and Senate seats while striving to be the decisive vote on major issues amid the thin margins in Congress. Tesla and SpaceX's multibillionaire CEO mused about that approach on Friday in a post on X, the social media platform which he owns, as he continued feuding with Donald Trump over the spending bill that the president has signed into law. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' wrote Musk, who is the world's richest person and oversaw brutal cuts to the federal government after Trump's second presidency began in January. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring they serve the true will of the people.' In another post on Friday, when the US celebrated the 249th anniversary of its declaration of independence from the UK, Musk published a poll asking his X followers whether he should advance on his previously stated idea of creating the so-called America party to challenge both Republicans and Democrats. More than 65% of about 1.25m responses indicated 'yes' as of Saturday morning. 'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' Musk also wrote in text accompanying the poll, which he promoted several times throughout Friday. Musk's posts on Friday came after he spent $277m of his fortune supporting Trump's victorious 2024 presidential campaign. The Republican president rewarded Musk by appointing him to lead the so-called 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, which abruptly and chaotically slashed various government jobs and programs while claiming it saved $190bn. But Doge's actions may also have cost taxpayers $135bn, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan non-profit dedicated to studying the federal workforce. Musk left Doge at the end of May and more recently became incensed at Trump's support for a budget bill that would increase the US debt by $3.3tn. He threatened to financially support primary challenges against every member of Congress who supported Trump's spending bill – along with promising to 'form the America Party' if it passed. The House voted 218 to 214 in favor of the spending bill, with just two Republicans joining every Democrat in the chamber in unsuccessfully opposing it. In the Senate, the vice-president, JD Vance, broke a 50-50 deadlock in favor of the bill, which Trump signed on Friday hours after Musk posted his America party-related poll. The Trump spending bill's voting breakdown illustrated how narrowly the winning side in Congress carries some of the most controversial matters. Trump has warned Musk – a native of South Africa and naturalized US citizen since 2002 – that directly opposing his agenda would be personally costly. The president, who has pursued mass deportations of immigrants recently, publicly discussed deporting Musk from the US as well as cutting government contracts for some of his companies. 'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head to South Africa,' Trump posted on his own Truth Social platform. The president also told a group of reporters in Florida: 'We might have to put Doge on Elon. Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible.'
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Tesla robotaxi incidents spark confusion and concerns in Austin
Two weeks into Tesla's robotaxi prototype rollout on the streets of Austin, Texas, a string of viral videos showing apparent mishaps and the severely limited access to the service have caused a cloud of confusion and concern around the vehicles and their safety. Tesla launched its Austin service on June 22. People who've gotten an invitation, a group that appears to be composed largely of influencers adjacent to and acolytes of CEO Elon Musk, use an app to call for a ride, similar to ride-hailing apps Uber and Lyft. Each ride costs $4.20, a cannabis-associated number that Musk frequently uses. The service is somewhat of a prototype. Although no human is in the driver's seat, each car has a company employee in the front passenger seat who can stop the car with a button if there are safety concerns. Tesla says its experimental software is driving the vehicles. Experts in the field of autonomous driving say it's too early to judge the success or failure of the venture. Federal regulators and some local and state politicians say they're concerned about several incidents — documented on camera and shared on social media — where the cars appeared to break traffic laws or put people in danger. Some people who've used competing robotaxi services, such as Google spinoff Waymo, yawned at what they considered old technology. Even the stock market shrugged off the launch, with no lasting imprint on Tesla's share price. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment on how the service is going. Several key metrics, such as how many miles it has driven and how often Tesla employees need to intervene with the driving software, remain mysteries. Because the service operates only in Texas, where there are currently minimal rules surrounding autonomous vehicles, the company is not required to report such information to regulators at any level of government. In the first days of the rollout, videos of Tesla robotaxis appearing to violate traffic laws or behave oddly proliferated online. In one, a Tesla dropping off a passenger did so in the middle of an intersection. In another, a Tesla drives on the wrong side of a double yellow line. In at least two videos, its robotaxis are traveling faster than the posted speed limit. And in several examples, the Tesla cars brake suddenly and passengers say they were confused as to why. In all, NBC News found 13 instances in videos online where a Tesla appeared to break the rules or otherwise make a mistake. In each case, NBC News contacted the people who made the videos but did not hear back. Some elected officials in Austin said they're worried about the incidents. 