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.
[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.
Lifestyle
Tesla hit by Iranian missile debris in Israel
A Tesla in Israel absorbed a direct hit from missile debris, and the glassroof held.
On March 30, 2026, Lara Shusterman was in Netanya, Israel when Iranian ballistic missiles triggered air raid sirens across the city. While she remained in safety, her 2024 Tesla Model Y did not escape untouched. A heavy piece of missile debris struck the car’s massive glass roof, leaving a deep crater but without shattering. In a Facebook post to the Tesla Israel community the following morning, Shusterman described what happened: “The glass did not shatter into dangerous shards. She stopped the damage and pushed the metal part to the ground.” She closed by thanking Elon Musk and the Tesla team for building what she called “security and a sense of trust even in extreme situations.”
Netanya is a coastal city in central Israel, roughly 18 miles north of Tel Aviv and has been among the areas most frequently struck during Iran’s ongoing missile campaign, following coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian military infrastructure. Falling shrapnel from intercepted missiles is a common occurrence.
-
- Tesla Model Y glass roof shattered from a piece of falling Iranian missile debris
-
- A piece of Iranian missile debris that struck Lara Shusterman’s Tesla Model Y in Netanya, Israel on March 30, 2026, after being intercepted by Israeli air defenses.
-
- Tesla Model Y glass roof shattered from a piece of falling Iranian missile debris
Source: Tesla Israel Facebook Group
The incident is a testament to Tesla’s structural engineering. Tesla’s glass roof is designed to support over four times the vehicle’s own weight. That strength has shown up in real-world accidents too. In 2021, a Model Y in California was struck by a falling tree during a storm, with the glass roof holding firm and the cabin remaining intact. In another widely reported incident, a Tesla Model Y plunged 250 feet off the cliff at Devil’s Slide in California in January 2023, with all four occupants, including two young children, surviving.
Disturbing details about Tesla’s 250-foot cliff drop emerge amid initial investigation
Tesla officially launched sales in Israel in early 2021 and captured over 60 percent of Israel’s EV market in the first year. The brand’s foothold in Israel remains significant. Tens of thousands of Teslas are now on Israeli roads, making incidents like Shusterman’s easy to corroborate. On the same week her Model Y took the hit, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million contract to launch missile tracking satellites, a separate but fitting reminder of how intertwined the Musk ecosystem has become with the realities of modern conflict.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls out $2 trillion SpaceX IPO valuation as ‘BS’
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
Elon Musk is quick to call out any false information regarding him or his companies on his social media platform, known as X.
A recent report that claimed SpaceX was aiming to go public with an IPO in the coming weeks at a massive valuation of $2 trillion was called out by Musk, who referred to it as “BS.”
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
The exchange highlights ongoing media speculation about the rocket company’s future and Musk’s frustration with what he views as inaccurate financial reporting. The report came from Bloomberg.
Don’t believe everything you read.
Bloomberg publishes bs.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2026
The controversy erupted on April 2, 2026, when influencer Mario Nawfal amplified claims from Bloomberg.
The outlet posted that SpaceX had boosted its IPO target valuation above $2 trillion, describing it as potentially one of the largest public offerings in history. Musk challenged the story.
It echoes past instances where Musk has corrected valuation rumors about his companies, emphasizing that speculation often outpaces reality.
Background context adds nuance.
Earlier reports indicated SpaceX had filed confidential IPO paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, potentially positioning it for a record-breaking debut that could eclipse Saudi Aramco’s 2019 listing.
Initial estimates pegged a possible valuation north of $1.75 trillion, building on a post-merger figure around $1.25 trillion after SpaceX absorbed xAI. A subsequent Bloomberg update claimed advisers were floating figures above $2 trillion to investors, with the offering potentially raising up to $75 billion.
SpaceX remains a private powerhouse. Its achievements include thousands of Starlink satellites providing global broadband, routine Falcon 9 rocket reusability, and a mission to slash launch costs, along with ambitions for Starship to enable Mars colonization.
The company also benefits from government contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. A public listing could democratize access for retail investors while subjecting SpaceX to greater scrutiny and quarterly reporting pressures.
