Sandy Munro talks about the teardown of the Model 3

[apsen]

Once you believe something you are like the Energizer Bunny - you can't quit.

OK, one item, how about that the Model 3 couldn't be built profitably. Then it would have 30% margins. That's the first thing that came to mind - there were others too. That's what eating crow is - admission you were wrong.

I must have missed him saying it cannot be built profitably. Could you point me to that?

 

[StealthP3D]

I must have missed him saying it cannot be built profitably. Could you point me to that?

It's in his video - I'm not going to review them all to find it.

 

[apsen]

According to Sandy Munro, everything about the Model 3 from its suspension, all the way to its battery pack, are industry-leading

Are you saying that this means there're no problems with fit, finish, and body?

As we noted in a previous article, Munro gave the Model 3 a brutal critique of the car’s fit and finish and its safety features, even noting at one point that he could not imagine how Tesla could release such a vehicle to the market.

Are you trying to say this part contradicts the part above?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Are you saying that this means there're no problems with fit, finish, and body?




Are you trying to say this part contradicts the part above?

LOL...

Read the article. Titled "Tesla Model 3 critic has change of heart after test drive"

 

[apsen]

It's in his video - I'm not going to review them all to find it.

Didn't think so...

So apart from your misrepresentation we have nothing else to go on.

Or does anyone else knows what he is talking about? Please prove me to be mistaken.

 

[ricohman]

Did the Talon have an open center diff?

The car I’m referring to had a VCE with a 4 spider diff. But I imagine there have been many improvements since then.

 

[mongo]

Didn't think so...

So apart from your misrepresentation we have nothing else to go on.

Or does anyone else knows what he is talking about? Please prove me to be mistaken.

At least spend 60 seconds to do a Google search...

From April
Munro Tesla Model 3 Teardown Report Provokes Tesla | CleanTechnica

In summary, Munro thinks Tesla could make money on fully optioned Model 3s, but he is skeptical it can do so with base model cars that sell for $35,000 plus a $1,000 delivery charge. “There’s nothing here that says ‘save money,’” he says. “I think $36,000 Model 3s will be rare as hen’s teeth. I don’t see how they could make money at $36,000.”

From October:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Munro’s team sees the fully-loaded Model 3 as a car with the potential to make 30 percent gross margins, with 10 percent margins on the cheapest versions.

The Model 3 that got the tear-down treatment was a $50,000 version with a black paint job. Munro estimated the total cost to build was $34,700. Adding in logistics costs and a generous assumption for labor, Munro estimates that gross profit margins would exceed 30 percent.

A cheaper version of the Model 3 examined by his team would cost less than $30,000 to build, Munro said, because the smaller battery is less expensive and some other equipment would come out of the car.

 

[StealthP3D]

Didn't think so...

So apart from your misrepresentation we have nothing else to go on.

Or does anyone else knows what he is talking about? Please prove me to be mistaken.

I didn't misrepresent anything. Here is the video where he admits he was wrong about Model 3 not being profitable.

Go to 2:53 (where he admits he was wrong and it can be built profitably after all). If you want the original video he references here (where he said he didn't think it could be built profitably) you'll have to do your own legwork.

But I'm not sure why anyone would even argue he never said that in the first place. Only if you haven't been following him. And I wish I hadn't because he's as wishy-washy as a top-loading washing machine. He's been wrong more often than a $TSLA short-seller. And that's saying a lot!

 

[mongo]

I didn't misrepresent anything. Here is the video where he admits he was wrong about Model 3 not being profitable.


It's all cued up to the relevant part (where he admits he was wrong and it can be built profitably after all) so you don't have to do anything but sit on your butt. If you want the original video he references here (where he said he didn't think it could be built profitably) you'll have to do your own legwork.

But I'm not sure why anyone would even argue he never said that in the first place. Only if you haven't been following him. And I wish I hadn't because he's as wishy-washy as a top-loading washing machine. He's been wrong more often than a $TSLA short-seller. And that's saying a lot!

TMC strips off the time tag.

 

[ricohman]

I don't agree with the in depth guys on the fact that they believe buyers of the Model 3 do not care about body panel alignment. I would assume this is slowly being sorted however some new model X and S owners are still struggling with assembly issues.
I would refuse a car that had a mismatch of panels. Considering it is over 90K in Canada it should be equal to other cars in its price range, or cheaper for that matter. No excuse once the line has been running for over a year. Perhaps the most enthused Tesla fans will accept this or perhaps they have never owned a new car etc. But many future buyers are going to expect a certain level of fit and finish.
After the initial surge for buying is over, Tesla is going to have to sell cars like any other maker. And competition is coming sooner or later. And the competition knows how to build a car. My new F450 King Ranch has an acre of paint and panels. Not a spec of dust or misalignment.
Now before anyone jumps in and says I am bashing Tesla, I am not. I expect mine to be perfect.
Still wish it had a HUD though.

 

[JeffC]

Seriously... Crash tests prove that the car is not overbuilt? If they prove anything at all it is that it IS overbuilt.

