[uk] UltraSonic Sensors removal/TV replacement performance

[LiamPope]

I find it hard to understand how the things removed could be remotely considered more important than the things added - in terms of 2016 vs 2023. 2023 has a few smaller things removed that are nice to have (lumbar etc) but its fundamentally a more rounded car.

Yeah, saying a 2016 spec is more appealing than a 2023 spec is a weird take on it to say the least! Lack of passenger lumbar and USB data are annoying, but new motor, LFP battery for RWD, heated rear seats and wheel, heat pump, power trunk, new headlights, double pane glass, wireless chargers, ryzen... are all decent life cycle improvements.

But just because they improve things, doesn't mean they arent interested in cost saving and we can discount that as a motive for removing the USS, etc. It's a balance - they have to be seen to be improving the product to maintain interest, but they will cut what they think they can get away with too. It also depends very much on the market - in times of lower demand they are more likely to upgrade. In times of high demand, i.e. 2022, they are more likely to keep spec static or cut costs.

The USS thing seems pretty simple to me - industry component shortage forced their hand. Putting the positive Vision longterm goal bullshit spin on it was just their cunning plan to avoid having to either pause production, offer discounts or get into later retrofits. So they had to do something, but yeah they chose the most 'FU customers' typical Elon solution.

Finally, while the USS may poo their pants continuously below 2 feet or so, I don't find the nose too annoying and the lines and distance values remain useful down to cms. So absolutely not a reason to say we're better off without them, imho.

 

[yessuz]

Yeah, saying a 2016 spec is more appealing than a 2023 spec is a weird take on it to say the least! Lack of passenger lumbar and USB data are annoying, but new motor, LFP battery for RWD, heated rear seats and wheel, heat pump, power trunk, new headlights, double pane glass, wireless chargers, ryzen... are all decent life cycle improvements.

But just because they improve things, doesn't mean they arent interested in cost saving and we can discount that as a motive for removing the USS, etc. It's a balance - they have to be seen to be improving the product to maintain interest, but they will cut what they think they can get away with too. It also depends very much on the market - in times of lower demand they are more likely to upgrade. In times of high demand, i.e. 2022, they are more likely to keep spec static or cut costs.

The USS thing seems pretty simple to me - industry component shortage forced their hand. Putting the positive Vision longterm goal bullshit spin on it was just their cunning plan to avoid having to either pause production, offer discounts or get into later retrofits. So they had to do something, but yeah they chose the most 'FU customers' typical Elon solution.

Finally, while the USS may poo their pants continuously below 2 feet or so, I don't find the nose too annoying and the lines and distance values remain useful down to cms. So absolutely not a reason to say we're better off without them, imho.

I mean, if there is part shortage, why not ship cars without uss and retrofit them later. like they did with usb ports in early 2022?

 

[LiamPope]

I mean, if there is part shortage, why not ship cars without uss and retrofit them later. like they did with usb ports in early 2022?

Because, like I said, the 'this was all part of our longterm Vision goal (occuring at the same time as an industry-wide shortage of USS by pure coincidence) and is for your own good' bs was the clever spin that allowed them to avoid a costly, logistically challenging retrofit situation like the USB ports (but probably far worse - for one they'd have needed to have produced a USS blank part just to fit temporarily in their place).

 

[yessuz]

- for one they'd have needed to have produced a USS blank part just to fit temporarily in their place).

oh that would be horrendous.



not

 

[CWT3LR]

Not really, but the wiring and installation costs all adds up. There were potential supply chain issues which triggered the removal, otherwise Tesla would have had to cut vehicle production.

I believe that the original wiring harnesses and connectors are still used, so Tesla save precisely nothing from that aspect. Also, the moulding for the location of the sensors is intact, so they might save a few pennies of machining cost from not drilling them out. The cost saving seems to relate solely to the sensors themselves, which - bought in bulk - would amount to 12 x $3.50 per sensor - let's round up to $50 per car. And I am unaware of any supply chain issue - that affected chips and control units, not sensors, and Tesla engineered their way around those particular constraints.

 

[CWT3LR]

I’m find it hard to believe Tesla did it for cost savings as they have enhanced the car since the start of production - USB sticks, double layered glass, heat pumps, wireless smartphone charging etc..

They could certainly stop supplying a number of those items without it causing this much hate if it was just to save money.

That was in the "before" days. Do you think a man who sacks all his office cleaners and requires employees to take their own toilet roll to work would think twice about chopping something as frivolous as a convenience feature for rich car owners?

 

[Mullermn]

That was in the "before" days. Do you think a man who sacks all his office cleaners and requires employees to take their own toilet roll to work would think twice about chopping something as frivolous as a convenience feature for rich car owners?

That's at Twitter, not Tesla. Anyone who works at Twitter deserves punishment.

