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.
Tesla has started to perform earthworks engineering on the roughly 3,000-acre site in Fort Bend County, Texas, advancing the massive $10 billion Project Crystal Sun plan to build a vertically integrated solar manufacturing complex.
Flyover drone footage from S.E. Robinson, Jr. released this morning shows the location under development. Tesla has crews on site performing large clearings, but you can also see equipment staging areas, the use of an existing homestead, and active leveling across a substantial portion of the property.
Tesla has started construction on Project Crystal Sun, its $10B vertically integrated solar factory near Houston, Texas.
The plant will make everything from silicon ingots and wafers to finished cells and panels, with operations targeted for Q1 2029.
@SERobinsonJr with a great flyover of the facility:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Public filings first submitted in July under Texas’s Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act describe a plant that would manufacture the full solar chain: everything from silicon ingots, wafers, coated cells, and finished modules.
Tesla projects 9,712 permanent jobs by 2033, ramping from roughly 1,900 positions in the first year of operations, plus a peak of about 1,147 construction jobs. Construction is targeted for 2026–2028, with commercial production beginning in the first quarter of 2029. An accompanying economic analysis estimates the project could add roughly $107 billion to Texas GDP over several decades.
Local incentives have cleared major hurdles. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District unanimously approved school-tax limitations in September, and Fort Bend County commissioners approved a package of abatements and related agreements in late October that could extend equipment tax breaks for as long as 35 years.
Tesla had previously indicated it was evaluating a competing out-of-state location.
The effort fits broader statements by Musk that Tesla and SpaceX are each working toward 100 gigawatts of annual U.S. solar manufacturing capacity. If built as described, Project Crystal Sun would stand as one of the largest domestic attempts to create a fully integrated solar supply chain on American soil.
While Tesla has not issued a formal groundbreaking announcement, the visible site preparation and high-profile social media activity represent a concrete step forward for a project that has moved from confidential filings to active earthworks in a matter of months.
Elon Musk continues to shed more reasons that justify the cancelation of the Tesla Cybertruck, but some of the reasons for the sunset, as well as the process the company is choosing, do not make a lot of sense.
Musk announced last week on X that Tesla would wind down Cybertruck production in mid-2027, a decision that aims to prioritize Cybercab and its importance to the company’s future and passenger transportation as a whole.
But some of what Tesla and Musk are saying does not seem to make much sense. From the process the company is taking with orders to some of the reasoning for the cancelation, the whole situation seems strange.
With that being said: I totally see the merit in prioritizing Cybercab, but I also believe there is room for Cybertruck, a vehicle that has traditionally had low volumes, especially now at its current price point. If it were not for the cancelation, Cybertruck would sell very few units with the recent price adjustments.
Musk Talks Order Rate vs. Production Rate
The first thing that does not make a lot of sense here is the fact that this morning, Musk said that “The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as any as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.”
The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as many as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.
This is not a case of Cybertruck being unprofitable, as has been misreported by legacy media, but rather that the opportunity cost of the complexity of Cybertruck is vastly outweighed by the value of incremental Cybercab production.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2026
Then why is Tesla STILL accepting orders for the Cybertruck if it already cannot fulfill its order log by mid-2027?
There are so many people ordering Cybertruck that will not receive it. If Tesla already is having trouble seeing how it will build its current orders, why would it allow additional ones?
There are going to be a lot of people who are very upset next June or July, all because they placed an order for a truck that Tesla knew it would not have the time to build. At this point, it seems like a better idea from a customer service standpoint to simply stop accepting orders on a certain date, build those trucks, fulfill those orders, and then close production.
Continuing to accept orders at this point seems wildly strange. If anything, it feels like the $59k Cybertruck orderers will be the ones who get the short end of the stick here, but that’s speculation and just a hunch on my end.
If not Cybertruck, then what?
With only the Model 3 and Model Y available for consumers, meaning the general public, to buy, there is now no utility vehicle in the Tesla lineup, and that is definitely a disappointment.
