Hacker News Reader

Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

> Thinking that by having engineers go "hardcore" you're automatically going to have a better product is like if a pizza delivery company decided to invest in better cars because people criticized their pizzas.

Bingo. Hard-core engineering has been the lynchpin of Tesla and SpaceX's success -- they literally won via designing and manufacturing superior physical things.

It makes sense that EM would blunder by attempting to reproduce that type of success at Twitter. And it will be a blunder, unless: (a) he plans to build one or more new products (or drastically change the nature of the existing product), and (b) those new or drastically changed products will somehow "win" in a big way that Twitter isn't winning now.

But at least to me, (a) doesn't seem likely and (b) seems even less likely.

View on HN

(a) seems very likely to me. Didn't he already speak about making Twitter a "super-app"? super-apps are a bit new to the American audience but in China / India they are surprisingly commonplace.

I won't be surprised if he churns through a bunch of different ideas: Subscriptions, Deals with news companies, short form videos + creator tools, different kinds of ad experiences, the edit button, better spam filtering etc.

There's a lot of potential things Twitter could be doing if they didn't limit themselves to their core product.

I don't think (b) is unlikely. Their current product is already highly valuable. You don't need their short form video product to succeed in a way TikTok did but there's enough of an audience to capture there to improve the company's valuation.

Maybe I'm living in a filter bubble, but I think it's going to be hard to build a "super app" that relies on the presence and active participation of reputable brands--publishers, if it's a news platform; businesses, if it's a b2c communications platform--when those brands are currently freaked out by the seemingly erratic behavior of the new CEO.

Even if Musk somehow learns to stop live-tweeting his trial-by-fire, the damage might be done: natural iterations on business plans and features will play into a by now near-universal stereotype of Musk as some sort of shoot-from-the-hip madman, which will deter business partners from committing.

(Like, if I'm Fox News or the NY Times, do I want to commit to publish on Musk's new platform when tomorrow he might get stoned and decide to offer hosting to the Daily Stormer? Or, if I'm Bank of America, do I want to commit to consumer payments when tomorrow Musk might pivot his "super app" to offering video shorts instead?)

Again, maybe I'm living in a bubble, but Musk's reputation seems like a huge impediment to, like, doing this. At all. Ever.

He has. But doesn’t the concept of a super app fly in direct opposition with some of his stated goals and issues regarding Twitter? He has ranted about bloat, both in terms of features, engineering, and employment at Twitter, and all his seemingly disastrous moves since taking over have been aimed at reducing bloat. And yet creating a “super app” sounds like it will be adding back in bloat orders of magnitude larger than whatever currently exists at Twitter.

I’m not sure anything Elon says about the current or future state of Twitter has any credibility. It seems like the company is now being directed via stream of consciousness at this point.

Good point you raise. Without broaching speculative argument as to the general state of Mr Musk’s consciousness-stream:

Giant, bloated organizations (and projects, and other things) can often be helped by reduced-size, highly-directed streams of consciousness suddenly making unilateral changes to them.

One way to term it— and there are many— is crisis restructuring. Whether Twitter was actually in crisis, and whether the unilateral stream of consciousness doing the restructuring is ”divinely inspired,” remains to be seen.

Certainly paid enough for the privilege

Twitter's cost was based on its market value. Expanding the portfolio, however, isn't as expensive, especially not when your new boss has all the money. That combined with its pull factors is why some people bet on Twitter coming around eventually.

On the other hand, exactly that development towards super-apps makes it even more important that we push for decentralization.

Not to mention that the US is already reigned by mono- and oligopolies in many markets, it is also a privacy disaster.

Many nations, especially in Asia, have little awareness of the concept of privacy. and thus its consequences, so it isn't surprising such offers took off so swiftly there.

You are correct, he did mention (a) as his intent in buying Twitter. Makes me think that he acquired Twitter for the users and wants to introduce those super-app features ASAP.

My bet is he bought it for the political power controlling it brings. It was cheap, if it works for that, at any loss rate.

I can't speak about SpaceX, but there is really nothing superior about Tesla's engineering.

That may be true for its fit and finish (panel alignments etc.), but the fact that they mastered vertical integration and supply chain management in less than 10 years is beyond amazing. Their powertrain (battery, motors, other hv components like charger etc) are first class and unparalleled in performance (and cost). We’ll see what Lucid will achieve in the next couple of years, their claimed (and validated) numbers such as range are very impressive, but for now, but Tesla has proven that it is a hardcore engineering company in a few important areas, there are others that need to catch up.

