News
Model S Scores 5-Star Rating in Euro NCAP Crash Test
Euro NCAP, the leading organization that provides independent safety and crash testing to motoring consumers across Europe awarded the Tesla Model S with a perfect 5-star rating.
The organization ranked the Model S based on safety for the following categories: adult occupant, child occupant, pedestrian, and safety assist features. Euro NCAP scored the Model S with exceptionally high scores for its side impact protection however frontal impact dummy kinematics indicated that head protection did not fare. Testing indicated that there was insufficient inflation in the airbag to prevent the head from flattening out the airbag and coming in contact with the fascia.
According to Euro NCAP, “Tesla investigated the issue and found an error in the airbag calibration software supplied by the vendor. Euro NCAP has been informed that this error has been corrected in all vehicles supplied to customers.”
See the full results of the Tesla Model S safety and crash testing below.
[learn_more caption=”Safety Test Results” state=”open”]
Tesla Model S Euro NCAP Safety Test Results:
Adult Occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Readings from the passenger dummy indicated good protection of all body areas except the head. Analysis of the dummy kinematics showed that the airbag on the passenger side had ‘bottomed out’ i.e. there was insufficient inflation to prevent the head flattening the airbag and coming into contact with the facia, through the airbag material. Although the calculated injury parameters were not hazardous, protection of the passenger head was penalised and rated as adequate. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Tesla showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different seating positions. In the side barrier test, the Model S scored maximum points with good protection of all body regions. In the more severe side pole test, dummy measurements of rib compressions indicated marginal protection of the chest. Protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision was rated as good for the front and rear seats.
Child Occupant
The Model S scored maximum points for its protection of the child dummies in the dynamic tests. Both dummies were seated in rearward-facing restraints and showed good protection in the frontal impact. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained within the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the risk of head contact with parts of the vehicle interior. The front passenger airbag can be disabled through the user menu, allowing a rearward-facing restraint to be used in that seating position. However, the interface is not clear in all languages about the actions being taken to set the airbag status and the system was not rewarded. All of the restraints for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated with the exception of the Group I universal restraint in the rear outboard seats. While the seat could be installed, the seat cushioning made engagement of the ISOFIX probes difficult. Integral child restraints are available as an optional third row in the Model S.
Pedestrian
The Tesla is equipped with an ‘active’ bonnet. When the system detects that a pedestrian has been struck, actuators lift the bonnet to provide greater clearance to hard structures underneath. Tesla showed that the system detects all statures robustly over a range of speeds and the car was tested with the bonnet in the deployed position. Protection was adequate or marginal over most of the surface of the bonnet with poor results recorded only at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff screen pillars. The bumper offered predominantly good protection to pedestrians’ legs while the front edge of the bonnet gave good results towards the centre of the car but poor results at the outside edges.
Safety Assist
Electronic stability control is standard equipment on the Model S. A seatbelt reminder is standard for the front and rear seats, as is a lane departure warning system that met Euro NCAP’s requirements. The Model S has a speed assistance system that can recognise the local speed limit and issue a warning to the driver when that limit is exceeded. The Model S is not equipped with an autonomous emergency braking system.
[/learn_more]
ALSO SEE: [Video] Tesla Model S Drifting at Gumball 3000 Festival
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.