News
SpaceX Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test gets its first firm launch date
The day after questions arose around the targeted launch date of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test (IFA), SpaceX and NASA have officially set the date for the spacecraft’s next major flight test.
On Friday, December 6th, a NASA Commercial Crew Program blog post confirmed a NET date of Saturday, January 4th, 2020 for the IFA test. The IFA test is one of the most notable final steps to be completed by the Crew Dragon capsule prior to supporting crewed astronaut flight to the International Space Station in 2020 as a part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Following an apparent incorrect statement made during SpaceX’s CRS-19 webcast that identified a February 2020 target date of the IFA test, SpaceX provided re-assurance that teams were very much still working toward a NET December launch date.
A January 4th date falls just short of SpaceX’s December goal but it still comes as little surprise. In addition to this week’s CRS-19 launch, SpaceX aims to support two more launches prior to year’s end – an internal mission to launch 60 more Starlink satellites and the launch of the JCSAT 18/Kacific 1 communications satellite for customers SKY Perfect JSAT Corp. of Japan and Kacific Broadband Satellites of Singapore. While completing four Falcon 9 launches and landings in a period of less than four weeks is certainly possible for SpaceX, it was rather ambitious, especially given that Crew Dragon’s abort test is almost certainly the company’s preeminent priority.
The targeted January launch date now encroaches into the first quarter of 2020, which SpaceX has adamantly stated is also the goal for Crew Dragon’s first NASA astronaut launch, known as Demo-2. With the IFA test now NET January 4th, it will be a major challenge for NASA and SpaceX to turn around and prepare Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 for Demo-2 just 4-12 weeks later. Of note, Boeing is preparing its own Starliner spacecraft for an uncrewed launch test NET December 20th and has also claimed that it wants to launch a crewed flight test (CFT, akin to SpaceX Demo-2) as early as February 2020, same as SpaceX.
It’s extremely unlikely that NASA will be able to preserve both of those schedules given the Commercial Crew Program’s fixed workforce and the vast quantity of paperwork it must complete before the agency can give the go-ahead for SpaceX and Boeing astronaut launches.
Unsurprisingly, the blog post confirmed that the IFA test would launch from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A). Pad 39A is the same facility that previously supported Crew Dragon’s March 2019 Demo-1 launch debut and is the only pad SpaceX intends to launch Crew Dragon from.
Interestingly, Pad 39A is also an active construction site – SpaceX is in the midst of building a new launch mount and modifying existing facilities to support future launches of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship vehicle. Construction has been underway for a few months and is situated directly beside Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy’s exiting launch mount.
-->Although that construction will not be allowed to interfere with Crew Dragon launch activity, including the IFA test, construction on the Starship mount will likely be impacted. Construction crews will undoubtedly be expected to evacuate the area surrounding the launchpad during any Falcon 9 static fire test or launch, likely translating to a few days to a few weeks of downtime depending on how SpaceX handles the scheduling.
As 2019 comes to a close, SpaceX remains determined to launch Crew Dragon’s IFA test as quickly as is safely possible. If all goes perfectly during the upcoming abort test, SpaceX says it is seriously targeting Crew Dragon’s biggest test yet – its inaugural astronaut launch – less than two months later in February 2020. It should go without saying that that schedule is incredibly ambitious and highly liable to slip in March or Q2, but if the ambition is there, SpaceX believes it is technically possible.
For now, we have less than a month to wait for Crew Dragon’s next launch milestone and perhaps just 2-3 weeks before the spacecraft and its Falcon 9 rocket roll out to Pad 39A to prepare for a routine static fire test.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
-->
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.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
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.
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:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
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.
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.
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.
-->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.
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.
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.
-->“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.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