Tesla is the WORSE manufacturer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

have you read the article you linked? this literally repeats the same points I made, I don’t understand what you were trying to say.

Tesla's manufacturing process engineering is unparalleled in the automotive space, but the final products are often buggy because when you reinvent manufacturing overnight and don't nail it 100% all people see are the bugs.

I personally don't like Teslas that much, I think they got a lot of things wrong, but the manufacturing process engineering really is leading the whole car industry by quite a ways.

Check out MunroLive's teardown videos on YouTube where they talk about the changes to part counts, castings, fasteners, and all the internal details that consumers don't notice.

So they’re leading the industry by building “buggy” products ?

I’d prefer to buy a Toyota

Are you familiar with the innovation diffusion curve[0]? It is very normal for industry leaders to build buggy products, because early adopters value innovation more than perfection. That’s how the whole tech industry works.

Tesla may or may not succeed in appealing to the late majority and laggards, but if they don’t, the Toyota you buy in 15 years will still have benefitted from the industry changes Tesla is leading today.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

What is Tesla doing in 2022 that every other car maker hasn't started doing? It seems like they're still building buggy products long after this excuse could work.

Well, its hard when you say things like "every other car maker". Other car makers are starting to do some of the same things, but sometimes these are things Tesla did first.

For example, both Lucid and Rivian use round cells for batteries. BMW is exploring the 4680 form factor. Most other manufacturers still do not use round cells.

Tesla is using large castings for major parts of the frame. I think Volvo is starting to do this? Its not entirely a new trend, but again, Tesla was the first in the auto industry to do it this way.

The way Tesla does the structural pack for the 4680 is unique as well at the moment.

Having said that, I think Tesla people overstate the customer significance of all of these things. The real impact is technically interesting, but isn't really making a big difference in the outcome of the vehicles.

There are other EVs that charge faster and are significantly cheaper too, now that Tesla keeps raising prices.

If you find yourself characterizing something as an "excuse", it's a pretty good sign that you're looking for confirmation of bias rather than new information to form an opinion about.

But sure, how about:

- Model years. Have you seen the 2022 Tesla Model 3? No, because it doesn't exist. Teslas evolve over time. Other manufacturers still have days where the next model year starts being produced and the cars are very different than the previous day.

- Greatly simplified cabin. I hate this, but I think it's the future.

- OTA software updates. Some other makers are doing small updates a bit, but nobody (let alone everybody) is doing what Tesla is here

>Teslas evolve over time. Other manufacturers still have days where the next model year starts being produced and the cars are very different than the previous day

People who like Tesla and people who hate it both seem prone to making declarations about how different it is that seem unfounded to me.

The auto industry underwent a long evolution to regimented model years, and they still make changes in between to this day. Framing a lack of model years as progress rather than regress by ~a half century seems arbitrary to me.

When cars are recalled, it isn't uncommon for the population to be defined as a range of serial numbers. The fact that recalls aren't always based on model years seems like pretty good evidence that changes are made in between, doesn't it?

>Greatly simplified cabin

So, no tactile buttons.

>OTA software updates

So Tesla has revolutionized two things that I think should be illegal in a vehicle. Awesome.

I'll add a very cavalier and dangerous "self-driving" that can't actually drive itself to the list of Tesla counter-innovations.

I thought the exact same thing, there's really absolutely nothing special about Tesla anymore.

I appreciate the direction they pushed the industry towards, but I feel like the innovation has finished and I'd expect a lot of the problems to be ironed out.

Toyota on the other hand have produced a car which runs on hydrogen, it is in production and for sale in the USA right now. They also do hybrids and I'm sure if they wanted to, they'd do electric no problems.

That do not make the tesla better products though.

The object in question is the engineering process

Actually, yes, they are.

American automotive manufacturing became hyper-conservative over time. A willingness to let (non-safety-critical (1)) bugs get to market with the tradeoff of making products you otherwise wouldn't is a market-distinguishing tradeoff.

(1) But my larger concern is that I can't say about Tesla that only non-safety-critical bugs are making it out the door, so I also won't buy one. Because unlike a buggy phone or buggy smart watch, a buggy car with safety-critical bugs can kill other people, so there's wisdom in disallowing it.

Which says a lot, US cars a notorious for their overall bad quality and build standards over here.

Which doubles the ironic nature because most of the Japanese cars sold in the US are built in the US, and many (most) of the "US Cars" that are sold in the US are built in Mexico and Canada.

