Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Badly Misses Model 3 Production Goals (wsj.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): Tesla badly missed its goal of building 1,500 Model 3 cars in the third quarter, the first sign that the production ramp-up for the new sedan isn't going as smoothly as planned. The Silicon Valley electric-car maker built 260 of the Model 3s between July and September, the company said Monday in a statement. In August, the auto maker predicted it would build more than 1,500 Model 3s before cranking up production to 5,000 a week by the end of the fourth quarter. Tesla blamed "production bottlenecks" for the weaker production. "It is important to emphasize that there are no fundamental issues with the Model 3 production or supply chain," Tesla said in a statement. "We understand what needs to be fixed and we are confident of addressing the manufacturing bottleneck issues in the near-term."

244 comments

  1. But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Computers got better and we have 3D printers now? Isn't this the post-Luddite post-scarcity 3D printed virtual AI space future I was promised?

    Am I still going to retire on Mars?

    1. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The SpaceX accomplishments have already legitimized him, sorry. No one cares if his car business is slow to roll out new models.

    2. Re: But but but but by SpaceDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Musk can't build a rocket"
      Later... "Okay but he can't build a cheap rocket"
      Later... "Okay but he can't make them reusable"
      Later... "Okay but he needs the military and they'll never use him"
      etc etc

      "Electric cars will never work"
      Later... "Okay but they'll never have the performance of petrol cars"
      Later... "Okay but car manufacturers will never embrace them"
      Later... "Okay but Musk isn't a car manufacturer"
      Later... "Okay but they'll never have a range of more than 100 km"
      Later... "Okay but there's no practical way to charge them quickly enough"
      Later... "Okay but they'll never be able to mass-produce them"
      etc etc

    3. Re:But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I still going to retire on Mars?

      You're certainly welcome to. I'm sticking with tropical paradise, right here...

    4. Re: But but but but by RAID+Roach+Killer · · Score: 0

      Musk can ride my rocket.

    5. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot users usually prefer to insist that a new thing is completely impossible and cannot be done until the thing is commoditized and ubiquitous, at which point they roll their eyes and declare it old news.

    6. Re: But but but but by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Your rocket is too small.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: But but but but by RAID+Roach+Killer · · Score: 0

      I got one of those extensions off Amazon. They claim it's pthalate free. I don't care as I'm not planning on getting myself pregnant.

    8. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, you surely showed that strawman what's what.

    9. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla, not Edison

    10. Re: But but but but by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Musk can't build a rocket" Later... "Okay but he can't build a cheap rocket" Later... "Okay but he can't make them reusable" Later... "Okay but he needs the military and they'll never use him" etc etc

      "Electric cars will never work" Later... "Okay but they'll never have the performance of petrol cars" Later... "Okay but car manufacturers will never embrace them" Later... "Okay but Musk isn't a car manufacturer" Later... "Okay but they'll never have a range of more than 100 km" Later... "Okay but there's no practical way to charge them quickly enough" Later... "Okay but they'll never be able to mass-produce them" etc etc

      "Tesla won't reach their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla STILL hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
      ...

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    11. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They did actually all of those targets in the past, just never on time. It's more like:

      "Tesla reached their target several years too late"

      Later... "Tesla reached their (other) target about a year too late"

      Later... "Tesla reached their (other) target a month too late"

      Even though they are now 80% below expectations in September, that simply corresponds to the expected output in August. I would say they're getting better.

    12. Re: But but but but by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In what world do you live in?

      Tesla was late with the Roadster and had a slow rampup. (*Cue the doomsayers!*) .... then they ramped up and hit their production target, and everyone who ordered a Roadster got one.

      Tesla was late with the Model S and had a somewhat slow rampup. (*Cue the doomsayers!*) .... then they ramped up and hit their production target, and everyone who ordered a Model S got one (and continues to).

      Tesla was late with the Model X and had a very slow rampup. (*Cue the doomsayers!*) .... then they ramped up and hit their production target, and everyone who ordered a Model X got one (and continues to).

      Tesla was moved the Model 3 launch date up significantly, and actually launched on time, but at present is one month late with the rampup. (*Cue the doomsayers!*)

      This is pretty insignificant, for a number of reasons, and is the reason why TSLA isn't plunging today (as of time of writing, the pre-market has it down less than 2%, and I bet it'll close similar to or higher than it started, because there's a lot of bulls looking to buy on weakness). Mainly, though, everyone already knew this. Anyone who cares, at least. The vin number count has been low this past month. Articles had already discussed first a problem with welds that they had to go back and correct, and then later a problem with grounding bolts that they had to go back and correct. Normal production ramp stuff. The Q3 report mentions a couple parts in limiting supply as well, which again, while news, is normal production ramp stuff. Meanwhile, every other part will continue its rampup while the whips are cracked on that which are in short supply.

      With most companies, there's not much public attention on rampup issues on new vehicle architectures; only investors generally care about it. Most companies also don't begin sales until rampup is already well underway. But obviously, Tesla is a different story. Overall, unless there's a serious design flaw or other issue with the parts that are in short supply or their production lines that mean it'll take many months to catch up, there's not much to this. For most people waiting for a Model 3, how many lines Tesla ultimately decides to open matters a lot more than how long it takes them to get the first line running right. Also, they're just making one specific configuration right now (LR, with PUP, without dual motor/air suspension). The rate at which the other configurations mature and their config-specific parts go into production also constrains most customers a lot more than this.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    13. Re: But but but but by Rei · · Score: 1

      Marked funny, but so, so true.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    14. Re: But but but but by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Climate change will ensure the tropical part anyway

    15. Re: But but but but by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Lots of people have already replied, but anyhow...

      Nobody should be surprised by this. Elon Musk's deadlines are grossly optimistic. However he does tend to meet his goals, just a lot later than planned. This isn't such an issue when it comes for 70 million dollar rocket - it's almost expected, but he's going to have to more careful when dealing with consumers.

    16. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a VR headset too?

    17. Re: But but but but by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      vin number count

      I don't think you could have come up with a more painful phrase if you tried.

    18. Re: But but but but by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Alas, you need to make all that activity sustainable and profitable to have any future. Musk has burned through absolutely eye watering and unprecedented amounts of cash, but that's about it. His exceptionally creative accountancy doesn't inspire confidence either.

    19. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot that it will be a copy of previous work and they could have done it better, if they were interested.

    20. Re: But but but but by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The reusable boosters are still experimental at best. Yes, they did manage to reuse a couple of them once before retiring them. I'm still not convinced.

      It's also not clear the Tesla will succeed as a car manufacturer. GM is beating them on every front.

    21. Re: But but but but by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      However he does tend to meet his goals, just a lot later than planned.

      "A lot later" is the definition of 'not meeting goals.'

    22. Re: But but but but by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      I wish this weren't actually the case. 20 years ago it wasn't the case, not sure when everyone became old curmudgeons.

    23. Re: But but but but by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's almost as if there's some money being paid to write slam articles about certain companies who are either disruptive or successful, who are not also paying those same sources to write glowing fluff pieces. If we called it protection money...it would sound like the mafia. So let's call it marketing money. These companies don't need to pay the marketing money because their products sell themselves, so instead we write trash pieces.

      Tesla makes excellent cars. All the rest of this is just stupid. If you paid your money for a pre-order, you probably knew that delivery was TBD if you were paying any attention at all.

    24. Re: But but but but by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're going to be pedantic so will I. It depends on how the goal was defined. If I say "I'll do X, and I'll do within Y years", but end up managing to do X after Y+5 years, I've still met the goal of doing X.

    25. Re: But but but but by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, I was writing that while having some naan bread, rice pilaf and chai tea after a stop at the atm machine, and the LCD display was too dim for me to notice my erroneous mistake.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    26. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? How is GM, let alone any other car makers, outselling Them in the same class?

    27. Re: But but but but by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Slashdot users usually prefer to insist that a new thing is completely impossible and cannot be done until the thing is commoditized and ubiquitous, at which point they roll their eyes and declare it old news.

      And then ignore it because real people, rather than Linux fanboys, use it.

    28. Re:But but but but by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Am I still going to retire on Mars?

      You're certainly welcome to. I'm sticking with tropical paradise, right here...

      Your generation will have tropical retirement wherever they want because my generation couldn't abide anything nuclear.

    29. Re: But but but but by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heck, most people's delivery dates are a three-month window. Mine (Europe) is very nonspecific "late 2018" ;) It actually got moved forward from "early 2019" ;)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    30. Re: But but but but by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > GM is beating them on every front.

      You must have a strange definition of both "every" and "front".

      The Bolt is a weird looking (IMHO) econobox that sells for $37000. The Tesla 3 is a stunning (IMHO) mid-range sedan that sells for $35000. The 3 has a larger interior, longer wheelbase, while having *slightly* less cargo space. The 3 eats the Bolt in performance terms, has all the hardware needed for autonomous driving, has a more high-tech interior, is much easier to buy, charges much faster and has a wider selection of stations. It comes in a model with greatly extended range. And if the production ramps *even a little*, will outproduce the Bolt by multiples.

      So yeah, "every front" seems a bit strange.

    31. Re: But but but but by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      The difference now is that Tesla is trying something an order of magnitude bigger than they've ever done before - and they weren't very successful the previous attempts. And they are quickly burning their cash reserves in doing so. It's going to be a race to see if Tesla can get production ramped up before they need to sell a ton more bonds, massively dilute their shares - or go bankrupt.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    32. Re: But but but but by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The 3 might actually be my next car, since the Chevy Volt (2013) cost me $12,000 and the only other option for a nice upgrade is a Bolt or a 2017 Chevy Volt. The single advantage the Volt has over the 3 is its horrible value-holding, meaning I can get a 2017 in 2019 or so for maybe $15k in near-new condition.

    33. Re: But but but but by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Mass production is hard, but it isn't impossible. He isn't running into any laws of physics, or needing a scientific breakthrough, that is 5 years out. It is just optimizing your process. Companies like GM, Ford and Toyota, have been doing this for generations, so they have the process rather down packed. New Car Companies, need to learn such lessons and revamp. An electric motor is generally much simpler then an internal combustion engine, It is just about getting the grove in place.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    34. Re: But but but but by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      so they have the process rather down packed

      Just an aside, the phrase is down pat .

      --

      Enigma

    35. Re: But but but but by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Your point is that Musk doesn't give up on the first try, and does achieve stated goals. OK.

    36. Re:But but but but by Rei · · Score: 1

      If you like both the tropics and space, may I suggest Venus? ;)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    37. Re: But but but but by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      much like creimer's mobility scooter, these goalposts have wheels.

