News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posts uncut Raptor, drone videos of Starhopper’s flight test debut
Some two hours after Starhopper’s inaugural untethered flight, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to post an uncut video showing the ungainly rocket’s launch and landing from the perspective of both a drone and Starhopper’s lone Raptor engine.
As noted by commenters, Starhopper’s first flight also marks perhaps an even more fascinating milestone: it’s technically the first launch ever of a full-flow staged-combustion (FFSC) rocket engine. Whether or not the development hell Raptor required is or was worth it to SpaceX, the company has become the first and only entity on Earth to develop and fly a FFSC engine, beating out the national space agencies of both the United States and Soviet Union, both of which built – but never flew – prototypes.
Instead of inexplicably shelving a mature prototype development and test program, SpaceX iterated through several subscale Raptor prototypes, test-fired the engines for more than 1200 seconds total, used that data to design and build full-scale Raptors, and finally sped into a hardware-rich test campaign with six (soon to be seven) new engines. After SpaceX settled on a full-flow staged-combustion cycle and methane/oxygen (methalox) propellant, Raptor conducted its first full-scale tests all the way back in 2014, performing preburner flow and ignition tests at NASA’s Stennis Space Center.
Two years and many additional subcomponent tests later, SpaceX successfully performed the inaugural static fire test of its first completed subscale Raptor, a huge milestone for any rocket engine. In the 12 months following its first static fire (September 2016), SpaceX performed dozens of static fire tests with several subscale engines, putting the new propulsion system through >1200 seconds of combined testing.
A year after that, SpaceX was still testing subscale engines but the first full-scale Raptor engine was just a few months away from completing assembly in Hawthorne and heading to McGregor to kick off full-scale static fire testing. Indeed, four months after CEO Elon Musk’s September 2018 update, Raptor serial number 01 (SN01) shipped to Texas in late January and successfully ignited for the first time on February 3rd. SpaceX’s finalized full-scale Raptor engine is designed to produce more than 2000 kN (450,000 lbf, 200 tons) of thrust at full-throttle.
Since that inaugural ignition, SpaceX’s propulsion team – perhaps to their detriment, under orders from Musk – pushed SN01 and several of its successors to their limits as quickly as possible, resulting in severe, irreparable damage in several cases. On the other hand, the no-holds-barred, ‘hardware-rich’ (i.e. destructive) test program has allowed SpaceX to relatively quickly solve several major bugs that prevented the engine from passing longer test fires.
Raptor SN05 was originally expected to support Starhopper’s first flight(s) but had to be passed up after suffering damage in one of its final June 2019 acceptance tests. Raptor SN06 became the first engine – likely thanks to tweaks afforded by data gathered from its failed brethren – to pass all of those acceptance tests, leading to its eventual installation on Starhopper in early July.
Raptor’s impressive development culminated on July 25th with the engine’s first untethered flight while attached to Starhopper, a 9m-diameter (30 ft) low-fidelity prototype that is more or less a mobile test stand for the next-generation SpaceX engine. Raptor is now the only FFSC engine in history that has powered a flight-capable vehicle’s launch and landing, even if said flight featured an apogee of just 20-30 meters (65-100 ft).
-->“In full-flow staged combustion (FFSC), even more complexity is added as all propellant that touches the engine must necessarily end up traveling through the main combustion chamber to eke every last ounce of thrust out of the finite propellant a rocket lifts off with. As such, FFSC engines can be about as efficient as the laws of physics allow any given chemical rocket engine to be, at the cost of exceptional complexity and brutally difficult development.“
SpaceX delays Starhopper’s first flight a few days despite Raptor preburner test success
For more on what exactly makes full-flow staged-combustion engines uniquely capable and challenging to develop, the subject has been covered at length in past Teslarati articles.
According to Musk, the next major challenge facing Starhopper and (presumably) Raptor SN06 is far more ambitious 200-meter (650 ft) hop and flight test that could happen as soon as the first half of August.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
-->
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
