Tesla produces 400 model S each week(automotivediscovery.com)
automotivediscovery.com
Tesla produces 400 model S each week
http://automotivediscovery.com/tesla-model-s-attains-weekly-production-benchmark/9216356/
10 comments
I live in Michigan and wife's cousin's husband (still with me here?) was the first in Michigan to get a Model S. I've had the privilege to ride in it and it's an amazing piece of engineering. No detail was overlooked and I truly felt like I was riding in the future.
Everything from the LCD center panel to the door handles popping out when you get close to them--just fucking amazing. I'm a huge supporter of Tesla and everything Musk is doing--crossing my fingers that they can stay viable.
Everything from the LCD center panel to the door handles popping out when you get close to them--just fucking amazing. I'm a huge supporter of Tesla and everything Musk is doing--crossing my fingers that they can stay viable.
I find the door handles deeply unnerving, even though they're also pretty cool.
One item to consider, Tesla is only going the route of battery powered cars. The majors are investigating multiple different sources, hydrogen, natural gas, compressed air, battery only, simple hybrid, and series hybrids. So as for stepping up their game I am not sure what you think they need to do.
There are already a half a dozen or so cars that are full battery powered for under forty thousand, or less than half the price of the current transaction prices of the S. The luxury market is safe territory because the margins are large enough for Tesla to fit within.
As for interior work, I am not sold on a full size touch screen. For the most part it looks a bit tacky to me, its just too "there". That and I am a dial person, specifically for radio and such. I just like the idea of feedback. Sure I could talk to my car and one day that may work when I don't have to drive it but I am not ready to give up that fun.
There are already a half a dozen or so cars that are full battery powered for under forty thousand, or less than half the price of the current transaction prices of the S. The luxury market is safe territory because the margins are large enough for Tesla to fit within.
As for interior work, I am not sold on a full size touch screen. For the most part it looks a bit tacky to me, its just too "there". That and I am a dial person, specifically for radio and such. I just like the idea of feedback. Sure I could talk to my car and one day that may work when I don't have to drive it but I am not ready to give up that fun.
> One item to consider, Tesla is only going the route of battery powered cars. The majors are investigating multiple different sources, hydrogen, natural gas, compressed air, battery only, simple hybrid, and series hybrids. So as for stepping up their game I am not sure what you think they need to do.
I don't see how that benefits the incumbents. Unfortunately, the realities of physics and economics (to say nothing about total pollution generated) mean that there are really only two choices: Burn liquid hydrocarbons; or store electricity in a battery (or some combination of the two). Tesla is currently pursing the second option and traditional auto manufacturers are using both. Hydrogen, natural gas and compressed air have all the limitations of batteries and more: The technology that goes in the car is more expensive, the infrastructure is more expensive and exists in fewer places (excluding natural gas), range is short, and 'refuling' times are long.
About ten years ago, as an undergrad, I worked on an NSF- and DOE-funded project to use single-walled carbon nanotubes both as a catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells and for hydrogen storage. Unfortunately, the efficiency gains were minimal, and I'm not aware of much[1] progress that has been made since (but I now work in a different sub-field). That means that a practical fuel cell, big enough to power a lightweight vehicle still costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars (mostly due to the requirement for large amounts of platinum to catalyze the H2 in to 2H). Frankly, there has been enough money wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects when there is already-existing technology that works (lithium-ion batteries).
If you don't trust a random stranger on the Internet, then please trust the managers of auto companies. Honda has effectively abandoned their FCX Clairity project because it is cheaper to meet CARB (CA Air Resources Board) requirements by buying zero-emissions credits from Toyota, Tesla, or GM. The FCX, by the way, was a hybrid that only used a fuel cell to meet the average load for electricity and batteries to meet the peak load.
[1] You need at least an order of magnitude better catalyst performance before you can even consider using PEM fuel cells in a mass-produced car. Every time I've seen a press release about better fuel cells, they seem to mention a few percent. At the current rate of improvement, it will take a quarter of a century before we even solve one of the show-stoppers for hydrogen cars.
I don't see how that benefits the incumbents. Unfortunately, the realities of physics and economics (to say nothing about total pollution generated) mean that there are really only two choices: Burn liquid hydrocarbons; or store electricity in a battery (or some combination of the two). Tesla is currently pursing the second option and traditional auto manufacturers are using both. Hydrogen, natural gas and compressed air have all the limitations of batteries and more: The technology that goes in the car is more expensive, the infrastructure is more expensive and exists in fewer places (excluding natural gas), range is short, and 'refuling' times are long.
About ten years ago, as an undergrad, I worked on an NSF- and DOE-funded project to use single-walled carbon nanotubes both as a catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells and for hydrogen storage. Unfortunately, the efficiency gains were minimal, and I'm not aware of much[1] progress that has been made since (but I now work in a different sub-field). That means that a practical fuel cell, big enough to power a lightweight vehicle still costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars (mostly due to the requirement for large amounts of platinum to catalyze the H2 in to 2H). Frankly, there has been enough money wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects when there is already-existing technology that works (lithium-ion batteries).
If you don't trust a random stranger on the Internet, then please trust the managers of auto companies. Honda has effectively abandoned their FCX Clairity project because it is cheaper to meet CARB (CA Air Resources Board) requirements by buying zero-emissions credits from Toyota, Tesla, or GM. The FCX, by the way, was a hybrid that only used a fuel cell to meet the average load for electricity and batteries to meet the peak load.
[1] You need at least an order of magnitude better catalyst performance before you can even consider using PEM fuel cells in a mass-produced car. Every time I've seen a press release about better fuel cells, they seem to mention a few percent. At the current rate of improvement, it will take a quarter of a century before we even solve one of the show-stoppers for hydrogen cars.
What do you have against natural gas?
Compressed natural gas/biogas is available today and has been for years, at prices far below that of electric cars, with none of the range and refueling issues that electric cars have.