'There are just a lot of errors,' said Vanessa Fuentes, a member of the Austin City Council and the mayor pro tempore, meaning she runs council meetings when the mayor is absent, in a phone interview. 'They have proven that the technology they have is unsafe for Austinites.' And while other autonomous vehicle companies such as Waymo or former General Motors unit Cruise have been documented on camera making embarrassing or illegal maneuvers, Fuentes said that she doesn't believe Tesla has coordinated enough with the city government — which Tesla is not legally required to do, but she said would build trust. 'Tesla has had no regard for public input or working with our city, and unfortunately, I'm not OK having this done at the expense of Austinites' safety,' she said. She said she embraces autonomous vehicles in the city as a general matter but would like to see Tesla's service halted for now. Zo Qadri, an Austin City Council member whose district overlaps with the Tesla robotaxi service area, said he is hearing from people in his district who are worried. 'We've been seeing chaos unfold. We have a lot of constituents who are very angry,' he said. He said the situation reminded him of problems associated with Cruise robotaxis in Austin in 2023, when residents complained that Cruise cars were making unsafe turns and being a nuisance. Cruise shuttered last year. Qadri said he has not heard similar complaints from constituents about Waymo, which also operates there. It's not clear whether Tesla could face local consequences for such incidents, such as traffic tickets, for breaking any laws. Fuentes said the process in Austin for ticketing a robotaxi is more complicated than simply writing a ticket for a driver: A police officer must draft a complaint affidavit, send it to a lieutenant, and then have the affidavit witnessed and sent to a municipal court. The Austin Police Department said in a statement: 'As with any company operating autonomous technology on public roadways, when a potential legal or safety concern is brought to our attention, we promptly share it with the company. These concerns are then addressed through our regular meetings, where we follow up on the issue and review the steps taken to resolve it. Our priority is to maintain public safety while supporting innovation in transportation,' the department said. Federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also took notice of the safety incidents, saying in a statement June 23 that the agency 'is aware of the referenced incidents and is in contact with the manufacturer to gather additional information.' Texas state Rep. Vikki Goodwin, a Democrat whose district includes part of Austin, said she wants Tesla to proceed cautiously. 'I think that it's in their interest to make sure safety is top of mind and that nothing goes wrong. Otherwise, that could really derail their plans for launching it fully,' she said. Goodwin was one of seven Texas lawmakers who sent a letter to Tesla on June 18 asking for the company to delay the launch of its robotaxis until Sept. 1 — the day a new law regarding autonomous vehicles is set to go into effect. Tesla did not delay its launch, but Goodwin said the company did respond to their letter, saying it would update its policies to ensure that it would be compliant with the new law. Goodwin said part of her desire for caution comes from owning a Tesla herself and experiencing unexpected maneuvers while using the company's driver-assistance software. 'I've had personal experience with using cruise control and having the car brake for me, which can be very disturbing,' she said. 'I've had that experience on a number of occasions, and it just leads me to believe that it really is important to have a person in the vehicle.' Tesla is aiming to compete with Waymo, which says it has about 1,500 robotaxis on the road in several cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix. Musk said Tesla's service would start small with 10-20 vehicles and try to grow over the next several months, although how quickly it could expand is not clear. Tesla's stock price soared the day after its service launched on a Sunday, jumping more than 9% on the following Monday. But the stock, which is often volatile, retreated over the following days as it became clear how many hurdles Tesla faces in trying to scale up the service. The public knows about the safety incidents involving Tesla robotaxis mainly because Tesla sent many of the initial invitations to use the service to online influencers, including people with YouTube channels or similar video platforms. The invitations were so scarce that at least one Tesla influencer, a person named Omar who goes by the pseudonym Whole Mars Catalog, offered to share rides for $10. 