Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[RegGuheert]

...It seems their approach is known to have serious drawbacks, yet they are pursuing it anyway.
...

The approach of trying to land rocket stages also has serious drawbacks, yet SpaceX pursued that route anyways.
Perhaps the advantages are worth the challenge?

What benefits would those be?

Costs? According to the article, they spent double per car what other manufacturers spent for this line:

"Tesla has spent c.2x what a traditional OEM spends per unit on capacity."

But doesn't that expenditure saves them on labor costs? These analysts estimate that Tesla will reduce labor costs by $50/car by spending $550/car on automation:

"So the net labour saving may be only $50 per unit. Yet putting the automation into the plant seems to involve an apparent capital cost that's $4,000 higher per unit of capacity than for a normal plant. If the product is built for 7 years, that's over US$550 of additional depreciation per unit built."

Perhaps this expensive automation buys higher quality? Not according to the Business Insider article linked from the article I linked:

Bernstein adds that the world's best carmakers, the Japanese, try to limit automation because it "is expensive and is statistically inversely correlated to quality."

So that leaves throughput. I suppose that is the major topic of discussion, isn't it? The thesis of the Business insider article seems to be that it is the robots themselves that are to blame:

In a rare win for humans over robots in the battle for labor efficiency, Wall Street analysts have laid down a compelling argument that over-automation is to blame for problems at the billionaire Elon Musk's electric-car company.

They put it more bluntly farther down in the article:

Warburton, who spent his career before Wall Street at the International Motor Vehicle Program — a partly academic, partly commercial organization based at MIT — wrote that "automation in final assembly doesn't work."

So, is that the final word on the subject? Of course not. Analysts are often wrong, especially when it comes to new technology. But we all know that automation of vehicle manufacturing is NOT new. And the articles are pointing out that what Elon Musk is trying to do with the Model 3 has been tried before and the result was not successful.

So we come back to the comparison to the 2018 Nissan LEAF. Nissan now has three different factories EACH churning out as many LEAFs per week as Tesla's Fremont factory is currently able to achieve with the Model 3. But the manufacturing lines at these Nissan factories are each turning out three OTHER models of cars at the same time that they are producing the new LEAF. In other words, the Nissan production lines operate at about 4X the rate of the Tesla line. And my understanding is that these lines are not operating at full capacity.

Of course this is where these other manufacturers have the advantage over Tesla: companies like Nissan have factories which are already operational and partially paid for as well as other products already in production which can share the line. This approach allows these companies to ramp production rates of individual products up and down while keeping their factories running at full capacity.

So what we have here is Elon Musk's assurances that more automation is better, but he has not been able to demonstrate that is the case. In fact, he has demonstrated quite the opposite to date, which exactly matches experiences elsewhere in the industry.

I'm wondering this: If Tesla really did spend twice (per unit) what other manufacturers spend on the Model 3 manufacturing capacity, wouldn't it have made more sense to build two lines (one at a time) using more conventional approaches? I know, that's not the approach that has worked for Elon Musk to date. Instead, he prefers to thumb his nose at the establishment and go in his own direction. But, as I have said in the past, Elon Musk ALWAYS beats his performance numbers, but he also always ends up late and at higher cost. He cannot afford to do that with the Model 3. If he cannot make a high profit here, Tesla is in real trouble.

 

[TonyWilliams]

My Model 3 has been in the shop for one repair (the right front window regulator is sketchy), and for several updates (suspension, power module, firmware). They gave me a HUUUUuuuge oil burning SUV as a loaner. They also promised to pay for all the gasoline. Great service overall, although I wish I could get a proper Tesla loaner.

I’ve got almost all the obvious TSLA short sellers that post here blocked now, which makes for an interesting read of the thread!

TESLA ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION

My thoughts on automation are that every advancement in human history was met with “experts” claiming it couldn’t be done. Clearly, future robots WILL BUILD CARS. When will humans make that happen? Within 20-50 years, for sure. Will Musk be first? Probably. He just doesn’t understand “no”.

It’s simply folly to suggest that “it can’t be done”. The only real question is when.

