Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Watch Autoline this week on Thursday

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Pointing out that the body weighs 200 lbs more than it should, when they have taken apart and sectioned segment cars from every manufacturer, completely valid.

Unless Munro is privy to Tesla specifications for longitudinal and torsional stiffness, has done a detailed FEA of the entire chassis accounting for pack deflection requirements, performed crash simulation to Tesla's requirements, and factored vehicle lifetime vs corrosion/ fatigue, he has zero basis to say it weighs too much.

F350 springs weigh more than F150 springs, are they too heavy?
 
Tesla replies to Munro:

Tesla Responds

Statement on vehicle age

“The primary car evaluated by Munro was built in 2017. We have significantly refined our production processes since then, and while there’s always room for improvement, our data already shows that Model 3 quality is rapidly getting better.”

Statement on panel gaps and offsets

“Since we began shipping Model 3 last year, we have been very focused on refining and tuning both part and body manufacturing processes. The result being that the standard deviation of all gaps and offsets across the entire car has improved, on average, by nearly 40%, with particular gap improvements visible in the area of the trunk, rear lamps and rear quarter panel. Today, Model 3 panel gaps are competitive with Audi, BMW, and Mercedes models, but in the spirit of relentless improvement, we are working to make them even tighter.”

Statement on body weight/complexity

“The U.S. government found Model S and Model X to have the lowest probability of injury of any cars it had ever tested, and Model 3 was designed with the same commitment to safety. While there’s always room for refinement of cost and mass, which we are already improving, electric cars have unique safety requirements to prevent intrusion into the battery, and Model 3 was also designed to meet the latest small overlap front crash requirements that other reference vehicles may not have. We stand behind our physical crash testing and our computer simulations of it, which have been remarkably accurate, and the safety that they demonstrate. The safety of our customers is more important than any other metric.”
 
Unless Munro is privy to Tesla specifications for longitudinal and torsional stiffness, has done a detailed FEA of the entire chassis accounting for pack deflection requirements, performed crash simulation to Tesla's requirements, and factored vehicle lifetime vs corrosion/ fatigue, he has zero basis to say it weighs too much.
I'm personally not putting too much weight (har, har) on this aspect of Munro's analysis. Sure, there's room for improvement in vehicle weight. But at a bit more than 3500 pounds, the weight of the forthcoming "standard range" Model 3 is about the same as the Chevy Bolt. It's only about 200 pounds heavier than our 2011 Nissan LEAF! At 3800+ pounds the Model 3 Long Range isn't light, but it really isn't that heavy for a BEV considering the capacity of its battery pack.

How much of the battery cost do you estimate is going to be covered by arbitrage games ?
Most of our arbitrage benefits come from feeding excess solar into the grid during the day, given our utility's generous NEM. The Powerwalls help some, but this was not a primary factor in our decision to acquire Powerwalls. The backup aspect is valuable to us, I appreciate having some energy independence, I'm happy to be able to use stored energy during the evening hours when net grid demand reaches its peak, and government incentives sweetened the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mongo
Tesla has a history of not just tweaking the line, but tweaking the car design AND the line.

They shut down the line each time they tweak. What kind of costly delays would making wholescale changes to the body design incur? They should have gotten it right at the start but to make changes in the middle of ramping up like this is unlikely, not without blowing another quarter and facing an ever more hostile earnings call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: voip-ninja
"5) Fit and finish is on a par with a 1990's Kia (except when it's not, and that seems to be fairly random)"

Wow, just not seeing that with the vehicles I've seen (including my son's 8xxx vehicle). Maybe he hit the lottery but his fit/finish was spot on and substantially better than the BMW X5 rental I was driving.
I agree this is total non sense. The only people who seem to agree with this are people who don’t even own the 3..
 
They shut down the line each time they tweak. What kind of costly delays would making wholescale changes to the body design incur? They should have gotten it right at the start but to make changes in the middle of ramping up like this is unlikely, not without blowing another quarter and facing an ever more hostile earnings call.

Who said anything about wholescale? changes during initial ramp?

Big design upfront is so last century. ;-)

Silicon Vally and tech in general is much more agile, with focus on satisfying primary requirements first. As someone in tech, I would expect shaving weight, and even more so cost, happens over multiple iterations to refine secondary requirements, most likely later this year.

My opinion is that this agile approach primarily explains why detroit and auto industry doesn't comprehend Tesla decisions. For example, the full OTA approach is a key enabler of succeeding with agile in this space.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: adaptabl