Just announced. 500k cars by 2018 instead of 2020

[182RG]

It's silly to say Tesla doesn't care about the quality of its manufacturing as long as the car is electric.

There are a few here on TMC who think exactly this way. Exactly this way.

The mass market isn't going to stand for it.

You are 100% correct. They need to accomplish both.

 

[182RG]

Tesla is the opposite. They care a lot about climate change and not so much about panel gaps.

Someone like Audi who think it is fine to cheat on emissions as long as the gaps are great is the right brand for you.

Meh. The right brand for me is the one that maximizes my wants with the value and quality I expect. No less.

 

[JeffK]

Meh. The right brand for me is the one that maximizes my wants with the value and quality I expect. No less.

Besides performance, build quality, and effect on the environment, I want a company that focuses on safety too.

The death of Anton Yelchin by his Jeep is a prime example of poor engineering leading to an unsafe situation.

 

[TaoJones]

So that's 1,000 cars per week per line, x 4 lines = 4,000 cars per week for 200,000 cars per year.

or, if you prefer...

2,000 cars per week per line, x 5 lines = 10,000 cars per week for 500,000 cars per year.

Figuring 2 x 10-hour shifts per line, that's 1,000 cars per shift per week per line... Ignoring for the moment that it would make sense to split the 500,000 per year across 3 different geographically-optimized plants (1 in Europe, 1 in China), meaning that each plant would only have to produce some number approximating a mere 167,000 per year...

Gotta hand it to the NUMMI collaboration between GM and Toyota that produced 500,000 cars/year almost 20 years ago now - especially given the recalcitrance of the union that killed the point of what was supposed to be GM's flagship plant in the first place.

Credit also to Henry Ford, who did what everyone said he couldn't over 100 years ago.

With the advanced robotics of today, combined with Musk's stated focus upon improving the machines that build the machines, I like Tesla's chances. And, instead of the inevitable fixation that the analysts will have with the exact numbers, what will be interesting to watch is the reduction in defect rate rather than total gross production. Once they get the defects below a certain threshold, supply chain concerns aside (small details, those - heh), they'll just ramp and ramp and ramp - rinse and repeat, if you will.

 

[JeffK]

So that's 1,000 cars per week per line, x 4 lines = 4,000 cars per week for 200,000 cars per year.

or, if you prefer...

2,000 cars per week per line, x 5 lines = 10,000 cars per week for 500,000 cars per year.

Figuring 2 x 10-hour shifts per line, that's 1,000 cars per shift per week per line... Ignoring for the moment that it would make sense to split the 500,000 per year across 3 different geographically-optimized plants (1 in Europe, 1 in China), meaning that each plant would only have to produce some number approximating a mere 167,000 per year...

Gotta hand it to the NUMMI collaboration between GM and Toyota that produced 500,000 cars/year almost 20 years ago now - especially given the recalcitrance of the union that killed the point of what was supposed to be GM's flagship plant in the first place.

Credit also to Henry Ford, who did what everyone said he couldn't over 100 years ago.

With the advanced robotics of today, combined with Musk's stated focus upon improving the machines that build the machines, I like Tesla's chances. And, instead of the inevitable fixation that the analysts will have with the exact numbers, what will be interesting to watch is the reduction in defect rate rather than total gross production. Once they get the defects below a certain threshold, supply chain concerns aside (small details, those - heh), they'll just ramp and ramp and ramp - rinse and repeat, if you will.

Not sure where you're pulling numbers from but the Fremont plant alone will be producing around 500,000 cars per year once the goal is met with a proposed timetable of 2018. Any other factories built later will be producing at their own maximum rates. It makes no sense to split 500,000 cars geographically at the moment. The factory in China may be up by 2019 and everything will be fine for Asia. If Tesla ends up with a factory in Europe then that'll help too.

I'm not going to be surprised if Tesla is producing 1 million cars per year by 2020 or 2021.

 

[TaoJones]

Not sure where you're pulling numbers from but the Fremont plant alone will be producing around 500,000 cars per year once the goal is met with a proposed timetable of 2018. Any other factories built later will be producing at their own maximum rates. It makes no sense to split 500,000 cars geographically at the moment. The factory in China may be up by 2019 and everything will be fine for Asia. If Tesla ends up with a factory in Europe then that'll help too.

I'm not going to be surprised if Tesla is producing 1 million cars per year by 2020 or 2021.

