News
Tesla turns up vehicle safety with clever ‘crash can’ patent
Tesla’s electric cars are already among the safest vehicles on the road today with their impressive safety ratings. But even the best cars still have room for improvement, and one can count on Tesla to be the manufacturer that will do what it can to make its already-safe vehicles even safer. An example of this could be found in a recently published patent that describes a “crash can” that can help protect occupants better in the event of a collision.
The patent, titled “ADVANCED THIN-WALLED STRUCTURE FOR ENHANCED CRASH PERFORMANCE” describes a specific design for a “crash can,” a thin-walled metal structure that is built into the crash zones of a vehicle. These metal structures are built to absorb the energy of an impact, and are designed to deform in a stable manner during events such as a crash. Crash cans are typically a square, single-cell tube directly mounted to the front of the frame of the vehicle.
Tesla’s crash can patent takes the same concept but raises it up a couple of notches higher. Instead of using a simple square, single-cell tube, Tesla’s patent describes a “multi-cell structure that includes at least four hollow cuboids.” The four walls of the hollow cuboids meet at 90-degree angles and at least two of the cuboids share a wall. Tesla describes its design in the section below.
“In some embodiments a crash can for a vehicle includes a multi-cell structure that includes a hollow cuboid and four hollow isosceles trapezoidal prisms. The hollow cuboid has four walls and the four hollow isosceles trapezoidal prisms each have a long base, a short base, and two legs. The four hollow isosceles trapezoidal prisms are arranged around the hollow cuboid such that the long base of each hollow isosceles trapezoidal prism shares one of the walls of the hollow cuboid.”
-
- (Credit: US Patent Office)
-
- (Credit: US Patent Office)
Illustrations of Tesla’s “crash can” patent. (Credit: US Patent Office)
This updated design, while seemingly a minor change, actually improves the safety of a vehicle during a crash. According to Tesla, the crash can design in its recently-published patent provides a more stable deformation process. This increases the amount of energy that can be absorbed in a collision.
“One advantage of the various embodiments of the crash cans disclosed herein is that the multi-cell structure of the crash cans provides a more stable form of plastic deformation when the crash can is subject to the force of a collision relative to a single cell (tube) structure. Further, the various geometries described herein may further provide more stable plastic deformation relative to conventional geometries. As described herein, plastic deformation is the process of absorbing energy when the crash can is subject to a collision. Various exemplary crash cans provided herein increases plastic deformation, and thus the amount of energy absorbed, by increasing the probability that the crash cans buckle in a progressive manner. Thus, the multi-cell structure of the exemplary crash cans increases the probability that when subjected to axial force the crash cans will buckle in a stable top-down, progressive folding of the structure.
“Increasing plastic deformation in this manner grants the multi-cell crash can several advantages. For example, increasing plastic deformation in turn increases the amount of energy that will be absorbed during a collision, resulting in lower deceleration for the occupant(s) and critical components of a vehicle involved in a collision. This, in turn, results in an overall safer experience for the occupant(s) and critical components, providing for a lower chance of injury or damage. Additionally, increasing the probability that the multi-cell crash can buckles in a stable manner increases the predictability of how the crash can will react when subject to a collision, which in turn increases the predictability of how the rest of the vehicle will react. This allows for greater predictability of what an occupant will experience and allows for more precise planning on how to keep the occupant safe.”
The full text of Tesla’s novel “crash can” patent could be accessed here.
Among the carmakers in the auto segment today, Tesla is arguably the most obsessive when it comes to its vehicles’ safety. Each one of Tesla’s electric cars has performed well in crash tests, with the Model X SUV proving to be near-impossible to topple, and the Model 3 acing the safety tests of the NHTSA, Euro NCAP, ANCAP, and even the IIHS. With improvements such as those described in its recently-published “crash can” patent, Tesla’s electric cars today, as well as its upcoming vehicles, could prove even safer.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
