News
SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory prepares for major upgrades
In what is probably a sign of things to come for SpaceX’s nascent Florida Starship factory, the company’s original Starbase facility in South Texas may be about to graduate from tents to more permanent buildings.
More than two years ago, in late 2019, SpaceX followed in the footsteps of Tesla and began constructing a surprisingly advanced factory out of a series of tents. Instead of Model 3s, though, SpaceX would be building and assembling sections of the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. Measuring approximately 120 meters (~390 ft) tall, 9 meters (~30 ft) wide, ~5000 tons (~11M lb) fully fueled, and capable of producing around 7500 tons (~16.5M lbf) of thrust at liftoff, Starship is a fully reusable rocket that aims to perfect what SpaceX has already achieved with partially reusable Falcon 9s and Heavies.
Nonetheless, Starship manufacturing represents a substantial departure from the methods SpaceX uses to build Falcon rockets.
Instead of heavily leaning on horizontal integration (meaning that the rockets are primarily assembled in a horizontal orientation), Starship and its Super Heavy booster are almost exclusively assembled vertically. Excluding the machining of major loadbearing structures, Starship manufacturing generally begins with giant rolls of thin (3-4mm or ~0.15 in) stainless steel. SpaceX uses a custom tool to unspool the sheet metal, cuts off a roughly 28-meter (~92 ft) long strip, and then welds the ends of that strip together to produce a cylindrical barrel. Repeat that process 57 times and you end up with enough rings to assemble a full Super Heavy booster and most of a Starship.
However, using increasingly custom tools, SpaceX first stacks and welds those individual rings together to form sections of two, three, four, or five. Each section is then prepared for its specific role with a range of cutouts, plumbing, reinforcements (vertical stringers or circumferential stiffeners), thrust structures (the plates that Raptor engines attach to), and other add-ons. Most importantly, certain stacks of rings are mated with large steel domes – welded together out of prefabricated steel plates – to form forward, common, and aft dome sections. For Starship, SpaceX also assembles the ship’s conical nose section in a similar manner.
Virtually all ring, dome, and nose assembly work is conducted in one of three massive tents – each about 114m x 35m (375′ x 110′) – that form the backbone of Starbase’s Starship factory. Finally, SpaceX has built a series of massive open-air bays where, once fully outfitted, each ship and booster section is stacked in a specific order and welded together to complete the basic structures of Starship and Super Heavy.
While SpaceX continues to speed towards the completion of Starbase’s largest and tallest Starship assembly bay yet, the latest news centers around Starbase’s tents. After physically relocating a smaller but still substantial tent believed to be used basic metalwork (laser/water cutting, presses, etc.), SpaceX has rapidly broken ground and partially completed the foundation of a massive, new building believed to be the start of an upgraded Starship factory.
-->According to RGV Aerial Photography, SpaceX isn’t merely expanding the main three-tent factory with a fourth larger, permanent building. Instead, it reportedly aims to replace all of Starbase’s tents with a single 300,000-square-foot (~28,000 square meter) building that will be about 18 meters (60 ft) tall and likely measure around 800 feet (250m) long and 400 feet (120m) wide. Starbase’s tents are roughly the same height but their tented roofs mean that only a fraction of that height can be used for ring work and only a fraction of the floor space for taller nose work.
In comparison, a 300,000 square-foot building would have almost two and half times as much covered floor space as Starbase’s three tents – all of which can theoretically be used for ring and nose section assembly. In fact, with a mostly flat 18-meter roof, SpaceX could feasibly expand most ‘stacks’ by a ring or two, which would reduce the number of sections (and thus stacking operations) needed to assemble a ship or booster.
All told, while tents (“sprung structures”) can clearly be indefinite solutions for things like automotive manufacturing, Starship production is one case in which a more permanent flat-ceiling building is undeniably superior. With more than two years of experience and data to draw from, SpaceX may finally be confident enough in its present-day Starship production methods to commit to the construction of Starbase’s next evolution. Stay tuned to see where it leads.
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