TESLA AUTONOMOUS DRIVING

I don’t think that regulators will allow fully autonomous driving with mass produced cars for a decade or more. years. The threshold is just too high. We can kill thousands with water filled silicon bags (humans) operating the vehicle, and it’s just not a problem, but any accident / death attributed to automation will be a large setback overall. People are going to (continue to) die.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will make a 70mph vehicle stop when a person / dog / car gets directly in front of it. It’s physics. People will get run over, as they do today with humans driving. We just won’t stop humans from keep killing each other.

I’m also not convinced that the hardware spec’d In the current Model 3 will be up to the future task. I may be wrong on that, but I can foresee regulators requiring hardware for redundancy / safety that Tesla did not foresee.

MODEL 3 RAMP UP

It’s just dumb to think that Musk proclaims “XX cars” and only hits “XX minus some number” as a failure. It’s expected, and they ALL do it, including Nissan.

I’m more concerned that they get Model 3 ramped up to 100k - 500k production rate, and orders don’t keep up. That’s a lot of cars!

TESLA PROFITABILITY

Someday this will happen... maybe. But, like other modern mega-companies, it’s just not required when so many investors believe in the dream of what could be. That’s what Seeking Alpha and the parroting short sellers that frequently post here just don’t get.

I get great pleasure in seeing them lose, over and over.

 

[lorenfb]

My thoughts on automation are that every advancement in human history was met with “experts” claiming it couldn’t be done. Clearly, future robots WILL BUILD CARS. When will humans make that happen? Within 20-50 years, for sure. Will Musk be first? Probably. He just doesn’t understand “no”.
It’s simply folly to suggest that “it can’t be done”. The only real question is when.

Like to ignore posts where it was exemplified that full automation has failed numerous times?

I’m also not convinced that the hardware spec’d In the current Model 3 will be up to the future task.

Just like when Tesla required MS owners a few years ago to pay for an AP hardware update to benefit from its newer AP software version, right?

It’s just dumb to think that Musk proclaims “XX cars” and only hits “XX minus some number” as a failure. It’s expected, and they ALL do it, including Nissan.

It's just that Elon consistently even fails on his revisions.

TESLA PROFITABILITY

Someday this will happen... maybe. But, like other modern mega-companies, it’s just not required when so many investors believe in the dream of what could be.

That someday is becoming more of a blur every time Tesla files with the SEC.

 

[RegGuheert]

Clearly, future robots WILL BUILD CARS. When will humans make that happen? Within 20-50 years, for sure. Will Musk be first? Probably. He just doesn’t understand “no”.

The only thing that is clear is that some tasks make sense to automate with existing or emergent technology.and other tasks do not.

It’s simply folly to suggest that “it can’t be done”.

That's simply a straw-man argument. No one has said that "it can't be done". What they have said is that when robots are used for final assembly of cars, it currently costs significantly more per car and produces cars with a much higher defect density.

If you are a car manufacturer and you look at each of the steps of building a car on the assembly line, you find that you have three main factors that you try to minimize: per-unit cost, defect rate, and task time. (There is also safety, but most of the dangerous tasks in automobile manufacturing are already automated.). If you can reduce all three through automation, you should do it. If your cost goes up only a little and you can improve defect rate and task time, you should do it. But the question on the table is this: Should steps be automated if the only *realized* benefit is increased throughput, but cost and defect rate are significantly increased?

It seems the smart thing to do in that case is use traditional assembly techniques UNTIL a particular step can be automated in a way that benefits both the shareholders and the customer. The reason is simple: The competition is also working to optimize their production lines.

Automation for the sake of automation or just to prove that "it can be done" is a fools task.

 

[lpickup]

So that leaves throughput. I suppose that is the major topic of discussion, isn't it? The thesis of the Business insider article seems to be that it is the robots themselves that are to blame:

In a rare win for humans over robots in the battle for labor efficiency, Wall Street analysts have laid down a compelling argument that over-automation is to blame for problems at the billionaire Elon Musk's electric-car company.

They put it more bluntly farther down in the article:

Warburton, who spent his career before Wall Street at the International Motor Vehicle Program — a partly academic, partly commercial organization based at MIT — wrote that "automation in final assembly doesn't work."

