News
No, Tesla wasn’t “cheated” in the Model 3 headlight safety test by the IIHS
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.
“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.
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.
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.
News
Tesla Model S and X customization options begin to thin as their closure nears
Tesla’s Online Design Studio for both vehicles now shows the first color option to be listed as “Sold Out,” as Lunar Silver is officially no longer available for the Model S or Model X. This color is exclusive to these cars and not available on the Model S or Model X.
Tesla Model S and Model X customization options are beginning to thin for the first time as the closure of the two “sentimental” vehicles nears.
We are officially seeing the first options disappear as Tesla begins to work toward ending production of the two cars and the options that are available to those vehicles specifically.
Tesla’s Online Design Studio for both vehicles now shows the first color option to be listed as “Sold Out,” as Lunar Silver is officially no longer available for the Model S or Model X. This color is exclusive to these cars and not available on the Model S or Model X.
🚨 Tesla Model S and Model X availability is thinning, as Tesla has officially shown that the Lunar Silver color option on both vehicles is officially sold out
To be fair, Frost Blue is still available so no need to freak out pic.twitter.com/YnwsDbsFOv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 25, 2026
Tesla is making way for the Optimus humanoid robot project at the Fremont Factory, where the Model S and Model X are produced. The two cars are low-volume models and do not contribute more than a few percent to Tesla’s yearly delivery figures.
With CEO Elon Musk confirming that the Model S and Model X would officially be phased out at the end of the quarter, some of the options are being thinned out.
This is an expected move considering Tesla’s plans for the two vehicles, as it will make for an easier process of transitioning that portion of the Fremont plant to cater to Optimus manufacturing. Additionally, this is likely one of the least popular colors, and Tesla is choosing to only keep around what it is seeing routine demand for.
During the Q4 Earnings Call in January, Musk confirmed the end of the Model S and Model X:
“It is time to bring the Model S and Model X programs to an end with an honorable discharge. It is time to bring the S/X programs to an end. It’s part of our overall shift to an autonomous future.”
Fremont will now build one million Optimus units per year as production is ramped.
News
Tesla Cybertruck Dual Motor AWD estimated delivery slips to early fall 2026
Tesla has also added a note on the Cybertruck design page stating that the vehicle’s price will increase after February 28.
Tesla’s estimated delivery window for new Cybertruck Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive (AWD) orders in the United States has shifted to September–October 2026. This suggests that the vehicle’s sub-$60,000 variant is now effectively sold out until then.
The updated timeline was highlighted in a post on X by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, who noted that the estimated delivery window had moved from June 2026 to September-October 2026, “presumably due to strong demand.”
The Dual Motor AWD currently starts at $59,990 before incentives. Tesla has also added a note on the Cybertruck design page stating that the vehicle’s price will increase after February 28.
If demand remains steady, the combination of a later delivery window and a pending price increase suggests Tesla is seeing sustained interest in the newly-introduced Cybertruck configuration. This was highlighted by Elon Musk on X, when he noted that the Cybertruck Dual Motor AWD’s introductory price will only be available for a limited time.
When the Cybertruck was first unveiled in November 2019, Tesla listed the Dual Motor AWD variant at $49,990. Adjusted for inflation, that figure equates to roughly $63,000 in 2026 dollars, based on cumulative U.S. inflation since 2019.
That context makes a potential post-February price in the $64,000 to $65,000 range less surprising, especially as material, labor, and manufacturing costs have shifted significantly over the past several years.
While Tesla has not announced a specific new MSRP, the updated delivery timeline and pricing note together suggest that the Cybertruck Dual Motor AWD could very well be the variant that takes the all-electric full-sized pickup truck to more widespread adoption.
Elon Musk
SpaceX targets 150Mbps per user for upgraded Starlink Direct-to-Cell
If achieved, the 150Mbps goal would represent a significant jump from the current performance of Starlink Direct-to-Cell.
SpaceX is targeting peak download speeds of 150Mbps per user for its next-generation Direct-to-Cell Starlink service. The update was shared by SpaceX Spectrum & Regulatory Affairs Lead Udrivolf Pica during the International Telecommunication Union’s Space Connect conference.
“We are aiming at peak speeds of 150Mbps per user,” Pica said during the conference. “So something incredible if you think about the link budgets from space to the mobile phone.”
If achieved, the 150Mbps goal would represent a significant jump from the current performance of Starlink Direct-to-Cell.
Today, SpaceX’s cellular Starlink service, offered in partnership with T-Mobile under the T-Satellite brand, provides speeds of roughly 4Mbps per user. The service is designed primarily for texts, low-resolution video calls, and select apps in locations that traditionally have no cellular service.
By comparison, Ookla data shows median 5G download speeds of approximately 309Mbps for T-Mobile and 172Mbps for AT&T in the United States, as noted in a PCMag report. While 150Mbps would still trail the fastest terrestrial 5G networks, it would place satellite-to-phone broadband much closer to conventional carrier performance, even in remote areas.
Pica indicated that the upgraded system would support “video, voice, and data services, clearly,” moving beyond emergency connectivity and basic messaging use cases.
To reach that target, SpaceX plans to upgrade its existing Starlink Direct-to-Cell satellites and add significant new capacity. The company recently acquired access to radio spectrum from EchoStar, which Pica described as key to expanding throughput.
“More spectrum means a bigger pipeline, and this means that we can expand what we can do with partners. We can expand the quality of service. And again, we can do cellular broadband basically, cellular broadband use cases, like AI or daily connectivity needs,” he stated.
SpaceX has also requested regulatory approval to deploy 15,000 additional Direct-to-Cell satellites, beyond the roughly 650 currently supporting the system. The upgraded architecture is expected to begin rolling out in late 2027.
