I'm wondering if Tesla would rather be making X than S. If world wide demand allows, moving people into 3 from S could be a good thing.
Related question: Will any future GFs make S/X?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I'm wondering if Tesla would rather be making X than S. If world wide demand allows, moving people into 3 from S could be a good thing.
Related question: Will any future GFs make S/X?
I doubt future factories will make the current S/X. But they will make future S/X based on a larger version of the gigafactory battery pack.
Tesla will have two or three car platforms. Perhaps all based on minor modification to the M3 battery pack. Or perhaps each platform will have a a battery pack that is significantly differentiated.
The current M3 pack is the medium size. It is unclear to me if it is physically too large for a future Model 2. Is it good enough to lengthen the Model 3 battery pack for future SII and XII? Or is it too narrow to maximize capacity in the new vehicles?
If Tesla can achieve a 30% energy density improvement by 2020 they can build 400 mile range vehicles on the gigafatory pack. Although charge rate needs on the high end vehicles might limit using the highest energy density cells.
S (and later X) were the cars that financed the 3. What I'm wondering is if there enough demand long term over the current 100k/ yr production to support a second line for the high price point vehicle? Or will Tesla let the wait list be what it is and focus on Y, pickup, and semi growth (of course they could do both).
Even if the new GF lines could support a vehicle mix, the body panels require dedicated dies. Maybe Tesla will wait until the current S/X tooling wears out and then replace v.s. refurbish with a revamp to keep them the top end of the family?
jelloslug
Active Member
Yea, because all the buildings in the major cities in places like Germany that were build post WWII have seen centuries of wood and coal smoke.
Have to track down the actual leakers. The people who are openly advocating for unionization and talking to the NYT are carefully staying within their legal rights, so they can't be fired (and shouldn't be, either).
The document leaks are coming from other people who have not been tracked down.
Wow, that's brilliant! It's one thing to see a lot full of cars, another thing entirely to see it continuously turning over in time lapse.
What is the consensus on the 2.5K M3 deposits and M3 reservations being opened to all? Once deposits are made I think there is some form of penalty if one opts to withdraw?
One thought I had is that if above is correct, then MY prototype and reservations might happen earlier than most people are assuming.
One strategy to consider is to release MY specs and reservations and let it beat the Jag iPace specs without doing anything else ....
One thought I had is that if above is correct, then MY prototype and reservations might happen earlier than most people are assuming.
One strategy to consider is to release MY specs and reservations and let it beat the Jag iPace specs without doing anything else ....
At this point I strongly suspect GA2 is being rebuilt. Here's my best guess:
1 -- they built GA2 and found a lot of things which didn't work
2 -- they built GA3, learning from GA2, and found a few things which didn't work
3 -- they built GA4 while frantically rearranging GA3 and GA2 without interrupting production too much
4 -- they got GA3 + GA4 up to the target 5000/week (apparently 3000 GA3 and 2000 GA4), so they can shut down GA2
5 -- they are now retooling GA2 to try to get it running at a full 5000/week as originally hoped, or at least 4000/week
6 -- then they'll shutdown GA3 to bring it up to GA2 speed, at which point they'll hit 10K/week in GA, hopefully without GA4, but with GA4 if necessary
This all costs money but I suspect not that much; most of the equipment will be fine though a lot will have to be moved from place to place.
In terms of bottlenecks for 10K, I think the paint shop and the body line (at last report, struggling to stay above 700/day reliably) will be the most expensive and longest-lead-time issues.
-- They may need a second body line, but I think they'll try to avoid it, and when they fail to double the body line speed (they'll improve it, but quite possibly fail to double it) it'll mean a delay in 10K as they won't start building the second body line until later than they should have.
-- They may need another paint line or two (for reference, it is clear emissions regs are not a problem). At some point you can't speed up paint any more, and I hope Tesla will recognize when they're reaching that point. Paint lines are slow to build, so they better get started now.. I figure Tesla will go with electric heating to bake the paint on the new line.
-- The battery pack lines at the Gigafactory will probably just be flat out duplicated as needed, and will go quicker than building a new paint line. And cheaper now that the lines have been "debugged".
You missed step 7.
7 -- pack up GA4 and ship it to Shanghai.
7 -- pack up GA4 and ship it to Shanghai.
So much agree!
They added a paint line in 16-17, so I think they are good there. Body line is the harder one to duplicate, if required. However, if they ordered at least two sets of the tooling (end effectors) to have spares on the first line, it could be set up at the speed of the robot manufacturer.
Given the generic nature of the line, I think China could build 3 copies faster than the current GA4 could be dismantled, packed, shipped (via ocean), and reassembled. That also leaves GA4 pumping out 3Ps until the sprung permit expires.
