Tesla produces 400 model S each week
automotivediscovery.com
automotivediscovery.com
I live in Arkansas and just saw a Chevy Volt in the wild for the first time about two weeks ago, and they are two years old now.
If Tesla succeeds, it will force the autobehemoths to step up their game, which will be good for everyone. I'll be interested to see what the old guard will be able to come up with to match Tesla in the (hopefully) new generation of auto. There is a lot to be said about having such massive resources to leverage, so I wouldn't write them off as being out of the game quite yet.
Everything from the LCD center panel to the door handles popping out when you get close to them--just fucking amazing. I'm a huge supporter of Tesla and everything Musk is doing--crossing my fingers that they can stay viable.
There are already a half a dozen or so cars that are full battery powered for under forty thousand, or less than half the price of the current transaction prices of the S. The luxury market is safe territory because the margins are large enough for Tesla to fit within.
As for interior work, I am not sold on a full size touch screen. For the most part it looks a bit tacky to me, its just too "there". That and I am a dial person, specifically for radio and such. I just like the idea of feedback. Sure I could talk to my car and one day that may work when I don't have to drive it but I am not ready to give up that fun.
I don't see how that benefits the incumbents. Unfortunately, the realities of physics and economics (to say nothing about total pollution generated) mean that there are really only two choices: Burn liquid hydrocarbons; or store electricity in a battery (or some combination of the two). Tesla is currently pursing the second option and traditional auto manufacturers are using both. Hydrogen, natural gas and compressed air have all the limitations of batteries and more: The technology that goes in the car is more expensive, the infrastructure is more expensive and exists in fewer places (excluding natural gas), range is short, and 'refuling' times are long.
About ten years ago, as an undergrad, I worked on an NSF- and DOE-funded project to use single-walled carbon nanotubes both as a catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells and for hydrogen storage. Unfortunately, the efficiency gains were minimal, and I'm not aware of much[1] progress that has been made since (but I now work in a different sub-field). That means that a practical fuel cell, big enough to power a lightweight vehicle still costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars (mostly due to the requirement for large amounts of platinum to catalyze the H2 in to 2H). Frankly, there has been enough money wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects when there is already-existing technology that works (lithium-ion batteries).
If you don't trust a random stranger on the Internet, then please trust the managers of auto companies. Honda has effectively abandoned their FCX Clairity project because it is cheaper to meet CARB (CA Air Resources Board) requirements by buying zero-emissions credits from Toyota, Tesla, or GM. The FCX, by the way, was a hybrid that only used a fuel cell to meet the average load for electricity and batteries to meet the peak load.
[1] You need at least an order of magnitude better catalyst performance before you can even consider using PEM fuel cells in a mass-produced car. Every time I've seen a press release about better fuel cells, they seem to mention a few percent. At the current rate of improvement, it will take a quarter of a century before we even solve one of the show-stoppers for hydrogen cars.
Compressed natural gas/biogas is available today and has been for years, at prices far below that of electric cars, with none of the range and refueling issues that electric cars have.
The second problem can be partially ameliorated by filling at home with a high-pressure compressor (runs on electricity) fed by the same pipe that brings natural gas for your furnace and stove. Unfortunately, that still requires you to plug in the car overnight, just as you would with an electric, because fast high-pressure compressors are still very expensive. The compressor, by the way, costs more than an 80A EVSE for an electric car and adds range more slowly. There are a few public stations that store high pressure gas, but they tend to be at places like airports and taxi maintenance yards, where fleet vehicles congregate (check out Edmund's review of the Civic GX for refill times, though, they aren't nearly as fast as with gasoline). And compressing the gas still requires electricity. It is comparatively easier (and cheaper) to set up an EVSE (the "charger" stand, although it isn't really a charger) for an electric car than to run a gas line and install a gas compressor.
The first problem I mentioned doesn't really have a solution with a short time horizon: You need either more volume (a bigger car) or a tank that can hold more pressure (you think that everyone from SCUBA divers to NASA hasn't been working on that one for the last fifty years?).
Liquefied natural gas has it's own set of problems: people complain about the Tesla Model S losing a few miles of range while parked overnight, but the boil-off from a cryogenic container would be far worse (an uncovered dewar of liquid nitrogen boils off in "a few" hours; a big 150L dewar at 1 bar will last maybe two or three weeks).
It's not that I think natural gas is "bad," it's that as a physicist I can see that we already have technologies that work better (albeit slightly more expensively for now). The only thing natural gas seem to have going for it at the moment is that it is slightly cheaper[1] than a battery-powered car. Unless there is a new and obviously-practicable way to greatly improve the inferior technology in a short amount of time, I don't understand why it is worthwhile to spend money developing it.
