Wow, wish I could give this 5 likes. Couldn’t agree more.Are we really going to continue to pretend Tesla was totally blindsided by this? This is their core competence : building the machine that builds what makes their products unique. You don't just order that from a supplier and then let go until the day you switch it on to find out it doesn't work. There was plenty of back and forth at the engineering level between the supplier and Tesla. It is impossible for Tesla engineers and factory management not to have known that this was going to be an unlucky supplier long before they took action.
There are two possibilities. Either the message didn't percolate up the management chain as it should. In my experience when bad news doesn't travel up it's nearly always due to a breakdown in culture making people afraid to speak up for fear of getting blamed and axed. Or information did travel up, but top management failed to intervene in a timely manner because they just assumed their teams would handle the impossible anyway.
Whatever it was, the blame is squarely at top management. After Model X self-inflicted wounds due to its design of the doors, this battery module is management's second strike of severe shortcomings. If the conveyor system in the Fremont factory turns out to be of the same problematic order, it may be time to assess if replacing the top management structure isn't the better answer.
PS I am giving Tesla management a pass on the FSD failures because that task is so out of the world difficult that failure is an option. For ordinary factory automation, failure on this level is not an option without top heads rolling. And despite all Elon's hoopla about the machine that builds the machine being limited by aero drag, ordinary factory automation is exactly the level Tesla is currently operating at.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Wow, wish I could give this 5 likes. Couldn’t agree more.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Are we even the standard 6 months behind schedule yet? From my understanding the significant setbacks were a module line slowdown likely due to the German automation supplier's wage demands. Now Elon's shifted to that domestic acquisition to supply GF automation and we're back on track.
2,500 and 5,000 per week in short order. What's the problem?
2,500 and 5,000 per week in short order. What's the problem?
'shameful'?
skeptics so far have been 100% right on the model 3 ramp?
the skeptics I've seen on TV, Chanos, Lutz, Siegel, etc., have said that Tesla will not be able to ramp production of the Model 3, as in, will go out of business trying to do so (along with other nonsense, it's almost impossible to believe they actually think is true).
given the 6 month delay, their assertions have not yet been proven to be incorrect, but, I don't see how anyone who thinks these skeptics are more accurate in their view of the Model 3 ramp than Tesla/Elon is in their view could hold a single share of Tesla.
To be clear, I view constructive criticism from people with our best interests at heart as a good thing. I find it helpful when I see that here at TMC, and I've tried to offer some myself. fwiw, from my perspective, constructive criticism does not involve informing those involved who one imagines is 'shameful,' though I'm aware others see this differently, which is fine.
Wow, this thread has jumped the shark. So @DaveT gives 7/10 for the quarter in good news letter, which I agree with. Especially as they reiterated their guidance, and corrected some miscommunication with the 8k filed late Friday. So what the hell do people want Tesla to do?
People are bringing up compensation plan, culture issues, and the kitchen sink, as the price went down 50 points. Crazy stuff. It's easy to criticize sitting far. For everytime a few impossible problems are solved, there will be one that looks like it'll be solved, but turns out it's impossible with the current approach, and by the time you realize that, it's pretty late. I'd chalk up the module production to this.
Fwiw, I think we hit the bottom here with all the negativity. @jhm bought his shares, trolls I had blocked long ago show up when I hit show ignored posts. The signs are all there. I picked up some after the 8k came out. Let's see.
People are bringing up compensation plan, culture issues, and the kitchen sink, as the price went down 50 points. Crazy stuff. It's easy to criticize sitting far. For everytime a few impossible problems are solved, there will be one that looks like it'll be solved, but turns out it's impossible with the current approach, and by the time you realize that, it's pretty late. I'd chalk up the module production to this.
Fwiw, I think we hit the bottom here with all the negativity. @jhm bought his shares, trolls I had blocked long ago show up when I hit show ignored posts. The signs are all there. I picked up some after the 8k came out. Let's see.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Because they don't want to be accused of being Tesla cheerleaders.
It seems like a majority of non-Tesla BEV/PHEV owners would like to see Tesla fail or at least eat some humble pie.
InsideEVs and GreenCarReports plays to this crowd, with GCR more so.
I think it stems from envy of people that can't afford a $60k plus car.
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
My impression is that bashing in earnest started the evening of the release, when SP had no influence...
3Victoria
Active Member
The COO at SpaceX is exceptional. If such a person is found for Tesla, maybe a COO position will be created. At the moment that positions duties are distributed across the other positions. It is well known that increasing a teams size leads to inefficiency ... the time taken to keep everyone on the same page increases. We have no evidence a COO would improve things and may well disrupt lines of communication and make things worse.
Have you ever done any engineering work? I guess not. Engineering is about doing stuff that has never been done. Even though the engineer does his best to figure out all kinds of things that might go wrong, he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. There’s a saying that the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference but in practice there is. The only projects that hit their time schedule are the ones that repeatedly do the same thing, or where the schedule is padded with ample buffers to deal with the inevitable unknowns. Tesla doesn’t do timeline padding, and everything they do is new. It is inevitable that when the unknowns become known, more time is needed to reach their target. But with this approach they still reach their targets much faster than with ample padded schedules.
