Connect with us
Bond skepticism Bond skepticism

News

No, Tesla wasn’t “cheated” in the Model 3 headlight safety test by the IIHS

Published

on

With the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s release of initial crash test information for the Tesla Model 3 came cries from many in the electric vehicle community that Tesla was “being cheated.” This isn’t entirely true as the new IIHS test removes a lot of cars out of the Top Safety Pick+ rating, the highest accolade the independent safety tester will give a car.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent testing organization funded by insurance companies and some of the banks who back them. The IIHS purchases every car it tests–usually several of each–and tests these vehicles in their highest-available safety configuration. These crash tests usually destroy the vehicles in question, of course, but give an independent, third-party result not otherwise available.

When the IIHS’ initial safety results for the Tesla Model 3 were released, they included ratings for only two of the seven total ratings given to a vehicle. Those ratings, posted to the IIHS.org website, created a lot of response from the community regarding the failure of the Model 3’s headlamps to pass muster.

The tests so far include only the non-invasive, non-destructive tests normally conducted by the IIHS. Namely to crash mitigation systems and headlamps. It’s likely that the next test to see release on the Model 3 will be for LATCH child safety system use, another non-destructive test. From there, crash testing will begin. For that, IIHS needs to receive more Model 3 vehicles (5 in all), the rest of which are on order and expected later this year. Like any other Model 3 buyer, delays in manufacturing have put the IIHS’ ownership of the cars for evaluation on hold.

How the IIHS Conducts Headlight Tests, and Why

The IIHS conducts headlamps tests because, according to the organization, about half of all fatal crashes in the U.S. occur in the dark and many of those are on unlit roads where headlamps are the only thing illuminating whatever’s in front of the car. Although headlights are mandatory and minimum illumination requirements are required by law for all street-legal vehicles, there is a wide variance in how much (and how useful) that illumination can be. Especially with the advent of new lighting technologies.

Advertisement
-->

“Headlight technology has been developing rapidly in recent years. LED and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps have begun to replace the traditional halogen ones,” IIHS explains on its website. “Many automakers offer curve-adaptive headlights, which respond to steering and swivel according to the direction of travel. Many also offer high-beam assist, a feature that can increase the use of high beams..” These and other variables mean that headlights of the same type on one vehicle can be much worse than they can on another. Even little things like how the lights are focused, what type of light they emit, etc. can change effectiveness.

[Credit: Parker Smith via YouTube]

For those reasons, the IIHS instituted a headlight testing methodology in 2016. Starting this year (2018), these test results directly affect a vehicle’s eligibility for Top Safety Pick+ status. So far in 2018, only a handful of models have received TSP+ ratings. Somewhat surprising for luxury and high-end car buyers is the fact that almost all of those TSP+ vehicles are lower-end vehicles from makes like Hyundai and Subaru.

Testing for headlamps is conducted using a multi-part evaluation using a hypothetical, clear, two-lane road. The tests include measurements in a straightaway, measuring both the length and amount of illumination as well as the amount of glare the lights create for oncoming drivers. Then a gradual left- and right-hand turn and a steeper left- and right-hand curve are measured for a total of five directions in all.

Results are taken from varied distances at 10 inches high and 3-feet, 7-inches high (from the ground) to mimic where the driver is looking (out and down) and where oncoming vehicle drivers are seeing from (higher up). Ratings are then assigned according to how these measurements line up with a hypothetical ideal headlight system. Both low and high beams are tested the same way with the low beams being weighted for scoring as they are used most often in the real world. Vehicles with automatic high beam systems are given more points as the high beams will be used more often.

The Controversy Surrounding the IIHS Headlight Test

The inherent weakness in this IIHS test is similar to that of most of its advanced testing: it’s only tested on the ideal vehicle trim level and options. In other words, the testing is most likely happening on the most expensive model being sold, not necessarily on the most mainstream version of the vehicle. This becomes obvious when the bulk of the Top Safety Pick+ list is comprised of vehicles like the 2018 Subaru WRX.

The WRX is a great car, sure; a personal favorite in fact. But its winning of a TSP+ badge is a little misleading. The volume-selling model WRX is the mid-tier Premium trim, which doesn’t include the LED headlights or the automatic high beam control tested by the IIHS. To get those, one has to go up to the more expensive Limited trim point and add the EyeSight system. That latter point can only come if the buyer of this driver’s car is willing to drop their manual transmission for a CVT. That’s another sticking point as the WRX has a large percentage of buyers who want to shift the gears themselves.