'Take a Tesla Robotaxi ride round trip with Omar. Includes two rides, there and back,' the person's sponsorship page said. The $10 would be more than the combined cost of two $4.20 rides. The account did not respond to a request for comment. Eliana Sheriff was among the early riders. A video creator with a YouTube channel focused on Musk's rocket company SpaceX, she said she came away a fan of the robotaxi service. 'I was totally trusting of the technology,' she said in a YouTube video on her channel, 'Ellie in Space.' She did have one complaint. After she reached her destination in the robotaxi, a storm appeared overhead and she wanted to stay in the car to shelter. A Tesla customer service agent called into the car's audio system to say that she couldn't. She exited and called a second ride to take her back to where she started. (Some posts online said erroneously that Tesla kicked her out midride, but she said in an interview that she did reach her destination.) Sheriff said that despite some concerns in the automotive and tech industries over whether Tesla's technology is good enough to deploy robotaxis, she has faith in Musk to pursue the best approach. 'Elon must have a reason for why he believes in that,' she said. She's not alone. Since the robotaxi launch, the legions of Musk and Tesla fans have proclaimed their enthusiasm for the service across the internet: on X, the social media app that Musk owns, and on other apps such as Reddit and TikTok. And they've employed a wide variety of superlatives to describe the robotaxis: 'flawless,' 'seamless' and 'history-making.' But because the service is invite-only, with only a handful of cars on the road, almost no consumers who aren't Tesla fans have gotten to use the service firsthand. Musk and his fans have described the service as futuristic and groundbreaking, but the rollout has succeeded mainly in preaching to Tesla's already-converted choir of supporters. Brad Templeton, a consultant in the autonomous vehicle industry who worked for Google's self-driving car project from 2010 to 2013 before it became Waymo, said Tesla's most enthusiastic fans are 'all fairly convinced that it's just on the cusp of being ready, and they get really annoyed when other people don't see it.' Like other experts, Templeton said the only measure for robotaxis that counts is whether they're safe over the very long term, measured in the tens of millions of miles driven. 'What matters is not individual demonstrations. It's statistics,' he said. Many of the Tesla and Waymo fans clash head-to-head on Reddit, where the message board r/SelfDrivingCars has been heating up with competition between the two sides. Waymo boosters regularly argue on the site that the company is years ahead of Tesla in experience: Waymo had paying customers in its first market, Phoenix, while still using safety drivers in December 2018 — six and a half years ago. Waymo began 'rider only' rides in 2019. Lately, some Tesla fans have been pushing back by highlighting videos of what they considered to be Waymo vehicles driving poorly, including stopping in standing water. One Reddit user, in a popular recent post, vented that the r/SelfDrivingCars message board was being 'flooded with Tesla apologist propaganda and disinformation. … The astroturf army is out in full display these past couple weeks.' The top comment on the post asked for a truce. 'I want to see progress by both companies,' the Reddit user Juice805 wrote. 'Waymo is doing great and is quite far ahead in their rollout and Tesla just made a huge first step in theirs.' 'I just want cars to drive themselves,' they wrote. They did not respond to a request for comment.
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it': the terrifying truth about why Tesla's cars keep crashing
It was a Monday afternoon in June 2023 when Rita Meier, 45, joined us for a video call. Meier told us about the last time she said goodbye to her husband, Stefan, five years earlier. He had been leaving their home near Lake Constance, Germany, heading for a trade fair in Milan. Meier recalled how he hesitated between taking his Tesla Model S or her BMW. He had never driven the Tesla that far before. He checked the route for charging stations along the way and ultimately decided to try it. Rita had a bad feeling. She stayed home with their three children, the youngest less than a year old. At 3.18pm on 10 May 2018, Stefan Meier lost control of his Model S on the A2 highway near the Monte Ceneri tunnel. Travelling at about 100kmh (62mph), he ploughed through several warning markers and traffic signs before crashing into a slanted guardrail. 'The collision with the guardrail launches the vehicle into the air, where it flips several times before landing,' investigators would write later. The car came to rest more than 70 metres away, on the opposite side of the road, leaving a trail of wreckage. According to witnesses, the Model S burst into flames while still airborne. Several passersby tried to open the doors and rescue the driver, but they couldn't unlock the car. When they heard explosions and saw flames through the windows, they retreated. Even the firefighters, who arrived 20 minutes later, could do nothing but watch the Tesla burn. At that moment, Rita Meier was unaware of the crash. She tried calling her husband, but he didn't pick up. When he still hadn't returned her call hours later – highly unusual for this devoted father – she attempted to track his car using Tesla's app. It no longer worked. By the time police officers rang her doorbell late that night, Meier was