    38. Re: But but but but by randallman · · Score: 1

      Was thinking the same thing. Dose Slashdot have a different user base or is this the same group turned old and grumpy?

    39. Re:But but but but by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Computers got better and we have 3D printers now? Isn't this the post-Luddite post-scarcity 3D printed virtual AI space future I was promised?

      Am I still going to retire on Mars?

      By any even halfway honest math most people won't retire at all. The Ponzi schemes of social security and government pensions will start to seriously hit the fan in the next few years.

    40. Re: But but but but by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > In what world do you live in?

      The world with a bunch of idiots who are always wrong. According to the naysayers, Apple should have closed down in the 90s and "refunded the shareholders", Nintendo should have given up hardware and become like Sega after the N64 - then after the Gamecube and again after the Wii U, and Marvel in the 90s should have folded and allowed their catalog to be bought by DC.

    41. Re: But but but but by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I think it's mostly a new user base, and the scales tipped enough that many of the old user base either left, or just stopped commenting.

    42. Re: But but but but by mlyle · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest concern with all these stories about being late and having trouble ramping production is that they consume lots of capital and put profitability further out of reach.

      Equity markets love TSLA right now but will not give them endless sips of new capital.

    43. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - or go bankrupt.

      I hope this doesn't happen. Furthermore, I'd advocate for a bailout if it were to occur. We've bailed out crappy auto makers who weren't making the world a better place, so why not do the same for a company that is going to improve life for us all (***).

      *** Well, maybe not climate change deniers who live in isolated regions & for whom vehicle range is more important than air quality.

    44. Re: But but but but by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We bailed out the UAW pension fund. Read up on the details.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re: But but but but by torkus · · Score: 1

      Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target" ...

      Except they keep setting their target higher and higher. At no point has Musk ever left the goalpost in the same spot once they were near it.

      Go look at his 10-year plan from 10 years ago. It reads something like: invest money to build a small number of EVs aimed at wealthy/collector types; invest money from those sales to build a significantly larger number of high end EV and sell that to well off people; invest money from THOSE sales to build a mass-production, moderately priced sedan and sell LOTS of those...which he is on the cusp of doing.

      Are his target dates aggressive? extremely. Does he miss them? Often. Is it all hidden behind walls of secrecy? never. It's all out in the open for anyone to see. If you don't believe in it, no worries. Plenty of other people are - quite literally - lined up to buy what he's selling or the stock in the companies that make it all.

      Remind me again how often the US Government, military, large business contractors, NASA, etc. deliver on time for most of what they do?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    46. Re: But but but but by torkus · · Score: 1

      Alas, you need to make all that activity sustainable and profitable to have any future. Musk has burned through absolutely eye watering and unprecedented amounts of cash, but that's about it. His exceptionally creative accountancy doesn't inspire confidence either.

      You're kidding, right?

      Musk has done what literally no one has ever done before (build a functional and profitable private space launch aka rocket ship company from scratch using private funds) and what hasn't been done in at least 50 years (start a new, functional car company).

      And you can throw in the other minor things he's done around solar, power vault, superchargers as well as upcoming tech like hyperloop, advanced tunnel boring, and so on.

      He is exceptionally accountable but in very much the opposite way you claim. Someone who is literally doing with private funds and for-profit what NASA could not do with $billions in 'free' government funding and decades of time without any expectation or requirement of profit...instills a HUGE amount of confidence. Get over it. Or don't I guess...but once you're proven wrong here you'll pick the next 'can't do it' thing to point out until that too is done.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    47. Re: But but but but by elistan · · Score: 1

      TSLA isn't plunging today (as of time of writing, the pre-market has it down less than 2%, and I bet it'll close similar to or higher than it started, because there's a lot of bulls looking to buy on weakness).

      Good call. With less than an hour to the closing bell, not only is TSLA higher than it's starting price as you predicted, it's 1.5% higher than yesterday's closing.

    48. Re: But but but but by torkus · · Score: 1

      The reusable boosters are still experimental at best. Yes, they did manage to reuse a couple of them once before retiring them. I'm still not convinced.

      It's also not clear the Tesla will succeed as a car manufacturer. GM is beating them on every front.

      So they're experimental "at best" yet you freely admit they're actively using them. That directly counters your claim. Frankly, no one cares if you're convinced. The fact of the matter is SpaceX is actively, successfully launching re-usable rockets when no one else is or has before. (I don't count the space shuttle as it was essentially rebuilt between every launch)

      It's not clear that Tesla will succeed any more than it's clear GM will succeed. Hell, one of them has been nearly out of business on more than one occasion and had to take huge subsidized loans to avoid going belly up while still cutting several of their brands to save costs. One of the two has proven itself continuously innovative over the last decade and continues to grow at an astonishing rate.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    49. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private funds. Lul.

    50. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like you forgot to enter your PIN number at the ATM machine. No wonder you made such a mistake!

      BTW, I recommend getting some roast beef with au jus sauce.

      dom

    51. Re: But but but but by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      No, it sounds like you need to read up on the details.

      The US government bailed out both GM and Chrysler.

      We gave over $60 billion to the car companies themselves, and that number goes over $80 billion if you include the assistance to their financial subsidiaries.

      If you doubt me, go straight to the source at: https://www.treasury.gov/initi...

      If you doubt the Treasury, you can send them a FOIA request.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    52. Re: But but but but by Rei · · Score: 1

      I never play the stock market myself (beyond general retirement funds) because I don't have a "gambling" bone in my body.... but I swear, TSLA has been so easy to call through most of its history.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    53. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erroneous mistake.

      So what's your excuse for that?

    54. Re: But but but but by Gussington · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if there's some money being paid to write slam articles about certain companies who are either disruptive or successful,

      It's a pattern I've noticed about pretty much anything these days. Even in here you'll always come across a deliberately inflammatory post trying to derail the conversation, and it's almost always an AC. When you read enough of them you start to form the opinion that it's not just random trolling, but a coordinated response done by design to divide and disrupt.
      There's only two possibilities for such co-ordination, corporate or government. I think it's time the AC and verification of identities is improved to prevent such activity.

    55. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rising the bubble is easy money... until it bursts. I think it's fair to say that nobody can guess when that will happen, but it becomes ever more likely.

    56. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raising the target doesn't solve the problem of not achieving it. In fact, it makes it worse.

    57. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except you can't actually buy a Tesla Model 3 because they haven't figured out how to make more than three of them a day.

    58. Re: But but but but by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      He hasn't built a functional car company yet, in the sense that it is not profitable. Plenty of people have built car companies in the last 50 years that were not profitable.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    59. Re: But but but but by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The Tesla 3 looks like an econobox to me.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    60. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you got moved, because so many people cancelled.

    61. Re: But but but but by GaryHayman · · Score: 1

      ..."And then ignore it because real people, rather than Linux fanboys, use it" The Linux Fanboys who were using it didn't miss any of the fun!

    62. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Test Driven Development !

    63. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well tesla has not been exactly great at meeting promised investor goals.

      in fact it has been very bad at producing any sort of return. musk just happened to be very rich from doding banking laws.

    64. Re: But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      f35 contractors are getting paid.

      the thing is, that people are getting increasingly anxious of the fact that tesla motors has only ever shown profit through creative books and this is what the market has been waiting for so long, an actual mass market car- which Still is very expensive and there is no show yet of if they can hit profit.

      seriously teslas biggest hit this year was that trump was elected and any major co2 based tqx hikes to car prices went out the window( there are marketa where teslas are cheaper than other luxury sedans. much cheaper. usa is not one of those markets)

  2. Sounds like training by Herkum01 · · Score: 0

    Given that they have been building cars for a while, they should know how to construct an assembly line. This could just training issues, with having to bring in people who are new to building cars.

    1. Re:Sounds like training by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bottlenecks in a production line are extremely difficult to address. There's been tons of excellent books about it (such as The Goal) but it remains a major issue in companies with a normal growth so it's not surprising to see Tesla struggling with that given their insane expansion pace.

      I spent years in the manufacturing world and countless times I've seen stuff like HR authorizing crazy overtime in the weeks following a layoff or plant managers scrambling to rent containers to store surplus of a part that was backorder the week before. You got JIT? Next thing you know Texas is blown away and gas prices skyrocket, making parts more expensive to get delivered. You decide to build up inventory? Real estate prices go up and you end up paying top dollar for low quality warehouses.

      Supply chain, project management and interest rates: all examples of things that are too complex for the human mind to fully comprehend.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Sounds like training by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Take a look at Boeings woes with the 787 production, or Airbuses with the A380 - highly trained, experienced workforces on both sides, but significant production issues in both cases.

      In the case of the A380, the production models suffered from issues that weren't apparent in CADCAM phases, and in the case of the 787 it was a company fuck up top to bottom (when your fastener supplier says "12 months lead time" 18 months before you need them, you don't leave your order for another 15 months and expect them to deliver in 3...)

      Even established companies with serious experience behind them can have issues with a new products ramp up - Tesla isn't unique.

    3. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or not many people want a Tesla.

    4. Re:Sounds like training by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to some articles about these? I haven't heard the 787 fastener story before, and have only hand-wavey explanations about the A380 delays (somehow they could successfully wire up the test flight planes but took about 2 years to figure out how to wire the rest of them.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    5. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electrical harnesses in the prototype A380s would have been hand made and would not have included everything needed to support wi-fi networking, entertainment units and USB-C chargers for each passenger seat. They probably contracted out manufacture of the production harnesses to a Chinese company and were surprised when they came back with badly crimped connections.

    6. Re:Sounds like training by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your best bet is to hit the Airliners.net or Pprune forum archives, lots of back story there.

      The A380 issues were due to a mismatch between design software versions, resulting in wiring looms being the wrong size - the first few airframes built for development are always basically hand built with tonnes of design changes, but the production issues didn't become apparent until customer cabins were being installed as that meant a huge increase in wiring that needed to be installed. And that wiring simply didn't fit.

      The 787 was pushed for a PR rollout on the 8th of July, 2007 - or 7/8/7 in US format. If you look at the photos taken at the time, the aircraft was a shell, despite it supposedly taking to the air later that year (you could see down the length of the cabin through the cockpit windows - there was *nothing* in there). The shell was also put together using fasteners from your local DIY store, not aviation grade ones - they all had to be removed and replaced prior to flight.

      Then there was the aviation grade fasteners that were wrongly installed - this resulted in cracking, which had to be repaired, and those fasteners replaced.

      And then the "side of body" issue, where the wing connection to the fuselage wasn't strong enough and had to be strengthened.

      And the fire on the first aircraft which resulted in damage (specifically a hole in the fuselage).

