Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3 • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#291

Post by nradov » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #213

Someone wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”Some lines are at only 500 cars a week.” That sounds better than what Tesla claims. http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/549293785... (emphasis added): ”Other lines, such as battery pack assembly, body shop welding and final vehicle assembly, have demonstrated burst builds of about 500 units per week and are ramping up quickly.” If you can do burst runs of 15 km/hour, that doesn’t mean you can run a th…

Most auto production lines produce nearly 500 cars per shift . Normal cycle times in an auto plant are about one minute. Here's a Mercedes production line.[1] That's a vehicle on a par with Tesla's products. Something is terribly wrong in Fremont. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbfTlwm248k

Based on second hand information from people working with tier-1 Tesla suppliers, it seems that Tesla demanded they set up the Model 3 production in about half the time as other manufacturers. The suppliers knew that the promised dates and production volumes were a total joke but went along anyway just to get the business. The Tesla reality distortion field only goes so far; it doesn't help accelerate the creation of big, complex physical objects like dies and molds.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#292

Post by nradov » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #242

chollida1 wrote: post #3

Since this came out as part of the Tesla earnings, here's my recap from their earnings release and call.... - Tesla will be late getting up to 5,000 units a week of Model 3. It will happen at the end of Q1 instead of the end of this year. The bottleneck is batteries. - Some lines are at only 500 cars a week. Namely the battery pack assembly, body shop welding and final vehicle assembly. - The $2.92 a share loss was m…

> most importantly, Elon has moved his desk to the giga factory as that is where the largest bottleneck is. Ah, the Kim Jong Il approach. The presence of Dear Leader will surely inspire the peasants as they work towards the Juche Ideal.

Genchi Genbutsu

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#293

Post by coldtea » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 2:54 PM UTC

gjem97 wrote: post #285

coldtea wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a moot point though. If you want to compete in a market, you got to play at the speed/quality/prices of the market -- there is no slack given for being new.

Seems like there's a lot of slack given for being new. They have had relative ease raising capital, their market cap is still enormous relative to the number of cars produced, and lots of people are still on the waiting list for a car that they won't get for years.

That's just money burned from people investing -- there's no slack from the market, and none of this does much good if you can't compete on the market.

In the end, unless they get profitable, if they burn their stash, they're toast.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#294

Post by hwillis » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 2:54 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #286

hwillis wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bolt is $154/mile of range vs $132 for the model 3 and has 30% less horsepower. The model 3 is just under twenty one inches longer and 6.6 inches wider. The Bolt is nearly the size of a mini. It's not in the same purchase category for most consumers. It's also hastily and very poorly designed- the lead aero guy called it a nightmare. To me the most indicative thing about that is the weight. Despite being almost t…

> It's a shitty car, and non-electric reviewers have loathed it. It's a perfectly good car, and most non-electric reviewers have said its only major fault is being "not sexy, not cool". Doug DeMuro, for example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2ogGZXmepY > the bolt weighs more than the (short range) model 3. Sure, but only barely . The short-range Model 3 weighs 3,549lbs, and the Bolt weighs 3,563lbs. Your complain…

Fair, RCR is the only guy that really hated it (I would edit the parent for less vehemence, but I can't). But nearly everybody remarks on how cheap the inside is:

> We’re not fans of the front seats—the lack of support reminded us of a vinyl lawn chair. The gear selector moves in an unusual 7-shaped pattern, which makes it tricky to put the Bolt in Reverse.[1]

> Although it’s spacious and practical, the Bolt EV’s interior quality and appearance don’t befit its $30,000-plus price point. It looks and feels more as if it belongs in an economy car. It’s clear where General Motors spent its money: on the Bolt’s big battery.[2]

> Sure, but only barely. The short-range Model 3 weighs 3,549lbs, and the Bolt weighs 3,563lbs. Your complaining about a difference of 14 pounds (less than 1%). The Bolt also delivers 18 extra driving miles of range, which explains a small portion of the weight difference.

I'm complaining about it because the model 3 is a full 10% larger. If you only compare the footprint (which correlates more closely with mass) the model 3 is 23% bigger! That's a HUGE difference! It's not the weight itself that bothers me, it's just what it implies about the design work.

> Of course he did, they sacrificed aerodynamics for comfort. Some of the big complaints with Chevy's last electric car (Volt) was that it was too low to the ground and too short -- all great things for aerodynamics, but all things that actual humans complained about. So they made the Bolt a proper hatchback -- taller and sit higher -- to make it nicer for the occupants. Chevy, shockingly, listened to their customers and made some changes they requested.

That would be one thing, but the drag coefficient is .312. That's 30% worse than other EVs and stand-out bad among regular cars when it should be much better due to the reduced engine ventilation requirements and smoother underbody. The VW golf sits at .27[4], along with the mercedes b-class. There are tons of combustion hatchbacks at .27 or lower. The Bolt's aerodynamics are closer to the Kia Soul[5][6] than a Golf. The bottom line after all the excuses is still that the Bolt is way under-engineered.

> In fact, the Bolt is arguably the best electric car you can actually purchase in the US today -- and likely will be for the next year or so until Tesla solves their production struggles.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I get too incensed seeing it compared to a model 3, I guess. I also get unnecessarily annoyed when people buy a coupe civic just to save $1000. If I needed a new car in 2018, it's the car I'd buy (very unhappily).

