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 patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
A new Tesla patent aims to fix a common automotive item for a more peaceful ride, revolutionizing its design to remove vibrations and noise during normal operation.
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
Over time, they loosen, rattle, and transmit road noise, suspension vibrations, and minor panel buzz directly into the passenger compartment. Tesla’s new design turns that ordinary item into a reusable, two-material vibration-damping system built for long-term silence.
A TESLA PATENT DETAILS THE TWO MATERIALS AND FOUR FORCES THAT MAKE A TRIM CLIP REUSABLE
Tesla published a single patent application on April 23 that describes how to make an interior trim clip reusable across multiple service cycles.
US 2026/0110320 A1 was filed in October 2024… https://t.co/02yOUKkar2 pic.twitter.com/pEJUCw46yc
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 3, 2026
The clip consists of four components drawn from just two material families. The pin and grommet are molded from rigid glass-fiber-reinforced nylon, giving them the strength needed to hold panels firmly in place.
Not a Tesla App reported on the patent.
A soft thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) is then overmolded onto the assembly in a distinctive mushroom shape that flares outward beyond the pin shaft. This soft layer does the heavy lifting for comfort: it spreads mechanical loads over a wider area and actively damps oscillations before they can reach the interior trim.
The result is a measurable reduction in noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)—the very factors that separate a merely quiet electric vehicle from one that feels genuinely serene.
Engineers used finite-element analysis to dial in four precise forces that make the system both secure and serviceable. It takes 31 newtons to insert the grommet into the body panel and 243 newtons to pull it back out, ensuring it stays anchored during normal driving. The pin, however, slides in with only 7 newtons and releases at 152 newtons, the patent says.
Because the grommet grips the sheet metal far more tightly than the pin grips the grommet, technicians can pop the trim panel off, service wiring or components behind it, and snap everything back together without disturbing the grommet or degrading the soft overmold.
The clip survives repeated service cycles with no measurable loss of damping performance.
For drivers, the payoff is a noticeably more peaceful ride. Road rumble, panel flutter, and high-frequency buzz that often sneak into luxury cabins are absorbed at the source rather than conducted through rigid plastic. Over the life of the vehicle, the reusable design also prevents the gradual loosening that causes rattles in conventional clips. Fewer replacements mean less cabin noise from degraded parts and lower long-term maintenance costs.
Tesla’s patent shows how even the smallest hardware decisions affect the overall driving experience. By giving a mundane trim clip two distinct personalities—rigid where strength is needed, soft where silence matters—the company is quietly engineering away one more source of distraction.
If the design reaches production, future Tesla owners could enjoy an even calmer, more refined interior without ever noticing the clever little clips holding it all together.
News
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
SpaceX and Google are in the process of ironing out the details of a potential partnership, a new report from the Wall Street Journal says. The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
In a move that blends cutting-edge AI demands with the final frontier of space exploration, Google is in exclusive talks with Elon Musk’s SpaceX for a rocket launch deal to deploy data centers in orbit. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting today, May 12, that the discussions mark Google’s aggressive expansion into space-based computing, addressing the exploding energy needs of artificial intelligence that terrestrial infrastructure can no longer sustain.
Exclusive: Google is in talks with SpaceX for a rocket launch deal as the search giant expands its own efforts to put orbital data centers in space https://t.co/QUCD3cPjxi
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 12, 2026
SpaceX, nor Google, have commented on the report.
The catalyst for a potential deal is clear: AI’s voracious appetite for electricity. Global data centers consumed about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024—roughly 1.5 percent of worldwide usage—according to the International Energy Agency. That figure is projected to more than double to around 945 TWh by 2030, with AI-focused servers growing at 30 percent annually, outpacing overall electricity demand growth by more than four times.
Some forecasts peg data center consumption exceeding 1,000 TWh by 2026, equivalent to Japan’s entire national electricity use. A single large AI training facility can draw as much power as 100,000 homes. On Earth, this translates to grid overloads, skyrocketing costs, land shortages, and massive water demands for cooling—constraints that threaten to throttle AI progress.
Orbital data centers promise a radical workaround. In space, satellites can harness constant, unobstructed sunlight for power—solar panels generate roughly five times more energy in orbit than on the ground, with no night cycle or atmospheric interference.
Excess heat radiates harmlessly into the vacuum of space, eliminating energy-intensive cooling systems and water usage. No terrestrial land or power grid is required, freeing operations from regulatory and environmental bottlenecks.
Musk has long championed the concept, framing it as inevitable. “Space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale,” he wrote on SpaceX’s site following the xAI merger. “Global electricity demand for AI simply cannot be met with terrestrial solutions… In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale.”
He has repeatedly highlighted solar advantages: “Space has the advantage that it’s always sunny,” and “any given solar panel is going to give you about five times more power in space than on the ground.”
Musk predicted in early 2026 that “in 36 months but probably closer to 30 months, the most economically compelling place to put AI will be space,” adding that within five years, annual space-launched AI compute could surpass Earth’s cumulative total. “SpaceX will be doing this,” he declared when discussing scaled-up Starlink satellites with high-speed laser links for orbital data transfer.
Meanwhile, Google has been quietly advancing a similar vision under Project Suncatcher, its internal “moonshot” initiative. CEO Sundar Pichai has described plans to launch two prototype satellites equipped with Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) by early 2027 for testing thermal management and reliability in orbit. In interviews, Pichai has called orbital computing a potential “normal way to build data centers” within a decade, enabled by launch cost reductions.