already bracing for the worst. The crash made headlines the next morning as one of the first fatal Tesla accidents in Europe. Tesla released a statement to the press saying the company was 'deeply saddened' by the incident, adding, 'We are working to gather all the facts in this case and are fully cooperating with local authorities.' To this day, Meier still doesn't know why her husband died. She has kept everything the police gave her after their inconclusive investigation. The charred wreck of the Model S sits in a garage Meier rents specifically for that purpose. The scorched phone – which she had forensically analysed at her own expense, to no avail – sits in a drawer at home. Maybe someday all this will be needed again, she says. She hasn't given up hope of uncovering the truth. Rita Meier was one of many people who reached out to us after we began reporting on the Tesla Files – a cache of 23,000 leaked documents and 100 gigabytes of confidential data shared by an anonymous whistleblower. The first report we published looked at problems with Tesla's autopilot system, which allows the cars to temporarily drive on their own, taking over steering, braking and acceleration. Though touted by the company as 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD), it is designed to assist, not replace, the driver, who should keep their eyes on the road and be ready to intervene at any time. Autonomous driving is the core promise around which Elon Musk has built his company. Tesla has never delivered a truly self-driving vehicle, yet the richest person in the world keeps repeating the claim that his cars will soon drive entirely without human help. Is Tesla's autopilot really as advanced as he says? The Tesla Files suggest otherwise. They contain more than 2,400 customer complaints about unintended acceleration and more than 1,500 braking issues – 139 involving emergency braking without cause, and 383 phantom braking events triggered by false collision warnings. More than 1,000 crashes are documented. A separate spreadsheet on driver-assistance incidents where customers raised safety concerns lists more than 3,000 entries. The oldest date from 2015, the most recent from March 2022. In that time, Tesla delivered roughly 2.6m vehicles with autopilot software. Most incidents occurred in the US, but there have also been complaints from Europe and Asia. Customers described their cars suddenly accelerating or braking hard. Some escaped with a scare; others ended up in ditches, crashing into walls or colliding with oncoming vehicles. 'After dropping my son off in his school parking lot, as I go to make a right-hand exit it lurches forward suddenly,' one complaint read. Another said, 'My autopilot failed/malfunctioned this morning (car didn't brake) and I almost rear-ended somebody at 65mph.' A third reported, 'Today, while my wife was driving with our baby in the car, it suddenly accelerated out of nowhere.' Braking for no reason caused just as much distress. 'Our car just stopped on the highway. That was terrifying,' a Tesla driver wrote. Another complained, 'Frequent phantom braking on two-lane highways. Makes the autopilot almost unusable.' Some report their car 'jumped lanes unexpectedly', causing them to hit a concrete barrier, or veered into oncoming traffic. Musk has given the world many reasons to criticise him since he teamed up with Donald Trump. Many people do – mostly by boycotting his products. But while it is one thing to disagree with the political views of a business leader, it is another to be mortally afraid of his products. In the Tesla Files, we found thousands of examples of why such fear may be justified. We set out to match some of these incidents of autopilot errors with customers' names. Like hundreds of other Tesla customers, Rita Meier entered the vehicle identification number of her husband's Model S into the response form we published on the website of the German business newspaper Handelsblatt, for which we carried out our investigation. She quickly discovered that the Tesla Files contained data related to the car. In her first email to us, she wrote, 'You can probably imagine what it felt like to read that.' There isn't much information – just an Excel spreadsheet titled 'Incident Review'. A Tesla employee noted that the mileage counter on Stefan Meier's car stood at 4,765 miles at the time of the crash. The entry was catalogued just one day after the fatal accident. In the comment field was written, 'Vehicle involved in an accident.' The cause of the crash remains unknown to this day. In Tesla's internal system, a company employee had marked the case as 'resolved', but for five years, Rita Meier had been searching for answers. After Stefan's death, she took over the family business – a timber company with 200 employees based in Tettnang, Baden-Württemberg. As journalists, we are used to tough interviews, but this one was different. We had to strike a careful balance – between empathy and the persistent questioning good reporting demands. 'Why are you convinced the Tesla was responsible for your husband's death?' we asked her. 