ℬête Noire
Active Member
There's more than that. This one makes four that I'm aware of. The third one is rather lengthy, it's about the first 45 minutes of an episode of the talking head goober's show.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Munro Teardown Shows Model 3 Profitable With 30%+ Margins
- Thread starter Singuy
- Start date
Actually that episode had more Tesla content after they said "okay lets move on". The last half of the video was also about the Tesla Model 3 with some sponsorship videos in between. The most impressive part of the second half is their analysis on the voltage variation of the batteries being ridiculously small to the point of them thinking it's some alien technology.
While I would enjoy reading the report, I would much rather buy three Model 3s and give them to friends
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Munro is a passionate guy prone to setting his hair on fire, and I think he's got something of a big picture blindspot, however push-comes-to-shove he'll follow numbers.
Here's the 3rd video, it is about the first 45-50min (the rest gets into some industry scuttlebutt about Cadillac C-suit stuff, etc). EDIT: Singuy.....says I missed some of it. So I need to recheck the end I guess. Oops. EDIT:Okay, there was about 5 min at the end talking a bit production and a bit of rumour mongering tossed in.
I don't think Sandy has quite put together what and why Tesla's path has been like this but if you listen closely to him I think he's a good source of some of the pieces for putting together what's going on.
Last edited:
Yes, sandy seemed to be very excited about the electronics in first video, actually seemed to be warning those who don’t see this, now he seems even more flabbergasted that they can do this for profit.. in fact the only negative thing he has to say is about fit and fisnish, which I believe this was an earlier car, and I hear that’s gotten much better. The “talking head goober” guy just really loves his ICE cars though, and it all seems to go over his head....this is looking like yetanother short thesis busted....
ℬête Noire
Active Member
It'd be interesting to see what kind of results came out of running his FFQ tape measure over a July 2018 Model 3. Where they are at now, in some objective measured way.
Musk has said they've even been doing relatively significant design iterations on their spot weld patterns, which'd further drop the manufacturing costs. Little wonder what Munro found in those early-shipped cars made no sense to him, it's cars done Silicon Valley style.
That tear down was a German or European company. And u bet that’s why Munro prob wanted to get word out that they came to same conclusion. It is great to see this unfold because it’s the best most objective teardownreview I’ve seen.
Last edited:
Basically, this well respected auto industry tear down expert(and his credentials are great), is giving a glowing review, yet he doesn’t want to hurt his rep with his other customers?
I wasn't terribly impressed with his first take at the 3. His fit and finish eval was probably on-track as it was an earlier 3, and it's no secret there was room for improvement... and they indeed made such. But he seemed to not be on top of several items or was flat out incorrect:
- The fusible links to each cell aren't contactors
- The parallel/series (not "serial") call layout isn't primarily to insulate against a dying cell "like Christmas tree lights"
- The cells not being inverted is because the positive and negative connections are made up top
- His take on the PCB for autopilot seems as if he hasn't seen much in the way of modern board design
- His dismisses things for which he doesn't understand their purpose (body design, etc..) as a negative
Since then he's gotten quite a bit of flack and I'd bet has had pointed out where he flubbed some of this up. Elon has publicly referring to the German teardown and estimate being pretty spot on, as opposed to this one.
I almost feel like the 180 that's being done, along with the crow dining admission, is somewhat reactionary. Nonetheless it still feels to me like he's a bit out of his element on this.
His example of the "integration of the electronics" cost comparison being a real cost saver is the rearview mirror. The 3's is vastly cheaper, but it's comparing apple-to-oranges... as the other cars have gizmos incorporated in to theirs (like the Bolt's LCD screen). He refers to "taking advantage of things already in the car elsewhere" as being an example of this integration, but any manufacturer can incorporate a standard mirror, and use the already-present dash display. As an aside, I have no idea, but $30 as an OEM cost for a simple mirror that's going to be bought in 6 digit quantities per year seems expensive...