Compressed natural gas/biogas is available today and has been for years, at prices far below that of electric cars, with none of the range and refueling issues that electric cars have.
Compressed natural gas (ie, not liquefied) is the runner-up to purely battery electric vehicles. The problems are short range (go read the reviews of the Honda Civic GX: the range is comparable to the middle battery option in a Tesla Model S) and lack of natural gas stations.
The second problem can be partially ameliorated by filling at home with a high-pressure compressor (runs on electricity) fed by the same pipe that brings natural gas for your furnace and stove. Unfortunately, that still requires you to plug in the car overnight, just as you would with an electric, because fast high-pressure compressors are still very expensive. The compressor, by the way, costs more than an 80A EVSE for an electric car and adds range more slowly. There are a few public stations that store high pressure gas, but they tend to be at places like airports and taxi maintenance yards, where fleet vehicles congregate (check out Edmund's review of the Civic GX for refill times, though, they aren't nearly as fast as with gasoline). And compressing the gas still requires electricity. It is comparatively easier (and cheaper) to set up an EVSE (the "charger" stand, although it isn't really a charger) for an electric car than to run a gas line and install a gas compressor.
The first problem I mentioned doesn't really have a solution with a short time horizon: You need either more volume (a bigger car) or a tank that can hold more pressure (you think that everyone from SCUBA divers to NASA hasn't been working on that one for the last fifty years?).
Liquefied natural gas has it's own set of problems: people complain about the Tesla Model S losing a few miles of range while parked overnight, but the boil-off from a cryogenic container would be far worse (an uncovered dewar of liquid nitrogen boils off in "a few" hours; a big 150L dewar at 1 bar will last maybe two or three weeks).
It's not that I think natural gas is "bad," it's that as a physicist I can see that we already have technologies that work better (albeit slightly more expensively for now). The only thing natural gas seem to have going for it at the moment is that it is slightly cheaper[1] than a battery-powered car. Unless there is a new and obviously-practicable way to greatly improve the inferior technology in a short amount of time, I don't understand why it is worthwhile to spend money developing it.
[1] The Civic GX seems be to only available in jurisdictions (like California) that require a manufacturers to sell a certain number of "zero emissions" vehicles. Thus, it is probable that Civic GX's are "compliance cars" and that Honda takes a loss on each one sold. If you want to know this for sure, wait a few years until the full restrictions kick in and all "zero emissions" cars are required to actually have zero emissions: If the GX is still sold by then, I'll concede that it is a viable product (though I'd still rather spend my money on a something like a Leaf at that price point).
The second problem can be partially ameliorated by filling at home with a high-pressure compressor (runs on electricity) fed by the same pipe that brings natural gas for your furnace and stove. Unfortunately, that still requires you to plug in the car overnight, just as you would with an electric, because fast high-pressure compressors are still very expensive. The compressor, by the way, costs more than an 80A EVSE for an electric car and adds range more slowly. There are a few public stations that store high pressure gas, but they tend to be at places like airports and taxi maintenance yards, where fleet vehicles congregate (check out Edmund's review of the Civic GX for refill times, though, they aren't nearly as fast as with gasoline). And compressing the gas still requires electricity. It is comparatively easier (and cheaper) to set up an EVSE (the "charger" stand, although it isn't really a charger) for an electric car than to run a gas line and install a gas compressor.
The first problem I mentioned doesn't really have a solution with a short time horizon: You need either more volume (a bigger car) or a tank that can hold more pressure (you think that everyone from SCUBA divers to NASA hasn't been working on that one for the last fifty years?).
Liquefied natural gas has it's own set of problems: people complain about the Tesla Model S losing a few miles of range while parked overnight, but the boil-off from a cryogenic container would be far worse (an uncovered dewar of liquid nitrogen boils off in "a few" hours; a big 150L dewar at 1 bar will last maybe two or three weeks).
It's not that I think natural gas is "bad," it's that as a physicist I can see that we already have technologies that work better (albeit slightly more expensively for now). The only thing natural gas seem to have going for it at the moment is that it is slightly cheaper[1] than a battery-powered car. Unless there is a new and obviously-practicable way to greatly improve the inferior technology in a short amount of time, I don't understand why it is worthwhile to spend money developing it.
[1] The Civic GX seems be to only available in jurisdictions (like California) that require a manufacturers to sell a certain number of "zero emissions" vehicles. Thus, it is probable that Civic GX's are "compliance cars" and that Honda takes a loss on each one sold. If you want to know this for sure, wait a few years until the full restrictions kick in and all "zero emissions" cars are required to actually have zero emissions: If the GX is still sold by then, I'll concede that it is a viable product (though I'd still rather spend my money on a something like a Leaf at that price point).
STOP BUYING OIL FROM OPEC. We cannot bring peace to the Middle East. We cannot force Afghanistan to be a democracy. Let us do something we can do. Stop buying oil from OPEC. We can do it now. Compressed natural gas (CNG) cars. Iran does it. So can we.
We still import 4 million barrels per day from OPEC. But now, we have the capability to stop all oil imports from OPEC within 60 months. We have low cost natural gas and low cost technology for converting cars to operate on CNG. This program would convert 65 million vehicles (23% of our fleet) to (CNG). Cost $98 billion. The other part of the program is to build 10,000 CNG refueling stations. Cost $20 billion. Total $118 billion. All the costs will be money spent on U.S. labor and material. Use of low cost natural gas will save us about $80 billion per year.
The program can start immediately by presidential order to convert the 600,000 federal non-military vehicles to CNG. Theses are shovel/wrench ready projects. Total cost: less than $5 billion.
This CNG program is not like the Manhattan Project that involved large technical uncertainties and risk. CNG technology is commercially available in the United States. Iran now has 2.9 million vehicles (23% of its fleet) operating on CNG.
The collateral benefits are manifold: cost savings; reduction in trade deficit; employment for 100,000 Americans; reduced CO2 emissions; low technical, commercial and environmental risks; progress that can be accurately measured; plus no political party would find it objectionable.
