May 22, 2016
electracity There would be a Tesla. It would just be a division of Google. While that change would be crappy for shareholders, I don't see the downside for Tesla drivers.�
May 22, 2016
jkk_ There won't be any Tesla drivers in this scenario. Google is going for cars without drivers.�
May 22, 2016
roblab YES! I like to think that a chunk of my $100K car is prepayment of gas, oil, belts, plugs, catalytic converters, mechanic labor, filters, etc., etc. My car is a $50K to $60K car that has fuel and maintenance and service already paid for or not needed at all.
When you think about it, all this about fit and finish is the same old line about beauty being only skin deep. What really really matters is the drive train, the power source, the new and better ways to do business. All these people who want to talk about fit and finish seem to be stuck back in the 1950s, unable to change.�
May 22, 2016
ttupper92618 If Google bought Tesla - which I think is extremely unlikely - it would be unlikely to exert that kind of pressure on Elon. Further, Google's completely autonomous cars are not going to see wide-spread use for at least a decade, no matter what the autonomy zealots think. It is utterly unrealistic to expect such, and it is unrealistic that a Google owned Tesla would suddenly change course and not deliver on existing and future products.
I find the sky is falling mentality about a slow model 3 rollout amusing frankly. I fail to see any logical basis in the expectation that this would kill Tesla. In point of fact, Tesla has never released a single vehicle on time or at the predicted volumes in the history of the company. And through that all, people have predicted the company's imminent demise. But just this week, on the back of lower than expected shipments, widely reported quality problems, a recall, quarterly losses, and a projected model 3 schedule virtually nobody thinks Tesla can achieve... The company successfully raised $2 billion in fresh capital in just two days, and the stock price went up.
Explain how that aligns with the thesis "Tesla is doomed if it can't deliver Model 3 in volume by date X".
Tesla has a vast reservoir of good will. It is huge - much larger than I think anyone can fully explain or appreciate. In the end the reason doesn't matter anyway, only the fact. It will take a lot more than delivering the model 3 late or in lower than desired volumes to evaporate that gigantic reserve.�
May 22, 2016
jkk_ I aimed my comment to be more in the direction of exaggerated joke, since I need to say that out loud, I clearly failed in expressing my thoughtsThat being said, I'm skeptical if Google buying Tesla would be a good thing for the drivers. But I agree that I don't see that happening.
Not commenting on the rest of your post since I'm not really bothering that much about worrying about the rollout schedule. Not a part of the doomsdayers camp in any case. Slow rollout just means I can save for the car longer�
May 22, 2016
alseTrick Definitely not 1 month apart.
50,000 Model 3's/month would equate to 600,000 over the course of a year. That's not even including S and X models. It's impossible at a factory said to max out at 500,000 vehicles/year.
I think even saying they could be 2 months apart is highly unlikely/overly optimistic. By late 2018 I think it's possible Tesla may be able to produce 25,000/month, but that there's almost no chance of that happening in late 2017/early 2018.
I also don't believe Tesla hits 500,000 in 2018 like they're saying. I do hope they at least hit 300,000 though. Otherwise they're going to have a problem, and so will we.�
May 22, 2016
182RG Sorry, I'd have a hard time convincing myself to ignore panel gaps and mis-applied weather stripping, carpeting becoming unglued on ANY car at any price point, especially one delivered by a manufacturers employee at an SC. It has nothing to do with being unable to change.
Frankly the expectations of the Model 3 market are going to be much more rigorous, simply because there are more competitive examples of cars in the same price point (or less) whose fit and finish are excellent, ICE or otherwise. And...there will be far less early adopters.
I really, really want to like this car. I'm buying for technology, style, and performance. I'm a gadget guy...it's a really expensive gadget. Carbon footprint...don't care.
EM isn't marketing it based on having to compromise quality. I'm sure the fantastic drivetrain that you feel blessed to have is great, assuming it, and other expensive bits are not in constant need of replacement at the SC.�
May 22, 2016
alseTrick Just mass deliver 400k Model 3 all at once? Yes, please.
"You get a rebate. You get a rebate. You get a rebate."
![[?IMG]](https://media1.giphy.com/media/RXb2dyjosdcE8/giphy.gif)
�
May 22, 2016
zenmaster Sacrilege!�
May 22, 2016
JeffK haha not all 400k but definitely batches of several thousand, whatever those warehouses will hold besides excess parts and supplies.
Reps from Tesla have said the Model 3 production goal for 2018 is 400,000 so at full production rate 50k cars in two months is certainly possible. However, I think this is a ramp up so who knows what the timeframe is going to be until full production rate.�
May 22, 2016
Jersey Shore Tom Coming across as a "doomsdayer" was not my intent. I am an optimist by nature and extremely optimistic about Tesla.
Here is my thinking. As I understand it, Tesla expects to have the design nailed down in ~5 weeks and Elon thinks the 115,000 orders received before the reveal will be filled before the end of 2017. it would be very pessimistic to think Tesla will fall a full year behind schedule with the design intended for ease of manufacture given that. I think it would take a perfect storm, not normal issues.
If that were to happen, it would eat through an awful lot of goodwill with investors, customers and suppliers and it would be bad for employee morale. It would also burn through a ton of cash. That would be tough for Tesla to survive.�
May 24, 2016
Model 3 ... and Tesla has been the driving force behind the BEV development the last ~10 years. So no, Tesla is not "just a particular implementation". If Tesla fails a lot of people - even people at the top of other car manufactures - will say "See? BEV's are doomed, no need to go down that road!". So Tesla's success is more important then if VW have a success with e-Golf or GM with the Bolt. But I hope they all will be successes.�
Jun 21, 2016
Jayc Tesla Makes Abrupt Move With GigaFactory
Looks like full steam ahead.�
Jun 21, 2016
Model 3 What is new in this "news"?
The plant was expected to "open" in Mach - postponed to July, and is already in production (but not battery cells yet). Battery cells has a long time been announced to start production late 2016 (I'm not sure if November was mentioned, but I believe it was).�
Jun 21, 2016
ModelNforNerd
This....
Yea, I know...crazy right? Someone who wants a Tesla whose prime motivation isn't the environment?
But before everyone gets too upset about it...think.... @182RG and I are exactly the type that EM is trying to win over.
I'm pretty happy with my re-tuned 4-cyl ICE that puts out ~300HP and gets 34mpg highway.
