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.
In a striking revelation that underscores the lucrative crossover between Big Tech and space exploration, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, disclosed a massive $94.1 billion equity stake in SpaceX following the rocket company’s blockbuster initial public offering earlier this year.
The disclosure came in Alphabet’s quarterly filing, marking the first time the long-held private investment has been publicly valued at market prices. Google was an early backer, investing alongside Fidelity in 2015 with roughly $500-900 million at a time when SpaceX was valued around $12 billion.
That bet has delivered extraordinary returns, roughly a hundredfold, transforming a strategic play on satellite internet and launch capabilities into one of Alphabet’s largest assets.
Google, $GOOGL, has said they hold $94 billion in SpaceX, $SPCX, shares after IPO.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) July 23, 2026
Of the total holding, approximately $80 billion remains subject to short-term post-IPO lockup restrictions, preventing near-term sales. An additional $14.1 billion faces longer-term restrictions, extending into the third quarter of 2027. This structure limits immediate liquidity but protects against market volatility as SpaceX transitions into public trading.
The SpaceX position contributed significantly to gains in Alphabet’s broader investment portfolio, which also includes a major stake in AI leader Anthropic. Combined, these holdings helped drive nearly $100 billion in investment gains during the second quarter, providing a substantial boost to net income amid ongoing AI spending pressures.
Analysts view the disclosure as validation of Alphabet’s venture strategy beyond its core search and cloud businesses. The investment aligns with deeper ties, including reported multi-billion-dollar deals for AI computing capacity on SpaceX infrastructure. As SpaceX advances Starship flights, Starlink expansion, and ambitious Mars goals under Elon Musk, Google’s stake positions it to benefit from the commercialization of space.
For Alphabet, the windfall highlights how patient, forward-looking bets in transformative sectors can yield outsized rewards. While lockups temper short-term impact, the holding cements SpaceX as a cornerstone of Alphabet’s diversified portfolio in an era where aerospace, AI, and connectivity increasingly intersect. Investors will watch closely as restrictions lift and SpaceX’s public performance unfolds.
In early 2026, Tesla made a bold strategic pivot: it largely eliminated the option to purchase Full Self-Driving (FSD) software outright and shifted to a subscription-only model. The change, effective around mid-February, ended the one-time fee that had previously ranged as high as $15,000 and later dropped to $8,000. Instead, customers would access FSD (Supervised) for $99 per month in the U.S.
At the time, skeptics questioned whether locking customers into recurring payments would hurt adoption or alienate buyers who preferred ownership of the feature. Tesla bet that a lower barrier to entry, seamless integration at purchase, and the ability to cancel at any time would drive higher uptake.
The results from Q2 2026 speak for themselves: the decision has been a resounding success, delivering the largest quarterly growth in FSD subscriptions in the company’s history.
Tesla FSD subscriptions went up 56% in Q2 2026 to 1.48 million, an increase of 200,000 from Q1 2026.
Tesla added more FSD subscribers in Q2 than in any quarter in its history. pic.twitter.com/jTciTD2JqW
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) July 22, 2026
According to Tesla’s Q2 shareholder update, active FSD subscriptions reached 1.48 million globally by the end of June 2026. That represents a 56 percent increase year-over-year and a 15.6 percent jump from the prior quarter. Tesla added roughly 200,000 new subscriptions in the period alone—the biggest single-quarter gain on record.
North America led the charge, with more than 55 percent of new vehicle deliveries including an FSD subscription at the time of purchase, a record attach rate for the region.
Tesla explicitly noted that “more customers [are] opting for subscription at the time of vehicle purchase,” crediting the model shift and prominent placement of the option in the ordering process. Subscriptions now contribute meaningfully to ancillary revenue, helping offset pressure elsewhere in the business.
The financial upside is substantial: At $99 per month, 1.48 million active subscriptions generate approximately $146.5 million in monthly recurring revenue. Over a full year, that equates to roughly $1.76 billion in annualized recurring revenue (ARR) from FSD subscriptions alone, assuming steady retention and no major pricing changes.