We still import 4 million barrels per day from OPEC. But now, we have the capability to stop all oil imports from OPEC within 60 months. We have low cost natural gas and low cost technology for converting cars to operate on CNG. This program would convert 65 million vehicles (23% of our fleet) to (CNG). Cost $98 billion. The other part of the program is to build 10,000 CNG refueling stations. Cost $20 billion. Total $118 billion. All the costs will be money spent on U.S. labor and material. Use of low cost natural gas will save us about $80 billion per year.
The program can start immediately by presidential order to convert the 600,000 federal non-military vehicles to CNG. Theses are shovel/wrench ready projects. Total cost: less than $5 billion.
This CNG program is not like the Manhattan Project that involved large technical uncertainties and risk. CNG technology is commercially available in the United States. Iran now has 2.9 million vehicles (23% of its fleet) operating on CNG.
The collateral benefits are manifold: cost savings; reduction in trade deficit; employment for 100,000 Americans; reduced CO2 emissions; low technical, commercial and environmental risks; progress that can be accurately measured; plus no political party would find it objectionable.
If you want to learn more about where it comes from, watch the documentary "gasland".
Eye-opening to say the least.
Eye-opening to say the least.
Natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Burning it generates carbon dioxide and particulate matter that causes cancer. It may not be as dirty as gasoline or coal, but it's still the same kind of thing fundamentally.
If we're going to retool the entire transportation infrasturcture-- engines, pumping stations, and refineries-- I think we should aim a little higher than a minor improvement. The big problems with gasoline are the public health problem from exhaust fumes and the fact that we will run out of the stuff eventually. Natural gas doesn't solve any of those problems, and it adds transportation and potential safety problems that gasoline doesn't have.
I'd be interested in hearing from a physicist / engineer how much greater the safety problems are with natural gas. There are articles out there like this: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4772381 But it's not exactly fair to compare a badly done natural gas conversion with a factory-installed unit. I have a vague idea that explosive gas is bad, mmkay, but it would be interesting to hear whether it could be made safe.
Interestingly enough, I think the safest vehicle in a crash is probably a diesel vehicle, since unlike gasoline, natural gas, or batteries, a spark cannot ignite diesel fuel under normal atmospheric pressure.
If we're going to retool the entire transportation infrasturcture-- engines, pumping stations, and refineries-- I think we should aim a little higher than a minor improvement. The big problems with gasoline are the public health problem from exhaust fumes and the fact that we will run out of the stuff eventually. Natural gas doesn't solve any of those problems, and it adds transportation and potential safety problems that gasoline doesn't have.
I'd be interested in hearing from a physicist / engineer how much greater the safety problems are with natural gas. There are articles out there like this: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4772381 But it's not exactly fair to compare a badly done natural gas conversion with a factory-installed unit. I have a vague idea that explosive gas is bad, mmkay, but it would be interesting to hear whether it could be made safe.
Interestingly enough, I think the safest vehicle in a crash is probably a diesel vehicle, since unlike gasoline, natural gas, or batteries, a spark cannot ignite diesel fuel under normal atmospheric pressure.
I'm saying that if Tesla somehow becomes wildly successful/dominant in the electric car industry, then it will be interesting to see what the bigger companies do.
As it stands, their game plan is just fine.
As it stands, their game plan is just fine.
If it makes you feel any better, I live in San Francisco and have seen exactly two Tesla roadsters ever and maybe five Chevy Volts. I have yet to see a Tesla S, but then, maybe San Francisco is a bad place to drive a car that size.
You're just not looking... in SF, and on highway 280 - I see a roadster about once every other week (for the past few years), and a couple of Ss in the past few months.
I've seen a lot of Lotuses which look exactly like a Tesla roadsters (since they have the same frame). I don't drive down the 280 much though, so maybe that's my problem. I imagine there are quite a few more lower in the Peninsula where people aren't afraid of dinging their cars.
I saw my first Model S driving from Marin over the Golden Gate bridge. I see a lot of them about where I live in Palo Alto -- four in one journey last weekend (two on 101, two on Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto), then one the next day at preschool (!).
Buy one.
I typed in my work zip (58335) and got the "We don't sell cars in your country" dialog. Uhm.....
1) Already have a car
2) Broke college student, etc.
Jerome Guillen, the company’s director of Model S programs
previously directed the business business innovation
department at Daimler AG. He comments, “We are doing things
in a couple weeks that, at my previous employer, would have
taken two years.”
Major car companies probably don't want to evolve their cars too quickly at the risk of confusing their customers. Tesla, on the other hand, must quickly turn its funding into entirely new cars. The needs of new and established car companies are entirely different.
I also think TylerE makes a great point: cars are expensive machines with high expectations of reliability; this is another argument that established car companies need to be slow and meticulous. Toyota's stuck accelerator issues, which may very well have never even existed, probably cost them more than Tesla's entire marketcap (I read somewhere that the estimated hit to Toyota was in the 6B USD neighborhood).
I also think TylerE makes a great point: cars are expensive machines with high expectations of reliability; this is another argument that established car companies need to be slow and meticulous. Toyota's stuck accelerator issues, which may very well have never even existed, probably cost them more than Tesla's entire marketcap (I read somewhere that the estimated hit to Toyota was in the 6B USD neighborhood).
>Major car companies probably don't want to evolve their cars too quickly at the risk of confusing their customers. Tesla, on the other hand, must quickly turn its funding into entirely new cars. The needs of new and established car companies are entirely different.
They also don't want to alienate their customers. Imagine if you bought a new, $100,000 Mercedes, then they announced a week later that the new one would be more powerful, better styled, had all sorts of new gadgets, and would be immediately on sale for $100,000.
You'd be pretty pissed. You're spending major money, and would want to know that you're spending it correctly. That's part of why the big manufacturers have year-long hype and PR cycles. You don't want to surprise your customers.