But the Model 3 is more high tech. It's more stylish. and it's faster. So, I want one.
winning over the not-primarily-green types are exactly what Tesla needs to do to expand market share.
(hmmm, maybe it's an Audi thing?)�
Jun 21, 2016
Tezlah I agree completely that this is the market Tesla is winning over. Although I care about the environment, I wouldn't buy a car based primarily on this reason. I want performance, tech, convenience of "filling up" at home, lower overall operating cost, safety. Environmental reasons are a nice second-tier bonus.
When I've talked to people about Tesla and the Model 3, there are those who instantly compared it to a Prius as a "green car" (uninformed) and those who are excited because of the "iPad screen," performance, and autopilot.
This is the much larger market Tesla will attract and sell their vehicles to, not people who just care about the environment or want to save on gas, and will ultimately convince the masses to buy EV instead of ICE.�
Jun 21, 2016
Alketi Another Audi owner with a Model 3 reservation here. The Model 3 is the only EV on the horizon that I would consider (the Model S being too expensive).
I would echo your arguments -- the folks that are eating Kale and are dining by candlelight to save the world have already bought a Leaf or Prius. Those cars look boxy and utilitarian because they're marketed toward people who don't care how cars look.
The Model 3 is the first truly desirable, mass market EV -- as 373K reservations prove. I also expect, when it arrives, it'll be the coolest, fastest, most technologically advanced car in its class (by far), which is the perfect storm to bring EVs to the masses. In my opinion, it's the most important car since the Model T, and proof that Tesla (and specifically Musk) are brilliant beyond normal measures.�
Jun 21, 2016
EVNow Tesla is the opposite. They care a lot about climate change and not so much about panel gaps.
Someone like Audi who think it is fine to cheat on emissions as long as the gaps are great is the right brand for you.�
Jun 21, 2016
Alketi The best way to do something about climate change is to build an EV that's desirable by everyone. Tesla is the first company that's made that connection.�
Jun 21, 2016
alseTrick It's silly to say Tesla doesn't care about the quality of its manufacturing as long as the car is electric. And it's silly for any customer to say "I don't care that the quality of the car isn't as good as the quality of other similarly priced vehicles." Uh, no. That's not how these things work. Tesla NEEDS to be able to do both. It's not an option; it's mandatory.�
Jun 21, 2016
182RG There are a few here on TMC who think exactly this way. Exactly this way.
The mass market isn't going to stand for it.
You are 100% correct. They need to accomplish both.�
Jun 21, 2016
182RG Meh. The right brand for me is the one that maximizes my wants with the value and quality I expect. No less.�
Jun 21, 2016
JeffK Besides performance, build quality, and effect on the environment, I want a company that focuses on safety too.
The death of Anton Yelchin by his Jeep is a prime example of poor engineering leading to an unsafe situation.�
Jun 21, 2016
TaoJones So that's 1,000 cars per week per line, x 4 lines = 4,000 cars per week for 200,000 cars per year.
or, if you prefer...
2,000 cars per week per line, x 5 lines = 10,000 cars per week for 500,000 cars per year.
Figuring 2 x 10-hour shifts per line, that's 1,000 cars per shift per week per line... Ignoring for the moment that it would make sense to split the 500,000 per year across 3 different geographically-optimized plants (1 in Europe, 1 in China), meaning that each plant would only have to produce some number approximating a mere 167,000 per year...
Gotta hand it to the NUMMI collaboration between GM and Toyota that produced 500,000 cars/year almost 20 years ago now - especially given the recalcitrance of the union that killed the point of what was supposed to be GM's flagship plant in the first place.
Credit also to Henry Ford, who did what everyone said he couldn't over 100 years ago.
With the advanced robotics of today, combined with Musk's stated focus upon improving the machines that build the machines, I like Tesla's chances. And, instead of the inevitable fixation that the analysts will have with the exact numbers, what will be interesting to watch is the reduction in defect rate rather than total gross production. Once they get the defects below a certain threshold, supply chain concerns aside (small details, those - heh), they'll just ramp and ramp and ramp - rinse and repeat, if you will.�
Jun 21, 2016
JeffK Not sure where you're pulling numbers from but the Fremont plant alone will be producing around 500,000 cars per year once the goal is met with a proposed timetable of 2018. Any other factories built later will be producing at their own maximum rates. It makes no sense to split 500,000 cars geographically at the moment. The factory in China may be up by 2019 and everything will be fine for Asia. If Tesla ends up with a factory in Europe then that'll help too.
I'm not going to be surprised if Tesla is producing 1 million cars per year by 2020 or 2021.�
Jun 21, 2016
TaoJones So 2018 is 18-30 months away. Demand aside, global or otherwise, how do you envision those 500,000 cars will be produced at Fremont in 18-30 months' time? Using 2 x 10-hour shifts with 4 hours for maintenance... or some other management of the 168 hours in a week, how do you see them getting to 500,000 cars per year? With 2 lines, that's ~5,000 cars per week per line. At some point, it makes sense to add lines. During the factory tour I recall, there were still a lot of humans along the line, and humans can only move so fast.
I wonder if anyone remembers how many lines the NUMMI configuration had operating simultaneously. And then there's the mix between parts produced on-site versus transported in.
Certainly, once they get to 500,000 cars at one factory, presumably they could rinse and repeat elsewhere.
I'd be happy if they backed off the gross number and focused upon zero defect environments. Which I expect is what they'll do - beat the threshold, ramp, and repeat the cycle onward and upward.�
Jun 21, 2016
JeffK The beauty is that I don't have to come up with the number of lines, shifts, etc. That job belongs to Peter Hochholdinger, who has experience with such matters�
Jun 21, 2016
22522 They need 3 lines so that innovation/improvements can roll through with minimum disruption/risk. 3 or 5.�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 If I recall correct, there is already 2 lines for the Gen-II cars (S & X). I do not know how many lines they will need for the Model 3, but 3 or 4 is not unlikely. The paint shop is already outsize for about 500k cars.
We have reasons to believe it will be relative fewer humans along the lines for the Model 3. It is after all designed to be easy to produce, and I interpret that as "easier to automate the production by robots, and require fewer humans to do the things that can not be automated".�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd Look at it like this:
You can get an Audi A3, and maybe even an option package, for the same $35,000 that is the base price of the Model 3.
If Tesla has fit and finish issues, that's going to be a black mark on brand quality.
Elon "gets it", and he knows that the Model 3 has to be everything it was promised to be, and maybe even a little more.