[1] The Civic GX seems be to only available in jurisdictions (like California) that require a manufacturers to sell a certain number of "zero emissions" vehicles. Thus, it is probable that Civic GX's are "compliance cars" and that Honda takes a loss on each one sold. If you want to know this for sure, wait a few years until the full restrictions kick in and all "zero emissions" cars are required to actually have zero emissions: If the GX is still sold by then, I'll concede that it is a viable product (though I'd still rather spend my money on a something like a Leaf at that price point).
We still import 4 million barrels per day from OPEC. But now, we have the capability to stop all oil imports from OPEC within 60 months. We have low cost natural gas and low cost technology for converting cars to operate on CNG. This program would convert 65 million vehicles (23% of our fleet) to (CNG). Cost $98 billion. The other part of the program is to build 10,000 CNG refueling stations. Cost $20 billion. Total $118 billion. All the costs will be money spent on U.S. labor and material. Use of low cost natural gas will save us about $80 billion per year.
The program can start immediately by presidential order to convert the 600,000 federal non-military vehicles to CNG. Theses are shovel/wrench ready projects. Total cost: less than $5 billion.
This CNG program is not like the Manhattan Project that involved large technical uncertainties and risk. CNG technology is commercially available in the United States. Iran now has 2.9 million vehicles (23% of its fleet) operating on CNG.
The collateral benefits are manifold: cost savings; reduction in trade deficit; employment for 100,000 Americans; reduced CO2 emissions; low technical, commercial and environmental risks; progress that can be accurately measured; plus no political party would find it objectionable.
Eye-opening to say the least.
If we're going to retool the entire transportation infrasturcture-- engines, pumping stations, and refineries-- I think we should aim a little higher than a minor improvement. The big problems with gasoline are the public health problem from exhaust fumes and the fact that we will run out of the stuff eventually. Natural gas doesn't solve any of those problems, and it adds transportation and potential safety problems that gasoline doesn't have.
I'd be interested in hearing from a physicist / engineer how much greater the safety problems are with natural gas. There are articles out there like this: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4772381 But it's not exactly fair to compare a badly done natural gas conversion with a factory-installed unit. I have a vague idea that explosive gas is bad, mmkay, but it would be interesting to hear whether it could be made safe.
Interestingly enough, I think the safest vehicle in a crash is probably a diesel vehicle, since unlike gasoline, natural gas, or batteries, a spark cannot ignite diesel fuel under normal atmospheric pressure.
As it stands, their game plan is just fine.
Jerome Guillen, the company’s director of Model S programs
previously directed the business business innovation
department at Daimler AG. He comments, “We are doing things
in a couple weeks that, at my previous employer, would have
taken two years.”
I also think TylerE makes a great point: cars are expensive machines with high expectations of reliability; this is another argument that established car companies need to be slow and meticulous. Toyota's stuck accelerator issues, which may very well have never even existed, probably cost them more than Tesla's entire marketcap (I read somewhere that the estimated hit to Toyota was in the 6B USD neighborhood).
They also don't want to alienate their customers. Imagine if you bought a new, $100,000 Mercedes, then they announced a week later that the new one would be more powerful, better styled, had all sorts of new gadgets, and would be immediately on sale for $100,000.
You'd be pretty pissed. You're spending major money, and would want to know that you're spending it correctly. That's part of why the big manufacturers have year-long hype and PR cycles. You don't want to surprise your customers.
The other problem with quickly making new models is repairs. Tesla actually has a lot of luck in this space, because mechanically, their cars are a LOT simpler than a normal, gas powered car. They don't have to worry about things like gearboxes or clutches. However, it is a tendentious benefit for the consumer, especially as the cars become more common, to have spare parts easily ordered or at hand.
Well, yeah, but I bet a big part of that is how we haven't adapted to expect that to happen, the way we do for computers, smartphones, TVs, etc.
And the rest of it is probably attributable to cars being a much larger, less often-per-person purchase than a computer or smartphone.
Yes! Yes! Yes! As someone who has owned 30yo motorcycles that went out of production 30 years ago, and also 30yo motorcycles that are still in production, the difference is tremendous.
Vehicles that have been around for a while have superb parts availability, and a community often develops with a large amount of very specific know-how. Those of you who have not wrenched on vehicles may not realize this, but sometimes the community can be even more valuable than any other feature of the vehicle.
They need to be meticulous and deliberate. Being slow is a bug, not a feature.
