
Master Plan, Part Deux - arturogarrido
https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux
======
Animats
_" A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that
somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a
roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be
thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018."_

What that really means: Tesla is going to lose a ton of money per car on the
Model 3, or raise the price, until at least 2022. That's realistic. His two
top production guys quit when he announced 2018 as the delivery date for the
Model 3. His new production head, from Audi, may have given Musk a reality
check.

Tesla produced about 50,000 cars in 2015 with 13,000 employees, about 4 cars
per employee. Ford produced 3.2 million cars in 2015 with 187,000 employees,
about 17 cars per employee. Toyota produced about 9 million cars with 344,000
employees, about 26 cars per employee. So Tesla needs to get their
productivity per employee up by 4x - 7x to play with the big guys. Clearly
Musk has done the same calculation.

Now, though, he's admitting that they can't do it by 2018. This is prepping
the stockholders for bad financial news. Tesla is going to burn a lot of cash
through at least 2022.

There's no reason that Tesla can't get their productivity up to at least Ford
levels in time. Ford has a much broader product line, and Tesla's car isn't
that complicated mechanically. But it's not instant.

~~~
danhak
Ford can have fewer employees per car because they're at full scale, they've
outsourced nearly all their engineering and have outsourced their sales as
well via an antiquated dealer model.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk)

~~~
rjdagost
Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford
consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit

~~~
8611m
If this was the only thing that mattered for businesses, we wouldn't have
Amazon as Walmart has consistently produced more net profit over Amazon since
the last 22 years. 1

1\. [http://revenuesandprofits.com/amazon-vs-walmart-revenues-
and...](http://revenuesandprofits.com/amazon-vs-walmart-revenues-and-
profits-1995-2014/)

~~~
intrasight
As Amazon looses money on every sale, and makes it up with funding from new
shareholders, I'm going to call it a Ponzi scheme and not a business.

~~~
garyclarke27
Reminds me of the old accounting joke. CFO -> CEO We have a major problem,
recent price cuts mean that we are now making a loss per unit on our major
product lines. CEO -> CFO Don't worry about that, We'll make it up on the
volume!

~~~
kriro
I have this bookmarked just for these types of discussions. It's surprising
how often I have used it:

[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html](http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html)

~~~
dexterdog
Not to over-analyze a comic, but the business model might not be awful in this
case. They sell all potions for 20gp kind of like the original dollar stores.
The one particular item is at a loss, but the majority may be at a profit or
at least the aggregate based on volume is a profit. Basically they have loss-
leaders to get people to use them as their only store.

------
thucydides
> "When used correctly, [partially autonomous driving] is already
> significantly safer than a person driving by themselves"

If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in
your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle
deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt
the economy.

A shift to technologies safer than human-driven cars would dramatically reduce
human suffering and should be welcomed.

I do wonder, though, how this would reshape our cities - if we're not careful.
Besides direct costs for the car, fuel, and maintenance, the main disincentive
to driving is how damn boring it is. What happens when we turn fully-
autonomous vehicles into luxury entertainment centers? I suspect that, if
we're not smart about this shift, we could see wild sprawl on a scale that
would dwarf the mid-20th century sprawl we saw in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

On the whole, though, it's a beautiful thing.

~~~
JeffL
Maybe that would be a good thing? Without need for parking, commercial
districts could get denser and denser, and people could have nice large homes
far away for cheaper than ever. If the cars aren't causing pollution or
gridlock, what's so bad about living in the suburbs?

~~~
seanp2k2
Electric cars cause pollution; they run on mostly coal or natural gas and have
very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. They also emit just
as much particulate emissions as normal cars:
[http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-
particulate-m...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate-
matter/)

The way to "save the planet" is to not drive. Driving a 5000# vehicle around
thinking you're doing _good_ for the environment is just the marketing genius
of the car industry in 2016.

~~~
maratd
> have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries.

This is absolutely false. Lithium is not toxic to mine at all. It isn't even
"mined".

[http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-
sa...](http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sands-meme-
thorough-response/)

> Electric cars cause pollution

They cause zero pollution when you have solar panels on your roof and the car
is properly scrapped after you're done with it.

> The way to "save the planet" is to not drive.