And since we're continually comparing Audi to Tesla now (my fault, most likely), remember that Tesla hired the guy who was in charge of getting the A5, Q5, S5 line to market, among others.
With that hire, Tesla appears to be striving for quantity AND quality. It is possible to have both....�
Jun 22, 2016
flamingoezz wouldn't the A4 be more of parallel in terms of size/class?
the A3 seems tiny and is slower than M3. teslas comes with many safety features standard that other brands offer for $1000+. and, oh yeah...it's electric. M3 is a great value compared to what else is on the market in its price range. I agree quality issues will leave a mark, but do people honestly care enough to wait 4 years for other manufacturers to catch up?..im not so sure.
�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
The Model 3 falls into two different categories, thanks to some of the advantages of its chassis.
The interior dimensions line up quite nicely with the A4, because of the ability to stretch out the interior legroom due to lack of firewall, etc.
But exterior-wise, from all I've seen so far, it matches up more closely with the A3 (sedan version).
We need to all get on the same page here. Electric is great...don't get me wrong, but there are other things of value I look at when buying a car. I won't beat it to death on this thread, because there are other threads about what we should expect as basic features in a $35,000 car.
But let's all agree to move away from "it's electric" as the main selling point. Obvious comment is obvious.
AEB and backup cameras are due to become mandatory features soon. Other than its unique construction, what would a base Tesla offer over the competition in safety? Airbags?�
Jun 22, 2016
garsh The extra-large front crumple zone.
The stiffer floor pan (due to battery) to prevent cabin intrusions during side impacts.
The extremely low center of gravity to avoid rollovers.
Maybe that all falls under "unique construction", but as we've seen with the S, it makes a huge difference in safety.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd All of that is great, and a huge bonus for us future Model 3 owners, but I think that all falls under unique construction.
None of those are features or options that another OEM could/would charge $1,000 for.
AP Safety features will be standard. I guess you could maybe say that blind spot detection is an option on other vehicles, but included standard within AP Safety features. But we don't even know that for sure yet, do we?�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 Why? It is after all it's main selling point. That is even the reason that Tesla exists in the first place. What Tesla has done is to give it more selling points, so even people that is not interested in electric propulsion may be interested in getting this car.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
While you are correct, it's just redundant.
A Tesla is electric? A Toyota is dependable? A Hyundai is terrible?
We've gotten past Tesla being electric. We know it is. And you hit on the point exactly, we should be talking about the OTHER selling points now.
Is it stylish? Is it fast? Is it techy/gadgety? Is it practical? Is it safe?
Basically, throw out the type of propulsion, and ask yourself: Would the average automobile purchaser with ~$45,000 to spend look at an Audi A4, a BMW 5-series, or a Model 3?
THAT'S the $2Billion question.
In terms of EV enthusiasts with that type of income at their disposal, Tesla has more than penetrated the market. We're now disucssing converting those who may not be looking for an EV.
Or to put it in more simple terms, if Tesla as a company did not exist, I would not personally give any EVs on the market a second look.�
Jun 22, 2016
ohmman I want what I want and I'll pay what I want?�
Jun 22, 2016
alseTrick Not for me. And not for that large segment of the market to which you just referred.�
Jun 22, 2016
stopcrazypp I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Here are the dimensions:
A3: 175.0 x 71.0 x 56.0 in
A4: 186.0 x 73.0 x 56.0 in
M3: 184.1 x 74.2 x 56.5 in (from Motor Trend)
The Model 3 is much closer in exterior dimensions to the A4 than the A3.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd someone else's WAG on here using 3D modeling software was much closer to the A3. remember....MT wasn't allowed to measure, either. so they're also guessing.�
Jun 22, 2016
stopcrazypp Yes, but MT had exclusive access to the car and also was able to photograph the Model S/X (which they know the dimensions already) the same day at exactly the same angle/position. I would think they would have the most accurate estimate of dimensions than anyone here.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
And if it's close to this number:
We can both say we were close to correct.�
Jun 22, 2016
alseTrick I don't know what WAG is, but is this the model you're talking about?
Tesla Model 3 Sedan by mike - 3D model
Because the dimensions are clearly off on it.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
Wild @ $ s guess.
And no, I linked to it above. None of the physical models I've seen people attempting to sell have seemed impressive to me.�
Jun 22, 2016
stopcrazypp The cars are not in the same position relative to the camera, while MT had other pictures (direct side profile pictures) where the cars were parked in the same spot. But anyways, by my math:
182.4-175 = 7.4 inches more than A3.
186-182.4 = 3.6 inches less than A4.
Still much closer to the A4 than the A3.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
Not going to get into a pissing match over whose guess is better, because that's all they are at this point: guesses.
Until Tesla tells us, none of us know.
If you're right, that's awesome for you.
Maybe Elon will let you move up in line...?
I wouldn't take the Motor Trend piece as gospel anyway....the crew they sent out there was much more interested in telling us they were using iPhones to distract from the fact that all Tesla gave them was a few minutes of Glamour Shots and nothing of real substance for the fluff piece they wrote.
Seriously....one of us could have combed through the forum threads and written a more informative piece.�
Jun 22, 2016
S3XY Who makes a guess in fractions of an inch? I have to think that the MT numbers are pretty accurate. Probably within a fraction of an inch.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
When Elon tweets it, I'll believe it.�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 I do agree with this, but the statement I quoted was still false: Been electric IS Tesla's main selling point. But yes, it is electric, so please discuss the other selling points, but do not say that it does not have any significant any longer that the Tesla cars have an electric propulsion.
The only reason to get a Bolt vs any other car in that segment is that it is electric.
The only reason to get an e-Golf over any other Golf's is that it is electric.
The only reason to get a Leaf over any other car in that segment is that it is electric.
You may select an Tesla over any other car in that segment for a lot of reasons, and I do wish Tesla will give customers even more reasons. But that it has a long pure electric range (+superchargers) is still the point that differences Tesla most from all the others.
I would not look at any of them.
I did not say that it was the main selling point for you, or you or you.... People select cars for different reasons for different uses. And yes, Tesla does sell car to people that does not care about that it is electric, and that is all good. But how much media interest would Tesla generate if all it did was to put in a GM big block V8 in it's cars - and everything else being equal? Almost none.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
you do realize you're dealing with a bunch of Americans, right?�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 No, I do believe I'm dealing with a bunch of humans from different parts of the world�
Jun 22, 2016
alseTrick You said it was it's main selling point. Maybe it is; but I don't think so.
