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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