This is silly and impractical.

~~~
ams6110
There's more than lithium in the batteries, and other components such as
Cobalt or Arsenic are not exactly nontoxic. On balance however, lithium ion
batteries are less toxic than alternatives.

Realistically, at present most EV owners will not charge their cars from solar
panels but from the utility mains and that means coal-generated electricity in
many if not most areas.

Car manufacturing involves a tremendous investment of energy to mine and
produce steel, aluminum, rubber, plastics, and electronics. Recycling itself
consumes more energy, and in many cases raw virgin product is cheaper than
recycled.

Not driving is impractical. Driving less, when possible, is worth considering.

Right now if you need to buy a car, the most environmentally friendly choice
is probably a used (no new manufacturing) fuel-efficient conventional car.

~~~
ChuckMcM
It is perhaps an artifact of the bay area but there are many many Tesla
vehicles here and many of them seem to use the superchargers for charging[1].
But the question of pollution and CO2 comparisons between ICE vehicles and
electric ones, comes down firmly on the side of the electric vehicles (for the
case of California at least). The thermal efficiency of converting gas to
electricity is over 47% and the closest an ICE can come is about 38%. Lots of
additional information from the EIA here [2].

[1] A friend of mine who owns one said the only thing worse than the 20 minute
charge time is waiting 20 minutes to plug into an available spot.

[2]
[http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec17.pdf](http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec17.pdf)

~~~
sah2ed
> [1] A friend of mine who owns one said the only thing worse than the 20
> minute charge time is waiting 20 minutes to plug into an available spot.

Actually it would be a lot more efficient if your friend charged at home or at
work rather than drive all the way to a supercharger station.

You would do well to point your friend to this PSA [1] by Elon Musk and J B
Straubel during the Q&A at Tesla's shareholder meeting some months ago.

[1] [https://youtu.be/O1aPRKSuXr0?t=650](https://youtu.be/O1aPRKSuXr0?t=650)

------
sidcool
A digression from the mainstream discussion.

I woke up this morning feeling sullen (many factors involved). I didn't feel
like going to work. I could hardly get out of bed. I just sat for a few
minutes staring in the vacuumn. Something told me to check Hacker News (I am
trying to avoid it in morning), and the top link was this. I went through it
twice. It instilled hope and enthusiasm in me. I woke up in an instant and
rushed to work to do great stuff.

Thanks for the article I am typing this at work, else would have wasted the
day filled with self-loathing and despair. Hang in there guys, it gets better.
Do Great Stuff.

~~~
ams6110
You might want to seek some help. Unless you're just being dramatic here for
effect, there are some red flags in your post such as not being able to get
out of bed, being filled with self-loathing and despair, etc.

~~~
steve_taylor
Don't be so dramatic. This is me every day. It's ADHD meets debt, family
obligations, and dead-end job. A lot of entrepreneurs/wantrepreneurs and devs
have ADHD. Can't do much about it unless I pop pills, which I'm not overly
keen on doing. I'd rather find something to do that motivates me to get out of
bed at 5am every day.

~~~
aidenn0
I've noticed some form of existential malaise seems to be very common among
people with ADHD.

Let me also recommend popping-pills. It's not enough by itself, but it can
help you do the yak-shaving that is needed for getting out of a dead-end job.
At least speaking for myself, without medication, updating a resume,
practicing interviewing skills, and researching job prospects (or
alternatively doing market research, developing an MVP, filling out paperwork
for a business, and seeking seed funding) could take years.

------
bane
I'm always surprised when we get insight into Musk's plan, not because they're
complicated but because they always come across as "no duh, why aren't we
already doing these things? weren't we already on track to do these things
decades ago?"

As much as the Internet transformed society, I also can't help but feel like
we were on the track to have achieved these things and got distracted by our
global communications and selfie-cat picture delivery network and are only now
starting to come to our senses as the ubiquity has occurred and the ecosystem
of necessary applications has become fleshed out, matured and developed a
commercial angle.

If you look at his pre-hardware days, he built basically a e-phonebook when
paper phonebooks were still all the rage and a couple payment companies. Both
no-duh companies in hindsight.

Musk's plans feel like he's taking a derailed train, applying some common
sense grease (solar panels on electric cars? MADNESS! Reusable rocket stages
instead of throwing away the entire ship? ~~CRAZY!~~) and getting our
civilization going again.

He's also really really public about his plans and telegraphs his moves years
in advance...and yet very few seem able to execute anywhere near his league.

