Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bloomberg's Inside Look At Tesla's Model 3 Factory (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the inside-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from an exclusive inside look at Tesla's Model 3 factory in Fremont, California: On the Model 3 body line on a Tuesday afternoon in early June, everything is still. Tesla is just coming off a week of downtime during which workers added a new production line, improved ventilation after a fire in the paint shop, and overhauled machines across the factory. But even after the changes, there are kinks to work out. Suddenly, dozens of robots snap into frenzied action, picking up door panels, welding window pillars, taking measurements, and on and on. This robotic dance is a visceral representation of what Tesla chief executive Elon Musk has dubbed "Alien Dreadnought," a code name for the factory that evokes an early 20th century warship, but with extraterrestrials.

The stakes couldn't be higher for Tesla, which is sprinting to produce the Model 3 in quantities great enough to turn a profit. But so far, the plant's choreography has been choppy. The flow at the factory in Fremont, California, is constantly interrupted while robots and humans are trained, retrained, or swapped out. If Tesla can't make this dance work, it will be remembered as a lesson in the dangers of irrational exuberance for automation. Success, on the other hand, could transform the car industry.

68 comments

  1. Boring article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pictures were nice I suppose, but the article didn't have much to say that we haven't heard before.

  2. Transform the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Toyota transformed the industry, Tesla is just playing catchup, they might have the same robots as Toyota but they are running at a massive knowledge deficit and it shows, theory !=practice

    1. Re: Transform the industry by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Toyota can't just buy Tesla and inject their experienced staff into Tesla to get the job done. S.V. geeks can buy all the gear, but they can't instantly know what to do with it.

    2. Re: Transform the industry by RonLillycrop · · Score: 2

      I've had some direct experience dealing with both Toyota and Tesla and their approach to automation. 100% completely incompatible. Toyota: study something methodically, systematically and comprehensively and get better over time. Win. Tesla: Just do it. Fail. Think about it a very tiny bit and then Just do it again. Win. Both good at certain things but a marriage would be the worst thing for both.

    3. Re: Transform the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this with McAfee and Intel. Two cultures, neither 'better' but dramatically different top to bottom. But the McAfee CEO at the time got his exit $ ...

      (Mod parent up !)

    4. Re: Transform the industry by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Toyota can't just buy Tesla and inject their experienced staff into Tesla to get the job done.

      Which job? Making boring boxes that aren't actually more reliable than anyone else's cars any more? If you compare Toyota's cars in literally any space to their competitors', the other vehicle is cheaper, just as reliable, and not just more fun to drive but easier (the two are in fact much the same thing; handling is at least nine-tenths of what makes a car fun, and better handling means more driving ease.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take Amazon, it had the most ridiculous negative P/E ever. At the height of the dotcom boom I got a free $10 that I used to buy a $4 book with $6 shipping (international). How the fuckity fuck fuck to you make money on that? By staying the course with enough VC money that eventually you'll surface. That's kinda what I'm thinking about driverless cars at the moment, even if it doesn't make sense... even if they never recover their investment... there's so much money and so many corporations behind it that it'll happen. When I'm a senior citizen in 25+ years I'll have a self driving car. I'm probably not going to Mars, but that's okay. And the singularity is not happening. Immortality certainly not. You have a life, enjoy it.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Amazon stands on top of its market, regardless if EV and self driving cars take off Tesla will only have a small part of the pie ... Amazon's money was better spent.

    2. Re: I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'Driverless cars' is a ridiculous moving target. Maybe Tesla should stick to their original mission: electric cars with steering wheels.

    3. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Take Amazon, it had the most ridiculous negative P/E ever.

      Amazon was growing out a lot of infrastructure, expanding their customer base and developing AWS among other things as it ran astounding deficits for a decade or more. The people lending them money could see where it was going, there was a roadmap to profitability. They could have failed but they're a success story now. Tesla has a single factory, a lot of debt and a track record of not meeting the Boss's production promises quarter on quarter.

      If Musk is indeed overnighting at the plant, looking over everyone's shoulders while they try and fix what's wrong then they've got even more problems. Imagine coding under pressure and then the CEO sets up camp in your office...

    4. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by sfcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazon stands on top of its market, regardless if EV and self driving cars take off Tesla will only have a small part of the pie ... Amazon's money was better spent.