The other problem with quickly making new models is repairs. Tesla actually has a lot of luck in this space, because mechanically, their cars are a LOT simpler than a normal, gas powered car. They don't have to worry about things like gearboxes or clutches. However, it is a tendentious benefit for the consumer, especially as the cars become more common, to have spare parts easily ordered or at hand.
They also don't want to alienate their customers. Imagine if you bought a new, $100,000 Mercedes, then they announced a week later that the new one would be more powerful, better styled, had all sorts of new gadgets, and would be immediately on sale for $100,000.
You'd be pretty pissed. You're spending major money, and would want to know that you're spending it correctly. That's part of why the big manufacturers have year-long hype and PR cycles. You don't want to surprise your customers.
The other problem with quickly making new models is repairs. Tesla actually has a lot of luck in this space, because mechanically, their cars are a LOT simpler than a normal, gas powered car. They don't have to worry about things like gearboxes or clutches. However, it is a tendentious benefit for the consumer, especially as the cars become more common, to have spare parts easily ordered or at hand.
In your final sentence, you appear to have mistyped "tangential" as "tendentious", which is an oddly sophisticated typo. Though, in this case, "ancillary benefit" may more accurately convey your (apparent) intended meaning than "tangential benefit".
Autocorrect ate my poor attempt at spelling tremendous, actually.
>They also don't want to alienate their customers. Imagine if you bought a new, $100,000 Mercedes, then they announced a week later that the new one would be more powerful, better styled, had all sorts of new gadgets, and would be immediately on sale for $100,000.
Well, yeah, but I bet a big part of that is how we haven't adapted to expect that to happen, the way we do for computers, smartphones, TVs, etc.
And the rest of it is probably attributable to cars being a much larger, less often-per-person purchase than a computer or smartphone.
Well, yeah, but I bet a big part of that is how we haven't adapted to expect that to happen, the way we do for computers, smartphones, TVs, etc.
And the rest of it is probably attributable to cars being a much larger, less often-per-person purchase than a computer or smartphone.
The other problem with quickly making new models is repairs.
Yes! Yes! Yes! As someone who has owned 30yo motorcycles that went out of production 30 years ago, and also 30yo motorcycles that are still in production, the difference is tremendous.
Vehicles that have been around for a while have superb parts availability, and a community often develops with a large amount of very specific know-how. Those of you who have not wrenched on vehicles may not realize this, but sometimes the community can be even more valuable than any other feature of the vehicle.
Yes! Yes! Yes! As someone who has owned 30yo motorcycles that went out of production 30 years ago, and also 30yo motorcycles that are still in production, the difference is tremendous.
Vehicles that have been around for a while have superb parts availability, and a community often develops with a large amount of very specific know-how. Those of you who have not wrenched on vehicles may not realize this, but sometimes the community can be even more valuable than any other feature of the vehicle.
>this is another argument that established car companies need to be slow and meticulous.
They need to be meticulous and deliberate. Being slow is a bug, not a feature.
They need to be meticulous and deliberate. Being slow is a bug, not a feature.
I think the better word would be "a tradeoff". It's an unwanted feature, but it's an expected and tolerated consequence of the design.
The catch, of course, is that cars are much more difficult to patch than software. There is something to be said for being sure your're getting it right the first time.
Well, somewhat. From the article:
> The most impressive one is the software updates that will change driving dynamics. This update is sent to customer’s cars without them having to visit their service location, just like updating your computer via the internet.
That's pretty slick for a car.
> The most impressive one is the software updates that will change driving dynamics. This update is sent to customer’s cars without them having to visit their service location, just like updating your computer via the internet.
That's pretty slick for a car.
I really, really hope they got their security on that very tight.
From what we know, they do. The car actually VPNs into Tesla HQ to download updates. As such, we don't know what happens after that, but the fact that they've gone to the level of setting up a Car<->Manufacturer VPN suggests that they do more beyond that.
Not just more difficult to patch, but a whole hell of a lot more deadly than most software.
Although I imagine the bug reports still read similarly: "Unexpected user input causing fatal crashes"
Although I imagine the bug reports still read similarly: "Unexpected user input causing fatal crashes"
I doubt that.
After the Toyota witch hunt trial against "foreign" companies (read as: more American than Ford/Chrysler/GM who outsource everything possible including assembly, which drives down cost, but also drives down quality and safety) for the sudden acceleration problem which ended up being deemed user error by both government agencies that oversee car safety, Telsa is going to do everything possible to repeat this mistake (read as: Tesla is going to continue consistently manufacturing the highest quality cars humanly possible, and exceed every safety requirement as far as possible using existing and next generation technology, following the same model that made Toyota the best car manufacturer in the world).
Every software update needs to comply with the testing methodology that is put forth by the US government, and most likely will be tested by a battery of inputs that are impossible in the real world just to see if the software malfunctions.
Safety-oriented software (such as in cars, military weapons, or in space) is written in such a way that operations are not unbounded, hard real time can exist in hardware, possible infinite loop conditions can't happen, runtime memory allocations don't happen, and if things can be mathematically proven, they are.
See the NASA programming manual, I think its been linked here on HN before. This is the kind of programming you see in mission critical software. This is the kind of programming Tesla does.
After the Toyota witch hunt trial against "foreign" companies (read as: more American than Ford/Chrysler/GM who outsource everything possible including assembly, which drives down cost, but also drives down quality and safety) for the sudden acceleration problem which ended up being deemed user error by both government agencies that oversee car safety, Telsa is going to do everything possible to repeat this mistake (read as: Tesla is going to continue consistently manufacturing the highest quality cars humanly possible, and exceed every safety requirement as far as possible using existing and next generation technology, following the same model that made Toyota the best car manufacturer in the world).
Every software update needs to comply with the testing methodology that is put forth by the US government, and most likely will be tested by a battery of inputs that are impossible in the real world just to see if the software malfunctions.