Ford already washed its hands of the Lightning, which means the Rivian R1T will likely be the best-selling EV pickup on the market, dueling with the GMC Hummer Pickup, Chevy Silverado EV, and the GMC Sierra EV. There are several pickups that are set to hit the market soon, like the Slate EV Truck, and Ford’s new EV pickup, the Fathom.
Tesla could provide some some transparency on what it is planning to do with a future pickup or utility design. Musk said in the past that something much cooler than a minivan will be built. Cries for a full-size SUV have been heard by Tesla, but the company seems to adamant on prioritizing ridesharing vehicles instead of vehicles people want for work, climate, or hobbies.
Some clarity here, past the point of “Tesla is still going to build cars” would be nice. Even a simple, “Yes” response from all the people asking if Tesla will build something larger would be more than enough. We don’t need all the details now, but something would be nice.
Closing Thoughts
More than anything, it is important to note that I do believe Tesla is making a tough decision and one that, from a business standpoint, does make sense. However, I also believe that there is room for the Cybertruck in Tesla’s lineup.
One thing I think it’s worth mentioning is Tesla is not that much different from many companies. They do things that are better for the business that will surely upset consumers. The difference is very few companies have a following like Tesla, so when these things happen, they feel very personal.
Add in the fact that Cybertruck has truly become a symbol of Tesla, and people are even more upset about it.
It will all get figured out, but it’s still very confusing when we step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s Anthropic deal has a catch, and Elon Musk just addressed it
Elon Musk says SpaceX’s Anthropic compute deal cuts both ways after Chamath floats higher prices.
Elon Musk pushed back on Sunday against the idea that SpaceX’s compute contract with Anthropic is a one way bet, after venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya argued the company could use a termination clause to charge the AI lab far more.
“It works both ways, of course. If compute becomes plentiful and cheap, SpaceX revenue will drop. No crying in the casino for either party,” Musk wrote on X Sunday evening, replying to a clip of Palihapitiya’s comments shared by AI commentator Rohan Paul.
On the All-In podcast released Sunday, Palihapitiya said either side can walk away from the agreement on 90 days’ notice. If data center supply tightens, he argued, SpaceX could exercise that option and bring the contract back at two to three times the current price, and Anthropic would have little choice but to accept. He called it “the kingmaking move,” according to BigGo Finance.
The clause itself is not new. SpaceX disclosed in its IPO filings in May that Anthropic would pay $1.25 billion per month for dedicated capacity at its Colossus clusters through May 2029, nearly $45 billion in total, with both companies able to terminate on 90 days’ notice, as Teslarati reported at the time. SpaceX’s later compute deals with Google and Reflection AI carry similar exit terms.
What has changed is the political backdrop. Palihapitiya’s thesis rests on incoming Democratic governors pulling tax incentives for data centers and slowing new construction. In Texas, Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa campaigned on a moratorium on new data center approvals, and Deutsche Bank analysts warned last week that SpaceX’s Texas compute capacity could face delays. SpaceX and Tesla shares both fell after the midterm results.
A slowdown would favor companies that already own capacity. SpaceX acquired xAI in February and has been renting data centers to outside AI labs before the space is needed for Grok. At the Baron Investment Conference on Friday, Musk said SpaceX was “getting 50 billion a year for 35 billion dollar investments” and that it can bring a data center online in eight or nine months, compared to two and a half years for competitors. He also said SpaceX is tracking toward an annualized revenue rate above $100 billion in December, with a “best guess” of $500 billion by December 2027.
Musk’s reply points to the other side of the clause. Anthropic has signed large compute agreements with Amazon, Google and Microsoft, and if that capacity comes online faster than new construction slows, the AI lab would have its own leverage to renegotiate or leave. Musk has called Anthropic “obviously currently the leader in AI,” and it remains one of SpaceX’s largest compute customers.
SpaceX shares rose more than 2 percent in overnight trading late Sunday after closing Friday at $134.27, according to Stocktwits.
Tesla begins groundworks on $10B ‘Project Crystal Sun’ in Texas
Elon Musk keeps justifying Tesla Cybertruck’s cancelation, but it’s confusing