And for those with comprehension problems I'll rephrase it another way: I'm saying that the crash tests do not actually prove anything. They do provide weak evidence that the car is not catastrophically underbuilt. It could still be underbuilt in some way and overbuilt in other. There are multiple points that prove Munro's credibility as evidenced by unrelated events some of which were already presented on this thread and none to the contrary. It is possible that Tesla intentionally built in higher margins into the car but that doesn't invalidate Munro's statement. That just means that they consciously have chosen the trade off point. We do have several points of data that suggest that the level to which the car been overbuilt was not the intention of Tesla.

There's no way we will ever know the truth not to mention that it is in the eye of the beholder but trying to assassinate the Munro's credibility just because you do not like what he says... You may not agree with his conclusions and that is fine. But if you are claiming he is a fraud you better provide evidence. So far there was none.

To be clear, are you saying that you want the car to perform worse in crashes? Because that's what you're implying.

I say the proof is in the results, which are measurably excellent. Model 3 has the lowest probability of injury ever measured by NHTSA. That is a measureable, objective fact. That result happened by careful, deliberate design on Tesla's part (probably including the supposedly overbuilt body), not by cost cutting by Munro.

Yes, there is a tradeoff in cost/weight versus safety. I think Telsa made the right tradeoff if it's biased slightly towards safety. If the car is a few kilograms heavier but saves even one life or prevents one major injury, it's probably worth it.

YMMV.

(As we know, EV makers try to reduce weight in order to compensate for the high mass of the battery pack. Tesla is no exception in that regard. All EVs, including Model 3, would likely be heavier without extensive weight savings efforts. Due to fuel economy requirements, all modern cars do employ weight savings, but it's even more important in EVs in order to improve range.)

 

[mongo]

I don't agree with the in depth guys on the fact that they believe buyers of the Model 3 do not care about body panel alignment. I would assume this is slowly being sorted however some new model X and S owners are still struggling with assembly issues.
I would refuse a car that had a mismatch of panels. Considering it is over 90K in Canada it should be equal to other cars in its price range, or cheaper for that matter. No excuse once the line has been running for over a year. Perhaps the most enthused Tesla fans will accept this or perhaps they have never owned a new car etc. But many future buyers are going to expect a certain level of fit and finish.
After the initial surge for buying is over, Tesla is going to have to sell cars like any other maker. And competition is coming sooner or later. And the competition knows how to build a car. My new F450 King Ranch has an acre of paint and panels. Not a spec of dust or misalignment.
Now before anyone jumps in and says I am bashing Tesla, I am not. I expect mine to be perfect.
Still wish it had a HUD though.

Do you have adaptive cruise on your 450? I find having that to curb my speed more than makes up for the HUD we lost switching from the old SUV (which didn't work well with sunglasses).

 

[JeffC]

I don't agree with the in depth guys on the fact that they believe buyers of the Model 3 do not care about body panel alignment. I would assume this is slowly being sorted however some new model X and S owners are still struggling with assembly issues.
I would refuse a car that had a mismatch of panels. Considering it is over 90K in Canada it should be equal to other cars in its price range, or cheaper for that matter. No excuse once the line has been running for over a year. Perhaps the most enthused Tesla fans will accept this or perhaps they have never owned a new car etc. But many future buyers are going to expect a certain level of fit and finish.
After the initial surge for buying is over, Tesla is going to have to sell cars like any other maker. And competition is coming sooner or later. And the competition knows how to build a car. My new F450 King Ranch has an acre of paint and panels. Not a spec of dust or misalignment.
Now before anyone jumps in and says I am bashing Tesla, I am not. I expect mine to be perfect.
Still wish it had a HUD though.

Body panel alignment of recent Model 3s is much better than early ones. I took pictures of many cars showing that, which I have not published.

Telsa did adjust my body panels under warranty, as they have done for others. Most people probably would not have noticed or cared about the few slight misalignments. More recent cars may have better gaps.

Interestingly in the earlier days of Model 3, Tesla would adjust any body panels customers asked for. By the time I got mine, Tesla had a set of written specifications for panel gaps, and would only adjust ones that fell outside that range. My service technician used a panel gap template to measure the gaps and only adjusted certain ones. The result is fine.

 

[moridin2002]

Regarding total traction and straight line acceleration in a dual motor EV, the weight on the rear vs front drive wheel is (mostly due to nonlinear grip transfer function) immaterial.
If talking about a rear wheel drive only car, or cornering, then it is a factor.

Non-linear tire friction curve renders it highly material. You lose more grip per pound of vertical force removed than gained on the other tire (or axle in the case of pitch and heave) of per pound of vertical force added. That's why we don't put 2000lbs of lead on the right side of a NASCAR vehicle to make it go faster around the oval.

 

[Roentgen]

To be clear, are you saying that you want the car to perform worse in crashes? Because that's what you're implying.

