Hacker News Reader

Comment by Robotbeat | Hacker News Reader

It's a peak rate, not a sustained rate. I think their peak rate has been about 2500-3000/week over a day (so about 350-425/day), so 6000 peak rate isn't totally out of the question. It wasn't long ago that they were only doing 1000 per week for the Model 3, so why (fundamentally) couldn't they increase it to near 6000 in a few months, too?

Remember this is also an internal target from an internal email, not supposed to be a public statement. You don't reach your high external goals by setting the bar low for internal goals.

View on HN

> It wasn't long ago that they were only doing 1000 per week for the Model 3, so why (fundamentally) couldn't they increase it to near 6000 in a few months, too?

It was almost 4 months ago that they hit a peak rate of 1000 per week if this article is correct:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4143164-tesla-model-3-1000-...

Right, and they hit over 2000 a week about 2 and a half months after that (end of March). Setting an internal goal of 6000 per week (burst) in another 3 months from then seems appropriate if they want to actually achieve 4000-5000 per week in that time frame.

EDIT: If their production ramp doubling time really is 2.5 months, then based on the Bloomberg Model 3 tracker's estimate of 2600 Model 3s per week right now[0], they'll have about 4900/week by the end of June: https://www.google.com/search?&q=2600*e^(2.26*ln(2)/2.5)

I just don't understand this implicit idea that setting lower internal goals would actually help them achieve a higher production level sooner. That goes against common sense and experience.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

Or they could set a realistic and achievable goal, and not stress out their entire workforce (and not expose their workforce to excess health and safety risks) trying to reach a goal that they know is impossible based on their current process constraints.

Tesla’s existence itself was never realistic nor achievable, from the very start, a point that the author makes. Also, the goal isn’t impossible; in fact, the goal is close to their current ramp rate. Improbable is not a synonym for impossible, no matter how common that misunderstanding is.

As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve. Media sensationalist coverage of anecdotes doesn’t count as objective evidence of being worse than the industry overall. Admittedly, this is a low bar.

They are only measuring physical injuries, not psychological burnout, then they are missing the point. You cant treat automotive manufacture like a AAA video game. Nobody dies if Arkham Asylum 5 is janky on playstation. But if you are missing bolts on your brake lines....

> As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve.

You mean, apart from the investigative reporting at Reason that uncovered systematic under reporting of injuries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com