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.
SpaceX has revealed the date for the maiden voyage of Starship v3, its newest and most advanced version of the rocket yet.
Starship v3 represents a significant leap forward. At 124 meters tall when fully stacked, it stands taller than previous versions and boasts substantial upgrades.
The vehicle incorporates next-generation Raptor 3 engines, which deliver higher thrust, improved reliability, and simplified designs with fewer parts. Both the Super Heavy booster (Booster 19) and the Starship upper stage (Ship 39) feature these enhancements, along with structural improvements for greater payload capacity—exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit in reusable configuration.
SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk have announced that the company aims to push the first launch of Starship v3 this Thursday. Musk included some clips of past Starship launches with the announcement.
Now targeting launch as early as Thursday, May 21 → https://t.co/2gZQUxS6mm
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 19, 2026
First Starship V3 launch later this week! pic.twitter.com/JFX4CrSfnY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 19, 2026
There are a lot of improvements to Starship v3 from past builds. Key hardware changes include a more robust heat shield, upgraded avionics, and modifications optimized for orbital refueling, a critical technology for future missions to the Moon and Mars. This flight marks the first launch from Starbase’s second orbital pad, allowing parallel operations and accelerating the cadence of tests.
This will be the 12th Starship launch for SpaceX. Flight 12 objectives include a full ascent profile, hot-staging separation, in-space engine relights, and reentry testing. The booster is expected to perform a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while the ship will deploy 20 Starlink simulator satellites and a pair of modified Starlink V3 units before attempting reentry.
Success would validate V3’s design for operational use, paving the way for rapid reusability and higher flight rates.
The rapid evolution from V2 to V3 underscores SpaceX’s iterative approach. Previous flights demonstrated booster catches, ship landings, and heat shield advancements. V3 builds on these with nearly every component refined, supported by an expanding production line at Starbase that churns out vehicles at an unprecedented pace.
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
This launch comes amid growing momentum for SpaceX’s ambitious goals. Starship is central to NASA’s Artemis program for lunar landings and Elon Musk’s vision of making humanity multiplanetary. A successful V3 debut would boost confidence in achieving orbital refueling and crewed missions in the coming years.
As excitement builds, enthusiasts and engineers alike await liftoff. Weather and technical readiness will determine the exact timing, but the community is optimistic. Starship V3 is poised to push the boundaries of spaceflight once again, bringing reusable interplanetary transport closer to reality.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
SpaceX reveals date for maiden Starship v3 launch
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
