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.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