I think features like autopilot and ludicrous mode are very compelling to many people. I think that it's simply a new and unique luxury car is compelling to many people. Obviously it being an EV is compelling to many people (whether it's the eco-friendly aspect or the never buying gas aspect). So is the Musk factor. Some may just like that it is a safe vehicle.
I think if being an EV was the main selling point that Leaf sales would be skyrocketing and that people would be going crazy for the Bolt, not standing en masse to reserve the Model 3.
Yes, I believe Tesla would still be getting a great deal of press even if it were an ICE.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
Here's what I want out of my next vehicle, why I want it, and does the Model 3 achieve it:
Something that will fit in our 1 car garage, I don't want to worry about scraping the sides off of a Model S. CHECK
Autonomous or semi-Autonomous features for those long rides to see the in-laws in VA. CHECK (and I am willing to pay extra for that)
Stylish. CHECK
Fast. CHECK (also willing to pay extra)
Cutting edge tech. CHECK
Also in the "size" category, maneuvering city streets and/or parking garages. CHECK
Safe. CHECK
And somewhere waayyy down my list, but a happy side benefit, is the environmental aspect. And a happy side effect of THAT, is that in MA, I'll soon have access to EV-only parking in more places, as well as 24/7 HOV access, if the current EV Bill that has been proposed sails through. (and now that they have proposed collecting the now-infamous EV Tax from us to make up for lost Gas Tax revenue, it's likely to pass). Also, the whole tax credit, if I get it.
So yea.....a Model 3 is what I'm looking for.�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 And how much of the "Musk factor" is that this is an idealistic Internet millionaire that go out and starts a new car automaker just to get the other automakers over on electric propulsion? And from him open up it's patents just in the hope to get more competitors? And from "giving away" free "fuel"? From him/Tesla doing the things all others say is impossible? Yes, a lot of the "Musk factor" IS based on that this is an electric car. And that was what I was referring to in my latest post.
Yes, autopilot and ludicrous mode are factors that sells the cars, but "no one" would have heard about Tesla if it was running on an ICE, and therefore would not have heard about either autopilot or ludicrous mode.�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
on the contrary, semi/fully autonomous vehicles are a big topic, regardless of the form of propulsion they're using. (at least here in the US)�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 So you think that almost 400k persons would have reserved Model 3 almost 2 years before they could hope the first cars would be produced if Tesla was an fresh ICE automaker with autopilot and ludicrous mode? 115k before they had seen the car? Thousands in line at the shops?�
Jun 22, 2016
ModelNforNerd
You didn't say they had to be fresh. They HAVE put out 3 other cars prior to the Model 3. They've built the brand and the image already with their previous product lines.
As a FRESH off-the-streets OEM with the Model 3 being their 1st product? No.
But as a cutting-edge ICE OEM with their FOURTH vehicle? Maybe.�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 I call a 13 years old automaker with only 2/3 models in their entire history for "fresh".
But ok, I rephrase myself:
So you think that almost 400k persons would have reserved Model 3 almost 2 years before they could hope the first cars would be produced if Tesla was an 13 year old ICE automaker who only had made 2 earlier models from scratch with autopilot and ludicrous mode? 115k before they had seen the car? Thousands in line at the shops?
No, I do not think that it would be anything like that. Maybe Apple could manage that, but that is based on its "brand and image" from other products totally irrelevant for cars. Tesla has made it's "brand and image" as being an BEV only automaker of sporty "premium" electric cars witch the last few years has happened to also have exiting options like autopilot and insane/ludicrous mode.�
Jun 22, 2016
EVNow My response was very targeted. No need to change the subject.
Again, for Tesla Climate Change is more important than panel gap size and uniformity. If you give more importance to the gap than Climate Change, cheating VW/Audi is the right brand.
I find it illuminating that you consider gap size more of a black mark than emissions fraud.�
Jun 22, 2016
EVNow There was some article, I forget where, about German luxury car makers' response to Tesla - Meh. They incessantly talked about how Tesla was a non-starter because of panel gaps.�
Jun 22, 2016
alseTrick Yes, a lot is. But I don't think that's the reason for most of it. He's an odd science nerd. He's awkward. He makes ROCKETS and wants to send people to Mars. He's big on getting Hyper Loop started. He likes sci fi and gadgets and tech.
Even if Tesla didn't exist, or even if it was an ICE automaker, he'd still have a bit of a cult following.
I think a car being an EV is good and noble. But I'm NEVER going to buy a Leaf or Bolt. That's just the bottom line. I believe simply being an EV is not compelling enough of a reason for the vast majority of the world. Likewise, making EVs alone wouldn't have built the same Musk effect as the combination of all of his projects plus his personality.�
Jun 22, 2016
Model 3 True, but he was not the first to mention something like this. If he wasn't the well known Musk of electric car-maker Tesla no one would had listened when he came with that proposal. Maybe they had listened to him if he proposed it today based on whats going on in the space businesses?
Yes, Elon could perhaps have made an "Elon cult" without the electric car maker Tesla, but it would take a longer time. But the Elon as we know him, and the cult as it is, is based on that Tesla make electric cars.
I can not buy an Leaf, it does not have the range. But I have to admit that I am looking at the Bolt. No, I do not like or want the Bolt, but if it was no Model 3 on the horizon then that would be the first and maybe the only BEV with the needed range. Yes, I know about a lot of rumours about other cars, but I have by now heard so many rumours that have never been executed on, so we leave it at that until anything more substantively is shown. But on the other hand: without the Model 3, would it ever be any Bolt?
I gave my self a promise in the early-mid 90'th: "I will get me the first pure BEV with enough range for my use that I'm able to buy", and it looks like that would be the Bolt. But I cheat a bit since I could reserve the Model 3 before I could reserve or buy the Bolt (or Opel Ampera-e as it will be known here), and I call this reservation "a buy"
And that is exactly what Elon tries to change with Tesla. He shows the world that BEV's can be as good - or better - then an ICE. See: A BEV can even have autopilot! And Insane/Ludicrous modes! And be safer then an ICE! And look good! He does not try to show people that an safe autopilot car with ludicrous mode can even be an BEV...
Maybe? Yes, his personality is part of it. As is his commitment to the things he believes in - like electrification personal transport. But no, it would not been enough if he had made something like Leaf/i3/Volt+++ It had to be - to use both his and yours word: compelling Yes, the unique is that he do makes the BEV's they are making not only "any BEV", but "a compelling long range BEV with fast charger network to make it usable".