      And the fuselage barrels being delivered from suppliers which were misshapen and had to be reworked.

      Boeing changed both the production method *and* technologies involved - moving from a "everything built in the factory on one location" to "fuselage barrels built in separate locations around the world, prestuffed with wiring and cabin outfittings, and simply joined by Boeing on an integration line", as well as moving from a normal aluminium based technology to a CFRP one. Boeing ended up having to buy most of the third party suppliers they had farmed work packages out to.

    7. Re:Sounds like training by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      See this article from Flightblogger at the time detailing some of the issues - Flightblogger went on to be a journalist at Flight Global.

      http://flightblogger.blogspot....

    8. Re:Sounds like training by Rei · · Score: 2

      Except half a million waiting for a car with a 1 1/2 year waiting list - except for that, there's clearly no demand.

      (Cue the "lots of people cancelled all at once" myth in 3, 2, 1....)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    9. Re:Sounds like training by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = And then the "side of body" issue, where the wing connection to the fuselage wasn't strong enough and had to be strengthened. = = =

      Good account, however IIRC the "side-of-body" join was too strong (too stiff) and had to be weakened to prevent stress from propagating where it should not have.

    10. Re:Sounds like training by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's an aeroplane. Cars are much easier... /s

    11. Re:Sounds like training by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Cue the "let's wait for first delivery before we see whether the people who made refundable $1000 deposits start asking for their refund."

    12. Re:Sounds like training by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      How did you miss the fact that there have been deliveries going on for months? Did you not even read the headline, let alone the summary, let alone the article?

      People with vehicles are already taking and posting videos, chatting on the Tesla forums, etc. And the general reaction is, although there's some features yet to come on the touchscreen (thank you, over-the-air updates!), the car is amazing. One person, when asked whether it was fun to drive, simply posted a picture of black sticky stuff splattered across their wheel wells with words along the lines of "That's not road tar ;)" and "I'll be lucky if these tires last 2000 miles"

      The first delivery was 30 vehicles. The next month was supposed to be 100, then 300, then 1500. However, they're only up to around 250-ish, by the vin count. More and more people on the forums however, keep getting notified of their delivery dates, so it's exciting to watch :)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    13. Re:Sounds like training by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      So it may be fun to drive, but it sounds like it's still not the every-day vehicle they were pitching it to be. Very few people want their tires to wear out at 2000 miles because the car has so much torque. Maybe they should have some kind of torque control so that you don't prematurely wear out the tires. This goes along with other reviews I've seen on the Model S, where the basic advice is to always get the all wheel drive model if you live anywhere there is snow, because if you not, it's going to be sliding all over the place. There is simply too much torque. While that may make it fun to drive under certain conditions, it makes it a pain as an every day driver.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    14. Re:Sounds like training by Rei · · Score: 2

      Nobody makes you burn out your tires. You don't have to drive with the pedal to the floor.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    15. Re:Sounds like training by iampiti · · Score: 1

      I haven't used one but having only one indicator for the driver that's just a giant touch screen in the middle of the dashboard looks like a pain in the ass in usability

    16. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't used one, then you should probably shut the fuck up.

    17. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. I have a RWD Model 80, I live in Minnesota, and it works just fine in the snow. I don't even use with snow tires.

    18. Re:Sounds like training by Rei · · Score: 2

      Or, more politely than the AC:

      The Model 3 has 2x dual-axis+click assignable steering wheel controls, designed so that for most tasks you never need to even take your hands off the wheel. As for the screen itself, first off, it responds to whatever you do at the wheel. To pick an example, while Model 3 has rain-sensing windshield wipers, if you flick the stalk for a single manual wipe, the wiper config options come up on the display. As for interaction with the display itself, the reason it's out on a stalk is to make it right in your peripheral view, and without any reaching required to interact. Your line of sight never has any need to go anywhere below "dashboard height", nor do your hands ever have to go more than slightly away from the wheel. The sheer size of the display means that all buttons on the screen are very large (don't need accurate presses, your finger can be way off without problems) and easily recognized in your peripheral view. More to the point, "common interactions" are on the left-hand side of the screen, making them even closer to your fingers and even more in your line of sight, with the upper left corner being the "prime real estate". The right hand side is used more for things like the nav and such. At the bottom are "always on" icons for various common features. Beyond the steering wheel controls and the screen, there's also voice commands.

      Or, you can just believe that they never thought to try the vehicle out for usability.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    19. Re:Sounds like training by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      True. All the acceleration and braking and potholes in the air make it hard to design planes that even last 10 years.

    20. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing worse than touchscreen controls is voice commands.

      IMO the use of touchscreens in cars is a design paradigm that needs to die in a fire, yesterday (it applies to all the manufacturers, not just Tesla).

    21. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of those reservations were canceled.

    22. Re:Sounds like training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only speak for the Model S that I own but the traction control which cannot be fully turned off is amazing. It just won't let you spin the wheels, even in the wet or on ice (it works much faster than a human can detect, it seems like magic). Mind you the original soft rubber tyres on my car only lasted 32,000km (20,000 miles). I've replaced them with something more durable now. If you do manage to get yourself stuck in a snow bank you can select a temporary small amount of slip but that resets to normal at higher speeds than snow bank extraction speed. Of course the all wheel drive (that I have) is better than rear wheel drive in snow and ice. Rear wheel drive is no longer available for Model S and X.

  3. Can someone please explain? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can someone explain to me why missing predicted goals - by even as much as 50% - is such a big issue with investors?

    Any time Tesla comes out slightly lower than "predicted results" the market analysts go haywire, it's all "doom and gloom! We warned you about Tesla! It's a baaaaaad investment!".

    There are people who, with a straight face, talk about Tesla being fraudulent, being 3-months away from insolvent, or being super hyper over inflated in some way. "Look at Tesla's capitalization, and compare it to Ford's!!! There's *no way* Tesla will ever be as big as Ford!"

    And Musk is a con man, Tesla only survives because of federal grants and will go under once those grants are revoked, Tesla sells cars at a loss, chewing through investor money...

    WTF?

    Is there a *rational* explanation for all this bugaboo reporting?

    1. Re:Can someone please explain? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paid shills from the big car companies. Paid shills from the big oil companies. People with investments in the big car and/oil companies. People who hate successful people. Idiots who believe there's nothing bad with burning coal and oil. The list goes on...

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Can someone please explain? by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what world is missing predicted goals by 50% okay? Given that Tesla has been in business for nearly 10 years, and they've been mass-producing cars for 5 years, they should have figured things out by now. For some reason Tesla is treated as a start-up, even though they've been around a very long time now. Investors should be worried.

    3. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla only survives because of federal grants and will go under once those grants are revoked, Tesla sells cars at a loss, chewing through investor money...

      This has already happened in Denmark. The government eliminated subsidies and the sale of electric vehicles dropped to nearly zero. Denmark is much smaller than the U.S. but the same exact thing would happen to Tesla if they didn't have massive government welfare.

    4. Re: Can someone please explain? by AvitarX · · Score: 0

      Tesla may one day be as big as ford is today, but their upside isn't much bigger than ford is today, and their downside is bankruptcy.

      Tesla is almost certainly over valued, and I think they'll pull through and be big one day. I think it's a safer bet to bet ford will pull through and stay big though (thus at the same price I'd rather buy Ford).

      As for missing their targets by 80%, that concerns me, they are using a LOT of people to build not that many cars, why are they so inefficient, even with the model S, which is starting to become an older platform.

      I have concerns about their design chops on the model three too (multi depth touch menu to adjust vents, maybe acceptable if the auto pilot was standard, but seems dangerous and awkward on the highway).

      I think they'll survive long enough to learn how to design a car that the driver can safely interact with the comfortably (or that auto pilot is standard), and I think they'll figure out how to efficiently build cars, but it's a while off. I'm not sure they'll ever compete at the low to mid end. It'll likely be too late for those markets by the time they get the time they get the kinks worked out.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re: Can someone please explain? by stephanruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'll be the first to admit. I'm an idiot.

      But if I have the choice between buying Tesla stock and Ford stock, I would buy Tesla stock. It's not even a contest.

      The stock market is not always rational.

    6. Re:Can someone please explain? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Is there a *rational* explanation for all this bugaboo reporting?

      Nope, it's just the natural human tendency to want to first amp up the next big thing, and then tear it down again.

      Of course, there's no rational explanation for Tesla's current stock valuation either. :)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain to me why missing predicted goals - by even as much as 50% - is such a big issue with investors?

      Imagine your employer claimed but never explicitly promised they would pay you 2k this week and ever week thereafter, then handed you a paycheck of 347 for the next 12 weeks.

      Would you be upset? Would you stay?

      Investors make their income and future plans on such goal statements. The less predictable the company statements, the less they are willing to value that company.

    8. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The stock is at 341 from an all-time high of 383. This is not a tremendous sign of disapproval of the market. It's more like regular cyclical pricing changes.

      When Prius was the dominant hybrid car, auto companies paid for lots of anti-Prius stories. Now, it's anti-Tesla stores.

      I doubt I'd buy them at this price, but if I were holding I would not sell. It's not like the entrenched automakers will suddenly become agile, come out with better electrics than Tesla, or achieve Tesla's quality level.

    9. Re:Can someone please explain? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      In terms of production, its revenue that is lost - specifically, the revenue from the shortfall in production is shifted to the right in terms of actual income.

      But that doesn't mean the entire lifetime of the production run shifts to the right without penalty, as the technology and design lifetime doesn't get a free life extension, it will still need a refresh on much the same timescale as before.

      Boeing is running into the same issue with the 787 - a production delay of nearly half a decade, shifting much of the expected revenue from those years to the right, and yet here we are a decade on from intended EIS (several years prior to actual EIS) and the company is already looking at a refresh... Boeing lost about 5 years there.

    10. Re:Can someone please explain? by jemmyw · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was in Denmark when it happened. The sales may have dropped to zero after, but they were artificially high for months running up to date because everyone was buying before the subsidy was removed.

    11. Re: Can someone please explain? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Tesla may one day be as big as ford is today, but their upside isn't much bigger than ford is today, and their downside is bankruptcy.

      \

      Except Tesla has several spin-off industries related to their electric car business that also have the potential for high rewards -- that's solar panels and batteries (both for home and large-scale power leveling systems)

    12. Re:Can someone please explain? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think there are both logical and illogical reasons for being a Tesla bear.

      The illogical reasons I am aware of are political. Musk founded Tesla to accelerate the shift from internal combustion engines to electric cars, to help reduce climate change. If you are a climate change denier, you can see this as making him and the company the enemy, therefore he must be a fraud etc. If you are a bit more sane, but still partly inhabit the same echo chambers as the irrational anti-Teslas, you'll have a biased view of the company.

