News
SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy to return to launch pad next week
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX could return the first orbital-class Starship prototype and its Super Heavy booster to the launch site after rolling the rockets back to the factory for finishing steps.
In response to a video of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) returning to the build site, Musk rather specifically stated that both Booster for and Starship 20 (S20) will return to the orbital launch pad on Monday, August 16th. SpaceX returned Ship 20 to its ‘high bay’ vertical integration facility mere hours after the Starship was stacked atop a Super Heavy booster (B4) for the first time ever on August 6th. For unknown reasons, perhaps due to high winds, Booster 4 spent another five days at the pad before SpaceX finally lifted it off the orbital launch mount and rolled it back to the high bay, where it took Ship 20’s place on August 11th.
Almost immediately after S20’s August 6th return, its six Raptor engines were removed to make way for an engine-less proof test campaign that Musk has now implied could start as early as next Monday. Mirroring S20, SpaceX also begin uninstalling Super Heavy Booster 4’s 29 Raptor engines the same day it returned to the high bay.
Around 12 hours after the process began, SpaceX appeared to have removed 14 (just shy of half) of Super Heavy B4’s Raptor engines – a pace almost as spectacular as their 12-18 hour installation a bit less than two weeks prior. Aside from making engine removal dramatically easier, Musk says that SpaceX moved Ship 20 and Booster 4 back to the build site to expedite some minor final integration work – namely “small plumbing and wiring.”
However, aside from Raptor removal, the most obvious and significant work ongoing since the pair’s return to the high bay is the process of inspecting Starship S20’s heat shield and repairing or replacing broken, chipped, and loose tiles. Not long after Ship 20 arrived back at the build site, workers in boom lifts began a seemingly arduous process of inspecting the Starship’s nose heat shield and marking – with colored tape – hundreds of tiles with cracks, chips, or other less visible issues.
-->After several days of inspections and hundreds of tiles marked, SpaceX finally began the process of removing off-nominal tiles early on August 12th. According to NASASpaceflight.com, that removal process is not particularly easy and can require the use of power tools to effectively cut tiles off their embedded mounting frames. Given the amount of force required, some level of care is also almost certainly needed to avoid damaging any adjacent tiles, which could quickly cause a minor misstep to exponentially spread. Nevertheless, a small team of SpaceX technicians seemingly managed to remove no less than several dozen (and maybe 100+) broken tiles in a few hours.
Up next, those removed tiles will need to be replaced. Still, it remains to be seen if SpaceX will choose to fully complete Starship S20’s “98% done” heat shield before sending the ship back to the launch site for proof and static fire testing. To a degree, putting Starship through a gauntlet of ground tests with a full heat shield installed would be an excellent test of the resilience of its thermal protection system to major thermal stresses from frosty steel skin and expansion/contraction during fueling, as well as violent vibrations during static fires.
However, Starship S20’s heat shield is already so close to completion that it might be only marginally less valuable to save time by testing the vehicle as soon as possible.
To an extent, Booster 4 is a much simpler case as Super Heavy needs to major thermal protection. However, according to Musk, some or all of Super Heavy’s 29 Raptor engines will need their own miniature thermal protection system – perhaps a flexible blanket-like enclosure not unlike what SpaceX uses to partially protect Falcon booster engines during reentry. It remains to be seen if Booster 4 will return to the launch site without engines for cryogenic proof testing or if SpaceX will install heat shielded Raptors before starting the first flightworthy Super Heavy’s first test campaign.
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