'Isn't it possible he was distracted – maybe looking at his phone?' No one knows for sure. But Meier was well aware that Musk has previously claimed Tesla 'releases critical crash data affecting public safety immediately and always will'; that he has bragged many times about how its superior handling of data sets the company apart from its competitors. In the case of her husband, why was she expected to believe there was no data? Meier's account was structured and precise. Only once did the toll become visible – when she described how her husband's body burned in full view of the firefighters. Her eyes filled with tears and her voice cracked. She apologised, turning away. After she collected herself, she told us she has nothing left to gain – but also nothing to lose. That was why she had reached out to us. We promised to look into the case. Rita Meier wasn't the only widow to approach us. Disappointed customers, current and former employees, analysts and lawyers were sharing links to our reporting. Many of them contacted us. More than once, someone wrote that it was about time someone stood up to Tesla – and to Elon Musk. Meier, too, shared our articles and the callout form with others in her network – including people who, like her, lost loved ones in Tesla crashes. One of them was Anke Schuster. Like Meier, she had lost her husband in a Tesla crash that defies explanation and had spent years chasing answers. And, like Meier, she had found her husband's Model X listed in the Tesla Files. Once again, the incident was marked as resolved – with no indication of what that actually meant. 'My husband died in an unexplained and inexplicable accident,' Schuster wrote in her first email. Her dealings with police, prosecutors and insurance companies, she said, had been 'hell'. No one seemed to understand how a Tesla works. 'I lost my husband. His four daughters lost their father. And no one ever cared.' Her husband, Oliver, was a tech enthusiast, fascinated by Musk. A hotelier by trade, he owned no fewer than four Teslas. He loved the cars. She hated them – especially the autopilot. The way the software seemed to make decisions on its own never sat right with her. Now, she felt as if her instincts had been confirmed in the worst way. Oliver Schuster was returning from a business meeting on 13 April 2021 when his black Model X veered off highway B194 between Loitz and Schönbeck in north-east Germany. It was 12.50pm when the car left the road and crashed into a tree. Schuster started to worry when her husband missed a scheduled bank appointment. She tried to track the vehicle but found no way to locate it. Even calling Tesla led nowhere. That evening, the police broke the news: after the crash her husband's car had burst into flames. He had burned to death – with the fire brigade watching helplessly. The crashes that killed Meier's and Schuster's husbands were almost three years apart but the parallels were chilling. We examined accident reports, eyewitness accounts, crash-site photos and correspondence with Tesla. In both cases, investigators had requested vehicle data from Tesla, and the company hadn't provided it. In Meier's case, Tesla staff claimed no data was available. In Schuster's, they said there was no relevant data. Over the next two years, we spoke with crash victims, grieving families and experts around the world. What we uncovered was an ominous black box – a system designed not only to collect and control every byte of customer data, but to safeguard Musk's vision of autonomous driving. Critical information was sealed off from public scrutiny. Elon Musk is a perfectionist with a tendency towards micromanagement. At Tesla, his whims seem to override every argument – even in matters of life and death. During our reporting, we came across the issue of door handles. On Teslas, they retract into the doors while the cars are being driven. The system depends on battery power. If an airbag deploys, the doors are supposed to unlock automatically and the handles extend – at least, that's what the Model S manual says. The idea for the sleek, futuristic design stems from Musk himself. He insisted on retractable handles, despite repeated warnings from engineers. Since 2018, they have been linked to at least four fatal accidents in Europe and the US, in which five people died. In February 2024, we reported on a particularly tragic case: a fatal crash on a country road near Dobbrikow, in Brandenburg, Germany. Two 18-year-olds were killed when the Tesla they were in slammed into a tree and caught fire. First responders couldn't open the doors because the handles were retracted. The teenagers burned to death in the back seat. A court-appointed expert from Dekra, one of Germany's leading testing authorities, later concluded that, given the retracted handles, the incident 'qualifies as a malfunction'. According to the report, 'the failure of the rear door handles to extend automatically must be considered a decisive factor' in the deaths. Had the system worked as intended, 'it is assumed that rescuers might have been able to extract the two backseat passengers before the fire developed further'. Without what the report calls a 'failure of this safety function', the teens might have survived. Our investigation made waves. The Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, Germany's federal motor transport authority, got involved and announced plans to coordinate with other regulatory bodies to revise international safety standards. Germany's largest automobile club, ADAC, issued a public recommendation that Tesla drivers should carry emergency window hammers. In a statement, ADAC warned that retractable door handles could