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.

Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla receives major institutional boost with Nomura’s rising stake

The move makes Tesla Nomura’s 10th-largest holding at about 1% of its entire portfolio.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has gained fresh institutional support, with Nomura Asset Management expanding its position in the automaker. 

Nomura boosted its Tesla holdings by 4.2%, adding 47,674 shares and bringing its total position to more than 1.17 million shares valued at roughly $373.6 million. The move makes Tesla Nomura’s 10th-largest holding at about 1% of its entire portfolio.

Institutional investors and TSLA

Nomura’s filing was released alongside several other fund updates. Brighton Jones LLC boosted its holdings by 11.8%, as noted in a MarketBeat report, and Revolve Wealth Partners lifted its TSLA position by 21.2%. Bison Wealth increased its Tesla stake by 52.2%, AMG National Trust Bank increased its position in shares of Tesla by 11.8%, and FAS Wealth Partners increased its TSLA holdings by 22.1%. About 66% of all outstanding Tesla shares are now owned by institutional investors.

The buying comes shortly after Tesla reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings, posting $0.50 per share compared with the $0.48 consensus. Revenue reached $28.10 billion, topping Wall Street’s $24.98 billion estimate. Despite the earnings beat, Tesla continues to trade at a steep premium relative to peers, with a market cap hovering around $1.34 trillion and a price-to-earnings ratio near 270.

Recent insider sales

Some Tesla insiders have sold stock as of late. CFO Vaibhav Taneja sold 2,606 shares in early September for just over $918,000, reducing his personal stake by about 21%. Director James R. Murdoch executed a far larger sale, offloading 120,000 shares for roughly $42 million and trimming his holdings by nearly 15%. Over the past three months, Tesla insiders have collectively sold 202,606 shares valued at approximately $75.6 million, as per SEC disclosures.

Advertisement

Tesla is currently entering its next phase of growth, and if it is successful, it could very well become the world’s most valuable company as a result. The company has several high-profile projects expected to be rolled out in the coming years, including Optimus, the humanoid robot, and the Cybercab, an autonomous two-seater with the potential to change the face of roads across the globe.

@teslarati Tesla Full Self-Driving yields for pedestrians while human drivers do not…the future is here! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ 2 Little 2 Late – Levi & Mario
Continue Reading

News

Tesla rolls out fresh Supercharger pricing strategy to more locations

Live Pricing aimed to resolve some of the shortcomings of the off-peak and on-peak system, aiming to keep prices low and base them on current utilization instead of a set time when prices change.

Published

on

tesla supercharger
Credit: Tesla

Tesla has rolled out a fresh Supercharger pricing strategy to more locations, as it confirmed it has added 550 additional sites in the United States to its “Live Pricing” strategy.

Live Pricing for Superchargers launched back in May, and was the company’s latest strategy to keep charging your EV cheap, affordable, and easy to understand.

Tesla has adjusted its pricing strategy at Superchargers several times over the past few years, with the most notable being the 2020 introduction of off-peak and on-peak Supercharging rates.

Live Pricing aimed to resolve some of the shortcomings of the off-peak and on-peak system, aiming to keep prices low and base them on current utilization instead of a set time when prices change.

Tesla explained the program when it launched:

“We are piloting on-peak and off-peak pricing based on live Supercharger utilization rather than estimations. The average price remains unchanged, but this live feedback loop improves accuracy. This corrects off-peak pricing during times of congestion, or on-peak pricing when Superchargers are plentiful. You’ll always see the price before your session begins, and prices do not change mid-session. A small-scale pilot is launching at 10 sites and will expand based on feedback and success.”

The initial rollout only included Superchargers in California, but it was not all of them, only a handful instead. Tesla was attempting to launch it in a very controlled manner by using a Pilot Program that would iron out all the early bugs and potential issues it might run into.

However, the company expanded the program by launching it at an additional 550 sites in California, New Jersey, New York, Florida, and Illinois:

The price you pay is locked in when you plug in, so if the Supercharger station you are charging at becomes more crowded and the program bumps up the rates because of high utilization rates, you will still receive the cheaper price that was enabled when you arrived.

@teslarati With a pedestrian in the crosswalk, Tesla Full Self-Driving shows off its courtesy. Human drivers? Not so much. #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ AMERICAN HEART – Maxwell Luke

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Robotaxi was just spotted in a new state for the first time

The company is still attempting to expand and has explicitly stated that it plans to offer rides in Nevada, Arizona, and Florida in the near future. However, a pair of Robotaxi mules, fitted with LiDAR equipment for ground truth validation, was spotted in a new region for the first time.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi mules were spotted in a new state for the first time as the company plans to expand the ride-sharing service to new areas of the United States in the coming months.

Tesla is offering Robotaxi rides in Austin already, where nobody is present in the driver’s seat except for on freeway routes. In California, Tesla refers to its platform as a ride-hailing suite, and a “Safety Monitor” is present in the driver’s seat at all times, but the vehicle operates on Full Self-Driving.

The company is still attempting to expand and has explicitly stated that it plans to offer rides in Nevada, Arizona, and Florida in the near future. However, a pair of Robotaxi mules, fitted with LiDAR equipment for ground truth validation, was spotted in a new region for the first time.

Over the weekend, Tesla Robotaxi mules were spotted in Enola, Pennsylvania, just about ten minutes from downtown Harrisburg:

Enola is situated to the northwest of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s State Capitol. Interestingly, you’d expect Tesla to be testing these types of vehicles in other, more populated areas; Philadelphia is about two hours East, and Pittsburgh is about three hours west. State College is about an hour North of Enola.

Looking at the location of where the vehicles were spotted tells an interesting story, as Enola, located right outside of the State Capitol, could be a move to nudge legislators to consider looking at some of the laws that deal with driverless and autonomous vehicle operation.

Pennsylvania’s Act 130 of 2022 and subsequent guidelines permit the testing of driverless vehicles in the Commonwealth, but PennDOT requires a permit from Tesla or any other company that wants to operate a ride-hailing service in PA.

It’s also important to note that the cars could have simply been stopping through, as they were spotted at a Supercharger location along Interstate 81, which spans from Tennessee to New York.

It is not to say the vehicles are testing along the entire route, but likely a segment of it. The fact that they were spotted in Pennsylvania does bode well for Tesla’s expansion efforts moving forward.

@teslarati Tesla Full Self-Driving yields for pedestrians while human drivers do not…the future is here! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ 2 Little 2 Late – Levi & Mario

Continue Reading

Trending