Sandy Munro talks about the teardown of the Model 3

[SMAlset]

Munro does not have much experience with heavy cars that produce lots of torque.

I also like that Tesla decided to protect the battery instead of making it load carrying member.

Call me car ignorant but wouldn't lighter weight cars with lots of torque and quick acceleration tend to lift off the ground at times and fly upwards?

I personally love that my Model 3 feels very seated to the ground, has what I can only assume is very good battery protection from accidents or road debris and handles so well during acceleration and turns. I'm willing to give this issue to Tesla who I believe worked out all kinds of numbers to determine what they needed for the car.

 

[SMAlset]

Hurrah for goal post moving?

It doesn’t require special industry knowledge about electric propulsion to know how much material or welds or fasteners a unibody takes to build.

Nobody here arguing Munro is an idiot has tried to offer an explanation or refutation of Musk interaction with Munro in which Musk brusquely stated that the guy who did the unibody was “an idiot” that Musk fired.

I'm sure Doug Field loved hearing that conversation where they called him out on the show.

 

[voip-ninja]

I'm sure Doug Field loved hearing that conversation where they called him out on the show.

It isn’t completely clear that Doug was the “idiot” being referenced, although that task was under his supervision.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Well, I've seen what he had to say and definitely would like ho hear what else he has to say. Not that I'm an expert myself.

But on the other hand just the fact that you wouldn't even write his name correctly disqualifies you from being taking seriously. And post after post you keep enforcing that impression.

I have followed the guy for a long time and he is definitely not qualified to evaluate cars anymore. He is stuck in the past ….and can't accept new technology or different ways of doing things that are different than the past.

You can insult me all you want. I won't return the favor.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Right, you would just insult someone who is not present here

What?

You are present here.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Have you insulted me already? I must have missed it...

PS I have edited the original post for clarity.

Ok...let me start over.

But on the other hand just the fact that you wouldn't even write his name correctly disqualifies you from being taking seriously. And post after post you keep enforcing that impression.

​

You @aspen can insult me all you want. I am not going to get into insulting you back. I'm above that.

 

[StealthP3D]

Munro is an expert on taking apart vehicles and seeing where they can save money. He compares one companies design against the best.
He feels that the rear section of the Model 3 could be made cheaper, with fewer welds and less material.

Munro said Tesla could have saved some money by making the trunk out of a single "bathtub" stamping of sheet metal instead of four or five sub-assemblies welded together (because most other American sedans have "bathtub" trunks stamped out of sheet metal). What Munro ignores is that Tesla was building a car that was considerable safer and better handling than existing cars and was willing to spend extra money to make the trunk area perform better in a crash and have more rigidity for better cornering and handling while still retaining access to the "basement" trunk which was largely made possible by lack of a fuel tank and exhaust system.

Interestingly, there are standardized crash tests for front impact, side impact, offset frontal impact and roll-over but not for rear impact (which is actually a very common impact). Other manufacturers choose to capitalize on the lack of rear end crash testing by using less steel and a simple sheet metal stamping but this is not the best for safety or handling. The trouble with products today (and this extends far beyond automobiles) is that the bean counters carve away at the product to save $1 here and $1 there. Before you know it, you have a crappy product. The Model 3 is a clean-sheet engineering marvel.

For Munro to criticise the Model 3 for being more rigid and more safe by not saving $20 on the trunk area like other manufacturers do is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Does he really think that Tesla engineers were not aware that it was possible to build the trunk more cheaply if they were willing to compromise on rigidity and crash safety? Just because the testing agencies don't have a test for rear impacts doesn't mean Tesla doesn't care how safe you are if you get rear ended at high speed.

 

[apsen]

I am not going to get into insulting you back. I'm above that.

But not above insulting Munro? I guess you mangling the name of the person is not meant as an insult, right?

 

[StealthP3D]

But not above insulting Munro? I guess you mangling the name of the person is not meant as an insult, right?

You are being too sensitive and are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just accept that not everyone respects Munro and move on.

 

[apsen]

Munro said Tesla could have saved some money by making the trunk out of a single "bathtub" stamping of sheet metal instead of four or five sub-assemblies welded together (because most other American sedans have "bathtub" trunks stamped out of sheet metal). What Munro ignores is that Tesla was building a car that was considerable safer and better handling than existing cars and was willing to spend extra money to make the trunk area perform better in a crash and have more rigidity for better cornering and handling while still retaining access to the "basement" trunk which was largely made possible by lack of a fuel tank and exhaust system.

