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
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