So, is that the final word on the subject? Of course not. Analysts are often wrong, especially when it comes to new technology. But we all know that automation of vehicle manufacturing is NOT new. And the articles are pointing out that what Elon Musk is trying to do with the Model 3 has been tried before and the result was not successful.

Good points on costs and quality. I won't disagree, so I snipped those comments out.

But yes, I think the crux of why Elon is focusing so heavily on automation is throughput. I just think it's too early to pass judgement while the ramp is still clearly in progress. If Tesla/Elon had been more honest/realistic and said it would take them a year to hit 5000 vehicles/week and that's exactly what the ramp did, would we be calling it a failure?

I suppose you could make the claim that taking a year to ramp up to 5000 vehicles/week is uncompetitive. And I think you'd be right if you compare to more established car manufacturers who both ramp up new products faster and already exceed that quantity by orders of magnitude. But these are established manufacturers with multiple factories already up and running. Let's not forget how the output of Tesla has grown over the last 10 years. Sure, we would like to see Tesla instantly jump into the same class as GM, Toyota and VW in terms of capacity (and it doesn't help that Elon keeps making it sound like they can!) but it's simply not going to work like that.

Which brings me to your next point:

So we come back to the comparison to the 2018 Nissan LEAF. Nissan now has three different factories EACH churning out as many LEAFs per week as Tesla's Fremont factory is currently able to achieve with the Model 3. But the manufacturing lines at these Nissan factories are each turning out three OTHER models of cars at the same time that they are producing the new LEAF. In other words, the Nissan production lines operate at about 4X the rate of the Tesla line. And my understanding is that these lines are not operating at full capacity.

I think I've already touched on the fallacy of comparing building out a brand new line (almost from scratch) and being able to utilize already mature lines. But one other point I'd like to reiterate with respect to the LEAF 2: I just don't see it as a major difference from LEAF 1. It's got a bigger battery pack (that more or less takes up the same form factor even)...it does have some additional hardware and software to support Pro Pilot. It's got a slightly different front and back end. A little bit of extra hardware and software to support e-Pedal. But all in all, a very incremental evolution from LEAF 1. It's really not apples and apples to compare with the Model 3. I do think you acknowledge this in your subsequent paragraph.

I guess my point is, let's see how far Elon can take the ramp before we cast judgement on it. And to a certain extent, let's not get too caught up in the fact that it's taken them 12 months instead of 6 to execute the ramp. If this were the latest smartphone and video game console where a 3 month window in product release is make or break, that's one thing. But honestly, the real competition for the Model 3 is still out there. Maybe we'll start to see some of the promised 2020 models roll out in late 2019, but somehow I feel that we've still got at least 2 years before we'll really start to see anything meaningful. The way I see it, the other car makers are taking just as long to ramp up their competing EVs. They just aren't being as public, and are being far more realistic about the timeframes. And even though we disagree on this point, I think the Supercharger network (in the US at least) is a significant moat, so until I start to see real progress on building out a CCS network, that 2 year gap is going to just march along in time.

I'm wondering this: If Tesla really did spend twice (per unit) what other manufacturers spend on the Model 3 manufacturing capacity, wouldn't it have made more sense to build two lines (one at a time) using more conventional approaches?

I think Elon strongly believes that he can get far more than 2X the throughput for 2X the cost. In fact, to hear him talk, I think he thinks he can get 20X. I think this is extreme wishful thinking. Maybe he never achieves better than 2X, but I'm not willing to bet against that at this time.

 

[lorenfb]

I guess my point is, let's see how far Elon can take the ramp before we cast judgement on it.

We just got a leading indicator, i.e. a Tesla stock declline, of what to expect. Next Tuesday, InsideEVs will provide a fairly accurate number.

I think the Supercharger network (in the US at least) is a significant moat, so until I start to see real progress on building out a CCS network, that 2 year gap is going to just march along in time.

That's only true for one segment of the BEV market, i.e. those that intend to do long range inter-city travel. Furthermore, the cost of
implementing a alternate and competitive SC network, when potentially supported by governmental agencies is not that insurmountable.

