Connect with us

News

Tesla turns up vehicle safety with clever ‘crash can’ patent

Tesla Model 3 undergoes crash testing. (Credit: ANCAP Safety Ratings)

Published

on

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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Energy

Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet

Tesla’s folding V4 Supercharger ships 33% more per truck, cuts deployment time and cost significantly.

Published

on

By

Tesla V4 Supercharger installation ramping in Europe

Tesla is rolling out a folding V4 Supercharger design, an engineering change that allows 33% more units to fit on a single delivery truck, cuts deployment time in half, and reduces overall installation cost by roughly 20%.

The folding mechanism addresses one of the least glamorous but most consequential bottlenecks in charging infrastructure: getting hardware from factory floor to job site efficiently. By collapsing the form factor for transit and unfolding into an operational configuration on arrival, the new design dramatically reduces the logistics overhead that has historically slowed Supercharger rollouts, particularly at large or remote sites where multiple units are needed simultaneously.

The timing aligns with a broader acceleration in Tesla’s network strategy. In March 2026, Tesla’s Gigafactory New York produced its final V3 Supercharger cabinet after more than seven years and 15,000 units, pivoting entirely to V4 cabinet production. The V4 cabinet itself is already a generational leap, delivering up to 500 kW per stall for passenger vehicles and up to 1.2 MW for the Tesla Semi, while supporting twice the stalls per cabinet at three times the power density of its predecessor. The folding transport innovation layers logistical efficiency on top of that technical foundation.

Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means

Advertisement

Tesla Charging’s Director Max de Zegher, commenting on the V4 cabinet when it launched, captured the operational philosophy behind these changes: “Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.” The design philosophy has always been about maximizing real-world throughput, not just peak specs, and the folding transport upgrade extends that thinking into the supply chain itself.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead

The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.

Published

on

By

The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.

On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.

Advertisement

The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.

The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

Published

on

elon musk
Ministério Das Comunicações, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.

The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.

The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.

Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package

Advertisement

The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”

The New York Post initially reported the story.

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

Advertisement

The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.

McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.

The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.

Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.

Advertisement

After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.

Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.

The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.

Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.

Advertisement

A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.

Continue Reading