Connect with us

News

SF Motors set sights on EV mass production with latest R&D testing facility

Published

on

Santa Clara based electric vehicle startup SF Motors is opening up a new full-scale R&D center in Silicon Valley. SF Motors was founded in January 2016 after a large investment from Sokon Motors, a large Chinese automotive company. The company’s new 130,000 sqft research and development facility will be located in Milpitas, CA, roughly 6 miles away from SF’s headquarters.

The new facility, which is expected to be completed in Q4 ’18, will be capable of “small batch” manufacturing and development of manufacturing processes. The company is focusing on battery, powertrain, and autonomous vehicle development at the facility.

“Adding to our existing R&D labs, this new facility will conduct extensive design validation testing and small-scale manufacturing necessary to ensure a smooth transition to mass production of our batteries and electric powertrains, which are key components of our vehicles,” said SF Motors CTO Yifan Tang.

Yifan Tang joined SF Motors in February 2017. He was previously the technical lead on Facebook’s high-altitude long-range aircraft aimed at beaming internet across the globe. Before Facebook, Tang was VP of Drivetrain Engineering at Lucid Motors for three years and Principal Motor Technologist at Tesla for five years. During his time at Tesla Tang designed the motors for the Roadster, Model S, Mercedes B-Class/Toyota Rav4, and the prototype Model X AWD. Tang has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from The Ohio State University and 35 U.S. patents.

In October 2017 SF Motors acquired Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard’s battery module startup evINIT for $33M. Eberhard is now Chief Strategy Officer at SF Motors and the former CEO of evINIT, Mike Miskovsky, is Chief Development Officer. Eberhard served as the CEO of Tesla in its early years until late 2007.

Advertisement
-->

Closing the loop from R&D to Manufacturing

SF Motors’ CTO Yifan Tang tells Teslarati that the new facility will help “close the loop from R&D to manufacturing,” and help accelerate the company to mass production. Tang describes the new facility as a key part of SF Motors strategy as they push forward to mass production.

According to SF Motors, the company is already prepping manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and China. SF Motors purchased a 675,000 sqft plant in Indiana from AM General in November 2017. The company also has a massive factory in Chongqing, China, with nearly 8.4M sqft of manufacturing space that’s capable of producing 200,000 vehicles per year.

SF Motors’ new R&D Facility in Milpitas, California (Photo: Loopnet/McCarthy Creekside
Industrial Center)

SF’s Tang emphasized that the company’s abilities to produce small-batch trial production at their R&D facility will differentiate itself from other automotive manufacturers. The company plans to also produce battery cells at the facility and will test different cell configurations, modules, and battery pack sizes.

SF plans to produce a wide range of vehicles, and the ability to tweak cell chemistry along with module configurations will allow them to produce battery packs that are optimized for cost efficiency and performance.

The new R&D facility will house roughly 100 employees, but its proximity to the company’s headquarters allows the company to shift employees back and forth. “Drawing on our global business model and decades of manufacturing experience, locating this facility near our Silicon Valley headquarters will strategically ensure quality and efficiency as we prepare to bring our intelligent EVs to market,” Tang said in a press release.

SF Motors plans to start trial production of their vehicles at the end of this year.

Advertisement
-->

Update at 10:35 am PT: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that SF Motors was a subsidiary of Sokon Motors. Sokon Motors was a large initial investor in SF Motors, but does not wholely own the company. 

Christian Prenzler is currently the VP of Business Development at Teslarati, leading strategic partnerships, content development, email newsletters, and subscription programs. Additionally, Christian thoroughly enjoys investigating pivotal moments in the emerging mobility sector and sharing these stories with Teslarati's readers. He has been closely following and writing on Tesla and disruptive technology for over seven years. You can contact Christian here: christian@teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.

We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.

However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.

The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.

Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.

Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed

From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.

This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.

Advertisement
-->

It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.

Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.

Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others

This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.

In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.

We had some readers also mention this to us:

Advertisement
-->

After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands

The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.

Published

on

Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years. 

While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.

Model 3 Standard lands in NL

The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.

Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers. 

Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.

Advertisement
-->

Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts

At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.

The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.

With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October

The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.

The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.

The Model Y is still unrivaled

The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.

The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.

Efficiency kings

The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.

The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.

Advertisement
-->

“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.

Continue Reading