Sorry, better put "So you're asserting that something that YOU determine, without knowledge of specifics at the time inside Tesla, that a particular choice is sub-optial that the manufacturing/engineering teams at Tesla couldn't possible have chosen to do it that way?
No, I'm pointing that they COULD have done that (second time I'm having to point out I specifically said they COULD do it....), but that doing so would be incredibly stupid.
And nobody has offered any suggestion of a single benefit to doing it that way versus using a second part number- which also wouldn't require CREATING AN ENTIRE DUPLICATE, BUT HIDDEN, PARTS SYSTEM.... a secret second system that not only doesn't add value, but adds the possibility for the wrong parts going into cars if not at the factory than certainly during repairs since your public PN doesn't check VIN before handing out a replacement part.
I also say that as somebody whose has worked for electronics OEMs larger than Tesla (well, not in market cap anymore, but certainly in annual revenue and parts volumes) where I had some direct experience with part number systems and supply chains and where
actual binning took place.
By ALL MEANS though- if you have an explanation for why NOT use a different PN if they were
actually binning parts- let's hear it.
So sure of this to the point that it contradicts insider statements to the contrary?"
You mean the statements that I've asked you to show evidence of twice now and you keep saying "eh, can't find it"?
1) Because people make sub-optimal choices all the time.
I'm not saying this is "sub-optimal."
I'm saying it's a bunch of extra work. And potential cause of error.
For no benefit, of any kind, that anyone has been able to articulate.
2) You are in a very poor position to ascertain whether keeping a list, putting a sticky note, or whatever to track those DU doesn't actually make a decent amount of sense in that moment.
Your continuing inability to explain any way that makes any sense- rather than just using a different PN like literally every other manufacturing company in the world has for decades- suggests I'm in a pretty solid position to ascertain that.
Remember they had to switch into manual mode for the P assembling, that was the time of the Tent, and jettisoning the highly automated part distribution system due to issue with it.
..what?
The 980 was in use from the start.
LR RWD cars made in mid-2017, a year before the first P was delivered, came with the 980.
So they had almost a
full year to figure out if they were gonna only be able to use SOME of their rear DUs in Ps, and to take 30 seconds to add a second PN to the supply system.
Your argument appears to be that instead of doing so... they decided a year later- at the last minute- to instead (when they STILL could've just added a PN to the system in 30 seconds) invent a SECOND part tracking system- that would not be marked on the actual part at all- and that would not appear in the actual parts catalog to insure you got the right replacement part.- and that THAT would be used for "binning" and the benefit for doing it THAT much harder and error prone way would be.... nothing anyone can think of...
... that somehow makes any sense to you?
But again- I'll ask the same question I ask all the "oh they totes binned all the 980s!" folks....
The parts catalog says there's only one PN for the 980.
It says it's available for purchase over the counter, no VIN required.
How does the parts guy know if you need the "magical secret marked" one or not?[/QUOTE]
