Tesla loses three vice presidents in a week
electrek.co
electrek.co
I'm routing for Mr. Elon Musk. There's plenty for everyone. It's not a zero sum game.
Separately from that, by all apparent news Tesla is a gosh dang hard working place, and people can't take it forever.
Until then, they're just emulating Apple's vendor lock-in.
This does not get you into the supercharger network but I think that is part of the whole trying to sell cars thing they are doing.
Can that supercharger myth finally die?
Pretty much all other chargers are AC. Even if they were DC, they would need to match the battery voltage or you're going to get wierd things like "this charger can charge your car up to 70 percent, but no higher because the charger can't go to a high enough voltage"
The rest of the industry, the us sae hated the threat of tesla and refused to adapt teslas. Then they have iterated over a set of horrible kludges often called the frankenplug.
But is a fast-paced, startup-like business environment the best environment for producing thousands of expensive, multi-ton, high speed vehicles that can seriously maim or kill their occupants or bystanders if something goes wrong?
It's similar to the "featureitis" that causes complex software products and platforms to crumble and die over time. Part of why we keep rewriting the universe in software is the need to repeatedly start over to escape a mountain of accreted complexity in some old system. At some point the cost of rewriting the parts we need is lower than the cost of just maintaining the bloat.
Edit: Fanboys, this isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact. An EV simply doesn't have all the additional mechanical, electrical and software complexity that comes with those systems.
Come on, a car that stops when syslog has exhausted available storage! A car with continuous touchscreen failures in 2019! My GPS was bought in 2008, it has a touchscreen and it spent all its life inside a car, and it is still working, despite GPS rollover!
It's troubling that Tesla repeats mistakes that everyone else knows to avoid.
Edit: Why is this being down-voted? Is it factually incorrect or does it make people uncomfortable?
Yes, they have two less major mechanical systems. But they likely have more electronic and software systems, which tend to have more failure modes (and be more difficult to test) than their mechanical counterparts.
Back when I worked in automotive assembly, we'd did some work replacing mechanical systems with electronic controls. To a large extent, the mechanical systems, once tuned, would run indefinitely until they developed some mechanical wear. The electronic counterparts had to be re-tuned on a regular basis. The electronic ones had less moving parts, but increased complexity.
The problem is the automatic trim control system that was hacked on to make up for the design being fundamentally flawed (having engines too large for the obsolete airframe).
That Bloomberg article was highly misleading. The Indian team they cite did NOT work on MCAS and had no role to play in the accidents.
> You have got it the other way around. TCS etc don't have that much power over Indian military contracts. Instead Boeing had to comply and open an Indian development center to win those contracts.
> I talked to couple of people at the Indian center and they tell me because the center was created due a compulsion and not strategy the quality of work is terrible. Most of them are paid well but have no work to do.
^I think that addition is a more complete and fair sentence.
It will very reliably crash shortly after takeoff if there's a problem with the single sensor that controls the MCAS.
The problem isn't reliability, it's a fundamental design flaw (the engines being too big for the obsolete airframe design) that was bandaged with a fundamentally flawed software hack that was specifically designed to not have any redundancy and to fail easily.
They've also managed to build out an entire supply chain for building more electric cars yearly than any of their competitors. That doesn't appear to be a feat that will be matched for at least a couple of years, even if Tesla were relatively stagnant. Instead Tesla is aiming to continue 50+% average annual growth for another couple of years at least.
Continue? Yep, their growth story is faster than that of any American car company in the world's history. I'm not sure if there are any worldwide that would compare, but it seems doubtful.
Of course, there are plenty of things wrong too, just as there were when the automotive industry was born and the Durant types ran the industry. But what they've done is absolutely remarkable.
His aversion to Lidar seems to have more to do with the cost implications on a vehicle that doesn't have a lot of room to raise the price or cut into the margins.
Tesla put two visible light cameras in their cars, but didn't configure them to parallax and instead rely on radar that has noise problems and ultrasound which only works at close range. It was a mistake that has had consequences.