The only thing really shameful here is that you think that an engineer’s job is so easy that the timelines are 100% predictable. God knows how many engineers all over the world have been on a death march to make this possible, these guys deserve a lot of respect!
Snapshot from the InsideEVs website. They specifically point out that they reconcile the numbers based on the quarterly totals. Doesn’t disprove your assertion, but I believe it does provide credibility to @ggr and @Words of HABIT theory.
Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard
The link in case one wants to see for themselves.
Words of HABIT
Active Member
phil0909, Perhaps you feel InsideEVs is your best source for monthly data, nothing wrong with that, but don't imply others feel the same way, I certainly do not. InsideEVs is guessing like everyone else. The following quote is directly from InsideEVs, fact: "Tesla does not give out exact monthly sales (apparently because the public can’t handle the concept of regional allocations and delivery lead times)… so we never know for sure what the monthly numbers total up to until Tesla’s quarterly (or annual) updates add more clarity, but we do our best to keep our finger on the pulse of what is happening."
phil0909, perhaps you can explain why Tesla is the only auto manufacturer that front loads international deliveries. All other auto manufactures show steady increase/decrease month to month.
RobStark, I think you may be on to something.
Daniel
Last edited:
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
You're wasting your breath on people whose goals stretch all the way to "quitting their day job".
If things weren't rolling to Elon's satisfaction he'd be tearing production lines down and rebuilding to get it right. Model 3 execution is absolutely crucial to the Master Plan and that's all that matters. The fact that Elon is on Space X right now tells me full speed Gigafactory is within grasp. He's building a car building machine, it's not rocket science.
We really need to think about a 60% capital gains tax so folks can get real jobs.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Precisely. It's hard to believe I'm agreeing with the most conservative bulls, but it is what it is.
Sorry, not everyone can work. Whether be lack of skills or most likely, disability. 60% cap gains tax is punitive and would discourage investment. At that rate, one would be better off pulling all moneys out of the market and sticking it in cash/gold—essentially starving the market of usable cash.
Speculative companies like Tesla would be hit the hardest, since any gains and moneys I put into Tesla, expecting a great return at the end would be taxed MORE than income. So why would anyone bother to provide capital to a company like Tesla if the cap gains tax was 60%?
So companies who could not access capital to grow and expand would/could fail. When they fail, the jobs go away. Then how can folks work? Well I guess everyone could wait tables at empty restaurants...
It really does not. As far as I can tell, insideevs uses various data sources to get pretty good monthly estimates, generally coming quite close to Tesla's reported sales, and trues up its numbers as needed. I suppose it is possible that they are a bunch of lying, Tesla-hating scumbags, who are trying to destroy Elon Musk by claiming his US sales are somewhat concentrated in the last month of the quarter. But really, isn't that pretty far-fetched? They are insideevs.com, after all. Why would they want to harm Tesla? If they did want to harm Tesla, they could do something more effective than suggesting their sales are a few weeks later than they truly are.
The insideevs people seem like decent folks, being completely transparent about their methods, its weaknesses, and it's record of accuracy. Here's what they say about it:
"Tesla does not give out exact monthly sales (apparently because the public can’t handle the concept of regional allocations and delivery lead times). For this reason, we never know for sure what the monthly numbers total up to until Tesla’s quarterly (or annual) updates add more clarity. However, we do our best to keep our finger on the pulse of what’s happening.
To come to an estimated monthly number, we don’t simply take the quarterly estimate given by Tesla and divide it by 3 and hope it all works out. This is surely not how it works in the real world. We simply report from the data we accumulate ourselves, including first-hand accounts available from the factory and from the community itself, and the number is what it is (see below).
Revisions/disclaimer to the accuracy of prior estimates: The 2016Model S chart has been adjusted (via U.S. Q3 data leaked directly from Tesla) by 469 units in Q3, and 525 units in Q4. The 2015 chart was adjusted (one time) by 498 units to compensate for confirmed full-year numbers. The 2014 sales chart was adjusted (one time – again after the end of the full year of estimates) 611 units to compensate for full-year numbers. While past success is no guarantee of future results, InsideEVs is quite proud of its sales tracking for the Model S over the years.
That being said, we only estimate this number because Tesla does not, and to not put a number on Model S sales would be to paint an even more inaccurate overall picture of EV sales. Despite our fairly accurate track record, we’re not analysts or portfolio managers and we don’t own any positions in Tesla the company."
Ulmo
Active Member
Appologies. I'd go edit it if I could, but it's carved into stone for eternity now. A goof on my part.
Your fear is that Elon is going to “continue this nonsense” all the way to a $650B market cap?
ValueAnalyst
Closed
In an extreme example, he gets $1B if It takes 10 years for market cap to reach $100B, which would likely be less than market return, even if due to market irrationality or Fed’s easy money policy, and revenue reaches $20B in ten years. This is an unfair outcome, and many possible scenarios like this one exist. This is a poorly designed comp plan.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yup. This is why I prefer to accumulate shares at low prices. The price can always go lower and stay there longer than a LEAP. So if you buy on the cheap, there is less downside. And if you own shares, you can hold them indefinitely. I learned this by riding out multiple major downturns.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