Why... unions. Japanese Manufacturers have evaded the UAW problem, where Ford and GM have had to flee the nation to get out from under decades of sunk costs

Some of this is due to hindsight. Tesla S absolutely rocked when the pinnacle of competition was Nissan Leaf.

It still absolutely rocks if acceleration speed is your most important metric (which I personally find quite compelling), but in pretty much every other aspect they're janky cars compared to similar vehicles in the same price range and even some cheaper ones. Very fun to drive though.

THIS. "Extremely powerful & fast, fun to drive, and the company making 'em is run by an alpha macho guy who also builds space rockets"...yeah, that has huge emotional appeal to a large number of well-to-do males - who would not want to be seen in a Nissan Leaf, Toyota Prius, etc.

Sounds more like cargo-culting boys rather than adult males... I've personally know noone who decides car buys based on this, and this counts also 2 tesla owners. Car sale tax discounts, free charging, plenty of charging spots were the actual reasons for those 2 (myself I am still happily on petrol for next decade at least, thank you)

So, what other car (that I can buy now) gives me the same range?

Tesla Model 3 - 374 miles

BMW i4 - 365 miles

Ford Mustang Mach-E - 379 miles

BMW iX - 380 miles

Mercedes EQE - 384 miles

That's interesting. I don't own a car and I'm not looking for one, but I still had the impression Tesla was leading on range. However, they're beaten at both price levels, potentially with a significant price discount.

  Mercedes EQS 450+,   640km, €106,307
  Tesla Model S Plaid, 540km, €140,995
  Mercedes EQE 350+,   525km, € 79,850
  Tesla Model 3 LR DM, 485km, € 60,995 
  BMW i4 eDrive40,     470km, € 60,630
  VW ID.3 Pro S 5Seats 450km, € 43,720

https://ev-database.org/#sort:path~type~order=.erange_real~n...

There's a third issue besides price and range in the EV market right now. Wait time. e.g. that VW ID.3 has a wait time of over a year for delivery. That crosses it off my shopping list, unfortunately.

In Europe where I live - VW, BMW and Mercedes do not have a reliable system of recharging for longer trips. Why they are not working to create that is beyond me.

You don't seem to be across what's happening in Europe. All of the companies you mentioned are invested in Ionity which provides 350 kW chargers at over 400 locations:

https://ionity.eu/en/ionity/who-we-are

Europe has standardized on CCS Type 2 Combo for charging. Any CCS EV can charge on any CCS charging network. Teslas can charge on Ionity, BMWs can charge on Tesla chargers, charging networks like FastNed, BP, GridServe, EnBW, Circle K and friends can charge all brands, etc.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVohXHjLro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yra3AsicSRY

Ionity is owned exactly by those actors, and seems pretty developed (and developing) to me https://ionity.eu/en/network/network-status

Ironically, the US has a head start on a nationwide EV charging network specifically because VW was a bad faith actor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrify_America#History

VW only did this because they were forced to. It's no mystery why traditional ICE manufacturers would be dragging their feet to modernize.

It is still not that great in the USA. In the Pacific Northwest, if I want to goto Spokane, I have to hope the the Electrify America charging stations in Ellensburg aren't down again. One point of failure doesn't make me feel very comfortable, especially since EA is so flaky (if Tesla opens up there supercharger network, I'll be the first to buy an adapter).

If I want to go down to John Day national monument in eastern Oregon, things are even worse. Things will get better (oh, and we want to do a trip to Anchorage someday...).

First impression: those ranges are well within manufacturing tolerances / testing quirks / etc. of each other.

Apologies in advance because I don't know much about cars, but how can there be a 100km difference just from testing quirks?

(My reply was to cjrp's comment - where the largest difference was only 19 miles.)

The i4 is overrated there. I think the 70mph test was only ~240 miles. The 3 LR does ~300 on the same test. The 3 also wins on charge speeds.

The Mach-E and ix are both a little better than they look though. The ix actually does amazingly well on range tests.

Real world range tests for highway driving:

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

That is one of the best tests out there, IMO. I do wish they'd add their charge curve details to it somehow. Something like the estimated time to completely a 600 mile trip would be an interesting detail, as range isn't the only thing that matters.

marketing claims or real mileage? because european manufacturers making up numbers is a thing as proven in court.

Aren't all EV ranges measured based on the latest EU measurement standard? Which means cars are incredibly prepped for those tests, but the results are not made up and they are more or less comparable between models and brands.

make sure to researched tested vs claimed range, Teslas have good range but fall short from claimed range by large %, there are cars that end up having the same or better range like the Taycan even though the claimed range from Porsche is less! do your own research, correlation is not your coin, etc

Yes, its complicated. Most people are more concerned with highway miles in the real world, but the big number that gets printed is combined milage.

