Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Employees Say Automaker Is Churning Out a High Volume of Flawed Parts (cnbc.com)
Several current and former employees of Tesla said that the automaker is manufacturing a surprisingly high ratio of flawed parts and vehicles, leading to more rework and repairs than can be contained at its factory in Fremont, California. CNBC reports: One current Tesla engineer estimated that 40 percent of the parts made or received at its Fremont factory require rework. The need for reviews of parts coming off the line, and rework, has contributed to Model 3 delays, the engineer said. Another current employee from Tesla's Fremont factory said the company's defect rate is so high that it's hard to hit production targets. Inability to hit the numbers is in turn hurting employee morale. To deal with a backlog of flawed parts and vehicles, said these current and former employees, Tesla has brought in teams of technicians and engineers from its service centers and remanufacturing lines to help with rework and repairs on site in Fremont. They also said that sometimes the luxury EV maker has taken the unusual measure of sending flawed or damaged parts from Fremont to its remanufacturing facility in Lathrop, California, about 50 miles away, instead of fixing those parts "in-line." Tesla flatly denies that its remanufacturing teams engage in rework. "Our remanufacturing team does not 'rework' cars," a spokesperson said. The company said the employees might be conflating rework and remanufacturing. It also said every vehicle is subjected to rigorous quality control involving more than 500 inspections and tests. The report from CNBC has caused Tesla's stock to tumble today. You can read Tesla's full statement about the CNBC report here.
From the blurb; emphasis mine:
Several current and former employees of Tesla said that the automaker is manufacturing a surprisingly high ratio of lawed parts and vehicles, leading to more rework and repairs than can be contained at its factory in Fremont, California.
That's ok, Slashdot has had plenty of time to work out all of its kinks in the supply chain for their product and, yet, we still see a surprisingly high ratio of flawed spelling.
Landfills are the 22nd centuries' resource strip mines.
The thing that the people of the future are going to HATE are the high temperature incinerators that are so popular with some environmentalists today. They destroy so much that could be banked away for the future in a good clay-lined landfill.
Something overlooked in the description, Tesla is making many if not most of the parts there in the factory right next to the assembly line. Having also been to Ford and GM assembly lines, and seen many others on TV (How it's Made!), Tesla's approach is radically different! If you have to stamp raw aluminum, put it through a bunch of processes, you're going to get a few that have blemish or minor rework issues, or are scrap. Every factory making parts from scratch has a yield. I remember when flat panels were first introduced they were super expensive because the yield was down around 30%. I would guess the current flat panel yield is up in the high 90s.
Ford and GM had parts fabricated away from the assembly line, so there was a lot less yield related issues by the time someone was bolting on a part, those were dealt with elsewhere.
As long as there's a process to catch problems before the become part of the car, who cares. I for one am extremely happy they are having production slowdowns rather than shipping flawed cars.
...just in time for that Gung Ho reboot?
My Model X came off the line with a bad charge port that was almost impossible to supercharge. I later found out that this was a widespread manufacturing defect that occurred in cars made over a period of weeks in late 2017. As a result, they ran out of (non-defective) replacement charge ports for the entire region, and had to send out field techs to manually file down the defective plastic guides in the charge ports of a large number of vehicles.
The cost of these mistakes to Tesla has to be just incredible. They would be much better off financially if they added an additional validation step early in their supply chain, even if that meant eating the cost of a few parts.
And this doesn't just affect their new cars. These Model X charge port issues happened more than two years after production on the Model X began. That's insanely late in the production cycle for manufacturing tolerance issues to suddenly crop up. Very bizarre.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Need some more Anti-Uber articles to balance this out!
This is clearly yet another attempt by Tesla's "old-fashioned" competitors to tarnish Tesla's name. You know, the companies whose car parts are total crap and yet do pass their "rigorous testing". And news sites like this are happy to post this shit, without asking questions like "how come we suddenly see news about a car company's' manufacturing failure rates reaching mainstream news?"
