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
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