Advertisement
-->

What all of this means is that the 2018 WRX is a great car, but it’s not likely to be purchased in the configuration which the IIHS used to test its headlamps with. Other cars on the TSP+ list are much the same.

The interesting note here is that unlike actual crash tests, the slightly more subjective headlamp tests of the IIHS fall into the non-destructive tests for other safety equipment that, while respected, are also flawed for the same reason: only top-end models tend to have all of that equipment on them. Unlike those other safety items, however, the headlamp tests can hurt higher-end models while lower-end options would ace them. Why? Because LED headlamps, which consistently appear to fail most of the glare testing that the IIHS does, are generally only found on top-end models or luxury vehicles. There could be a lot of reasons for that, but my personal theory is that it has to do with automakers having to find a median between maximum safe illumination and glare due to how reflective LED lamps are designed.

The current IIHS Top Safety Pick+ list includes no midsize luxury cars (which the Model 3 is considered), though the overall midsize car category has five entries. All of them with caveats as to what must be included (usually top trim point items or options). Last year, under the old rules, most midsize and midsize luxury cars made the TSP+ list and Tesla’s Model S failed to make the list in part, again, for headlights.

It’s difficult to say what will happen with the Insurance Institute’s testing going forward. Likely manufacturers will come up with solutions to receive better scores on the headlamps test, perhaps by changing LED lighting designs or gaming the IIHS tests (as they have in the past with the small front overlap).

Tesla has some smart engineers and could probably figure out a way to remedy the lighting problem that’s kept their vehicles from rating high on IIHS tests in recent years. With a mainstream attempt like the Model 3, that could become a very important goal as buyers in the midsize sedan category tend to be safety conscious consumers.

Advertisement
-->

Aaron Turpen is a freelance writer based in Wyoming, USA. He writes about a large number of subjects, many of which are in the transportation and automotive arenas. Aaron is a recognized automotive journalist, with a background in commercial trucking and automotive repair. He is a member of the Rocky Mountain Automotive Press (RMAP) and Aaron’s work has appeared on many websites, in print, and on local and national radio broadcasts including NPR’s All Things Considered and on Carfax.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX’s Starship FL launch site will witness scenes once reserved for sci-fi films

A Starship that launches from the Florida site could touch down on the same site years later.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX/X

The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has released its Final Environmental Impact Statement for SpaceX’s efforts to launch and land Starship and its Super Heavy booster at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s SLC-37.

According to the Impact Statement, Starship could launch up to 76 times per year on the site, with Super Heavy boosters returning within minutes of liftoff and Starship upper stages landing back on the same pad in a timeframe that was once only possible in sci-fi movies. 

Booster in Minutes, Ship in (possibly) years

The EIS explicitly referenced a never-before-seen operational concept: Super Heavy boosters will launch, reach orbit, and be caught by the tower chopsticks roughly seven minutes after liftoff. Meanwhile, the Starship upper stage will complete its mission, whether a short orbital test, lunar landing, or a multi-year Mars cargo run, and return to the exact same SLC-37 pad upon mission completion.

“The Super Heavy booster landings would occur within a few minutes of launch, while the Starship landings would occur upon completion of the Starship missions, which could last hours or years,” the EIS read.

This means a Starship that departs the Florida site in, say, 2027, could touch down on the same site in 2030 or later, right beside a brand-new stack preparing for its own journey, as noted in a Talk Of Titusville report. The 214-page document treats these multi-year round trips as standard procedure, effectively turning the location into one of the world’s first true interplanetary spaceports.

Advertisement
-->

Noise and emissions flagged but deemed manageable

While the project received a clean bill of health overall, the EIS identified two areas requiring ongoing mitigation. Sonic booms from Super Heavy booster and Starship returns will cause significant community annoyance” particularly during nighttime operations, though structural damage is not expected. Nitrogen oxide emissions during launches will also exceed federal de minimis thresholds, prompting an adaptive management plan with real-time monitoring.

Other impacts, such as traffic, wildlife (including southeastern beach mouse and Florida scrub-jay), wetlands, and historic sites, were deemed manageable under existing permits and mitigation strategies. The Air Force is expected to issue its Record of Decision within weeks, followed by FAA concurrence, setting the stage for rapid redevelopment of the former site into a dual-tower Starship complex.

