News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon explosion investigation almost complete, says executive
Speaking at the 2019 AIAA Propulsion & Energy Forum, SpaceX Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability Hans Koenigsmann was significantly more confident that the company is just days or weeks away from wrapping up a serious Crew Dragon failure investigation.
On April 20th, flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule C201 experienced a catastrophic failure mode – largely a surprise to SpaceX – that completely destroyed the vehicle milliseconds prior to a planned static fire test. Given the obvious mortal danger such a failure would have posed to any crew aboard, SpaceX’s plans to conduct its first crewed Crew Dragon launch (Demo-2) in Q3 2019 were thrown out the window. Thankfully, Hans believes that SpaceX is just shy of concluding that investigation, “hopefully” permitting the launch of a critical abort test and Demo-2 before 2019 is out.
More specifically, Koenigsmann noted that SpaceX is currently planning to conduct a critical Crew Dragon in-flight abort (IFA) test in October or November, more or less in line with a recent report from NASASpaceflight.com that the test is targeted for November 11th, 2019. NASASpaceflight also confirmed that SpaceX still plans to fly Falcon 9 booster B1046.3 on the critical test flight, currently the only established plan to launch a thrice-flown booster, a potential first for SpaceX’s reusability program.
SpaceX’s IFA test is a continuation of the company’s suborbital Crew Dragon testing. Back in 2015, SpaceX successfully completed a pad abort test in which a low-fidelity Dragon mockup used its eight SuperDraco abort thrusters to replicate an escape from a rocket failure on the launch pad. SpaceX’s in-flight abort test will – like its namesake indicates – perform a similar test in flight, ensuring that Crew Dragon is able to safely escape from a failing Falcon 9 at Max Q, the point during launch where atmosphere-induced mechanical stress is at its peak.
In theory, demonstrating a successful pad and in-flight (Max Q) abort means that a given spacecraft is able to safely abort at all points during flight – from the pad all the way to orbit. It’s not clear if Crew Dragon is actually designed to be capable of what’s known as an “abort-to-orbit”, but the hardware is likely there if it’s needed.

On July 15th, Hans Koenigsmann and NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) manager Kathy Lueders went into significant detail with a preliminary Crew Dragon failure investigation update. They revealed that Crew Dragon’s April 20th explosion was traced to a likely mode, in which a “slug” of Dragon’s liquid oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide, NTO) leaked and was subsequently smashed into a titanium valve by helium pressurized to several thousand PSI.
Said impact – effectively turning NTO into a bullet – thus created a spark in one or two ways: the titanium debris could have easily created sparks on its own, while NTO is also known to interact in violent and exotic ways with titanium under impact conditions. Either way, the fix is relatively simple (replace the valves and avoid titanium in the NTO pressurization system), but the fact that the design flaw existed in the first place serves as a much larger concern for the entirety of Crew Dragon’s joint SpaceX-NASA design and certification.
Ultimately, Hans seemed much more confident on August 19th than he was a month prior, indicating that the investigation is just shy of wrapping up. Once complete, SpaceX can complete the necessary modifications and get back on the saddle for Crew Dragon’s inaugural crewed launch and next abort test.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
