Krugerrand
Meow
The old Schuler line is hydraulic, the new one is not. I'm guessing it's mechanical servo.
http://stamtec.com/files/Stamtec_PressComparison_wp_v6.pdf
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
The old Schuler line is hydraulic, the new one is not. I'm guessing it's mechanical servo.
http://stamtec.com/files/Stamtec_PressComparison_wp_v6.pdf
Krugerrand
Meow
Each press line has a maximum speed (strokes per minute). You don't necessarily run at maximum speed, and there are times you can't because of the difficulty of the part you're making. The design quality of the die can also affect how fast you run the press. Speed directly affects part quality. Naturally, you'll try to run at the fastest speed as you can without adversely affecting the part.
And no, you don't shorten shut height to make parts faster. It doesn't work that way. Shut height is determined by the press you have, and during the design process of the part and the die, and optimized for part quality,. We're not stamping license plates or forks here, but class A body panels with some very subtle and difficult shaping.
You don't bank parts unless you have to because there simply isn't enough press time available to extend your individual part runs. If you bank just an extra 100 parts, then you have to add the time it takes to your production schedule. Then you have to add that same time to your production schedule for every other part that you make on that press line. Now you've cut into your press down time for things like maintenance. Obviously, if you're only making 50 cars a week, it's less of an issue to add 10 extra parts for each part run. But I also addressed other reasons in another post of why you don't bank parts. Yes, there are times when you do bank parts, but it's not something you strive to do or generally want to do. Ask anyone who's had to schedule parts production.
Krugerrand
Meow
Yes, it's definitely more than 10 minutes but it's not like it would be an hour (unless there was a problem of course). I'd guess in the 20-40 minute range depending on the simplicity or complexity of the die set. Some just slide in, clamp down, plug in and you're good to go. Others require air hook ups or scrap chute adjustments etc... Obviously, you'd try to streamline process as much as possible.
Krugerrand
Meow
Want to give you a million loves for this GREAT post, but alas the system will only allow me to give a measly one.
@Krugerrand
Are you sure I'm the person you are thinking of? I never said anything about shut height impacting speed. Theorectically, a smaller eccentric results in a smaller die acceleration, and could allow a higher rotation/ cycle rate. But again, never my point.
You bank parts if it makes sense. If you want to minimize die changes or reduce the impact of a machinery breakdown, then you bank. Maybe we are misunderstanding what each other means by bank. I'm happy to talk in the one week, 10k part range.
The press line has to be able to make enough parts to meet vehicle production. That production takes a fixed number of cycles. The variable is how many die changes will occur during the time span. If you bank one week of parts, you have (at worst) a one week lag before start of production, then your buffer evens things out.
To be more time/ space economical, one could start with partial week volumes to match when the normal full week cycles line up.
Are you sure I'm the person you are thinking of? I never said anything about shut height impacting speed. Theorectically, a smaller eccentric results in a smaller die acceleration, and could allow a higher rotation/ cycle rate. But again, never my point.
You bank parts if it makes sense. If you want to minimize die changes or reduce the impact of a machinery breakdown, then you bank. Maybe we are misunderstanding what each other means by bank. I'm happy to talk in the one week, 10k part range.
The press line has to be able to make enough parts to meet vehicle production. That production takes a fixed number of cycles. The variable is how many die changes will occur during the time span. If you bank one week of parts, you have (at worst) a one week lag before start of production, then your buffer evens things out.
To be more time/ space economical, one could start with partial week volumes to match when the normal full week cycles line up.
Krugerrand
Meow
I have to admit I don't intuitively understand the appeal from the debt buyers' perspective. Their maximum upside is 5.3%, but that presumes that Tesla's absolute worst case scenarios are taken off the table and that they get paid back. If you take the worst case scenarios off the table, surely the equity risk:reward is more appealing? Of course there has to be some X% where this works, the market decided 5.3% using experience and bond raters and comps and so on, and for me there would have to be SOME percentage I'd make that deal, but my intuition is like err.. 10%? Given how little debt Tesla has presumably there isn't a lot of risk on the table for senior positions. I figure I've made it this far without fully grasping the logic of the credit markets, so I can continue being ignorant but if there's any magical explanation that would give me an epiphany how it can be such a low number I'm open ears.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Krugerrand
Meow
Reducing die changes doesn't necessarily save you time, but what it can do is royally screw up your production and maintenance schedule. Die changes just don't take that much time. We're not talking the old days here where everything was done by hand. Spare bolsters sit outside each press on a track. While one die set is producing parts, workers will be craning the next scheduled die set onto those bolsters, securing them and doing anything else that needs to be done to prepare them to go in. When it's time, the set you're done with will roll out of the press on the opposite side, the new set will roll in and be hooked up and ready to go before the set you just finished with has had a chance to be taken off and plopped down for some toolmaker to wipe it down and check over before being put away. Rinse and repeat. Not a big time consuming venture.
If we were privy to actual press down time at Tesla, I'd bet my entire TSLA portfolio that die change time doesn't even register in the top 10 list of reasons for down time. It never has at any press shop I've worked at or been privy to.
Yeah. Doesn't work that way in the real world. In the real world, dies break, get smashed, presses break down, double hit, programs get corrupted, end of arm tooling breaks, scrap jams up, bad material happens, someone leaves a wrench in the press, robots fart and so on to infinity. You don't bank parts unless it's a necessity and then you bank just enough to cover your butt and not a single piece extra...especially when you're Tesla, doing as many parts as they are with a very limited number of press lines.
Adding: Banking extra parts is akin to making entries in a restaurant before a customer has even opened the menu. Neither good companies nor good restaurants do it.
Last edited:
This whole project cost Mercedes 170million Euro.
http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko.xhtml?oid=10013153
Last edited:
I think its very simple.
In addition to stock they own, they ensure that tesla is equipped to deliver, so they get 5% from the bonds and 100% from stocks later, the stocks part having a much higher probability than without the bonds.
Guess Tesla uses MSFT for computing platform:
That was for OpenAI, but perhaps Tesla does also.
Via reddit:
For some suppliers, a cautious eye on the EV's prospects
If true, this means legacy automakers are even more conservative on EVs than it looks. Fine with me...
For some suppliers, a cautious eye on the EV's prospects
If true, this means legacy automakers are even more conservative on EVs than it looks. Fine with me
...
That's definitely one thing that could change the landscape. A/F/C would have a learning curve to catch up to T, however they have the technical knowledge and financial firepower to scale quickly. Maybe not 1-2 years, but certainly in 5. The only question is if the have the will and the staying power to spend (WAG) $20b-50b creating a worldwide scale vehicle.
Excellent, then get an even better rating for the packaged fund?
Where did I hear about this back in 2006-2007? Hmmm...
A sane overview / disccussion of Tesla's bond issue here:
Behold the Sheer Artistry of Tesla's Bond - Bloomberg Gadfly
Downvote my posts all you want. Tesla will face reality sooner or later when the tide turns.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
PS: It's also telling that none of the points I raised
- 1GW vs 10GW in solar capacity
- 100-200k Model3 in H2 2017
- past debt issuances in 2014-2016 for the very same tickets/promises. namely Model3 and GF1,
were discussed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