SpaceX Starship Environmental Impact Statement by Simon Alvarez

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) testing gains major ground in Spain

Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) program is accelerating across Europe, with Spain emerging as a key testing hub under the country’s new ES-AV framework program.

Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.

Spain’s ES-AV framework

Spain’s DGT launched the ES-AV Program in July 2025 to standardize testing for automated vehicles from prototypes to pre-homologation stages. The DGT described the purpose of the program on its official website.

“The program is designed to complement and enhance oversight, regulation, research, and transparency efforts, as well as to support innovation and advancements in automotive technology and industry. This framework also aims to capitalize on the opportunity to position Spain as a pioneer and leader in automated vehicle technology, seeking to provide solutions that help overcome or alleviate certain shortcomings or negative externalities of the current transportation system,” the DGT wrote. 

The program identifies three testing phases based on technological maturity and the scope of a company’s operations. Each phase has a set of minimum eligibility requirements, and applicants must indicate which phase they wish to participate in, at least based on their specific technological development.

Advertisement
-->
Credit: DGT

Tesla FSD tests

As noted by Tesla watcher Kees Roelandschap on X, the DGT’s new framework effectively gives the green flight for nationwide FSD testing. So far, Tesla Spain has a total of 19 vehicles authorized to test FSD on the country’s roads, though it would not be surprising if this fleet grows in the coming months.

The start date for the program is listed at November 27, 2025 to November 26, 2027. The DGT also noted that unlimited FSD tests could be done across Spain on any national route. And since Tesla is already in Phase 3 of the ES-AV Program, onboard safety operators are optional. Remote monitoring would also be allowed. 

Tesla’s FSD tests in Spain could help the company gain a lot of real-world data on the country’s roads. Considering the scope of tests that are allowed for the electric vehicle maker, it seems like Spain would be one of the European countries that would be friendly to FSD’s operations. So far, Tesla’s FSD push in Europe is notable, with the company holding FSD demonstrations in Germany, France, and Italy. Tesla is also pushing for national approval in the Netherlands in early 2026.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla FSD V14.2.1 is earning rave reviews from users in diverse conditions

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise for its smoother performance and smarter decision-making.

Videos and firsthand accounts from Tesla owners highlight V14.2.1 as an update that improves navigation responsiveness, sign recognition, and overall fluidity, among other things. Some drivers have even described it as “more alive than ever,” hinting at the system eventually feeling “sentient,” as Elon Musk has predicted.

FSD V14.2.1 first impressions

Early adopters are buzzing about how V14.2.1 feels less intrusive while staying vigilant. In a post shared on X, Tesla owner @LactoseLunatic described the update as a “huge leap forward,” adding that the system remains “incredibly assertive but still safe.”

Another Tesla driver, Devin Olsenn, who logged ~600 km on V14.2.1, reported no safety disengagements, with the car feeling “more alive than ever.” The Tesla owner noted that his wife now defaults to using FSD V14, as the system is already very smooth and refined.

Adverse weather and regulatory zones are testing grounds where V14.2.1 shines, at least according to testers in snow areas. Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt shared a video of his first snowy drive on unplowed rural roads in New Hampshire, where FSD did great and erred on the side of caution. As per Merritt, FSD V14.2.1 was “extra cautious” but it performed well overall. 

Advertisement
-->

Sign recognition and freeway prowess

Sign recognition also seemed to show improvements with FSD V14.2.1. Longtime FSD tester Chuck Cook highlighted a clip from his upcoming first-impressions video, showcasing improved school zone behavior. “I think it read the signs better,” he observed, though in standard mode, it didn’t fully drop to 15 mph within the short timeframe. This nuance points to V14.2.1’s growing awareness of temporal rules, a step toward fewer false positives in dynamic environments.

FSD V14.2.1 also seems to excel in high-stress highway scenarios. Fellow FSD tester @BLKMDL3 posted a video of FSD V14.2.1 managing a multi-lane freeway closure due to a police chase-related accident. “Perfectly handles all lanes of the freeway merging into one,” the Tesla owner noted in his post on X.

FSD V14.2.1 was released on Thanksgiving, much to the pleasant surprise of Tesla owners. The update’s release notes are almost identical to the system’s previous iteration, save for one line item read, “Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”

Continue Reading