News
OPINION: Tesla’s ‘Safety Score’ Beta needs broader terms for factoring your score
Tesla’s “Safety Score” Beta is one of the most impressive ideas to improve driving safety, in my opinion. An article from Model 3 owner and Tesla enthusiast Nick Howard explained that Tesla is essentially gamifying the act of driving, encouraging owners to drive in a manner that would allow their scores to be higher. If you know anything about the Tesla community, you know that it is filled with die-hard fans who are satirically battling it out for the elusive 100 scores. While Tesla has outlined the ways that driving behaviors could affect the score for better or for worse, I believe that other instances may need to be outlined so owners are perfectly clear on how their score could be affected based on their hobbies or driving style. While I disagree with Consumer Reports’ assumption that the Safety Score is a bad idea (which, in reality, makes no real sense to me), I do believe that some owners are confused on what makes their score higher or lower, especially as many owners are attempting to enter the elusive Full Self-Driving Beta program.
If you’ve taken a peek at Tesla’s Support page that outlines the numerous factors that can affect a driver’s Safety Score, it seems pretty straightforward. There are cut and dry behaviors that tend to be recognized universally as “aggressive,” including tailgating, hard braking, and aggressive turning. Additionally, Forward Collision Warnings per 1,000 miles and forced Autopilot disengagements are also included in the behaviors that could affect your score, but these are exclusive to Tesla, of course, due to their use of Forward Collision Warnings and Autopilot disengagements.
Tesla introduces Safety Score (Beta) system that incentivizes safe driving
It’s very self-explanatory: Drive safely and receive a higher score. But are there not instances where things could get a tad confusing for some drivers, especially those with scores just below the perfect 100 threshold?
One example that I saw over the weekend was from Richard Marrero, a Tesla owner who was curious about taking his vehicle to the local racetrack. While Tesla owners are occasionally hitting the accelerator when a stoplight turns green, it may be understandable for Safety Scores to be affected. However, what if the nature of the driving occurs on a closed circuit? Marrero may drive like a saint on the road but might want to push his vehicle to the limit at a local dragstrip or raceway. After all, why have a high-performance car with face-melting acceleration if you can’t test it from time to time?
Does anyone know if taking my Tesla to a racetrack will hurt my safety score? @elonmusk @SawyerMerritt @DirtyTesla @tesla_raj @Teslarati
— Richard Marrero (@The_Richard_M) October 2, 2021
-
There are other examples that could affect a Safety Score that are technically out of the driver’s control. In some instances, it may be an action taken by the driver that is technically safer than other options, yet it could reduce the Safety Score. Tesla Joy, a Model 3 owner, encountered this predicament on October 1, according to a Tweet. Her Safety Score was reduced due to hard braking at a “quick changing yellow light.” I believe nearly everyone who has a driver’s license can attest that some stoplights are slightly more accelerated than others. Quick changing yellow lights are one of the most polarizing events in a daily drive. Some will tell you just to run through it, others will argue that the safer thing to do is just slow down and stop. Whichever way you choose to handle this scenario, you are likely to encounter someone who shares a point of view on how to handle the premature yellow light in a different manner.
Today I hard braked for 2 quick changing yellow lights & got dinged. I also sped up at another yellow light and didn’t get dinged but I felt more dangerous that way. Since Tesla car can see?, can hard braking at yellow light be exempt from penalty cuz it’s safer? ? @elonmusk
— Tesla Joy (@TeslaJoy) October 2, 2021
However, I don’t necessarily believe that there is a “wrong” way to handle it. While the right way to do it, according to my knowledge as a driver of over 11 years, would require you to slow down and come to a stop, especially since the yellow light is a key indicator of “slow down.” Tesla Joy did it as most Learner’s Permit booklets would describe, yet she was still docked points.
There are undoubtedly more examples of how Tesla could do a better job of explaining what actions are not favorable for the Safety Score system, and I would love to hear your thoughts or examples on things that have occurred that affected your score. Tesla did a wonderful job of outlining the most face-value actions that Safety Scores will be affected by, but there are other questions that need to be confronted so drivers are clear on what other things could hurt their scores. After all, the wider the FSD Beta testing group is, the more data Tesla will obtain through its Neural Network.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
-
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
-
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
