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’s new vehicle registrations in Germany rose sharply in October, nearly quadrupling from the same month a year earlier. That’s according to data from the KBA, Germany’s federal motor transport authority.
The KBA reported 2,932 Tesla vehicles registered in October, a 290.9 percent year-over-year- increase. For the first ten months of the year, Tesla’s cumulative registrations reached 47,742 units. This number is up 206.1 percent compared with the January-October period of 2025. These gains occurred against a backdrop of strong overall growth in the BEV sector as a whole.
Germany registered 94,086 new BEVs in October, a 79.5 percent rise that brought the BEV share of the passenger car market to 37 percent of the 254,492 total cars registered that month.
🇩🇪 Tesla’s new registrations in Germany nearly quadrupled in October, according to KBA data.
October: 2,932 units, +290.9% YoY Jan–Oct: 47,742 units, +206.1%
Germany’s overall BEV market grew 79.5% to 94,086 units last month. https://t.co/GMwNqsFAOC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 4, 2026
Despite the percentage surge, Tesla’s absolute numbers left it with a 1.2 percent share of all new car registrations for October. Chinese competitors did record higher volumes, as BYD registered 5,173 vehicles, a 2 percent share, Leapmotor with 3,661 cars, which equates to 1.4 percent, and Xpeng had a 0.5 percent share.
Year-to-date through October, BYD edged ahead of Tesla with 47,961 registrations versus Tesla’s 47,742.
The October results follow a notably strong September for Tesla in Germany, when it registered 12,552 vehicles, an increase of roughly 269 percent year-over-year and one of its strongest monthly totals on record in the country. That month, the Model Y led all EVs and ranked among the top-selling vehicles of any powertrain.
The figures form part of a broader recovery in Tesla’s European registrations after an extended period of softer demand. While monthly volumes remain subject to typical quarter-end patterns and competitive pressure from both established European brands and rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturers, the year-to-date growth indicates improved traction in Europe’s largest car market.
Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg continues to supply the region, positioning the company to capture a share of the expanding German BEV market as overall EV adoptions looks to be accelerating.
In the early hours of Wednesday following the 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk took to X with a characteristically irreverent reaction to the results.
“Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO posted, generating hundreds of thousands of likes and widespread attention.
The quip landed after Democrats secured control of both the House and Senate in a sweeping victory. Musk, the largest individual donor of the cycle, had directed an estimated $440–474 million toward Republican candidates and aligned groups—more than any non-candidate in modern history.
Much of the spending targeted Texas, where Musk’s companies have significant operations. There, Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott, and James Talarico ousted Ken Paxton in the Senate race.
Musk’s “space lasers” joke playfully referenced conspiracy theories that have circulated since the 2024 election, falsely claiming he used Starlink satellites or other technology to influence vote totals. By leaning into the accusation with a shrug emoji, he turned potential criticism into self-deprecating humor:
St. Clair says Musk told her he knew the 2024 election’s outcome erlier in the day — claiming he had “lasers in space” and had unleashed an “anomaly in the matrix.”
(She says she didn’t press for details, worried she’d later be deposed about it.)
(2/7)
— Matt Rivera (@rivera) September 16, 2026
According to .@nytimes reporting by .@KirstenGrind and .@mega2e, after appearing on stage with Trump on Oct 5, Musk texted someone close to him:
“I’m feeling more optimistic after tonight. Tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix.”
Then, an hour later:
“This isn’t something on the chessboard, so they’ll be quite surprised. ‘Lasers’ from space.”Important to remember that Musk just admitted to winning the election for Trump, that the House would be blue, and the Senate would be 51–49 for the Democrats.
It’s also important to remember that just days before the election Musk activated 265 low Earth orbit (LEO) V2 Mini satellites, each equipped with Direct-to-Cell (DTC) technology capable of processing, routing, and manipulating real-time data, including voting data, through his satellite network.
Now Trump is forcing countries to sign Starlink contracts in exchange for tariff relief. Do Democrats understand where this is heading? Does anyone in Congress tune in to .@jimstewartson? This isn’t just policy—it’s Musk and Thiel’s global heist of democracy. And Dems are out here sending texts asking people to chip in for midterms?
What midterms? A vote-flipping algorithm just WON the 2024 election. We have the data.
