News
SpaceX rapidly shipping upgraded Raptor engines to Starbase
SpaceX appears to have opened the floodgates and begun shipping upgraded ‘Raptor V2’ engines to Starbase en masse in preparation for crucial Starship and Super Heavy testing.
The first functional Raptor engine delivery in around half a year and the first Raptor V2 delivery ever appeared to arrive at Starbase on March 30th. About a month and a half prior, SpaceX brought an early Raptor V2 prototype damaged during testing to serve as a backdrop for CEO Elon Musk’s February 10th Starship presentation, marking the first time the public was allowed to see or photograph the engine up close.
Less than three months later, Raptor V2 engines that passed proof testing without damaging or destroying themselves have begun to rapidly pile up inside one of Starbase’s three main production tents.
Though Raptor V2 has plenty in common with its Raptor V1 and V1.5 predecessors and, for the most part, looks very similar, Musk has repeatedly stated that the engine represents a major evolution from past Raptors. Most importantly, Raptor V2 was designed to significantly cut production cost and time. To achieve that, almost every major component was either fully redesigned, tweaked, or refined in some way to make Raptor simpler and more compact.
One example is the decision to slash the number of flanges (mechanical joints) in the engine’s plumbing by replacing them with welds. Making plumbing more monolithic could remove dozens of parts, seals, and potential leak points and significantly speed up manufacturing at the cost of making it harder – if not impossible – for SpaceX to inspect and replace certain pipes or pipe sections in a modular manner.
That process was repeated throughout each Raptor system, resulting in an engine that looks more streamlined than earlier variants. As a result of its more refined design and improvements to other critical components, Musk says that even though Raptor V2 now costs about half as much to build as V1.5, it’s also “much more…reliable.”
Despite significantly improving Raptor’s reliability, simplicity, and cost, SpaceX also managed to boost its maximum thrust by almost 25%. Raptor V2 engines now “routinely” operate at record-breaking main combustion chamber pressures of 300+ bar (~4400 psi) and are able to produce up to 230 tons (~510,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level. The older Raptor V1.5 engines that flew on Starships SN8-SN11 and SN15 and were installed on Super Heavy Booster 4 and Ship 20 were designed to produce around 185 tons (~410,000 lbf) at 250 bar (~3600 psi).
Following the premature retirement of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4), which was meant to help send Starship S20 to space on the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt, that orbital launch debut is now guaranteed to use a different booster and ship powered by Raptor V2 engines. Ship 24 is a strong candidate for the mission’s Starship, while it remains to be seen if SpaceX will fully repair and attempt to proceed with Booster 7 or if Booster 8 – which is almost complete – will take point.
Either way, the pair will need at least 39 qualified Raptor V2 engines to begin integrated testing, pass several major static fire milestones, and prepare for flight. Since SpaceX appeared to kick off Raptor V2 deliveries to Starbase on March 30th, a photo shared by Musk on April 26th revealed that the company has managed to deliver at least 18 of the upgraded engines in the last four weeks. At least one more engine was also delivered on April 28th.
That means that SpaceX already has enough engines to begin static fire tests with a full cluster of 13 central Raptors on Super Heavy B7 or B8. By the time Ship 24 is fully assembled, Booster 7 is repaired, or Booster 8 is completed, there’s a good chance that SpaceX will have all the engines it needs to fully outfit a Starship and Super Heavy pair – not quite by the end of April, as Musk predicted, but not far off.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