While I agree that it would be better to be using a multi-camera system for depth estimation, and there's no reason not to (because cameras are cheap and easy to build into bodywork of a vehicle), it shouldn't necessarily be needed.
Otherwise, you'd have one-eye sighted people, who drive, running into the same obstacles, right? But they don't - so how do they do it?
Probably motion cues, depth-from-motion, etc - something the brain does. From a cost-savings perspective, eliminating that extra camera will likely be looked at being done at some point, because over millions of cars manufactured, not installing that extra camera and wiring will save a ton of money and increase profitability.
But Tesla isn't quite there yet, and probably shouldn't eliminate it...
Furthermore, I'm not sure even LIDAR should be eliminated; the more sensors and sensor types, the better, ultimately. The problem is finding a LIDAR unit that has enough resolution and can be fitted to a vehicle (and doesn't look like a giant spinning top). Flash LIDAR units will probably be the solution, but they are still fairly expensive, and I don't know if they have the resolution needed yet, either.
Tesla's system has massively more users than all the other systems. They should get some benefit out of that data. I do worry that telsa will fail to make the software work well enough and get sued by all their existing customers (I'm a customer, but I want it to work :-)).
Most of the self-driving cars you see in bay area with lidars on top actually use those lidars to produce labeled data for vision-based distance estimator networks
Putting capital into something that can only be extracted years later is a poor investment.
The sooner you can get the benefits of an investment, the sooner you can invest in the next thing, and the less return the investment has to give to be competitive.
(no that's not a typo)
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/driverless-tesla-will...
IMO's autopilot'ss scariest incident is where it drove into a barrier between the exit lane and the highway. https://gizmodo.com/tesla-autopilot-malfunction-caused-crash...
Other drivers were able to reproduce the same behavior, in which the car appears to think that the space between the exit and the highway is a traffic lane that it should follow. This will dump you straight into a wall at highway speeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVJSjeHDvfY&feature=youtu.be...
Tesla fixed it. Then six months later the same behavior is back: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b36x27/its_bac...
How do you trust a system like this when any software update could turn the car suicidal with you in it? Yeah, it's also incidents where it saved drivers from a collision with faster than human reflexes, which is great. But you still need hands on the wheel and constant attentiveness or it might kill you in a situation that would be obvious to a human driver. The full self driving dream is further off than Musk will admit.
Weren't the 3, X, and S ranked 1, 2, and 3 in the United States? I can only find a 2013 Model S ranking in the European site.
We are hyper-aware of Tesla because the CEO speaks out boisterously and (in my opinion intentionally) misleads people about autopilot's capabilities. Tesla deserves their place on the list of bad actors along with the rest.
So maybe I should move my statement around a bit. Ford is the fastest growing automaker over its first 20 years of existence (clearly). But Ford also built cars in its first year.
Who was the fastest from the first car off the line to the 11 year mark (Tesla's current state)? Hmm, its really close, with both at ~300k for the trailing twelve months, if I'm not mistaken (Ford in 1914). And the following year, Ford did about 500k, which is remarkably close to Tesla's goal for the next year.
I've been thinking for a while now that history was repeating itself in more ways than people realize and this kind of confirms it for me. This is all really interesting stuff. Thanks for pointing out my error! :)
Put another way, is it appropriate to "move fast and break things" when human life is on the line?
While they’re at it, why not go « maybe they left after 4 years because they realized how amazingly good tesla is and they didn’t want to hold the company on its way to guaranteed success ».
The level of absurdity in this post is just outstanding.
And, as much as I want Tesla to succeed, they really need to figure out how to get some know-how from standard automakers. I never had a pile of snow fall into the back of my Leaf when I opened its trunk! It also had a sunglasses holder, and I didn't need to use a dongle to plug it into a standard charger.
The traditional automakers aren't immune from this sort of thing.
Personally, I'm a great believer in the theory that character is the great redeemer in cars. I once owned an '86 Subaru BRAT. It had all manner of quirks, but character in spades. Loved it, wish I'd never sold it.