Perhaps Musk bought it to destroy it, thereby doing the world a 3rd good deed behind revolutionising space travel and electrification of vehicles.

 

[CWT3LR]

I'm a little surprised they aren't disabled in drive mode

I was thinking that this morning. But I wonder if they were originally intended as some sort of rudimentary blind spot warning? It certainly shows amber and red if a car is at the rear three-quarter?

 

[LiamPope]

oh that would be horrendous.



not

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Tooling and production in all colours of a USS blank, and the organisation of a retrofit campaign to fit USS to 10s or 100s thousands of cars when/if their supply can catch up is 100% possible, albeit very very costly. As would be offering discounts to customers or slowing/pausing production in line with USS supply. But it was much easier and cheaper to go with the Vision spiel and make it sound like an upgrade, so they did that instead.

Best case, they were planning to do this eventually anyway, already working on it, concept already proven, the industry shortage just forced them to ditch the sensors before the solution is ready, but it really is coming genuinely soon. Worst case, it sounded good to Elon when he was high and there is now an impossible task on the desk of the AI team that will never be realised! We will see.

 

[CWT3LR]

Except the bit about rear camera does a fantastic job. Clearly never been driven for 10 mins in the rain.

Or driven in Wales, given that the intersection of those sets is 1.

 

[LiamPope]

I believe that the original wiring harnesses and connectors are still used, so Tesla save precisely nothing from that aspect. Also, the moulding for the location of the sensors is intact, so they might save a few pennies of machining cost from not drilling them out. The cost saving seems to relate solely to the sensors themselves, which - bought in bulk - would amount to 12 x $3.50 per sensor - let's round up to $50 per car. And I am unaware of any supply chain issue - that affected chips and control units, not sensors, and Tesla engineered their way around those particular constraints.

It's not just holes. There is a mounting bracket bonded to the inside of the bumper for each sensor, and there is a separate wiring harness in each bumper that connects each sensor into the main car loom, all of which is saved. Eventually (assuming no u-turn) they can weed out the USS associated wires and plugs from the main loom itself and save there. There absolutely was/still is a USS shortage in the industry. It has affected several manufacturers and been extensively reported. Handled in various different ways, all arguably more transparent and BS free than the Tesla approach.

 

[CWT3LR]

It's not just holes. There is a mounting bracket bonded to the inside of the bumper for each sensor, and there is a separate wiring harness in each bumper that connects each sensor into the main car loom, all of which is saved. Eventually (assuming no u-turn) they can weed out the USS associated wires and plugs from the main loom itself and save there. There absolutely was/still is a USS shortage in the industry. It has affected several manufacturers and been extensively reported. Handled in various different ways, all arguably more transparent and BS free than the Tesla approach.

Yes, but from what I have read, none of that reengineering of bumper mount, loom etc has taken place. Because the retooling necessary to produce new blow moulds etc is expensive, as is the changes to the overall loom. It is why other manufacturers revise their cars after 3-4 years, not a continuous (dis)improvement cycle like Tesla. The fact Tesla cannot source sensors when there are reports other manufacturers returned to full capacity last quarter means I smell fish.

 

[Doudeau]

Am I missing something really obvious here!?

If they really wanted to save £5-£100 per car (or whatever it is) for profit margin then why would they happily knock thousands of pounds of the list price of a car?

 

[Mullermn]

Am I missing something really obvious here!?

If they really wanted to save £5-£100 per car (or whatever it is) for profit margin then why would they happily knock thousands of pounds of the list price of a car?

They wouldn't, it doesn't make sense and is probably not why they've done it. It is obviously a nice side effect to reduce costs but that won't have been the reason for doing it.

 

[Zilla91]

I'm a little surprised they aren't disabled in drive mode

It's so that they activate automatically when you approach something rather than having to press a button - it's a common feature on premium cars from the last decade

 

[LiamPope]

Yes, but from what I have read, none of that reengineering of bumper mount, loom etc has taken place. Because the retooling necessary to produce new blow moulds etc is expensive, as is the changes to the overall loom. It is why other manufacturers revise their cars after 3-4 years, not a continuous (dis)improvement cycle like Tesla. The fact Tesla cannot source sensors when there are reports other manufacturers returned to full capacity last quarter means I smell fish.

I haven't read anything, but not sure how that would work. The bumpers are now smooth and featureless - they don't have sensor blanks. So they must already have modified the injection mould tooling to not produce the holes. I'm almost certain the holes would have been moulded all in one with the bumper - they have a smooth radiused edge so do not look drilled or punched, and there's no reason they would be - why have separate hole producing operations when they could just be moulded in in the first place?

So that is done. After that, there's no reason they would continue bonding in the sensor mounts (they are separate parts heat staked in) so they will just skip that step. Likewise they will stop producing and installing the bumper harnesses. So all these savings are realised already. As I mentioned, optimising the main loom for further saving may well wait till they have several updates lined up.

