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.
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) stands to reap one of the most extraordinary returns in pension fund history thanks to a bold 2019 investment in SpaceX.
According to a recent report from The Globe and Mail, the Toronto-based fund invested roughly $300 million CAD (~$220 million USD at the time) in Elon Musk’s space company as its inaugural deal through the Teachers’ Innovation Platform.
At SpaceX’s anticipated $1.75 trillion IPO valuation, set for a mid-June debut on Nasdaq under ticker $SPCX, that stake could now be worth up to $11.6 billion USD. This would represent a roughly 50x return and easily become OTPP’s most successful single investment ever.
The fund manages $279 billion in assets for approximately 346,000 working and retired teachers in Ontario, potentially delivering an average boost of around $33,500 per member if fully realized.
SpaceX has filed its S-1 and plans to price shares at $135 each, aiming to raise a record $75 billion in what would be the largest IPO in history, surpassing Saudi Aramco. The company reported $18.67 billion in revenue for 2025, driven primarily by Starlink satellite internet growth and NASA contracts, though it continues to post significant losses tied to ambitious R&D in Starship and AI initiatives.
Important pieces moving forward include:
- Starlink Expansion: The satellite broadband service is scaling rapidly, targeting global connectivity, especially in underserved rural and remote areas. This segment offers massive recurring revenue potential as numbers climb.
- Starship and Reusability Leadership: SpaceX’s fully reusable Starship aims to slash launch costs dramatically, enabling frequent missions, Mars ambitions, and lucrative government/defense contracts. Success here could unlock exponential growth.
- AI and Diversification: Recent moves, including ties to xAI, position SpaceX in high-growth AI infrastructure, broadening beyond traditional aerospace.
- Validation Scrutiny: While the $1.75 trillion target excites investors, analysts like Morningstar value the company closer to $780 billion, citing high multiples (around 90x trailing revenue) and execution risks. A 180-day lockup period will prevent early investors like OTPP from selling immediately post-IPO.
The irony has not been lost on observers. Ontario’s government previously canceled a Starlink rural internet contract amid political tensions involving Musk, yet the pension fund’s savvy investment, made when SpaceX was valued around $33-36 billion, and Starlink was nascent, delivers outsized gains independent of politics.
For OTPP, this windfall strengthens its already solid 111 percent funding ratio and underscores the value of patient, innovation-focused capital allocation.
For SpaceX, the IPO marks a new chapter: greater transparency, access to public markets for talent retention and growth capital, and heightened pressure to deliver on its multi-planetary vision.
All eyes are fixed on whether SpaceX can justify its lofty valuation through sustained execution. For Ontario teachers, the returns are already stellar, but SpaceX, like other Musk companies in the past, has plenty of things to prove. Perhaps the most ideal person for the job is at the helm, hoping to bring the company to a massive valuation.
In a notable shift for electric vehicle perceptions, Tesla has emerged as a standout performer in the latest iSeeCars longevity study, which analyzed over 174 million used vehicles.
The data reveals that Tesla models have a 4.6 percent chance of reaching 250,000 miles, matching the industry average of 4.8 percent and tying for sixth place among 32 brands. This positions Tesla ahead of many established names, including Subaru (2.3 percent, roughly half of Tesla’s rate), Nissan (2.4 percent), Mazda, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche.
Toyota leads with an impressive 17.8 percent likelihood, followed by Lexus (12.8 percent), Honda, and Acura. Yet Tesla’s result stands out for a relatively young EV brand. Experts attribute this to the inherent simplicity of electric powertrains: fewer moving parts mean no oil changes, timing belts, or complex engine components that typically fail in internal combustion vehicles.
Fewer things to maintain means fewer things to break, and ultimately, fewer things to go wrong.
A Tesla is twice as likely to reach 250,000 miles as a Subaru⁰⁰“No engine, no oil changes, no timing chains, no fuel injectors, and far fewer moving parts overall”⁰⁰https://t.co/k8iJwbzrrp
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 8, 2026
This design advantage helps Teslas defy unfounded skepticism about battery longevity and overall durability, two things that have plagued the company from outsider perspectives without much proof.