Since when has stuff like this started reaching mainstream news? Oh, since Tesla, a company that makes very high quality electric cars with very low failure rates compared to their competitors, and with a VERY different business model (wanna buy directly, anyone?) started being a real threat.
What a bunch of FUD.
I've been saying for years that "unrecyclable" plastic should be separated from general waste and buried. When the oil wells run dry and prices rise, those dumps will make good feedstock for processes currently thought of as uneconomical
The report from CNBC has caused Tesla's stock to tumble today.
Remember all the Tesla fires? The stock tumbled then and I managed to get in at the bottom of that particular drop.
I'll never understand how or why the markets are absolutely eager for anything remotely bad about Tesla Motors so they can let their fear-ridden backbrains take over and sell in a panic. Fine I will just buy then.
As to the issue: new factories pushing the edge on new kinds of parts will inevitably have issues of this kind. I would be more concerned if they reported a zero or tiny defect rate. That would indicate that the QA dept is not doing its job and somebody is hiding something.
Bottom line: Tesla revenues are supply limited. Specifically supply of batteries. They have a huge backlog of sales. Yes a 40% defect rate of something is a problem and has to be fixed. I have seen defect rates like that and worse on stable product that hasn't changed in 5 years. That is why there is a career in supply chain management. That is why there is a career in Quality Assurance.
But if you have a backlog and you have funding (Tesla has both) these problems will be fixed. The stock price drop has to do with the market obsession with making this quarter's shipments and revenue numbers and nothing else.
Had this not made the news I would have been surprised if this had even reached Elon's desk.
Anything as complex as a manufacturing line should have some kinks for a short while until they figure out the points of failure.
I've worked on software for manufacturing lines, making many millions of things at a time. Yes, most things are going to have 99% acceptable tolerances once you're all set - but I've also seen lots of notable manufactured things where because the run was small, they were willing to throw away the majority of the run just to avoid having to go back to re-engineering.
And yeah - there were folks who balked at the idea of any kind of failure - but you really do have to just go ahead and try sometimes on a deadline - and live with bets that don't pay off, or pay off at a low rate - because time on the manufacturing line is more expensive than the lost parts you're throwing away.
The idea is that you take those screw ups and use them to properly engineer then the next time you're up at bat on the manufacturing line.
That's also why manufacturing costs typically get divided several times over as time goes on for anything. Not that the parts have cheaper components so much as less human time at scale is needed to get it working reliably.
If you want cheaper cars, then carefully engineer a common modular frame that all manufacturers can stick to for a couple decades, and iterate through that design at scale a few times before providing parts to the factories. Then, outlaw proprietary connections on any parts going into cars, and establish proper right-to-repair rules. The cars will get slightly bulkier (less horrible puzzle-engineering under the hood), but much cheaper to own and cheaper to maintain.
....in their parts department, I can tell you that pretty much every model of car manufactured has some certain parts from some certain providers that are notorious for failing. This is what led to Toyota achieving such dominance today: they learned the "Barney Fife" lesson - "Nip it in the bud, Anj! Nip it in the bud!". They relentlessly send their engineers into their parts provider's lines to perform front-line QA and "kaizen" (continuous quality feedback). Tesla seems like they want to get there, and will - I believe - but as with all complex systems, there is lots to learn (and relearn) along the way.
They destroy so much that could be banked away for the future in a good clay-lined landfill.
Same with nuclear waste. In the future, all those isotopes are going to be very valuable. We just haven't figured out how or why yet.
The power companies should sell options/futures on the waste, and use the money to pay for the (temporary) storage.
Same with nuclear waste. In the future, all those isotopes are going to be very valuable. We just haven't figured out how or why yet.
They're easy to make more of and there isn't a lot of isotopic waste around at the moment anyway, a few thousand tonnes total around the world. Most spent fuel is U-238, unburnt U-235 and bred Pu-239 and Pu-240 which is already recycled into new fuel in a few places such as Russia.