      Keep telling yourself that. Where are all those batteries for those other car companies EVs coming from again? You can't just put a bunch of laptop batteries into an EV and sell them for a profit (anymore). You need to use a type of battery cell with a cost below a certain price point (about $150 per Kwh I believe) and nobody else currently is doing that. Hell, there aren't even plans to make a non-Tesla factory to build such batteries. Telsa will have at least a 5 year head start on the rest of the car companies and by that time, it will already be over. GM loses money on every Volt and Bolt sold and that won't change unless they start making their own batteries at scale. GM makes a small number of EV batteries at very high cost currently and GM has no current plans to scale up to the point where they can make those cars economically.

      Also, you are betting that people want to buy cars from car dealerships (really, never bought a new car have you).

      Finally, you are betting that car companies will entirely change their basic culture and start making EVs. Go to any car company's HQ and talk to the employees and the real problem will come into view. These folks simply don't want to change. And by the time they figure out how completely fucked they are, it will be entirely too late. It happened with every other type of business when a new business model becomes viable. The old guard gets crushed. It happened with Walmart vs Amazon. It happened with MS vs Google. It happened dozens of times before that in many industries including many industrial businesses. It will happen again, its one of the few patterns in life that happens with such high certainty.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    5. Re: I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are sticking to electric cars with steering wheels. The 'self driving' is just a research project. It can 'help' you holding the wheel in some easy places, that is all.

      Their electric cars works fine if you don't use that experimental feature. People buy them to get an electric (or in some cases, buy them for their nice acceleration), not for the self-driving experiment.

    6. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Tesla in fact has three factories, for whatever that's worth.
      And I'm sure the people lending them money see where they're going as well, mass market electric cars, trucks, a global charging network, self driving, residential solar, residential and commercial energy storage.
      There is a roadmap for profitability around Q3-Q4 of this year.

      And sure Musk sets optimistic and ambitious goals timelines that he usually doesn't achieve, but the goals are eventually achieved.
      And while the ramp up for Model 3 production is slower than expected, the news I see from other car companies is 'We'll have our Tesla-Killer any moment now, in 2020', 'We're starting mass production of battery cells... in 2024', 'By 2028 half the cars we produce will be electric...'

    7. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The people lending them money could see where it was going, there was a roadmap to profitability.

      Tesla has a road to profitability too. They expect to actually be profitable in the third and fourth quarter (before they start sinking money into Model Y development and go negative again, probably). Same story with Model S and X: each time, they had one or two profitable quarters before they started pouring money into the next model. Model 3 should have a very healthy profit margin, and it looks like Elon is extremely confident they are going to crush expectations in only a couple of months from now.

      Imagine coding under pressure and then the CEO sets up camp in your office...

      If that CEO was a pointy-haired boss, that would be bad. But if the CEO spends 80% of his time doing actual engineering and helping you solve the problems you encounter instead of telling you to work harder, I imagine it actually creates the kind of atmosphere where everyone wants to work as hard as they can without the boss even asking. Makes them feel they are working with him rather than for him.

    8. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      And in two years we'll have a car with almost the range and almost the power of today's Teslas, which of course won't improve in the mean time.

    9. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      GM loses money on every Volt and Bolt sold and that won't change unless they start making their own batteries at scale. GM makes a small number of EV batteries at very high cost currently and GM has no current plans to scale up to the point where they can make those cars economically.

      GM is engaged in bet-hedging. They appear to believe that MIC interest in hydrogen-powered vehicles is going to make them a viable option going forward. If people buy H2 vehicles, they don't have to make good batteries. They can just buy small ones from someone else (H2 vehicles need a battery, too.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Tesla has a road to profitability too.

      Better hope there's not a fire truck on it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re: I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look at the experience people are having picking up their Model 3s: long waits,no cars,messed paperwork, cars missing parts, "come back next week". So much better than the dealships.

      People are directly messaging Elon Musk on Twitter that they can't get repairs done,sometimes for months on end.

      Tesla winning atneverything is an illusion.

    12. Re: I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been claiming they'll be profitable for years,and yet the losses continue to increase at an increasing rate.

      I'm not a hater, I just can't believe people believe Musk's proclamations without ever reviewing the history or data.

    13. Re: I think they'll succeed even if they fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've had one profitable quarter ever,in which they cashed in a pile of ZEV credits.

      Adam Jonas,one of the biggest proponents of Tesla on Wall Street, put out a note the other day predicting massive losses again next quarter.

    14. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Imagine coding under pressure and then the CEO sets up camp in your office...

      If he's committing bug fixes and answering questions immediately great. The worst is when you're trying to fix something but you can't get a decision made for 8 hours.

