Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'A Lot of Hoped-for Automation Was Counterproductive', Remembers Elon Musk (bloomberg.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the bad-robots dept.

Thursday Elon Musk gave a surprisingly candid interview about Tesla's massive push to increase production of Model 3 sedans to 5,000 a week. An anonymous reader quotes Musk's remarks to Bloomberg: I spent almost the entire time in the factory the final week, and yeah, it was essentially three months with a tiny break of like one day that I wasn't there. I was wearing the same clothes for five days. Yeah, it was really intense. And everybody else was really intense, too... I think we had to prove that we could make 5,000 cars in a week -- 5,000 Model 3s and at the same time make 2,000 S and X's, so essentially show that we could make 7,000 cars. We had to prove ourselves. The number of people who thought we would actually make it is very tiny, like vanishingly small. There was suddenly the credibility of the company, my credibility, you know, the credibility of the whole team. It was like, "Can you actually do this or not?"

There were a lot of issues that we had to address in order to do it. You know, we had to create the new general assembly line in basically less than a month -- to create it and get to an excess of a 1,000-cars-a-week rate in like four weeks... A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell...? A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out. When the robot faults out -- like the vision system can't figure out how to put the object in -- then you've got to reset the system. You've got to manually seat the components. It stops the whole production line while you sort out why the robot faults out.
When the interviewer asks why that happens, Musk replies, "Because we were huge idiots and didn't know what we were doing. That's why."

106 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. best way to do it by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works. That is, a human assembly line (or a mix like all factories have these days). Then instead of redesigning the whole thing from scratch, replace one humn component at a time. Then you have minimal risk. (That may notbe the best way to do it, but it is a way that works)

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:best way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing particularly wrong with automation. I deal with it all the time, but my production is predictable, has accumulation to deal for errors and gives me a lot of balance. I find automation that starts to deal with vision systems where things completely fall apart. I've yet to find a "good" vision system, they're all pretty primitive, even for quality control, but if you allow for errors, you can develop things to mitigate the inherit problems with it.

      I don't know what Tesla's automation has or what particular situation they have, but I'm sure they have good people trying to think of new ways to automate things. But I do run into a lot of designers trying to eliminate any type of accumulation system (Because it takes up a lot of space) and then utterly fail because of low tolerances in the system. Human error translates into computer systems multiplied by a huge factor.

    2. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works.....

      But I've been told that because Musk could land a rocket booster, he was absolutely going to be able revolutionize the car assembly line. It perfect logic, right?

      The problem for Musk isn't that he's had to change his approach, the problem is that he now requires more assembly lines and labor than he planned, therefore production costs will remain higher than planned.

    3. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1
      From TFS;

      ................. A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out. When the robot faults out -- like the vision system can't figure out how to put the object in -- then you've got to reset the system. You've got to manually seat the components. It stops the whole production line while you sort out why the robot faults out.

      That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.

      I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.

    4. Re:best way to do it by SWPadnos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From TFS;

      That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.

      Well, yes and no. Assembly lines are tuned so that you produce the correct quantity of each item in the same amount of time it takes to complete the "full product". It's called Takt time. There are just over 10,000 minutes in a week, so the production goal of 5,000 cars per week requires a new Model 3 to roll off the line every 2 minutes.

      Let's say they're building the battery packs as part of the assembly line, and it takes 60 minutes to build each pack. Just for grins, let's assume that it takes 10 minutes to install that battery pack. This implies that you need 6x as many battery assembly stations (or sub-assembly lines) to make batteries as you need battery installation stations.

      If you have a robot installing batteries, and that robot fails, then you want to stop making batteries before you fill up all the available space with battery packs you can't use (because you can't install them). Similarly, you no longer have chassis with batteries to move further down the line, so anything after the battery installation has to stop, at least for that line.

      There is slack in the process - it might be 59:30 to build the packs or 9:18 to install them, and there would likely be some parts storage as well, so the line could whether an employee going to the bathroom or something. It couldn't whether a continuous failure or a permanent change in process time (ie, it may take a human 13 minutes to install the pack and inspect their work).

      Most assembly lines work this way. The more slack you have, the less efficient your line is (because you have all this extra time ...). The less slack you have, the less you can tolerate a fault.

      I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.

      I'd bet most of the lost money is whatever was spent on programming the units, and the lost opportunity cost for both the hardware and its configuration. The robots themselves are likely still usable, but they'll need to refine how they're used in order to recoup that investment.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    5. Re: best way to do it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      The problem is that automation works really well when the processes are established or the variance to an established process is minor. For example, automating the creation of Lego blocks for Lego is probably pretty easy. Automating a new sky blue variant of an existing block is even easier. A competitor automating a brand new line of toys that compete with Lego blocks is vastly more difficult.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re: best way to do it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3

      Also most automation is designed to handle a small number of faults because if a well tuned process produces only a small number. For large number of faults, it is hard to deal with automation or not. For example the famous Lucille Ball skit where she and her friend are working on a chocolate candy assembly line. At first she and her friend can deal with the mounting issues but as they start piling she resorts to eating the chocolate.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:best way to do it by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This slack time is a serious consideration as you get toward the tail of a production line. A mile-long production line is a hugely complex dependency chain. Each of the hundreds of individual steps might have 99% uptime, but since each depends on the next the real uptime is 50%.

      Case in point: my father worked in the packaging/shipping area of an auto glass manufacturer. When the line had a problem he could go an entire shift or even two (with overtime!) with nothing to do. When things were running right, he could barely keep up.

      The former was much more common than the latter.

    8. Re:best way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Plus they had huge quality problems before they tried to automate. I read an article a couple of years ago from a former employee that claimed they did between twenty and forty hours of manual repairs on each car after it left the assembly line. They should have targeted automation to the problems they typically have, although the guy did say there weren't that many common problems and often found new and interesting problems, but that's better than shotgunning automation.