The iSeeCars reliability ratings further bolster Tesla’s case. The Tesla Model S earns a strong 7.9/10 reliability score, ranking No. 1 out of 35 most reliable electric cars. It boasts a predicted average lifespan of about 154,419 miles (around 16.9 years) and a 21.9 percent chance of hitting 200,000 miles.
Tesla, as an electric car brand, also scores 7.9/10 overall, securing the top spot among electric vehicle manufacturers in several luxury and segment categories.
Real-world examples reinforce the data. High-mileage Teslas, including Model S vehicles exceeding one million miles, demonstrate that EVs can endure when properly maintained. Owners report minimal mechanical issues beyond typical wear items like tires and brakes, which regenerative braking often extends.
Tesla Model 3 hits quarter million miles with original battery and motor
This performance challenges narratives around EV reliability, especially amid mixed reports from other sources like Consumer Reports or regional inspections. iSeeCars‘ massive dataset emphasizes long-term durability over short-term defect rates, painting Tesla as a leader in sustainable, high-mileage ownership.
For buyers prioritizing longevity and low maintenance, Tesla’s results signal strong value. While no brand is flawless, factors like driving habits, climate, and software updates matter—the numbers suggest Tesla belongs among the elite for those seeking vehicles built to last.
As EV adoption grows, this iSeeCars data underscores Tesla’s engineering edge in creating enduring, future-proof automobiles.
Tesla owners have long griped about the wireless phone charger in the Model Y and other vehicles. It often turns smartphones into miniature ovens rather than reliably topping them up.
Software engineer and Model Y owner Michał Gapiński tackled this issue head-on with a clever DIY upgrade, swapping the cooled wireless charger pad from the China-made Model YL in for the one that came standard in his vehicle.
There are several key differences between the U.S.-built Model Y’s wireless charging pad and the one that Tesla has been installing in the Model YL. The one installed in U.S.-built vehicles lacks active cooling and relies on basic heat dissipation, leading to rapid temperature buildup during charging. In contrast, the Model YL integrates a small fan for active cooling.
Will it fit? Fingers crossed, I want a first YL charger deployed in the regular juniper pic.twitter.com/wWDqSNFVkW
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This design maintains lower temperatures even in warm ambient conditions, though it does not support faster Qi2 charging on iPhones. The connector matches exactly, making physical swaps feasible on compatible consoles, but coding is required to enable full functionality.
Owners in the U.S. have complained about the wireless charging pad, with many reporting that overheating is fairly common. Within 20 or 30 minutes of placing a phone on the wireless charging pad, many have reported overheating messages on their phones, which halt charging and essentially turn the pad into a fancy place to rest your phone.
Many owners have opted to simply plug their phones into a charging cord. Tesla has acknowledged the problem by releasing several solutions for owners, including a relatively new feature that allows you to simply turn off the charging and simply act as a holder for your phone while driving.
Gapiński said that he sourced the cooled pad affordably from China, and it cost under $200 for the part.
He removed the existing console charger, swapped in the new unit, confirming a perfect connector fit, and handled the trim differences. Since the parameter isn’t fully secured, he enabled it through custom coding outside official Toolbox.
Connector is identical, she fits, now time to code it. https://t.co/Y9idgDrpCq pic.twitter.com/uwwgq6blg7
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
The fan activates quietly, blending with AC and seat cooling. He reported the installation was effective and the wireless charging pad worked perfectly; it even kept the phone cool as it stayed at just 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Many times, the wireless charging pad will bring the phone’s temperature well above 100 degrees, sometimes even being relatively hot to the touch.
The retrofit worked, no issues. First Model Y with a cooled wireless charger! No QI2/faster charging on the iPhone but it does not boil the phone even when it is 30 degrees outside.
The fan kicks in, it is not audible especially with the air conditioning and seat cooling. The… https://t.co/JOyR8Tb1Yo pic.twitter.com/kJcYhQIlYq
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This retrofit highlighted an elegant, owner-driven solution to a factory shortcoming. It is expected that Tesla will begin installing the cooled charging pads into new cars in the U.S. soon, and hopefully, it will offer some sort of retrofit service or kit to owners here who want to use the charging pad effectively.
For those who love to tinker, it’s an accessible upgrade, proving that innovation thrives beyond the production line.
SpaceX IPO set to provide massive $11.6B windfall for teacher pension plan
Tesla skeptics will hate what this new reliability study says
