

News
Tesla Model 3 gets penalized in Europe despite top scores in vehicle assistance and safety
In collaboration with Thatcham Research, the Euro NCAP has launched the world’s first Assisted Driving Grading system, a new set of metrics that are specifically designed to evaluate the driver-assist systems of cars available on the market today. For its first batch of vehicles, the firms evaluated 10 cars, from premium SUVs like the Mercedes-Benz GLE to affordable hatchbacks like the Renault Clio to all-electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3.
As noted by Thatcham Research Director of Insurance Research Matthew Avery in a video outlining the results of the Assisted Driving Grading system’s first tests, vehicles would be graded on three metrics: the level of vehicle assistance that they provide, the level of driver engagement that they offer, and the effectiveness of their safety backup systems. The results of these tests, especially on the Tesla Model 3’s part, were rather peculiar, to say the least.
Out of 10 vehicles that were evaluated, the Tesla Model 3 ranked 6th with a “Moderate” grade, falling behind the Mercedes-Benz GLE, BMW 3-Series, and Audi Q8, which were graded as “Very Good,” and the Ford Kuga, which received a “Good” rating. This was despite the Tesla Model 3 receiving the top scores in the “Vehicle Assistance” and “Safety Backup” metrics.

The study, for example, dubbed the Model 3 as outstanding in terms of steering assistance, with the vehicle steering itself exceptionally well through an S-shaped curve at speeds of 80, 100, and 120 km/h. Tesla’s lane change systems were also satisfactory, despite the system’s limitations in Europe. Distance control was dominated by the Model 3 as well, with the evaluators stating that Tesla’s adaptive cruise control featured a “high level of technical maturity.” From a score of 100, Tesla’s vehicle assistance received a score of 87, the highest among the cars tested.
The Model 3’s safety backup systems were also a league above its competition. As noted in a post from the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e.V. (ADAC), Tesla demonstrated its strengths with the Model 3’s collision avoidance systems. The all-electric sedan earned a perfect score in the firms’ tests, outperforming its premium German competition. Overall, the Model 3 received an impressive score of 95 in the Assisted Driving Grading system’s “Safety Backup” metric.
Considering these scores, one might wonder why the Model 3 ended up ranked 6th among the 10 vehicles tested by the Euro NCAP and Thatcham Research. As it turned out, this was because of the Model 3’s poor scores in the “Driver Engagement” metric, where the vehicle only earned a score of 35 out of 100. So poor was the Model 3’s scores in this metric that it was ranked last among the 10 vehicles that were evaluated.

A look at the reasons behind the Model 3’s poor scores in “Driver Engagement” includes a number of interesting insights from Thatcham Research and the Euro NCAP. When testing the vehicles’ steering override functions, for example, the evaluators stated that the Model 3 resisted steering overrides from its driver. These issues were explained in the ADAC’s post.
“Should the driver make a steering movement in order to avoid an object or a pothole in the roadway, the steering assistant should allow this without resistance. In the Tesla Model 3, for example, this is not the case. Apparently, Tesla trusts the system more than its driver. The necessary cooperative assistance is not given. Instead, the Tesla system prevents its driver from attempting to intervene – it mustn’t be,” the ADAC remarked in its post.
Even more interesting is that part of the Model 3’s poor “Driver Engagement” scores was due to the term “Autopilot,” which Tesla uses to describe its driver-assist suite. The evaluators argued that the term “Autopilot” was misleading and irresponsible on Tesla’s part, and this was heavily taken against the Model 3’s rankings in the Assisted Driving Grading system.