SpaceX is uniquely positioned to make this reality. The company recently filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites dedicated to orbital data centers at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 kilometers, projecting capacity for 100 gigawatts of AI compute.
These talks align with SpaceX’s broader ambitions, including a potential IPO where orbital infrastructure features prominently in investor pitches.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Challenges remain formidable, as is expected with a project with expectations so lofty. Radiation-hardened hardware, laser-based inter-satellite and Earth-downlink communications, launch economics, and orbital debris management are key hurdles.
Yet early movers like Starcloud (which trained the first large language model in orbit in late 2025) and Google’s prototypes signal accelerating momentum. Rivals, including Amazon and Blue Origin, are exploring similar paths, but SpaceX’s Starship and Starlink heritage give it a launch cadence edge.
This partnership could redefine AI infrastructure, turning the skies into the next data center frontier. As Earth’s power limits loom, Musk’s vision, combined with Google’s ambition, could position space not as sci-fi, but as the scalable solution for humanity’s computational future.
Investor's Corner
Legendary investor Ron Baron says Tesla and SpaceX stock buys will continue
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
Legendary investor Ron Baron says he will continue buying stock of both Tesla and SpaceX, as he continues his support behind CEO Elon Musk, who he says is a special person and “brilliant.”
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
With assets under management approaching $55–56 billion, Baron detailed his firm’s substantial holdings, outlined plans for the anticipated SpaceX IPO, and painted an exceptionally optimistic picture for both Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and SpaceX, framing them as generational opportunities that will reshape industries and deliver extraordinary long-term returns.
Baron Capital’s position in SpaceX has grown dramatically since the firm began investing around 2017. What started as roughly $1.7 billion has ballooned to more than $15 billion, making it the firm’s largest holding.
Tesla ranks second, valued at approximately $5 billion in the portfolio. Together with stakes in xAI and related Musk-led ventures, these investments account for roughly one-third of Baron Capital’s $60 billion in lifetime profits since 1992. Baron emphasized that the growth stems from Musk’s singular ability to execute ambitious visions—from reusable rockets to global satellite internet and beyond.
The centerpiece of the discussion was SpaceX’s expected initial public offering, targeted for mid-2026 following a confidential S-1 filing. Baron announced plans to purchase an additional $1 billion in shares at the IPO.
Ron Baron said today that he plans on buying an additional $1 billion of SpaceX stock during the upcoming IPO:
“At the IPO price, I’ve got an order for $1 billion. I want to buy more stock at the IPO. I don’t know if we’re going to get filled, but we’re going to try. I believe… pic.twitter.com/KOv1HvYcZ0
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 12, 2026
He described the company’s trajectory in sweeping terms: “This is going to become the largest company on the planet.”
He highlighted Starlink’s expansion of high-speed internet to every corner of the globe, the revolutionary economics of reusable rockets, and Starship’s potential to enable massive space-based data centers and interplanetary infrastructure.
Baron sees SpaceX not merely as a rocket company but as a platform poised for exponential scaling once it goes public, with post-IPO appreciation potentially reaching 10- to 20- or even 30-times current levels over the next decade or more.
On Tesla, Baron struck an equally enthusiastic note, declaring that “now is Tesla’s moment.” He projected the stock could reach $2,000 to $2,500 per share within 10 years—implying a market capitalization near $8.3 trillion and roughly 5–6 times upside from recent levels. While Tesla remains a major holding, Baron’s optimism centers on its evolution beyond electric vehicles into an AI, robotics, autonomous-driving, and energy platform.
He pointed to robotaxis, Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, Optimus humanoid robots, energy storage, and the vast real-world data advantage from Tesla’s global fleet as catalysts that will fundamentally alter the company’s revenue model and valuation multiples. Baron views these developments as transformative, shifting Tesla from a traditional automaker to a high-margin technology and infrastructure powerhouse.
Throughout the interview, Baron’s admiration for Musk was unmistakable. He has likened the entrepreneur to a modern Leonardo da Vinci for his artistic, multidisciplinary approach to solving humanity’s biggest challenges.
Baron’s personal commitment mirrors this confidence: he has repeatedly stated he does not expect to sell a single share of his own Tesla or SpaceX holdings in his lifetime, positioning himself as the “last one out” after his clients. This stance underscores a philosophy of patient, long-term ownership rather than short-term trading.
Baron’s comments arrive at a time of heightened anticipation around SpaceX’s public debut, which could rank among the largest IPOs in history and potentially value the company at $1.5–2 trillion or more at listing.
For investors, his message is clear: the Musk ecosystem—spanning electric vehicles, autonomy, robotics, satellite communications, and space exploration—represents one of the most compelling secular growth stories of the era. While short-term volatility in tech and EV stocks may persist, Baron sees these as buying opportunities for those who share his multi-decade horizon.
In summarizing his outlook, Baron reinforced that the combination of technological breakthroughs, massive addressable markets, and Musk’s leadership creates asymmetric upside that few other investments can match.
For Baron Capital’s clients and long-term Tesla and SpaceX shareholders alike, the investor’s latest CNBC remarks serve as both validation and a call to remain patient through the inevitable ups and downs. As Baron sees it, the best days for both companies—and the returns they can deliver—are still ahead.
Tesla patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