Even if sensors are more easily available now (I don't know but would be surprised if they are) the fact that Tesla has already modified the bumper tooling, and their attitude and statements that this was all part of the plan and nothing to do with any shortage or cost saving, honest, means they are very unlikely to u-turn and bring them back, even if that would technically be a good decision.

 

[MP3Mike]

Even if sensors are more easily available now (I don't know but would be surprised if they are)

I would have to guess that they are, as Tesla is using ~25k fewer of them per day now than they were before.

 

[LiamPope]

Am I missing something really obvious here!?

If they really wanted to save £5-£100 per car (or whatever it is) for profit margin then why would they happily knock thousands of pounds of the list price of a car?

They can happily knock thousands off the list price and still be very profitable exactly because they are aggressively cost cutting, optimising and innovating in every area of the whole production. Every little bit adds up. I can bash Tesla and Elon for many things, but how they have made the 3/Y platform so profitable while everyone else is crying/bleeding desparately scrambling to catch up and make even any money from EVs is nothing short of a remarkable industrial achievement, imho.

The USS removal when a replacement tech isn't available is not pure cost saving. It's supply shortage handled in a unique Tesla way that happens to save them some cost and may or may not have been coming anyway, but the plan would have been to come when they had a replacement.

 

[MrBadger]

They can happily knock thousands off the list price and still be very profitable exactly because they are aggressively cost cutting, optimising and innovating in every area of the whole production. Every little bit adds up. I can bash Tesla and Elon for many things, but how they have made the 3/Y platform so profitable while everyone else is crying/bleeding desparately scrambling to catch up and make even any money from EVs is nothing short of a remarkable industrial achievement, imho.

I am not so convinced that hindsight will be so kind. imho, Tesla by chopping and changing the specs of their cars, even from one car to another, is opening up a future pandoras box that is already being cracked open.

There is a reason why many manufacturing industries maintain a limited sku and many vehicle manufacturers only occasionally refresh - it keeps things simple, manageable and ultimately more cost effective. Maintaining a different spec potentially for every car will, and imho already is, going to cause issues. Some may be differences that can be handled by drop in replacements, but others, fundamentally different or worse, subtly different. We already see it now with what on paper is identical vehicles, yet they often behave quite differently - a recent example, car alarm triggering on certain vehicles. imho, Tesla is light on testing as it is, and an ever increasing permutation of parts is going to make this an ever increasing problem to try and manage, or imho, not manage in any sustainable way.

I think there may be a very good reason why many manufacturers do as they do.

 

[GlynG]

but how they have made the 3/Y platform so profitable while everyone else is crying/bleeding desparately scrambling to catch up

The USS removal when a replacement tech isn't available is not pure cost saving. It's supply shortage

Tesla has been so successful profit wise because they have no legacy ICE vehicles to maintain, The vehicle was designed as pure EV from the ground up - no conversion of an existing platform. They also risked everything they had - which was brave of them. The early cars they had lots of build quality issues though.

The USS removal IS pure cost saving, If it were just supply issues then why can you buy standalone USS parking sensor kits for absolute peanuts.
I believe Tesla believes its own hype, it feels it can do anything it wants as and when it wants to do it and customers will accept it. They clearly misread their customer base when they remove stuff with the promise vision will replace it "Soon". New customer to Tesla would accept it, but if you've had a Tesla for some time you know "soon" probably means never - like my FSD earning me money as a Robotaxi by the end of 2020, me summoning my car to come to me - and its still all coming soon. - well all except the car coming to me with summon.

The only reason the price of their cars have dropped is because of a lack of waiting customers - why else would they do it? unless you believe Tesla are just being nice. So nice in fact - the decision to drop the price was taken before they announced the free supercharging for customers to pick up their cars early before the end of 2022 and a week or so later announce price drops by thousands of pounds - that is morally wrong.
I hear the argument that if the price increased and a customer had an order in then they would expect their price to be honoured - and rightly so, but when Tesla had made the decision to reduce the price by up to 13% on some models that wasn't a decision taken on a whim - or overnight - that decision had been confirmed prior to the incentive to get customers to take delivery of their ordered cars by the end of the year and as a sweetener 6000 free supercharging miles.
The actual taking of delivery within Q4 was in itself good for Tesla for total sales figures for the year, but, within weeks an up to £8000 drop in price announced and those who took early delivery have been shafted - do you think they will become future customers of Tesla?
Tesla, if they wanted to do the right thing would refund all those that had a January delivery date that were incentivised to take delivery in 2022, but i suspect that wont happen.

Penny pinching or "Value Engineering" has become a prime driver for Tesla since late 2019 - prior to this they produced the best they could, and sure, it had issues, but they were trying. Then the removal of stuff started and that pace has increased.
There is a saying "Once bitten twice shy"