So 2018 is 18-30 months away. Demand aside, global or otherwise, how do you envision those 500,000 cars will be produced at Fremont in 18-30 months' time? Using 2 x 10-hour shifts with 4 hours for maintenance... or some other management of the 168 hours in a week, how do you see them getting to 500,000 cars per year? With 2 lines, that's ~5,000 cars per week per line. At some point, it makes sense to add lines. During the factory tour I recall, there were still a lot of humans along the line, and humans can only move so fast.

I wonder if anyone remembers how many lines the NUMMI configuration had operating simultaneously. And then there's the mix between parts produced on-site versus transported in.

Certainly, once they get to 500,000 cars at one factory, presumably they could rinse and repeat elsewhere.

I'd be happy if they backed off the gross number and focused upon zero defect environments. Which I expect is what they'll do - beat the threshold, ramp, and repeat the cycle onward and upward.

 

[JeffK]

So 2018 is 18-30 months away. Demand aside, global or otherwise, how do you envision those 500,000 cars will be produced at Fremont in 18-30 months' time? Using 2 x 10-hour shifts with 4 hours for maintenance... or some other management of the 168 hours in a week, how do you see them getting to 500,000 cars per year? With 2 lines, that's ~5,000 cars per week per line. At some point, it makes sense to add lines. During the factory tour I recall, there were still a lot of humans along the line, and humans can only move so fast.

I wonder if anyone remembers how many lines the NUMMI configuration had operating simultaneously. And then there's the mix between parts produced on-site versus transported in.

Certainly, once they get to 500,000 cars at one factory, presumably they could rinse and repeat elsewhere.

I'd be happy if they backed off the gross number and focused upon zero defect environments. Which I expect is what they'll do - beat the threshold, ramp, and repeat the cycle onward and upward.

The beauty is that I don't have to come up with the number of lines, shifts, etc. That job belongs to Peter Hochholdinger, who has experience with such matters

 

[22522]

With 2 lines.

They need 3 lines so that innovation/improvements can roll through with minimum disruption/risk. 3 or 5.

 

[Model 3]

With 2 lines, that's ~5,000 cars per week per line. At some point, it makes sense to add lines.

If I recall correct, there is already 2 lines for the Gen-II cars (S & X). I do not know how many lines they will need for the Model 3, but 3 or 4 is not unlikely. The paint shop is already outsize for about 500k cars.

During the factory tour I recall, there were still a lot of humans along the line, and humans can only move so fast.

We have reasons to believe it will be relative fewer humans along the lines for the Model 3. It is after all designed to be easy to produce, and I interpret that as "easier to automate the production by robots, and require fewer humans to do the things that can not be automated".

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Tesla is the opposite. They care a lot about climate change and not so much about panel gaps.

Someone like Audi who think it is fine to cheat on emissions as long as the gaps are great is the right brand for you.

Look at it like this:

You can get an Audi A3, and maybe even an option package, for the same $35,000 that is the base price of the Model 3.

If Tesla has fit and finish issues, that's going to be a black mark on brand quality.

Elon "gets it", and he knows that the Model 3 has to be everything it was promised to be, and maybe even a little more.

And since we're continually comparing Audi to Tesla now (my fault, most likely), remember that Tesla hired the guy who was in charge of getting the A5, Q5, S5 line to market, among others.

With that hire, Tesla appears to be striving for quantity AND quality. It is possible to have both....

 

[flamingoezz]

wouldn't the A4 be more of parallel in terms of size/class?

the A3 seems tiny and is slower than M3. teslas comes with many safety features standard that other brands offer for $1000+. and, oh yeah...it's electric. M3 is a great value compared to what else is on the market in its price range. I agree quality issues will leave a mark, but do people honestly care enough to wait 4 years for other manufacturers to catch up?..im not so sure.

Look at it like this:

You can get an Audi A3, and maybe even an option package, for the same $35,000 that is the base price of the Model 3.

If Tesla has fit and finish issues, that's going to be a black mark on brand quality.

Elon "gets it", and he knows that the Model 3 has to be everything it was promised to be, and maybe even a little more.

And since we're continually comparing Audi to Tesla now (my fault, most likely), remember that Tesla hired the guy who was in charge of getting the A5, Q5, S5 line to market, among others.

With that hire, Tesla appears to be striving for quantity AND quality. It is possible to have both....

 

[ModelNforNerd]

wouldn't the A4 be more of parallel in terms of size/class?

the A3 seems tiny and is slower than M3. teslas comes with many safety features standard that other brands offer for $1000+. and, oh yeah...it's electric. M3 is a great value compared to what else is on the market in its price range. I agree quality issues will leave a mark, but do people honestly care enough to wait 4 years for other manufacturers to catch up?..im not so sure.