Pale Blue Dot
Member
The point of the article was actually to remove any ammo from bears if he only reported a burst rate extrapolated from a few days equivalent to 5k/wk. Which it seems like they did. They reported a factory gated 5k/wk which includes partially finished cars not purely cars that came off the line. I still believe they hit 714 cars in 24 hours which would allow them to report an equivalent weekly production burst rate of 5k/wk. however based on the extensive resources they diverted to achieve that it is clearly not a sustained rate as yet. Which was the point of my article. Any investor whether long or short needs to calculate revenues based on a sustained rate which lags the burst rate by about 2 months as evidenced by the actual Q2 production average.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They counted cars as they passed final QC. There is no data to say they merged in previously failed cars, nor is there data to say the quantity of cars that failed QC this week was less that those reworked ones. If the fail/rework rate is consistant, then it offsets week to week. If it is a percentage of cars produced, the final output would be worse during a ramp up.
Only in terms of workers on the line which they are hiring rapidly. Nothing else infrastructure wise seems to have been an issue.
GA4 didn't exist till June and produced 20% of the output for the 5k/wk. A monthly average doesn't account for such step changes.
Well, if the zombies come, maybe weed will be the only thing that helps (so you don`t care that much).
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
Volkswagen readies ‘zero-emission’ car-share service for 2019 launch
All in all, this buys them some more time and helps them smooth the transition to an EV-only company (far in the future).
Volkswagen said it is launching a “zero-emission” car-sharing service called WE next year, a move that could accelerate its battery-powered car production and take on the likes of Uber and Didi in the mobility space.
The VW brand, which makes up about half of revenue for the Volkswagen Group, said it plans to launch the WE service in Germany next year, with an international rollout to begin as early as 2020 “in major cities in Europe, North America and Asia.”
“Our vehicle-on-demand fleets will consist entirely of electric cars, and will therefore provide zero-emission, sustainable mobility,” said Jürgen Stackmann, VW brand boardmember overseeing sales. VW’s first long-range electric car, the ID Neo, will be produced in Zwickau and is scheduled for series production late next year.
[...]
This week, PSA and Renault each said they would soon launch electric car-sharing services in Paris. In March, BMW and Mercedes announced they would team up on all mobility services to ensure they had enough scale to compete.
Finally, a move that actually makes sense. It allows VW to scale up their EV production slowly, which helps them avoid cannibalizing their own ICE sales until they are ready to produce compelling EVs profitably and in large numbers. It keeps their brand relevant, gives them real-world feedback, and most importantly, lets them get away with higher unit costs thanks to much higher utilization rates. Not to mention, break into a new market that already threatens their future revenues. The lack of a supercharging network for inter-city driving is also not crucial for this application, since this is a city-wide service (Berlin, for starters).The VW brand, which makes up about half of revenue for the Volkswagen Group, said it plans to launch the WE service in Germany next year, with an international rollout to begin as early as 2020 “in major cities in Europe, North America and Asia.”
“Our vehicle-on-demand fleets will consist entirely of electric cars, and will therefore provide zero-emission, sustainable mobility,” said Jürgen Stackmann, VW brand boardmember overseeing sales. VW’s first long-range electric car, the ID Neo, will be produced in Zwickau and is scheduled for series production late next year.
[...]
This week, PSA and Renault each said they would soon launch electric car-sharing services in Paris. In March, BMW and Mercedes announced they would team up on all mobility services to ensure they had enough scale to compete.
All in all, this buys them some more time and helps them smooth the transition to an EV-only company (far in the future).
Last edited:
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
I’ll leave this here, neither as rebuttal nor agreement ... but keep in mind:
Suppliers and factory sections who could not prove ability to produce “800 in a 24 hour period” by June 30th were to have a damn good reason or be shown the exit this coming Monday.
- Elon’s leaked letter
Your source is off by 50 a day.
Elon Musk says Tesla is aiming to manufacture 6,000 Model 3 units per week by July
By opening the configuration page at the end of June, Tesla secured millions in additional deposits (potentially $250million), which goes straight into their cash position. So I think the biggest effect will be to show that Q2's cash drain isn't going to be $1B (short's expectation). There might be enough to keep $2B in the bank. If so, then the death watch will have to roll their clock back past 2018. This puts serious doubt into a Tesla bankwuptcy thesis, especially if they can show Q2's per car loss being significantly less than Q1's (crimps the whole more-they-make-more-they-lose thesis).
Brando
Active Member
Tesla can't make many more than ~100,000 S/X vehicles per year - and as far as I can tell they still have a backlog.
Of course where the cars are sent to (export or domestic), delivery times (China and EU import hold ups?? as Trump tweets away??)
Not sure why people think a smaller car will hurt sales of a larger car?
Some people even think the Model 3 too large for a commuter car (since they carry only one person to and from work).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
