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.
News
Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims
This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.
Tesla is developing a small, affordable SUV, a new report claims, speculating that the automaker is planning to add yet another vehicle to its lineup at a price point similar to the Model 3 and Model Y, but smaller and more compact.
But it does not make a whole lot of sense, especially considering a handful of things CEO Elon Musk said and the overall plan for Tesla’s future.
Reuters reported that Tesla is in the early stages of developing an all-new, smaller, cheaper electric SUV. Citing four sources familiar with the matter, the story claims the vehicle would be shorter than the Model Y, built in China, and represent a fresh platform rather than a variant of the Model 3 or Y.
Suppliers have reportedly been contacted to discuss details, though Tesla has not commented. The move appears aimed at broadening affordability amid slowing EV demand and intensifying competition, particularly from Chinese rivals.
This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.
In 2024, the company scrapped its long-teased “Redwood” project for a budget-friendly car. Elon Musk explained the decision bluntly during an earnings call: a conventional low-cost model would be “pointless” and “completely at odds with what we believe.”
It’s sort of hard to believe this report: 3/Y are already relatively affordable, Elon said a $25k wouldn’t make sense, consumers want something larger than the Y with X going away, and Musk said what’s coming is “cooler than a minivan.”
Have to think the car is at least an SUV. https://t.co/4CQUV9ZNA5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 9, 2026
In other words, chasing a bare-bones cheap EV runs counter to Tesla’s core mission of accelerating sustainable energy through cutting-edge technology and autonomy rather than volume-driven price wars.
Musk’s own recent statements reinforce skepticism about a compact SUV pivot. Just two weeks ago, on March 25, he responded to fan requests for a minivan by posting on X: “Something way cooler than a minivan is coming.”
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
The remark came in the context of family-hauling needs, with Musk highlighting the Cybertruck’s ability to seat multiple child seats. It signals Tesla’s focus is shifting toward more spacious, innovative people-movers—not shrinking its lineup.
U.S. demand data echoes this logic.
The long-wheelbase Model Y L—a six-seat, stretched variant offering extra room for families—has generated massive interest wherever offered. Fans in the U.S. have basically begged for the Model Y L to make its way to the States, or for the company to develop a full-size SUV.
The Model Y L is selling well in China, where it is manufactured.
Delivery wait times for the Model Y L stretched into February 2026 as orders poured in. Tesla recently expanded the trim to eight new Asian markets, yet it remains unavailable in the United States, where consumer appetite for a larger, more practical SUV is reportedly strong.
American buyers have consistently favored bigger vehicles; the Model Y already outsells most competitors precisely because it delivers crossover utility without compromise. A compact model shorter than today’s bestseller would likely miss this mark entirely.
Tesla’s product strategy has long emphasized differentiation through autonomy, range, and desirability rather than racing to the bottom on price. Stripped-down variants of the Model 3 and Y have already struggled to ignite broad demand.
A new compact SUV built in China might sound logical on paper for cost-sensitive buyers, but it risks repeating past missteps—diluting brand cachet while ignoring clear signals from Musk and the market.
History suggests Tesla talks about affordable cars more often than it delivers them. Whether this Reuters scoop evolves into metal or joins the $25k project on the scrap heap remains to be seen.
For now, the smart money is on Tesla doubling down on “way cooler” vehicles that actually fit American families—and Tesla’s ambitious vision—rather than a smaller SUV that feels like yesterday’s news.
News
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says next FSD release is the one we’ve been waiting for
On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the capabilities of a future Full Self-Driving release, but it seems like we are getting what Yogi Berra once called “Déjà vu all over again.”
On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.
He confirmed that upcoming point releases of v14.3 will deliver additional polish to the current build, smoothing out remaining edges in an already capable system. These iterative updates, Musk noted, are designed to refine performance without requiring a full version overhaul.
Yet the real headline was Musk’s forecast for v15.
“V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations,” he wrote.
Tesla V14.3 self-driving review. The point releases will bring polish.
V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations. https://t.co/s4UK9RWw9f
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 9, 2026
He clarified that v15 will be powered by Tesla’s long-awaited large model, an AI architecture with roughly 10x the parameters of the smaller model currently in widespread use. The leap, Musk explained, stems from the unusually rapid progress of the compact model, which has advanced so quickly that the larger counterpart has yet to catch up in real-world deployment.
However, it is becoming a pattern that is, by now, familiar to anyone following Tesla’s autonomous driving roadmap.
There’s no debating you on that 🤷
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 9, 2026
Musk has consistently and repeatedly framed each successive major release as the one poised to deliver game-changing autonomy. Earlier versions were similarly positioned as a movement toward the final piece of the puzzle, only for attention to pivot to the next milestone once they arrived.