      Logically, the price of Tesla stock is way out of whack with their turnover and profits. The price can only be based on the expectation that the company will grow very big very fast. Tesla are investing in plant etc. to try to support growing very big very fast. This is a high risk strategy: a moderate hiccup delays the pay-back on the massive investments, and you have massive debts without sufficient income to service them and lots of disappointed investors bailing and crashing your share price. Tesla might successfully grow, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they are bankrupt two years from now. Even Elon Musk has sometimes said that he thinks the Tesla share price is too high.

      In general, Musk's track record is that he builds what he says he is going to build, but it takes much longer than he says. There is a risk that, even if from an engineering view point he can eventually deliver, the company needed to deliver the results will go bankrupt first.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    13. Re:Can someone please explain? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      If you are missing the numbers by such a large number then it brings into question all your future predictions, if the future predictions are off be even 10 or 20% that is going to result in huge revenue problems, PR problems and delivery delays all of which are major concerns for a bet the company project as not only does it hurt short term it gives the competitors more time to displace you.

    14. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 2

      They haven't met a timeline yet, why start now?

      For that matter, they haven't met a feature set promise either, but that's apparently ok too.

    15. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Presumably conflicting with the paid shills from Tesla, and the idiots who believe Saint Elon can do no wrong.

    16. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Even the "builds what he says he is going to build" part is somewhat suspect. Sure he gets the broad strokes about right, but he lies through his teeth about the details.

      If you go back and look at the reveal for the original Autopilot suite, and then look at what that same suite of hardware actually does, you'll see that it doesn't actually do ANY of the things he stood on stage and claimed it would. He missed on 100% of his claims on that one, and his interviews in the media made even bolder claims than he did on stage. I'm not saying the feature as delivered is not amazing. I'm just saying it's not what he claimed it would be (which also leads to the question, why lie about it? you had something better than anyone else makes even 2 years later, why claim it to be even more than it really is?). The same is true of the horsepower ratings he claimed for the P85D (why claim motor HP when the battery can't supply enough power to use it?), and the battery capacities that they claimed for all 85kWh cars (hint, they're only 81kWh BEFORE limiting them to 77kWh to protect from the charge level getting too low)

      And now he claims "full self driving" in the current hardware? Why on earth would ANYONE believe that, especially when the current generation of hardware still can't even do what the original version could do, and very clearly doesn't have the hardware to do what is claimed?

      Tesla is an incredibly shady company, one of the slimiest I've ever dealt with in fact, but they're also the only ones making a car that can do what the Model S can do. Honestly, as long as they have zero competition, they can get away with an awful lot and the stock price will be fine. But as soon as someone else decides to actually compete in the space, I think that Tesla will either have to change, or will be in real trouble, and I'm betting it will be the latter, not the former, they're far too arrogant to actually compete.

    17. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      They've missed on every timeline they've ever announced, they've missed every production target they've ever set. If it hasn't killed them yet, why would this time be any different?

    18. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or how about simply people that invested based on numbers supplied, I know that is horrifying and not enough conspiracy theory for you but the reality is such significant misses are a huge concern for investors. Missed numbers imply problems in planning and/or management. Tesla isn't the only company in a race to make electric cars and every delay decreases Tesla's perceived value as it increases the probability that others can displace them before they get production to significant enough numbers to provide a return on any investment. investors care about money, they are not there to be good for the planet or because Elon is a "nice" guy and large misses are fuckups no investor EVER likes to see.

    19. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain to me why missing predicted goals - by even as much as 50% - is such a big issue with investors?

      ok then, picture this. I come to you with a time sensitive business plan (which this definitely is) and tell you I will get 1500 widgets on the market in 3 months time, you look at my past record and see I missed my predictions significantly for consecutive quarters over the past year but decide to invest anyway as surely I have learnt from those mistakes and your investment is based on those numbers. come 3 months later I have missed yet again, this time by more than 80%. how the fuck would you feel about the money you had just invested? and how confident would you be that they have fixed the problems this time when they have said the same thing each of the last set of misses? my guess is you would take your money and run or at least be reevaluating your investment and the risk it posses, as an investor if you didn't then you would be a fucking moron.

    20. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      those spinoff businesses are actually under significant competitive pressures too. similar to the flat screen markets solar and battery storage is becoming commodity and "good enough" versions are being produced by companies with far larger efficiencies and cheaper labour forces in other countries. Once upon a time buying cheap Chinese made solar panels was a terrible idea, now they are good enough that you can save 50%+ in price for something 95% as good. Tesla is in high risk business that require a rapid rate of innovation (or government market subsidies and protection) otherwise they will crash and burn.

    21. Re:Can someone please explain? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why missing predicted goals - by even as much as 50% - is such a big issue with investors?

      Any time Tesla comes out slightly lower than "predicted results" the market analysts go haywire, it's all "doom and gloom! We warned you about Tesla! It's a baaaaaad investment!".

      You should be more sensitive to them because they can't help it. I mean, have you considered why there are Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Men at every car sales lot? It's because they are the investors and they are always freaking out. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    22. Re:Can someone please explain? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      They have never been a mass production business at these levels before nor have the prospect of competitors looking to attack their market, the 5000 a week number is 250% higher than their current total production numbers. production delays and misses now cost them ever increasing amounts of money and introduce more competitive risk on an item which isn't high margin to begin with. would a small miss kill them, probably not, but the question in investors minds will be how big a miss will it be over the coming year or two. personally I have no interest one way or the other as I don't buy stocks in car companies or even oil companies but I can definitely see from an investor perspective why I would be concerned at the numbers.

    23. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Missed numbers imply problems in planning and/or management"

      Nah, that's just a conventional wisdom, uninformed point of view. It can sometimes mean that, and sometimes things just take longer than you expect... because building lasting value, which you supposedly invested in, is hard and a eventually part of your barrier to entry defence against competitors.

      Investors are generally wilfully ignorant... doesn't matter.

    24. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously are you that fucking stupid? taking longer than expected, IS A FUCKING PLANNING FAILURE. no ifs buts or maybe's, it is either ignorance on the part of those managing and planning the process or those executing the plan, either way it is a planning fuckup. a car manufacturing line is not a lasting business, it is a "relatively" short term, time sensitive investment that needs to be realised before the competitors take the market away from you.

    25. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain to me why missing predicted goals - by even as much as 50% - is such a big issue with investors?

      Musk continuously claimed that he would magically increase production to far beyond hist factory's capacity (and what his environmental licences allow) and Tesla's share value is based on the expectation that he will be able to do so (among other things that are equally unlikely). Unsurprisingly, Musk has yet again not delivered what he promised, clearly showing Tesla stock to be overvalued. I would not be happy with that if I owned said stock. Would you?

      Any time Tesla comes out slightly lower than "predicted results" the market analysts go haywire, it's all "doom and gloom! We warned you about Tesla! It's a baaaaaad investment!".

      But then, it is a bad investment, unless you're riding the hype wave and sell your stock before the bubble bursts. Then it can be an excellent investment. Disappointing results underline the risk, but it was always there, plain to see for everybody.

      There are people who, with a straight face, talk about Tesla being fraudulent, being 3-months away from insolvent, or being super hyper over inflated in some way.

      If you look at the facts and numbers, there is really no other conclusion possible. Sure, people have poured money into Tesla, postponing bankruptcy again and again, but they won't continue to do that forever. At some point the bubble will burst.

      And Musk is a con man, Tesla only survives because of federal grants and will go under once those grants are revoked, Tesla sells cars at a loss, chewing through investor money...

      Well, except for the fact that Tesla also profits from tax breaks in countries that are not federations, this sums up the situation completely.

      Is there a *rational* explanation for all this bugaboo reporting?

      I am more interested in why the press continue to treat Tesla as some kind of revolutionary magical entity that is immune to logic, despite all the facts you summed up so nicely. It seems almost as if it is socially unacceptable for journalists to call out the emperor's new clothes. Musk's reality distortion field is exceptionally strong...

    26. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed numbers imply problems in planning and/or management.

      Not if they knew from the start that the numbers you claimed were unrealistic. Then it's just a scam.

    27. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a world where you aim to produce two cars, missing with 50% isn't that bad, to answer your question. Also, 1500 cars isn't much for a modern manufacturer. Even the blurbs stated it, they are eventually planning to produce 5000 / week, and I'm willing to bet they could make more than that if they need to.

    28. Re:Can someone please explain? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You mean why should people who talk the talk actually be able to walk the walk?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Boy. Die you really believe in the Project Management Religion ?

      Plans are almost Always based on GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS. That is what the PM high priests Like to "forget"

    30. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT must be Said that the 787 was highly innovative. Much more than assembling an e-car from externally sourced battery modules, Motors and Sheet Metal.

    31. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are talking about multi billion dollar investments you fucking well better have project management and your assumptions and guesses need to be called out UP FRONT. your estimates should be a range with a low and upper bounds and if you can't come inside that range then someone fucked up royally and should be losing their job.

    32. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are being a speculator, not an investor.

      Fair enough, but be honest about it.

    33. Re:Can someone please explain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also people who are paid to hype this stuff up. Journalists looking for clickbait, "consultants" and "business intelligence" agencies desperate to prove their value by scraping together news stories...

      It's the same with stories about AI.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Can someone please explain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Tesla is treated like a startup because they behave like one, with the CEO announcing major stuff via random tweets and Jobs-inspired stage events.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Prius was the dominant hybrid car, auto companies paid for lots of anti-Prius stories. Now, it's anti-Tesla stores.

      [citation needed]

      Elon Musk could club baby seals continuously for a week in front of a camera and the media would write something positive about it and explain how it shows his revolutionary vision for the future of personal transport. If there are car companies are trying to push anti-Tesla stories they are not very effective and they are wasting their efforts.

      It's not like the entrenched automakers will suddenly become agile, come out with better electrics than Tesla, or achieve Tesla's quality level.

      Exceptionally shoddy build quality is a goal now?

    36. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, totally a scam. Please short Tesla with your life's savings today and make a fortune ;)

      Meanwhile, Musk outright stated that they pick aggressive targets because they know at least some supplier will fail to miss deadlines, and they want to have a way to hold them accountable. The Model 3 deadline was significantly moved ahead of the original plan after so many people made reservations. A month behind because of a couple parts in short supply during a rampup is pretty insignificant.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    37. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk is the PayPal mogul. Of course his new enterprises will have that same flavor.

    38. Re:Can someone please explain? by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could call it "missing goals by 50%". You could also say it's a delay of less than one month, since their original plan was about 100 cars in august and 1500 in September. All of a sudden it doesn't look nearly as bad, does it?