Interestingly, there are standardized crash tests for front impact, side impact, offset frontal impact and roll-over but not for rear impact (which is actually a very common impact). Other manufacturers choose to capitalize on the lack of rear end crash testing by using less steel and a simple sheet metal stamping but this is not the best for safety or handling. The trouble with products today (and this extends far beyond automobiles) is that the bean counters carve away at the product to save $1 here and $1 there. Before you know it, you have a crappy product. The Model 3 is a clean-sheet engineering marvel.

For Munro to criticise the Model 3 for being more rigid and more safe by not saving $20 on the trunk area like other manufacturers do is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Does he really think that Tesla engineers were not aware that it was possible to build the trunk more cheaply if they were willing to compromise on rigidity and crash safety? Just because the testing agencies don't have a test for rear impacts doesn't mean Tesla doesn't care how safe you are if you get rear ended at high speed.

Which piece are you breferring too?

I haven't seen everything Munro has said but the part I've seen was about ability to simplify design and save money without sacrificing safety.

 

[StealthP3D]

Which piece are referring too?

I haven't seen everything Munro has said but the part I've seen was about ability to simplify design and save money without sacrificing safety.

That's what I'm talking about too. But Munro is obviously unaware of how the trunk sub assemblies are designed to absorb rear impacts while protecting the battery from damage. When a full-sized SUV rear ends you at 65 mph there is a lot of energy to absorb and a simple sheet metal bathtub, while being less expensive, is not going to perform as well as the engineered subassemblies that are welded together on the Model 3. The fact that they don't do rear end crash testing doesn't mean it's not an important part of building a safe car.

Would you want your chiildren or loved ones in the back seat of a car made to such a tight price point they decided rear end crash safety didn't matter since no one tested for it? I guarantee the back seat of the Model 3 is safer because of those welded sub-assemblies.

Why Munro couldn't see that probably explains why people like to call him a moron. Because it's his job to understand things like that.

 

[apsen]

You are being too sensitive and are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just accept that not everyone respects Munro and move on.

Not respecting someone is one thing but starting your argument by insulting the opponent undermines said argument out of the gate. But even then I would have ignored it if he had something substantial to say later.

It was stupid of me to try to point that out to him and not expect the conversation to degrade. I tried to edit my posts to soften the language but that was pointless so I am guilty of that.

 

[StealthP3D]

Not respecting someone is one thing but starting your argument by insulting the opponent undermines said argument out of the gate. But even then I would have ignored it if he had something substantial to say later.

Munro wasn't his opponent, you were.

 

[apsen]

That's what I'm talking about too. But Munro is obviously unaware of how the trunk sub assemblies are designed to absorb rear impacts while protecting the battery from damage. When a full-sized SUV rear ends you at 65 mph there is a lot of energy to absorb and a simple sheet metal bathtub, while being less expensive, is not going to perform as well as the engineered subassemblies that are welded together on the Model 3. The fact that they don't do rear end crash testing doesn't mean it's not an important part of building a safe car.

Would you want your chiildren or loved ones in the back seat of a car made to such a tight price point they decided rear end crash safety didn't matter since no one tested for it? I guarantee the back seat of the Model 3 is safer because of those welded sub-assemblies.

Why Munro couldn't see that probably explains why people like to call him a moron. Because it's his job to understand things like that.

You may be right but I doubt it. Watching the interviews with him I see that there is a lot of reasoning and details behind what he says that doesn't get explained/voiced so it looks weaker than it actually is. I think he is mostly an engineer and not talker and that hurts his presentation but you also can't go into all the technical explanations on this shows.

For example see the bit about composites.

 

[apsen]

Munro wasn't his opponent, you were.

His very first post on this thread (#16) was about Munro. I came much later.

 

[apsen]

That's what I'm talking about too. But Munro is obviously unaware of how the trunk sub assemblies are designed to absorb rear impacts while protecting the battery from damage. When a full-sized SUV rear ends you at 65 mph there is a lot of energy to absorb and a simple sheet metal bathtub, while being less expensive, is not going to perform as well as the engineered subassemblies that are welded together on the Model 3. The fact that they don't do rear end crash testing doesn't mean it's not an important part of building a safe car.

Would you want your chiildren or loved ones in the back seat of a car made to such a tight price point they decided rear end crash safety didn't matter since no one tested for it? I guarantee the back seat of the Model 3 is safer because of those welded sub-assemblies.