I will say, the water pouring into the trunk bug is singularly annoying, all the more so since the Civic doesn't have a lot of character to make up for it. Or maybe that's the Civic's manifestation of character, and I haven't yet found the flaw it's there to make up for.
Doug DeMuro Reviewing a $200000 hummer: https://youtu.be/UqKUExgryXo
That's a 14, approaching 15 year old car. The weather seals and such are probably past their lifespan, and I'd expect Honda has improved the Civic in a number of ways in the last 15 years.
That's also comparing a ~$19,000 car to a base model $35,000+ Model 3 (that costs $45,000+ in some cases). They're not supposed to play in the same league. You'd expect the Model 3 (or any Tesla for the price-point) to be a lot better than a generic Honda.
I think you're being blinkered in your views.
That's happened in literally every car I've ever had, when you open the trunk the bit closes to the windshield that becomes the 'bottom' always has an inch or more gap between it and rubber gasket/weather strip. Any snow on the rear window or trunk deck slides down and if there is enough dumps into the trunk, unless it is very wet and can hold itself in a clump.
Even now, there are only certain regions where the other networks have advantages over Tesla's (coincidentally, the part of the US I'm in is one of those regions). Tesla is currently promising to support other viable networks in the future, presumably by adapters. At the very least, Chademo is expected for the model 3 in the near future, but hopefully CCS as well. Obviously they already support CCS in Europe.
Also, keep in mind that GM is a pretty traditional manufacturer and doesn't even give you a CCS charger without paying for an additional DC fast charging option.
Tesla isn't perfect, cars aren't perfect, but Tesla's are as good as they get in EVs right now.
There's type 1 and 2 AC charging, US vs Europe. Each of those has a DC charger version with DC charge pins added below the connector. At least these are mostly a form factor issue.
Japan's manufactures have been pushing chademo, which has 2 versions itself and uses a completely different signalling protocol.
China has yet another standard, with different signalling, but they're working with chademo to try to unify it in a new version.
Then Tesla has theirs. At least Tesla is starting to unify around having adapters for the competing standards, though the adapters aren't cheap.
I admit, I do like the CCS system if I were a car manufacturer. You make a larger socket and you can support both AC and DC sources in one connector. Alas, it has the two different connector type standards. But it is still all a mess if you're a car maker.
At least Europe has started to standardize on a reasonable variant of CCS (type 2?) and Tesla is starting to just put these on the car with an adapter for the other types (including Tesla's own proprietary one). That makes a lot of sense to me and that standard seems pretty good.
I still don't know why the US hasn't done the same thing. Instead the CCS adapters here are huge and clunky, and there are no adapters for Teslas at all. The stations here get an occasional Bolt charging at well below the capability of the charger and that is about it.
> snow falls off the rear windshield into the trunk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkSuyXnCSO4
> no place to store sunglasses
Most cars me and my family had - had no such thing (though I agree it's very convenient).
I agree that Tesla is mass manufacturing newbie (slow to scale up, compared to the industry veterans), shoddy manufacturing practices/decisions, but they have things sorted where it matters though. Extremely well built batteries with superb longevity (Nissan Leaf's AFAIK are the worst, due to being air-cooled, etc.). Tesla has powerful and more efficient motors/batteries/drivetrain than competitors. Using adapters between power/data connectors is daily occurrence to me. I am not amazed we have this problem with relatively new tech of EVs.
I am not sure about charging. Was there any standards when Tesla started developing their Superchargers and Model S, especially for Tesla's demands for very fast charges? Maybe they did not have any other option?
P.S. all in all if not Tesla breathing into the car giants' backs (and probably if not diesel-gate), most manufacturers will not be aggressively expanding their EV line-ups now. They would do it in 5-15 years time, when more aggressive regulations would kick-in.
> Most cars me and my family had - had no such thing (though I agree it's very convenient).
OK, but we're not discussing budget cars - a Model 3 will run you $35,000 to $45,000+. That's premium car territory - and you should expect premium build quality and features.
Skimping on a sunglasses holder is ridiculous for this price level, and while may be trivial by itself, it's indicative of the tier of design that went into the vehicle - budget.