 

[lpickup]

I guess my point is, let's see how far Elon can take the ramp before we cast judgement on it.

We just got a leading indicator, i.e. a Tesla stock declline, of what to expect. Next Tuesday, InsideEVs will provide a fairly accurate number.

InsideEVs will report what Tesla gives them for quarterly deliveries. I'll say right now (not that you'll listen) that the problem with that number is that it is tracking production that occurred about 2 weeks ago (due to lag in the system for transport, prep and delivery). Unfortunately the timing of the fix of the main bottleneck (as far as we know) at the Gigafactory will not be visible until probably late April at the earliest, based on the timeline of installing the new equipment by the end of this month (i.e. right now, but I would probably account for some Elon-time adjustments to that schedule, and bringup), and the lag in feeding that improved production rate down stream to Fremont, and then on to transport, prep and delivery. And even by then we will only be looking at estimates of course. We won't get a true reading on it until early July when Tesla releases their 2Q delivery report. I suspect that the 1Q earnings call, however, will make note of what kind of production rate they are achieving.

As for what the stock market says the production rate is, you can go ahead and believe what you want.

I think the Supercharger network (in the US at least) is a significant moat, so until I start to see real progress on building out a CCS network, that 2 year gap is going to just march along in time.

That's only true for one segment of the BEV market, i.e. those that intend to do long range inter-city travel. Furthermore, the cost of
implementing a alternate and competitive SC network, when potentially supported by governmental agencies is not that insurmountable.

Well then we will agree to disagree, because while I think we all know that long range travel is only a small percentage of a given vehicle's use, it's very rarely ZERO percent. And the buying public will demand a solution that offers them that flexibility.

And I'm not worried about the cost of a competing network. Just the simple time it will take to adequately plan out (site selection, lease agreements) and deploy (permits, upgrades, buildout) the system. The best example we have today is the Electrify America effort and it's pretty much an incomplete solution. Europe is at least doing some good things putting in fast charging networks, but here in the US, it's a joke.

I do agree that once we see a concerted effort to build out a network (with the right characteristics), it could be done in 2-3 years. But I don't see it taking any less than that.

 

[EVDRIVER]

[


That's only true for one segment of the BEV market, i.e. those that intend to do long range inter-city travel. Furthermore, the cost of
implementing a alternate and competitive SC network, when potentially supported by governmental agencies is not that insurmountable.

Ah, you mean the largest EV segment not the one that has been crawling along. Unless you live in a bubble the biggest objection / perception to getting a EV is range regardless if one needs it or not. No matter what is said here you will find a way to spin any point into a direct or indirect anti Tesla message. The best part of your Tesla financial rants is that you have never been saying anything 99% of the people here don't already know. It's hilarious. Keep up the good work. Your "I told you so" moments will all fall on deaf ears and you don't even know why.

PS- The 2018 LEAF should be a good candidate to fast charge on your "future" govt supported charge network. They should have a pack by then that can handle it.

 

[TonyWilliams]

[


That's only true for one segment of the BEV market, i.e. those that intend to do long range inter-city travel. Furthermore, the cost of
implementing a alternate and competitive SC network, when potentially supported by governmental agencies is not that insurmountable.

Ah, you mean the largest EV segment not the one that has been crawling along. Unless you live in a bubble the biggest objection / perception to getting a EV is range regardless if one needs it or not. No matter what is said here you will find a way to spin any point into a direct or indirect anti Tesla message. The best part of your Tesla financial rants is that you have never been saying anything 99% of the people here don't already know. It's hilarious. Keep up the good work.

This clown has been on the same rant for years. The only logical thing to do is block him.

He is absolutely a clueless stooge.

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm wondering this: If Tesla really did spend twice (per unit) what other manufacturers spend on the Model 3 manufacturing capacity, wouldn't it have made more sense to build two lines (one at a time) using more conventional approaches?

I think Elon strongly believes that he can get far more than 2X the throughput for 2X the cost. In fact, to hear him talk, I think he thinks he can get 20X. I think this is extreme wishful thinking. Maybe he never achieves better than 2X, but I'm not willing to bet against that at this time.