seriously hinder rescue efforts. Even trained emergency responders, it said, may struggle to reach trapped passengers. Tesla shows no intention of changing the design. That's Musk. He prefers the sleek look of Teslas without handles, so he accepts the risk to his customers. His thinking, it seems, goes something like this: at some point, the engineers will figure out a technical fix. The same logic applies to his grander vision of autonomous driving: because Musk wants to be first, he lets customers test his unfinished Autopilot system on public roads. It's a principle borrowed from the software world, where releasing apps in beta has long been standard practice. The more users, the more feedback and, over time – often years – something stable emerges. Revenue and market share arrive much earlier. The motto: if you wait, you lose. Musk has taken that mindset to the road. The world is his lab. Everyone else is part of the experiment. By the end of 2023, we knew a lot about how Musk's cars worked – but the way they handle data still felt like a black box. How is that data stored? At what moment does the onboard computer send it to Tesla's servers? We talked to independent experts at the Technical University Berlin. Three PhD candidates – Christian Werling, Niclas Kühnapfel and Hans Niklas Jacob – made headlines for hacking Tesla's autopilot hardware. A brief voltage drop on a circuit board turned out to be just enough to trick the system into opening up. The security researchers uncovered what they called 'Elon Mode' – a hidden setting in which the car drives fully autonomously, without requiring the driver to keep his hands on the wheel. They also managed to recover deleted data, including video footage recorded by a Tesla driver. And they traced exactly what data Tesla sends to its servers – and what it doesn't. The hackers explained that Tesla stores data in three places. First, on a memory card inside the onboard computer – essentially a running log of the vehicle's digital brain. Second, on the event data recorder – a black box that captures a few seconds before and after a crash. And third, on Tesla's servers, assuming the vehicle uploads them. The researchers told us they had found an internal database embedded in the system – one built around so-called trigger events. If, for example, the airbag deploys or the car hits an obstacle, the system is designed to save a defined set of data to the black box – and transmit it to Tesla's servers. Unless the vehicles were in a complete network dead zone, in both the Meier and Schuster cases, the cars should have recorded and transmitted that data. Who in the company actually works with that data? We examined testimony from Tesla employees in court cases related to fatal crashes. They described how their departments operate. We cross-referenced their statements with entries in the Tesla Files. A pattern took shape: one team screens all crashes at a high level, forwarding them to specialists – some focused on autopilot, others on vehicle dynamics or road grip. There's also a group that steps in whenever authorities request crash data. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion We compiled a list of employees relevant to our reporting. Some we tried to reach by email or phone. For others, we showed up at their homes. If they weren't there, we left handwritten notes. No one wanted to talk. We searched for other crashes. One involved Hans von Ohain, a 33-year-old Tesla employee from Evergreen, Colorado. On 16 May 2022, he crashed into a tree on his way home from a golf outing and the car burst into flames. Von Ohain died at the scene. His passenger survived and told police that von Ohain, who had been drinking, had activated Full Self-Driving. Tesla, however, said it couldn't confirm whether the system was engaged – because no vehicle data was transmitted for the incident. Then, in February 2024, Musk himself stepped in. The Tesla CEO claimed von Ohain had never downloaded the latest version of the software – so it couldn't have caused the crash. Friends of von Ohain, however, told US media he had shown them the system. His passenger that day, who barely escaped with his life, told reporters that hours earlier the car had already driven erratically by itself. 'The first time it happened, I was like, 'Is that normal?'' he recalled asking von Ohain. 'And he was like, 'Yeah, that happens every now and then.'' His account was bolstered by von Ohain's widow, who explained to the media how overjoyed her husband had been at working for Tesla. Reportedly, von Ohain received the Full Self-Driving system as a perk. His widow explained how he would use the system almost every time he got behind the wheel: 'It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of new technology. We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.' The Colorado State Patrol investigated but closed the case without blaming Tesla. It reported that no usable data was recovered. For a company that markets its cars as computers on wheels, Tesla's claim that it had no data available in all these cases is surprising. Musk has long described Tesla vehicles as part of a collective neural network – machines that continuously learn from one another. Think of the Borg aliens from the Star Trek franchise. Musk envisions his cars, like the Borg, as a collective – operating as a hive mind, each vehicle linked to a unified