The leaf for example is 31k, has a 150 mile range and many sacrifices. The bolt on the other hand is running $36,620 for the base model with a more reasonable range.
Without the rebate, it's a $29k car - still cheaper than the base $35k Model 3. They both get about the same range.
S: $30,885
SV: $33,385
SL: $37,095
S Plus: $37,445
SV Plus: $39,405
SL Plus: $43,445
That's, of course, before any negotiations. MSRP would naturally be above invoice price, which is of course above manufacturing cost.
Where are your numbers coming from?
The 2019 Nissan Leaf S is priced at “$29,990,” plus a destination charge of $895. Though last I checked Tesla has a "destination fee" of $1,125 even if you pick it up at the factory.
At a traditional car dealership, practically nobody pays sticker price... the price you see advertised is the anchor point to start negotiations, ie. "worst case price".
Dealerships often get more than MSRP, but they are often making money through hidden fees like a high interest rate on a car loan etc. Prices may also increase when inventories are low, but generally it’s through a wide range of up selling.
Put another way, dealerships can afford a large sales staff because it’s making them money. One highly profitable sale can be worth more to a dealership than several average sales.
That's not true. Each trim package has it's own MSRP, and while a dealership may inflate the asking price for a particular model with a particular trim package or features, few people walk into the dealership having no idea what the standard asking prices are - and willing to pay full asking price too.
Of course dealerships make money from financing terms and leasing - and yes things like "window etching" and more are pure profit for the dealership. That doesn't change the vehicle's out the door price.
Supply and demand can impact the customer in a positive or negative fashion. Many people really end up paying under MSRP, but not everyone. It’s not uncommon for "market adjustment" on an in demand car to push people over MSRP. Similarly many buyers don’t negotiate well and simply get taken advantage of.
However, the most common way people pay over MSRP is with leases or alternate fees. Dealerships simply have a multitude of levers to work with and can insert many meaningless fees.
Destination charge is the most common but hardly the only BS fee. The price is what they charge you, not just another line item on your bill.
That's effectively the top model with all options ticked.
The Sport model: $26,180
Your choice of paints, included. HondaSense, included.
Want to add Chrome Alloy wheels, sure, $2,000.
But you can then get -every- exterior option for about $1,000 (trim, door edges, puddle lights, splash guards, vanity grill).
And -every- interior accessory for about another $1,000 (HomeLink, cargo, doorwell illumination, etc.).
And -every- electronic accessory for well, just another $1,000 ($1,020 to be precise) - Engine block heater, parking sensors, additional USB charging ports, wireless charging for the dash.
I'm not sure how turning on every single option, plus chrome alloy wheels for $30k becomes "moderate spec for high 30s".
Germans only added reasonable cup holders a decade ago.
It's such a ridiculously 1st world problem to rant about - it's crazy. If it's top 3 problem with Teslas, then I think they are doing very well with their design and manufacturing.
This doesn't seem to really be true. Most cars sold in the US are still not EV, and Tesla's ~245k[1] cars delivered in 2018 is really, really small compared to ~5.3 million cars sold in the US in 2018 in total[2].
Looks like of the 5.3 million sold in the US in 2018, about 361k[3] were EV's. So, ya, Tesla has the lion share of EV's delivered in 2018 (not necessarily sold in 2018, mind you), but EV's is still a very small market and no sign that it's being aggressively expanded beyond a few select customer bases.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-v...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/199974/us-car-sales-sinc...
[3] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-electric-veh...
Unfortunately this seems to be a common issue with a lot of car designs.
Or that Tesla is playing fast and loose with the rules and compromising safety, and they felt ethically compelled to leave.
It's sort of hard to make either assumption from the outside. But it definitely says something about Tesla.
Edit: My point here is that three VP departures implies nothing in particular, only that something is changing, and it's quite a logical leap the author is making assuming it is their "fast paced environment".
From what I've heard, it's a grueling job working long hours and that people get burned out pretty quickly, which is a different issue from saying there are legal, safety, or ethical concerns.