Safety-oriented software (such as in cars, military weapons, or in space) is written in such a way that operations are not unbounded, hard real time can exist in hardware, possible infinite loop conditions can't happen, runtime memory allocations don't happen, and if things can be mathematically proven, they are.
See the NASA programming manual, I think its been linked here on HN before. This is the kind of programming you see in mission critical software. This is the kind of programming Tesla does.
You know you are making the same argument as the light-hearted quip of your parent post, right? Everything you mentioned that goes into safe programming combined with meatspace actors yields the bug report "if I accidentally press on the accelerator instead of the brake, I crash faster".
Come on, I was making a joke.
On the flip side what these car companies manufacture in 2 weeks will take Tesla two years to manufacture.
On the other hand, Tesla is not doing the kind of innovation on the automotive side that would create a meaningful barrier to entry. The big players are all catching up (already caught up) and are going to chisel marketshare away from Tesla. IMHO, Tesla will close or sell within two years!
On the other hand, Tesla is not doing the kind of innovation on the automotive side that would create a meaningful barrier to entry. The big players are all catching up (already caught up) and are going to chisel marketshare away from Tesla. IMHO, Tesla will close or sell within two years!
GM makes about 345 thousand cars in two weeks. At 400 cars per week, that would take Tesla about sixteen and a half years to make. The scale difference at present between Tesla and the major manufacturers is huge.
Ah but GM is not one plant. Its not even really a car company, its a financing company that happens to own all the shares of stock in numerous sub-corporations, some of which happen to make cars, just like Tesla.
A reasonably fair comparison would be GM's Bowling Green Corvette plant which makes, on long term average, about 200 to 300 cars per week for a grand total around 10K to 15K per year. About the same as Tesla, more or less.
A reasonably fair comparison would be GM's Bowling Green Corvette plant which makes, on long term average, about 200 to 300 cars per week for a grand total around 10K to 15K per year. About the same as Tesla, more or less.
That does not even remotely make sense. The point was to compare companies, as they are compared on their turnaround they are compared on their output.
Is there an equal to the Model S? Seems unlikely they'll be closing since they're profitable and their flagship model has no equal.
That's not really a fair point. I think it's better to look at their market segment. The people who want a nice-looking (luxury) car, roomy with 4 doors who are environmentally aware. That being said, there are/will be numerous established players (American, German, Japanese) who will provide a vehicle that could fulfill this market segment in one way or another.
Keep in mind consumers with certain existing brand loyalty are more likely to buy from your trusted brand before buying from a relatively unknown car maker. Especially, one that doesn't have as many dealership footprints around the country, which further reduce the probability of a sale.
You can make the argument of Ferrari who have a niche market and who have stayed in the business despite all the competition. However, Ferraris had/have a long history of racing history and certain brand around handling and driving. They are targeted to that audience. Tesla sedan is marketed to a whole different segment that could as easily buy a BWM, GM, MB, VW or Lexus before they would buy a Tesla.
Tesla is innovative, but their innovation is not something that can hold everyone else back. I've seen the car and how beautiful the interior and the center console is, but it's not enough to hold the competition back.
Lastly, Tesla is yet to offer a leasing plan. Nissan is offering an amazing deal on their Leaf. I looked at it and my projected fuel cost saving was roughly the same as my lease rate. Meaning I could drive a car for FREE for 3 years.
So now Tesla is going to move to a saturated market and they need to start adding marketing costs, dealership expansion costs and other unseen expenses to maintain their sales and suddenly they are not going to have the same profit margins and are going gradually get squeezed out. Their only hope is to sell to Toyota or MB who already buy components from tesla.
Keep in mind consumers with certain existing brand loyalty are more likely to buy from your trusted brand before buying from a relatively unknown car maker. Especially, one that doesn't have as many dealership footprints around the country, which further reduce the probability of a sale.
You can make the argument of Ferrari who have a niche market and who have stayed in the business despite all the competition. However, Ferraris had/have a long history of racing history and certain brand around handling and driving. They are targeted to that audience. Tesla sedan is marketed to a whole different segment that could as easily buy a BWM, GM, MB, VW or Lexus before they would buy a Tesla.
Tesla is innovative, but their innovation is not something that can hold everyone else back. I've seen the car and how beautiful the interior and the center console is, but it's not enough to hold the competition back.
Lastly, Tesla is yet to offer a leasing plan. Nissan is offering an amazing deal on their Leaf. I looked at it and my projected fuel cost saving was roughly the same as my lease rate. Meaning I could drive a car for FREE for 3 years.
So now Tesla is going to move to a saturated market and they need to start adding marketing costs, dealership expansion costs and other unseen expenses to maintain their sales and suddenly they are not going to have the same profit margins and are going gradually get squeezed out. Their only hope is to sell to Toyota or MB who already buy components from tesla.
There really isn't many.
Although this isn't the kind of car you compare to the Lincoln Town Car, Cadillac DTS, Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7-series and Lexus LS, you would compare it against the Cadillac CTS, Mercedes E-class, BMW 5-series, and Lexus GS.
Price and feature wise, it doesn't seem to fit in the mid-sized luxury/executive class of cars, but its not quite into the full-sized luxury class either, its sort of stuck between.
Although this isn't the kind of car you compare to the Lincoln Town Car, Cadillac DTS, Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7-series and Lexus LS, you would compare it against the Cadillac CTS, Mercedes E-class, BMW 5-series, and Lexus GS.
Price and feature wise, it doesn't seem to fit in the mid-sized luxury/executive class of cars, but its not quite into the full-sized luxury class either, its sort of stuck between.
[deleted]
I'm gonna push back a little bit by raising a few questions:
Jerome Guillen is talking about incremental improvements because when they launched, the car wasn't good enough. Being able to update the software is great but is it really a strength ? It's not, unless your car has Google Car type of innovation in it !
Imagine how exciting it would be to get updates for the Nokia phones we bought in the 90s ? It's not exciting at all. The Model S is a year 2000 design, still on the market 10 years later. I know I'm not being nice when I say that but when did that ever help someone invent the future ?
