[Rumor] Significant Engineering Issues with Model 3

[stopcrazypp]

Not saying that has not happened but IMO the effectiveness of TMC for that has been diminishing. Seeking Alpha is different...

Eds was not the only accurate leakster for Model X. The conelessness for example was leaked beforehand.

TMC is exactly the kind of place where someone who has heard something would create an anonymous account and share that info. I almost feel a new poster is more likely a real source than an old account...

I'm talking about unsubstantiated negative rumors, not positive or neutral news. TMC is still a target area to influence Tesla owners (and some Tesla investors). Seeking Alpha is more general purpose. And leaking here still gives ambiguity about motivation, on Seeking Alpha would scream that it is stock motivated.

 

[alseTrick]

Okie dokie

One man's wad is another man's stretch pants.

I'm not berating someone because I'd rather be a tool than accept the fact that Tesla isn't perfect.

Guess you missed:

**From what I've heard, I shouldn't expect Tesla to do that. So, I'm not. But that's what I think should happen.**

Sounds like a reasonable response to me.

 

[Waiting4M3]

True, though this was portrayed as a hardware issue that came from "simplifying" the components from the Model S/X. Currently a ten percent failure rate. My friend made it seem like it would have to be a hardware fix.

Just a 10% fail rate?

Design the fix now, go ahead with the 1st 10K of employee card build as-is, and get the fix ready by Aug-Sep before mass-release starts. This gives them 5 months to fix it without impacting the schedule. In the worst case, fix the 1K or so employee cars that need to be fixed. Or even hold off on delivering 10% of those employee cars, take a temporary 10% gross margin hit in Q3, then fix them in Sep, sell them and get the money back.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm talking about unsubstantiated negative rumors, not positive or neutral news. TMC is still a target area to influence Tesla owners (and some Tesla investors). Seeking Alpha is more general purpose. And leaking here still gives ambiguity about motivation, on Seeking Alpha would scream that it is stock motivated.

Why would positive or neutral news be any different? Not only are negative news also interesting (world filled with just positive or neutral news is not real), they are not any less trustworthy than positive or neutral ones are...

Positive attempts at influence are just as possible and possibly just as likely as negative attempts. There are plenty of people who would benefit from (even fake) positive news for TSLA on TMC too. And there are plenty of people who may be well meaning but are just wrong about stuff... even about positive or neutral stuff...

That said, every post should be treated with reasonable scepticism, good or bad. And then factored into our thinking according to its potential value, offset by risk of false info of course.

 

[sigmo32]

10% failure rate - could mean 10% of the "part" made are complete junk, or that 10% are simply below acceptable tolerances. The first points to a systemic design issue (part is too hard to fabricate reliably), the latter a production tweaking issue (tighten tolerances, earlier QC). Would be helpful to narrow down the exact part if you want to have productive discussions about this.

 

[FlyF4]

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
Robin

Hee hee hee.... that's a good one. But I am a dog. And an intelligent one too. Just look at my glasses

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why would positive or neutral news be any different? Not only are negative news also interesting (world filled with just positive or neutral news is not real), they are not any less trustworthy than positive or neutral ones are...

Positive attempts at influence are just as possible and possibly just as likely as negative attempts. There are plenty of people who would benefit from (even fake) positive news for TSLA on TMC too. And there are plenty of people who may be well meaning but are just wrong about stuff... even about positive or neutral stuff...

That said, every post should be treated with reasonable scepticism, good or bad. And then factored into our thinking according to its potential value, offset by risk of false info of course.

I thought it would be balatantly obvious that shorts would focus on negative rumors. I was discussing in that context.

As for likelihood of fake positive rumors, I would not say there is equal likelihood. The manufacturer already focuses on positive news and spin (many times timed perfectly for stocks), so there is much less need to make fake positive rumors.

The negative end is completely different. It completely depends on independent reporting, so a much stronger motivation exists for releasing fake negative rumors.

 

[ariaga]

Just a 10% fail rate?

Design the fix now, go ahead with the 1st 10K of employee card build as-is, and get the fix ready by Aug-Sep before mass-release starts. This gives them 5 months to fix it without impacting the schedule. In the worst case, fix the 1K or so employee cars that need to be fixed. Or even hold off on delivering 10% of those employee cars, take a temporary 10% gross margin hit in Q3, then fix them in Sep, sell them and get the money back.