“When it comes to the first test criterion – consumer information – the Tesla Model 3 in particular fails. The assistance systems are referred to as “Autopilot” in the operating instructions for the Model 3 as well as in the sales brochures and in marketing. However, the term suggests capabilities that the system does not have in sufficient measure. It tempts the driver to rely on the capabilities of the system – which is currently not allowed by the legislature anyway. Due to its good quick-start operating aid, the Tesla Model 3 still receives 10 points,” the evaluators noted.
Ultimately, these complaints about Autopilot’s branding ended up pulling down the Model 3’s scores to the point where the all-electric sedan was ranked below the Ford Kuga. Thatcham Research Director of Insurance Research Matthew Avery explained this in a video released about the evaluation. “The Tesla Model 3 was the best for safety backup and vehicle assistance but lost ground for misleading consumers about the capability of its Autopilot system and actively discouraging drivers from engaging when behind the wheel,” Avery said.
As noted by Avery, it is pertinent for vehicles to exhibit a balance to score very well in the Assisted Driving Grading system. This was not achieved by the Model 3 despite its industry-leading backup safety systems and actual vehicle assistance tech. ADAC explained it best when outlining why the Tesla Model 3 lost to four other vehicles despite being equipped with what is noticeably the most advanced driver-assist system.
“When analyzing the test results, it is noticeable that the Tesla Model 3 has the most advanced assistance systems. With 95 points for emergency assistance (Safety Backup) and 91 points for technical assistance, it doesn’t beat the Mercedes GLE by far, but at least 11 points… Because Euro NCAP removes the many points in the area of driver support from the Tesla, because on the one hand it does not sufficiently comply with the driver’s request for a steering correction. On the other hand, because Tesla is irresponsible about the term autopilot – an even more serious reason. With only 36 points from the test area driver integration, the Tesla falls back to sixth place in the final bill,” the ADAC noted.
Thatcham Research’s overall findings could be viewed in the video below.
Elon Musk
Tesla lands on date for Robotaxi launch in Austin: report
Tesla has reportedly landed on a tentative date to launch the Robotaxi platform in Austin.

Tesla has reportedly landed on a set date for its launch of the Robotaxi platform in Austin, Texas.
Bloomberg is reporting that Tesla has discussed June 12 internally, and there is still the potential for it to change.
The date comes after Tesla tested the driverless ride-sharing platform on public roads in Austin, and has been for several weeks. The report said that Tesla started doing it this week, and CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X by saying:
“For the past several days, Tesla has been testing self-driving Model Y cars (no one in driver’s seat) on Austin public streets with no incidents.”
The report indicates a person was in the vehicle, but not in the driver’s seat. Instead, a Tesla engineer sat in the passenger seat of a Model Y, “which drove autonomously with no remote operation.”
Tesla set for ‘golden age of autonomous’ as Robotaxi nears, ‘dark chapter’ ends: Wedbush
The testing has successfully gone on a month ahead of the company’s deadline of June 30.
Currently, Tesla’s plans for the initial rollout of the suite are extremely limited. There will only be ten vehicles at first, and the riders will be invited by the company. This is an effort that puts safety at the forefront of this trial period, and will expand as time goes on.
It could be sooner than expected, as Musk also said that anyone would likely be able to visit Austin and take a ride in the Robotaxi by the end of June.
For the past several days, Tesla has been testing self-driving Model Y cars (no one in driver’s seat) on Austin public streets with no incidents.
A month ahead of schedule.
Next month, first self-delivery from factory to customer.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2025
The report and subsequent announcement come after many media outlets reported Tesla was not testing Robotaxi in any capacity. Some had even considered the project a total failure even before the June launch date, a typical tone most media take with the company.
Tesla Robotaxi deemed a total failure by media — even though it hasn’t been released
Tesla has not been great at meeting its own timelines, but it has been adamant that it would reach this June deadline for several months.
Now that it appears Tesla is at an all-systems-go mentality for the Robotaxi launch, it will be interesting to see how quickly it can expand from its initial testing.
Shares are up just over 1.3 percent as of 10:30 a.m. on the East Coast. They are up 24 percent over the past 30 days, and down just 4.5 percent for the year so far.
The Robotaxi fleet will help to bolster Tesla’s position as a leader in autonomy, something it has already essentially achieved through its successful operation of the Supervised Full Self-Driving suite.
Elon Musk
Tesla investors demand 40-hour workweek from Elon Musk
Pension fund leaders push the Tesla board to require 40 hrs/wk from Elon Musk. Should Tesla enforce this? Or simply trust Musk?

