News
Tesla patents novel hood hinge that optimizes pedestrian safety during collisions
Tesla’s electric cars are known for being extremely quick, and they are also known for being extremely safe. The Model 3, the company’s most affordable car to date, for example, has aced safety ratings across the globe, earning a 5-Star rating from the NHTSA in the US, the Euro NCAP in Europe, and the ANCAP in Australia. Even the IIHS gave the Tesla Model 3 its highest rating, Top Safety Pick+.
But this is Tesla, and the electric car maker is known for being a company that refuses to stay still. Its cars are already quick enough to give passengers serious Gs while launching, yet the company remains hard at work on making them even quicker and more visceral in terms of speed (e.g. the Model S Plaid Powertrain). In the same light, while Teslas are already safe at their current state, it is no surprise that the company remains dedicated to finding ways to make its vehicles even safer, both for passengers in the cabin and for pedestrians on the road.
One such example of this was highlighted in a recently published patent that was simply titled “Hinge Assembly for a Vehicle Hood.” Based on the electric car maker’s discussion, the novel hinge assembly has the potential to protect pedestrians who happen to hit the vehicle’s hood during a collision. Similar systems are in place in vehicles today, though Tesla maintained that conventional designs have lots of areas for improvement.
“Modern vehicles are mandated by safety standards to protect pedestrians from head-impact injuries, including a scenario in which a pedestrian would contact the vehicle’s hood. To meet these requirements. Current state of the art safety systems are active systems that typically include a sensor system to detect a collision with pedestrian and fire (using a pyrotechnic) an actuator to lift the front hood into a protective position before pedestrian impact. However, such systems may be falsely triggered and can only be used once because the pyrotechnic is not reversible. The pyrotechnic is also expensive, adding to overall cost of the vehicle. Therefore, there is a need for a safety system that overcomes the aforementioned drawbacks.”
Tesla noted in its patent’s description that its hinge assembly includes a body member and a hood member, with the latter being “pivotally coupled with a body member through a pivot pin.” In the event of a collision, a portion of the vehicle’s hood member or body member “deforms such that the hood member or body member disengages from the pivot pin.” This allows Tesla to use the hinge as a passive pedestrian safety system that does not require any additional components such as sensors or controllers. The design outlined in Tesla’s patent is also more practical than the pyrotechnic system used in conventional pedestrian impact safety systems.
Tesla describes how its hood hinge works in a collision in the following section.
“FIG. 6 illustrates impact of a headform 602 on hinge assembly 116. Headform 602 represents the head (or portion thereof) of a pedestrian or other living being. As illustrated, when a collision occurs such that headform 602 hits a portion of hood member 108 of vehicle 100 along direction of an axis X-X′, a force is generated. When the force is great enough, the impact force causes hood member 108 to disengage from hinge assembly 116. The impact force typically causes deformation of portion 314 of hood member 108 adjacent to notch 312 such that pivot pin 202 disengages with second opening 304 of hood member 108. In embodiments, the width W of notch 312 is altered to change the impact force at which the hood member 108 disengages from hood member 108. In embodiments the impact force causes deformation of the pivot pin 202 to allow disengagement of hood member 108 from body member 110.
“In an event of collision, hood member 108 may disengage with hinge assembly 116 such that safety standards can be met. Hood member 108 may move down due to impact force and disengagement with hinge assembly 116. To allow movement of hood member 108, sufficient space may be provided by trimming away portions of hood member 108 and body member 110. Advantageously, this would lower weight of components while maintaining the safety standards for vehicle 100.”
Tesla is a carmaker that will likely never stay still. Despite its significant lead in the electric car segment thanks to its vehicles’ batteries and powertrain, Tesla is in a continuous process of improvement. The hood hinge outlined in this patent might be quite simple, but it contributes to the overall safety of Tesla’s lineup of vehicles nonetheless. Such initiatives, if any, further prove that when it comes to safety, no part is too small for innovation — and in the event of a collision, it’s these factors that can make all the difference.
Tesla’s patent for its hinge assembly could be accessed below.
Tesla Hood Patent by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
