311–320 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a risk adverse culture then. Tesla is spending gobs of money specifically on building safer if not the safest cars out there.
> building safer if not the safest cars out there Unless the car loses power and catches fire. Then you can't open the fucking doors [0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/man-died-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5c5KzpamiM by someone who worked for a number of auto OEMs including Tesla where he explains how Tesla does agile hardware
I watched the video. Thanks for sharing. Powerful approach. But wondering how close it is from reality or not. Would be interested to know more.
The changes in Tesla vehicles are absurdly fast. They disassembled original Model 3 and then China Model 3, and since then the refresh 3 and the Y.
Recently they showed the new Model 3 LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) and the electronics and how it was integrated is already different again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, Tesla plays fast and loose, treating their product like a manufacturer of consumer electronics and not a manufacturer of a dangerous and durable good. That obviously allows them to out-compete other auto manufacturers who are more aware of things like product liability. See the Toyota accelerator-gate lawsuits. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic... : > However, on…
> That obviously allows them to out-compete other auto manufacturers who are more aware of things like product liability A lot of this era comes down to this. You have a legacy industry with tons of regulations, then a new guy comes up, steps on all the lines, and convinces people they're smarter for doing more for less. (up until regulations come back in the equation).
If anything, GM had more problems and failures of their EVs so far. So the claim that Tesla is ignoring liability and doing much higher risk development is literally just an accusation based on nothing.
In actual fact, GM is spending 10s of billions buying back every single Bolt and they have been forced to shut down the line. At the same time Tesla had no such issues.
So, how about these people actually prove or substantiate in some way that the new comer ignores regulation or quality. Specially when, they themselves have a worse record.
Why can't they transition to fewer chips instead? My old car runs fine controlled with a single atmega128 for the injectors, and that is the only chip in there (outside of the radio that I never use (I already carry a phone for all sort of entertainment))
In addition, you need to actually meet fuel standards, and that alone requires a whole lots of sensors.
And people actually 'shocking' want to have advanced features, and the ability to link the car with the phone.
The simple reality is people wouldn't buy a low tech car you describe. Seriously, people are not spending 30-50k on a car that can not play music from your phone.
If you completely redesign the product, maybe you could reduce the number but that is effort that is actually far larger the problems with supply. And if you started to redesign the product now, you would almost certainty use more chips anyways because the requirements are going up, not down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. All of this is achieved with a single <$1 part, fixed torque clutch... But who in the world wants to int…
I remember watching A Faster Horse, a documentary on the Mustang. There was an interview with an accountant type at Ford who pointed out a three cent difference in part cost per car multiplied to millions of dollars at their scale. A $1 part might have given him a heart attack.
He was a former chief engineer at Ford and had his own company for decades now. He also worked in Ford Global Finical Head Quarters.
When he sees some small board screwed down with to many screws he starts ranting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. Why not put those smarts in one big module, say the Body Control Module which is always huge and already g…
> Window controls are safety regulated modules in modern vehicles. They detect the closing force and reverse direction off the required motor torque exceeds av threshold so that you can’t accidentally or intentionally choke someone with the windows. This feature is required by standards bodies and some regulators. All of this is achieved with a single <$1 part, fixed torque clutch... But who in the world wants to int…
But cars don't even need chips. Cars worked just fine for 70 years without chips. I don't get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Tesla is past the cash raising phase though It appears to me that they are steadily issuing stock at the rate of about 20% of their market cap per year, or roughly at the rate of $10 billion per month. It looks like the number of (diluted) shares outstanding increased by over 20% between 2019 and 2020. What did that consist of? Their annual report says mainly: - Issuance of common stock for equity incentive awards -…
As you mentioned, TSLA's last public offering was in 2020. 2020 was a significant shift in the company as it became profitable ex-ZEV credits. Future public offerings are unlikely absent major changes in the company's fundamentals. Stock based comp is a standard cost of business in most large tech companies; given how badly TSLA is been beating competitors (esp in the context of the chip shortage), it seems to paying…
>Stock based comp is a standard cost of business in most large tech companies
The public offerings come at intervals, but the total raised seems to be pretty steady. It all contributes to keeping the business running. Money is fungible. "Everybody does it" is not an argument for anything.
Your opinion could be perfectly correct, in terms of predicting the future, and I am not an expert on Tesla. But your comment doesn't convey to be even the tiniest hint of why you hold your opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you replied to is still correct though. Distance wise, tow charging makes no sense. Energy wise, maybe it does.
If it makes sense energy wise, it makes sense distance wise too. If the EV can go 4 miles for every one mile towed, then why would it not make sense?
The key here is that when towing (as opposed to going downhill) you can put much more energy into the motor generators per mile than is required to drive a mile. Due to charge/discharge losses, for your example this would have to be > 4x the amount. This obviously assumes the EV can regen at high sustained rates and you have a powerful tow vehicle.
So yes, you're right. The energy/distance argument should be one and the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That obviously allows them to out-compete other auto manufacturers who are more aware of things like product liability A lot of this era comes down to this. You have a legacy industry with tons of regulations, then a new guy comes up, steps on all the lines, and convinces people they're smarter for doing more for less. (up until regulations come back in the equation).
Its very easy to claim that everybody else is not following regulation and that the only reason you are losing is because you do. Its much harder to prove. If anything, GM had more problems and failures of their EVs so far. So the claim that Tesla is ignoring liability and doing much higher risk development is literally just an accusation based on nothing. In actual fact, GM is spending 10s of billions buying back ev…