... but shouldn't this debate be about all the others things about what makes the cars compelling? We know that all Tesla's is and will forever be BEV's, and that this is their main selling point until "all" the other automakers have started producing long range compelling BEV's.�
Jun 22, 2016
alseTrick I really don't think we're disagreeing on much. You obviously think EV is the driving force while I think it's merely an important factor. Most everything else we seem to be in agreement.
I did want to speak on Hyper Loop, though. It is not Musk's brain child. Nor is sending people to Mars or building an EV, for that matter. But he made it mainstream. That is what he does. That is what he has the capability to do. He is able to do that because of all of his big ideas. And on the flip side, all of his big ideas allow him to turn something obscure into something mainstream. It is a great symbiosis.�
Jun 22, 2016
Xminus6 The estimate I gave was based on dimensions adjusted for perspective. That's why I did it in 3D instead of just measuring it in Photoshop. With known dimensions of the Models S and X and matching the camera position I estimated the size discounting perspective effect.�
Jun 23, 2016
Model 3 Yes, I do think so. It was the electric propulsion that put Tesla and Elon on "the map" and in peoples mind, and made it possible for him to turn also other ideas from obscure to something mainstream. After all people saw that he already managed to do that with BEV's, and later also with rockets.�
Jun 23, 2016
Jayc This thread is going a bit off track but I do have to agree with @Model 3 that EM+EV was the magic combination that lured me to take a risk with a relatively less know brand - coming from an extremely reliable Japanese car. Had EM done a non-EV, I doubt I would have been interested let alone preorder one two years ahead of production.�
Jun 23, 2016
ModelNforNerd
I didn't buy a TDI, so I don't care.
They DO, however, understate the power output of their engines, which is helpful when insuring your VW/Audi.
Also, I find it odd that you would be willing to spend so much money on something, and you're willing to have it be a work in progress.
I'd love to have access to your checking account, perhaps there's a bridge I could sell you. I hear Brooklyn is lovely this time of year.�
Jun 23, 2016
ohmman Sometimes expenditures aren't solely rooted in personal gain. Speaking for myself, I was willing to buy an S to take part in supporting an enterprise that aligns with my mindset. I didn't plan to spend that kind of money on a car at any time in my life - and planned to keep my '99 Acura for many years. I wouldn't have purchased a Model S if it didn't have all the great things going for it - long range, great performance, and tech. So there was certainly some reward for my expense. But what made the cost easier to bear was that I wanted to support Tesla. I'm a believer in voting with my wallet, and this was a company I wanted (and still want) to see succeed.
The experience with the S was so good, I bought the X. Yes, I have panel gap issues and other nags. For you, they'd be considered a "work in progress". For me, it's just taking part in progress.
Snarky remarks about bridges do not reflect well on your argument. People have different value judgements, and not everyone needs perfect aesthetics to feel that they got their money's worth.
For me, a few panel gap issues are easily offset by the fact that I'm able to have traveled 37k miles on electricity. All of my home charging miles are offset by my rooftop solar, and the rest were Supercharger-enabled road trips. Road trips that I never would have taken in an ICE.
So do I feel I'm getting my money's worth? Yeah. I want Tesla to do better on the panel gaps, they're not to be excused completely away. We point them out as something to improve upon. But I don't think I'm a fool for participating in one of the better stories of the 21st century.�
Jun 23, 2016
N5329K It's interesting how many people who reserved a Model 3 also keep their cars (by modern standards) a very long time. I surely do.
Robin�
Jun 23, 2016
ModelNforNerd
While snarky remarks regarding purchases of Brooklyn real estate don't lend any relevance to my argument, neither does the mindset of: "if you're not buying a Tesla for the environment, you should stick with emissions-cheats VAG".
As you pointed out, people have different value judgments. Whether I'm buying in to the mission or the aesthetics, my money will be accounted for in the same way by TMC.
While the mission is of utmost importance to many of you, I'm buying the product. I think you'll start seeing more of that with Model 3 than you did with R/S/X. Some of us still reside in income brackets where we don't have solar panels (or live somewhere they can't be installed).
And no one said anyone was a fool.....but when you spend that much money, why can't your product deliver quality fit/finish AND deliver on Elon's vision?
When I'm done checking boxes when the Design Studio link goes live, I want to know that the vehicle delivered to me will spend a majority of its time being enjoyed, not serviced.�
Jun 23, 2016
182RG I'll see panel gaps every time I drive the car. Dead bunnies by the road side, polar ice caps...? Yea, I don't see much of that. Sorry.�
Jun 23, 2016
ummgood Personally I want a compelling car that is sexy and not the 'norm'. I don't usually buy cars strictly because of their utility. I want a car that will be fun and not look like an econobox. My favorite car on the road is the A5 just because it looks so attractive. The problem is I would never buy one because I can't get over the price. I guess I am somewhere between something that is compelling but also at the same time reasonable. If the Model 3 wasn't available I would probably looking at something like a Nissan Maxima because it isn't as common as a Honda and has a little more sportiness to it.
The reason Tesla might get my money is because they made a car that really is attractive to me. Frankly I don't care that much about the electricity but the performance due to the electricity is really compelling. I have been in an i3 and a Model S on a couple occasions and I really love the performance of electric. This isn't due to them being electric. The fact I can help the environment and also save money on fuel is a plus but not a deciding factor. I really like the Model S because it is a great looking car, fast, and has really cool features but it doesn't appeal to me because it is electric. If electric was my primary concern I would be able to overlook the looks of the Volt, Bolt, Leaf, or i3. Frankly I just can't get over how frumpy they look to me. Plus they cost WAY more than what the equivalent ICE costs. Think Volt->Chevy Cruise, Bolt->Honda Fit, i3->who knows. I am willing to stretch past my sensibilities for the Model 3 so I can get a truly nice car that has some new features no other car has and really isn't that out of whack compared to a 3 series BMW. None of other electrics come close to the same value as an ICE when you look at what kind of car they compare against. I can afford probably even a Model S but I find it difficult to spend that kind of money on a depreciating asset.
I was around when the original EV1 was released and it was interesting but not compelling to me as an average car buyer. The car really was hideous looking to me. It was that overly unattractive attempt at making electric cars look overly "futuristic". Same goes for the leaf, i3, i8, and bolt. All of them just aren't that compelling to me. Yes they have great utility and are electric but they compare in my eyes to a car that costs half as much with an ICE engine.