Why Munro couldn't see that probably explains why people like to call him a moron. Because it's his job to understand things like that.

And another thing is that no one seems willing to call Munro a liar by disputing his remark about Musk. So unless Munro is a liar Musk agrees with him.

 

[voip-ninja]

Munro said Tesla could have saved some money by making the trunk out of a single "bathtub" stamping of sheet metal instead of four or five sub-assemblies welded together (because most other American sedans have "bathtub" trunks stamped out of sheet metal). What Munro ignores is that Tesla was building a car that was considerable safer and better handling than existing cars and was willing to spend extra money to make the trunk area perform better in a crash and have more rigidity for better cornering and handling while still retaining access to the "basement" trunk which was largely made possible by lack of a fuel tank and exhaust system.

Interestingly, there are standardized crash tests for front impact, side impact, offset frontal impact and roll-over but not for rear impact (which is actually a very common impact). Other manufacturers choose to capitalize on the lack of rear end crash testing by using less steel and a simple sheet metal stamping but this is not the best for safety or handling. The trouble with products today (and this extends far beyond automobiles) is that the bean counters carve away at the product to save $1 here and $1 there. Before you know it, you have a crappy product. The Model 3 is a clean-sheet engineering marvel.

For Munro to criticise the Model 3 for being more rigid and more safe by not saving $20 on the trunk area like other manufacturers do is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Does he really think that Tesla engineers were not aware that it was possible to build the trunk more cheaply if they were willing to compromise on rigidity and crash safety? Just because the testing agencies don't have a test for rear impacts doesn't mean Tesla doesn't care how safe you are if you get rear ended at high speed.

Except that Musk apparently acknowledges that the design was overly complicated and expensive.

Musk also told all Tesla employees to find ways to save a dollar anywhere in production they could and literally said something along the lines of “this is a game of find $20”.

 

[StealthP3D]

Except that Musk apparently acknowledges that the design was overly complicated and expensive.

There is no evidence that Musk's comment was intended to apply to the rear crumple zone. Certainly, there are elements of the Model 3 that could be improved to simplify production without impacting safety or quality.

Musk also told all Tesla employees to find ways to save a dollar anywhere in production they could and literally said something along the lines of “this is a game of find $20”.

That's just smart manufacturing to try to reduce wasteful steps. But it shouldn't be taken to mean that he was looking for ways to save money at the expense of safety or quality of the finished product. Munro's comment on the "bathtub" trunk was simply ignorance making itself known. He's so full of himself he can't even see how it comes across.

 

[ArizonaP85]

Other manufacturers choose to capitalize on the lack of rear end crash testing by using less steel and a simple sheet metal stamping but this is not the best for safety or handling. The trouble with products today (and this extends far beyond automobiles) is that the bean counters carve away at the product to save $1 here and $1 there. Before you know it, you have a crappy product. The Model 3 is a clean-sheet engineering marvel.

For Munro to criticise the Model 3 for being more rigid and more safe by not saving $20 on the trunk area like other manufacturers do is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Does he really think that Tesla engineers were not aware that it was possible to build the trunk more cheaply if they were willing to compromise on rigidity and crash safety? Just because the testing agencies don't have a test for rear impacts doesn't mean Tesla doesn't care how safe you are if you get rear ended at high speed.

This isn't true: Ford, for one, after well-publicized post-crash fires, crash-tested both the Crown Victoria and later police Taurus in 75 mph rear crashes and published the results and videos. Ford met the 75 mph rear-end crash safety standard without numerous welded subassemblies. Tesla would have been wise to use both Munro's recommended design program as well as examining how Ford met a very high speed rear crash safety standard with a lighter weight and simpler manufacturing process. Tesla wants to build 500,000 Model 3s per year for years to come: how many pennies per car would it have cost them to poach a Ford police vehicle engineer or two? "Clean sheet" design has advantages but there's also no need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[StealthP3D]

And another thing is that no one seems willing to call Munro a liar by disputing his remark about Musk. So unless Munro is a liar Musk agrees with him.

I've learned not to jump to such large conclusions or make overly broad deductions from limited evidence. Certainly, there were aspects of the Model 3 that Musk wasn't happy with and needed to be redesigned but to imply that his displeasure with one design engineer means Musk agrees with all of Munro's criticisms is just plain silly in the extreme.

Some people here remind me of a prize-fighter who has a single-minded focus of looking for a good opportunity to get a jab in. There entire purpose of being here is to make Tesla look incompetent or to put their products in a bad light.