The refrain has become a recurring feature of FSD communication: current software is impressive, the point releases will sharpen it further, but the true breakthrough lies one major iteration ahead.
Musk’s latest comments fit squarely into that cadence. While v14.3 point releases are expected to tighten supervised driving behaviors in the coming weeks, v15 is cast as the version that finally crosses the threshold into unsupervised operation at human-or-better safety levels across demanding scenarios.
Our rate of advancement with the small model has been so fast that the large model has not yet caught up.
V15 will be the large model.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 9, 2026
The 10x parameter scale of the underlying large model is presented as the key technical enabler, promising richer reasoning and more robust decision-making than anything deployed to date.
Whether v15 ultimately fulfills that promise remains to be seen. Tesla’s history shows that each new target generates fresh excitement—and occasional skepticism—about timelines.
Fans realize Musk’s timelines for FSD are exciting, but rarely met:
You can see a rift happening in the Tesla bull community between a large group of reasonable people who aren’t afraid to acknowledge the elephants in the room, and those who are essentially bull bots whose entire identities are destroyed if they have to acknowledge any bump in…
— Mike P (@mikepat711) April 9, 2026
For now, Musk’s message is familiar: the immediate focus is polishing v14.3 through targeted point releases, while the 10x-parameter large model in v15 represents the next decisive step toward fully unsupervised, superhuman safety.
Hopefully, Tesla can come through, but we can only believe that once v15 gets here, v16 will be the next big step toward autonomy.
Drivers can expect continued refinement in the short term and a significantly more ambitious leap once the large model is ready. The cycle continues, but the stakes, Musk insists, keep rising.
Elon Musk
Tesla Supercharger for Business exposes jaw-dropping ROI gap between best and worst locations
Tesla’s new Supercharger for Business calculator reveals an eye-opening all-in cost and location-based ROI projections.
Tesla has launched an online calculator for its Supercharger for Business program, giving property owners their first transparent look at what it really costs to install Superchargers on site and what kind of return they can expect.
The program itself launched in September 2025, allowing businesses to purchase and operate Supercharger hardware on their own property while Tesla handles installation, maintenance, software, and 24/7 driver support. As Teslarati reported at launch, hosts also get their logo placed on the chargers and their location integrated into Tesla’s in-car navigation, meaning drivers are actively routed there. The stalls are open to all EVs, not just Teslas.
We launched Supercharger for Business in 2025 to help companies get charging right. We found simplicity and transparency to be a problem in this industry.
We’re now sharing pricing and a financial calculator to help make informed decisions. The goal is to accelerate investments,…
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) April 8, 2026
The new online calculator, announced by Tesla on Wednesday with the note that “simplicity and transparency” have been a problem in the industry, lets any business enter a U.S. address and get a real cost and revenue model. A standard 8-stall V4 Supercharger site runs approximately $500,000 in hardware and $55,000 per post for installation, bringing an all-in price just shy of $1 million. Tesla charges a flat $0.10 per kWh fee to cover software, billing, and network operations. Businesses set their own retail price and keep the margin above that fee.
Taking a look at Tesla’s Supercharger for Business online calculator, we can see that ROI is not uniform, and the gap between a strong location and a poor one can stretch the breakeven point by several years.
The biggest driver is foot traffic and how long people stay. A busy rest station, hotel, or outlet mall brings in repeat visitors who need to charge while they’re already stopped, pushing utilization numbers higher and shortening payback time.
Tesla Supercharger for Business ROI calculator
Local electricity rates matter just as much on the cost side. Markets like California carry some of the highest commercial electricity rates in the country, which eats into the margin between what a host pays per kWh and what they charge drivers. At the same time, dense urban areas with high EV adoption tend to support higher retail charging prices, which can offset that cost if demand is strong enough. Weather also plays a role. Cold climates reduce battery efficiency and increase charging frequency, but they can also suppress utilization in winter months if drivers avoid stopping in exposed outdoor locations. Suburban and rural sites face a different problem: lower baseline EV traffic, which means a site with cheaper power and lower operating costs can still take longer to pay back simply because the stalls sit idle more often. Tesla’s calculator uses real fleet data to pre-fill utilization estimates by ZIP code, so businesses can run their specific address against these variables rather than relying on averages.
The program has seen real adoption. Wawa, already the largest host of Tesla Superchargers with over 2,100 stalls across 223 locations, opened its first fully owned and branded site in Alachua, Florida earlier this year. Francis Energy of Oklahoma and the city of Alpharetta, Georgia have also deployed branded stations through the program, as Teslarati covered in January.
Tesla now exceeds 80,000 Supercharger stalls worldwide, and the calculator makes the economic case for accelerating that number through private investment rather than company-owned sites alone.
Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says next FSD release is the one we’ve been waiting for