The Model 3 falls into two different categories, thanks to some of the advantages of its chassis.

The interior dimensions line up quite nicely with the A4, because of the ability to stretch out the interior legroom due to lack of firewall, etc.

But exterior-wise, from all I've seen so far, it matches up more closely with the A3 (sedan version).

We need to all get on the same page here. Electric is great...don't get me wrong, but there are other things of value I look at when buying a car. I won't beat it to death on this thread, because there are other threads about what we should expect as basic features in a $35,000 car.

But let's all agree to move away from "it's electric" as the main selling point. Obvious comment is obvious.

AEB and backup cameras are due to become mandatory features soon. Other than its unique construction, what would a base Tesla offer over the competition in safety? Airbags?

 

[garsh]

Other than its unique construction, what would a base Tesla offer over the competition in safety? Airbags?

The extra-large front crumple zone.
The stiffer floor pan (due to battery) to prevent cabin intrusions during side impacts.
The extremely low center of gravity to avoid rollovers.
Maybe that all falls under "unique construction", but as we've seen with the S, it makes a huge difference in safety.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

The extra-large front crumple zone.
The stiffer floor pan (due to battery) to prevent cabin intrusions during side impacts.
The extremely low center of gravity to avoid rollovers.
Maybe that all falls under "unique construction", but as we've seen with the S, it makes a huge difference in safety.

All of that is great, and a huge bonus for us future Model 3 owners, but I think that all falls under unique construction.

None of those are features or options that another OEM could/would charge $1,000 for.

AP Safety features will be standard. I guess you could maybe say that blind spot detection is an option on other vehicles, but included standard within AP Safety features. But we don't even know that for sure yet, do we?

 

[Model 3]

But let's all agree to move away from "it's electric" as the main selling point.

Why? It is after all it's main selling point. That is even the reason that Tesla exists in the first place. What Tesla has done is to give it more selling points, so even people that is not interested in electric propulsion may be interested in getting this car.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Why? It is after all it's main selling point. That is even the reason that Tesla exists in the first place. What Tesla has done is to give it more selling points, so even people that is not interested in electric propulsion may be interested in getting this car.

While you are correct, it's just redundant.

A Tesla is electric? A Toyota is dependable? A Hyundai is terrible?

We've gotten past Tesla being electric. We know it is. And you hit on the point exactly, we should be talking about the OTHER selling points now.

Is it stylish? Is it fast? Is it techy/gadgety? Is it practical? Is it safe?

Basically, throw out the type of propulsion, and ask yourself: Would the average automobile purchaser with ~$45,000 to spend look at an Audi A4, a BMW 5-series, or a Model 3?

THAT'S the $2Billion question.

In terms of EV enthusiasts with that type of income at their disposal, Tesla has more than penetrated the market. We're now disucssing converting those who may not be looking for an EV.

Or to put it in more simple terms, if Tesla as a company did not exist, I would not personally give any EVs on the market a second look.

 

[ohmman]

Meh. The right brand for me is the one that maximizes my wants with the value and quality I expect. No less.

I want what I want and I'll pay what I want?

 

[alseTrick]

Why? It is after all it's main selling point. That is even the reason that Tesla exists in the first place. What Tesla has done is to give it more selling points, so even people that is not interested in electric propulsion may be interested in getting this car.

Not for me. And not for that large segment of the market to which you just referred.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Model 3 falls into two different categories, thanks to some of the advantages of its chassis.

The interior dimensions line up quite nicely with the A4, because of the ability to stretch out the interior legroom due to lack of firewall, etc.

But exterior-wise, from all I've seen so far, it matches up more closely with the A3 (sedan version).

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Here are the dimensions:

A3: 175.0 x 71.0 x 56.0 in
A4: 186.0 x 73.0 x 56.0 in
M3: 184.1 x 74.2 x 56.5 in (from Motor Trend)

The Model 3 is much closer in exterior dimensions to the A4 than the A3.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Here are the dimensions:

A3: 175.0 x 71.0 x 56.0 in
A4: 186.0 x 73.0 x 56.0 in
M3: 184.1 x 74.2 x 56.5 in (from Motor Trend)

The Model 3 is much closer in exterior dimensions to the A4 than the A3.

someone else's WAG on here using 3D modeling software was much closer to the A3. remember....MT wasn't allowed to measure, either. so they're also guessing.