News
SpaceX Starship stacked with ballast for hop test debut
SpaceX has installed a custom-built ballast atop its fourth full-scale Starship prototype, a sign that the company is rapidly approaching the ship’s first Starhopper-style hop test.
Although CEO Elon Musk officially “redirected” SpaceX’s resources away from Starship’s first flight and towards Crew Dragon’s NASA astronaut launch debut, the company continues to work around the clock to ready Starship SN4 for the program’s biggest test yet. Designed with the goal of creating a fully-reusable, ultra-capable launch vehicle that is unprecedentedly affordable, SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster have made impressive progress over the last 12 or so months.
In July and August 2019, Starhopper – a low-fidelity testbed and proof of concept – successfully performed two untethered hop tests, ultimately flying more than 150m (~500 ft) above ground before safely touching down. Three months later, the first full-scale Starship prototype was destroyed almost immediately after its first pressure test began, a failure that lead SpaceX to expedite factory upgrades. Just six months later, SpaceX has completed multiple successful tests, including pressure tests that pushed beyond the pressures needed for safe human spaceflight, several full wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) with live propellant, and three Raptor engine static fires. In fewer words, Starship is ready for its next big test: flight.
However, Starship SN4 currently has just one Raptor engine installed and will remain in that configuration for its inaugural hop, expected to reach a maximum altitude identical to Starhopper (150m/500ft). The odd configuration means that the rocket will be propelled by asymmetric thrust, as Starship’s ‘thrust puck’ engine section is designed to hold three Raptor engines in a triangular formation. Raptor is capable of producing up to 200 metric tons (~440,000 lbf) of thrust with an unclear level of throttle control (likely mediocre according to comments made by Elon Musk).
Impressively, although it might seem reasonable to assume that Starship SN4 is about as heavy as the ~120 ton Starhopper, the clear and present need to install substantial ballast suggests otherwise. Combined with comments made during SN4’s April 2020 transport from factory to launch site, it appears that even SpaceX’s early Starship engine sections weigh just 50-60 metric tons (110,000-125,000 lb) empty. That weight doesn’t account for the flaps, heat shield, nose section, or many other heavy components that orbital Starships will eventually need but is still impressive.
That impressive weight reduction, Raptor’s inability to safely throttle low, and the FAA’s lack of interest in dozens (up to hundreds) of tons of explosive propellant flying above or around populated areas poses its own challenges for the first full-scale Starship flight. The addition of ballast helpfully solves (or at least alleviates) several of those issues. Notably, ballast can prevent SpaceX from having to fuel Starship SN4 with dozens of extra tons of explosive propellant to counteract the high thrust of its single engine and permit a safe launch and landing.
At the same time, if Starship SN4’s wet weight is reduced by carrying less propellant during its first flight, that actually exacerbates the problem of Raptor’s small throttle range, as a lighter ship would be much harder to manage as the engine rapidly burns propellant and thus loses mass. With ballast, Raptor won’t have to throttle as low as it would otherwise have to to ensure a gentle rate of deceleration. Built out of sheet steel and two spare rolls of the same steel used to form Starship rings, Starship SN4’s new ballast likely increases its dry mass by some 50% or more (25+ metric tons).
-->
Pending Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch, now scheduled no earlier than 3:22 pm EDT (19:22 UTC), May 30th after weather delayed the first May 27th launch attempt, Starship SN4 has no testing periods on the calendar at the moment. Speaking around May 23rd, Musk stated that the ship was likely at least a “few weeks” away from its flight debut, suggesting that the ship will perform another static fire test to prepare for its first hop as early as next week. Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX’s works towards two very exciting Crew Dragon and Starship milestones.
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