    9. Re:best way to do it by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?

      What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?

    10. Re:best way to do it by nnull · · Score: 1

      There's a major push in the industry to build such designs. Lack of fault tolerance approaches like building accumulators or other error mitigation systems ends up eating a lot of floor space which to a lot of people buying machines don't like. However, most people don't understand that these mitigation techniques is what allows for increased production speed and allows for human error. From the looks of it, Tesla doesn't have enough floor space, so it doesn't surprise me they're trying to build a system with lack of fault tolerances.

      You can see these type of machines at the convention shows. Sheeters and web processes now using open-loop systems with no accumulation. Bottling lines trying to give you incredible high speed without accumulation and very minimal fault tolerances. And guess what? All of these machines are actually causing a lot of headaches unless you have some incredibly bright people working for you to keep things running right. Which to me, this is just counter to what automation is supposed to bring when you have to have a guy sitting there fine tuning everything all the time. Sure, they cut down on floor space dramatically (And maybe lowers the overall cost of the machine? I don't think so), but at what price?

      And then you get into vision control systems. I can tell you right now, there is no excellent vision control systems. They all suck and I highly doubt Tesla has built anything ground breaking unless they got into some serious AI development to make that leap ahead (Because it would bring a revolution in the manufacturing industry, even if Tesla tried to hide it, they wouldn't be able too). But from the sounds of the article, that hasn't happened. I've tried with vision systems, without error mitigation, you will fault out and stop an entire line. This is where proper procedures and secondary systems come into play. Sure, it's a lot of conveying systems and whatever, but this is what's required to design a properly engineered system.

    11. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?

      What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?

      Hmm, possibly a backup system, or a manual control to keep things going. Its not so much a brief stop in production, but as explained a complete reset of many items just due to one fault.

    12. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Agree there is a balance that makes sense. Needed to do a complete line reset after one fault seems extreme though. Fault tolerance is not limited to 'keep going' but can also be 'quick recovery'.

    13. Re: best way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vision control systems are not difficult if you know what you are doing and aren't trying it in an unreasonably chaotic environment.

      I can play ping pong against my robot (arm). It's a five joint arm with a three finger claw grip. It usually wins unless I can cheese the hell out of it by working the corners and exceed the speed the servos can move it from one end to the other. If I spent a few grand to get faster machinery, even that wouldn't work.

      That is a reasonable system for vision control. If I changed the ball color to the same color as a green screen Chroma key and painted everything that color, then that would be an unreasonable goal. Hmmm, at least for my current cameras, maybe infrared or UV options exist.

      My acoustic based echo location tracking attempts failed once you got more than a meter away from the net to serve but that is more a radar guide than vision control at that point.

      The point is, if you can neither control nor define the relevant operating conditions, then you don't understand the process well enough to automate it. Try building a VR model and automating that. When that works , have a (real) QA engineer do a malicious compliance test, stacking panels backwards, upside down, not having the knock out knocked out, etc. And see if the model recognizes and can correct the failure, (e.g. discard faulty panel), or if it tries to power through it blindly.

    14. Re:best way to do it by delt0r · · Score: 1

      What you need is buffer chests.. But fan of buffer chest in Factori... oh wait. This is Real life, never mind.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    15. Re:best way to do it by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      I know that computer vision systems can be very sensitive to lighting changes. Part of me wonders if the new "tent" building added a complications in lighting consistency.

    16. Re:best way to do it by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Slight correction to your math- the 5000 goal was for all lines, and they had multiple lines. So they may have only needed one off a single line every 6-10 minutes.

      Also, another way to add in slack is redundancy. If you need 6 battery assembly stations, build 7. That way 1 can be down at any time without slowing the line. That costs extra equipment, but in addition to fault tolerance it allows routine maintenance while the line is on.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    17. Re:best way to do it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works.

      You're talking about a company that prides itself on technology and cutting edge, not bogged down by unions or 100 years of history. Honestly it's better for new blood to push the boundaries rather than playing it safe. It didn't work in this case. But if you start with something you know works then Musk's companies would be pushing ICE cars and super expensive rockets that can't be reused since after all everyone said that doesn't work.

    18. Re:best way to do it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But I've been told that because Musk could land a rocket booster, he was absolutely going to be able revolutionize the car assembly line. It perfect logic, right?

      It is perfect logic. You have to be able to take risks and try something new to achieve a new outcome. Ford did it too 90 years ago. Unfortunately innovation in the entire industry died in the 70s in favour of incremental engineering improvements.

    19. Re:best way to do it by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Yes. But to paraphrase Ford, you'll end up with a better horse, not with a car.

      --
      bickerdyke
    20. Re:best way to do it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've heard this is one of the things that killed GM in the 70's. Their line would never stop and they would "try" to intercept bad builds at the end and fix them.

      Toyota rolled in and had a clear policy that anyone could and should stop the line if something went wrong.

      If you want to hear more: https://www.thisamericanlife.o...

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    21. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      So now your logic is.......because he takes risks he will revolutionize the car assembly line?

      Not working very well.

    22. Re:best way to do it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.

      But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.

    23. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.

      But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.

      So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production. To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem. He now uses more production lines than planned to produce the same amount of vehicles and he's caused delays that could have been avoided by using proven methods.

      You know who hasn't made any advancement over well establish production capability....Musk, whose assembly line doesn't appear to be any improvement at all.

      The auto industry has steadily improved assembly practices and optimized over many years. You dismiss the level of capability of established car makers, which itself is not logical.

    24. Re:best way to do it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production.

      It si revolutionary to take risks in the auto industry. If you were expecting a positive result with every risk then that is you incorrectly reading into what other people have said.

      To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem.

      Yeah I know. It made him a billionaire who successfully started multiple companies that have completed upsended their respective industries. He should have just bought a factory, employed 100 union fitters and cranked out ICE cars. That would be MUCH better. /sarcasm.

      Not every risk needs to be perfectly successful for the process of risk taking to revolutionise something.

      You know who hasn't made any advancement over well establish production capability....Musk

      The man has gone from 0 cars to current production at a faster rate than any other car company in history producing a car that every other car company said couldn't be made and won't be practical. He decimated the cost of satellite launch.

      But yeah your critisicism are totally valid random internet man.

      The auto industry has steadily improved assembly practices and optimized over many years.

      Exactly what I said. Nothing revolutionary, completely safe, never try anything new, ... getting their breakfast eaten in a emerging car trend by a company they have repeatedly dismissed and for all their production woes is worth just as much as they are. If the last 5 years are anything to go by, Ford, GM, etc will be lucky to exist in 30 years. ... Oh wait, they are lucky they exist anyway thanks to government bailing them out. Man that optimsiation worked well for them.

    25. Re:best way to do it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Having fun parsing? How about making a cohesive point instead, like I did.

      "it is revolution to take risks in the auto industry". What a laugh. Again, his risks in 'revolutionary' manufacturing have not resulted in any improvements at all. His production numbers are based on creating extra lines to make up for the under performance of the initial one, and also on working massive numbers of people 24/7 just to eek out numbers that he was supposed to hit months ago. And nobody ever said you couldn't build an EV, or Tesla couldn't build one. EVs have already been built. Tesla is still losing money.

  2. Re:I am God's gift to you rotten bastards... apk by gravewax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't like censorship, but seriously isn't it about time Slashdot took some measures to actively block this spamming cunt!

  3. Re:I am God's gift to you rotten bastards... apk by Calydor · · Score: 1

    My eyes see the white space in the one line shown and just pass on to the next. Best censorship system available, even better than APK's porn-hating hosts list.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  4. Re:Elon Musk is like the facebook generation by Calydor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would you prefer a hundred 'erm' and 'uhh' while he figures out how to phrase the next few words so it's both accurate and relatively unlikely to be taken out of context?

    I have no idea why American interviews (and subtitles, I've noticed) don't do a bit of cleanup before posting but absolutely HAVE to be completely verbatim.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  5. So Musk Admits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

    1. Re:So Musk Admits... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      at least he did it quicker than 120 years

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:So Musk Admits... by DeBaas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well I would choose the 'let's try something ambitious and if it doesn't work just admit and stop doing it' over the trillion dollar corporate method of 'very small, committee stamped and approved, steps towards innovation' any day.
      But admittedly, I am a fanboy...

      --
      ---
    3. Re: So Musk Admits... by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are smarter. Also smart enough to admit when they've gone down a wrong path and need to retract.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    4. Re:So Musk Admits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

      His willingness to question industry doctrines is the reason why he is rich and successful.

    5. Re:So Musk Admits... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a fanboy but I'm still impressed at how well Musk gets this stuff working. They met their target, no-one thought they would, I was pretty sceptical myself.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    6. Re:So Musk Admits... by bgarcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    7. Re: So Musk Admits... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Except he hasn't caught up to where every other auto manufacturing is, much less an industry leader like Toyota.

    8. Re: So Musk Admits... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So he fired up a manual line at great cost.

      That's not how it works. There is no manual line. There is only less automation on the line. Converting back to manual does not come with a great cost, although there is the problem of the sunk cost of the robots taken off the line.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: So Musk Admits... by jiriw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then he still has a 100 years to make up for it, doesn't he?

      I jest. No-one will deny Musk isn't stubbornly trying to partly redo what the big car manufacturers already can do while sleeping. It's the other parts those big boys, also stubbornly, refuse to do that he tries to make a viable business from. Most EVs from other manufacturers are either 'show productions' with limited numbers or have known horrible flaws baked in (especially in battery degradation) from the start. I'd thank Musk for his tries to do it right (not saying he does already, but he's damned well trying) and I admire him for doing it in grand style.

      If I had a drivers license* and enough money to spare for a car, I'd buy a Tesla. Like I bought a Ryzen the moment they were released. I like to put my money in the camp that tries and manages to make at least a decent product over those that sit on their butts and make money while sleeping.

      (*By the way, I don't have a drivers license because I never had the need to - my job is a decent bike ride away - the exercise keeps me healthy, and we have proper public transport where I live.)

    10. Re:So Musk Admits... by bobby · · Score: 1

      Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?

      To be fair, please acknowledge the context: mainly battery, motor, and controller technology available at the time. We now have LiON, very efficient power switching transistors to control the motor, neodymium permanent magnets and switched reluctance motors. An electric car of 20 years ago would have far less power and range, still be expensive, and only a few would buy it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

    11. Re: So Musk Admits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      happening to cash out of the dot-com bubble at the right time is why he is rich

    12. Re:So Musk Admits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?

      To be fair, please acknowledge the context: mainly battery, motor, and controller technology available at the time. We now have LiON, very efficient power switching transistors to control the motor, neodymium permanent magnets and switched reluctance motors. An electric car of 20 years ago would have far less power and range, still be expensive, and only a few would buy it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

      They had to tear those EV1s out of their owner's hands. GM at no point wanted to make an EV. They still don't. Customers absolutely wanted them and probably would have paid a higher price to get them. GM fights tooth and nail at every point to not do it and they are one of the auto makers that's better with EVs. The Volt was only released as a condition of GM getting a bailout in 2008. The big auto makers don't want to make a real EV. They could, but they won't. And they won't change their minds until after its all over. Such is the nature of old bureaucracies. Seems weird that some on /. want to come done on the side of old bureaucracies in a technology fight.

    13. Re:So Musk Admits... by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      Or making a rocket better than a 60 year old government agency with a budget a not-so-insignificant percentage of GDP? The mode of thinking that another more experienced company or organization would have accomplished something were it feasible is valid until someone else tries. I am however also a fanboy (though as of late he seems to be Hughes-ing himself).

    14. Re:So Musk Admits... by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He thinks he is going to out-Toyota Toyota. If you think Toyota's approach is 'very small, committee stamped and approved, steps towards innovation' then I would encourage you to read up on the history and workings of Toyota's systems, it's pretty impressive. They were smart, from top down, no Dilbert Pointy Haired Boss stuff but rather thoughtful systems designed and tuned over the years.

    15. Re:So Musk Admits... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      They had to tear those EV1s out of their owner's hands. GM at no point wanted to make an EV. They still don't. Customers absolutely wanted them and probably would have paid a higher price to get them. GM fights tooth and nail at every point to not do it and they are one of the auto makers that's better with EVs.

      Before the government takeover there was the issue that making such cars was different enough from making gas cars that you had to build some new assembly lines (for components, even if you can manage to hack an existing final line to assemble the new thing), rather than make tweaks to the ones that you already have (and paid for long ago). That makes things much more pricey - especially when the company is already cash-strapped to the point of needing a government bailout.

      After the government takeover you're dealing with a C-suite controlled by government bureaucrats, with their eyes on the politics, rather than corporate bureaucrats, with their eyes on the almighty dollar.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    16. Re: So Musk Admits... by bgarcia · · Score: 2

      I agree. But that's implied in my statement. People wouldn't buy the cars either because they would cost too much, or wouldn't be able to go far enough on a charge, or couldn't be recharged quickly enough for long trips. My point is that Tesla is in the process of proving that the rest of the auto industry was wrong. If Elon had listened to them, Tesla wouldn't exist.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    17. Re:So Musk Admits... by bgarcia · · Score: 2

      To be fair, please acknowledge the context: mainly battery, motor, and controller technology available at the time. We now have LiON, very efficient power switching transistors to control the motor, neodymium permanent magnets and switched reluctance motors. An electric car of 20 years ago would have far less power and range, still be expensive, and only a few would buy it

      To be fair? If you're trying to be fair, why are you talking about 20 years ago? Tesla Motors was founded 15 years ago. They produced their first car 10 years ago. Yet it's only been within the past 3 years or so that "old auto" is finally starting to talk seriously about electric car development as something more than "compliance cars".

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    18. Re:So Musk Admits... by jimbo · · Score: 2

      Not only that but he's brutally honest about mistakes and takes responsibility. How often do we see that in any industry?! He's an engineer and communicates openly and honestly like so many engineers I've worked with, as opposed to the career management people/CEOs that was typically full of hot air.

    19. Re:So Musk Admits... by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      I am actually quite familiar with the Toyota way. It is very impressive and it's impact on quality is one of the reasons I'm happy with my own Toyota. It's got over 200000 Km and I have never spent more than the official planned maintenance costs, no 'surprises'.

      I do fail to see however why you think he thought he was going to out-Toyota Toyota? Of the traditional car manufacturers Toyota certainly is an exception in it's management/quality approach as well as innovation (they championed hybrid tech when no-one cared) although not as bold as Tesla.

      --
      ---
    20. Re:So Musk Admits... by bobby · · Score: 2

      I wasn't attacking you. You've misunderstood my wording- I'm not a wordsmith. Because of the horrible climate here on /. I rarely contribute. People don't seem too resilient or forgiving here. Misunderstandings are replied to with attacks and defensiveness. It's certainly not you- the whole place stinks, so nobody can tell who farted.

      I just meant that things have changed since that statement was made. It seems obvious, to me, that those kinds of statements make the originator look a bit foolish, which is what I think you were trying to say?

    21. Re: So Musk Admits... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      All companies chase subsidies. Elon Musk creates new companies just to take advantage of subsidies.

    22. Re:So Musk Admits... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well I would choose the 'let's try something ambitious and if it doesn't work just admit and stop doing it'

      Using somebody else's money? Of course I would - who wouldn't?

      Something ambitious might involve cheerleaders, sheep and a jacuzzi full of Theakston's, mind.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:So Musk Admits... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I think his strength is to pick the right people. He mostly doesn't do it himself. But rinse and repeat, he has pulled things like this off more than a few times now.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    24. Re:So Musk Admits... by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      It is pretty weird that Tesla and GM have the same market capitalization - about $55 billion. Tesla has a lot of potential, but it seems most of it is already in the stock price.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    25. Re:So Musk Admits... by Waccoon · · Score: 2

      Outside of the luxury market, that's still largely the case. Even the "mainstream" Model 3 is selling for almost twice its projected price, and Tesla still wants to make more expensive luxury versions so they don't have to sell at a loss.

      Middle-class electric cars are still not a profitable market. Tesla can survive on the wow factor among the BMW/Mercedes crowd, but they won't magically overtake a mature, trillion-dollar industry with 120 years of experience.

    26. Re: So Musk Admits... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Most of the hardware will probably eventually be used for its original purpose. It's like the self-driving car tech; the hardware works, but the software isn't ready yet.

      Now, I'll sit back while everyone argues about whether I'm being serious or sarcastic. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:So Musk Admits... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      His willingness to question industry doctrines is the reason why he is rich and successful.

      No, he's rich because Paypal took off like gangbusters. SpaceX is successful because a series of government contracts kept him afloat long enough to question industry doctrine. (It's not clear that anyone is getting rich off of SpaceX.) Tesla is successful (to an extent) because a set of government loans got him off the ground, and tax credits increased the attractiveness of his products. Nobody is getting rich off of Tesla other than by selling it's stock at highly inflated prices. (Not to mention Tesla is very heavily burdened by debt that it's operating revenue barely covers.) Solar City is also heavily burdened by debt and suffering cash flow issues.

      The fanboys will flame me, but them's the facts.

    28. Re:So Musk Admits... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

      Indeed. I mean they were smarter than the 50 year old space industry. They were smarter than the 200 year old banking industry. They were smarter than the 120 year old auto industry. ... Wait what? Oh yeah that's right they gave the entire industry a kick in the balls regardless of the fact that they had some failures in automation.

      I never fail because I never try. Therefore I am the best at absolutely everything I ever do.

    29. Re:So Musk Admits... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ironically 120 years ago their cars were electric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    30. Re:So Musk Admits... by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Fun fact - Musk was a primary investor in Tesla when no one else would invest - using money he *personally borrowed* (after having already put literally all of his money in the company). When he ran out of investor money, he used his own. When he ran out of money, he borrowed money to invest.

      Say what you want about him - he believes in what he is working on. He put his money where his mouth is in a *very* real way.

    31. Re:So Musk Admits... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      No, they said it was impossible to do it profitably. And look at Tesla's losses, they couldn't even make a profit on 100k cars that had the interiors of 10k cars.

    32. Re:So Musk Admits... by bobby · · Score: 1

      I am not the poster you've responded to, but I did want to point out that even in 1914 there were electric cars with 100 mile range, and charging stations all over NYC. They were considered "women's cars" so they didn't sell well with the biggest market which was mostly men. That isn't an attempt to virtue signal... those cars were legitimately marketed toward women with cabins that looked like comfortable parlors, and they were billed as quiet and clean to operate. I do realize that in 1914 there was less safety gear to haul around, and the average top speed was much lower, but imagine the progress that might have been had. Those were with the old Edison batteries as well, which could be refilled with electrolytes (what your body needs), and you're back to running around.

      Cool info, thanks AC! Maybe someone will view it since I quoted it. Sigh.

      As a kid in the late 70s, for a couple of years I attended a small private school. Being a nerd I knew the science teacher and helped him with stuff. He had several racks of original Edison cells that still worked perfectly. He had them powering the campus telephone system, emergency lighting, and synchronized wall clocks (and who knows what else).

  6. Re:Know thyself by jiriw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are mixing up long-term success (visionary) with short-term success (being a huge idiot sometimes). But you probably did that on purpose and are just trolling. Well, I like to feed sometimes ;) I have karma to burn.

    If you can't be a huge fucking idiot sometimes you will not accomplish anything in life. It's when we naively make our greatest mistakes, we grow the most as a human being. The point is, learning and not making the same mistake again.

    Do you know anyone that can operate an automatic assembly-line from birth, like it's in their DNA, other than its own digestive tract? No? Indeed, didn't think so. Eating and shitting all over the place comes naturally, as we see often enough here in the comments. The rest we have to learn. Sometimes we can learn from others, but if we want to do something innovative, we have to learn the hard way. That means being huge idiots until you know how to do it right.

    If you think you can do better than Musk, prove it to the world, or forever hold your peace.

  7. Re:You rotten bastards like & use my work... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    At this point it does not even matter anymore whether you are right or not. Your behavior is a huge red flag. Nothing you produce will ever touch my systems for that reason alone.
    I guess I am hardly alone in this.

  8. Re:Elon Musk is like the facebook generation by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Informative

    I prefer filler words such as "like" as well as the occasional "erm" from people who actually think about what they have to say, over people who talk and talk and talk with practiced ease but without actually saying anything. Too many interviews are just lips making noise with years of media training behind it, and an interviewer unable to break through that barrier. That's why these interviews with Musk are unusual and refreshing: he actually has something to say, speaks his mind, and isn't as prone to evade questions.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  9. 5k a week seems like hyperoptimistic overkill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The most popular EVs sell around 20k units *per year*. Once they've worked through all the hype-driven backorders I see no reason to think Teslas will sell an order of magnitude more, especially if they never manage to get the price down to """only""" $35k.

    1. Re: 5k a week seems like hyperoptimistic overkill by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      If you look at crossing the chasm model, they've yet to, actually cross.

      Which is good for the company, because if you look at companies where someone in the C-suite starts enthusing about "Crossing the Chasm" the book, you see a consistent pattern:
        1. They fire the early-hires and screw them out of the bulk of their stock option gains (as recommended near the end of one of the later chapters).
        2. But they do it too soon - when they are still what's making the company run and innovate, when the key "invisible IP" is still in their heads and skills, rather than institutionalized, documented, and trained into a redundant collection of other skilled people.
        3. So then the company keeps running for a while. But it doesn't keep innovating (or goes on a wild chasing-the-vexing-opportunities spree), the core proceses start to randomly flake out when something breaks and has to be redesigned from the ground up rather than just tweaked, the company stops growing (and/or flakes out visibly on customers). Shortly it falls into, rather than crossing, the chasm.
        4. No profit.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  10. Automation does not start in production phase. by burni2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It starts in the design phase. When you design your "Object"(automobile for example) without certain constraints an automation unit can easily work within - then it needs manual labour because "HI" can adapt easily - or try your luck with CV Systems. However computer 3D-Vision is much more complex and error prone in contrast to for example state of the art 2D-Vision systems where you can really high speed place & sort and do things.

    I think it's good that Elon Musk is true about that fact - we didnt know what we did - however I would guess he was told that the design wasn't ready for automation, and most likely that person got demoted to janitor or was fired.

    From all information I have on Elon Musk, my picture of him tells me that has the same problem as Trump. He is impervious to counciling from people that actually know better and are more "earthbound".

    This character flaw is actually very dangerous for Tesla, because we actually had a near miss of a collapsing Tesla company. I personally would not like to see that because Tesla is a strong driver that has shaken up the automobile combustion gallore.

    1. Re:Automation does not start in production phase. by Corbets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironically, that character flaw is also what has allowed him to succeed in breaking into markets the world thought he could never enter (upsetting established auto manufacturers with a tech electric startup, reusable rockets stealing market share from the Lockheeds of the world).

      So maybe we ought to write it as “flaw” with the quotes instead.

    2. Re: Automation does not start in production phase. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      It just means we have to wait for Musk to learn the lessons on his own.

    3. Re:Automation does not start in production phase. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      From all information I have on Elon Musk, my picture of him tells me that has the same problem as Trump. He is impervious to counciling from people that actually know better and are more "earthbound".

      I highly suggest dispensing with the notion that you're at all good at analysing people: it's very clear from Musk's [success in a wide variety of endeavours] that we're looking at someone more than capable of delegating... and that runs entirely contrary to your above theory.

    4. Re:Automation does not start in production phase. by theskipper · · Score: 2

      Re: character flaw, calling the diver in the Thailand rescue a pedophile this morning lends credence to the fact that he doesn't listen to his large investors, let alone those related to development of the company's product.

      https://twitter.com/MidwestHed...
      https://twitter.com/TeslaChart...

      A while back Baillie clearly told him to shut up with the unprofessional tweeting and focus on the work. And it seems they're not alone. The other large funds are clearly spooked by the balance sheet, product defects and CEO behavior and have been dumping their common positions (i.e. the least-senior in bankruptcy). Fidelity primarily but even TRowe, the most steadfast, is showing signs they fear the worst: https://twitter.com/WintonCapP...).

      Of course if we have truly have entered an era where you can say anything without repercussion from other stakeholders, and can make your own reality, then none of this matters and the cult mentality will continue. What that says about the future of corporate governance and execution in this country is left as an exercise to the reader.

    5. Re:Automation does not start in production phase. by sierra077 · · Score: 1

      From all information I have on Elon Musk, my picture of him tells me that has the same problem as Trump. He is impervious to counciling from people that actually know better and are more "earthbound".

      From everything I've read, Musk readily acknowledges his own limitations (see summary) and readily seeks and hires outside expertise. Do you think SpaceX themselves manufacture the turbines for their rocket engines? No, his company's efforts focus on the larger picture: reusable rocket, electric vehicle. If a part or process is not satisfactory, then they bring it in house and invest in it. Don't confuse his efforts to push the boundaries with ignoring advice. When all is said in done, if there were no failures or hardships, it means you were never that innovative to begin with. You may contrast this with Trump who, by many accounts, simply dismisses his fearful advisers on a whim; sometimes they flip back and forth in the span of hours in an effort to satisfy and attempt consistency with their king.

      I don't see Tesla as any more precarious than any other fledgling company. I bought a Tesla (I am not rich but above average in wealth and it is within my means using a loan) and am so happy to finally be able to support an innovative American company. Plus, in return, I get an awesome car. I pity the folks who shorted stock and therefore preclude themselves, probably for life, from the joy of ever owning a Tesla. Someone will no doubt attempt to justify the market necessity of shorts, but let me change "pity" to "fuck them". Anyone who bets money on someone else's failure is rotten at the core. Very similar to those who disparage others in an attempt to make themselves look better (Trump comes to mind again).

  11. Re: Elon Musk is like the facebook generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bill Clinton, an orator? That was Monica Lewinsky's job.

  12. No Need For The Song, Then? by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Well shit. Guess we can stop working on the song about how great it was going to all be. Just as well, we only had the first bit...

    Come with me, and you'll be... in a world of Tesla Automation!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:No Need For The Song, Then? by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 2

      Come with me
      And you'll be
      In a world of Tesla Automation

      Take a look
      And you'll see
      Tesla Automation

      We'll begin
      With a spin
      Traveling in
      The world of Musks' creation

      What we'll see
      Will defy
      Explanation

      If you want to view paradise
      Simply look around and view it
      Anything you want to, do it
      Want to change the world?
      There's nothing to it

      There is no
      Life I know
      To compare with pure automation

      Living there
      You'll be free
      If you truly wish to be
      If you want to see Martian lands

      Close your eyes and you will see one
      Want to be a dreamer, be one
      Anytime you please and please save me one

  13. Other manufacturers by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    How many vehicles can other auto manufacturers produce in one week? I would have through their volume is more than 13,009 (7,000 + 5,000)

    1. Re:Other manufacturers by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      That would depend on the price range and brand of vehicle? What other brands are making a product range at that quality and price?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Other manufacturers by Big+Nemo+'60 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many years ago (keep this in mind - things may have changed) I worked at an European company, designing and building production plants for the automotive industry, especially for the body shops.

      A typical production line for European mid-sized cars had a theoretical capacity of fifty (50) car bodies per hour - that would be at 100% efficiency, actual yeld was lower but not much. A typical production facility for non-premium class cars had two production lines running in parallel on two eight-hour shifts per day (third shift for clean-up and maintenance), five days a week. 50*2*8*2*5=8000 car bodies per week at 100% efficiency (as I said, actual yeld was something less than that). Of course, most manufacturers had (still have) more than one facility running.

      Premium / luxury production lines are usually smaller than that, of course. Think Ferrari.

      I hope this is of interest.

      --
      In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
    3. Re:Other manufacturers by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      How many vehicles can other auto manufacturers produce in one week?

      How many production lines do they have?

      How many years of investment and plowing-revenue-into-building-or-buying-production-capaity did they spend to get to that point?

      5000 cars/month is about 8 2/3 minutes per car. That's if you run your lines three shifts, 7 days a week, and they NEVER STOP. With 5-day weeks it's about 6 minutes between cars (and thus per-station on a line), with two shifts it's 4, with one shift it's 2, with coffee breaks, lunch, etc. it's less.

      And that's not even TOUCHING the big killer - adding slop time at each station for fixing any oopsie within the time slot, and stopping the WHOLE LINE when the step doesn't get done right and isn't something you can mark the tag after the car's off the line.

      A production line is a giant AND gate, with a forest of inputs, that has to output 1 to make cars.

      A target of 5,000 cars a month this early in the company's history? And they HIT it? Amazing!

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. Re:Elon Musk is like the facebook generation by info6568 · · Score: 1

    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

    But it was ... just thinking how few old traditional buildings made with soft materials survived strong central american (where I live) continuous earthquakes. This is why seismic codes are becoming more and more strict, because of the bad experiences and fallen buildings

    The real difference is that humans have several thousands of years making buildings and just some decades working with software. And Tesla took a very risky path working many new things that could carry them where they are today. I expect this learning process will help them very much in the future.

  15. Re:Know thyself by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3

    Like the fairy-tale where one man runs a company that sends rockets in to space, is racing ahead with a luxury electric car company, produces leading battery storage for vehicles and properties and has some innovative solar products to boot.

    Yeah, what an idiot, an intelligent person would have done far better. I'm not a Musk fan boy, but it's pretty obvious the man is no idiot.

    It's just a shame he can't keep up with google WRT autonomous driving.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  16. Re: I am God's gift to you rotten bastards... apk by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Truth. I once met someone who said they like opening spam and reading it. I wanted to punch them because they are the problem.

  17. Re: Know thyself by reanjr · · Score: 1

    There are mistakes and then there are mistakes that shouldn't have happened. Tesla's visionary approach does not preclude them from hiring people who know what they are doing. It's not-invented-here syndrome.

  18. Lessons GM learned in the 80s by sphealey · · Score: 2

    = = = A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell...? A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out = = =

    How could Musk have possibly known that would happen? Just because he was operating in a factory he bought from GM, which went through the exact same process in the 1980s and the failures of excess automation in the assembly process were well documented in both the trade press and business press? No One Could Have Anticipated(tm).

    Sometimes the people who have been doing something for 120 years are hidebound. And sometimes they really do know what they are doing.

    [IMHO the stock market has done Telsa a real disservice by bidding up the stock price beyond reasonable levels. At the time Ford needed the cash it received from selling Land Rover and Jaguar, but now it really needs a new luxury division. Tesla would make an excellent division of Ford - but at the stock price that can't happen]

    1. Re:Lessons GM learned in the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There would be no progress if you just replicated what other companies had done in the past.

      New products made with new processes require you to not listen to the experienced people at some point. It's extremely difficult to tell when you need to listen and when you need to ignore. Tesla made a mistake here, but the mistake was definitely not that they were ignoring some of what GM had done previously, it's that they made a bad choice on which things to ignore and which not to ignore. They had to ignore some of it. GM produced and tanked the EV1. If Musk listened to all of GM's experience, there would be no Tesla at all.

      Also GM's problems with automation 30 years ago might be a good thing to revisit, as technology has changed massively since then. A $5 Raspberry Pi is far more powerful than any computer they had back then. Robotics and automation has massively changed. Thinking it can be done better now is not radical.

      I think it's a good sign here is that the mistake has been recognized and they owned it. It's the companies who think they can't make mistakes and shift the blame externally that cause massive problems in a vain attempt to be right.

  19. think by leesubham · · Score: 1

    Take a look at reality

  20. Re:Know thyself by magzteel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are mixing up long-term success (visionary) with short-term success (being a huge idiot sometimes). But you probably did that on purpose and are just trolling. Well, I like to feed sometimes ;) I have karma to burn.

    If you can't be a huge fucking idiot sometimes you will not accomplish anything in life. It's when we naively make our greatest mistakes, we grow the most as a human being. The point is, learning and not making the same mistake again.

    Do you know anyone that can operate an automatic assembly-line from birth, like it's in their DNA, other than its own digestive tract? No? Indeed, didn't think so. Eating and shitting all over the place comes naturally, as we see often enough here in the comments. The rest we have to learn. Sometimes we can learn from others, but if we want to do something innovative, we have to learn the hard way. That means being huge idiots until you know how to do it right.

    If you think you can do better than Musk, prove it to the world, or forever hold your peace.

    Well said.
    It's so easy to never fail. Just never try anything and spend all your time criticizing others who do.

  21. How well does this describe programming by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell? We don't actually want to go for hell. We just didn't realize it was a ticket to hell. We thought it would be good, but it was not good.

    I read that I could think of countless situations on company projects where you could replace "automation" in the above sentence with a third party library, or some super complex internally developed framework that was supposed to cure all ills.

    I've read through some of the other comments here about production systems and various backseat driving as to what he should have done. So I'll offer my own - they tried to automate everything all at once on paper before trying anything. They should have probably tried to automate much smaller sections of the process with something they could check out in reality then add that to an assembly line.. like for software, how it really is production to do test fragments of something you are trying to build and run a lot of things through them to see if everything works as you predicted.

    No matter how you slice it though enormous systems are just always going to be complex beasts with lots of failure along the way. I''m not really a Musk fan to the depth some are, but one thing I do admire about Musk is that he actually can deliver because he doesn't give up, and puts in the tremendous personal effort it takes to resolve issues. The unlikely successes of SPaceX made me pretty sure he could fix Tesla too, and after reading this I feel pretty sure he has.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Credit where credit is due by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    It may seem ironic but I'll give credit to Elon Musk for saying "We were huge idiots" (emphasis mine) where he could have said 'THEY (my employees) were huge idiots'. He's part of the team, he's taking responsibility for failures as quickly as he takes responsibility for successes; this is a trait that in my perception is all to uncommon these last few decades.

    1. Re:Credit where credit is due by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very much so. Only those that can admit personal failures can improve. The more accurately, the better. In this egocentric age in the west, this quality has indeed become rare, and even much more so in the "leaders". This is probably the single key factor for his success.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Self-driving promise vs robotic automation... by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 1

    As a future M3 owner, it concerns me that Elon would admit that he was a "huge idiot" to rely on automation at a time when his company is selling a product that promises to use similar tech for self-driving, If Tesla can't even get their robot's vision system to recognize parts and where to put them in a controlled environment, what are their chances of getting their cars to recognize objects out on on the road and act accordingly?

  24. ARGH! Week, not month! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    5,000 a WEEK, not a MONTH. Let's try that again:

    2 min and a shaved second between cars. That's running flat out 24/7. No coffee breaks, no shift change, no stop-the-line-for-an-oopsie. (Easy to see why he needed more than one line.)

    A target of 5,000 cars a WEEK this early in the company's history? And they HIT it? I'm FLOORED!

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  25. Normal Development process by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when people try to do something new. It is called Research and Development, and it happens on -every- project to some extent. Whether it is planned that way or not...

    What is different is telling the truth, which has become quite rare in recent decades. Partly because the "Internet" seems to require lies.

    If you punish those who say "I was wrong" ot "I don't know", then you will end up buying from the liars. Good luck with that. 8-}

  26. "Because we were huge idiots..." by gweihir · · Score: 2

    And that is why Musk is successful. He may only be a mediocre engineer, but he is not only able to learn, he is able to be brutally honest with himself and that puts him far ahead of the crowd.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  27. Re:Dumbass Musk. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

    What have you achieved, exactly?

    You know, other than trolling on slashdot.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  28. That's not what he said by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    As a future M3 owner, it concerns me that Elon would admit that he was a "huge idiot" to rely on automation

    He didn't say they were huge idiots in relying on automation. They still use automation in a number of places in production.

    He was saying they were "huge idiots" generally in designing the whole manufacturing process, which they obviously had to re-work quite a bit. Automation is only one small part of that, simple logistics in moving things around another... all had to be re-jiggered it turns out.

    Remember it's not like Tesla built the automation systems they scrapped, he was talking about robots going into failure modes they had to have a slow reset from, Tesla's own automation and software in cars seems to be lots more stable.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  29. Non trivial by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Non trivial by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.

      Wow , sounds complicated. I wonder how other manufacturers keep their lines running. They must have geniuses.

  30. Re:Dumbass Musk. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Designed a system that can grow plants without light?

    Designed a nearly-universal LED blend that works on over 95% of plants through all stages of life (the purple glow of which you can see in the video mentioned above?)

    Developed Aquarium lighting units which can light an entire 55 gallon saltwater reef tank with less than 50 watts of power consumed hourly, and produce consistent growth?

    Created prototype lighting systems for Scripps Institute of Oceanography for figuring out *THE* limits of photosynthesis?

    What have *YOU* achieved, sonny-boy, besides bloated code that doesn't help humanity in most any way?

    *yawn*

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  31. He has been modded down to -1... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Slashdot's moderation system is working very well. He hasn't been censored, but he has been modded down into oblivion.

    The best of both worlds. We should not ask for anything more.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  32. Hubris by Elfich47 · · Score: 2

    Musk decided to ignore the comments and advice of experienced automotive engineers and industrial designers. There are easily twenty other car manufacturers out there that learned the lessons that Tesla is relearning now. The lessons that Tesla is learning now are the ones all the other car makers have as their daily mantra:

    1. Have an assembly line with the lowest downtime and most consistent production rate available.
    2. Research improvements to the line. Develop a replacement station/process for particular portions of the assembly. Test and debug the new process so it is as reliable and as fast as the previous process. Once the new process is refined and complete - Then change the assembly line.
    3. Retrain the workers once in the new process. Go forward in the new manufacturing process.
    4. Understand the "Pull method" of manufacturing. Toyota implemented it in the 70's and 80's and forced everyone else to get on the band wagon.
    Yes, this sounds boring. But the big boys out there all know that the things that kill profitability is: downtime, reliability, rework, supply chain foul ups, and warranty work. So unless the new process improves all of these things, it won't be changed.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  33. Will production lines become (largely) obsolete? by aberglas · · Score: 1

    As robots become smarter and more versatile, will we start so see shorter, slower production lines in which machines do more things at each step?

    Having multiple shorter lines would make logistics much easier. Failures would be localized. And production could be distributed nearer to markets.

    The idea of a machine (the production line) pushing out something as complex as a car every couple of minutes boggles the mind. The number of things that could go wrong is huge. It is not surprising that it sometimes stops. It is amazing that it ever goes.

  34. Re:Know thyself by delt0r · · Score: 1

    I was shocked to hear the other day that 4chan is not what it once was. Apparently they all moved over to reddit.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  35. Re:Survivor Bias. That is really all. by delt0r · · Score: 1

    ...Also probably dishonest or amoral, but that is not strictly necessary.

    Musk seems to be a bit better than the average, hell these days the gates foundation is actually pretty good. He, like a few others are not the typical fortune 500 CEO. They made their wealth on that new fangled internet thing long before the typical wall street troll got their teeth stuck in.

    I for one welcome our new billionaire overlords. They seem a lot better than the last lot.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  36. Re: Dumbass Musk. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Oh, so you took a few COTS LEDs in different hues and glued them together so people can grow marijuana indoors?"

    Guessing you ignore the Scripps Institute part. Okay, you have fun over there in the ball pit since you've shown you're not even up to the reading and thinking level of a 10 year old.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.