
Tesla misses production target by 15% - dc352
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36702429
======
_ph_
The article is a bit confusing. Tesla produced more than 18k cars, but
delivered 14k cars. So strictly speaking it was not the production but
delivery target that got missed. There are some connections of course, if they
had managed to ramp up production quicker, delivery could have progressed
more. Production rates are said to have hit 2k cars per week in the last
weeks.

In any case, this means that about 4k Teslas are currently in transit to their
customers. The European Model X deliveries just started, so this would account
for a lot of transit time, as shipping (literally!) cars takes it time.

~~~
what_ever
How about the cars that were on transit from Q1? Did they get counted towards
the total in Q2? If yes, then I don't think the article is misleading.

~~~
schiffern
Tesla had 2,615 vehicles in transit at the end of Q1, and 5,150 at the end of
Q2. So on net there are still 2,535 cars "missing" from the Q2 delivery
number.

This chart shows the complete picture:
[http://i.imgur.com/NgwxG7Z.png](http://i.imgur.com/NgwxG7Z.png)

------
dang
That amounts to trolling. Please don't do that here.

Substantive criticism is fine, offhand flamebait isn't.

Edit: looks like I misunderstood the comment
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12032290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12032290),
so will detach this subthread and mark it off-topic instead. Sorry!

~~~
shasheene
I think you're misinterpreting his statement. I think he's noting that missing
production targets is better than rushing through production and then shipping
poorly manufactured cars

~~~
plcancel
I certainly thought it was misinterpreted, too. Although it is reasonable to
interpret the statement both ways, why do we often assume the least charitable
interpretation? Maybe it is best to ascertain a comment's intent first.

Could've been trolling. Seems like responding with "do you mean x or y?"
would've been more constructive, though.

------
KerryJones
Is anyone surprised? Tesla and SpaceX have almost always missed their timeline
goals. This is their MO. They do, however, always produce what they say they
will.

~~~
mikeash
I wonder why you're being downvoted. As far as I can tell, you're exactly
right. They make amazing stuff and you can usually (even if not always) count
on them doing what they say they will... but do _not_ put any faith in
timelines.

~~~
melling
30 days ago you said they are producing 100,000 cars a year. You were quite
confident then:

"They've sold well over 100,000 cars. The current total is around 140,000.
They project 80,000 or 90,000 this year, with a slow start, so I think their
current rate is 100,000 if not higher."

You shrugged off getting to 100,000 cars as no more difficult than other
periods of time: " mikeash 26 days ago

Going from 2,700 to 22,000 in 12 months sounds difficult too, as does going
from 22,000 to 32,000 and from 32,000 to 50,000.'

~~~
mikeash
They built over 18,000 cars this quarter. They say half of that was done in
the last four weeks of the quarter. That's 9,000 cars in four weeks, 2,250
cars per week, for an annualized rate of about 117,000/year.

Seems like my confidence was completely warranted.

~~~
Avshalom
>do not put any faith in timelines

~~~
mikeash
In general that is totally true. They'll say 6 months and it's really 12.
They'll say a year and it's really two or three. And I have no confidence in
their stated objective of producing 500,000 cars in 2018. But when talking
about the _current_ production rate, that's hardly a "timeline" and doesn't
much involve guessing the future.

I will admit that these sales numbers don't really look like a missed
timeline. It is definitely a theme with these companies, but doesn't seem to
apply here.

------
xiphias
Missing production target is OK. Shipping crappy cars is not OK.

~~~
fdsaaf
A Tesla Model S is about the furthest possible thing from a "crappy car".

~~~
JshWright
Eh... by all accounts, it's pretty 'crappy' compared to other vehicles in its
class. Lots of recurring issues that seem to have eluded quality control.

While I think it's mostly a symbolic gesture, it's clear from the fact that
Elon has set up an office for himself (with a cot for sleeping) at the end of
the Tesla production line that he agrees there is a lot of room for
improvement in the quality of their cars.

It's easy to make 100 cars well. It's much harder to make 10,000 cars well.

~~~
iaw
I'm not a fan of the Tesla brand/vehicles and I have a number of criticisms
for the Model S but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'crappy.' I think more
appropriate phrases would be "not fully refined" and "unpolished."

The cars work, and work well. The important systems are handled properly, if
they weren't I'd be complaining about them. Quality control is a hard thing to
get right at scale, I think the company deserves a little respect for handling
the critical systems well.

~~~
jonknee
> I'm not a fan of the Tesla brand/vehicles and I have a number of criticisms
> for the Model S but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'crappy.' I think
> more appropriate phrases would be "not fully refined" and "unpolished."

It's "crappy" for a higher end luxury vehicle, not for a car in general. A
$70-90k car should be fully refined and quite polished.

~~~
jakobegger
A lot of those 90k goes towards the battery. That leaves a lot less for
perfectly stitched leather upholstery.

~~~
jonknee
If the batteries are so expensive they can't have a proper interior it is odd
that Tesla ships some models with extra battery capacity for future purchase
options:

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11597508/tesla-
model-s-70-b...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11597508/tesla-
model-s-70-battery-upgrade-pay-unlock-battery)

I think the interior is shit because it's hard to do at scale and Tesla hasn't
been doing it for very long.

------
jonknee
Nice little holiday weekend news dump.

~~~
jrmski
Tesla committed to publishing delivery numbers within three days of the end of
quarter. They are just keeping with their commitment, not trying to bury this
news by releasing it on a holiday weekend.

~~~
danso
FWIW, it published Q1 numbers on April 4th...which would be 4 days after the
end of Q1. April 4th was a Monday. I don't think too many people would
critique them for waiting until the 5th of July, the Tuesday after a huge U.S.
holiday, to publish news:

[http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=963460](http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=963460)

------
api
You could put this in a positive light: there is so much demand for their
product they can't make enough.

~~~
jonknee
That's not a positive light, demand doesn't pay the bills.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Of course it does. Talk to a banker, orders and deposits in hand, and see if
the bills can't get paid.

------
rasz_pl
>after the driver of a Tesla car using self-driving technology

seee, this is what naming your driver assist system AutoPilot does, even
'journalist' doesnt know any better.