    15. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by torkus · · Score: 1

      Except H2 tech is at least a generation behind battery EVs, probably 2 or 3.

      The distribution network? Equally so. Plus H2 just outright sucks to work with. Electricity? We've got a pretty robust distribution network there (yah, has it's flaws, but EVs can actually help balance that)

      As far as I'm aware, there's never been a single production H2-based vehicle produced and sold for anything even remotely near breakeven price.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    16. Re:I think they'll succeed even if they fail by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Except H2 tech is at least a generation behind battery EVs, probably 2 or 3.

      I'd say two. GM, Honda, and Toyota are all headed for the next generation in their next product cycle, though.

      The distribution network? Equally so. Plus H2 just outright sucks to work with. Electricity? We've got a pretty robust distribution network there (yah, has it's flaws, but EVs can actually help balance that)

      Well, let's talk about those flaws. Most long-distance links are still poorly monitored, and the grid is not exactly suffering from a surplus of capacity, but you can have more hydrogen as quickly as you can cram it into trucks or train cars.

      As far as I'm aware, there's never been a single production H2-based vehicle produced and sold for anything even remotely near breakeven price.

      Nope. The claim is that the next generation will be profitable. That's why GM is still sitting it out, and focusing on military applications which will be profitable much sooner. Still, Californians can lease a Honda Clarity right now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Bloomberg? Why? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bloomberg has published a slew of negative stories about Tesla, so why give them an exclusive like this? Is it some attempt to get Bloomberg to change its obvious stance?

    To support my assertion of Bloomberg's negative stance, I point readers to Bloomberg's Model 3 tracker, which has been and remains consistently low in its estimates, without acknowledging that its model is producing wrong numbers. Musk announced that Tesla is producing 3500 cars per week, while Bloomberg's estimate is 2560.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it some attempt to get Bloomberg to change its obvious stance?

      That would be my guess and if I were running PR for Tesla that is what I would do.

      My housekeeper's husband works at the plant (we live about 3 miles away) and he tells me it has become pretty regular for Musk to be spending overnight at the factory. Whatever else you might say about him he seems to be taking it seriously.

    2. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Bloomberg is a Republican so he hates it when someone else makes money with a Republican-style scam.

    3. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by crow · · Score: 1

      Tesla says it hit 500 in one day, not that it was sustaining that, so the Bloomberg analysis is not inconsistent. Bloomberg also says that their model lags behind sudden changes. Overall, I think their tracker is fair, given the caveats they include.

    4. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk DID NOT announce it is producing 3500 cars per week. It hit 3500 cars per week once at the end of the quarter, and did so by putting on extra shifts and pulling people off other lines. production numbers should be represented as sustained numbers not "one time in band camp I hit 3500"

    5. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The exact quote is: "Despite our production difficulties, all parts of the Model 3 production system have demonstrated a 500 car per day capability, or, a 3500 car per week capability, and we just did a big set of upgrades and are spooling up the production lines again. I think it's quite likely that we will achieve a 5000 cars a week by the end of the month."

      This was with 2 GA lines (the biggest bottleneck). They just built a third.

      I don't think there's any malice in the Bloomberg tracker. I think it's just hindered by too long of an averaging period on their algorithm. It averages in planned line downtimes in with line production rates, which you don't want.

      --
      Jesus: "Son of a ..." OnStar: "I have a son of a ***** on 5th and Clemson." -- "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    6. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're confused. The "pulling people off shifts" was first off due to planned S/X downtime, but more importantly, that was not this quarter. That was at the end of last quarter, and to achieve 2020 vehicles per week, not 3500. And more to the point, they not only maintained that rate for several weeks after the other lines went back up (all the way up until the Model 3 lines' next scheduled downtime), but increased it.

      --
      Jesus: "Son of a ..." OnStar: "I have a son of a ***** on 5th and Clemson." -- "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    7. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of cars Tesla makes it irrelevant since they lose a massive about of money on every car they build. Model 3 reservations have already have had 20% cancellations and that number is accelerating like their shit autopilot system into a concrete barrier.