I don't read the article to say that the line costs 2X. As I read it, it says that the line costs 2X PER UNIT. I have no way to verify whether that is correct or not.

 

[lpickup]

I don't read the article to say that the line costs 2X. As I read it, it says that the line costs 2X PER UNIT. I have no way to verify whether that is correct or not.

I guess I can respond by saying that without knowing what the true capacity of the line is, you can't really make ANY statement on the per unit cost. Since I imagine most of the cost of the automation is tied up in design, construction and installation of the robots themselves, and not as much on the maintenance and power costs, as volume ramps up, the cost per unit should fall.

As the article tries to point out, automating the final assembly process doesn't really save you all that much in human labor. But what it does have the potential to do is take that bottleneck out of the equation, which in theory means you can get a better return on the entire rest of the line, because in theory you can run it faster. A 2X speedup means you've cut your fixed costs per unit in half.

Now do I think Elon has a prayer of creating a line that basically runs at 10-20 miles per hour as is his goal? I think that is folly. But like I said, I wouldn't bet against his making some truly remarkable and game changing improvements to the current benchmark.

 

[lorenfb]

I guess my point is, let's see how far Elon can take the ramp before we cast judgement on it.

We just got a leading indicator, i.e. a Tesla stock declline, of what to expect. Next Tuesday, InsideEVs will provide a fairly accurate number.

InsideEVs will report what Tesla gives them for quarterly deliveries. I'll say right now (not that you'll listen) that the problem with that number is that it is tracking production that occurred about 2 weeks ago (due to lag in the system for transport, prep and delivery). Unfortunately the timing of the fix of the main bottleneck (as far as we know) at the Gigafactory will not be visible until probably late April at the earliest, based on the timeline of installing the new equipment by the end of this month (i.e. right now, but I would probably account for some Elon-time adjustments to that schedule, and bringup), and the lag in feeding that improved production rate down stream to Fremont, and then on to transport, prep and delivery. And even by then we will only be looking at estimates of course. We won't get a true reading on it until early July when Tesla releases their 2Q delivery report. I suspect that the 1Q earnings call, however, will make note of what kind of production rate they are achieving.

As for what the stock market says the production rate is, you can go ahead and believe what you want.

I think the Supercharger network (in the US at least) is a significant moat, so until I start to see real progress on building out a CCS network, that 2 year gap is going to just march along in time.

That's only true for one segment of the BEV market, i.e. those that intend to do long range inter-city travel. Furthermore, the cost of
implementing a alternate and competitive SC network, when potentially supported by governmental agencies is not that insurmountable.

Well then we will agree to disagree, because while I think we all know that long range travel is only a small percentage of a given vehicle's use, it's very rarely ZERO percent. And the buying public will demand a solution that offers them that flexibility.

And I'm not worried about the cost of a competing network. Just the simple time it will take to adequately plan out (site selection, lease agreements) and deploy (permits, upgrades, buildout) the system. The best example we have today is the Electrify America effort and it's pretty much an incomplete solution. Europe is at least doing some good things putting in fast charging networks, but here in the US, it's a joke.

I do agree that once we see a concerted effort to build out a network (with the right characteristics), it could be done in 2-3 years. But I don't see it taking any less than that.

If Tesla is anywhere close to Elon's guidance of 2500 by the end of Q1, he'll surely indicate an actual number. Also, Tesla has begun providing actual deliveries at the end of each quarter for a year now, as a correlation of deliveries indicated by InsideEVs.

 

[sparky]

An update on my 340 mile drive with recent Model 3 AP FW (V2018.10.5).
For the first time, I could leave AP engaged for the entire ~40 mi of S->N I-5 Grapevine. Entered turns more like a good driver (was kind of late before), no truck lust, no sudden radar freakouts. Really smooth.

Stopped for juice at Kettleman City charging "megaplex". This is the half-way point and I still had 98 miles of range. I was traveling at left-lane I-5 speeds the whole way and very nearly got rated range (battery stats showed 240 Wh/mi). Incredible.
20 mins of charging and car was ready to go. I barely had time for a barista-coffee and email update.
Japanese film crew wanted to chat and interview me about the Model 3. I had positive feedback for them.
Saw quite a few Teslas and 12 Tesla car carrier trucks with a high ratio of Model 3's. Needless to say, saw no Bolts or 2018 LEAFs on this long stretch of road.