Now look at the Model X. They are catching up and that's good. But the concept was revealed in February 2012 and it won't be ready before early 2014. I don't know what I will be thinking in 2014 but I do know an incremental software update won't make me go wow. What we really need is not another walkman. We need an iPod. We don't need an iPod, we need an iPhone. We don't need another PC, we need an iPad. Are those falcon doors impressive ? They are a gimmick, designed to attract attention. Those doors are a problem and I bet they are giving Elon's team headaches!
I did see those backview mirrors in the Model X. My first thought was MEH... But if what Elon is really doing is secretly building camera's inside the car, then I'm gonna be like NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT !! Imagine everyone driving around with those camera's recording everything !! Imagine Tim Cook signing a deal with Elon in order to get the map data. Up she goes !! But as far as I know, that's not the case.
The article mentions 20,000 Model S cars a year. The first prototype was revealed in I think September 2009 and the first one was delivered in June 2012. Henry Ford was making 1 Model T a day in 1908. He electrified his factory with Tesla's invention. Fast forward 2 years and he was building over 100,000 cars a year. That's 5 times more than Elon. It's not about how fast you can do your software updates. It's about creating demand and how fast you can build those cars !
I do like the solar power play. It disrupts everyone's business model. But a major concern has to be the fuel cell threat. Lots of car manufacturers are placing their bets on it. Is it because Elon has the market locked up with his patents ? Should he be working on fuel cells as well ? Are the fuel cell problems too big to overcome or is that market locked up with patents ?
Jerome Guillen is talking about incremental improvements because when they launched, the car wasn't good enough. Being able to update the software is great but is it really a strength ? It's not, unless your car has Google Car type of innovation in it !
Imagine how exciting it would be to get updates for the Nokia phones we bought in the 90s ? It's not exciting at all. The Model S is a year 2000 design, still on the market 10 years later. I know I'm not being nice when I say that but when did that ever help someone invent the future ?
Now look at the Model X. They are catching up and that's good. But the concept was revealed in February 2012 and it won't be ready before early 2014. I don't know what I will be thinking in 2014 but I do know an incremental software update won't make me go wow. What we really need is not another walkman. We need an iPod. We don't need an iPod, we need an iPhone. We don't need another PC, we need an iPad. Are those falcon doors impressive ? They are a gimmick, designed to attract attention. Those doors are a problem and I bet they are giving Elon's team headaches!
I did see those backview mirrors in the Model X. My first thought was MEH... But if what Elon is really doing is secretly building camera's inside the car, then I'm gonna be like NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT !! Imagine everyone driving around with those camera's recording everything !! Imagine Tim Cook signing a deal with Elon in order to get the map data. Up she goes !! But as far as I know, that's not the case.
The article mentions 20,000 Model S cars a year. The first prototype was revealed in I think September 2009 and the first one was delivered in June 2012. Henry Ford was making 1 Model T a day in 1908. He electrified his factory with Tesla's invention. Fast forward 2 years and he was building over 100,000 cars a year. That's 5 times more than Elon. It's not about how fast you can do your software updates. It's about creating demand and how fast you can build those cars !
I do like the solar power play. It disrupts everyone's business model. But a major concern has to be the fuel cell threat. Lots of car manufacturers are placing their bets on it. Is it because Elon has the market locked up with his patents ? Should he be working on fuel cells as well ? Are the fuel cell problems too big to overcome or is that market locked up with patents ?
Traditional manufacturers are already in trouble. Tesla will ramp up relatively very quickly once infrastructure gets in place.
I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk. That said, if you think that Tesla is a source of trouble for traditional manufacturers then I think that goes against every bit of wisdom out there at the moment.
Tesla is interesting, a pioneer, much like Elons other ventures. But it is not a threat by any stretch of the imagination to established car manufacturers. Think of it as a large scale testbed, technology to be licensed when proven over the longer term, just like what happened to every other technology in the car industry.
Don't forget that the era of the electric car already came and went once before, it definitely looks like it is here to stay but it will be a long time before Tesla will be named as a viable contender to Toyota, VW, MB, BMW, Ford or even GM. This is not virgin territory, the cards have been dealt, customers have to be won from other suppliers and brand loyalty counts for quite a bit.
By the numbers Tesla is still a very small player, and likely to remain small for quite a while.
Tesla is interesting, a pioneer, much like Elons other ventures. But it is not a threat by any stretch of the imagination to established car manufacturers. Think of it as a large scale testbed, technology to be licensed when proven over the longer term, just like what happened to every other technology in the car industry.
Don't forget that the era of the electric car already came and went once before, it definitely looks like it is here to stay but it will be a long time before Tesla will be named as a viable contender to Toyota, VW, MB, BMW, Ford or even GM. This is not virgin territory, the cards have been dealt, customers have to be won from other suppliers and brand loyalty counts for quite a bit.
By the numbers Tesla is still a very small player, and likely to remain small for quite a while.
Electric car came and went because the oil industry bought up the technology. I imagine this scared many investors away from investing time and energy into it, and I imagine this drove many people into research and wanting to develop technology that would not be for sale to oil giants.
Tesla is already compared to BMW, and even as a better option. You should look into / watch some videos on Tesla as from what your saying seems like your knowledge on them is limited; Not saying this as a put-down, I've just kept up with Tesla a lot.
Do you know about their Supercharger stations, etc? And Tesla is building a very strong brand, beautiful product, etc.. Tesla's growing at exactly the speed they're wanting to, demand for their product is higher than supply. They're getting everything prepared, testing the processes, and I imagine will ramp up in a big way once it makes sense.
Tesla is already compared to BMW, and even as a better option. You should look into / watch some videos on Tesla as from what your saying seems like your knowledge on them is limited; Not saying this as a put-down, I've just kept up with Tesla a lot.