A Mercedes EQS has more range than even the best Tesla S Dual Motor. A Lucid Air too.

> huge emotional appeal to a large number of well-to-do males

and yet I know more female Tesla owners than male

I can't agree with that. They are certainly not janky compared to the Leaf or Bolt and up until fairly recently the 3 was price competitive with the Bolt.

Beyond that, comparisons get more complicated, but there are still perks to the 3/Y. For example, the Ioniq 5 and EV6 charge faster but have less real world range at highway speeds. In practice, this negates most of their charging advantage.

If you want the best EV sedan for road tripping in the US right now, there is nothing lower price and also better than the 3 LR.

Only if we look at the only competition of Tesla being other electric cars, which has never been the case. It was just its most distinguishing feature, but ultimately it's an implementation detail.

> ultimately it's an implementation detail

Impressive engineering is always about details.

If you want to argue that there is really nothing superior about Tesla's engineering that's fine, but you can't shove implementation details under the rug when it suits you. For there to be nothing superior in their engineering there must also be no implementation detail that is superior.

My "implementation detail" comment above does not refer to the quality of engineering overall, but specifically in the context of competition. Yes, when comparing electric cars, the quality of the electric engine is a very large element; but it is much smaller if we're comparing all the elements that matter to someone buying a car (quality of body construction, interior finishing, steering etc).

The gap was worse with fossil vehicles. None of the competition in that price class had a chance racing model S off a traffic light.

That's just due to how the different engine types (internal combustion vs electric) works. The first needs a ramp-up time when starting...

Sure. Perhaps Audi, Benz and the gang should of thought of that before Tesla.

Why should they bother? They can go into electrics at their own pace, when the infrastructure and demand is better, and still eat Tesla's lunch.

Heck, even Audi A.G. that you've mentioned (not close to being the biggest car company) is comparable to Tesla numbers-wise.

In many industries it's not the first movers that get the market, it's the big mature market-friendly solutions (sort of how the iPod wasn't the first commercial mp3 player).

It's not like people want them to optimize for acceleration anyway...

>Why should they bother? They can go into electrics at their own pace, when the infrastructure and demand is better, and still eat Tesla's lunch.

I had a lecture about electric mobility last semester where a tech lead (don't want to dox them) from Daimler's electric truck program and a tech lead from Daimler's electric car program were invited. In regards to electric trucks things seem to be going great but the electric car program had massive problems with Tesla. The person in question was very hyped about the competition but admitted they got beat with the previous gen cars and that they had to completely redesign their processes to be quicker since Tesla is constantly updating their models. They were hoping to be slightly better than Tesla this gen and to get ahead next gen. So in summary I'd say that didn't turn out great for them.

>It's not like people want them to optimize for acceleration anyway...

The many YouTube views of teslas beating sports cars would beg to differ. If people didn't want acceleration everyone would be driving an 80HP hatchback or a 120-160HP SUV.

So, being on par (on even a tad ahead) of the biggest competitor in the current gen, and being ahead of the competition in the next gen, is bad? Sounds fairly good to me, especially when you have trucks, ICE and EV, and ICE cars that provide a lot of cash to finance all of that development.

That's kind of the issue. Daimler's EV car project is considered a flop because it's only alive due to Daimler being able to lose money from it.

If they started earlier they would have been able to earn some of that money that went to Tesla, could have ironed out the issues while EVs were still considered in something like an open beta where owners had a lot more tolerance for issues and their processes would have become more agile naturally due to the competition with Tesla. Not to mention they could have improved their image as a luxury EV manufacturer by being one of the first.

You can even see the panic about being late to the game on Daimler's part. Their first gen EVs was made using ICE chassis which logically could not compete with cars designed from the ground up to be electric.

It is comparable now, but was not even on radar back in 2012. My original point was about hindsight.

Ten years ago Tesla was much better ride than any other premium segment car.

That said, even today Tesla EV sales dwarf Audi, so the figurative Tesla lunch remains uneaten. That's what you have for playing catch-up.

They can't enter a new market at their own pace when it is eating demand for their existing market. If competitors wait another 10 years to bring a serious EV to market, they won't have the revenue to cover their expenses on their existing ICE business lines, much less fund the capex needed to get into EVs. And most car companies have a lot of debt, so the problem will be even worse.

Right now EVs make up such a minimal percentage of the car market that they aren't making a meaningful dent in ICE demand, but once they hit 10% or more, car companies that don't have a slice of that segment are going to be feeling it financially. I expect there will be major casualties in the car business because of failure to get into the EV market fast enough.