    8. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Demonstrating a capability and actually USING the capability are two different things. It's like looking at the nameplate capacity of, say Ivanpah Solar Power Facility as 392 MW, and then checking and finding the best it's ever done for a month was 132 MW (98,849 MWh for the month). If you read Musk's claim - you will see he does not, in fact, state what you wish him to state. He says it COULD run at 500 units per day, or 3500 per week, but he does NOT say they actually run at that rate.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Look at your own quote posted above; they have NOT achieved 3500 cars in a week. Musk stated that all parts of the assembly line have demonstrated the ability to do 500 cars per day; that does not mean it has done 500 per day. Nor does it mean it can do 3500 per week.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: Bloomberg? Why? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Right, it's a republican thing to:

      Take salt shakers of restaurant tables;
      Limit soft drink sizes;
      And push for anti-gun laws.

      You're right, Bloomberg is a raging conservative.

      --
      Ken
    11. Re: Bloomberg? Why? by kenh · · Score: 1

      500 / 24 hours gives you just over 20 cars/hr.

      20 cars/hr gives you one car every three minutes.

      That each area of the factory can demonstrate a capability to do it's work on one car inside three minutes "demonstrates" the "capability" of doing 500 cars/day.

      --
      Ken
    12. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and they have actually USED it at 500, and have upgraded it. Common sense shows it will make more.
      Do you doubt that if the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility was UPGRADED it wouldn't produce more? That would be silly.
      Still is that what you mean?

    13. Re: Bloomberg? Why? by sfcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right, it's a republican thing to:

      Take salt shakers of restaurant tables; Limit soft drink sizes; And push for anti-gun laws.

      You're right, Bloomberg is a raging conservative.

      Its a greed thing. Tesla is the most shorted stock in history. $12 billion is bet against Tesla. Most of those positions were initiated a few weeks/months ago when TSLA was trading in a range between $280-305. Recently the price rose to $325 (closed at ~318 today I think) and many short positions were stopped out and a brief short squeeze happened but many traders re-entered new shorts at higher entry prices and defended against a total rout (for now). If the price pops again (because Elon tweets that 5000 model 3s were produced that week), those shorts are fucked and several billion dollars will be lost by hedge funds (and gained by those, like me, long on Tesla). This is the battle being carried out right now. Its mostly retail investors in CA taking on the hedge funds in Conn and NY and the retail side is winning big right now (which rarely happens). If too much more good news comes out about Tesla, it will be all over and those shorts will be squeezed entirely out of the stock (by their risk managers). This might be an effect of our current political divisions, but its entirely outside of politics and an interesting case of the market deciding something against some very big moneyed interests. Its the rare case where the "masses" have more money than a few billionaires and are bullying them around. Its also the rare case where engineering knowledge is far more valuable than accounting knowledge in the pricing of a stock.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    14. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by sfcat · · Score: 2

      The exact quote is: "Despite our production difficulties, all parts of the Model 3 production system have demonstrated a 500 car per day capability, or, a 3500 car per week capability, and we just did a big set of upgrades and are spooling up the production lines again. I think it's quite likely that we will achieve a 5000 cars a week by the end of the month."

      This was with 2 GA lines (the biggest bottleneck). They just built a third.

      I don't think there's any malice in the Bloomberg tracker. I think it's just hindered by too long of an averaging period on their algorithm. It averages in planned line downtimes in with line production rates, which you don't want.

      Its also hindered by the fact its only counting US deliveries. For reasons having to do with preserving the tax credits for more customers, Tesla has only been delivering cars to Canada and foreign markets (left side steering only) lately. This has basically hidden the real model 3 production numbers for the last couple of weeks and those numbers won't become accurate again till sometime in mid-July. Until then, we are all just guessing.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    15. Re: Bloomberg? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either disingenuous or just silly. A solar plant can generate during sunlight hours, even if we assume on average this is 16 hours a day, which is clearly isn't.. then the plant could only generate 2/3 of the time. On top of this I doubt it generates at full capacity early in the morning or late in the evening, so again lost possibilities. A manufacturing plant does not have these issues, the comparison is totally invalid.

    16. Re: Bloomberg? Why? by kenh · · Score: 1

      All of which proves/supports the notion that Bloomberg is a Republican?

      --
      Ken
    17. Re:Bloomberg? Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg has published a slew of negative stories about Tesla,

      The financial press exists to call bullshit on corporate numbers.

      . Musk announced that Tesla is producing 3500 cars per week, while Bloomberg's estimate is 2560.