I read another OTA update is imminent. Love to have it for the return leg.

BTW, ran this leg with the aero covers on. I plan to drive the return with them off to compare efficiency numbers. Not exactly a clean test but of interest to me.

 

[EVDRIVER]

An update on my 340 mile drive with recent Model 3 AP FW (V2018.10.5).
For the first time, I could leave AP engaged for the entire ~40 mi of S->N I-5 Grapevine. Entered turns more like a good driver (was kind of late before), no truck lust, no sudden radar freakouts. Really smooth.

Stopped for juice at Kettleman City charging "megaplex". This is the half-way point and I still had 98 miles of range. I was traveling at left-lane I-5 speeds the whole way and very nearly got rated range (battery stats showed 240 Wh/mi). Incredible.
20 mins of charging and car was ready to go. I barely had time for a barista-coffee and email update.
Japanese film crew wanted to chat and interview me about the Model 3. I had positive feedback for them.
Saw quite a few Teslas and 12 Tesla car carrier trucks with a high ratio of Model 3's. Needless to say, saw no Bolts or 2018 LEAFs on this long stretch of road.

I read another OTA update is imminent. Love to have it for the return leg.

BTW, ran this leg with the aero covers on. I plan to drive the return with them off to compare efficiency numbers. Not exactly a clean test but of interest to me.

That's a great stop, super nice facility and I love that few people use it so there are about 35 stalls open! Amazing how Tesla range is so accurate and the the SOC estimates are usually spot on so you can drop into a station with no fears with low charge. I did the LA-Bay Area run about six times in the last year and there is no lack of charging no matter where you are.

 

[lorenfb]

This clown has been on the same rant for years. The only logical thing to do is block him.

He is absolutely a clueless stooge.

Feeling better about yourself now? Hope life improves for you, given the way you have disdain for some.
It's surprising you're not banned more frequently, with a propensity to viciously attack anyone with an
apposing view. It's really sad!

 

[EVDRIVER]

T is for ?

 

[scottf200]

Via: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/2018-12-for-model-3.112028/#post-2648819

>>> begin >>>
18.12 Release Notes:

Model 3: Steering wheel button updates For your convenience, we've updated the functions of the scroll buttons on the steering wheel.

The right scroll button now lets you quickly adjust Traffic-Aware Cruise Control settings.
[a] To increase or decrease the set cruising speed, roll the right button up or down.
To adjust the following distance between you and the vehicle ahead, press the right button to the left or right.
You can still adjust these settings from the touchscreen and press down on the button to activate voice commands.

Adjusting mirrors -- [I think this means you can do this while the car is in motion ... I think users complained about that] --
The left scroll button now lets you adjust your Model 3 side mirrors and steering wheel. Start by tapping the Controls icon on the bottom left corner of the touchscreen and then tap Quick Controls > Adjustments

To adjust the mirrors, tap Mirrors and select the LEFTor RIGHT mirror icon. Then, scroll the left button up or down, or press it left or right.

To adjust the steering wheel, tap Steering Wheel and scroll the left button up or down, or press it left or right.
<snip>
>>> end >>>

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The only thing Tesla does very well (cars only) is battery degradation and battery capacity.
EVERYTHING else is either average or worse than average (compared to premium vehicles).
And, I literally mean at least 90% of the whole vehicle when I say EVERYTHING

Maybe, just maybe, Model 3 has a good drivetrain, but it has not been proven yet.
Therefore I still stand in the long long line, but I'm not sufficiently satisfied right now.

You might be surprised at how many battery packs have been replaced. Who is winning that race? Nissan most would say because we have publicized it so much in our heads...

I think in this case, reality might be an eye opener.

 

[dgpcolorado]

VIN 152xx has been assigned to a customer. Production pace seems to be increasing.

 

[scottf200]

Last night in Fremont CA people picking up their Model 3s.