Benz is a little behind, but Porsche and Audi are doing just fine, in general. The Taycan and etron gt are both fantastic vehicles that compare well with the Model S. The larger etron SUV is about to get a revision that will make it very competitive as well.

The only one that I dislike within Audi is the Q4 etron. Its too close to the id4, IMO.

Tesla showed that there is a viable market for electric cars if the look and work like "regular" cars, not tiny spaceships, and if the supporting infrastructure is in place (Superchargers).

Tesla was not the first EV sold in the US. Earlier attempts by the established manufacturers were curiosities at best. And now that Tesla proved that EVs can actually be good, and can be made profitable, those established manufacturers are willing to move into that market.

So, no, it's not about engineering, it's about taking the risk and committing to expanding the market.

Exactly, Tesla also pushed the envelope with charging speeds, at a time when a lot of people in the industry were limiting things to 50kw and treating EVs as little purely city cars.

Only in the USA.

The iMiev preceded the Tesla and sold better in many part of the world because it was a more decent proposal.

What Tesla did was making greenwashing and wasting energy with electricity dfast and cool. It is probably better than wasting with ICE in nuclear powered countries but that is not what the world need right now or ever.

Not sure about engineering. But they build a electric-car factory from scratch in Berlin in 2 years during the pandemic. Check how many years other companies take to build ICE or electric car factories…

You mean the Brandenburg factory that still isn't completed and by EMs own words is a money furnace?

Not sure how “completed” it is, but it already produced Model Y, right?

Compare that with VW, how many electric cars they are making, and how long did the biggest auto-manufacter in Germany (not a bad country for Engineering standards) took to get factories ready for EVs?

Oh you can speak about SpaceX because even a layman can see that nobody else has reusable rockets.

Not compared to manufacturers with decades of experience no. But making cars is hard. Starting Tesla from a clean sheet is impressive.

Think about all the Chinese manufacturers, that for years were churning out the butts of jokes. How many of those would have survived in an actual competitive market?

Except Musk didn't start Tesla, he bought it. Yes, he gets referred to as a "founder", but that's a whole other sordid story.

No. But he took it from the proverbial garden shed to a global company.

I'm not a musk fan boy, but what he did with Tesla is impressive.

Compared to the company they were buying chassis from (lotus). If someone took lotus to the size of Tesla in less than 2 decades, would you not say that's impressive?

Starting a boutique sports car manufacturer is 'relatively' easy. Making a global car company, not so much.

Yeah, his skill is in hucksterism. That can be used for good (Tesla), but it can also be used for ill (all the hyperloop nonsense). But he's still a huckster.

Can we stop parroting the term "hardcore engineering"? It makes never-ending crunch sound virtuous, rather than dumb. "Dumbcore engineering".

When I use the term "hard-core engineering", I'm not referring to how "hard" people work. I'm referring to how advanced the required engineering is to accomplish a goal.

On (a) Musk has announced that he's going to go full steam on Vine. We'll see if he can take on TikTok.

I think this is a really interesting move, that, if Elon hadn't fucked things up so badly, could actually have a chance of making the acquisition work. I think that TikTok is a political issue and the government would like to (and IMO should) kill it because of the Chinese issue, but won't because they fear the user backlash. If Vine could gain enough of a user base to be a credible fallback option, then banning TikTok from the US market would be politically feasible, and Vine would be worth a fortune.

I do not think twitter has the ML capabilities you need to built a TT competitor, and they aren’t just competing with TT anymore. YouTube, IG, and FB are already getting pretty close. Elon would have to something pretty different than just copying them

SpaceX did some good standard mainstream solutions. Sometimes success is not about some exotic innovation but doing your normal job well. A standard lox kerosene gas generator rocket engine. Flat aluminum panel construction. Only the interstage is composite. Started small with Falcon 1. The Merlin engine had heritage from NASA's FASTRAC program.

If you look at Ariane V, Atlas V or Delta IV, they all have some peculiarities and operational warts. Large solid rockets, Russian engine, hydrogen. In some sense, Falcon 9 is the most "ordinary" of the launchers available now.

>It makes sense that EM would blunder by attempting to reproduce that type of success at Twitter. And it will be a blunder, unless...

But he actually did change the narrative today. Yesterday, he had to make Twitter better.

Now, if Twitter doesn't crash and the World Cup goes by without a hitch, it's going to be the biggest win ever for him, is it not?

EDIT: fixed tone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com