This is where Tesla is different. They truly try to make their cars appealing to the average consumer. Yes the electric fans are lining up but so are the people who would buy a Nissan Maxima or Honda Accord because the car is that appealing. Regardless of the fact of it being electric. I will say that my biggest concern about this car is the fact that it is electric. I worry about the battery life. I worry about costly repairs. etc... I have a Toyota Tacoma and a Honda Odyssey. Both are insanely reliable and well built. I have very little out of pocket costs. My Tacoma is 11 years old and has 115k miles on it. I want that kind of longevity out of my Tesla. I think many people who lined up 400k aren't just in it because it is electric. It is because Tesla makes a compelling car regardless of the power train. Yes the power train does make the car perform like it does.
I agree that if the product has major glares with it and it is made on such a large scale it could hurt the Tesla brand. It won't cause people who love electric to stop buying but I might second guess buying another Tesla for my wife instead of a more reliable product. I can deal with the occasional issue but my wife on the other hand won't tolerate it. She puts dependability WAY before helping a cause.�
Jun 23, 2016
Jayc I intend to keep the M3 for 10 years at least. Current car will be 9 by the time I get my M3.�
Jun 23, 2016
JohnSnowNW Yes, it is easier to ignore things when they're out of sight. Quite true.
Doesn't change the realities, but yes, easier to ignore.�
Jun 23, 2016
N5329K For now, Tesla can say, "But it's electric," to anyone complaining about fit or finish. That works for True Believers. It might even work for many of those who early-reserved a Model 3 (I count the first big inrush of 300K as "early"). But it won't work for the mass market Tesla is aiming for, where comparisons with Honda/Toyota/BMW will be made, and often. And once the established manufacturers offer truly competitive vehicles (and IMHO they haven't, yet), Tesla might find itself in the unusual and uncomfortable position of coming from behind, rather than leading. In other words, this is important and they will have to get it right.
Robin�
Jun 23, 2016
Model 3 Well, that is just what the problem is: Not much polar ice caps left to see anymore�
Jun 23, 2016
glenhurst I'm in the same category as ohmman in that a major factor in deciding to buy the MS was my desire to be a part of this transition to sustainable transport. With that said, it seems to me it will be easier for Tesla to fix fit & finish issues than it will be for the ICE car companies to construct compelling EVs based on what they've offered so far. So, while perhaps all car manufacturers are falling short of the perfect car, it seems to me that Tesla is much closer than the others.�
Jun 23, 2016
N5329K Well, of course. We are both early adopters inclined to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt because they're attempting something vitally important. Most oil is consumed for transport. Hack transport and you hack oil. But it's a tougher crowd when you aim for mass market acceptance. Some-many-most of that segment will be interested in style, performance, reliability and resale. Not Johnny Polar Bear.
Tesla's competitors are grudgingly moving in the right direction, but like 90 weight gear oil in February. That's a real window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever. In the meantime, Tesla needs to navigate the transition from SV startup (where selling Beta-ware to early adopters is fine and dandy) to something (gasp) that resembles those other automotive manufacturers a bit more.
My hope, and my bet, is they will do it.
Robin�
Jun 23, 2016
jkk_ Exactly, if people really cared what their car runs on, we wouldn't need to those "diesel caps" for fuel filler holes that prevent people from adding gasoline to their diesel cars.�
Jun 24, 2016
lklundin Yes. The other day I got some Audi sales material trying to sell an artificial enhancement of the engine noise.
So Audi seems very far from the mindset needed to construct a compelling BEV and they are certainly not trying to influence owners of their cars in the BEV-direction.�
Jun 24, 2016
N5329K It's worth mentioning that the whale oil industry collapsed very quickly when "rock oil" (petroleum) became cheap and abundant. People switched not because they wanted to save the whales. They switched because kerosene lamps were better, less smelly and cheaper. The same thing happened to kerosene when Mr Edison's bulb came along. People switched, not because the oil industry was dangerous and filthy (it was...gasoline was being poured into rivers as a waste product from the production of lamp oil), but because electric light was better.
The same thing happened to the first generation of electric cars (who knew the first speeding ticket issued in New York City was to an electric cab???). People switched to gasoline because it was "better"; gasoline cars were faster, made better range and, as petroleum went huge, cheaper by far.
So Tesla's road is clear enough, if not easy: they have to build cars people want because they are better than ICE cars. Not only greener.
Robin�
Jun 24, 2016
Model 3 Just to make clear: When I said that the electric propulsion was the main selling point of the cars Tesla make, it was not just by the green perspective. Electric propulsion IS better then ICE - less vibrations, less noise, less toxic, faster reaction, more effective, fewer moving parts +++, what's holding it back - both now and 100 years ago - is the batteries and the charging infrastructure.�
Jun 24, 2016
N5329K I agree. From a technical standpoint, from a first principles physics standpoint, from an appreciation for pure speed standpoint. Don't know about the "fewer moving parts" issue (Model X?). But this electric car has most of those things going for it, too. Now who's going to buy it?
Robin
�
Jun 24, 2016
22522 The main selling point is designers who care about customers.�
Jun 24, 2016
Wes! Build, build, and build, then release the cars as close to each other as possible to ensure many as possible get the full 7,500 credit.�
Jun 24, 2016
Model 3 The same persons that would buy it whatever that propulsive system it have + some that would only buy it because it is electric.
But instead answering what you implying here:
�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner Elon asked....Do you know what it takes to build a car?
My answer = No. However, if robots are doing the majority of the building it shouldn't really take long. Oh well, I'm jumping into this conversation totally uninformed about the process.�
Jun 25, 2016
Dan Detweiler Elon has always said that the hard part is building the machines that build the cars.
Dan�
Jul 3, 2016
Az_Rael It looks like Tesla missed their production targets again. They will need to get on top of this very quickly before Model 3 production starts or we will all be talking about "Tesla time" come 2018. I think they have been trying to get to 2000 cars/week for two quarters now and haven't made it yet.
Tesla Q2 2016 Vehicle Production and Deliveries�
Jul 3, 2016
TaoJones From my ramblings in another thread (mostly concerning the Model 3) recently (below).
It's all possible. Just not probable. The thing is, let's say they ramp to 200,000 cars/year (4,000 cars/week by eoy 2018. That's still a staggering achievement relatively out of the gate for any company - but you can bet yer last share that the analysts (and the WSJ) will spin that achievement negatively for days and days because it's not 500,000 cars. Feh.