      Corporate propaganda or investigative journalism: which is more credible? I wonder.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Quality Control by tgibson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't follow Tesla closely; I found it an interesting read. Having just rid myself of a lemon (not Tesla), I was impressed with this excerpt:

    Tesla says it has 47 robots deployed in scanning stations throughout the body line. They measure 1,900 points in every Model 3 to match them to design specs—with a precision of 0.15 millimeters. Torque measurements are also automatically recorded for every bolt that’s fastened. During the final test drives on the track, sound recorders measure squeaks, rattles and wind and road noise that a test driver might miss. All of this data is stored with each car’s unique Vehicle Identification Number, or VIN, so service centers can trace any issue back to a root cause in the factory. The idea is that Tesla will be able to improve its cars, even after they're in a customer’s driveway.

    I hope they succeed and force other carmakers to follow suit.

    1. Re:Quality Control by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      nice to see that quality and metrics at work!

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:Quality Control by greenwow · · Score: 2

      Well that's ISO-9001. You don't fix quality problems. You only document them.

      The manufacturing company I used to work that I did machine controls for for was certified based on customer contract requirements rather than an actual improvement to the quality. It was fine producing crap as long as it was documented.

      > measuring defects

      The company I work for now does a ton of QA and create reports, but for most of them there's nothing actionable from that information. Don't measure something you can't use. It's a waste of time.

    3. Re: Quality Control by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It goes against all the modern quality initiatives. You don't test quality into your product, you design it into your product.

    4. Re:Quality Control by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I agree. This seems more like the manufacturing world equivalent of automated unit and integration testing of software. Essentially, if anything starts going wrong due to a minor change you make, you're made aware of the situation immediately and can correct it.

      Essentially, it's a lot of time and effort that on first blush does absolutely nothing, because in the optimal case, nothing ever happens. But the end result is that you can make minor changes or corrections with more assurance that you're not negatively affecting the quality of the final product.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:Quality Control by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      What makes you think other manufacturers aren't already doing this? Dimension scanning and torque figure records are SOP. Don't know about audio recordings of the test drive. Those are going to be pretty hard to match to a specific defect, though.

    6. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Established car makers have been doing those things for decades.

    7. Re:Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, does Tesla have demonstrable experience with analytics?

    8. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 2 European lemon cars and 1 fantastic US Zero DS electric bike. The electric suits me perfectly with zero maintenance and defects in the almost 2 years I have had it. Really looking forward to getting my RHD model 3 sometime next year and scrapping the lemons. Given all the negative comments here it must be unnerving many in the industry and is likely to be an incredibly good car. The comments and owning the electric bike tells me I have made a really good decision with both electric purchases.

    9. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes but no! You still need measure or else you're flying blind.

    10. Re:Quality Control by EnsilZah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SpaceX managed to track down a faulty strut by acoustic triangulation of a few milliseconds of data from some accelerators, I'm sure it would be much easier for Tesla in a controlled environment where the vehicle doesn't explode.

    11. Re:Quality Control by lgw · · Score: 1

      They are measuring defects instead of eliminating them by design.

      "Boss, boss, my new design eliminates all defects!"
      "Interesting claim. What numbers do you have to back that up?"
      "Well, ummm, ...."
      "Try measuring defects for a while, old design and then new. Tell me if it gets better."

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite possibly the most insightful comment I have ever read on a Tesla article. Thanks for the helpful analogy!

    13. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS.

      I work in for one of the Big 3, in a plant, and DC nut runners for fasteners and laser scanning is old practice. Some of the comments here are not informed.

    14. Re: Quality Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet they are delivering cars with missing parts and massive panel gaps. Don't take my word for it (or accuse me of being an oil shill), go to the Tesla Motors Club forums or Reddit or Twitter and see for youself. Tons of threads that all start the same way: "I love Tesla, but...(list of problems on a car less than a month old)."

      The hype behind this company is astonishing. Go look up a BMW factory on YouTube. Do you think these 100 year old companies don't automate things? There will be many tears if/when this thing implodes. So much hubris.

  6. Tesla is not unique here. Automotive is HARD by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Automotive factory spinup is HARD. Your typical car takes over 3-4 years to spin up to full production and they don't make major changes to any model for around 5 years to maximize the CapEX spending this requires. Telsa is new to the game but many of the people they've hired aren't. They did try to do to much automation but otherwise they are experiencing the same growing pains every automotive manufacturer does. Vehicles are hard to build, they have thousands of parts with tight tolerances.

    For example, every time Toyota or GM changes a car model they'll design that change 3-4 years before it goes into production and they'll spend a year or two on a test production line refining the production and making part changes to accommodate the best work flows before the new production line is rolled out to a full production facility. Tesla as a new automaker doesn't have this option (they don't even have a test factory), they are doing the testing while building production cars and it's a painful and expensive process that will have fits and starts. Just like the model S they will change that cars subtly as time goes on and they refine production making part changes and swap outs to improve production flow and errors.