I sometimes feel if things had shaken out differently and Steve Jobs was
younger than Musk and was running a successful Apple, Musk might try to
recruit him with a "do you want to sell cat picture delivery boxes for the
rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?"

I don't know if Musk is going to succeed in the long run, and I hope serious
competition finally shows up (because that makes each of his industries
healthier), but seriously,

it's about fucking time.

~~~
clintonb
Tesla and SpaceX required a lot of startup capital (relative to most other
technology startups). Yes, their ideas are simple, but few people have the
capital to implement those ideas.

Additionally, the existing players in the rocket market didn't have much
incentive to innovate given how few players there were. Your guess is as good
as mine on why the automobile industry didn't continue much EV research after
the 90s.

~~~
pm90
Its the same reason why Kodak invented the first digital camera and didn't put
it in the market. We see the same pattern over and over again and if you work
at any of these huge corporations, you understand that the main duty of the
executives is to protect their profit centers at all costs. Any product that
is capable of cannibalizing on the profit centers will face a tough road to
success and at the worst, get culled early.

Then a startup comes along, reinvents or polishes that product and is very
successful. Eventually it turns into a BigCo. And the cycle repeats.

~~~
qaq
The main duty of executives is to increase shareholder value, but their
personal incentives are generally misaligned so they abuse profit centers and
undermine company future to hit short term numbers and get the bonuses.

------
kybernetikos
> The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already
> significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would
> therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad
> press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability.

I don't think this is the correct comparison. A car used correctly is safe. We
have huge numbers of road accidents because most people are unable to reliably
use a car correctly. The value of an 'autopilot' functionality is that it
should be much better at using the car correctly in the real world than a
human.

What matters is not how many accidents result when using autopilot
'correctly', but how many accidents result from using autopilot in the real
world.

Also, because autopilot is primarily used on particular road profiles, it's
not fair to compare accidents per autopilot mile directly with accidents per
human driver mile. You need to adjust for the fact that autopilot is not used
during more complex driving anyway.

I'd be very interested to know what the statistics are for those, since the
recent press has given me a (potentially incorrect) impression that autopilot
has lead to a relatively large number of serious accidents compared to the
number of cars deployed.

~~~
tikl1
Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are
capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will
cause a terrible accident is a big problem.

It's probably why so much people keep resisting evolution like autopilot, they
can't admit that even them can someday fail and crash. They believe that if
they are good drivers they will avoid it.

Sadly very good drivers die every day and not only because of someone else's
mistake.

Of course a computer or a machine can fail too, but in comparison it will
never fail as often as human do. Because we can be careless, sleepy, drunk,
unskilled,...

Now the real problem we will face (what scares me even though I'm pro-
autopilot) is to accept to hand our lives to machines that will have to make
choices in emergency situations (should it saves its owner or the kids in
front of it ?, who is responsible in case of a crash ?,...)

~~~
greendestiny
"but in comparison it will never fail as often as human do"

Ok I know this is my little cause of the moment, but seriously why are
computers apriori better at anything? Sure they don't make poor life choices
but they are absolutely at the mercy of the quality of the algorithms,
sensors, operating system, training data and physical computational hardware.

~~~
ishi
Computers are not apriori better - you can always develop a stupid or buggy
algorithm that fails often. But Tesla is working to PROVE (using real-world
data) that autopilot is better than a human driver, and IMPROVE it constantly
until it is ten times better.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Tesla seems quite willing to massage their telemetry data until it shows what
they want it to show.

------
aerovistae
To anyone who's paid close attention to Tesla and to Elon's various offhand
remarks to the press and on Twitter, this was all easy to see coming, every
bit of it.

But now that he's confirmed it all officially: this _NUTS_. This is so
awesome. The press is going to go crazy with this.

I wonder what will happen to Uber...seems like it will be hard for them to
compete with the rates of cars that don't have to pay their driver a living
wage, nor pay for gas.

Electric semis-- THANK GOD. I live in Chicago and I can't tell you how sick I
am of the massive exhaust plumes billowing over me as they pass by, and the
roaring of their engines on the street outside my apartment.

~~~
jonny_eh
Uber's been likely working on self-driving cars, potentially in partnership
with Google. What Tesla has as an advantage though, is an assembly line to
produce lots of quality cars. In other words, Tesla will likely be ready for
the future of transportation before Uber.