--- quoted and lightly edited text---
Let's be optimistic: ramp*** to 10,000 cars per week by year-end 2018, having worked up to 1,000 cars per week by early 2018.
That allows domestic employee/employee family [Model 3] deliveries* in Q4 2017, and a mix of the rest of the domestic employee cars along with the first CA owners' cars** in Q1 2018.
*Domestic employee [Model 3] orders swagged at 7,500.
**CA owners' [Model 3] reservations swagged at 3% of 400,000 so 12,000.
*** ramp swag (attained by eoq):
2018Q1 1K/wk (Model 3)
2018Q2 2K/wk (Model 3)
2018Q3 4K/wk (Model 3)
2018Q4 10K/wk (total production)�
Jul 3, 2016
Troy916 Per Tesla Q2 2016 Vehicle Production and Deliveries (NASDAQ:TSLA) they are currently just shy of 2000/week and expect to be at 2400/wk by the end of 2016Q4. Given a simpler to construct vehicle, one would expect the eventual model 3 rate to be higher. If they start building the model 3 in 2017Q3, that gives them 13+ weeks to get the rate up to 2400+ for the beginning of 2018Q1.�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK Correction... production goals were met just fine. Delivery goals were missed due to cars in transit to their delivery locations.�
Jul 3, 2016
Garlan Garner Is there anyone in there that understands what the problem in Tesla is?
I keep hearing from Tesla / Elon that they have a goal to to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.
How can we tell Tesla that people are trying to help them with their mission statement. We are buying cars and we are ordering cars....however you can't produce them fast enough.
The MS has been out for a while. I'm thinking that there shouldn't be an issue with training the robots and people for that car.�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK There had been a shortage in Q1, Q2 had all the parts and they produced good numbers. They anticipated delivering 17,000 vehicles and at the end of Q2 plus a few days will be nearly 17,000 deliveries. Transit to Asia and Europe takes time and that's unavoidable. Just because at the midnight on the last day of Q2 those vehicles hadn't been delivered because they're on a ship shouldn't make people lose faith.
Production was higher in Q2 than Q1 and will be higher still in Q3.�
Jul 4, 2016
Az_Rael OK, they got above 17,000 produced but they still haven't made the magic 2000/week they have been trying to get to for several quarters. They were "just under".
And it was another quarter with a mad rush to get cars out at the end. It will be nice when they can settle in to steady rate increases. It just seems like they are bad at setting public goals. Would be better to under promise and over deliver.�
Jul 4, 2016
jkk_ And those mad rushes can't be good from quality standpoint.�
Jul 4, 2016
Jleafs The problem is that large scale manufacturing is hard. And I'm guessing that it gets harder when you're making complex machines that people's lives depend on, cost $100,00, and are supposed to last for years.
The S has not been out for "a while", it has barely been 4 years, and they've made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150K cars. That is nothing compared to the decades of experience and millions of cars produced by other automakers.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner My point is this: The robots that make Tesla MS's have been programed for an eternity ( 4 years or so ). In other words...the "How to make an MS" question has been answered. There is no more design, nor programing robots necessary. I don't understand how or why they just can't ramp up production.�
Jul 4, 2016
N5329K Probably because their problems are not strictly production-related, but more systemic. Just like you can't put more water through clogged pipes by turning up the tap. The entire system needs to be plumbed and ready for the volume- including delivery- and apparently it isn't yet.
Robin�
Jul 4, 2016
cronosx This is just your opinion, you can change how it's done, just move the robot, optimize timing etc ( my job it's been this for a some years, just non in automovie industries ) and i've seend line doubling the production whitout big change, and with big change triple the production.
Since Elon stated that he see many point where he can improve thing, i would think that this is the case.
And we are talking about a huge line, with many robot ( and robot can be greatly customized and replaced for improve things, unlike other machine ), this at robot as people, you can always change you mind of how it's better to build the car, you can double the robot in the same line, just think like "one robot does the left side, the other the right side" while before there was only one robot, or you can place the seat while mounting the brake, things like that could greatly improve the overall line speed
Then just by changing something you can greatly reduce the "fault" where a car came out and has to be fixed ( this reduce the line speed ) and again you are improving the production.. i remember one time when simply dumping bad nails we got a +30% production.
If you can't conceive how this could be archived simply means that you havent put you hands on production line.�
Jul 4, 2016
N5329K Every manufacturer has to define for itself what's "good enough." As buyers, we want 100% on time and on quality. A company that insists on 100% will spend its time, energy and resources in refining and inspecting, not delivering. A company that doesn't care just counts units and forgets about good enough. British Leyland in the 1970's comes to mind. And when GM ran NUMMI (what's now Tesla Fremont), that was their approach, too. We see how that ended.
Tesla has to find the right balance between quality and delivery. Too many units at too low quality and things come crashing down. Too few units at too high a quality works for fine art or Swiss watches, but not cars (unless you're making them for a tiny, tiny audience). Naturally, tiny audiences don't change history, and that's what Mr. Musk intends to do.
It's no wonder a very young company like Tesla is still hunting for that sweet spot.
Robin�
Jul 4, 2016
JeffK Their sweet spot is a moving target. With production lines it's entirely possible to increase throughput and quality at the same time. I don't think Tesla is going to settle for "good enough" in a culture of continual improvement.�
Jul 4, 2016
N5329K It's definitely possible. For Tesla to survive, it's also mandatory.
Robin�
Jul 4, 2016
Jleafs "How to make an MS", i.e. a singular vehicle, is a totally different question than how to make 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000. It's not simply a matter of robots that need to be programmed, it's a complex process of supply management, financing, human resources, logistics, quality control, etc. etc.
Tesla obviously did not start out of the gate 4 years ago with a fully formed, perfected, and scaleable production process and they're not there yet 4 years later, either. Of course it's hard, if it was easy, then anybody could've done it by now.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner Its not my opinion that they have been making the MS for years now. Its a fact
Its not my opinion that the standard design of the MS is done. Its a fact
Its not my opinion that there is nothing more to engineer. Its done. Its a fact.
All Tesla has to do now is repeat success. The MS is a success. If robots are the predominant thing putting the MS together....then there has to be another issue. ( lack of parts/ paint/ slow delivery/ not enough robots...etc. )
If Tesla is running robots 24/7 ( production ) , then I don't know why they are running into delivery issues. It has to be a hang up after production.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner I"m not sure its a moving target. They haven't caught the target yet. They are vastly behind the target - behind their own target. It affects the stock price.