The interesting fission products from reactor waste tend to be short-lived and go away quite quickly, the longer-lived stuff is much like the regular elemental isotopes in chemical terms and the fission products non-radioactive brethren are a lot more abundant and easier to handle for nearly all common uses.
They destroy so much that could be banked away for the future in a good clay-lined landfill.
Same with nuclear waste. In the future, all those isotopes are going to be very valuable. We just haven't figured out how or why yet.
The power companies should sell options/futures on the waste, and use the money to pay for the (temporary) storage.
You ask a great deal of a near-sighted, planetary-level, Alpha species that often has a difficult time getting out of its own way, even socially... yet I hope your insight is shared by enough of us.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How and why are well known. The politicians (Gore/Kerry/O'Leary) shut down the program.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It sounds like their processes are not in control. They need to use some good analysis and fix the mistakes in their production. It is cheaper and more efficient to do that than fix it after. Any programmer with their weight could tell you that. So could Demming and the Japanese who used his SPC techniques to blow past America in manufacturing quality. It sounds like Musk has never heard of it.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Your post brings up my question about the original article, where some guy said "40% of parts" required rework.
What does that mean? The way it's written makes it sound like 40% of all the parts used to make a Telsa requires rework.
What, 40% overall of all the parts needed to make a Tesla are bad? I call bullshit. This sounds like a reporter that is either misunderstanding what he was told, or intentionally misquoting.
Or does it mean 40% of some certain part?
I can believe there's a 40% rate on some certain part such as maybe 40% of window motors required rework or 40% of some transmission gear, but that's not how the article is written.
But the way the article is written,
Elon Musk is worth $20B. How about you?
Perhaps you should read a book about the topic instead of spreading this nonsense.
You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The company said the employees might be conflating rework and remanufacturing. It also said every vehicle is subjected to rigorous quality control involving more than 500 inspections and tests
if you need 500 inspections and tests, you're doing it wrong. My great hope when Toyota got involved was that they'd be able to teach them proper manufacturing technique. I guess they didn't. Maybe they found a culture fucked-up beyond repair and that's why they walked away...
Absolute statements are never true
Friend of mine used to work for GM and this sounds pretty familiar, he said they'd have piles of parts with defects lying around next to assembly lines awaiting rework or perhaps reuse without rework when they were in a hurry and needed a part. There was little to no accounting, parts just ended up shunted off to the side somewhere where they'd be held indefinitely until something could be done with them.
I guess the advance with Tesla is that at least they can track their defective/in-need-of-rework parts.
Yes, but nobody is going to read an article about a QA problem on a Camry.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
in china, defective parts in electronics assembly can go up to 20% of your product... that never show up in the west, but is reworked if possible, and sold as "sound" on the local markets.
That fast, cheap or right - choose two. If you want it fast and cheap it isn't going to be right.
Just like with Apple product...equally overpriced and equally of craptastic quality.
Tesla is no different than consumer electronics manufacturers or software companies: as long as QA is considered optional and the findings of the quality department are ignored to meet delivery times nothing will change. Drops in stock price are fully avoidable if management listens to QA and quality is valued more. The cost of acting on QA's findings is negligible compared to the common outcome. This is what happens when managers talk ROI and have no clue.
Keep paying top dollar for Musk's super-fancy golf carts folks!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I am happy to hear employees confirm that Tesla invests a lot of time and energy into manufacturing a high quality car instead of pumping out critically flawed death traps the way Chevy does.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
That talk shit what a surprise. Funny when did gossip become news?
Hello Mr. Anonymous Coward. Please launch your own, as in designed, built and productized electric car, on your own designed, built, and commercially successful line of rockets, and then your claim that a man who has done all of these things is a flim-flamm man and huckster might actually be credible.
The grownups in the room do understand that Musk bought Tesla when it was having trouble producing a viable prototype.