We have constitutional avenues to remove this entire illegitimate administration. Stealing an election is an act of rebellion against the Constitution—and nearly every individual currently serving has previously sworn an oath to uphold and defend it. Do you see where I’m going here?
See Starlink op-ed, attached.
This is not HUMAN generated data..@AmyMcGrathKY .@YourAnonCentral .@ellenbarkin .@JasonBassler1 .@SenDuckworth
— This Will Hold (@This_Will_Hold) June 8, 2025
He followed up with another post observing that “Data centers in space looking pretty appealing right now,” a pointed nod to possible regulatory and infrastructure challenges for data-center projects in Texas under the new Democratic leadership.
Critics quickly highlighted the scale of the spending relative to the outcome. One reply noted that Musk had “dropped half a fucking BILLION on this shit and got dog walked,” underscoring the disconnect between financial outlay and electoral returns. Musk later shared a vintage-style “technical difficulties” image, extending the humorous tone.
The posts arrived as markets reacted: shares of Tesla and SpaceX-related entities dipped in premarket trading amid concerns over heightened scrutiny and shifting state-level politics. Democrats had previously signaled plans to examine Musk’s government ties, DOGE involvement, and business conflicts if they regained congressional majorities.
Musk’s response stands out for its light touch amid high-stakes political setbacks. Rather than offering a detailed defense of his spending or a sober analysis of voter sentiment, he chose sarcasm—consistent with his long-standing style of public communication.
Whether the comments signal a retreat from large-scale political donations ahead of 2028 or simply a momentary shrug remains unclear, but they captured the attention of millions in the immediate aftermath of election night.
SpaceX has selected Qualcomm Technologies to supply core infrastructure for Starlink Mobile’s planned nationwide terrestrial 5G network in the United States.
Announced on November 4, the multi-year agreement covers radios, baseband units, and commercial-grade Layer 1 software based on Qualcomm’s Dragonwing Cellular Infrastructure platforms, specifically the QRU100 and QDU100:
🚀 SpaceX has picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and Layer 1 software for Starlink Mobile’s nationwide terrestrial 5G network.
Deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starts in 2027. Qualcomm calls it its biggest 5G deal yet. https://t.co/YKLRakuJjB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 4, 2026
These will power Massive MIMO radio units featuring 64 transmit and 64 receive paths (64T64R), designed to boost coverage, capacity, and spectral efficiency at scale. Qualcomm has described the pact as its largest 5G deal to date, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites scheduled to begin in 2027.
The terrestrial build-out is meant to complement, not replace, Starlink’s satellite direct-to-cell capabilities. SpaceX has assembled substantial spectrum holdings for this purpose: roughly 65 MHz of mid-band frequencies acquired from EchoStar (including AWS-4 and related bands) and up to 14 MHz of low-band 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management.
The low-band airwaves improve indoor penetration and range, while mid-band supports higher capacity. SpaceX executives, including President Gwynne Shotwell, have outlined a hybrid architecture in which satellites eliminate outdoor dead zones and terrestrial nodes add capacity where demand is highest.
Earlier comments suggested small cells or femtocells potentially co-located with existing Starlink user terminals on roofs, though later filings also reference more conventional antennas on towers and structures.
The big picture is SpaceX’s bid to become a full-fledged U.S. mobile carrier rather than a satellite partner or dead-zone filler. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile together generate hundreds of billions in annual wireless revenue; Shotwell has said SpaceX expects to win customers by offering superior coverage, including during disasters, through seamless satellite-terrestrial handoff.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Starlink already represents a major share of SpaceX’s revenue and profit following the company’s 2026 IPO. By vertically integrating spectrum, satellite manufacturing, launch capacity, and now ground radio equipment, SpaceX aims to control more of the connectivity stack.
Qualcomm’s involvement also positions the network for future evolution toward AI-native 6G infrastructure, with energy-efficient processing that could improve deployment economics.
Challenges remain: spectrum depth still lags the Big Three, capital costs for tens of thousands of sites will be substantial, and regulatory approvals continue, but the Qualcomm deal marks a concrete step from spectrum accumulation toward operational network build-out.
In short, the partnership accelerates Starlink Mobile’s shift from orbital broadband specialist to hybrid mobile competitor, testing whether a space-based company can reshape terrestrial wireless economics and coverage in the world’s largest market.
Tesla registrations in Germany nearly quadruple in October
Elon Musk hilariously comments on Midterm election results
