Connect with us

News

Tesla Model S misses top safety rating by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Published

on

Tesla’s 2017 Model S has missed the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) top-safety pick+ rating, citing issues with the small overlap front test. Tesla had made changes to the vehicle in January to fix issues in this area, but the IIHS test results show otherwise.

“Tesla made changes to the safety belt in vehicles built after January with the intent of reducing the dummy’s forward movement,” IIHS said in a statement today. “However, when IIHS tested the modified Model S, the same problem occurred, and the rating didn’t change.”

The small overlap front test is meant to simulate crashes into trees, poles, and other vehicles. IIHS EVP & chief research officer David Zuby said that the small overlap front test still remains a “hurdle” for some vehicles, including vehicles with existing “stellar” ratings.

Tesla’s changes to the vehicle in January were largely focused on the seat belt, but inconsistent wheel movement in the test actually performed worse than the previous test vehicle. “Maximum intrusion increased from less than 2 inches to 11 inches in the lower part and to 5 inches at the instrument panel in the second test,” IIHS said in their statement.

Advertisement

Tesla responded to the report, saying that Model S received the highest rating in IIHS’s crash testing in every category except in the overlap front crash test, where it received the second highest rating available. “IIHS and dozens of other private industry groups around the world have methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes,” said a spokesperson from Tesla.

2017 Tesla Model S received an “acceptable” rating the IIHS on the small overlap front test (Photo: IIHS)

The test also damaged the front left portion on the battery pack, but the test vehicle didn’t contain battery cells in that area. The damage to the battery pack didn’t cause any changes to the rating.

“The greater deformation in the second test also resulted in damage to the left front corner of the battery case. The deformation was limited to an area that didn’t contain battery cells in the tested vehicle, so this damage didn’t affect the rating. Higher-performance variants of the Model S could have battery cells in this area, but, according to Tesla, they also have different structure. They haven’t been tested separately and aren’t covered by this rating.” reads the IIHS report.

Advertisement

IIHS tests also concluded that the Tesla Model S headlights earned a poor rating because they have yet to be rated for front crash prevention. The agency also noted that they were unable to test the vehicle’s automatic emergency braking system as Tesla only recently activated the feature via a software update.

Despite Model S’ top safety rating by the NHTSA, the person who oversaw the IIHS Model S crash test said, “If you’re looking for top-line safety, we believe there are other, better choices than the Model S.”

Vehicles winning the Top Safety Pick+ include the Lincoln Continental, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, and the Toyota Avalon. The Tesla Model S received the highest rating in every other category besides the small overlap front test. The Tesla Model X recently received a 5-star safety rating from the NHTSA.

Advertisement

Christian Prenzler is currently the VP of Business Development at Teslarati, leading strategic partnerships, content development, email newsletters, and subscription programs. Additionally, Christian thoroughly enjoys investigating pivotal moments in the emerging mobility sector and sharing these stories with Teslarati's readers. He has been closely following and writing on Tesla and disruptive technology for over seven years. You can contact Christian here: christian@teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla flexes how it will help the blind with Cybercab

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla brought its innovative Cybercab robotaxi to the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) Annual Convention in Austin, Texas, on July 3 at the JW Marriott Austin.

The hands-on demonstration highlighted the vehicle’s thoughtful design for blind and visually impaired users, underscoring Tesla’s commitment to inclusive autonomous mobility. Attendees, many using white canes or accompanied by service dogs, experienced the steering-wheel-free Cybercab firsthand.

Advertisement

The showcase emphasized practical features tailored to the needs of the blind community. Braille lettering appears on physical controls, including door releases and emergency buttons, allowing users to navigate interfaces independently through touch. Generous interior space accommodates service animals and assistive devices such as canes, guide dogs, or mobility aids without compromising comfort.

Wheelchair-height seating facilitates easier transfers for users with additional mobility challenges. Photos from the event captured blind attendees approaching the vehicle confidently, service dogs relaxing inside, and hands exploring Braille-equipped handles.

Tesla Robotaxi’s official account detailed these elements, noting the Cybercab’s focus on accessibility, especially noting the Braille lettering and additional space for service animals.

How Tesla Will Transform Mobility for the Blind

Autonomous vehicles like the Cybercab promise revolutionary independence for the roughly 2.2 million visually impaired Americans. Traditional barriers—reliance on sighted drivers, costly paratransit, or limited public transit—often restrict spontaneous travel. Tesla Full Self-Driving aims to eliminate the need for a human operator, enabling on-demand, door-to-door rides via simple app hailing with voice guidance.

Advertisement

Users gain freedom to work, socialize, shop, or attend events anytime without scheduling hassles or safety concerns. This reduces isolation, boosts employment opportunities, and enhances quality of life, turning mobility from a dependency into true personal autonomy.

The NFB demonstration not only gathered valuable feedback but also generated excitement about a future where technology levels the playing field. By prioritizing inclusive design, Tesla advances a vision of transportation that serves everyone, potentially reshaping daily life for blind individuals and setting a standard for the autonomous industry.

As Cybercab deployment scales, these accessibility innovations could mark a significant step toward equitable mobility.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla challenges startups to score a gig inside its most advanced European factory

Tesla is challenging startups to bring their best battery tech directly to Gigafactory Berlin.

Published

on

By

Tesla has issued an open challenge to startups across Europe, inviting them to bring their best battery technology directly to the floor of Gigafactory Berlin. The program, called the JUNI x Tesla Battery Cell Giga Challenge, opened applications this month with a deadline of July 24, 2026, and is targeting startups with solutions that can make battery cell manufacturing faster, cheaper, safer, and more scalable at an industrial level.

The timing of the challenge is directly tied to Tesla’s most aggressive European battery investment yet. On May 12, 2026, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig announced a $250 million investment to scale the factory’s annual 4680 cell production capacity from 8 GWh to 18 GWh, more than doubling the previous target set just months earlier in December 2025. Thierig confirmed the expansion on X, saying the investment “will enable 18 GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1,500 new jobs.” Combined with a previously announced battery investment at the Grunheide site now approaches $1.2 billion.


The challenge is looking specifically for startups with proven solutions across five categories: materials, equipment, operations, automation, and artificial intelligence. Applications are screened directly by Tesla’s cell manufacturing team in Grunheide, and the strongest submissions move through technical discussions, a pitch day in front of Tesla stakeholders, and potentially a paid pilot project with the cell team. Tesla is not looking for ideas at concept stage. The program requires applicants to demonstrate working prototypes, test data, or prior pilots before being considered.

Advertisement

The historical context matters here. Elon Musk first announced plans for what he called the world’s largest battery cell production facility alongside the Giga Berlin car factory back in 2020, targeting up to 250 GWh of annual capacity. Those plans were shelved in 2022 when Tesla shifted its battery investment focus to the United States to take advantage of Inflation Reduction Act incentives. The revival of cell production at Giga Berlin, now backed by over $1 billion in committed capital, represents a return to an ambition that was set aside for three years. As Teslarati has reported, the 4680 format is central to Tesla’s long-term cost reduction strategy across vehicles, energy storage, including the Tesla Semi and Cybercab.

By opening the challenge to outside startups, Tesla is acknowledging that reaching 18 GWh at Grunheide will require technology it does not currently have in-house, and it is willing to pay for the right solutions. For a startup in the battery supply chain, a paid pilot with Tesla’s European cell team is as close to a direct commercial path as the industry offers.

Continue Reading

News

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Published

on

A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.

Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.

Advertisement

Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.

In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.

The charging documents state:

“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”

Advertisement

Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”

The documents outlined this:

“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘

Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.

Advertisement

Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.

Continue Reading