A real insightful example of the electronics integration advantage would be to compare lie components: drive inverters, DC-DC units, control systems, etc... He had them lying right there on the table. It's probably in his paid0for report.
He also gets his cell volume calculation wrong (although he could be speaking casually). This means his size-to-power # is also off.
So, it's encouraging to see another opinion that the 3 will have the profit margins anticipated. But these guys doen't seem terribly on their game. And the Autoline guy feels like he'd make a better disk jockey Spinnin' The Hits...
- The fusible links to each cell aren't contactors
- The parallel/series (not "serial") call layout isn't primarily to insulate against a dying cell "like Christmas tree lights"
- The cells not being inverted is because the positive and negative connections are made up top
- His take on the PCB for autopilot seems as if he hasn't seen much in the way of modern board design
- His dismisses things for which he doesn't understand their purpose (body design, etc..) as a negative
Since then he's gotten quite a bit of flack and I'd bet has had pointed out where he flubbed some of this up. Elon has publicly referring to the German teardown and estimate being pretty spot on, as opposed to this one.
I almost feel like the 180 that's being done, along with the crow dining admission, is somewhat reactionary. Nonetheless it still feels to me like he's a bit out of his element on this.
His example of the "integration of the electronics" cost comparison being a real cost saver is the rearview mirror. The 3's is vastly cheaper, but it's comparing apple-to-oranges... as the other cars have gizmos incorporated in to theirs (like the Bolt's LCD screen). He refers to "taking advantage of things already in the car elsewhere" as being an example of this integration, but any manufacturer can incorporate a standard mirror, and use the already-present dash display. As an aside, I have no idea, but $30 as an OEM cost for a simple mirror that's going to be bought in 6 digit quantities per year seems expensive...
A real insightful example of the electronics integration advantage would be to compare lie components: drive inverters, DC-DC units, control systems, etc... He had them lying right there on the table. It's probably in his paid0for report.
He also gets his cell volume calculation wrong (although he could be speaking casually). This means his size-to-power # is also off.
So, it's encouraging to see another opinion that the 3 will have the profit margins anticipated. But these guys doen't seem terribly on their game. And the Autoline guy feels like he'd make a better disk jockey Spinnin' The Hits...
TT97
Active Member
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Not in automobiles, which is the point.
I think you're missing the point here, too. Tesla was able to avoid the expense of having a separate (and really cool AKA complicated AKA expensive) LCD display built into the rear view mirror by utilizing the multi-purpose main screen. ** It's an example of them centralizing the control system while making it ubiquitous, allowing much simpler (AKA cheaper) physical designs.
** Last year Tesla demo'd this, and I know the Model S does this. Is that feature live on the shipping software build of the Model 3?
Last edited:
Well, not quite... that was the first episode, and in that he said something to the effect of "you don't see design like this except in military jet aircraft", or something like that. My point was that I don't think he's seen a run-of-the-mill video card these days.
I get that it's not that way in automobiles... but Monroe seemed to think that "standard" board densities were something from Area 51.
Maybe you missed in that same paragraph where I said, "...any manufacturer can incorporate a standard mirror, and use the already-present dash display."
And indeed, many do. That's my point... that's not an example of novel electronics packaging.
I just spent an hour and 15 minutes watching this video, until it switched to a discussion about a Cadillac guy, and I must say, this discussion is absolutely fascinating. This guy Munro is pointing out the good, the bad and the ugly about the two Model 3s he dissected. I'm guessing that these are February or March vintage builds, which he spent March/April dissecting and had most of his report prepared by early May.
If you listen until the end, you find out that he's not saying that Tesla M3 bodies are ALL poorly put together -- the fit and finish that he compares to that of a '90s Kia -- but that the results are inconsistent. Some cars are coming out well put together and others aren't. He identifies specific techniques and processes that he feels are standard across most of the auto industry for guaranteeing reliable quality and consistent results. Now, it may very well be that in the process of re-thinking everything that Tesla has opted for ways to put the body together that ultimately will yield even better results. But even if that's the case, Munro isn't seeing that result yet.