    39. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm wanting to know what sort of idiot people who make these arguments believes exists - what sort of congenital moron sees "Subsidies will be expiring in 6 months!" ".... in 5 months!" "... 4 months!" "... 3... 2... 1.... Okay, subsidies just expired!" And then decides "Now sounds like a perfect time to buy an electric car!"

      Anyone who had any thoughts at all of buying an electric car purchased it before subsidies expired. Nobody was wavering back and forth while watching a ticking clock, and then made a decision only right after it expired. The only people who are going to be buying in the immediate aftermath are impulse buyers.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    40. Re: Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Most of its businesses are built around a common core (battery manufacture), which benefits by economies of scale. The larger they scale, the cheaper all their products get, and the more difficult it becomes for their competitors (lacking as great of a degree of scale) to price their products competitively. They also share common engineering between their product lines - the same sort of battery architecture in Teslas goes into Powerwalls goes into Powerpacks. The same sort of inverter technology in Teslas goes into Powerwalls goes into Powerpacks. The specific details vary, but there's a huge degree of commonality.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    41. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It really comes down to two questions:

      1) "Do you think the future is electric?"
      2) "Do you think that going electric requires huge capital investments in tech and production and tends to yield a strong early-comer benefit, rather than being a bandwagon than you can just hop on board with a billion or so dollars at any point in time and still expect to make competitively-priced, profitable vehicles?"

      IF 1 AND 2: Tesla bull.
      IF NOT (1 AND 2): Tesla bear.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    42. Re: Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      ... none of which Tesla is doing. Batteries are made at the Gigafactory (joint venture between Tesla and Panasonic), motors are fully Tesla, and so are the an unusualy high percentage of the parts in the vehicle. Tesla is notable among automakers for having a greater degree of vertical integration than most. Honestly, if I were Panasonic, I'd be expecting to be stabbed in the back at some point over the next few years.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    43. Re: Can someone please explain? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Guesses and assumptions should always be included and documented in project planning that you think they aren't tells volumes about your experience. Estimates and margin of error should also be called out with expected lower ranges and what delays and problems are likely to put them at that lower end as well as what needs to happen to put them at the upper end. The problem seems to be Elon only ever mentions the top end estimate (which is really dumb on his part) If you think they haven't done them then you are kidding yourself and if they really haven't done them then this is a company that will be bankrupt as how the fuck do you price a car in advance with no detailed plans to produce that car with all the risks outlined.

    44. Re:Can someone please explain? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      George F. Will

    45. Re:Can someone please explain? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Plans and budgets are usually based on what has come before. Tesla has never ramped production on a vehicle to this level, so it's not that shocking that they had the most accurate numbers on doing something they've never done, on a ramp schedule that is very aggressive.

      They missed the mark. That doesn't mean they will never get there. And it also doesn't mean they will stop trying because it's hard.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    46. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit about their current production numbers? Manufacturing, once you get your production line in gear ramps up fast. That's what this story is about, their production line has hiccups. The missed production target in absolute numbers of cars is practically insignificant, they can basically make up for it in a weekend.

    47. Re: Can someone please explain? by Zeromous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GM had these problems all the time until they went to three or four unified platforms. Every ititial iteration of a platform has trouble. This is as true for hardware as it is for software in any industry.

      He is building 2 new platforms from scratch.

      So why are you or any investors surprised?

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    48. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Outside Silicon Valley coffeehouses, Tesla itself is pretty insignificant.

    49. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That is called 'playing to their audience' who are overpaid Silicon Valley denizens.

      "Surely it will be an adjective-adjective-adjective success!"

    50. Re: Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "The specific details" always vary when it's a scam.

      The battery part of the business is the anchor, the 'too big to fail' part. A necessary hype component to get speculators to toss in their $$. I wonder what they will do with such a huge facility when Musk is out of business.

    51. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "It's Da Oil Companies" is boomer conspiracy bullshit.

    52. Re: Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So you freely admit that the 'big footprint' part of Tesla is a scam on Panasonic.

    53. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 2

      "Fourth most valuable automaker in the world" does not equal "insignificance".

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    54. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, Facebook and Uber are huge examples of a long ramp of no profitability, and all they created was software. The long game favors Tesla unless *maybe* Ford can revamp their internal culture to become something that will challenge Tesla. I give Ford better odds v Tesla than Lockheed/Boeing v SpaceX.

    55. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly lower? They hit 1/6th of their production goal. That's not slightly lower! At least in the world I live in, to miss by that much is a sign of serious project management issues. Like, on my projects if things were this far off, upper management would just pull the plug and write it off as a lesson learned on how to not do things. It's a pretty serious fuck up.

    56. Re: Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'll make an exception:

      I said nothing of the sort. I said Tesla will stab them in the back, like they've done with many other suppliers over the years in their pursuit of vertical integration. Panasonic will make a mint until it happens, but be left out in the cold after that once Tesla decides that its own internal battery technology and manufacturing knowhow is sufficient to leave Panasonic out of the picture.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    57. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most overvalued automaker in the world" does not equal "significance".

      Fixed that for you.

    58. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You answered your own question. It is hard to understand by someone sitting in their Mom's basement but investors want their money back, multiplied by profits and in a timely fashion. So stringing them along is a big deal to them. Musk is hugely successful and getting govt. money and now investor money but not so much at executing. I like SpaceDave's answer in that regard.

    59. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you punish someone for failing to miss their deadline?

    60. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Keep buying those shorts ;)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    61. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because when Tesla misses a goal, people go back and look at the financials of the company to see how the miss could affect value, and realize that Tesla is losing massive amounts of cash already - and any bad publicity/supply chain failures (like here) will just increase the burn rate - and potentially reduce demand.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    62. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go short some stock then. Put your money where your mouth is.

    63. Re:Can someone please explain? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And Musk is a con man, Tesla only survives because of federal grants and will go under once those grants are revoked, Tesla sells cars at a loss, chewing through investor money...

      This is called executing government policy. The whole purpose of subsidies is to startup companies and get them to a point in their production where they are self sufficient in order to achieve the governmental goals (in this case related to reduction of pollution and cleaner air).

      That doesn't make Musk a con man, it makes *you* ignorant.

      Speaking of the subsidies. You're talking about subsidies specifically designed by the incumbent non electric cars that give them a relative advantage (hence the exact figures and limits on the subsidies so they can profit off them while ensuring competitors don't grow). You're also talking about subsidies that Musk has specifically asked to be repealed by the government in Q1 this year because it gives the incumbent companies a financial advantage

      But speaking of con men, you're talking about the car company that was first to pay back the entirety of its federal loan with interest, at a time where you were too busy bailing out the too-big-to-failers. Yeah there are con men in the auto industry.

      Ever consider learning about a topic before you comment on it?

    64. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not much more than Snap or Twitter at this point - losing billions a year, with a lot of investor hope propping up the stock price. Note that all of Tesla's competition (the number one selling electric plug-in vehicle is the Leaf, BTW) are actually making a profit, and are about to turn on the electric car spigot, flooding price-sensitive consumers with plenty of much more economical options than the Model 3.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    65. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The difference between Tesla and Boeing is that Boeing has exactly ONE competitor - Airbus. If you want a buy a commercial, large jet airliner, you have a choice of two manufacturers. Tesla? GM just this week announced 20+ models by 2020, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes all have all-electric vehicles on the road today, and there are two dozen Chinese brands which sell well in Africa and SE Asia that have electric offerings. Tesla faces two dozen or more competitors, who are actually profitable (Tesla is not, and never has been) AND have their supply and production chain running much more smoothly.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    66. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Without the recent bond sale, Tesla would be essentially bankrupt. They've yet to turn a profit...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    67. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit about their current production numbers? Manufacturing, once you get your production line in gear ramps up fast. That's what this story is about, their production line has hiccups. The missed production target in absolute numbers of cars is practically insignificant, they can basically make up for it in a weekend.

      Spoken like someone who's never been involved in mass production!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    68. Re:Can someone please explain? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      One thing you need to know about analyst is the new ones tend to make outlandish claims. While you might think that is due to inexperience there is a very rational reason for doing just that. If you get it right all of a sudden you are a genius for seeing what others didn't and have made a name for yourself. At that point, most analyst don't stray far from the pack because if they spectacularly wrong they'll lose their cache; whereas being wrong for the new ones are written off as rookie mistakes.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    69. Re: Can someone please explain? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If Tesla fails, someone will buy it for pennies on the dollar and build batteries obviously.

      They'd be quite inexpensive with low capital investment to recover.

      I don't think that's will happen, but if it does it's hardly a mystery what will happen. It will be like when worldcom failed and dark fiver got cheap.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    70. Re: Can someone please explain? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Tesla may one day be as big as ford is today, but their upside isn't much bigger than ford is today, and their downside is bankruptcy.

      I think they'll survive long enough to learn how to design a car that the driver can safely interact with the comfortably (or that auto pilot is standard), and I think they'll figure out how to efficiently build cars, but it's a while off. I'm not sure they'll ever compete at the low to mid end. It'll likely be too late for those markets by the time they get the time they get the kinks worked out.

      You hit on a couple of key points:

      1. The major automakers are all planning big pushes into electric vehicles, which will give Tesla a lot of competition in all categories. Once that happens,Tesla will have to decide if they are a major player or a niche high end brand.

      2. Tesla's technology is probably more valuable than car manufacturing. Software is critical to the innovations we see in areas such as self driving cars, battery management, etc. I could see a car company buying Tesla for the tech alone. For that to happen,however, Tesla will need to be ahead if the curve, which will be tough to do as others invest significant sums in development.

      Of course, if Tesla runs out of juice and heads towards bankruptcy some company could pick up the tech on the cheap.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    71. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Nominally, Tesla is an automaker. But really, it's a Silicon Valley Unicorn disguised as an automaker. Only the nuvo-rich Silicon Valley smartbrats buy into their bullshit.

      What the heck is your connection to Tesla, BTW? You're all over any discussion of Tesla here on Slashdot like a fly on a lump of shit.

    72. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      To be fair concerning Autopilot, the programme was hugely setback by the breakup with MobilEye (and I say this as an Autopilot / FSD pessimist). They're only just now roughly caught up to where they used to be with AP1.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    73. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      In other words, the headline reads, "World's 4th most valuable automaker has no trouble raising billions of dollars - details at 11".