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/2017-chevrolet-bolt/2017-che...

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-...

[3] http://www.hybridcars.com/2017-chevy-bolt-ev-is-less-of-a-dr...

[4] https://drivemag.com/news/the-most-aerodynamic-cars-you-can-...

[5] https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/kia/soul/2017/oem/2017_ki...

[6] http://autotk.com/dimensions/kia/soul-ev/2017/

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#295

Post by kerbalspacepro » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 2:57 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #256

penglish1 wrote: post #152

The great thing about corporate missions & goals is that they are written so broadly: "Our goal when we created Tesla a decade ago was the same as it is today: to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible. " ( https://www.tesla.com/blog/mission-tesla ). Thanks to Tesla - seriously(!! COULD not and WOULD not have happened without them)…

You jest, but knowing Musk, he'd consider that a win. The point of Tesla under his lead was always to make transportation electric ASAP; not necessarily for Tesla to be the biggest player forever. I.e. Tesla is means to an end, not an end itself.

Tesla is a means to an end... value for its stockholders.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#296

Post by dmix » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #196

dmix wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The negative press on autopilot and failure to deliver on autopilot 2.0 Was there more than that accident with the old version? I havent heard much about this...

https://www.fastcompany.com/4043602/a-driver-claimed-teslas-... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4276810/Dashboard-ca... https://qz.com/783009/the-scary-similarities-between-teslas-... https://jalopnik.com/autopilot-blamed-for-tesla-crashing-and... https://electrek.co/2017/03/27/tesla-model-x-autopilot-crash... http://autoweek.com/article/autonomous-cars/tesla-autopilot-... http://fortune.com/2016/05/26/tesla-…

Thanks, that's why I asked, Googling it led me down a rabbit hole.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#297

Post by Flenser » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

mdasen wrote: post #160

colordrops wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would failure look like? Worst case outcome to me seems that they would just take longer to get to their goals rather than not achieve them at all. They have enough money in the bank and no unsolved technical issues - it's not black hole physics. I mean they've delivered cars already. They just are slower than expected at scaling up.

I think the worst case scenario is that they can't muster the money to continue on in the face of seemingly endless losses and setbacks. Many companies think that the economics will work out for them once they've achieved a certain scale or years of efficiencies. It doesn't work out for all of them. The worst case scenario is that Tesla keeps losing money, investors lose faith in the company, they spend what money th…

With self-driving cars the total number of cars will shrink by an order of magnitude or two, but so too will the number of manufacturers, because there will be several orders of magnitude less buyers. So the players that are left may end up with a bigger piece of a smaller pie shared by less players.

I'm hoping that Tesla's current manufacturing difficulties will eventually look like the early days of SpaceX and that over time they will improve their rate of manufacture, as well as the rate that they can make changes.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#298

Post by DiabloD3 » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

davrosthedalek wrote: post #243

DiabloD3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they bought an entire company to do it with, because the value proposition of doing that was better than continuing to pay the Qualcomm tax, or conversely siding with Samsung to bring Exynos LTE to the US (and they already have too much of a complex relationship with Samsung; to the point that even on the iPhone 8 and X, if you bought an iPhone instead of a Galaxy S, Samsung still makes a profit).

As in: they earn more if an iPhone X is bought than if a S8 is bought? If not, do you know the relative size of the profit?

Not more, afaik, although some headlines seem to have reported it. All I know is Samsung is happy no matter if you buy an S8 or an X.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#299

Post by Munkum » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #291

Animats wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most auto production lines produce nearly 500 cars per shift . Normal cycle times in an auto plant are about one minute. Here's a Mercedes production line.[1] That's a vehicle on a par with Tesla's products. Something is terribly wrong in Fremont. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbfTlwm248k

Based on second hand information from people working with tier-1 Tesla suppliers, it seems that Tesla demanded they set up the Model 3 production in about half the time as other manufacturers. The suppliers knew that the promised dates and production volumes were a total joke but went along anyway just to get the business. The Tesla reality distortion field only goes so far; it doesn't help accelerate the creation of…

Apparently the suppliers told Tesla that the dates were impossible, but Tesla management didn't want to hear that and continued to pass on nothing but good news up the chain. It wouldn't surprise me if Elon only recently learned just how bad it is all going.

Re: Tesla posts big loss, cuts production of Models X and S to catch up on Model 3

#300

Post by vkou » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #136

antiviral wrote: post #125

So this is the real reason that they had those 'performance-based' layoffs. If you need to fire a certain number of employees, just give bad performance evaluations to those people and fire 'for cause.' As a company, Tesla can use whatever nonsensical management techniques they want. But firing people 'for cause' will unreasonably hurt otherwise productive people in their future careers. And it will make future candi…

Or maybe they could normally keep lower performing employees around, but cash is getting tighter so they decided to let some of them (less than 4%) go. "Cash being tight" and "firing some employees for performance reasons" are not mutually exclusive.

Are they replacing them, or are they just making everyone else work more for the same pay?

How much ramp-up will replacing them require? How will that impact their production rate?