~~~
danhak
Tesla's other advantage is a global fleet that is actively logging millions of
real-world miles a day. I don't think that can be understated at this stage.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Google may have a lot fewer miles, but they're much higher quality miles. The
sensor suite on their car is much superior, so they're getting much better
data. Even if the eventual Google car uses cheaper sensors, the data they get
from the superior sensors helps a lot training the algorithms.

~~~
pm90
I don't see how this will work though. Unless you plan to equip all those
future cars with the same high quality sensors as those on the Google ones
(which I've heard are prohibitively expensive).

If those sensors eventually do become really cheap, then Tesla could use them
too and negate any advantages Google might have had.

~~~
mdorazio
They're already cheap (see elsewhere in this thread for links). Tesla has
opted not to implement them because Elon thinks LIDAR isn't needed [1]. Of
course without LIDAR you get situations like autopilot running into white
tractor trailers because it can't see them...

[1] [http://9to5google.com/2015/10/16/elon-musk-says-that-the-
lid...](http://9to5google.com/2015/10/16/elon-musk-says-that-the-lidar-google-
uses-in-its-self-driving-car-doesnt-make-sense-in-a-car-context/)

------
ams6110
My points of skepticism:

1\. _Semis_. A typical long haul semi gets well under 10MPG. In some cases not
much more than half that. They are heavy and need a lot of energy to move. A
Tesla Model S weighs 4650 lbs and has a range of a couple of hundred miles. A
semi truck can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. That is a lot of weight to get rolling
and a lot to pull up a grade. Semis spend a large part of their time driving
at highway speeds where air resistance is at a maximum. To achieve useful
performance an electric semi will need a lot of batteries which will reduce
its cargo capacity (Federal law regulates the maximum gross weight), which
reduces its value to freight companies.

2\. _Autonomy_. I think this will take a lot longer to achieve than planned,
both technically and socially.

3\. _Enable your car to make money for you_. I don't want anyone using my car.
Legal liability is one reason. As owner of the car, I am liable for damage it
causes. So legal liability laws will have to change. If I need to go
somewhere, and my car is not here, I don't want to wait for another one. I
don't want to get my car back from another user and find food wrappers strewn
about and used condoms under the seat. I feel that my car is an extension of
my home. It's personal space that I don't want to share with random strangers.

YMMV.

~~~
aerovistae
1\. They'll be able to line the entire trailer with batteries. Elon's pretty
good at physics and engineering: if he says this can be done better than
existing gas-powered semis, you're not going to be able to prove him wrong
with some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic, as if he hadn't considered this.
Obviously he has and knows it _will_ work. Tesla didn't get this far on vague
conjecture.

2\. Maybe so, but it will happen, and the delay won't really hinder Tesla.
They're not dependent on it. It's not like they can't sell cars without it.
It's just another tier of advancement to be reached in time.

3\. Maybe _you_ don't want anyone using your car (nor would I), but that's why
it's _optional_. A lot of people will _love_ this. Owning a car of that level
of quality for a greatly reduced price thanks to earned revenue. I assume the
app will let you monitor its location, and you can anticipate when you'll need
it back again and call it back before that time arrives. Or....just take
someone else's car if you're in such a rush :) Sharing is caring.

~~~
dingaling
> 1\. They'll be able to line the entire trailer with batteries

But that's an enormous inversion of expense that falls on the trailer owners.
The tractor-trailer model works so well because it concentrates complexity and
cost in the tractor.

At present trailers are mechanically fairly simple and require only routine
servicing with a basic toolkit. They draw power from their tractor. An owner
can maintain a fleet of trailers to match their peak demand and are
immediately available. Just charter a tractor and away they go.

Battery-equipped trailers will be much more complex, heavy and maintenance-
intensive. More expensive but with a smaller payload and prolonged periods of
unavailability whilst charging. The cost of haulage charters will have to
reduce by magnitudes to make that an attractive preposition.

~~~
pfranz
Semis sound like a better market for hot-swapping and renting your battery
compared to consumers. The rollout is a bit more straightforward since the
travel routes are more obvious (weigh stations or truck stops).

~~~
tim333
Some math on the weight issue - A big rig tractor unit is about 10 tons in
weight. A tesla model S battery is about half a ton. The energy to move a
truck is maybe 8x (given trucks get 5mpg, cars 40mpg approx), so that's a 4
ton battery for 200 mile range. Electric motors weigh much less than a large
diesel engine so the weight would come out about the same. I think cost may be
more of an issue.