      Yes, investors understand that producing infrastructure to manufacture vehicles equating to over 20 billion dollars in revenue per year requires billions in capital costs - whether you do or not.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    74. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ten years in. Ten billion dollars spent. Not even ten cents of profit. Tesla is buoyed by the same irrational hype that keeps Twitter and Snap stocks afloat. When does TSLA finally turn a profit? When do they finally start hitting their financial goals? When do you - and TSLA fanatics - realize they are a distant also-ran in terms of the number of PEVs sold (BTW, in August 2017, 16K PEVs were sold in the US - combined, they wouldn't even break the top 20 of all vehicles sold in the US. The GM Volt and Bolt pace - and sometimes outsell - the Tesla S and X)?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    75. Re:Can someone please explain? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      GM just this week announced 20+ models by 2020

      No, they announced they planned to have 20 (not 20+) electric models by 2023 (not 2020). Announcing a plan is a lot different than delivering cars, carmakers are notorious for not following through on plans. I'll believe it once they actually start shipping cars (or at least set up production lines for them) and I think that's when Tesla will start worrying about them as well. They are currently shipping the Bolt, which is a decent competitor to the Model 3.

      Ford

      Ford is planning electric vehicles but all they sell now is "compliance cars", gas cars that have been converted to electricity. Their first designed electric car is planned for 2020.

      Toyota

      They have the plug-in Prius, but other than that I'm not aware of an all-electric Toyota that competes with Tesla. There was the Scion iQ EV, but AFAIK they no longer produce that and even when they did they only made a few hundred of them.

      Nissan

      This is where the competition comes for the Model 3, the Leaf is a capable vehicle and Nissan seems to be serious about keeping it up to date.

      Honda

      Well, technically they did just start shipping the Clarity electric in August, but with an 89 mile range, it certainly isn't a serious competitor to the Model 3 or Leaf.

      Yes, Tesla will have competition for existing automakers, but that's good for the consumer and good for the environment. I hope they all can execute well on their plans and I'm sure Tesla does as well, having viable electric vehicles from multiple manufacturers will expand the EV market and infrastructure.

      --

      Enigma

    76. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. You have no idea. Which further proves that you're a waste of space and oxygen. The process is everything, until you've got it running. THEN you start caring about if you produce 50 or 50000 of something. 1500 cars in a context where your prediction is 5k a week is no big deal, if you can solve the problems which cause you to fall behind. If you can't fix your problem, you in the shit.

    77. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ten years in. Ten billion dollars spent. Not even ten cents of profit.

      And the value of their stock vastly grown, because the future revenue picture is vastly higher than if they had stopped expansion and focused on profit earlier. Which once again: investors understand that you want the company you're investing in to be making millions of mass-market cars per year (even if it means delaying profitability) rather than several hundred Roadsters or a couple tens of thousands of Ss and Xs per year - whether you understand it or not.

      When do you - and TSLA fanatics - realize they are a distant also-ran in terms of the number of PEVs sold (BTW, in August 2017, 16K PEVs were sold in the US - combined, they wouldn't even break the top 20 of all vehicles sold in the US. The GM Volt and Bolt pace - and sometimes outsell - the Tesla S and X)?

      Yes, more than 1 in 5 PEVs in the US sold were Teslas (4 in 5 all other manufacturers combined), despite said vehicles being in a price class representing a 1 1/2 orders of magnitude smaller customer base.

      Now they're making a vehicle in a price class representing a 1 1/2 orders of magnitude larger customer base than their previous ones. Do the math. Or simply look at the reservation numbers - the people willing to wait a year and a half or more for their vehicles.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    78. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Oh, and while you mentioned August, Tesla's September numbers have been crushing it. Of sales reported so far, they're at 48% of the US market. With vehicles that cost nearly six figures average sale price, versus competition that costs a third as much.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    79. Re: Can someone please explain? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I wonder what they will do with such a huge facility when Musk is out of business.

      Some other company would purchase it and use it to make batteries, of course. Regardless of whether Tesla succeeds or fails, there's going to be a big market for electric cars (and hence, for batteries to put into them).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    80. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For reference, Musk didn't found Tesla. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did and there was a lawsuit that Eberhard pushed that partially had to do with rewriting the history of the company:

      https://www.wired.com/2009/06/...

      While certainly Musk is forever linked to the company and important to its future, he did not found Tesla.

    81. Re: Can someone please explain? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Also, for a purchase to happen, they'll have to be valued far lower than Ford.

      That seems like a very likely future possibility to me. At least as likely as the scenario where they become a dominant car manufacturer and power company both (betting on that outcome would justify their current market cap, as they'd be Ford and more then, not simply Ford).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    82. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside Silicon Valley coffeehouses, Tesla itself is pretty insignificant.

      Perhaps. (Well I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.)

      There also was a time when you could have said the same for Apple.

      The writing is on the wall for ICEs and for the fossil fuel industry in general. Car companies can either get with the program or become bit players. Tesla appear to be leading the charge (no pun intended :-) ), but who knows if they will end up being THE dominant player.

    83. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And the value of their stock vastly grown, because the future revenue picture is vastly higher than if they had stopped expansion and focused on profit earlier.

      A future that - right here, this article, says is false. They predict a rosy future and miss it. Meaning it is wishful thinking that is growing their stock. Go ahead and invest all you want - I'm staying out of TSLA until they have a business plan that actually shows them making a profit which they have, to date, not been able to do (either make a profit or show a plan to get themselves there).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    84. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hi there. Ever heard of SONOS? Yep - I was instrumental in that. It's trivial to build 5,000 Play:1 speakers a month, and an entirely different beast to ramp it to the current ~300,000 per month. There's a reason that Apple can only rely upon Foxconn to build their phones - no one else can ramp up over the course of a year to the volumes needed. Ramping to volume is no a trivial thing, it's nearly exponential as it stresses not just the CM but every single part of the supply chain, all the way to power available at plants (for extra CNCs and machinery) to parking spaces for workers and loading docks for trucks to paper pulp available for packaging.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    85. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is definitely not how the real world works son. Call me when you're 40 and understand a little better. Yes, I know you know everything at age 22...

    86. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, there you are green1. We were wondering when the scent of a Tesla story would draw you forth so that you could complain once again about the autopilot issue.

    87. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kind of the point. Their organisation should, since it's their stated goal, be dimensioned to build 5k units per week have no issues with 1.5k. They should already have all the things you're talking about, or at least enough to get to the current goal. "Production bottlenecks but no supply chain issues" sounds a lot like there being problems with some steps in the production not working quite right - if you really have the kind of experience you're boasting with, you know exactly how far even small problems can set you back. I doubt the issue is "too little supplies, not enough parking spaces, power or loading docks. They need to trim in their processes, not more toilet paper.

      Again, if you're geared for producing 20k units per month 1500 is just a small bump. It's not a problem. The problem is to make sure your backlog doesn't continue to grow.

    88. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The fact they are having issues producing even 500 a month means moving to 20,000 per month is simply fantasy without a massive rework. They are not geared to making 20K per month, based upon their issues right now. They may have thought they were - but reality has a way of showing the folly of wishful thinking...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    89. Re:Can someone please explain? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      When I worked for HP, our PR company contact introduced his company to me, pointing out that one of their differentiating capabilities was that they did negative publicity as well as positive. In other words, they would place a negative story about an HP competitor if asked. I wasn't ever involved in asking them to do that and don't have proof that it happened, but they certainly offered the capability. The board was later involved in breaking the law with pretexting. I don't doubt the board or managers down to the section manager level could have made use of negative publicity.

    90. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of suppliers Tesla had couldn't/didn't deliver, so Tesla was forced to make their own parts.

    91. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure eventually Auto-pilot will be all of that and a bucket of chicken so the point will be valid. Some problems just take longer than others.

    92. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, GM indirectly bears some responsibility for Tesla's founding... for doing something right. They made the Sunraycer solar car for a solar race, which blew its competition out of the water so well that they went to make the Impact concept electric vehicle. The Impact was a real leap forward in electric vehicle technology vs. anything else out there, using modern power electronics in the drive system, proper thermal management, etc. The Impact went on to later become the EV-1 which they famously killed off, but part of the Impact team spun off into AC Propulsion to develop the technology further. AC Propulsion made all sorts of amazing technology, yet commercialized almost none of it themselves. Their peak achievement of the era was the tzero sports car, which blew away the sluggish perception of EVs with a 4 second 0-60 even on lead-acid batteries. Musk fell in love with the tzero and tried repeatedly to get AC Propulsion to build him one, but similar to the "Mars greenhouse" incident that ultimately led to him founding SpaceX, AC Propulsion refused; they wanted their focus to be on other projects. They did however refer him to Eberhard and Tarpenning, who had already been marketing the idea of a lithium-ion Elise based on the drivetrain technology behind the tzero (Eberhard had already upgraded the tzero pack to li-ion and cut its 0-60 time even further). Musk ultimately got onboard and led the Series A funding round, and step by step the promised "electric Elise" became the Tesla Roadster.

      It's GM's work on Sunraycer and especially Impact that really got the ball rolling.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    93. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget the new Opel Ampera. I think it is a better competitor to the model3 than the Leaf

    94. Re:Can someone please explain? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1
      The stock is overvalued. Even Elon admitted as much.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/1...

    95. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      That's actually pretty much my point about Tesla's arrogance and over-promising. They thought Mobileye was holding them back, yet they can't even do what Mobileye was already capable of. Seems the problem wasn't on the Mobileye end after all.

      That also doesn't explain why the AP1 cars can't do what was claimed, those cars have Mobileye chips, the same ones that Musk thought could do everything he promised.

    96. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Considering every software release that Tesla has made since the initial AP rollout has actually REMOVED features from those cars, I somehow don't think those cars are likely to suddenly reverse course and get to what was promised.

      The issue isn't that Tesla said "some car in the future will do X", they said "This exact car that you are buying today will do X" but then it turns out that that car will NEVER do X.

      Tesla lied to make sales. It's as simple as that.

    97. Re:Can someone please explain? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Tesla's current stock price assumes they are as big as General Motors, meaning they have perfect growth to a multi-national corporation built in to current price. They currently sell two whole orders or magnitude less vehicles per year. The only reason the stock price is where it is at is hype and over-exuberance by environmentalists who don't understand finance very well.

    98. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's not accurate. Tesla didn't want the MobilEye split and to be forced onto AP2; they tried to negotiate with MobilEye to let them continue to purchase the chips. MobilEye had two conditions: paying much more per chip, and that Tesla immediately terminate their AP2 programme (MobilEye commented on Tesla's statement and, while putting their own spin on the reasons for the breakup, didn't deny either of those allegations). Tesla was forced onto AP2 a lot earlier than they wanted to be.