Do you know about their Supercharger stations, etc? And Tesla is building a very strong brand, beautiful product, etc.. Tesla's growing at exactly the speed they're wanting to, demand for their product is higher than supply. They're getting everything prepared, testing the processes, and I imagine will ramp up in a big way once it makes sense.
Nowhere in the parent post was it imputed that Tesla was causing the trouble that traditional car manufacturers are having.
But why is it taking so long? Given how profitable they are, and how much demand there is, and how much could be gained from scale-related cuts in unit production costs, why haven't they been able to raise enough money to produce at a closer rate to the bigger car makers?
Why the rush? Quality and proper execution take time. They are going to destroy the existing car industry, and they are doing the same with SpaceX to the space industry. Apple takes just as much time developing their products, and planning marketing launches, and preparing for increased future demand -- you just don't hear about it because they don't want you to for the 2-3+ years they are polishing everything.
luckily for the majors, tesla and its peers are making such a small volume that it isn't going to kill any of the old-guard any time soon. 400 cars a week, GM makes that per HOUR.
If you imagine GM making cars 24/7 they'd produce about 1,000 cars per hour. Its incredible how big they are.
actually you are spot on. GM made 9,288,277 cars in 2012, works out to 1057 cars an hour.
you are probably right, don't they sell 10M cars+ globally each year?
Here's hoping they can find the balance between increasing production and keeping quality high. Most of these aren't mission critical, but I think only some early adopters would be ok with all of these reported issues if they proliferate:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081935_tesla-model-s-gl...
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081935_tesla-model-s-gl...
Some of those are fixed in software (4.2 fixes the sunroof issue and deep-sleep related issues). Some are hardware issues that Tesla has been resolving on a case by case basis (door handles and charge ports). The regenerative breaking issue is a feature. It will reduce the breaking ability if the batteries are too cold or if they are full (and the standard charge mode only goes to 90%, so it rarely is a cause). When breaking is reduced (or acceleration is too), the car shows a dashed yellow line on the current gauge. So, there is an indicator and you can know to expect the reduced breaking force.
Regardless, it's by far the best car I've ever owned. Considering the vehicle didn't exist outside of a CAD program 4 years ago, the minimal number of issues people have found is amazing. Tesla is a very well-run company and it's clear quality is their top priority.
Regardless, it's by far the best car I've ever owned. Considering the vehicle didn't exist outside of a CAD program 4 years ago, the minimal number of issues people have found is amazing. Tesla is a very well-run company and it's clear quality is their top priority.
How big a reduction in braking power is it?
Can you notice the difference? Does it do this while you are already braking and the batteries end up full? (in other words, does the braking action change while you are braking?)
Can you notice the difference? Does it do this while you are already braking and the batteries end up full? (in other words, does the braking action change while you are braking?)
I'm in Atlanta, so the winter doesn't get abnormally cold. But the current gauge goes down to 60 watts and I've seen the limited hover as near as 15 from the cold. The only worse I've seen is when the battery was full from a "Max Range" charge and braking was nearly disabled completely. When it's like that, I simply switch back to the normal brakes.
One thing to point out here is that driving in the Model S is "one foot driving." That is, the regenerative braking force enables as you reduce pressure on the accelerator. If done right, you rarely need to use the mechanical brakes at all. So, there's no actual reduction in braking capacity. The Model S doesn't just careen down the road. This simply affects the regenerative braking system.
One thing to point out here is that driving in the Model S is "one foot driving." That is, the regenerative braking force enables as you reduce pressure on the accelerator. If done right, you rarely need to use the mechanical brakes at all. So, there's no actual reduction in braking capacity. The Model S doesn't just careen down the road. This simply affects the regenerative braking system.
Any reason they can't just route the current generated when battery is full to a big resistor/heatsink?
That would seem to avoid the problem of changing braking dynamics, and potentially save wear on friction brake components (pads, discs, etc)...
That would seem to avoid the problem of changing braking dynamics, and potentially save wear on friction brake components (pads, discs, etc)...
It's kind of a lot of power (hundreds of kilowatts for a panic stop from 60mph), so a reliable resistor bank would probably add more weight/bulk than it buys in reduced brake wear.
it's not really about the reduced brake wear so much as avoiding the sudden change in stopping distance when the battery stops charging.
Nice to see, site load load takes forever though :-), 400 / week was their minimum cut-off [1] (thats 20,000 /year if you work 50 out of 52 weeks a year) Now they have to do that for a year without a serious glitch to bank enough to for the next step.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/autoshow-tesla-pro...
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/autoshow-tesla-pro...
400 cars per week is 20,800 in a year. That is nearly twice as many as GM made Chevy Corvettes in 2012, just as an interesting perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette#Production
Though the cachet vector is different, the cachet magnitude is about the same, and many other kinds of utility are greater in the Model S.
In retrospect, that would've sounded like a compelling but seemingly too good to be true pitch in the pre-Tesla years.
In retrospect, that would've sounded like a compelling but seemingly too good to be true pitch in the pre-Tesla years.
Toyota sells over 900k Priuses each year, 1.2M Corollas, nearly 10M automobiles in total.
Tesla needs to innovate quickly because they're in a bad spot. It turns out that creating electric vehicles just isn't that hard. BMW has the i3. Nissan has the Leaf. Ford has the Focus Electric. These are not has good as the Tesla, but they're much cheaper, and are taking the bottom of the market away. But most importantly, these manufacturers have non-electric car lines that they can use to achieve massive economies of scale. Once these manufacturers decide to do a high end product, Tesla is in a bad way. Tesla can out innovate these guys easily, but there just isn't much innovation differential in cars except at the very high end, which is not enough to survive on.
The lesson of Tesla is that you can produce really cool things if you can throw a ton of money away up front and wave your hands around vulnerability to established competitors. In this respect the conservative approach of existing manufacturers towards electrics looks much more prudent than Tesla's high risk approach.
The lesson of Tesla is that you can produce really cool things if you can throw a ton of money away up front and wave your hands around vulnerability to established competitors. In this respect the conservative approach of existing manufacturers towards electrics looks much more prudent than Tesla's high risk approach.
