I don't think we can make that link. We do know that the Tesla chassis/body has been heavily engineered compared to what Munro sees as normal (Munro stated it in his report and Tesla has not denied it), and we know that the 3 has excellent crash results (from NHTSA). But we don't know how much of a correlation there is between these two points. Could Tesla still receive the same safety ratings with a more simple and lighter design? I have no idea and am not an engineer. Other posts have said that Tesla fired the engineer responsible for the 3 chassis which also gives this statement some pause for thought.
Before becoming a globetrotting banker, I grew up on a farm in Australia and used to fabricate (to use the word loosely, it was more hillbilly engineering) many items that required fairly heavy load capacity (stock crates, feeders that would hold a few tonnes of grain, ramps, etc) and intuitively I would say that the more metal you put into something the stronger it gets. But I am sure someone who knew what they were doing could achieve the same outcome with far less material.
It would not be surprising if traditional automakers have better expertise in efficient chassis/body construction as that is one of the only areas they have designed in house (along with ICE drivetrains).
If there is anyone on this board with expertise in this area it would be great to hear your opinion.
Quick Edit: If the 3 Chassis/Body is not yet optimally designed and Tesla are already making a positive margin then this is quite a positive outcome as we know that they continue to optimise their vehicles on an ongoing basis. Real margins on the 3 may be even better than they initially forecast if there is room to simplify the current design.
Last edited:
