News
SpaceX working on several Starship, Super Heavy upgrades and design changes
Not long after Elon Musk confirmed plans to add three more Raptor engines to Starship and stretch the upper stage’s propellant tanks, the SpaceX CEO has confirmed one of several smaller design changes planned in the interim.
On January 3rd, Musk confirmed that SpaceX is entirely relocating one of two secondary ‘header’ tanks that Starships use to store landing propellant. A graphic sketched on the side of future Starship rings further revealed plans to tweak most of the subsections that SpaceX stacks to form a Starship, complementing an upgraded nosecone design. Finally, another design change was spotted on hardware that will eventually become part of the first full-thrust Super Heavy booster.
According to Musk, starting with Starship 24 (S24), which is likely the next ship SpaceX will complete, the methane (fuel) header tank will be relocated from Starship’s common dome to its nosecone. From the start, Starship’s oxygen header tank has been located in the very tip of the nose – placed in such an inconvenient location for the sole purpose of shifting Starship’s center of gravity forward. Now, the methane header tank will join it in the nose, with the obvious explanation being a need to shift that center of gravity even further forward. It’s possible that this change was planned before SpaceX realized the performance benefits of a stretched, nine-engine Starship, but it could also be a preemptive modification meant to counteract the added weight of three more Raptor engines and longer tanks.
Musk’s confirmation of the methane header tank’s relocation came just a few days after a drawing on the side of a Starship section further confirmed several more minor design changes. Starbase ‘hieroglyphics’ are not uncommon, as SpaceX engineers and technicians have often used hardware itself as a sort of whiteboard to sketch out plans and literally annotate ongoing work. This particular drawing was exceptionally detailed and useful, effectively showing exactly how Starship’s design will change beginning with Ship 24. The changes are simple enough: in essence, SpaceX will be adding an extra ring to several Starship ‘sections.’ For current ships, six distinct sections are stacked to form the Starship’s cylindrical tankage and hull.
It takes another five stacked sections to complete the current nosecone design. Counting the nose as one, it takes about seven stack operations to fully assemble the basic structure of a Starship. With the design changes sketched out on a Starship S24 ring and an upgraded nosecone that will debut on the same ship, fully assembling a nosecone will now take two or three stacks (down from five) and fully assembling a Starship will take six stacks (down from seven). While obviously not a major redesign, the changes will significantly simplify (and thus potentially speed up) Starship assembly, which will have additional positive follow-on impacts on plumbing, wiring, and heat shield installation.
There’s good reason to believe that some of the changes – especially expanding Starship’s nose barrel from four to five rings tall – will end up being applied to Super Heavy, potentially reducing the number of booster ‘sections’ needed from nine to seven or eight. However, there are already signs of some weirder changes being made to Super Heavy’s design. On December 21st, a Super Heavy thrust dome – likely Booster 7’s – was sleeved with several steel rings as part of a now-routine process, partially completing the first 33-engine thrust section. However, instead of the usual aft barrel section comprised of three six-foot-tall (~1.82m) steel rings, this ‘sleeve’ was made up of four ~1.4m-tall rings – the first time in Starbase history that shorter rings have appeared on any hardware.
Unlike all the other changes described above, it’s entirely unclear what benefit SpaceX is getting from keeping a given ship or booster section the same height while adding more smaller rings to it – a process that will inherently increase the complexity and amount of work required to complete that section. Regardless, it’s clear that SpaceX is in the midst of a significant period of design revision that could see Ship 24 and Booster 7 debut with a wide range of upgrades and design changes in just a few months.
-->
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