You're likely oversimplifying the situation. For one, you're missing the crucial step of root cause analysis that must be done before you can design a fix. Root cause analysis could easily take days or months depending on the nature of the problem. The only thing you could design in the meantime is a workaround. The usual risk to treating a problem as strictly a "yield" issue and taking the profit margin hit is that it's hard to be confident the other 90% are actually good components and it's not a design issue. For example, part screening could be flagging 10% of the parts as bad while the other 90% still have the same design issue that would manifest itself later in the field once under temperature/shock/vibration stress.

 

[ZeApelido]

You're likely oversimplifying the situation. For one, you're missing the crucial step of root cause analysis that must be done before you can design a fix. Root cause analysis could easily take days or months depending on the nature of the problem. The only thing you could design in the meantime is a workaround. The usual risk to treating a problem as strictly a "yield" issue and taking the profit margin hit is that it's hard to be confident the other 90% are actually good components and it's not a design issue. For example, part screening could be flagging 10% of the parts as bad while the other 90% still have the same design issue that would manifest itself later in the field once under temperature/shock/vibration stress.

Yes, the main issue that made me concerned enough to share this information was that it seems the root cause analysis has not been completed yet, and my source did not show confidence that a fix would be done on time. Tesla of course has a lot of talent in electrical systems so hopefully they fix it by the end of summer.

 

[Topher]

I am a fan/investor so I am not rooting for this, but wanted to let you know what I heard.

This is something most trolls, astroturfers, and shorts say. Very few others do.

to me, its plausible information in a plausible manner.

Up your levels of skepticism, if vague info from a vague source meets yours.

so there is much less need to make fake positive rumors.

And yet, we see it all the time here...
[though admittedly, not usually maliciously started]

Thank you kindly.

 

[thegruf]

if they had all the problems solved, they would be building Model 3s already

information or misinformation; move on - there's no news here

 

[timk225]

We must remember that defective parts won't be a TESLA problem, as such. They will be a supplier problem. Just because a certain part has issues does not mean that all Tesla stuff is junk. And once Tesla finds the problems and fixes them, all will be well.

 

[HabitualUser]

These types of stories always make me laugh. Even if true, who cares? Did anyone think there weren't going to be production delays? $TSLA stock will spasm and come back the same day...

And even in the case of Model X with it's serious issues and delays, it didn't mean anything towards the overall MX story. So some people had to wait a few months longer to get their signature or early pre-order. Big deal. Do the initial delays mean anything to current MX buyers? Of course not.

 

[Chopr147]

Whew! I'm glad I skipped from page 1 to page 6 on this post. No difference. Half arse rumors of a possible design flaw in the finnigan pin to the doo-dad or thingamajig. Moving on

 

[smak]

I'm the last guy to know what guys in to the manufacture of a car, but common sense tells you problems like this are already built into the delivery time frame.

Maybe Elon's different, maybe he imagined production would start based on every possible scenario going 100% perfectly, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[eisbock]

We must remember that defective parts won't be a TESLA problem, as such. They will be a supplier problem. Just because a certain part has issues does not mean that all Tesla stuff is junk. And once Tesla finds the problems and fixes them, all will be well.

A supplier problem is a Tesla problem.

 

[JeffK]

Tesla of course has a lot of talent in electrical systems so hopefully they fix it by the end of summer.

So is this confirmation that it's the new power electronics?

 

[dsvick]

So is this confirmation that it's the new power electronics?

I think it more likely that it's confirmation that he's going to just keep dropping little tidbits of non-information in order to keep this thread going longer than is really warranted.

 

[Bokonon]

I think it more likely that it's confirmation that he's going to just keep dropping little tidbits of non-information in order to keep this thread going longer than is really warranted.

These types of games usually end like this:

 

[brucet999]

Why?

That sentence alone shows you're almost certainly lying.

OK, I must be a dunce, because I can't see how the sentence, "I am a fan/investor so I am not rooting for this, but wanted to let you know what I heard.", is proof of anything. Please explain your logic?