> The most impressive one is the software updates that will change driving dynamics. This update is sent to customer’s cars without them having to visit their service location, just like updating your computer via the internet.
That's pretty slick for a car.
Although I imagine the bug reports still read similarly: "Unexpected user input causing fatal crashes"
After the Toyota witch hunt trial against "foreign" companies (read as: more American than Ford/Chrysler/GM who outsource everything possible including assembly, which drives down cost, but also drives down quality and safety) for the sudden acceleration problem which ended up being deemed user error by both government agencies that oversee car safety, Telsa is going to do everything possible to repeat this mistake (read as: Tesla is going to continue consistently manufacturing the highest quality cars humanly possible, and exceed every safety requirement as far as possible using existing and next generation technology, following the same model that made Toyota the best car manufacturer in the world).
Every software update needs to comply with the testing methodology that is put forth by the US government, and most likely will be tested by a battery of inputs that are impossible in the real world just to see if the software malfunctions.
Safety-oriented software (such as in cars, military weapons, or in space) is written in such a way that operations are not unbounded, hard real time can exist in hardware, possible infinite loop conditions can't happen, runtime memory allocations don't happen, and if things can be mathematically proven, they are.
See the NASA programming manual, I think its been linked here on HN before. This is the kind of programming you see in mission critical software. This is the kind of programming Tesla does.
On the other hand, Tesla is not doing the kind of innovation on the automotive side that would create a meaningful barrier to entry. The big players are all catching up (already caught up) and are going to chisel marketshare away from Tesla. IMHO, Tesla will close or sell within two years!
A reasonably fair comparison would be GM's Bowling Green Corvette plant which makes, on long term average, about 200 to 300 cars per week for a grand total around 10K to 15K per year. About the same as Tesla, more or less.
Keep in mind consumers with certain existing brand loyalty are more likely to buy from your trusted brand before buying from a relatively unknown car maker. Especially, one that doesn't have as many dealership footprints around the country, which further reduce the probability of a sale.
You can make the argument of Ferrari who have a niche market and who have stayed in the business despite all the competition. However, Ferraris had/have a long history of racing history and certain brand around handling and driving. They are targeted to that audience. Tesla sedan is marketed to a whole different segment that could as easily buy a BWM, GM, MB, VW or Lexus before they would buy a Tesla.
Tesla is innovative, but their innovation is not something that can hold everyone else back. I've seen the car and how beautiful the interior and the center console is, but it's not enough to hold the competition back.
Lastly, Tesla is yet to offer a leasing plan. Nissan is offering an amazing deal on their Leaf. I looked at it and my projected fuel cost saving was roughly the same as my lease rate. Meaning I could drive a car for FREE for 3 years.
So now Tesla is going to move to a saturated market and they need to start adding marketing costs, dealership expansion costs and other unseen expenses to maintain their sales and suddenly they are not going to have the same profit margins and are going gradually get squeezed out. Their only hope is to sell to Toyota or MB who already buy components from tesla.
Although this isn't the kind of car you compare to the Lincoln Town Car, Cadillac DTS, Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7-series and Lexus LS, you would compare it against the Cadillac CTS, Mercedes E-class, BMW 5-series, and Lexus GS.
Price and feature wise, it doesn't seem to fit in the mid-sized luxury/executive class of cars, but its not quite into the full-sized luxury class either, its sort of stuck between.
Jerome Guillen is talking about incremental improvements because when they launched, the car wasn't good enough. Being able to update the software is great but is it really a strength ? It's not, unless your car has Google Car type of innovation in it !
Imagine how exciting it would be to get updates for the Nokia phones we bought in the 90s ? It's not exciting at all. The Model S is a year 2000 design, still on the market 10 years later. I know I'm not being nice when I say that but when did that ever help someone invent the future ?
Now look at the Model X. They are catching up and that's good. But the concept was revealed in February 2012 and it won't be ready before early 2014. I don't know what I will be thinking in 2014 but I do know an incremental software update won't make me go wow. What we really need is not another walkman. We need an iPod. We don't need an iPod, we need an iPhone. We don't need another PC, we need an iPad. Are those falcon doors impressive ? They are a gimmick, designed to attract attention. Those doors are a problem and I bet they are giving Elon's team headaches!
I did see those backview mirrors in the Model X. My first thought was MEH... But if what Elon is really doing is secretly building camera's inside the car, then I'm gonna be like NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT !! Imagine everyone driving around with those camera's recording everything !! Imagine Tim Cook signing a deal with Elon in order to get the map data. Up she goes !! But as far as I know, that's not the case.
