News
SpaceX preps Starship, Super Heavy for another week of Raptor testing
SpaceX continues to work around the clock to prepare its latest Starship and Super Heavy booster prototypes for another week of testing – likely focused on firing up the Raptor engines installed on each vehicle.
Known as Booster 7 and Ship 24, SpaceX has been slowly testing both prototypes for approximately four months, beginning in April and May, respectively. Only in early August did the company cautiously begin attempting to ignite their Raptor engines as part of a process known as static fire testing – by far the most difficult and important part of qualifying both vehicles for flight.
Thanks to progress made in 2021, SpaceX already has significant experience testing an earlier orbital-class Starship prototype on the ground, but the process of testing Ship 24 is still fresh and unfamiliar for a number of reasons. For Booster 7, the challenges are even greater.
On top of major design changes made to Starship and Super Heavy over the last year as SpaceX continues to refine the rocket, the company also developed a substantially different version of its Raptor engine. Compared to Raptor V1, Raptor V2 almost looks like a new engine and can produce around 25% more thrust (230 tons versus 185 tons). SpaceX has also tweaked how the engine operates, particularly around startup and shutdown, further weakening the value of past experience testing Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines on Ship 20 and Boosters 3 and 4.
In other words, with Ship 24 and Booster 7 engine testing, it’s possible that SpaceX is effectively starting from scratch. Many aspects of testing – propellant conditioning, thermal characteristics, tanking, detanking, certain test stands – are likely mostly unchanged, but almost every aspect of a rocket is affected by its engines.
-->
Before SpaceX began testing Raptor V2 engines on Starship and booster prototypes, it wasn’t clear if the changes between V1.5 and V2 would invalidate a lot of prior testing. After the start of Booster 7 and Ship 24 static fire testing, it’s now clear that a lot of that earlier work has to be redone. It’s also clear that despite some of the simplifications in Raptor V2’s design, operating the engine on Starship and Super Heavy is much harder get get right.
Since mid-July, SpaceX has completed around 15-20 ‘spin-prime’ tests between Ship 24 and Booster 7 – more of that kind of test than any other prototype in the history of Starbase has performed. Spin-prime tests flow high-pressure gas through Raptor’s pumps to spin them up without igniting anything. It’s unclear why so many of those tests are being done, what SpaceX is gaining from it, or why the company appears to have completely stopped conducting preburner tests (a more life-like spin-prime with partial combustion).
Regardless, eight weeks after the start of engine testing, Booster 7 has only performed three static fires (two with one engine, one with a max of three or four engines), and Ship 24 has only completed one static fire with two engines. Before either vehicle can be considered ready for flight, a day that could easily never come, each will likely need to conduct multiple successful static fires with all of their Raptor engines (6 on S24 and 33 on B7).
If the pace of Booster 7 testing doesn’t change, the vehicle could be months away from a full 33-engine static fire attempt – perhaps the single most important and uncertain test standing between SpaceX and Starship’s first orbital launch attempt. Ship 24’s path to flight readiness should be simpler, but it appears to be struggling almost as much.
According to CEO Elon Musk, “an intense effort is underway” to ensure that Super Heavy B7’s Raptor engines are well contained during anomalies, so that one engine violently failing won’t damage or destroy the booster, other engines, or the launch pad. That could certainly complicate the process of testing Booster 7, and it’s likely that SpaceX is taking some of the same actions to protect Ship 24.
In early September, after a partially successful Booster 7 static fire (its first multi-engine test) and numerous additional Ship 24 tests that failed to achieve ignition, SpaceX replaced engines on both vehicles. Booster 7 had one of 13 Raptor Center engines swapped out, while Ship 24 had one of its three Raptor Vacuum engines replaced.
-->On September 5th, SpaceX distributed a safety alert to Boca Chica’s few remaining residents, confirming that it wants to restart testing as early as Tuesday, September 6th. Especially as of late, that alert guarantees nothing, but it does at least open the door for SpaceX if Ship 24, Booster 7, and the positions of the stars happen to be in the right mood between 8am and 8pm CDT. Additional opportunities are available on September 7th, 8th, 9th, and 12th.
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