Yes, there is a tradeoff in cost/weight versus safety. I think Telsa made the right tradeoff if it's biased slightly towards safety. If the car is a few kilograms heavier but saves even one life or prevents one major injury, it's probably worth it.

The problem with this statement is that nobody knows whether the tradeoff is slight, or massive. Nobody knows whether its a few grams, kilograms, or hundreds of kilograms of potential weight savings.

Our cars are 1st generations (maybe 1.5 if you want to count RWD as 1.0). Do you really think there's no opportunity for better optimization? I can't think of any 1st generation things that didn't get better with subsequent iterations.

I agree it's a tradeoff, and I am also glad my car is safer than less. But a Model 3 that can perform just as well on crash safety, with a slightly less overbuilt frame can benefit from improved range and handling from less mass. Or if you want to keep weight equal, you can build in a bigger battery pack which would still improve the car all around.

All this talk about Munro and his qualifications only distracts from the above. I've only watched the most recent Munro/Autoline video, and I thought he was very impressed with Tesla (and the Model 3) as a whole rather than not so his criticism of the frame didn't seem to me particularly out of line.

 

[mongo]

Non-linear tire friction curve renders it highly material. You lose more grip per pound of vertical force removed than gained on the other tire (or axle in the case of pitch and heave) of per pound of vertical force added. That's why we don't put 2000lbs of lead on the right side of a NASCAR vehicle to make it go faster around the oval.

If you go up the chain, what I was replying to was

Race cars depend on weight transfer for traction. Remember the feeling you get when you start spinning the rears at 70 mph and you have to feather the skinny pedal?
That is because you have lost the weight transfer.
.

Which implies 1. a rear wheel car 2. That they are purposely loading the rear tires to increase friction (albeit non-propotionally). The 3 would not spin the wheels, nor does the loading of the rear vs the front improve overal traction for precisely the reason you mention. So for a 3, you don't want weight shifting. The 3's low CG also means the shift durung accel/ deccel is less than other cars.

Your's is a bad analogy because you are changing the vehicle's weight which would reduce acceleration for the same amount of force. NASCAR does put the driver on the inside of the turn and requires the car to have at least 1,625 pounds of the 3,400 minimum total on the right side to limit weight shifting (you would want to shift the weight to the left side to balance tire loads due to turning to the left).

 

[ricohman]

Do you have adaptive cruise on your 450? I find having that to curb my speed more than makes up for the HUD we lost switching from the old SUV (which didn't work well with sunglasses).

The F450 has adaptive cruise as well as an HUD for warnings etc.
I'd just like a speedo and maybe range in front of me on the Model 3. Personal preference.

 

[Garlan Garner]

The F450 has adaptive cruise as well as an HUD for warnings etc.
I'd just like a speedo and maybe range in front of me on the Model 3. Personal preference.

The Model 3 is getting complex enough on the screen IMHO. Lets Keep It Simple. I wouldn't mind even simpler.

 

[StealthP3D]

Didn't think so...

So apart from your misrepresentation we have nothing else to go on.

I've just about had it with all the misinformation and false accusations you bring to this forum. It's like you'll say anything to try to discredit people who are bringing reliable and accurate information to the table. Do you just want attention or do you have a more sinister agenda to disrupt and antagonize?

Because your attacks are relentless. And they are generally directed at people having REAL discussions about REAL things.

 

[ricohman]

If you go up the chain, what I was replying to was Which implies 1. a rear wheel car 2. That they are purposely loading the rear tires to increase friction (albeit non-propotionally). The 3 would not spin the wheels, nor does the loading of the rear vs the front improve overal traction for precisely the reason you mention. So for a 3, you don't want weight shifting. The 3's low CG also means the shift durung accel/ deccel is less than other cars.

Your's is a bad analogy because you are changing the vehicle's weight which would reduce acceleration for the same amount of force. NASCAR does put the driver on the inside of the turn and requires the car to have at least 1,625 pounds of the 3,400 minimum total on the right side to limit weight shifting (you would want to shift the weight to the left side to balance tire loads due to turning to the left).

Again, very politely.
That is real world experience that I have repeated many times due to track conditions. It is reality in a race car. And no weight is being changed. The car weighs what it weighs. The transfer of weight to the rears occurs during launch and all vehicles (including AWD and the Model 3) will see more load applied to the rears and less on the fronts during a hard launch. As the car accelerates down the track the load on the rears is reduced. You might not want "weight shifting" but it is going to occur as sure as the sun will rise.
This isn't "purposely loading" at all. It's just how the chassis reacts to a hard launch. By stripping the interior of the Talon and replacing the glass we lightened the car substantially and enjoyed lower ET's as a result.
My Nova would pull the fronts off the ground at will. Of course a set of bars will prevent catastrophe but the operator is key to getting it hooked up. The Talon would hook up and go. The fronts would unload as it rises but some camber can add to the available traction.
EV's like the Model 3 are absurdly easy to launch. Just mash the wheel and hang on. I imagine more than a few will make their way to the local tracks.