      As for AP1 cars, I think it's obvious that all of Tesla's focus at present is on AP2. As it should be. There is no future in AP1.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    99. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Yes, you're totally right! Why, being one month behind schedule on a couple parts totally means that the Model 3 is doomed. DOOOOOMED!!!! Quick! We must immediately short Tesla! There's no time to spare!

      You first ;)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    100. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      call me when you do more than live in your mothers basement, I am 43, an electrical engineer and obviously work on large projects whereas you just pretend to. The idea that the real world in large projects works on nothing more than guesses with no planning is purely the realm of mouth breathers in their mothers basement that have no real concept of the efforts and plans that go into producing anything of significance.

    101. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it isn't stop pretending like you have experience when obviously you have none. Admittedly the largest project I have worked on is in the 100 million range, but even the current 12 million dollar project I am on has 68 documented risks, a dedicated project manager, each risk with likelihoods of occurrence, impact on project schedule and cost, mitigations already in place and those that can be put in place should they eventuate. We are also audited annually on all projects to ensure project plans are followed and post mortems of every project occur of what was not followed, why and how to ensure in future risks are mitigated and identified better. Then we have worst and best case scenarios for project delivery and impact for those cases on budget, resources and timeframes. I do not believe for even a nanosecond that as projects increase in scale from here that project planning suddenly stops.

      honestly you are showing complete ignorance in your belief that none of this is done.

    102. Re:Can someone please explain? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      What the heck is your connection to Tesla, BTW? You're all over any discussion of Tesla here on Slashdot like a fly on a lump of shit.

      Flies like shit. What's more interesting is that you say don't like shit, yet here you are with all the flies. What's with that?

    103. Re:Can someone please explain? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The only people who are going to be buying in the immediate aftermath are impulse buyers.

      True, but since most car buyers buy on impulse anyway it's no big deal.

    104. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Top climate investment fund drops Tesla. Why? Concerns over overpriced stock. Even the pros can't see a way that Tesla becomes worth it's current market value. But hey - you probably also cheer-lead for a $60 billion valuation for Uber and think Twitter's stock price should be $100 per share, right?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    105. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Wow, one fund among hundreds of thousands. That settles the case! Meanwhile, Tesla's stock is up after the Q3 earnings report, not down.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    106. Re:Can someone please explain? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      One stock fund that TROUNCES thousands. Outperformed most. Meaning: it gets what's going on. And the fact that stock is up after a horrible earnings report just proves my point: TLSA is simply buoyed by hope and irrational exhuberance. Good luck with it, but it's worse than betting on tulip bulbs...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    107. Re:Can someone please explain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Keep buying shorts ;)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    108. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Forget future. AP1 never did what was promised, and never will. That's the point of this.

      That and that AP2 also doesn't do what was promised, and also never will (there is not a chance that they'll ever do full self driving with that hardware. You simply can't do it with what they've put on the car, it would never be approved)

    109. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Model 3 traction motor is not made by Tesla (which surprised me since previously they had always made their own). It is a permanent magnet motor too (another departure from previous Tesla vehicles).

    110. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To some extent I agree with you (I'm still waiting to be able to manually select the temperature the climate control will turn on to protect babies and pets, currently it is fixed at too high a temperature in my opinion, it was promised to be adjustable in the next update, would not take a great deal of effort to write the code and require no hardware modification but I guess it has zero priority, of course that might charge when the first baby dies).
      As to level 4 or 5 autonomy I have severe doubts that will be achieved in any car within five years or even a decade, there must be reasons the engineers trying to achieve this have such a short employment history at Tesla. Musk once said he would drive across the US in a fully autonomous Tesla in November 2017 but I doubt that will happen. Level 2 autonomy (Musk once referred to it as level 3) works great (at least the MobileEye version in my 2015 Tesla does), it has limitation (Tesla do not tell you where it will fail, you are left to work that out for yourselves) but as you move towards full self driving the level of difficulty increases dramatically.
      I expect in a year or two Tesla will back away from their dream of full autonomous driving. The stock will take a small hit and soon recover.
      But despite the above I think Tesla are basically an ethical company, much more so that any other car company I've ever dealt with. It would take another 2008 to destroy Tesla, that may happen but if it does it won't just be Tesla that goes down.

    111. Re:Can someone please explain? by green1 · · Score: 1

      No other car company has ever reached in to my car after sale and removed functionality without permission. Tesla has done so repeatedly. No other car company has flat out lied about the capabilities of the car I have bought from them to make a sale (maybe exaggerated, but not the flat out lies Tesla tells)

      Tesla is by far the least ethical car company out there, and one of the top 10 least ethical companies all around in any industry. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

      That said, as of right now Tesla has zero competition, no other car company has bothered to even try in this space.

      I usually describe my car as the best car ever made, by the worst company to ever exist. The moment a true competitor emerges they'll have my business, and I can guarantee you I will never give Tesla another penny of my money as long as I shall live.

    112. Re: Can someone please explain? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Which is good, because I never claimed to be an investor.

      I only claimed to be an idiot.

      And maybe it's because I'm an idiot, but I thought that the term "idiot" was more of an insult than the term "speculator".

    113. Re:Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shorts have an end date, so that only works when you know when the buble is going to burst. When the bubble keeps inflating, you only lose money.

    114. Re: Can someone please explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the investors for tesla 10 years ago would have bailed if they were told that profitability is over 10 years away.

      fact is, the new model is already years late - and unproven if it can sell at profit.

  4. Careful by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    If you ask them about the delay, Elon might cancel your order.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tesla is basically trying to compress +100 years of automobile development, infrastructure, manufacturing, and marketing within the span of about a few years, all while trying to rewrite the book. They have no where near the number of facilities(companies like Ford have 100s of acres of facilities dedicated solely for testing out transmissions, gearboxes, etc. To say nothing of their factories) or dealerships(there's like only 1 within 50 miles of where I live). They're also hemorrhaging money due to said breakneck expansion.
    They do have an excellent PR however that's been able to convince enough investors(or donors, depending on your perspective) to keep dropping money on the company despite plenty of reports noting that they aren't really do very well.
    That said, you could argue that Tesla has achieved it's goal of convincing people to want EVs, and other companies to start developing their own. I doubt Tesla will ever really break out of its status as a small time car company though, and it's overvalued stock may come to bite investors in the ass.

    1. Re:Not Really Surprising by green1 · · Score: 2

      Tesla is basically trying to compress +100 years of automobile development, infrastructure, manufacturing, and marketing within the span of about a few years, all while trying to rewrite the book.

      That would explain why the numbers are low, but it doesn't explain why they claimed they'd be high.

      Tesla's been doing this long enough that they should be able to predict these things, and yet they miss their targets almost every single time. How long before it goes from "they're new and trying to do a lot" to "they're lying about their capabilities", because at this point it's pretty hard for me to see the difference.

      fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me every single quarter since inception, shame on...?

    2. Re:Not Really Surprising by ledow · · Score: 1

      Or:

      Tesla make grandiose claims while trying to compete against huge, billion-dollar organisations that have been doing this for - in some cases - over 100 years, by throwing money at some things that have never been problems (e.g. actually making electric cars - the UK has had milk-floats, etc. since the 1960's and before, and essentially the underlying tech has "evolved" only by the components becoming available all the time before anyone thought of calling things electric cars, i.e. more efficient and larger motors), throwing money at things that are complete barriers to entry for models of car to the industry (batteries), throwing money at "innovations" that are nowhere near ready for production usage and basically can't even take responsibility for their own actions yet (self-driving nonsense), producing industry-standard, no-different, not-even-a-patent batteries in standard-size modules using standard techniques, and then thinking that just throwing things into the car suddenly makes it attractive to buyers as anything other than a status symbol.

      It's literally like a child became a billionaire, said "I want electric cars" and then spends the next ten years throwing money at things that either already were, or that can't be without some innovation and people know it. Literally, name an INNOVATION on the part of Tesla. Something they invented. It's like someone went into a store, bought everything they found on the shelves, shoved it together and then claimed to be "innovative".

      And they sell an ABSOLUTE PITTANCE of cars (and now even less than that!). They just make a lot of fuss about doing so. Any of the big names could buy them out in seconds, or buy up their components, or put out a competing model that would sell more just by having the big-name on it. If people actually wanted electric cars (they don't really, because of above problems).

      About their only success or innovation is marketing, that's about it. Literally selling things that exist on the market already cobbled together. Their the market guinea pig. The big-names and letting them waste their money, while looking for the one decent breakthrough in their MASSIVE R&D labs that have 10 times as much money as Tesla ever had as a company.

      Motor companies have always had electric concept cars (I would argue that hybrids are rest of the motor industry's innovation, nothing to do with Tesla - a middle ground more acceptable to the consumer which sell much better. Hybrids represent 3% of the market, electrics so much less than 1% that it's too hard to account for). Just nobody was ever really willing to buy them, so why would you bring them to market - the R&D was done, yes, but to ramp up to production is expensive and they'd never have been profitable, as Tesla are finding out now (have they ever made a penny in profit?). The same problem happened with the Tesla, really, except they sell on their "designer" status only, and not very well at all.

      Any fool can throw money at a venture and claim success by selling a handful of vehicles at zero or negative profit. Hell, give me a few billion and I'll put a rocket on the Moon too. Problem is, it's not sustainable, sensible, doing anything for innovation, or actually driving anything at all..

    3. Re:Not Really Surprising by nadaou · · Score: 2

      delays in the early part of the exponential growth curve simply mean that the curve moves to the right, not that the curve will not be exponential once it gets started. judging future performance on the first few months of production is silly.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    4. Re:Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exponential growth with software is one thing, but entirely different matter with a complex production line.

    5. Re: Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt complete your Wall of Text. But Tesla was the First company to sell an all battery powered Car.

      Incumbents were too sluggish and unionized for that.

    6. Re: Not Really Surprising by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = But Tesla was the First company to sell an all battery powered Car.= = =

      You don't read much of automotive history, do you? All-battery-powered cars have been on the market since 1890 and were looking to be the winning technology before the gasoline IC engine was really developed. Various major manufacturers have tried all-electric model from time to time from then through to today, Elon Musk or no.

    7. Re: Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Tesla was the First company to sell an all battery powered Car.

      I never realised that Tesla was around in the 19th century. It is a crying shame that they have been written out of history by some evil conspiracy.

    8. Re:Not Really Surprising by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Tesla is just another Tucker.

    9. Re: Not Really Surprising by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Didnt complete your Wall of Text. But Tesla was the First company to sell an all battery powered Car.