We also understand that SpaceX's Merlin rocket engine is a re-worked Apollo era motor that was further improved by Northrop Grumman under contract to NASA, and that Musk hired away the best and brightest engineers from that program.
We also understand that bitter little aerospace defense and auto industry executives will attempt to cultivate their sour grapes anywhere they can.
The old way was to incentivize contractors to bill as many hours as possible. What we got was the space shuttle and the AMC Gremlin.
The new way is to produce things that are directly incentivized by what the taxpaying consumers want.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
They destroy so much that could be banked away for the future in a good clay-lined landfill.
Same with nuclear waste. In the future, all those isotopes are going to be very valuable. We just haven't figured out how or why yet.
The power companies should sell options/futures on the waste, and use the money to pay for the (temporary) storage.
Actually we know exactly how to reuse them. It just is more expensive and politically iffy as refining spend spend fuel back into (a smaller amount of) usuable fuel require the same kind of facility (a breeder) as making weapon grade nuclear material.
GM closed the plant as conditions were so bad, there were literal drug dealers and prostitutes working the production floor. NUMMI reopened as an experiment in teaching GM "The Toyota Way" but it was actually Toyota who got taught how to make shitty cars (my Tacoma from NUMMI is a rusted out, multiple recalled mess). Tesla likely rehired all the same people that should not have been working there in the first place and how is making 90s era GM quality cars.
He is not alone, he is not unique. Numerous other billionaires are not 'just trying to find new inventive ways to screw over everyone else.'
But your cynical point of view is noted.
Which is what this article by Lora Kolodny is.
She really, REALLY, REALLY has an issue with Tesla.
And again... she puts doom&gloom in the title...
Tesla employees say automaker is churning out a high volume of flawed parts requiring costly rework
Tesla employees say the company is manufacturing a high ratio of flawed parts and vehicles that need rework and repairs.
The electrical vehicle maker has had to ship some flawed parts to remanufacturing facilities to avoid scrapping them, rather than fixing them in-line, according to sources; Tesla denies this.
Then she digs through "at least one Tesla employee profile on LinkedIn" to try to "prove" a much greater level of part rework - cause an employee listed working in a team of 130 instead of 40 on a CV.
But the best part is where she quotes experts.
Like this part at the end of the second paragraph...
Lean manufacturing specialist Matt Girvan, founder of MAG Consulting, said: "Even during what is considered 'launch' mode, if a company is selling its cars to customers, it should not be experiencing large amounts of rework.
This speaks to an internal quality issue that is on a magnitude that is not normal for most car manufacturers."
Then... after much more text and a "sad" photo of Musk (Why not a meme, Lora?), more text (including that LinkedIn part) - here's that same expert again, near the end of the article:
He said, "Problems are unavoidable in any factory. 'Rework' does happen... These listings speak to what is probably a large amount of product that has either not been built to specification or that has been built to an incorrect specification where the error wasn't found until later."
In autos, there is a widespread philosophy of "right the first time," Girvan added. Usually, automakers spend a lot of time on planning and prototypes before going into full production. One reason for a cautious approach is that too much scrap, and a high portion of parts that need rework, can eat into the already-challenging profit margins of auto assembly.
Also... Buried between Tesla's responses:
At least, Girvan said, "It's better to catch a defect in the factory and fix it -- far better than something occurring in the field involving a customer's vehicle."
Hmm... Put that way, all that "rework" (note the quote-marks in reply by Girvan) sounds a lot like quality control.
Instead of... you know... "backlog of flawed parts and vehicles", "flawed or damaged parts", "defect rate is so high", "surprisingly high ratio of flawed parts and vehicles"...
I don't know what it is about Kolodny and Tesla... but she really has it in for that company.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Do they work? Are they fixed under warranty if not? Sounds like Elon's learned quite a bit from Detroit, after all.
Organization? You must be joking..