News
SpaceX begins huge dirt pile removal to pave way for BFR spaceship hop tests
After more than two years of silence, SpaceX has taken the first major tangible steps towards the construction of a dedicated South Texas rocket testing facility.
In anticipation of a full-scale BFR spaceship (BFS) hop test campaign that could begin as early as late 2019, local contractors and a smattering of SpaceX employees have begun to earnestly break down and repurpose a large quantity of dirt – known as a surcharge pile – to allow the construction of real facilities to begin.
Documented as of late by a handful of interested local observers and another subset of less local but equally interested followers, SpaceX’s prospective South Texas test and launch facilities have experienced a near-unprecedented burst of activity over the last two months, most notably including the arrival of a small fleet of heavy machinery and construction contractors at a site SpaceX has been working on for three years.
After ~36 months of dead silence, this activity correlates well with recent comments from SpaceX executives Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell indicating that the company is still targeting inaugural BFR spaceship hop tests sometime near the end of 2019.
Shotwell: think we’ll be “hopping” the second stage of BFR (the BFS) late next year. #DARPA60
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) September 6, 2018
The infrastructure needed for those early tests could be quite sparse depending on the status of the BFR hardware to be ‘hopped’ – Falcon 9’s Grasshopper and F9R test campaigns, for example, operated off of a tiny concrete pad with extremely minimalist ground support equipment (GSE). Photos from a number of videos SpaceX posted during those crafts’ 2012-2014 series of hop tests demonstrate this minimum well, although chances are good that the company will build up Boca Chica a bit beyond the test pad used for Falcon 9 booster recovery R&D.
- F9R seen just before liftoff for a 2014 hop test at SpaceX’s McGregor, TX test facilities. (SpaceX)
- Just the bare necessities. (SpaceX)
SpaceX’s Grasshopper and F9R hop tests took place exclusively at the company’s well-established McGregor, Texas testing facilities, offering a range of large hangars, three operational Merlin 1D and Vacuum test bays, and dedicated stands for integrated first and second stage static-fire tests, among countless other rocketry-related amenities. The secluded South Texas coastal region where SpaceX wants to test – if not launch – integrated BFRs has none of McGregor’s preexisting infrastructure, however – anything SpaceX needs will have to be built from scratch on-site.
There is activity. pic.twitter.com/A8JYw6vdW6
— Nehkara (@Nehkara) October 13, 2018
Thus far, almost no real structures have been constructed, aside from a small-ish sheet metal shed that was literally built around a huge crane that arrived on SpaceX property a few months prior. Over the last two or so years, all activity at the South Texas site clustered specifically around a plot where two large radio dishes – and eventually cryogenic storage tanks – were delivered, installed, and/or stored. However, the actual site of the pad SpaceX originally planned to launch Falcon 9 and Heavy from is a mile or two East of that highly visible development, the same location where a flurry of activity has begun in the last month.
- A map showing several locations SpaceX planned (as of 2014) to develop.
- SpaceX’s proposed launch site (right) and the currently location of radar dishes, a large crane, and several propellant tanks. (Google)
In 2015, SpaceX trucked in several hundred thousand tons of dirt to be packed on top of the site where the company eventually planned to build a large Falcon integration hangar and then left for several years to crush the softer marshlands beneath it into firm submission. That time appears to be up, as the work now ongoing at that site is focused on removing that surcharging dirt now that the soil beneath it is stable enough to host heavy, long-term structures like a rocket launch pad.
Most of that massive dirt pile will likely remain at SpaceX’s South Texas property, to be used as a basic construction material as the company begins to build some semblance of the facility described in its approved 2014 environmental impact assessment. As it takes shape, it will become clear just how closely SpaceX is sticking to those original plans. BFR hop tests could begin by late 2019 if prototype spaceship construction – already in work at a tent in Port of Los Angeles – proceeds smoothly.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
News
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
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.




