News
Tesla Model 3 named as vehicle with ‘lowest probability of injury’ by the NHTSA
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has dubbed the Long Range RWD Tesla Model 3 as the vehicle with the lowest probability of injury among all cars that the agency has tested so far. The Model 3’s low likelihood of injury rating was given after the vehicle went through the NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program, which involves a series of crash tests determining the likelihood of serious passenger injury for front, side, and rollover crashes.
The Model 3’s stellar rating from the NHTSA could be seen as yet another testament to the quality of Tesla’s all-electric cars. Immediately following the Model 3’s scores, after all, are the Model S and Model X, which are currently the vehicles considered by the NHTSA with the second and third lowest probabilities of injury. In a blog post announcing the electric sedan’s safety ratings, Tesla noted that it expects the Dual Motor AWD Model 3 to perform just as well in the NHTSA’s tests as its Long Range RWD sibling.
Part of the reason why the Model 3 is so safe is due to the vehicle’s all-electric design. Tesla opted to place the Model 3’s battery pack, the heaviest component of the vehicle, right at the car’s center of gravity. This gives the Model 3 performance and handling that is almost similar to that of mid-engine vehicles, while allowing the electric sedan to have a near 50/50 weight distribution. Other subtle design tweaks, such as the rear motor being placed slightly in front of the axle, further improve the Model 3’s weight distribution, as well as its overall agility and handling.
Model 3 provides superior safety with its front crumple zone which is optimized to absorb energy and crush upon impact https://t.co/RJEn0LlVNi pic.twitter.com/foF7CXPCc0
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 8, 2018
In true Tesla tradition, the Model 3’s all-electric architecture comprises of a sturdy, rigid passenger compartment, a fortified battery pack, and a low center of gravity. Just like its larger siblings, the Model S and X, the absence of an internal combustion engine in front and a fuel tank at the rear give the Model 3 extra large crumple zones, which are optimized to absorb energy and crush more efficiently in the event of an accident.
In the event of a frontal crash, the crumple zone at the front of the vehicle controls the deceleration of occupants, while the Model 3’s advanced restraint systems keep occupants safe in place. Passenger airbags are even specially designed to protect an occupant’s head in the event of an angled or offset crash, while active vents enable the vehicle to adjust the internal pressure of the frontal airbags when deploying. These systems optimize protection based on the specifics of an accident.
The Model 3’s energy-absorbing lateral and diagonal beam structures help occupants safe during pole impact crashes. These structures include a high-strength aluminum bumper beam, a sway bar placed close and forward in front of the car, cross members are the front of the steel subframe that are connected to the main crash fails, as well as diagonal beams in the subframe that distribute energy back to the crash rails when they are not directly impacted. An ultra-high-strength martensitic steel beam is further fitted on the front of the suspension to absorb crash energy from severe impacts.
Tesla also designed the Model 3 with a patented pillar structure and side sills to absorb as much energy as possible in a short distance. Coupled with the vehicle’s rigid body construction and fortified battery architecture, these design elements enable the Model 3 to reduce and prevent compartment intrusion in the event of an accident, while allowing its side airbags to have more space to inflate and cushion occupants.
Just like the Model S and Model X, the Model 3’s low center of gravity plays a key role in keeping the vehicle safe from rollover crashes. That said, even if a rollover does occur, Tesla notes that internal tests have shown that the Model 3 is capable of withstanding roof-crush loads equivalent to more than four times the electric sedan’s weight, far more than the NHTSA’s standards that require cars to withstand three times their own weight.
.@NHTSAgov will post final safety probability stats soon. Model 3 has a shot at being safest car ever tested.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 20, 2018
The Model 3 was recently given a flawless 5-Star Safety Rating in all categories and subcategories by the NHTSA. In a follow-up tweet to the NHTSA’s Model 3 results, Elon Musk noted on Twitter that the electric sedan has a shot at being the “safest car ever tested” by the agency. With the Model 3 being dubbed as the vehicle with the lowest probability of injury by the NHTSA, it appears that Musk’s statement has proven to be accurate.
Model 3 has the lowest intrusion from side pole impact of any vehicle tested by @NHTSAgov https://t.co/RJEn0LlVNi pic.twitter.com/ZvGCC82rEX
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 8, 2018
It’s not just the NHTSA that has given the Model 3 its approval, either. Earlier this year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit funded by auto insurers aimed at reducing accidents on the road, gave the Model 3 a “Superior” front crash avoidance rating. During the course of its testing, the Model 3 performed well in the crash avoidance and mitigation category, thanks to the vehicle’s Forward Collision Warning, its low-speed autobrake, and its high-speed autobrake systems. The Model 3 was also given a “Recommended” rating by Consumer Reports, after an over-the-air software update reduced the vehicle’s braking distance.
Tesla’s electric cars are known for their performance and their safety. The Model X, for one, also received 5-Star Safety Ratings in all categories and subcategories during the NHTSA’s tests. The Model S, on the other hand, performed so well during the NHTSA’s safety evaluation that the agency’s crash-testing gear broke while it was testing the electric sedan.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