consciousness. When a journalist asked him in October 2015 what made Tesla's driver-assistance system different, he replied, 'The whole Tesla fleet operates as a network. When one car learns something, they all learn it. That is beyond what other car companies are doing.' Every Tesla driver, he explained, becomes a kind of 'expert trainer for how the autopilot should work'. According to Musk, the eight cameras in every Tesla transmit more than 160bn video frames a day to the company's servers. In its owner's manual, Tesla states that its cars may collect even more: 'analytics, road segment, diagnostic and vehicle usage data', all sent to headquarters to improve product quality and features such as autopilot. The company claims it learns 'from the experience of billions of miles that Tesla vehicles have driven'. It is a powerful promise: a fleet of millions of cars, constantly feeding raw information into a gargantuan processing centre. Billions – trillions – of data points, all in service of one goal: making cars drive better and keeping drivers safe. At the start of this year, Musk got a chance to show the world what he meant. On 1 January 2025, at 8.39am, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. The man behind the incident – US special forces veteran Matthew Livelsberger – had rented the vehicle, packed it with fireworks, gas canisters and grenades, and parked it in front of the building. Just before the explosion, he shot himself in the head with a .50 calibre Desert Eagle pistol. 'This was not a terrorist attack, it was a wakeup call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence,' Livelsberger wrote in a letter later found by authorities. 'What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.' The soldier miscalculated. Seven bystanders suffered minor injuries. The Cybertruck was destroyed, but not even the windows of the hotel shattered. Instead, with his final act, Livelsberger revealed something else entirely: just how far the arm of Tesla's data machinery can reach. 'The whole Tesla senior team is investigating this matter right now,' Musk wrote on X just hours after the blast. 'Will post more information as soon as we learn anything. We've never seen anything like this.' Later that day, Musk posted again. Tesla had already analysed all relevant data – and was ready to offer conclusions. 'We have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself,' he wrote. 'All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion.' Suddenly, Musk wasn't just a CEO; he was an investigator. He instructed Tesla technicians to remotely unlock the scorched vehicle. He handed over internal footage captured up to the moment of Tesla CEO had turned a suicide attack into a showcase of his superior technology. Yet there were critics even in the moment of glory. 'It reveals the kind of sweeping surveillance going on,' warned David Choffnes, executive director of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute at Northeastern University in Boston, when contacted by a reporter. 'When something bad happens, it's helpful, but it's a double-edged sword. Companies that collect this data can abuse it.' There are other examples of what Tesla's data collection makes possible. We found the case of David and Sheila Brown, who died in August 2020 when their Model 3 ran a red light at 114mph in Saratoga, California. Investigators managed to reconstruct every detail, thanks to Tesla's vehicle data. It shows exactly when the Browns opened a door, unfastened a seatbelt, and how hard the driver pressed the accelerator – down to the millisecond, right up to the moment of impact. Over time, we found more cases, more detailed accident reports. The data definitely is there – until it isn't. In many crashes when Teslas inexplicably veered off the road or hit stationary objects, investigators didn't actually request data from the company. When we asked authorities why, there was often silence. Our impression was that many prosecutors and police officers weren't even aware that asking was an option. In other cases, they acted only when pushed by victims' families. In the Meier case, Tesla told authorities, in a letter dated 25 June 2018, that the last complete set of vehicle data was transmitted nearly two weeks before the crash. The only data from the day of the accident was a 'limited snapshot of vehicle parameters' – taken 'approximately 50 minutes before the incident'. However, this snapshot 'doesn't show anything in relation to the incident'. As for the black box, Tesla warned that the storage modules were likely destroyed, given the condition of the burned-out vehicle. Data transmission after a crash is possible, the company said – but in this case, it didn't happen. In the end, investigators couldn't even determine whether driver-assist systems were active at the time of the crash. The Schuster case played out similarly. Prosecutors in Stralsund, Germany, were baffled. The road where the crash happened is straight, the asphalt was dry and the weather at the time of the accident was clear. Anke Schuster kept urging the authorities to examine Tesla's telemetry data. When prosecutors did formally request the data recorded by Schuster's car on the day of the crash, it took Tesla more than two weeks to respond – and when it did, the answer was both brief and bold. The company didn't say there was no data. It said that there