These figures represent pure, high-margin software revenue. Unlike vehicle sales, which carry production costs, warranty obligations, and supply-chain risks, FSD subscriptions flow largely to the bottom line once the software is developed and deployed over-the-air.
Tesla does not break out exact FSD subscription revenue in its filings (it sits within “Services and Other”), but the category grew 50 percent year-over-year in Q2, with executives highlighting subscriptions as a key driver.
The subscription model offers several structural advantages. It lowers the upfront cost of a new Tesla, potentially broadening the buyer pool and supporting vehicle demand, especially important amid fluctuating EV market conditions. It creates a predictable revenue stream that compounds as the fleet grows and more owners try (and stick with) the software.
Legacy one-time purchasers still exist, but new growth is overwhelmingly subscription-based following the February cutoff.
Early data also suggests improving retention and satisfaction, as well. Tesla has rolled out iterative FSD updates, including v14 features, and expanded availability to additional markets. Recent regulatory approvals in parts of Europe have further boosted interest, with owners in newly enabled countries eager to activate the software they had been waiting for.
FSD is still supervised; regulatory hurdles for true unsupervised autonomy persist in many regions, including the United States, and competition in advanced driver-assistance systems is intensifying. Yet the Q2 numbers validate Tesla’s bet: by removing the large upfront commitment and making FSD accessible via subscription, the company has accelerated adoption faster than many anticipated.
What began as a controversial switch-up has become a clear win. With nearly 1.5 million subscribers, record attach rates, and nearly $1.8 billion in potential annual recurring revenue already in view, Tesla’s FSD business is transitioning from a promised future to a tangible, fast-growing profit engine.
If the momentum continues, and especially if unsupervised capabilities unlock robotaxi opportunities, the subscription flywheel could become one of the most valuable assets in Tesla’s portfolio.
Tesla Robotaxi is among its biggest projects currently, but many have been quick to point out the fact that the company has definitely been slow to expand its fleet.
However, there is definitely a method to that madness. CEO Elon Musk answered several concerns during last night’s quarterly earnings call that some might have about that slow rollout of the Robotaxi suite, maintaining the company’s narrative on prioritizing safety and wanting to avoid injuries to anyone, including animals.
Musk said:
“With Robotaxi, our goals are very ambitious for Robotaxi, but we do need to be cautious about causing any accidents or causing any harm to anyone. Although there are, I think, 30,000 to 40,000 automotive deaths per year in the U.S. alone, most of those do not generate any press or maybe, you never really read about almost any of those. If we injure even one person, it’ll be worldwide headline news, and regulators will immediately clamp down on our activities.
We don’t want to injure anyone. We’re going as fast as humanly possible in scaling Robotaxi, but while trying to ensure that we do not harm anyone at all, and ideally do not even run over a pet. That’s really the constraint is we want to grow as fast as possible with Robotaxi without harm to anyone.”
Tesla has maintained an exemplary safety record with its Robotaxi suite, according to internal data. VP of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said that the Robotaxi suite has driven more than 380,000 miles unsupervised without any incidents.
0 notable incidents across over 380,000 miles traveled by Robotaxi
— Tesla (@Tesla) July 22, 2026
Analyst Colin Langan of Bank of America also pushed Tesla executives for answers regarding the company’s decision to add cities across several states with dozens of vehicles “as opposed to hundreds.”
Elluswamy said there’s a bigger advantage to do it the way Tesla has been because it ensures that its software stack “is a very general one:”
“The reason we have been expanding across different cities instead of just doubling down on a single city, is that we want to make sure that our stack is a very general one. It is a general one. We just want to both prove to ourselves and to other folks that it is working across a lot of different cities without too much effort per city. That’s what we see internally.”
In the past, we have written about Tesla’s decision to be incredibly conservative with its Robotaxi rollout, especially with the incredibly small fleet size compared to competitors. However, there really is not a price anyone can put on safety for those utilizing the platform or pedestrians, so what Tesla is doing is justified.
A year into the Robotaxi program being active, Tesla has made major strides, but many investors and fans would like to see the fleet expand as quickly as the program has to other cities and states.
Google’s massive stake in SpaceX will shock you
Tesla’s switch-up on selling Full Self-Driving has paid off big time
