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.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
