News

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

Published

7 years ago

May 18, 2018

Aaron Turpen

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.

[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.

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.

Related Topics:Featured Tesla Tesla Model 3 Tesla Model 3 Exterior

Up Next

Tesla adds Black Arachnid Wheel and ventilated seats to P100D trim levels

Don't Miss

Will AI violate human rights? Humanitarian groups are trying to make sure they don’t

Aaron Turpen

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.

Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk teases Optimus job that’s straight out of Robocop

Published

2 minutes ago

November 11, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: @heydave7/X

Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased a potential job for the company’s Optimus robot last week that is straight out of the movie “Robocop.”

“Robocop” aimed to show a futuristic look at law enforcement in a Sci-fi thriller that was among the first iterations of how robots could be used for police work.

The 1987 film showcased an injured cop turning into an armed cyborg, and although Tesla’s Optimus won’t be a human-robot hybrid, Musk’s idea for the humanoid project is similar.

Musk said last week at the Annual Shareholder Meeting, where shareholders voted to approve his $1 trillion compensation plan, that Optimus could be the future of law enforcement, nearly revolutionizing the way criminals are prosecuted.

He hinted that Optimus could actually be used as a chaperone of sorts, arguing that it was a “more humane form of containment of future crime.” Musk said:

“If somebody’s committed a crime, we might be able to provide a more humane form of containment of future crime. You now get a free Optimus, and it’s just going to follow you around and stop you from doing crime. Other than that, you get to do anything; it’s just going to stop you from committing crime. That’s really it. You don’t have to put people in prisons and stuff. It’s pretty wild to think of all the possibilities, but I think it’s clearly the future.”

Elon Musk: With Optimus, we might be able to stop putting people in prison.
“If somebody’s committed a crime, we might be able to provide a more humane form of containment of future crime. You now get a free Optimus, and it’s just going to follow you around and stop you from… pic.twitter.com/Y8E2ToyNkd
— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) November 10, 2025

Musk’s overall idea for Optimus is to change the way people are able to exist, from those law-abiding citizens to others who have their run-ins with the law. Instead, the Tesla CEO believes there could be a different way to handle everything, including punishment.

It was not the only thing that Musk indicated could be changed significantly by the presence of humanoid robots, as he also said a universal basic income could be established with the help of products like Optimus.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk teases huge merger: ‘Trending towards convergence’

“My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending towards convergence.”

Published

3 hours ago

November 11, 2025

Joey Klender

Elon Musk recently amplified the thoughts of Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, who had insight into the “Muskonomy” of his potentially interconnected ventures, something that was proposed at the recent Tesla Shareholder Meeting with xAI.

Musk’s words indicate a potential strategic fusion that could serve as a blueprint for future innovation–but it is dependent on a conglomeration between the many entities the CEO serves.

As Tesla grapples with scaling Optimus and preparing for its imminent production and the development of the Full Self-Driving suite, xAI’s computational edge could provide leverage for the millions of miles of data the company accumulates, providing a more stable and accurate development strategy for the autonomous and AI efforts it has put its chips all in on.

After Tesla Shareholders voted to deny Tesla and xAI’s potential financial partnership through an investment, Jonas said it was an issue that would have to be revisited due to its importance.

xAI has the opportunity to provide an incredible strategic and financial bolstering to Tesla, especially with how important a role data plays in the development of the company’s biggest products.

Jonas wrote in a note to investors:

“They’re gonna have to revisit this. We don’t think investors understand just how important xAI is to Tesla and the broader Muskonomy. Tesla’s relationship with xAI (financially and strategically) is deterministic to the long-term success of Tesla due in part to the natural synergies of data, software, hardware, and manufacturing in recursive loops. The values (and value systems) of both Tesla and xAI are endowed by the values of their shared creator. We believe this co-determination becomes more obvious in the next phases of physical AI/ autonomy for Tesla in the year ahead.”

Musk said, in response to Jonas’ note, that his companies are “surprisingly in some ways, trending toward convergence.”

My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending towards convergence
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2025

Mergers and shared ecosystems between companies are not new moves out of Musk’s playbook, as it has been done in the past, especially with Tesla acquiring other entities.

It did it with SolarCity in 2016 and with Maxwell Technologies in 2019. Investments between Musk companies have occurred before, too, as SpaceX dumped $2 billion into xAI last July.

He’s also said on several occasions that he could eventually bring everything together into some sort of single entity. In July 2024, he said:

“I’m not opposed to the idea in principle, but I’m not sure there is a pragmatic or legal way to merge them. There is also value in equity incentives of people at the companies being tied to that company’s accomplishments.”

This point is especially relevant now with Musk’s recently approved compensation package.

He also said in June, during an interview with CNBC , that “It’s not out of the question” for xAI to merge with Tesla, but it would have to be approved by shareholders. Just a few days later, he said he would not support xAI merging with Tesla; however, he put it in investors’ hands.

It’s more than just a deal; it’s symbiotic. Musk being at the helm of various companies, all intertwined with one another, helps foster recursive innovation. Despite these advantages, there are still a handful of things to consider, especially from a regulatory perspective.

However, it is not competition; it’s convergence. In Musk’s universe, especially from a business sense, mergers are not endpoints, but instead launchpads for ambitions that aim to take each company from Earth to lands beyond our atmosphere.

Elon Musk

Tesla makes Elon Musk’s new compensation package official

This is an important thing to note, as much of the media coverage regarding Musk’s pay package seems to indicate that the company and the shareholders are simply giving the CEO the money. He has to come through on each of these tranches to unlock the $1 trillion.

Published

4 hours ago

November 11, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: @JoeTegtmeyer/X

Tesla has made CEO Elon Musk’s new compensation package official, as it filed a Form 4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Monday.

The package officially gives Musk the opportunity to acquire over 423 million shares of Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA), dependent on his ability to achieve twelve performance-based tranches that will bring growth to the company and its shareholders.

Tesla (TSLA) shareholders officially approve Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award

Musk’s new compensation package was approved by investors last Thursday at the company’s Annual Shareholder Meeting, as over 75 percent of voters supported the CEO’s new plan, which could be valued at over $1 trillion if he is able to come through on all twelve tranches.

The twelve tranches include growth goals related to vehicle deliveries, the Optimus humanoid robot project, and Tesla’s valuation. If Musk is able to achieve each tranche, he would help Tesla achieve an over $8 trillion market cap.

The 12 tranches include:

$2 trillion market cap + Deliver 20 million Tesla vehicles cumulatively
$2.5 trillion market cap + Reach 10 million active Full Self-Driving (FSD) subscriptions
$3 trillion market cap + Deliver 1 million Optimus humanoid robots
$3.5 trillion market cap + Operate 1 million Robotaxis commercially
$4 trillion market cap + Hit $50 billion in adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, etc.)
$4.5 trillion market cap + Hit $80 billion in adjusted EBITDA
$5 trillion market cap + Hit $130 billion in adjusted EBITDA
$5.5 trillion market cap + Hit $210 billion in adjusted EBITDA
$6 trillion market cap + Hit $300 billion in adjusted EBITDA
$6.5 trillion market cap + Hit $400 billion in adjusted EBITDA
$7.5 trillion market cap + Hit $400 billion in adjusted EBITDA for four straight quarters in a row
$8.5 trillion market cap + Hit $400 billion in adjusted EBITDA for four straight quarters in a row

Achieving the twelve levels of the new compensation package would also give Musk what he’s really after: a larger ownership share in Tesla, which would help him achieve more control, something he feels is necessary for the rollout of the Optimus robot “army.”

Musk does not earn a dime if he does not achieve any of the tranches above.