He points to specific cases, such as the use of extra body panels, that puzzle him greatly because in his opinion they add weight but don't add any strength. That, of course, would be a design issue, not just a build issue.
At the same time, it becomes clear that he's quite excited about the Model 3 and seems genuinely interested in having his feedback be used to improve the car. Maybe that's just the desire to have another customer, but the emotional overtone is surprisingly enthusiastic. You might start off believing that his only mission in life is to report bad news about the Model 3, but that turns out not to be the case at all. He is especially scathing about his belief that Detroit is ignoring the technological advances in M3 (such as the electronics) "at its peril". Unlike the body work, which he repeatedly states could be fixed by hiring the right guy or the right firm (such as his), he clearly does NOT believe that Detroit can similarly raise its capabilities with the electronics "overnight" (my word).
Munro also surprised me by stating that he thinks the Model 3 is a sexy car, beautiful, words like that. He referred to the Bolt as looking like more or less a standard car in its class and thought the i3 looked horrid (my word, don't remember precisely which word he used).
My summary of this video is that he regards Model 3 as great to drive, something close to earth-shattering with its battery pack and electronics, and inconsistent/deficient with respect to body build / assembly quality.
Alan
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Not novel, but a good example of multi-purpose and integrated. If it was the only example in the Model 3 Munro would have skipped it, but I think we can all agree that Tesla saves a lot of money by building a simple dash with a nice screen that has most of the UI.
I agree with @ℬête, Munro was comparing Tesla Electronics to the competition, not to Nvidia.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
That's your characterization and I feel it's poor one that strips a lot of context that suggests he was talking about vehicles. Yes, he's using his background for context. Rather than talking about computer industry, outside his work industry. That maybe is your source of confusion?
See above.
My Bolt doesn't do rear camera display on the dash at speed. At least I don't know how to get it up there? It's rather quirky to get up at all.
EDIT: Also, when the camera output comes up it is fullscreen only, no PIP.
He says, of the Model 3's drive computers"
...this is the type of stuff you see on computers for the government or something..."
"...you are looking at the same type of technology you'd see on a flight controller for an F-35..."
"...everything here you see smacks of defense technology..."
Those are direct quotes from the earlier tear down video
So yes.... he's not seen that on other cars. But anybody who's opened a $500 PC has seen similar tech, without having a Top Secret clearance and/or worked for Lockheed's Skunk Works.
That's rather my point: he's aware of antiquated auto tech, but a bit out of his league when it comes to the current state of the art in electronics.
My Bolt doesn't do rear camera display on the dash at speed. At least I don't know how to get it up there? It's rather quirky to get up at all.
EDIT: Also, when the camera output comes up it is fullscreen only, no PIP.
*Sigh*... that's my point. The Bolt doesn't, so they integrated an expensive mirror, and thus it's a silly comparison point. My buddy's Ford Fusion pops the rear view on the already-present LCD dislpay in the dash, as does every other car over $20K, so holding that up as an example of Model 3 integrated electronics driving cost savings is a little silly.
(oh and incidentally, in the first video he says the 2170's are 50% larger than the 18650's... in this latest he says 20%. Both are incorrect).
Last edited:
My point is just about every medium priced car under the sun (that has a rear view cam) already leverages the in dash infotainment screen to display the rear cam view. So to claim the 3 is somehow set apart as leveraging this for cost savings is a rather lame example when there's a pretty spiffy integrated inverter/power-electronics module that is unique... or having a motor that uses the heat produced in a 0-RPM state with the fields excited to generate heat for the battery conditioning... now THAT'S innovative...
Last edited:
ord3r
Member
I think the Bolt mirror is used to make a point on how Tesla saved money by putting everything into one touch screen/MCU unit, and so can shave costs with low functionality components everywhere else.