Pension fund leaders with Tesla investments are urging the company’s board to mandate Elon Musk dedicate at least 40 hours per week to the electric vehicle maker, citing a looming crisis.
The group holds a combined 7.9 million TSLA shares and expressed alarm over Tesla’s challenges in a Wednesday letter to board chair Robyn Denholm.
“Tesla’s stock price volatility, declining sales, as well as disconcerting reports regarding the company’s human rights practices, and a plummeting global reputation are cause for serious concern,” the investors wrote.
They attributed many issues to Musk’s external activities, including his role in the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The pension fund leaders criticized the board for failing to ensure Musk’s “full-time attention” on Tesla. The group includes the SOC Investment Group, the American Federation of Teachers, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, and Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner.
The investors’ letter comes as the Tesla board plans for Elon Musk’s next compensation plan, following the Delaware Court of Chancery’s 2023 ruling to rescind his $56 billion 2018 package. Besides a 40-hour workweek requirement, they also called for a clear succession plan and limits on directors’ external board commitments to strengthen governance. The letter highlighted concerns about board independence. Tesla recently added former Chipotle CFO Jack Hartung, who previously worked with Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, as a Tesla board member.
The group’s letter reveals where the position of some investors as Elon Musk forges ahead with Tesla’s future plans. Musk’s broader ambitions for Tesla were evident during the Q4 and FY 2023 earnings call, where he envisioned the company as an AI and robotics powerhouse with “truly immense capability and power.” He emphasized his desire for 25% voting control to maintain influence without complete control.
“You know, we’ve had a lot of challenges with Institutional Shareholder Services, ISS — I call them ISIS — and Glass Lewis, you know, which there’s a lot of activists that basically infiltrate those organizations and have strange ideas about what should be done,” Musk said.
As Musk plans to focus more on Tesla, alongside xAI and SpaceX, the investors’ demands underscore tensions between his expansive vision and shareholder expectations. With Tesla navigating stock volatility and reputational challenges, the board faces pressure to align Musk’s leadership with the company’s long-term stability.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst’s firm has sold its entire TSLA position: Here’s why
Tesla analyst Gary Black revealed his firm, The Future Fund, has sold their entire $TSLA holding.

Tesla analyst Gary Black of The Future Fund revealed today that his firm has sold its entire $TSLA holding, marking the first time since 2021 that it has not had a position in the company’s stock.
Black has been a skeptic of the company and relatively pessimistic regarding some things many investors would consider catalysts, outlining his concerns and reasoning for selling the shares.
Much of Black’s reasoning concerns Tesla’s price-to-earnings ratio, delivery results and potential delivery figures for the future, and other near-term projects that he does not believe will yield as much value as others perceive.
We will break down each concern of Black’s below:
‘Disconnected from Underlying Fundamentals’
Black says that The Future Fund sold its holdings at $358 per share. The firm’s current price target is at $310, and he says it will remain there based on “our forecast of 2030 Tesla volumes of 5.4m and 2030 Adj EPS of $12.
Main Concern is P/E Ratio
The main concern Black and The Future Fund have is that TSLA “now sells at a 2025 P/E of 188x as earnings estimates continue to fall (-5% in the past week, -40% YTD) driven by weak YTD deliveries, including weak April results.”
Black says he believes quarterly deliveries will decline by 12 percent, and full-year by 10 percent.
This compares to Wall Street’s estimates of a 7 percent decrease for Q2 and a 5 percent year-over-year.
Robotaxi Skepticism
“We believe the risk/reward associated with the Austin robotaxi test remain asymmetrical to the downside,” Black writes in his post on X.
Tesla Robotaxi deemed a total failure by media — even though it hasn’t been released
Many believe the Robotaxi platform could be Tesla’s biggest catalyst moving forward, especially as other automakers do not seem to have even close to as robust a solution to self-driving as Tesla.
Tesla’s Affordable Models
Black says there are concerns the affordable model will be “a stripped-down Model Y priced lower and funded by lower costs rather than a new form factory that expands TAM.”
This is confusing, especially considering the cheaper price tag would expand the total addressable market (TAM) to begin with. The Model Y has been the best-selling vehicle in the world for the past two years.
Tesla still on track to release more affordable models in 1H25
Introducing an even lower-cost model with some missing features would still likely be a significantly more attractive option than a base model ICE vehicle, especially because the value Full Self-Driving provides would make the car more beneficial.
“This increases odds that FY’25 estimates decline further, risking a repeat of 2023-2024, when TSLA reduced EV prices supported by lower costs, and TSLA saw little or no incremental volume growth,” he finishes with.
-
News1 week ago
Tesla posts Optimus’ most impressive video demonstration yet
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla seems to have fixed one of Full Self-Driving’s most annoying features
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla VP shares key insights on latest Optimus dance demos
-
News2 weeks ago
Mysterious covered Tesla vehicles spotted testing in Giga Texas
-
Tesla2 weeks ago
Tesla resumes shipping Cybercab, Semi parts from China after U.S. tariff truce
-
Cybertruck2 weeks ago
Tesla Cybertruck police vehicles escort Trump motorcade in Qatar
-
News2 weeks ago
Elon Musk teases underrated Cybercab and Optimus business
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla’s Elon Musk clarifies shocking Optimus fact