Barklikeadog
Active Member
Cool, that looks like a 2008 F150 King Ranch in the background. Nice wheels. My favourite generation.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla production line was ‘sabotaged’
- Thread starter thegruf
- Start date
Cool, that looks like a 2008 F150 King Ranch in the background. Nice wheels. My favourite generation.
Barklikeadog
Active Member
I dunno this seems pretty clear:
As part of the drive towards 6k, all Model 3 production at Fremont will move to 24/7 operations. This means that we will be adding another shift to general assembly, body and paint.
You must not read much about Tesla. This has all been covered in the news.
For example in: https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-tweets-tesla-gigafactory-hiring-jobs/ In the Q3 2017 call they said:
So the S&X already has three shifts...
And in April: https://jalopnik.com/tesla-switching-to-24-7-shifts-to-push-for-6-000-model-1825335216
So at a minimum those lines have two shifts, some may have three shifts now.
Are you counting all Tesla employees, or do you know how many production staff are at NUMMI?
jelloslug
Active Member
Don't confuse the issue with facts...
Yeah...from what I've read, I didn't see any sign of sabotage...just automated data collection and distribution. I didn't see any mention in the court documents that he "deliberately destroy(ed), damage(d), or obstruct(ed)" production processes or materials. I guess they might consider it damage to the MOS even though it might not actually affect the performance of the system.
I don't recall the exact numbers, but NUMMI had about 4800 employees that produced about 350,000ish cars in 1997. NUMMI peak production was later but I don't know later employment.
This gives some idea of typical auto plant scale. Although a pure cars per person metric is unfair to Tesla. Sales revenue per production employee would more fairly reflect the much higher cost cars Tesla produces.
Everyone connected to auto manufacturing knows Tesla currently uses a crapton of employee hours per car produced. This situation is undoubtedly necessary for Tesla's current capability. But combining the real situation in Fremont with Alien Dreadnaught lectures is very unappealing.
Once your system is breached, you can't trust anything about it. It is effectively destroyed at that point and needs rebuilt from new/blank media. Change in functionality is damage also (was the modification tested against side effects?)
"Take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"
jelloslug
Active Member
NUMMI was an assembly plant only. They did not actually make any of the parts in the plant at all. Tesla stamps metal, winds drive motors, builds final drive gearboxes, makes seats, and does a number of other steps that NUMMI had done outside of that facility.
Joke is on you. Nobody said the tent was superior to the building. Who cares about the structure covering ?
Elon said the new production line was superior to the old ones. Do you really have a hard time to understand that the latest line they put together is better than the previous ones on which they learned the problems the hard way ?!
I would hope they'd have source control, limited permissions to deploy to production and the ability to easily rollback to previous versions. They should be able to do code diffs and see all changes made while he worked there. I'm surprised he would be able to deploy his code changes without someone reviewing or noticing.
I heard that NUMMI only bolted finished wheel and tires onto a vehicle that was otherwise totally outsourced.
Once again,
Not sure we actually need a building. This tent is pretty sweet. Tesla Grohmann line is in place at Giga & spooling up now. They super kicked ass too. Heiliger Strohsack!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2018
He gives off the impression the tent is great..., or "pretty sweet" in his words. Since he's questioning the need for an actual building, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude he's saying the tent is actually better than the production facility (much cheaper, much quicker to stand up, etc).
But once again, we know his words are probably just hyperbole and should be taken with a boulder of salt, and he's just saying these things to put a proper Tesla spin on the story for the existence of the tent so the media can't run with their own theories. We're beating a dead horse, really.
He may have added a cron job to the machine (sftp a tar of certain directories), not changed the actual SW codebase.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
1. It's not really a tent. It is a building, just not an old fashioned wood/steel frame.
2. Sprung said it was better.
http://www.sprung.com/sprung-advantage/comparison-matrix/
http://www.sprung.com/sprung-advantage/frequently-asked-questions/
pay attention to the air handling and insulation claims and the 25/50 year lifespan.
It may look like a tent from the air but its way more durable and high tech than it appears from a distance.
Last edited:
is the Martin Tripp lawsuit part of this sabotage or is this a separate issue at Tesla?
https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/06/20/Tripp.pdf
https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/06/20/Tripp.pdf
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The number of employees is not meaningful. To do what Tesla does in one plant, the others use multiple - as well as outsource vendors. For an ICE, you need an assembly plant, engine plant, transmission plant, stamping plant(s), and numerous supplier lines producing other bits and bobs. Tesla does most of this in a single plant - two if you include the GF.
Similar threads
