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

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when

Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.

Published

on

Credit: @AdanGuajardo/X

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Tuesday at the xAI Hackathon that the company would be removing Safety Monitors from Robotaxis in Austin in just three weeks.

This would meet Musk’s timeline from earlier this year, as he has said on several occasions that Tesla Robotaxis would have no supervision in Austin by the end of 2025.

On Tuesday, Musk said:

“Unsupervised is pretty much solved at this point. So there will be Tesla Robotaxis operating in Austin with no one in them. Not even anyone in the passenger seat in about three weeks.”

Musk has made the claim about removing Safety Monitors from Tesla Robotaxi vehicles in Austin three times this year, once in September, once in October, and once in November.

Advertisement
-->

In September, he said:

“Should be no safety driver by end of year.”

Advertisement
-->

On the Q3 Earnings Call in October, he said:

“We are expecting ot have no safety drivers in at least large parts of Austin by the end of this year.”

Finally, in November, he reiterated the timeline in a public statement at the Shareholder Meeting:

“I expect Robotaxis to operate without safety drivers in large parts of Austin this year.”

Currently, Tesla uses Safety Monitors in Austin in the passenger’s seat on local roads. They will sit in the driver’s seat for highway routes. In the Bay Area ride-hailing operation, there is always a Safety Monitor in the driver’s seat.

Advertisement
-->

Three weeks would deliver on the end-of-year promise, cutting it close, beating it by just two days. However, it would be a tremendous leap forward in the Robotaxi program, and would shut the mouths of many skeptics who state the current iteration is no different than having an Uber.

Tesla has also expanded its Robotaxi fleet this year, but the company has not given exact figures. Once it expands its fleet, even more progress will be made in Tesla’s self-driving efforts.

Tesla expands Robotaxi geofence, but not the garage

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX reportedly mulling IPO, eyeing largest of all time: report

“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock,” Musk said.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX is reportedly mulling an initial public offering, eyeing what would be the largest valuation at the time of availability of all time, a new report from Bloomberg said on Tuesday.

It is one of many reports involving one of Elon Musk’s companies and a massive market move, as this is not the first time we have seen reports of an IPO by SpaceX. Musk himself has also dispelled other reports in the past of a similar nature, including an xAI funding round.

SpaceX and Musk have yet to comment on the report. In the past, untrue reports were promptly replied to by the CEO; this has not yet gained any response, which is a good sign in terms of credibility.

However, he said just a few days ago that stories of this nature are inaccurate:

“There has been a lot of press claiming SpaceX is raising money at $800B, which is not accurate. SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors. Valuation increments are a function of progress with Starship and Starlink and securing global direct-to-cell spectrum that greatly increases our addressable market. And one other thing that is arguably most significant by far.”

Advertisement
-->

Musk has discussed a potential IPO for SpaceX in recent months, as the November 6 shareholder meeting, as he commented on the “downsides” of having a public company, like litigation exposure, quarterly reporting pressures, and other inconveniences.

Advertisement
-->

Nevertheless, Musk has also said he wants there to be a way for Tesla shareholders to get in on the action. At the meeting in early November, he said:

“I do want to try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how to give people access to SpaceX stock.”

Additionally, he added:

“Maybe at some point., SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides of being public.”

Musk has been historically reluctant to take SpaceX public, at times stating it could become a barrier to colonizing Mars. That does not mean it will not happen.

Advertisement
-->

Bloomberg’s report cites multiple unidentified sources who are familiar with the matter. They indicate to the publication that SpaceX wants to go public in mid-to-late 2026, and it wants to raise $30 billion at a valuation of around $1.5 trillion.

This is not the first time SpaceX has discussed an IPO; we reported on it nine years ago. We hope it is true, as the community has spoken for a long time about having access to SpaceX stock. Legendary investor Ron Baron is one of the lucky few to be a SpaceX investor, and said it, along with Tesla, is a “lifetime investment.”

Tesla bull Ron Baron reveals $100M SpaceX investment, sees 3-5x return on TSLA

The primary driver of SpaceX’s value is Starlink, the company’s satellite internet service. Starlink contributes 60-70 percent of SpaceX’s revenue, meaning it is the primary value engine. Launch services, like Falcon 9 contracts, and the development of Starship, also play supporting roles.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

SpaceX reaches incredible milestone with Starlink program

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX reached an incredible milestone with its Starlink program with a launch last night, as the 3,000th satellite of the year was launched into low Earth orbit.

On Monday, SpaceX also achieved its 32nd flight with a single Falcon 9 rocket from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

The mission was Starlink 6-92, and it utilized the Falcon 9 B1067 for the 32nd time this year, the most-used Falcon booster. The flight delivered SpaceX’s 3000th Starlink satellite of the year, a massive achievement.

There were 29 Starlink satellites launched and deployed into LEO during this particular mission:

SpaceX has a current goal of certifying its Falcon boosters for 40 missions apiece, according to Spaceflight Now.

The flight was the 350th orbital launch from the nearby SLC-40, and the 3,000 satellites that have been successfully launched this year continue to contribute to the company’s goal of having 12,000 satellites contributing to global internet coverage.

There are over five million users of Starlink, the latest data shows.

Following the launch and stage separation, the Falcon 9 booster completed its mission with a perfect landing on the ‘Just Read the Instructions’ droneship.

Advertisement
-->

The mission was the 575th overall Falcon 9 launch, highlighting SpaceX’s operational tempo, which continues to be accelerated. The company averages two missions per week, and underscores CEO Elon Musk’s vision of a multi-planetary future, where reliable connectivity is crucial for remote work, education, and emergency response.

As Starlink expands and works toward that elusive and crucial 12,000 satellite goal, missions like 6-92 pave the way for innovations in telecommunications and enable more internet access to people across the globe.

With regulatory approvals in over 100 countries and millions of current subscribers, SpaceX continues to democratize space, proving that reusability is not just feasible, but it’s also revolutionary.

Continue Reading