"But others can create/sell cheaper inferior products" has always been the argument against companies like Apple, Neiman Marcus, Porche, Rolex, etc.
Tesla is in a very good position in the market. They have a hot product, visionary leadership, good funding, and political tailwinds.
Tesla is in a very good position in the market. They have a hot product, visionary leadership, good funding, and political tailwinds.
If I'm not mistaken they've already brought many innovations to the field of entirely electronic cars, from the battery placement and chassis design, down to the superchargers. And Tesla is aiming for high end now, but I'm certain Elon Musk has had plans for making even cheaper version once he finds where he can make it truly economical for the average family to buy.
TL;DR - I think Elon will do just fine.
TL;DR - I think Elon will do just fine.
Is tesla's factory fully robotic? Or do they still have human labor in the build process?
Most of the car is built by hand. Robots move the vehicle along the production line, perform a lot of the body and frame spot welding, and stamp aluminum panels. Most of the work is done by people.
Right now the car is still evolving--both design and manufacturing is changing (literally) daily. It doesn't make sense to use robots yet.
Source: I toured the factory last week.
Right now the car is still evolving--both design and manufacturing is changing (literally) daily. It doesn't make sense to use robots yet.
Source: I toured the factory last week.
I think most of the factory is automatic from watching the Tesla Factory video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToVqccRd6Hg
I'm not sure though.
I'm not sure though.
Lots of humans in the build process. They might have robots making battery packs but all the engineering on those is done and dusted, probably a decade ago.
Generally people don't start building/buying robots to do this stuff until the economics forces it. That probably doesn't happen until they sell a million or more cars per year.
EDIT: This is factually incorrect as Tesla does employ a lot of automation. But there are still plenty of people in the loop as well.
Generally people don't start building/buying robots to do this stuff until the economics forces it. That probably doesn't happen until they sell a million or more cars per year.
EDIT: This is factually incorrect as Tesla does employ a lot of automation. But there are still plenty of people in the loop as well.
Tesla's factory is fully automated, as automated as any other automobile factory. It is practically impossible to get the necessary level of repeatable precision without it. http://www.teslamotors.com/gallery#
I'm not arguing there is NO automation. But it's definitely not FULLY automated.
My dad did design work for division of Tyco that made syringes. That was fully automated. 100,000sqft of production and a single janitor automated.
Tesla? Definitely a lot of people visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7398173016
My dad did design work for division of Tyco that made syringes. That was fully automated. 100,000sqft of production and a single janitor automated.
Tesla? Definitely a lot of people visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7398173016
I reckon Tesla's automation compares well with any other automaker in the same stage of the product life-cycle. I don't see a complex product such as an automobile ever being automated to the point of needing only a janitor to mind the factory. There is no lack of robots, which is the statement that prompted my response.
Robot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7395856658/
Robots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7351817696/
Robot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7338398440/
There are no factories in the world that do not have human labor as an expense on the P/L sheet. Automation/robotic-ness is not a yes or no question or even a single floating point number. "the build process" is not a well defined constraint, perhaps automatic screw machines and contour/turret lathes were "fully robotic builds" a century or so ago.
Given those restrictions, from a mfg background and looking at the pix its basically more or less similar to other automobile plants, not particularly under or over capitalized. Their "secret sauce" is not their shop floor. Note I'm not in any way implying there is anything wrong or imperfect with their shop floor, I'm merely claiming that the production floor is not their "secret sauce".
This is probably by design. If you're going to push the boundaries in numerous areas of technology, it would be pretty dumb to push your luck and in addition to everything else, try to hyper automate a factory. If anyone would try a hyperautomated factory, I would guess it would be one of the giant incumbents, probably Ford, probably on a known and simple/cheap model. I would expect the worlds first "never touched by human hands" automobile to be something very similar to a Ford Focus rather than a Tesla.
Given those restrictions, from a mfg background and looking at the pix its basically more or less similar to other automobile plants, not particularly under or over capitalized. Their "secret sauce" is not their shop floor. Note I'm not in any way implying there is anything wrong or imperfect with their shop floor, I'm merely claiming that the production floor is not their "secret sauce".
This is probably by design. If you're going to push the boundaries in numerous areas of technology, it would be pretty dumb to push your luck and in addition to everything else, try to hyper automate a factory. If anyone would try a hyperautomated factory, I would guess it would be one of the giant incumbents, probably Ford, probably on a known and simple/cheap model. I would expect the worlds first "never touched by human hands" automobile to be something very similar to a Ford Focus rather than a Tesla.
The article site was having trouble serving when I tried to read it, so I'll just say...
Ugh.. 400 per week just reminds me how long I have to wait before mine is ready to be delivered. :)
Ugh.. 400 per week just reminds me how long I have to wait before mine is ready to be delivered. :)
Lucky, I just recently got a chance to see one at a mall kiosk. It's certainly a beautiful vehicle. I hope Tesla does well.
At an ASP of $75k (probably pretty close), that's about $1.5b/yr or about 1/3 their market cap... not bad at all.
So in a few years customers will drive Beta cars which get patched to stability later ? Doesnt sound good :)
It's certainly an improvement over what otherwise currently happens: unless there's a recall, we are all driving "beta" cars with bugs that never get patched. At least this way there is an easy method for correcting software defects.
yeah i know, i was just trying to make fun of certain aspects of the software industry :)
In the end its a good thing of course and car makers have alot of validation to go through before a new car can be released anyway.
I live in Arkansas and just saw a Chevy Volt in the wild for the first time about two weeks ago, and they are two years old now.
If Tesla succeeds, it will force the autobehemoths to step up their game, which will be good for everyone. I'll be interested to see what the old guard will be able to come up with to match Tesla in the (hopefully) new generation of auto. There is a lot to be said about having such massive resources to leverage, so I wouldn't write them off as being out of the game quite yet.