    1. Re:Tesla is not unique here. Automotive is HARD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at https://www.eliomotors.com ... they even bought a fully equipped factory. Its a much sadder story though and at this point it is starting to look like a scam. see: https://www.ktbs.com/news/the-real-reason-elio-motors-wanted-shreveport-s-gm-facility/

      Maybe its just the economy 3-wheel car concept that is destined to fail though. Before Elio there was Aptera. See: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070490_aptera-collapse-how-why-it-happened-a-complete-chronology

    2. Re:Tesla is not unique here. Automotive is HARD by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe its just the economy 3-wheel car concept that is destined to fail though. Before Elio there was Aptera. See: https://www.greencarreports.co...

      And before Aptera there was the Corbin Sparrow.

      Three-wheeled vehicles are inherently stupid, because they are inherently unstable. If you lose a tire, your vehicle becomes difficult to control. If you lose a wheel, the vehicle becomes completely uncontrollable. This is something that actually happens in the really real world, so it's irresponsible not to plan for it.

      I used to have a Ford truck with a rear track literally inches narrower in the rear. Even that was annoying. Now imagine trying to dodge potholes with a third wheel in the center of the vehicle. GLWT!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. They said this about the AI's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It took forever for them to teach the AI's to play Go. But when the AI got it, it REALLY FREAKIN got it.

    Tesla gonna do the same thing.

    1. Re: They said this about the AI's by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Playing go is just abstract logic. It's entirely software. Building cars doesn't scale out in any way similar.

  8. Professor Stefan Halper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloomberg is an American oligarch. He'll have to mandate I read his libtard propaganda.

  9. Profit vs. achievement by RonLillycrop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It strikes me that somehow Elon Musk has managed to chase principled objectives completely independent of financial performance and in a way that has completely fooled the people with the control of money to parting with what they have. Here's hoping that the ruse persists since the actual impact goes way beyond making people some money.

    1. Re:Profit vs. achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try on honey-tongue'd trolling there. He's chasing growth, ie future financial performance. Car manufacturing as an industry doesn't have much room for small independents. Tesla's in a race against time to get big enough before the old guard car corps give a serious attempt at squashing them. Tesla's investors are as aware of this as Musk is, and are willing to forgo profitability until they're at a safe size. Their financials are on track to improve tremendously in the next 1 or 2 quarters btw.

    2. Re:Profit vs. achievement by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      My impression is he's well aware of financial realities, he just wants to make the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time and is willing to take as much risk as the market will bear for accelerating short-medium term growth.

  10. Automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watching Tesla try to automate is a joke. No car manufacturer would accept an automation line that doesn't produce at its contracted rate. Automation and robotic assembly has been around for decades and is a well established science.
    Take a look at any car manufacturing line and it is almost completely automated. Everything is designed to be assembled by automatic machinery. Musk talks about how Tesla had problems with a robot placing sound deadening material which was causing a lot of problems.
    https://bgr.com/2018/05/03/model-3-elon-musk-fluffer-bot-robot-production-problems/
    This demonstrates why Tesla is having so much problem. First of all why are they using fluff that is so hard to handle? Easy to handle and automatically apply sound deadening material has been around since Henry Ford's time. The material can be molded to fit the required space and then automatically placed in position. Instead, Tesla comes up with some grossly over engineered solution with vision systems and robots which is virtually guaranteed to fail.
    A few optical sensors and simple bump and stop automation is all that should be required to install the material provided that everything has been designed properly. Vision systems are required only for high precision placement or when it is difficult to present parts in a fixed orientation. A fibreglass mat should be presented on a pallet or shipped in such a way that it can be easily picked up picked up by a robot with relatively simple sensing. If adhesive is used on the mat then a robot could be used to apply the adhesive, something that has been done for decades.
    For anyone with automation experience this is second nature, for Musk this is all strange and new and has to be developed from scratch. Elon Musk is smart, but he is not smarter than the thousands of engineers before him who have developed automation to very high levels. Computers have been used in automation since the PDP-8 came out in 1970s. http://ethw.org/Rise_and_Fall_of_Minicomputers . I remember working at Philco-Ford where PDP-8 computers were used for automated component sequencing and placement onto printed circuit boards. Automation has advanced a lot since then, but it looks like Musk didn't get the memo.