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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
A Tesla upfitter has offered to take over Cybertruck lines from the company in a last-ditch effort to save the all-electric pickup from being completely canceled in the middle of 2027.
Unplugged Performance, the Hawthorne, California-based Tesla aftermarket specialist, has publicly offered to take over Cybertruck production from Tesla, funding the effort “through a consortium of investors.”
An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands.
We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn.
Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built.
We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond.
Worth a conversation?— UP (@UnpluggedTesla) November 10, 2026
The proposal comes as Tesla prioritizes its Cybercab Robotaxi program and prepares to wind down Cybertruck assembly at Gigafactory Texas around mid-2027.
Founded in 2013 by Ben Schaffer and located adjacent to Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX, Unplugged Performance has become a leading provider of premium upgrades for Tesla vehicles, including extensive Cybertruck packages under its UP INVINCIBLE line.
Through its UP.FIT division, the company has also developed purpose-built police and fleet versions of the Cybertruck, including deliveries to agencies such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
In an X post on Tuesday, Unplugged said:
“An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands. We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn. Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built. We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond. Worth a conversation?”
The arrangement would free Tesla resources and manufacturing capacity for Cybercab while allowing continued production of the stainless-steel pickup and expanded variants. Unplugged Performance indicated it would wait for battery cells after Cybercab needs are met and would generate ongoing revenue for Tesla through licensing and software/network services on the vehicles it produces.
Following strong initial interest, Unplugged Performance posted a follow-up inviting potential investors and strategic partners to email cyber@unpluggedperformance.com. The company clarified that the outreach is solely to gauge interest and does not constitute an offer to sell securities or acceptance of funds at this stage.
The proposal arrives shortly after Elon Musk indicated that Cybertruck production in Texas would be phased out by roughly the middle of 2027 to expand Cybercab output.
Whether Tesla engages with the offer remains to be seen, but the public overture highlights both the aftermarket specialist’s deep experience with the Cybertruck platform and the growing focus on autonomy within Tesla’s manufacturing plans.
Elon Musk said the Tesla Cybercab will perform “a majority of all passenger miles” where it is allowed to operate and that point is “obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.”
Musk used the point to double down on the company’s decision to ax the cult-favorite Cybertruck, as its production space will be removed and transitioned into additional Cybercab lines. The move has catalyzed a polarizing conversation on whether its right or wrong.
Whatever side you are on — it’s happening.
Dodge ended the Viper.
Audi retired the R8.
Mitsubishi said goodbye to the Lancer Evo.
Ford bid farewell to the Bronco (at one point).
Chevrolet sunset the Camaro.Tesla is ending the Cybertruck. I’m pissed. I’m upset.
Fans of those five automakers mentioned did the same thing. It happens. It sucks. I don’t like it.
But I still love Tesla. I love my Model Y. I hoped to be in a Cybertruck in a little under two years.
I won’t be. But I still won’t put my family in anything else. Too safe. Too advanced. Too much better than everything else.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Regardless, Musk seems to be getting to the point that he is done talking about the choice. At some point, you have to think that this was truly a difficult decision for him and the company as well, and this is not something he took lightly. In fact, he’s probably a little bit disappointed with it, too.
But the point remains that the Cybertruck is gone. Musk’s focus is purely on developing an autonomous platform that the world will utilize for transportation, and he’s telling you that anyone “with eyes and a brain” can see it:
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is betting that all of its passengers in the future will be okay with not owning their own personal cars and will be fine with ride-hailing for the rest of their lives. Every dinner, every errand, every trip to the airport and transportation thereafter, will all be operated by ride-sharing, and in Tesla’s perfect world, it will happen in a Cybercab.
As of now, Cybercab is only active in Austin, but it has been spotted all over the country with a driver behind the wheel in those prototypes. In Austin, the car has no steering wheel or pedals for people to control the vehicle.
The Cybertruck dilemma is one that has truly come across the entire Tesla community and while it seems to be a great idea to keep it because people love it, the business side of things is steering Musk and Tesla in another direction.
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
Tesla upfitter offers to keep Cybertruck alive