was 'no relevant data'. The authorities' reaction left us stunned. We expected prosecutors to push back – to tell Tesla that deciding what's relevant is their job, not the company's. But they didn't. Instead, they closed the case. The hackers from TU Berlin pointed us to a study by the Netherlands Forensic Institute, an independent division of the ministry of justice and security. In October 2021, the NFI published findings showing it had successfully accessed the onboard memories of all major Tesla models. The researchers compared their results with accident cases in which police had requested data from Tesla. Their conclusion was that while Tesla formally complied with those requests, it omitted large volumes of data that might have proved useful. Tesla's credibility took a further hit in a report released by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April 2024. The agency concluded that Tesla failed to adequately monitor whether drivers remain alert and ready to intervene while using its driver-assist systems. It reviewed 956 crashes, field data and customer communications, and pointed to 'gaps in Tesla's telematic data' that made it impossible to determine how often autopilot was active during crashes. If a vehicle's antenna was damaged or it crashed in an area without network coverage, even serious accidents sometimes went unreported. Tesla's internal statistics include only those crashes in which an airbag or other pyrotechnic system deployed – something that occurs in just 18% of police-reported cases. This means that the actual accident rate is significantly higher than Tesla discloses to customers and investors. There's more. Two years prior, the NHTSA had flagged something strange – something suspicious. In a separate report, it documented 16 cases in which Tesla vehicles crashed into stationary emergency vehicles. In each, autopilot disengaged 'less than one second before impact' – far too little time for the driver to react. Critics warn that this behaviour could allow Tesla to argue in court that autopilot was not active at the moment of impact, potentially dodging responsibility. The YouTuber Mark Rober, a former engineer at Nasa, replicated this behaviour in an experiment on 15 March 2025. He simulated a range of hazardous situations, in which the Model Y performed significantly worse than a competing vehicle. The Tesla repeatedly ran over a crash-test dummy without braking. The video went viral, amassing more than 14m views within a few days. The real surprise came after the experiment. Fred Lambert, who writes for the blog Electrek, pointed out the same autopilot disengagement that the NHTSA had documented. 'Autopilot appears to automatically disengage a fraction of a second before the impact as the crash becomes inevitable,' Lambert noted. And so the doubts about Tesla's integrity pile up. In the Tesla Files, we found emails and reports from a UK-based engineer who led Tesla's Safety Incident Investigation programme, overseeing the company's most sensitive crash cases. His internal memos reveal that Tesla deliberately limited documentation of particular issues to avoid the risk of this information being requested under subpoena. Although he pushed for clearer protocols and better internal processes, US leadership resisted – explicitly driven by fears of legal exposure. We contacted Tesla multiple times with questions about the company's data practices. We asked about the Meier and Schuster cases – and what it means when fatal crashes are marked 'resolved' in Tesla's internal system. We asked the company to respond to criticism from the US traffic authority and to the findings of Dutch forensic investigators. We also asked why Tesla doesn't simply publish crash data, as Musk once promised to do, and whether the company considers it appropriate to withhold information from potential US court orders. Tesla has not responded to any of our questions. Elon Musk boasts about the vast amount of data his cars generate – data that, he claims, will not only improve Tesla's entire fleet but also revolutionise road traffic. But, as we have witnessed again and again in the most critical of cases, Tesla refuses to share it. Tesla's handling of crash data affects even those who never wanted anything to do with the company. Every road user trusts the car in front, behind or beside them not to be a threat. Does that trust still stand when the car is driving itself? Internally, we called our investigation into Tesla's crash data Black Box. At first, because it dealt with the physical data units built into the vehicles – so-called black boxes. But the devices Tesla installs hardly deserve the name. Unlike the flight recorders used in aviation, they're not fireproof – and in many of the cases we examined, they proved useless. Over time, we came to see that the name held a second meaning. A black box, in common parlance, is something closed to the outside. Something opaque. Unknowable. And while we've gained some insight into Tesla as a company, its handling of crash data remains just that: a black box. Only Tesla knows how Elon Musk's vehicles truly work. Yet today, more than 5m of them share our roads. Some names have been changed. This is an edited extract from The Tesla Files by Sönke Iwersen and Michael Verfürden, published on 24 July by Penguin Michael Joseph at £22. To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