The article mentions 20,000 Model S cars a year. The first prototype was revealed in I think September 2009 and the first one was delivered in June 2012. Henry Ford was making 1 Model T a day in 1908. He electrified his factory with Tesla's invention. Fast forward 2 years and he was building over 100,000 cars a year. That's 5 times more than Elon. It's not about how fast you can do your software updates. It's about creating demand and how fast you can build those cars !
I do like the solar power play. It disrupts everyone's business model. But a major concern has to be the fuel cell threat. Lots of car manufacturers are placing their bets on it. Is it because Elon has the market locked up with his patents ? Should he be working on fuel cells as well ? Are the fuel cell problems too big to overcome or is that market locked up with patents ?
Tesla is interesting, a pioneer, much like Elons other ventures. But it is not a threat by any stretch of the imagination to established car manufacturers. Think of it as a large scale testbed, technology to be licensed when proven over the longer term, just like what happened to every other technology in the car industry.
Don't forget that the era of the electric car already came and went once before, it definitely looks like it is here to stay but it will be a long time before Tesla will be named as a viable contender to Toyota, VW, MB, BMW, Ford or even GM. This is not virgin territory, the cards have been dealt, customers have to be won from other suppliers and brand loyalty counts for quite a bit.
By the numbers Tesla is still a very small player, and likely to remain small for quite a while.
Tesla is already compared to BMW, and even as a better option. You should look into / watch some videos on Tesla as from what your saying seems like your knowledge on them is limited; Not saying this as a put-down, I've just kept up with Tesla a lot.
Do you know about their Supercharger stations, etc? And Tesla is building a very strong brand, beautiful product, etc.. Tesla's growing at exactly the speed they're wanting to, demand for their product is higher than supply. They're getting everything prepared, testing the processes, and I imagine will ramp up in a big way once it makes sense.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081935_tesla-model-s-gl...
Regardless, it's by far the best car I've ever owned. Considering the vehicle didn't exist outside of a CAD program 4 years ago, the minimal number of issues people have found is amazing. Tesla is a very well-run company and it's clear quality is their top priority.
Can you notice the difference? Does it do this while you are already braking and the batteries end up full? (in other words, does the braking action change while you are braking?)
One thing to point out here is that driving in the Model S is "one foot driving." That is, the regenerative braking force enables as you reduce pressure on the accelerator. If done right, you rarely need to use the mechanical brakes at all. So, there's no actual reduction in braking capacity. The Model S doesn't just careen down the road. This simply affects the regenerative braking system.
That would seem to avoid the problem of changing braking dynamics, and potentially save wear on friction brake components (pads, discs, etc)...
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/autoshow-tesla-pro...
In retrospect, that would've sounded like a compelling but seemingly too good to be true pitch in the pre-Tesla years.
The lesson of Tesla is that you can produce really cool things if you can throw a ton of money away up front and wave your hands around vulnerability to established competitors. In this respect the conservative approach of existing manufacturers towards electrics looks much more prudent than Tesla's high risk approach.
Tesla is in a very good position in the market. They have a hot product, visionary leadership, good funding, and political tailwinds.
TL;DR - I think Elon will do just fine.
Right now the car is still evolving--both design and manufacturing is changing (literally) daily. It doesn't make sense to use robots yet.
Source: I toured the factory last week.
I'm not sure though.
Generally people don't start building/buying robots to do this stuff until the economics forces it. That probably doesn't happen until they sell a million or more cars per year.
EDIT: This is factually incorrect as Tesla does employ a lot of automation. But there are still plenty of people in the loop as well.
My dad did design work for division of Tyco that made syringes. That was fully automated. 100,000sqft of production and a single janitor automated.
Tesla? Definitely a lot of people visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7398173016
Given those restrictions, from a mfg background and looking at the pix its basically more or less similar to other automobile plants, not particularly under or over capitalized. Their "secret sauce" is not their shop floor. Note I'm not in any way implying there is anything wrong or imperfect with their shop floor, I'm merely claiming that the production floor is not their "secret sauce".
This is probably by design. If you're going to push the boundaries in numerous areas of technology, it would be pretty dumb to push your luck and in addition to everything else, try to hyper automate a factory. If anyone would try a hyperautomated factory, I would guess it would be one of the giant incumbents, probably Ford, probably on a known and simple/cheap model. I would expect the worlds first "never touched by human hands" automobile to be something very similar to a Ford Focus rather than a Tesla.
Ugh.. 400 per week just reminds me how long I have to wait before mine is ready to be delivered. :)