Critics of the reports point to the confidential nature of filings, which limits verifiable details. Musk has previously downplayed inflated valuations, once calling an $800 billion figure for SpaceX “too high.”
Supporters argue that hype around mega-IPOs, especially amid the ongoing AI fervor, fuels premature narratives that distract from core technical milestones, such as full Starship reusability and Starlink constellation expansion.
The incident reflects broader tensions in tech finance. Anonymous sourcing in valuation stories can drive market chatter and betting activity, yet it risks misinformation.
Bloomberg defended its reporting through multiple articles citing “people familiar with the matter,” but Musk’s blunt dismissal resonated widely on X, with users piling on to question media reliability.
Whether SpaceX ultimately goes public remains uncertain. Musk has teased an IPO tied to Starlink maturity, but priorities center on engineering breakthroughs over Wall Street timelines. For now, the $2 trillion figure joins a list of rumored milestones that Musk insists should be taken with skepticism.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals date of SpaceX Starship v3’s maiden voyage
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed the timeline for the next Starship launch. It will be the first launch using SpaceX’s revamped design for Starship, as its v3 rocket will take its maiden voyage sooner than many might expect.
Musk announced on April 3 on X that the next Starship flight test, and the first flight of the upgraded v3 ship and booster, is 4 to 6 weeks away. The update signals the end of a nearly six-month hiatus since the program’s last launch.
Elon says the first V3 Starship launch will occur in 4-6 weeks
It will be the first Starship launch since Flight 11 on October 13, 2025 https://t.co/QnnYPTdbUu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 3, 2026
The upcoming mission, designated as Starship’s 12 integrated flight test (IFT-12), marks a significant milestone. It will be the debut of the v3 configuration, featuring a taller Super Heavy Booster and Starship upper stage. The changes SpaceX has made with the v3 rocket and booster are an increased propellant capacity and the more powerful Raptor 3 engines.
Earlier predictions from Musk in March had pointed to an April timeframe, but the latest timeline now targets a launch window in early to mid-May 2026.
The V3 iteration represents a substantial evolution from previous Starship prototypes. Engineers have optimized the design for improved manufacturability, higher thrust, and greater efficiency. Raptor 3 engines deliver significantly more power while reducing weight and production costs compared to earlier variants.
With these enhancements, SpaceX aims to boost payload capacity toward 200 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration — a dramatic leap from the roughly 35-ton target of prior versions. Such capabilities are critical for ambitious goals, including NASA’s Artemis lunar missions and eventual crewed flights to Mars.
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
Recent activities have involved static fires, activation of the new Pad 2 at Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and integration of Raptor 3 engines.
A prior incident with an early V3 booster on the test stand in late 2025 contributed to the delay, necessitating additional assembly and qualification work.
Musk’s timeline updates have become a hallmark of the Starship program, often described with characteristic optimism.
SpaceX’s Starship V3 is almost ready and it will change space travel forever
While past targets have occasionally shifted by weeks, the rapid iteration pace remains impressive. However, don’t be surprised if this timeline shifts again, as Musk has been overly optimistic in the past with not only launches, but products under his other companies, too.
SpaceX continues to refine launch infrastructure, including new propellant loading systems and tower mechanisms designed to support higher cadence operations. A successful V3 flight could pave the way for more frequent tests, tower catches of both booster and ship, and progression toward operational reusability.
The v3 debut is viewed as a transition point for Starship, moving beyond experimental flights toward a system capable of supporting large-scale deployment of Starlink satellites, lunar landers, and interplanetary transport.
Success on IFT-12 would demonstrate not only the new hardware’s performance but also SpaceX’s ability to recover from setbacks and maintain momentum.
As the 4-to-6-week countdown begins, anticipation builds at Starbase. Teams are finalizing vehicle stacking, conducting final pre-flight checks, and preparing for regulatory approvals. The world will be watching to see if Starship V3 can deliver on its promise of transforming humanity’s access to space.
Tesla hit by Iranian missile debris in Israel
Elon Musk calls out $2 trillion SpaceX IPO valuation as ‘BS’