No, none at all, that was my point. The departure of three execs in a week does not imply that it is a fast paced work environment nor does it imply safety issues.
If you’re going to make a claim like Tesla is “playing fast and loose with the rules and compromising safety, and they felt ethically compelled to leave,” its beholden upon you to provide evidence.
If your claim is you have no idea, then you can certainly make that claim which requires no evidence at all.
And we literally do have evidence of one of those things actually existing in the culture. Which tends to increase the plausibility of it being a cause.
The logical process of inductive reasoning uses specific examples of a behavior or event, to formulate more general hypothesis about wider phenomenon. To see specific examples of workplace culture and theorize that it could be resulting in greater executive turnover is a good example of inductive reasoning.
Making up a bad thing that you have zero evidence of happening and arguing it’s theoretically possible it could have been a cause of high executive turnover, therefore this other hypothesis should be dismissed... is simply not a reasoned argument.
"We don't keep in in touch anymore, he's always at work."
Maybe Elon's management style? Maybe I answered my own question.
All these VP's had traditional auto industry background. What traditional auto-industry does well is manufacturing profitably in large scale. Tesla is just learning to do that. Startup mentality works for luxury cars. It does not work when you have to design for maintainability and big recalls or errors can break the company.
The last person I talked to was looking for a new job. He loved what he was working on and felt proud of his work but was also feeling extremely burned out and wanted to stop working every weekend and evening. He also told me they use _literally every_ technical stack. He had worked on a Ruby app, a Python app, a .Net app, a .Net Core app, and many of them are supposed to work together they were just written that way because whoever started it was more familiar with a specific language.
It doesn't sound like a great place to work for to me. I talked to someone at SpaceX who told me similar things but it sounded like their usage of random tech stacks was at least lower than Tesla's.
Anything over that, is just unproductive in the long run. People will burn themselves out, which isn't good for a company, and certainly isn't good for the employee.
Nobody is required to take a job at a company that thinks people should work long hours. And actually new college graduates in some professions (law, medicine, finance) work longer than 60 hours. And if they don't want to work those hours there is someone who would in many cases be glad to take their place.
Simply saying that 'nobody should be required' implies that everyone thinks it's bad.
When I was out of school I was involved in a situation where I worked much longer than 60 hours and did so for at least 5 or 6 years. No vacation nothing. And guess what? It didn't bother me to do that. At all. Just like it doesn't bother some people to be hanging off a rock cliff (not me that is not something I would do).
Bottom line: You are free to choose whatever job you want. If you don't want to work what is required then pick another job. And if enough people don't want to work long hours the company can decide then to change their practices.
The law does not even prevent long hours for most salary workers either by the way (there are labor practices that cover some situations of course.)
Attorneys get paid lots of money to sacrifice their social lives. Especially at the "biglaw" firms, they get paid well into the six figures and generally 2 years in will make more than a programmer with the same experience. Doctors eventually make far more than programmers after their residency. Finance guys (and gals) nearly 7 figures a year or two into the job...
The law does not even prevent long hours for most salary workers either by the way (there are labor practices that cover some situations of course.)
Again, why should a salaried worker work long hours so that their company can make money if the company isn't going to pay them for the extra work?
I do not know any firefighters or policemen who make even what a mid level developer makes.
I lost a lot of my good years and what's worse when you're working so much is you can't even take care of yourself very well. Plus any type of "payout" from equity or similar is incredibly rare and even when it happens it's even more rare for it to be structured in your favor (you likely could be making more elsewhere for less time).
If you actually enjoy it then go ahead. But personally I think it's a mistake for the vast majority of folks and I don't think it's something that should be ever expected. In my experience it has always pointed to poor management. Calling companies better run "easier" is just a cheap shot at putting them down.
Time is your most important asset.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-tesla/tesla-st...
You make it sounds like Q1 was a one time exception when "problem on the manufacturing lines, deliveries far below planned number" has been the norm for years now.
They were insiders at a public company, so perhaps their pay was filed with the SEC.