      Educate yourself.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Not Really Surprising by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      Motor companies have always had electric concept cars (I would argue that hybrids are rest of the motor industry's innovation, nothing to do with Tesla - a middle ground more acceptable to the consumer which sell much better. Hybrids represent 3% of the market, electrics so much less than 1% that it's too hard to account for). Just nobody was ever really willing to buy them, so why would you bring them to market - the R&D was done, yes, but to ramp up to production is expensive and they'd never have been profitable, as Tesla are finding out now (have they ever made a penny in profit?). The same problem happened with the Tesla, really, except they sell on their "designer" status only, and not very well at all.

      Except the electric cars that have been produced by the big automakers look like shit and then they're shocked when they don't sell well. Tesla was the first company to make a sleek electric car that looked like a luxury sedan.

      I want an electric car, but I don't want to drive a roller skate. I don't want a car that looks like it'll crumple like a tin can in a wreck. I don't want a car that looks like an electric car. If "designer" status means that I get a luxury sedan that looks like a luxury sedan, I'll buy all day long.

    11. Re:Not Really Surprising by ledow · · Score: 1

      So you're saying they're all show? I absolutely agree. That's the selling point?

      "I don't want a car that looks like it'll crumple like a tin can in a wreck."

      Right up until the day you understand physics, crumple-zones, NCAP safety tests, and the reason so many more people survive crashes nowadays.

      "If "designer" status means that I get a luxury sedan that looks like a luxury sedan, I'll buy all day long."

      Yep. Looks.

      Believe it or not, most people DON'T buy a car based on looks, or we'd all have those ridiculous "sporty" things which are incredibly impractical and you can barely get into. I want a car that I can put the shopping in the back, five people in the seats, and still be able to park it easily without the thing costing the end of the Earth to buy or run.

      (Hint: For reference, I drive one of these:

      https://www.fordeumedia-e.ford... )

    12. Re:Not Really Surprising by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That would explain why the numbers are low, but it doesn't explain why they claimed they'd be high.

      Tesla's been doing this long enough that they should be able to predict these things, and yet they miss their targets almost every single time. How long before it goes from "they're new and trying to do a lot" to "they're lying about their capabilities", because at this point it's pretty hard for me to see the difference.

      That's easy to explain - Musk always overpromises and delivers late. But he's practically bulletproof and never held to account for this behavior, at least by his cultists and PR machine. (He's had problems financing the Model 3 though, the financial world is starting to catch on.)

    13. Re: Not Really Surprising by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1
      Electric cars were the norm until the internal combustion engine became a practical power source. As with today's EVs, the ICE's greater range made it more popular.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not re-inventing the car, they didn't invent the motors, batteries and much of the regular bits are probably Magna parts bin.

      There have been electric cars for ages, and as far as mass produced inexpensive versions - the Nissan Leaf is in its 2nd generation at your local Nissan dealership today.

    15. Re:Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing exponential about a manufacturing output growth curve. JFC this is a site for nerds and you all abuse the term "exponential".

    16. Re:Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Looks.

      Believe it or not, most people DON'T buy a car based on looks, or we'd all have those ridiculous "sporty" things which are incredibly impractical and you can barely get into. I want a car that I can put the shopping in the back, five people in the seats, and still be able to park it easily without the thing costing the end of the Earth to buy or run.

      Like hell they don't, otherwise the companies wouldn't waste their time making them all look different. Even most people who drive beaters do because they're broke-ass, not because they don't give a damn.

      There's also a wide range between "impractical" sports car to luxury sedan to economy sedan to "glorified go-kart" (aka Smart Car). Tesla did something right with the Model S in that it looks like a normal luxury car, a lot of people don't want something as fugly as the BMW i3 for example. Also could Nissan make a Leaf that doesn't. have a bunch of ugly decals screaming OMG I'M ELECTRIC all over it? At least Chevy has started to get it with the Volt.

      If you'd stop applying your outlier views to the rest of the population maybe you'd finally start to understand your fellow man.

    17. Re:Not Really Surprising by green1 · · Score: 1

      How far to the right does the curve have to move before you start to admit that it may not be in the same place you think it is?

      I'm not criticizing their numbers here. I'm criticizing their apparent lack of any ability to know what ballpark the numbers will be in a couple of months from now, and to get it wrong every single time. That's expected when you first start your first project, but Tesla's been making cars for almost a decade now, you'd think they'd occasionally come close to predicting their own capabilities.

    18. Re:Not Really Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really. Tell that to Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi, Cadillac, Jaguar etc. Tesla currently only competes at the high end of the market, somewhere in the $70k to $300k range but they have taken market share from all the other players in that market to the point where they are now the dominant player in the US in that market segment. They have been expanding by 50% per year for ten years and they sell every car they can make. That is why people invest in their shares. If you are looking for a dividend you should not buy Tesla. Every cent they get goes to expansion. The Model 3 is hardly released yet but an electric semi trailer is to be demoed on the 26th of this month, the Model Y CUV will come out sometime soonish (2019 maybe) and a PickUp truck is also in development. As Tesla moves down market the other car manufacturers are starting to get nervous and the Model 3 is not even going to be cheap car. Musk is pushing the limits in tunnelling, space rockets, photo-voltaics and energy storage through his various companies and generally he has succeeded, if not always or even mostly meeting target dates. Don't underestimate Musk, don't short the stock but don't buy the stock either if you are looking for a dividend payment (there won't be any for a long time if ever).

  6. I'm a little bit sick of these posts... by BlueCoder · · Score: 0

    Investors and stocks. They are going to try to sell you with their ambition. Just like anything sold it falls short. In this case a lot of other companies are doing far worse. As far as it goes for Tesla can we just not see these mentioned but rather save it until they ACTUALLY meet their goals which will be news. Then after they consistently do then you can post about them failing their goals. News is what is not the norm. They just were threatened with unionizing workers... so of course they fell behind. You can be sure the big three were significantly behind it. Tesla will build more than a few factories in China for the Chinese market. So their American employees better shape up; least China can show it can out perform Americans.

  7. Diverted resources to Australia batteries? by spinitch · · Score: 2

    Diverted resources to Australia batteries? Though if bottlenecks unrelated to batteries then the Australia project might help use some idle capacity .

    1. Re:Diverted resources to Australia batteries? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Doesn't sound like it; the Australian project is 50% complete and due for full completion in December, and it doesn't seem to require huge engineering or manufacturing resources. Batteries are a minimal concern relative to the total auto production numbers as well-- they delivered 26k cars total.

  8. Jagdpanther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is more pathetic than reading about German WWII tank production numbers.

  9. Sounds like.... by Neckel · · Score: 0

    Sounds like this computer company back in the 80s where the founder got fired by the board.

  10. 17% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having completed 17% of what was promised and the problem is nothing fundamental. Sure hope he never runs into anything fundamental!

      Then again, it might be a problem of what the definition of fundamental is. If I only reached 17% of my goals, I'd be pretty damn bummed to have such failure. I kind of admire people who can be faced with the same kind of failure and still say they are optimistic. Then again, they also make for great used car salespeople, as they often don't tell the truth.

  11. Less than 3 cars a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Silicon Valley electric-car maker built 260 of the Model 3s between July and September, the company said Monday in a statement.

    260 Cars in 91 days is less than 3 cars a day. This doesn't sound right at all.. How can they be making just 2 or 3 Cars a day?!

    1. Re:Less than 3 cars a day by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Take long breaks? Be excellent only at PR and have no clue how to bolt stuff together? Intentionally reducing production because product doesn't sell at that ridiculously high price? Building a product that isn't drastically different than the electric cars from 100 years ago?

    2. Re: Less than 3 cars a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They build everything by hand and they refuse to employ industry standard mass manufacturing techniques because Not Invented Here.

    3. Re: Less than 3 cars a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They build everything by hand

      you make all your own erections with your own hand, so well played

  12. Tesla not a good mass production company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have yet to see Tesla address the problems they had before the Model 3 ramp up. Their production goals have never been robust and their defect issues have either been covered up, ignored, or poorly addressed unless owners really complain. Tesla has always set goals its not really capable of meeting and the Model 3 expansion only makes it worse.

  13. Tesla is like Apple by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 0

    99% hype, 1% hot air.

  14. Stone Crusher by pharmarohit07 · · Score: 0

    Sufferings from kidney stones then try this product from the Pharma Science, the Ayurveda Stone Crusher. It contains 10 gm in a box which consist of 4 doses which will remove your kidney stone forever. When you face constant pain or a movable pain which remains for little time and then just disappear in your kidney areas then it is known as Kidney pain. And if you want to free from this problem then go for the treatment of kidney stone which is very easy with the help of Stone Crusher. You have to take this product for 4 days empty stomach with Patharchatta plant and it will remove kidney stone up to 20 mm. For More Visit .. [url=http://www.ipharmascience.com] Kidney Stone Treatment [/url]

  15. Catch me if you can... by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

    Plain and simple.

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
  16. Better get your grove in place by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2

    In our esteemed Slashdot colleague's homeland, orchards are an important part of the economy and relieve stress by making a healthy snack always at hand. Yes, you indeed had better get your grove in place, and you want the soil down packed (but not too much) so the roots for the newly planted trees can get established.

    This is a tree analogy to a car, but Elon Musk had better heed that lesson.

  17. Poor Employee Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked with a couple of ex-Tesla engineers. They hated working there. 90hr weeks...obscene demands by bully management. A person can only last so long under those conditions.

  18. "Plans are useless... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...but planning is indispensable."--Dwight Eisenhower

    Obsessing over hitting arbitrary timeline goals is pointless. If Tesla hadn't produced squat, that would be a problem. If they're behind schedule, meh, welcome to the real world.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  19. Normal for the auto industry by cozytom · · Score: 1

    I worked in an auto plant that was supposed to build 1000 cars per day.

    When I started, they were running 1 shift, hoping to get to 500 cars per day, but were building about 300-350. They added the second shift, and with training and all, barely got about 500 cars per day. After about 9 months, the management said we will try our best for one day, really pushing things. That one day the plant built 700 cars. After that, the plant was building 600-650 consistently, with a few days around 700. After that they added an extra hour to each shift (9 hours) and were able to build about 700-750 consistently every day. After about 2 years the plant was building about 750-800 every day.

    This was in the early 90's and we could sell every car produced. The company had to put quotas on dealers and they would sell cars above retail price, making customers unhappy.

    Troubles included Just In Time parts delivery being late, and line workers wasting materials (they dropped a plastic clip, and rather than picking it up, use another one, but the JIT predictor didn't account for that much waste, and we were short parts). There were silly troubles too, like it couldn't read the body number out of the paint shop sometimes, so the line wasn't sure what car just came out.

  20. The man has a good excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, I was busy with this hobby of mine. You have to believe me when I say It happens to BE Rocket Science!