In other words, Tesla knows that if it makes 2000 MS's next week....they will still be behind. They know what the orders are...however they can't fulfill them. The question I have is why? Does anyone know....or are we going to keep speculation about what could possibly be the problem?�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner Thanks. After reading the following article, the problem is not production. The robots must be working well.
Looks like the problem is delivery. In other words...it sounds like Tesla has cars sitting somewhere, however have a problem getting them delivered on time. This is the first paragraph of the article.
Tesla issued its Q2 production and delivery numbers, indicating that the company produced 20 percent more cars this quarter than the previous however fell short in delivering the vehicles to customers.
Can anyone confirm the facts? Q2, 18,345 cars produced - only 14,370 delivered.
4000 cars must be sitting in a lot somewhere.
Tesla increases Q2 production by 20% but falls short of deliveries�
Jul 4, 2016
EinSV Hi Garlan,
Tesla produced 18,345 vehicles in Q2 and 15,510 in Q1, which is about an 18.2 percent increase in production. I expect the reason deliveries lagged is that Tesla reports that almost half of its production was in June, so many of those vehicles were still in transit on June 30, including overseas and to the East Coast.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner I agree, but the stockholders don't care where the cars are. They missed the deliveries target. Tesla promised 17,000 deliveries to it's investors.
They made the production target, however they can't deliver.... I now wonder why. Maybe its the overseas car deliveries..... I don't know. As a regular person....I don't care, however as a stock holder...I do care.�
Jul 4, 2016
EinSV I was just responding to your question and to your statement that undelivered cars might be sitting on a lot somewhere. Some of them are likely in transit, and others may now be on a lot waiting to be picked up by customers.
And I agree that some investors may focus on delivery numbers rather than production numbers -- I guess we will find out soon enough.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner Yep!�
Jul 4, 2016
cronosx Since it seems you don't understanrd..just put in the pratical matter, if you have to make 5 holes, you can use a driller and make 1 hole at time, this would accomplish the task, the robot know how to do it, all done.
So what? this doesn't mean that i can make the drilling time 1/5, 1 drill time 10 second? time to move from one drilling position to another 1 sec? 10 sec * 5 + 1 sec * 4 -> 54 sec
But if i use 5 driller pre-positioned i kill the 1 sec*4 for positioning the driller, and since i do all the drilling at the same time, it doesn't took 54 second, it took 10 second.
So i changed my production rate from 54second piece to 10second piece. thus multiplying my production of a factor of 5.4. wich means that if i was building 66pieces in 1h, now i produce 360 piece in 1h, no change in desing or other. the piece it's the same. i've only changed the way the drilling line works.
Yes, i knew how to drill 5 holes, but i didn't it in a good way, i just did it. it's not the same thing.
Now put this in a weekly perspective, 66piece in 1h, 8h days, 5 days -> 2640 piece in a week produced in the last week
It took me 4 days to change the production line, so i've done 0 pieces while working on changing the production line -> i've worked only 1 days, but i've done it with the new production line, so 360 piece * 8 -> 2880 piece in a week
But the next week i'll producte 2880*5 -> 14400 piece, and if you just look at my previus week production you can say "meeh.. you produced only a small fraction more, and you costed me 4 days of work for what?", you just didn't see the big picture.
Now, this is an extreme case where there is a huge improvemenet, but the thing is, in a big production line you just have to tweak every single machinge to get maybe 10car/h more and it cost you maybe weeks of work.
This is not what you see on the outside, you just see a serius of falling/incresing in the production and not that in the next years you can produce maybe 2x the number of car you made the last years, maybe with less men on the line�
Jul 4, 2016
zenmaster ?�
Jul 5, 2016
Model 3 #1.
Sure. But they have not been producing it in the exact same way all this time. Its a fact.
#2.
The basic design is done, true. But not all the designs. Just a few month ago it was a big "facelift" of the design, and Elon have said that the make numerous changes to the car etch week. Its a fact.
#3.
GOTO #2�
Jul 5, 2016
Az_Rael I wonder if the constant tweaking of the MS (and presumably the MX) design is one of the factors in the difficulty with the production ramp ups.
If they were more like a traditional auto manufacturer, they would make the same car for ~1 year before making any changes (barring safety recalls, etc). They would then incorporate all the minor updates into the yearly upgrade, a minor refresh every 2 or 3 years and a major refresh every 5 or so. This does allow the traditional auto makers to really stamp out cars as fast as they can since the supply chains, tooling, etc are all up and running for a longer period of time before changes are made.
If they constantly tweak the Model 3 just like they do the S and X, then those high production rates they are projecting are going to be extremely difficult to obtain.�
Jul 5, 2016
Model 3 Probably.
I don't think they will. It is reasonable to do that as a new manufacture and/or with a new product. So they may do it the first months on the Model 3, and then just if it is some serious problems that needs to be fixed. And this is also hinted to by Elon. First starts delivery near the factory so any problems could be detected fast and be fixed in production. Then wait with new "cow bells" (and probably fixes) until next edition. But I still think they will not apply to the normal "model year", but maybe release new editions every 6 month or so?
I do expect to get 2018� Model 3�
Jul 5, 2016
Burnardr The production lines were designed to produce both cars right? If one line is down to fix X issues, Tesla is effectively at half capacity until it's fixed. Then they have to make those same changes to the other line at some point to maintain manufacturing flexibility.�
Jul 5, 2016
ohmman And this is the story every quarter for Tesla. It's like they forget the pace, then someone shows them a calendar, and they freak out. "End of quarter! Production line up to 11!"
Quality for end of quarter vehicles is generally lower as a result of the rush, as well.�
Jul 5, 2016
JeffK Is this quantifiable or speculation I wonder? It makes sense that when humans are stressed or tired they make mistakes in judgement yet the robots don't get tired. err "machines that make machines"
If this quantifiable then maybe it can be improved.�
Jul 5, 2016
N5329K This was a problem with Soviet production, too. When quota time came around, they drove screws with hammers to meet their quota number. They called it "storming." Back in the USSR, "consumers" were happy to get whatever they could, even if they knew that a quota rush TV might catch fire, or a stormed washing machine might need a few tweaks before it would actually work.
Expectations have changed.
Robin�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét