Musk urges Tesla workers to cut costs ahead of fundraising round(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Musk urges Tesla workers to cut costs ahead of fundraising round
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-02/musk-e-mail-urges-workers-to-cut-costs-in-bid-to-woo-investors
9 comments
It might be cultural differences but it always amazes me how people can have such strong opinions without even a tiny doubt that there might be a chance that the person they are criticising is a bit more informed/experienced and is maybe taking actions based on their knowledge and experience.
Normally I'd agree with you on this point, but it seems that Musk is the one displaying hubris here. The gullwing doors were a blatant disregard for the 100+ years of engineering expertise that has converged on the current design of a car door, and throwing that out the window for something flashy and attention grabbing. The criticism is well deserved.
>he gullwing doors were a blatant disregard for the 100+ years of engineering expertise that has converged on the current design of a car door, and throwing that out the window for something flashy and attention grabbing. //
Gull-wing doors surely are designed to do one thing, sell the car on look alone. Surely people know they're impractical; but they have the essence of supercar in that impracticality. I had a Lambo' Countache poster as a kid, the flip up doors were probably terrible in practice but they had an evocative unusualness that showed this was no ordinary car. I imagine it gives the vehicle a lot of free marketing and a strong differentiator.
Gull-wing doors surely are designed to do one thing, sell the car on look alone. Surely people know they're impractical; but they have the essence of supercar in that impracticality. I had a Lambo' Countache poster as a kid, the flip up doors were probably terrible in practice but they had an evocative unusualness that showed this was no ordinary car. I imagine it gives the vehicle a lot of free marketing and a strong differentiator.
100+ years of expertise also converged on the ICE
Sure, but that's a straw man arguement. Cost effective LiPo batteries didn't exist until a few years ago, making ICE's the only viable means of powering a vehicle for long distance travel.
As far as I know, the laws of physics governing car doors hasn't changed in the last decade.
As far as I know, the laws of physics governing car doors hasn't changed in the last decade.
The falcon wing doors were only a small part of the post the parent was commenting on. IIRC even Musk has conceded that their reach exceeded their grasp a bit when it came to those doors, but does that one point validate the entire comment?
I was thinking the same thing after reading OP's comment.
I wouldn't even try to wrap my arms around what Elon is doing. Cars, Energy, Rockets, etc. It's not everyday that someone who wants to change the status quo comes along. All I know is he must be very lonely with so many people hoping he fails.
I wouldn't even try to wrap my arms around what Elon is doing. Cars, Energy, Rockets, etc. It's not everyday that someone who wants to change the status quo comes along. All I know is he must be very lonely with so many people hoping he fails.
That's another thing I can't understand if he succeeds we all win in a very fundamental way, why so many people hope he fails is beyond me.
I don't think people are necessarily hoping he will fail, rather they believe his failure is a forgone conclusion, and they can't understand why others can't see that...including Musk.
NOTE: I'm not a hater or a fanboy.
NOTE: I'm not a hater or a fanboy.
Few want him to fail, and we'd all love the grand plans to succeed....but at some point a dose of realism has to be injected. Elon isn't a pied piper. We do need to think for ourselves occasionally, as do investors.
If he fails for making promises he could never keep, many will stand to lose. I live in the home of Toyota in Japan, and would welcome any competition that pushes Japanese automakers to achieve more, but in my opinion Tesla is not showing the signs of a business that can scale. Incidentally, I blame the American consumers, investors, media, and labor pool for that shortcoming as much or more than I would blame Musk. A great leader is still only as good as his weakest link. In my view, America is incapable of sustaining a great manufacturing culture at scale due to the influence of various perverse incentives that have woven themselves into the cultural fabric.
I am not hoping he fails, and certainly where battery tech is concerned Tesla have moved on R and D - especially when it comes to battery pods and keeping batteries at a consistent temperature and state.
But.....the grand visions before the boring grunt work of engineering has been accomplished, and trying to build massive $5 billion factories before any kind of profitability is on the horizon is not going to help Tesla stick around beyond a few years at most.
But.....the grand visions before the boring grunt work of engineering has been accomplished, and trying to build massive $5 billion factories before any kind of profitability is on the horizon is not going to help Tesla stick around beyond a few years at most.
The battery technology is certainly where Tesla have a big lead. It's not really the battery chemistry per se, but building and engineering a battery pod that is safe and that keeps battery cells in a consistently good state whether under charging or discharging. Once a battery starts losing performance it only accelerates. If you have to keep it in a good window and it will last for many years. Liquid cooling is also the way to be doing this.
They're also right about hydrogen fuel cells. They're stupid. Maybe if we get into space and can get an abundance of hydrogen things will be great. But, here on Earth you have to manufacture the hydrogen and create a vast infrastructure to transport and store it.
Tesla also have a big lead in the use of telemetry and their ability to do software updates over the air and their approach to security and building this in-house. Other car manufacturers will continue to outsource this and continue to fuck up completely.
However, Tesla had to follow through with all of this, maybe be out of the public eye for a while and iterate over the engineering, keeping costs to a minimum and doing the R and D, before moving on to other capitally expensive projects. They've massively overstretched and I don't see it being recoverable.
They're also right about hydrogen fuel cells. They're stupid. Maybe if we get into space and can get an abundance of hydrogen things will be great. But, here on Earth you have to manufacture the hydrogen and create a vast infrastructure to transport and store it.
Tesla also have a big lead in the use of telemetry and their ability to do software updates over the air and their approach to security and building this in-house. Other car manufacturers will continue to outsource this and continue to fuck up completely.
However, Tesla had to follow through with all of this, maybe be out of the public eye for a while and iterate over the engineering, keeping costs to a minimum and doing the R and D, before moving on to other capitally expensive projects. They've massively overstretched and I don't see it being recoverable.
You seriously think you are in a better position to make such
analysis then FMR, Baillie Gifford, T. Rowe Price, Vanguard?
I kind of think that in case Tesla runs into serious financial issues in the future it might get a hand from the US government in some way or another, because of the long term benefits of Tesla succeeding. Just my opinion, no sources for that.
> All I know is he must be very lonely with so many people hoping he fails.
Huh, I'd have assumed the opposite -- that the masses of people following the progress greatly outweighs the man-will-never-fly crowd.
Huh, I'd have assumed the opposite -- that the masses of people following the progress greatly outweighs the man-will-never-fly crowd.
I really don't see any difference if he wins or succeeds. Do you think he is the only person who can do cars or rockets for example? If he fails someone else will pick up the slack, so I see no reason to cheer that he will do it (or for the same reason to expect the opposite).
Moreover, if he succeeds it is not only for his personal merits. That's one of the things that the media gets completely wrong. It is more for the merits of a large group of people working in engineering, advertisement, financing, and because of the general state of the economy. Similarly, if he fails it will not be solely because of his personal qualities.
Moreover, if he succeeds it is not only for his personal merits. That's one of the things that the media gets completely wrong. It is more for the merits of a large group of people working in engineering, advertisement, financing, and because of the general state of the economy. Similarly, if he fails it will not be solely because of his personal qualities.
> Do you think he is the only person who can do cars or rockets for example?
Who else is trying? A lot of people who could do this are reading Hackernews right now. How many of them are actually trying to do it?
Who else is trying? A lot of people who could do this are reading Hackernews right now. How many of them are actually trying to do it?
He is the only one who came this far, will someone else try probably, but I'd rather see it happen as soon as possible. Also if he fails raising funding for this type of project will be very problematic also there are very few people in the position to try in the first place.
The problem is that Elon Musk has a history of not keeping his promises. Sure, we got the Model S, but late, and a lot more expensive than promised. With the Model 3, he is promising even more.
It's relatively easy to build an expensive luxury car. It's incredibly difficult to mass produce an affordable mass market car. We have yet to see any evidence that Tesla is capable of doing so.
This is not just something that I believe. Lots of people believe it, and put their money where their mouth is. Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks there is.
It's relatively easy to build an expensive luxury car. It's incredibly difficult to mass produce an affordable mass market car. We have yet to see any evidence that Tesla is capable of doing so.
This is not just something that I believe. Lots of people believe it, and put their money where their mouth is. Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks there is.
"It's relatively easy to build an expensive luxury car." Would be nice to back this up with examples. Especially in volume segment like here's another example of a company entering luxury car market making a competitive vehicle that's for the sake of argument just hits top spot in sales in the S class segment.
its not only easy to build them its easy to profit off of them. they are the biggest profit makers for car makers because it really doesn't cost that much more to reach that point.
I don't understand your doubt, there are many examples of boutique car companies who sell on either luxury or performance and sometimes both. They are all low volume adventures. There simply is more room to profit and that is attractive. Plus its very easy to feed off of pretentious people, pretentious geeks are even simpler.
I don't understand your doubt, there are many examples of boutique car companies who sell on either luxury or performance and sometimes both. They are all low volume adventures. There simply is more room to profit and that is attractive. Plus its very easy to feed off of pretentious people, pretentious geeks are even simpler.
50,000 a year is not boutique. It's hard to build competitive production luxury vehicle, the only success stories in that segment are Lexus, Acura and Infiniti and they are obviously subsidiaries of existing large automakers. Majority of boutique luxury brands are owned by major conglomerates and with exception of few are actually loss leaders that primarily exists for prestige purposes.
> few are actually loss leaders
Nothing could be further from the truth. Brands such as Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes are extremely profitable, because they offer cars that cost just a little bit more than a "normal" car and charge up to 30K or more for that privilege. The only constraint on the growth of these car makers is that there are not enough people who want (or afford) to pay that price just for the extras.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Brands such as Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes are extremely profitable, because they offer cars that cost just a little bit more than a "normal" car and charge up to 30K or more for that privilege. The only constraint on the growth of these car makers is that there are not enough people who want (or afford) to pay that price just for the extras.
That was about boutique brands Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes are not boutique brands are they? Bugatti is not profitable niether are majority of other boutique brands owned by major automakers.
These aren't the few that are loss leaders. But also a BMW 3 series costs less than my minivan, so I would hardly call that a luxury vehicle. Of course you can get a high end BMW, but somehow I doubt they would be very profitable without the lower end of the market. And that's the point for Tesla as well. By introducing a car that starts around the same price as a 3 series BMW, and selling in similarly high volumes, they can also be extremely profitable.
The comment above is exactly right. There are dozens of high-end car makers for this very reason. Because this is a small but profitable market, they just need to have engineering that is good enough and provide esquisite features that are perceived as luxurious and exclusive. Just buy any specialized magazine or visit the show rooms to see how these high-end cars manufacturers churn one expensive car after another...
These high end car manufacturers are mostly parts of conglomerates sharing part bins with far less exotic vehicles. Most of them were underwater before they were acquired by respective conglomerate. Many of them are money losers kept alive for prestige and halo effect. There is not a single independent volume luxury car manufacturer that was able to enter the market in a very long time.
Tesla has made large gains in their production compared to other manufacturers in the same class of cars[0]. However, from what I've heard the interior build quality on Teslas is that it is of the lowest quality in their price bracket. As such, while the numbers are promising they are at a bit of a discontinuity point in their market that might show these numbers to be more favorable than they actually are.
[0] https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/15/1-large-luxury-car-in-u...
[0] https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/15/1-large-luxury-car-in-u...
What are the criteria that go into quantifying interior build quality?
Tesla's interior is definitely spartan, with things like center console and extra cupholder set available only after-market, but that seems to fit into the story of "design the most lightweight vehicle possible in order to increase the range".
Are there reports of numerous interior-level problems, like fobs or panels or lights or switches falling off, etc.? Because honestly there's not much of "interior" there to discuss its quality.
Tesla's interior is definitely spartan, with things like center console and extra cupholder set available only after-market, but that seems to fit into the story of "design the most lightweight vehicle possible in order to increase the range".
Are there reports of numerous interior-level problems, like fobs or panels or lights or switches falling off, etc.? Because honestly there's not much of "interior" there to discuss its quality.
(Finance rookie here) Is there a public register of short contracts or is this just a generally held belief?
[deleted]
I'm afraid it's a case of "Show me the money", meaning, "Have you achieved what you say you can and have before you move on to the next grand vision of the future?"
For him to say that 'stage one' is complete is laughable. We haven't seen Model 3s on sale for $35,000 yet, we haven't seen whether Tesla can get the required production (which they simply can't) and they haven't achieved profit on any car at all yet.
For him to say that 'stage one' is complete is laughable. We haven't seen Model 3s on sale for $35,000 yet, we haven't seen whether Tesla can get the required production (which they simply can't) and they haven't achieved profit on any car at all yet.
I am also afraid this is a case of "Show me the money". He built 3 multi-billion dollar companies 2 are profitable. That's speaks volumes about his ability to make business decisions now unless you have comparable experience calling his business abilities "laughable" is in itself laughable. Might Tesla fail sure it might, but to use such a condescending tone to comment unless you have a comparable track record is very bad form.
nihonde(1)
The worst thing about those falcon doors on model x is that I keep hitting my head ( I am 6'3") on the pretty sharp corner when it's sometimes not fully up, just like this bmw ceo did: https://electrek.co/2016/03/07/bmw-ceo-tesla-interview-model...
I think it's a pretty terrible door usability wise, but it brought some marketing buzz to model x, like a wow factor
I don't understand who decides to put sharp corners on doors. It seems like an unnecessary danger.
Doors are the toughest part of a car to design; if you pay attention to cars which get a mid-life 'face-lift', you will see that they never change the doors (even when they change every other body panel). There are an immense number of constraints on a door, not the least of which are the hinge and the gasket. When the Model X was announced, my first comment was that the doors were a bad idea, just because of the complexity of the mechanism, and the 'legacy' of door issues on innumerable cars.
Because doors are part of the exterior design.
[deleted]
Normally you're pretty careful opening a door that hasn't fully opened. It's too bad it was held down and he tried to exit it without looking.
Falcon Wing Doors
Whatever. It's kind of like arguing whether you sat on deckchairs or garden chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
toomuchtodo(1)
I love Tesla cars, I think they look amazing, the technology behind the is incredible...but it is just not well run in terms of money. Musk is a visionary, but seems to overlook his cash burn. I am waiting for the headlines when people are talking about Tesla'a stock plummeting down to earth. Maybe he has enough billionaires in his network of friends to keep him going long enough to maintain his image. I don't know. People aren't as friendly with their money during economic downturns and we're due for one. That's when we'll find out what lies beneath the veneer.
I love his work, but I question his financial decisions.
I love his work, but I question his financial decisions.
You are commenting on an article which is all about Musk paying attention to cash burn.
I am not very good at Twitter search, but at some point Elon pointed out that out of all US car companies only two have never went bankrupt - Ford Motors and Tesla Motors. The car manufacturer industry does not have any good role models on being run well in terms of money.
I wonder what kind of cost cutting they will do. Whenever I hear cost cuts, I always think layoffs, but at a time where they need to ramp up production, I feel like that would be counterproductive.
There will be a call to cut whatever costs they can, which won't get far, and then there will be layoffs.
My model S has been in the shop after a collision since a June 10. The repair shop has been waiting for parts. The last thing we're waiting for is some kind of spring related to the airbag assemblY. Originally tesla said they would pull one off the production line since I waited so long, but now they are backing off that. It's going to be at least another 3 weeks.
Be aware if you are buying a car from tesla, that you are at their mercy in terms of parts. There are no third party parts available, and tesla is using all the parts for new cars.
Be aware if you are buying a car from tesla, that you are at their mercy in terms of parts. There are no third party parts available, and tesla is using all the parts for new cars.
Well, that's clearly wrong. I would ask for my money back. You spend $100,000 on a car, and the manufacturer can't be bothered to care enough for customers to ensure that there are enough spare parts available.
Someone like Henry Ford, actually used to be a mechanic/engineer that built cars himself. I wonder if Model T owners had problems getting parts!
Visionaries are interesting and get media attention, but I prefer leadership that have personally "gotten their hands dirty." instead of a "business type."
Someone like Henry Ford, actually used to be a mechanic/engineer that built cars himself. I wonder if Model T owners had problems getting parts!
Visionaries are interesting and get media attention, but I prefer leadership that have personally "gotten their hands dirty." instead of a "business type."
You do realise Musk is very competent engineer among other things? He is fairly far removed from "business type"
Please cite your sources. I have BS EE with CS concentration from U Illinois/Urbana and was mentored as a computer chip design engineer for four years in a major computer firm.
For Musk, I see no engineering degrees nor work experience being mentored in engineering which is absolutely necessary.
Compare Musk with GM CEO Mary Barra who as a BS EE and work experience as an engineer and engineering manager, mentored into those positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra
I am betting that if Mary Barra were running a startup auto company that it would have spare parts.
For Musk, I see no engineering degrees nor work experience being mentored in engineering which is absolutely necessary.
Compare Musk with GM CEO Mary Barra who as a BS EE and work experience as an engineer and engineering manager, mentored into those positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra
I am betting that if Mary Barra were running a startup auto company that it would have spare parts.
Being competent and having a degree are often very orthogonal to each other. My friend works as engineers at Space X and describes Musk as very hands on and competent which can not obviously serve as proof. But neither can a statement like "if Mary Barra were running a startup auto company that it would have spare parts". Scaling supply chain and building up manufacturing facilities from ground up for a new car type vs managing an existing entrenched player are very different tasks. I guess we will soon see how things will work out with GM electric vehicle sales to compare the two.
> You do realise Musk is very competent engineer among other things? He is fairly far removed from "business type"
In certain fields, such as engineering of products as opposed to general software development, such as designing jet airliners, rockets, nuclear power plants, automobiles, buildings, etc. both a degree in engineering and real work experience in engineering a product that goes into production is really important.
There is much more to engineering than design for items that are in production.
The question I was addressing was ensuring customers have enough parts and I believe Mary Barra would have considered that as very important and that she would have ensured that the spare parts were available. It is not sexy or flashy, it doesn't get you media exposure, but it is good engineering.
I also have extensive experience with computer software so I know what I am talking about regarding the difference of engineering and most software development.
> Being competent and having a degree are often very orthogonal to each other.
Please explain how this is true with engineering degrees (EE, Mechanical, Civil, Aeronautical, Materials Science). Of course, if engineering, one needs to be mentored by engineers as well.
In certain fields, such as engineering of products as opposed to general software development, such as designing jet airliners, rockets, nuclear power plants, automobiles, buildings, etc. both a degree in engineering and real work experience in engineering a product that goes into production is really important.
There is much more to engineering than design for items that are in production.
The question I was addressing was ensuring customers have enough parts and I believe Mary Barra would have considered that as very important and that she would have ensured that the spare parts were available. It is not sexy or flashy, it doesn't get you media exposure, but it is good engineering.
I also have extensive experience with computer software so I know what I am talking about regarding the difference of engineering and most software development.
> Being competent and having a degree are often very orthogonal to each other.
Please explain how this is true with engineering degrees (EE, Mechanical, Civil, Aeronautical, Materials Science). Of course, if engineering, one needs to be mentored by engineers as well.
I'm not sure why you hold such a high regard for degrees. I also got my EE degree from UIUC, and while I think it is/was a great university most of what I learned was self-taught. I'm also a PhD dropout, worked at prestigious companies, yatta yatta ya. Then I started a robotics company, and I've looked at thousands of resumes and interviewed at least a hundred people. One thing I've learned is that degrees, grades, etc are completely worthless. They tell you absolutely nothing about whether or not someone can actually build something. The only thing I care about is what people have built, and I don't care if it was at a company or in their spare time. It's much more impressive if they did it by themselves though as opposed to being supported by all of the resources of a giant company, as being resourceful is a great trait for a talented engineer (and especially important at a startup).
Long story short - it only matters what people have built. It doesn't matter what their pedigree is.
Long story short - it only matters what people have built. It doesn't matter what their pedigree is.
> One thing I've learned is that degrees, grades, etc are completely worthless.
Going to a good engineering school, mentored in engineering is important. It is one thing to build a few electric vehicles and something totally different to build something that is that complicated and mass produced.
There are processes and procedures one learns in order to build something for mass production. I am not speaking of most software for which I have hired people without degrees and know others without degrees, but cars, airliners, jet engines, nuclear power plants, buildings, bridges, VLSI design for mass production, refineries, ....
In my initial area of work, VLSI design, Intel had a $500 million recall in the mid-'90s. I know the circumstances from first hand sources and how the error was found which should have and could have been found before mass production.
One doesn't need a large firm to do some of these engineering activities, but they do need the engineering education and the mentoring of engineering procedures which they can then bring to their startup firm.
I learned a lot from my EE courses at Illinois and from my mentoring faculty of which I can think of several. The materials science, the transmission lines and impedance mismatches, amplifiers, satellite communications, ...
Going to a good engineering school, mentored in engineering is important. It is one thing to build a few electric vehicles and something totally different to build something that is that complicated and mass produced.
There are processes and procedures one learns in order to build something for mass production. I am not speaking of most software for which I have hired people without degrees and know others without degrees, but cars, airliners, jet engines, nuclear power plants, buildings, bridges, VLSI design for mass production, refineries, ....
In my initial area of work, VLSI design, Intel had a $500 million recall in the mid-'90s. I know the circumstances from first hand sources and how the error was found which should have and could have been found before mass production.
One doesn't need a large firm to do some of these engineering activities, but they do need the engineering education and the mentoring of engineering procedures which they can then bring to their startup firm.
I learned a lot from my EE courses at Illinois and from my mentoring faculty of which I can think of several. The materials science, the transmission lines and impedance mismatches, amplifiers, satellite communications, ...
You seem to have a lot of experience and a way of doing things which works for you, and that's fine. Your experience seems to have made you conservative, for better and for worse. Of course people with traditional experience will have learned a lot, and that's useful. Even the people that are looking to disrupt the status quo can benefit from this as it helps them to understand how things are already done so they don't reinvent the wheel. But it's not a prerequisite. The biggest disruptions often come from out of left field. The Wright brothers worked on bicycles before inventing the airplane, and they had a lot of better funded, better educated competition. Is that an outlier? Absolutely. But outliers are the people that make huge strides suddenly, and you can't discount them just because they don't have a traditional background. There are many examples of people making enormous contributions to fields outside of their own, engineering not excluded.
It only takes a single person to come out of nowhere and have a truly novel idea because his/her field of view wasn't constrained by previous experience. You really think there's nobody alive on the planet that fits that description for mechanical/electrical/aerospace/robotics engineering? There was a problem my engineers were struggling with at my company for months. The guy who finally figured it out was a chef, and he concocted his own mechatronic solution which he then machined himself. He has no engineering education, he just had a unique idea that all the engineers overlooked.
The notion that a piece of paper makes you elite is archaic.
It only takes a single person to come out of nowhere and have a truly novel idea because his/her field of view wasn't constrained by previous experience. You really think there's nobody alive on the planet that fits that description for mechanical/electrical/aerospace/robotics engineering? There was a problem my engineers were struggling with at my company for months. The guy who finally figured it out was a chef, and he concocted his own mechatronic solution which he then machined himself. He has no engineering education, he just had a unique idea that all the engineers overlooked.
The notion that a piece of paper makes you elite is archaic.
> Your experience seems to have made you conservative, for better and for worse. Of course people with traditional experience will have learned a lot, and that's useful
An architect can disrupt with a new building design, see Frank Lloyd Wright for example, or the Citibank Tower in Manhattan, and so on. That doesn't mean one doesn't use engineering design methodology. In order to disrupt, one needs the design methodology.
Nuclear power electric plants and nuclear powered naval vessels were disruptions. But still one needed well trained engineers to design and run the systems. Even for disruption. Putting nuclear power in naval vessels was a huge disruption.
Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, had a MS EE Columbia University (one of my other schools, BTW). Read what he has to say about engineering education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Early_naval_...
In computing, Seymour Cray was a huge disruptor who managed to build a computer far more powerful than IBM (CDC 6600) with "29 people including the janitor" according to then IBM President Thomas Watson, Jr. Cray had a MS EE. He was the Genius supercomputer designer. A huge disruptor, but only able to disrupt by applying engineering education and principles.
A third example, is Joe Sutter, chief engineer of the 747. He has a BS Aeronautical Engineering and died a few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Early_naval_...
Was the 747 disruptive. Absolutely. Still, the designers of the aircraft were educated and trained as engineers.
Solid engineering and training is not obstructive to disruption, but absolutely necessary having the background in order to be successful at the disruption.
Hyman Rickover, Seymour Cray, Joe Sutter. All engineers. All huge disruptors that could not have achieved the disruption without their engineering backgrounds.
Sometimes there are no shortcuts.
An architect can disrupt with a new building design, see Frank Lloyd Wright for example, or the Citibank Tower in Manhattan, and so on. That doesn't mean one doesn't use engineering design methodology. In order to disrupt, one needs the design methodology.
Nuclear power electric plants and nuclear powered naval vessels were disruptions. But still one needed well trained engineers to design and run the systems. Even for disruption. Putting nuclear power in naval vessels was a huge disruption.
Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, had a MS EE Columbia University (one of my other schools, BTW). Read what he has to say about engineering education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Early_naval_...
In computing, Seymour Cray was a huge disruptor who managed to build a computer far more powerful than IBM (CDC 6600) with "29 people including the janitor" according to then IBM President Thomas Watson, Jr. Cray had a MS EE. He was the Genius supercomputer designer. A huge disruptor, but only able to disrupt by applying engineering education and principles.
A third example, is Joe Sutter, chief engineer of the 747. He has a BS Aeronautical Engineering and died a few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Early_naval_...
Was the 747 disruptive. Absolutely. Still, the designers of the aircraft were educated and trained as engineers.
Solid engineering and training is not obstructive to disruption, but absolutely necessary having the background in order to be successful at the disruption.
Hyman Rickover, Seymour Cray, Joe Sutter. All engineers. All huge disruptors that could not have achieved the disruption without their engineering backgrounds.
Sometimes there are no shortcuts.
You're missing the point. Your argument is it's impossible for someone to make great strides without a traditional education, and I already provided you with two specific counter-examples. Unless I'm lying about the personal anecdote and the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane, then your argument doesn't hold water. If you want to argue that most people benefit from having traditional backgrounds, then what you're saying makes sense. But I've already disproved your original statement and you've done nothing to address my evidence.
If you ever become a manager, please don't disregard what people say just because they don't have the same background as you. I've worked with people like that in the past, and they are terrible managers/coworkers. They are needlessly pedantic and often feel the need to do things the way they learned in school (or read about some complicated technique in a paper they have to try), when there is obviously a simpler and better solution. The sad thing is, they think they're better than everyone else and that nobody appreciates their "superior" point of view - if you feel that way, you should reconsider how you approach problem solving.
I haven't met you so I can't comment on you specifically, just speaking as to my general experience. Whatever the case, I wish you luck in your career.
If you ever become a manager, please don't disregard what people say just because they don't have the same background as you. I've worked with people like that in the past, and they are terrible managers/coworkers. They are needlessly pedantic and often feel the need to do things the way they learned in school (or read about some complicated technique in a paper they have to try), when there is obviously a simpler and better solution. The sad thing is, they think they're better than everyone else and that nobody appreciates their "superior" point of view - if you feel that way, you should reconsider how you approach problem solving.
I haven't met you so I can't comment on you specifically, just speaking as to my general experience. Whatever the case, I wish you luck in your career.
To me you seemed to imply that engineers are staid and conservative and not capable of disruptive innovation which as I pointed out with the examples given, it is precisely because of the trained engineering background that innovations come to fruition. It is precisely because of their engineering training that the nuclear navy, Cray's supercomputers, and the 747 were able to exist. All massive engineering projects that were hugely disruptive and innovative.
The Wright brothers innovation happened when not many people were trained as engineers or could afford to go to college. It is also in general one thing to create an idea and something else to "productize" it or for a concept to stand up to the forces of nature, etc.
There were lots of construction innovations without civil engineering, but it is inconceivable today to do any form but the smallest projects without it.
There is an enormous amount to engineering products, buildings etc. that non-engineers generally aren't familiar with. That also includes most who go to college in engineering but then go into another field, eg. working for consulting firms such as McKinsey. It may even include engineers that might work on prototypes but never really worry about something that must stand up "in the field."
The Wright brothers innovation happened when not many people were trained as engineers or could afford to go to college. It is also in general one thing to create an idea and something else to "productize" it or for a concept to stand up to the forces of nature, etc.
There were lots of construction innovations without civil engineering, but it is inconceivable today to do any form but the smallest projects without it.
There is an enormous amount to engineering products, buildings etc. that non-engineers generally aren't familiar with. That also includes most who go to college in engineering but then go into another field, eg. working for consulting firms such as McKinsey. It may even include engineers that might work on prototypes but never really worry about something that must stand up "in the field."
You do realise Space X is already 14 years old? So he has 14 years experience building things other than software?
[deleted]
I realize that he has hired people who are degreed engineers with work experience. My point is that he never had an engineering degree and never was mentored as an engineer.
It is my belief that any technical manager such as CEO of technical firms benefit enormously by going to school at a good engineering school and being mentored by engineers. People who have that kind of experience see the world differently than others. I know because I interact with them.
It is my belief that any technical manager such as CEO of technical firms benefit enormously by going to school at a good engineering school and being mentored by engineers. People who have that kind of experience see the world differently than others. I know because I interact with them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
At the age of 19, Musk was accepted into Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, for undergraduate study. In 1992, after spending two years at Queen's University, Musk transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where, at the age of 24, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from its College of Arts and Sciences, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from its Wharton School of Business. Musk extended his studies for one year to finish the second bachelor's degree.[41] While at the University of Pennsylvania, Musk and fellow Penn student Adeo Ressi rented a 10-bedroom fraternity house, using it as an unofficial nightclub.[37]
In 1995, at age 24, Musk moved to California to begin a PhD in applied physics and materials science at Stanford University, but left the program after two days to pursue his entrepreneurial aspirations in the areas of the Internet, renewable energy and outer space.[35][42] In 2002, he became a U.S. citizen.[43][44]
At the age of 19, Musk was accepted into Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, for undergraduate study. In 1992, after spending two years at Queen's University, Musk transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where, at the age of 24, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from its College of Arts and Sciences, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from its Wharton School of Business. Musk extended his studies for one year to finish the second bachelor's degree.[41] While at the University of Pennsylvania, Musk and fellow Penn student Adeo Ressi rented a 10-bedroom fraternity house, using it as an unofficial nightclub.[37]
In 1995, at age 24, Musk moved to California to begin a PhD in applied physics and materials science at Stanford University, but left the program after two days to pursue his entrepreneurial aspirations in the areas of the Internet, renewable energy and outer space.[35][42] In 2002, he became a U.S. citizen.[43][44]
Physics is not an engineering degree. I know Physics and EE. I see no time where he was mentored in an engineering company.
And yes, I read the Wikipedia entry before I commented on Musk's background.
And yes, I read the Wikipedia entry before I commented on Musk's background.
I'm curious as to the reasons why you believe only those possessing degrees in engineering can be competent engineers? I understand there are specific things in the course requirements that would be very different between an engineering degree and a physics degree, but I would assume that so long as someone has the requisite understanding of the more foundational elements pertaining to the relevant fields, and the drive and discipline to do so, they could conceivably pick up the additional knowledge without the necessity of a formal degree. Am I wrong in my assumption? Is there some reason this doesn't hold true in engineering? Just to be clear, I'm not asking this to be combative, but as someone who has no experience attending college, in an engineering field or otherwise, I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
I’m also curious as to how you define being mentored as an engineer? Is it a requirement to serve under more senior engineers for some specific amount of time? And does this require that the mentee be lower than the mentor on the corporate hierarchy? I won’t purport to speak for Musk but I’m fairly sure he’s been mentored extensively by people like Tom Mueller and Gwynne Shotwell, in addition to others, over the years.
You also mentioned in a higher post that you prefer leadership that has “gotten their hands dirty” as opposed to “business types” and this may be the only area I can really offer direct insight into. Whatever your opinion of Musk may be, I think it would be a mistake to describe him as someone who doesn’t get his hands dirty. I’m a technician at SpaceX which makes me fairly low within the corporate structure and even I have had a chance to interact with Musk, as well as a number of other senior execs, on relatively minor issues pertaining to my work. He, along with many other senior engineers within the company, are often very hands on even within the production environment here.
I’m also curious as to how you define being mentored as an engineer? Is it a requirement to serve under more senior engineers for some specific amount of time? And does this require that the mentee be lower than the mentor on the corporate hierarchy? I won’t purport to speak for Musk but I’m fairly sure he’s been mentored extensively by people like Tom Mueller and Gwynne Shotwell, in addition to others, over the years.
You also mentioned in a higher post that you prefer leadership that has “gotten their hands dirty” as opposed to “business types” and this may be the only area I can really offer direct insight into. Whatever your opinion of Musk may be, I think it would be a mistake to describe him as someone who doesn’t get his hands dirty. I’m a technician at SpaceX which makes me fairly low within the corporate structure and even I have had a chance to interact with Musk, as well as a number of other senior execs, on relatively minor issues pertaining to my work. He, along with many other senior engineers within the company, are often very hands on even within the production environment here.
That's not tesla exclusive. My dad's been waiting 3 months for a replacement airbag for his 2008 lexus. They were one of the ones takata (sp?) recalled but can't make enough replacements.
The Takata global airbag recall is a big exception. It affects many (most?) major automakers. Lexus had no control over the availability of spare parts in this case.
Of course they "had control". They could have evaluated airbags and suppliers better, they could have made sure they had two different suppliers they could use for any particular model, or alternatively that they have plenty of spares. This is commonly done for many kinds of components. I happen to be more familiar with computers of course, and it's commonly done for SSDs, batteries, screens, and more.
Having plenty of spares doesn't help when the entire product line gets recalled. That's not a thing you plan for when buying spares.
I don't mean a couple of spares, I mean a warehouse good for a year (thus "plenty"). Or, multiple suppliers. There are multiple options that can work, but you have to do one correctly.
I'm particularly bothered by throwing hands up and saying "it's not our fault, it's because of a problem at X, it can't be helped", where X is Microsoft, or Oracle, or Fujitsu, or Samsung, or whatever.
It can be helped. Yes, it's more expensive, and yes, consumers probably won't pay for it. Just be honest, it's to control costs, things were not set up to keep working if conditions weren't perfect.
I'm particularly bothered by throwing hands up and saying "it's not our fault, it's because of a problem at X, it can't be helped", where X is Microsoft, or Oracle, or Fujitsu, or Samsung, or whatever.
It can be helped. Yes, it's more expensive, and yes, consumers probably won't pay for it. Just be honest, it's to control costs, things were not set up to keep working if conditions weren't perfect.
It's not about a couple of spares vs a warehouse. Spare inventory levels are determined by expected failure rate x install base and also the expected lead time to buy more. But when the entire product gets recalled then suddenly you need to replace every instance at once, and that's not a thing you ever buy spares for. Even if you had multiple suppliers every manufacturer is also placing orders all at once for the remaining suppliers and they don't have the production elasticity to respond that quickly.
Supply chains are complex systems and it's never as simple as "buying more spares" and "having multiple suplliers".
Supply chains are complex systems and it's never as simple as "buying more spares" and "having multiple suplliers".
Lexus' production line, along with Toyota, is based on a "just in time" production line schedule. They don't have warehouses of stock lying around the place. They probably don't even have a day's worth of excess stock on the line, let alone a week's. To expect that they would stockpile one particular component for a year in advance is laughable.
This seems to be a circumstantial issue that is probably not the norm. Kind of like a special case!
Sorry to hear about the 3 month delay and provides some insight in the construction of luxury cars at least Lexus. Auto manufacturers were warned that the propellant for the airbags was dangerous and were warned by other airbag vendors who refused to use it to save a few dollars per airbag and lost the contract to the Japanese airbag vendor.
I wonder if other luxury brands such as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, used these types of airbags. I'm guessing not.
I wonder if other luxury brands such as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, used these types of airbags. I'm guessing not.
Well, I was wrong.
Here is a list of cars effected with recalls for using the "save a few dollars" airbag using a propellant that was known ahead of time to be problematic.
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/news/takata-airbag-recall-l...
Brands include: BMW, Mercedes, Land Rover, Jaguar, Audi, Lexus,....
These companies sell themselves as luxury brands and their cars are very expensive, but it seems clear that the MBAs and bean counters are running these companies and not engineers and car designers.
This is my HN submission of a NY Times story on the topic of the airbag recall. One can read how the auto manufacturers deliberately put their customers at risk to save a few dollars per automobile. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367031
The question I have is since it seems clear that engineers don't get to decide the safety of the car design and proper engineering in these luxury brands, how do we trust these luxury car manufacturers to even allow the engineers to design the car that they think is best and not the bean counters?
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/news/takata-airbag-recall-l...
Brands include: BMW, Mercedes, Land Rover, Jaguar, Audi, Lexus,....
These companies sell themselves as luxury brands and their cars are very expensive, but it seems clear that the MBAs and bean counters are running these companies and not engineers and car designers.
This is my HN submission of a NY Times story on the topic of the airbag recall. One can read how the auto manufacturers deliberately put their customers at risk to save a few dollars per automobile. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367031
The question I have is since it seems clear that engineers don't get to decide the safety of the car design and proper engineering in these luxury brands, how do we trust these luxury car manufacturers to even allow the engineers to design the car that they think is best and not the bean counters?
I think this is a Takata (or perhaps Toyota, which owns Lexus) thing, not a luxury car thing. I waited the same three months for a new airbag for my Corolla.
They didn't give you a loaner? My Model S brakes were slightly squeaky and Tesla gave me a loaner vehicle to use for the duration of the service.
Was the duration of your service almost 3 months? I can't imagine then having enough loaners to hand out for weeks at a time.
I don't like these SpaceX-Tesla-Solarcity cross links one bit. If one of them falls it could cause the rest to go with it.
Solar City 'power walls' are a shaky proposition at best, if that becomes a key element in Tesla succeeding then they have a problem.
Solar City 'power walls' are a shaky proposition at best, if that becomes a key element in Tesla succeeding then they have a problem.
Wait, wait... you're saying that a battery is a shaky proposition? For an energy company that currently can only provide energy during the day?
SolarCity is an energy company. They collect and sell energy. They do not sell any solar panels. They use the customer's homes for a distributed collection system. But they sell energy. And currently they cannot sell energy at night.
Conveniently, lithium batteries are a proven product growing in popularity. What's sweet is that SolarCity has close ties to a company that has shipped more large scale lithium batteries than any other company in the world. Nissan has shipped a lot of 24 kWhr battery packs since 2011, but Tesla has been shipping 56 kWhr packs since 2008, 85 kWhr packs since 2011, and now ships 100 kWhr packs.
You know what would be great? If Tesla sold more product, and if they did so through a partner company that needs lots of batteries.
Oh boy, then they'd need a bigger factory! If only...
SolarCity is an energy company. They collect and sell energy. They do not sell any solar panels. They use the customer's homes for a distributed collection system. But they sell energy. And currently they cannot sell energy at night.
Conveniently, lithium batteries are a proven product growing in popularity. What's sweet is that SolarCity has close ties to a company that has shipped more large scale lithium batteries than any other company in the world. Nissan has shipped a lot of 24 kWhr battery packs since 2011, but Tesla has been shipping 56 kWhr packs since 2008, 85 kWhr packs since 2011, and now ships 100 kWhr packs.
You know what would be great? If Tesla sold more product, and if they did so through a partner company that needs lots of batteries.
Oh boy, then they'd need a bigger factory! If only...
SolarPV + EV + Powerwall, can be a good proposition. Especially when an use EV battery is repurposed for Powerwall. The only problem in the current vision is burn-out rate, Tesla + SolarCity are buring cash fast, but if they can survive this, Tesla will be unstoppable company with tremendous synergies.
Solar City also can't generate energy at night. Which means to sell energy at night they'd have to stop selling it during the day.
Also energy has a lower price at night. Which means they'd make less money if they stored it during the day and sold it at night.
Also energy has a lower price at night. Which means they'd make less money if they stored it during the day and sold it at night.
> ...to sell energy at night they'd have to stop selling it during the day.
Certainly that would be true if there was a finite amount of energy available and their customers purchased all of it. But they can install as much capacity as they need - there is more solar energy available to collect than humans can currently imagine requiring. If it is worth it to them, there is nothing preventing them from installing sufficient capacity to meet their customer's needs 24 hours a day.
Certainly that would be true if there was a finite amount of energy available and their customers purchased all of it. But they can install as much capacity as they need - there is more solar energy available to collect than humans can currently imagine requiring. If it is worth it to them, there is nothing preventing them from installing sufficient capacity to meet their customer's needs 24 hours a day.
Yes well when they have installed enough solar panels to exceed the day time demands of the entire country (which is what selling to the grid means) THEN they can start worrying about storing excess capacity.
N.B. distributed solar currently accounts for ~.25% of electrical generation, Solar City accounting for some fraction of that fraction of a percent.
N.B. distributed solar currently accounts for ~.25% of electrical generation, Solar City accounting for some fraction of that fraction of a percent.
Tesla makes the Power Wall. And they have had a ton of orders for them. Those are an asset, not a liability. And merging with Solar City will actually help them sell those with less overhead.
The Powerwall is at least a commercial disappointment, if not poor performer / sale: https://www.google.com/?client=safari#q=powerwall+poor+sales
The whole Solar City/Tesla crossover I can see in a way, when you've proved the technology and are making some profit from it. Tesla and Solar City are a long, long, long way from doing that and the Solar City takeover is a way of saving it, not because of any sensible plan and integration.
"Tesla burned through $611 million in cash in the first half of this year and $2.2 billion last year..." Can someone explain WHY this company wants to buy SolarCity?
Despite Musk's positioning on the topic it really feels like a bailout of his other investments. Does anyone have information regarding the time of the shareholder vote on the merger? Given that Musk and co. will abstain, there might be a reasonable chance that it will not go through.
Some people are indeed naive enough to be every word that comes out of his mouth. However, you are correct - this was a bailout that screws TSLA shareholders, plain and simple. SCTY was arguably heading towards bankruptcy.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/11/solarcity-i...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/analyst-slams-tesla...
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/11/solarcity-i...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/analyst-slams-tesla...
it will go through. if you didn't like the deal, you sold the stock. they have a lot of the same large investors, that have already approved the deal, such as fidelity.
Tesla was down 12% upon announcement of the deal. I guess if your crystal ball didn't tell you this value-destructive deal was coming, you got screwed.
> I guess if your crystal ball didn't tell you this value-destructive deal was coming, you got screwed
Non-professionals shouldn't act in the short-term market anyways, at least not if they can't afford to lose 100% (or even more, like Uli Hoeness, who screwed up with leveraged deals).
Just invest in long term - in my opinion Tesla and SpaceX are decent bets. Both won't go under the bus any time soon, I'd rather be concerned about fossil fuel stocks.
Non-professionals shouldn't act in the short-term market anyways, at least not if they can't afford to lose 100% (or even more, like Uli Hoeness, who screwed up with leveraged deals).
Just invest in long term - in my opinion Tesla and SpaceX are decent bets. Both won't go under the bus any time soon, I'd rather be concerned about fossil fuel stocks.
One day price bump doesn't matter. If it regains the 12% in a week, to a long term investor it destroyed 0 value.
"If" is the key word that you used. Nothing in the future is promised. See what long term holders of Valeant have to say..it goes both ways. The only thing that is certain is that the stock lost 12% of its value in a single day over acquisition/poor corporate governance concerns. That would be alarming to me as a long term shareholder.
A long-term shareholder that is worried about an announcement day bump must be new to the stock game, or not that good at it.
You're only screwed if you sell. Why would you sell a volatile growth stock during the dips?
The biggest problem for Tesla is battery cost. They have to increase the production to drive down the price, so they want to leverage SolarCity to sell more Powerwalls. Tesla can use solar panels for supercharger stations where grid electricity is not available. You can create a new product or solution etc. etc. There is quite a lot of synergy.
You may be underestimating the power draw of supercharger stations. My model X pulls 200-300Amps of 400V power at a supercharger station with 8-12 stalls.
That is over 80,000watts per stall.
That is over 80,000watts per stall.
Just to clarify -- it does not maintain that power. It will quickly ramp up to that on empty-ish batteries (320 amps at 320 volts is max that I know of) and maintain that until the battery is ~50% full. It will then ramp down and charge more slowly. While I can make lots of guesses as to why they charge in this way I don't know for sure on any of them.
This is how Lithium batteries are charged - CC/CV. You first have constant current stage, then as the battery fills up you shift into constant voltage stage where the current is gradually reduced until the battery is full.
However CC/CV change doesn't normally happen at 50%, but further down the charging cycle. It may be that Tesla throttles the current ahead of time due to thermal constraints of the charging system.
However CC/CV change doesn't normally happen at 50%, but further down the charging cycle. It may be that Tesla throttles the current ahead of time due to thermal constraints of the charging system.
Which is quite an incentive to save on electricity as much as you can, I'd think.
10kW array would be at least 600 sqft, so that will be a lot of commercial real estate.
The state/feds should stop subsidizing utility solar and incentivize covered parking lot panels. Prettier than lots and putting the energy where the cars are.
The state/feds should stop subsidizing utility solar and incentivize covered parking lot panels. Prettier than lots and putting the energy where the cars are.
But the stalls work in pairs. They all can't deliver 80kw simultaneously. Ever wondered why sometimes you only get 100A? Because your neighbor, who got their first, gets first dibs on the power, and you get the leftovers.
I've never actually experienced this. I believe the 320 amp / 320 volt charging is for emptier cars... I've plugged in at a 100% full charger and gotten full power charging.
As you know, the fuller your battery gets, the less current it draws.
If your neighbor was already at the end of their charge cycle, then they will be drawing relatively little, and you'll get the full current.
If your neighbor was already at the end of their charge cycle, then they will be drawing relatively little, and you'll get the full current.
I found this description of a 'typical' supercharger setup:
"The eight bay setup takes a 12kV, 750kVA feed from the utility, steps it down to 480V three phase on site, pushes that into 2000A switchgear which feeds four (one for each pair of bays) SuperCharger units at 480V/200A."
"The eight bay setup takes a 12kV, 750kVA feed from the utility, steps it down to 480V three phase on site, pushes that into 2000A switchgear which feeds four (one for each pair of bays) SuperCharger units at 480V/200A."
Eh. Is solar really currently a viable alternative that can power superchargers?
Technically, it's primarily a DC source. Batteries are a DC sink. It actually seems to make a lot of sense to charge the latter from the former.
Im not really well versed in energy generation - do you have an estimate how many solar panels would be needed to power one supercharger at full capacity?
A couple acres? No joke. To generate the 50-80,000watts necessary for each stall you will need city-blocks worth of solar. If it's cloudy or at dawn/dusk, more. If you want to charge cars during the day and night, triple the number of panels and get some massive batteries.
Say 120 watts per m2. 80,000/120 =~ 650m2. That's the ideal. Then for dawn/dusk, 1200m2 and triple that to run it at night ... 3600m2 ... just shy of the 4050m2 in an acre. But even that is 3600m2 perpendicular to the sun not on the flat ground. To get that 3600m2 in the real world (not on the equator) you will have to spread the panels out on a much larger lot (much depends on the location and time of year). If I were buying land, I'd estimate 2-2.5 acres for solar per stall.
Say 120 watts per m2. 80,000/120 =~ 650m2. That's the ideal. Then for dawn/dusk, 1200m2 and triple that to run it at night ... 3600m2 ... just shy of the 4050m2 in an acre. But even that is 3600m2 perpendicular to the sun not on the flat ground. To get that 3600m2 in the real world (not on the equator) you will have to spread the panels out on a much larger lot (much depends on the location and time of year). If I were buying land, I'd estimate 2-2.5 acres for solar per stall.
This is ridiculous. People aren't charging 100% of the time, and even when in use, the chargers burst to 80kW, but they don't average 80kW. All you need are some batteries to level the load. Assuming 20kW average, and stall being used 20% of the time, that brings your calculation down to 4,000/120 =~ 33m2. Accounting for night and bad weather, let's quadruple that to 133m2. That's about a quarter of an acre for EIGHT stalls.
I skipped many other multipliers that negate any error in the needed wattage per stall. Top of the list: latitude. Demand will be constant throughout the year, but solar output can be radically different depending on the season. Then, is the horizon flat? If it isn't, then you aren't getting as many hours of sun. Then whether the panels are fixed or sun-tracking (tracking is better but require more space/maintenance). Tracking rigs are also much less space efficient when the sun is low. They end up shadowing each other for much of the day. Access roads, setback from obstructions (treelines) panel output degrading over time, energy losses in/out of batteries ... there are scores factors to undermine the per-acre efficiency of small solar farms located near to consumers. Imho tesla would do far better by building large solar farms in perfect locations and hooking them into the public grid. Panels at the charging stations can be the window dressing.
Just a clarification-- the chargers burst to that 80kW range but they don't maintain it. Typical charging is closer to the 10-20kW range.
In addition people are not constantly charging.
In addition people are not constantly charging.
Budgeting solar is like chopping firewood for winter. You cut as much as you think you need. Do that again. Then the whole process again.
There are so many factors that can diminish the amount of power available at a particular location that the only reasonable thing to do is overbuild. Imagine a line of teslas at an upstate New York charging station. They cannot get to work without power. But it's raining. And it's winter. And it's 6am. And that treeline has grown a foot higher, pushing dawn back an hour. You cannot have too many panels.
There are so many factors that can diminish the amount of power available at a particular location that the only reasonable thing to do is overbuild. Imagine a line of teslas at an upstate New York charging station. They cannot get to work without power. But it's raining. And it's winter. And it's 6am. And that treeline has grown a foot higher, pushing dawn back an hour. You cannot have too many panels.
Lots of them. A few hundreds, I think. Viability may depend on site. But if there's space nearby for a reasonable array, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to use it no matter how small it gets (any size will result in savings), unless your electricity is dirt-cheap, or the place is so infrequently used that for a significant portion of the time, nobody is charging (which would waste a portion of the local generation and worsen the ROI).
Space X has purchased $225 million in Solar City bonds. Elon Musk has a 21% stake in Solar City (he is also buying $65 million in Solar City bonds, half of their most recent offering).
Funny, but inevitable. Musk was asked specifically if Tesla would takeover SpaceX or vice versa in a tesla conference call and he said no, but it is really inevitable. Without some creative accounting through shifting investor cash and grants from one company to another Solar City has no future, and that then goes for Tesla as well.
i thought solar cells are dirt cheap, because China can produce them at very low cost?
Part of some half-arsed rescue attempt. Solar City doesn't have much life left to it on its own and it needs some creative accounting to stay afloat.
While they have about $16 billion in Model 3 orders. So to actually sell so many cars, they need to invest a lot to get the production going. Part of that is the Gigafactory, but also the production line and of course, the parts for those cars have to be bought, before the cars can be made and sold. So the next quarters will see a lot of more spending that has to be balanced with the future Model 3 revenue.
The SolarCity acquisition is certainly risky, but there are large business overlaps as other posters have described.
The SolarCity acquisition is certainly risky, but there are large business overlaps as other posters have described.
In addition to the article itself, there are multiple, thorough discussions that attempt to answer your question over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092
Interesting question, considering buying someone like Saft would make more sense in their current position.
Most likely lack of options.
I think one big problem about privatization of such complex projects is that if they go down the acquired knowledge and research results might end up nowhere instead of being reused by a following generation of companies and researchers.
Steve Jobs had some cost cutting conversations during his day as well: https://youtu.be/BNeXlJW70KQ?t=16m14s
Great leaders know when to cut costs to save great companies.
Great leaders know when to cut costs to save great companies.
As far as I know Bill Gates saved Apple.
> Microsoft's $150 stock investment was the result of a settlement of a lawsuit.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-micr...
http://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-micr...
A bit of an oversimplification. If Apple hadn't produced products that people wanted, the loan/investment wasn't going to help. If Bill had said no, it's hard to know if Steve had another avenue for the money. Wasn't he rich again because of Pixar?
http://blogs.wsj.com/wsj125/2014/11/29/nov-30-1995-pixars-ip...
http://blogs.wsj.com/wsj125/2014/11/29/nov-30-1995-pixars-ip...
Koolaid.
[deleted]
The fact that Musk told us stage one was done when he came up with that ridiculous grand plan, designed to drum up yet more investor cash, was laughable. Once the Model 3 sells for a profit, and for $35,000, which it never will do, then you can start looking at further grand plans. The Model X was a ridiculous distraction with gull-wing doors any sensible automotive engineer would have pointed out was a production and maintenance nightmare that would never end well.
They're also swallowing Solar City, basically to save it, not because of any grand plan for 'synergy' as Musk says that makes sense.
The Emperor's clothes are starting to dissolve and the wheels are coming off I'm afraid.