------
greendestiny
"I should add a note here to explain why Tesla is deploying partial autonomy
now, rather than waiting until some point in the future. The most important
reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a
person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible
to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation
of legal liability."

That's a hell of a statement and I want to see much better stats than that.
Just looking at the total distance per death in human driven cars and
comparing it to the autopilot total distance is a gross simplification. At an
absolute minimum you have to start by only comparing driving on similar roads.
Tesla simply keeps hiding behind 'if used correctly' which includes the driver
being alert and ready to take over - if we restrict human driving stats to
similarly ideal conditions the accident rate will also drop. Additionally
driver demographics is a big deal as is the safety features of the car itself.

~~~
greendestiny
Here's a probably equally badly made statistic. Tesla estimates their cars had
driven 130 million autopilot miles before the fatality. Some googling suggests
the first non-autopilot Tesla S fatality was in july 2014 and this graph (
[http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tesla-
Model-...](http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tesla-Model-S-One-
Billion-Miles-Line-Graph-june-2015.jpg) ) suggests that was around 400 million
miles driven. So the autopilot is 3.33 times 'worse'?

Who knows, but if Tesla feels they have a moral duty to leave on autopilot if
it is safer, they equally have one if it is more dangerous. It seems they are
pretty happy to be in dark about which it is while they test their system.

~~~
cubaia
In other words, if you're a Tesla driver, you're safer driving the car
yourself than driving it with autopilot.

~~~
tim333
I get that impression from the stats. They say the autopilot is ok if you keep
an eye on it but in the real world people won't always - I think the guy who
died was watching a movie.

On the other hand about 1 million people die each year in driving accidents so
if by winging it a bit you can stop that a year earlier it's a million lives
saved vs maybe <10 autonomous deaths in the research phase.

------
ilamont
_Once we get to the point where Autopilot is approximately 10 times safer than
the US vehicle average, the beta label will be removed_

Musk misreads the public's attitude about vehicle safety. Human error is
understandable, mechanical failure is unacceptable. Society can live with 10
people driving themselves off a cliff (and blame the drivers, road conditions,
or poor signage) but they will not accept a car driving its trusting
passengers off a cliff.

~~~
s_dev
What about all the autonomous trams, trains and buses already in existence?

If the public genuinely thought that way they wouldn't exist already. Tesla is
just bringing more scale to what we already have in parts of Europe and I'm
sure the US too.

I don't think Musk has misread public attitude towards safety but rather hit
the nail on the head. Such vehicles don't need to be perfect just
significantly safer than people.

------
pdq
I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated
electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with
lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-
class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into
those product lines.

Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is
sitting in a hyper competitive solar panel industry, where I don't see their
competitive advantage. It seems foolish to bring that business inside of
Tesla, as if it failed, the debt risk would now affect Tesla's future. As many
others have mentioned, a long term licensing deal or partnership avoids those
risks.

[1] [http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-says-
solarcity...](http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-says-solarcity-
deal-about-synergy-but-it-may-be-about-debt/ar-AAhu9vZ)

~~~
maratd
> I still don't understand the SolarCity part.

People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And
storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all
directly related.

So when I buy a Tesla ... I have to hire a 3rd party to install the wiring to
charge it. I can buy the storage battery from Tesla, but again, need to hire
someone else to install it. And if I want solar panels for that storage
battery, again 3rd party.

SolarCity has a fleet of professionals ready to do all of that. They also have
a plant to manufacture their own panels, which hopefully they'll be able to
differentiate on. Combining the two companies will enable Tesla to service
that whole loop with the equipment and installation.

Now, you can argue that Tesla may have been better off starting their own
division from scratch or buying someone else ... but from what I heard,
they're getting a hell of a bargain for SolarCity.

~~~
snowwrestler
> People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And
> storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all
> directly related.

Is this true? I'd be interested in learning more about the data behind this.

Anyway, for the sake of discussion let's say it is. Does that mean there is a
correlation that scales to the whole population?

Or is it just that electric cars and solar panels appeal to the same small
segment of the population? That would show a strong correlation, but not scale
well.

~~~
ne0n
Generally, having an electric car would push your electric bill into much
higher usage tiers where the power is most expensive. Solar panels make the
most sense for people who use the most electricity and pay the most for it.
I've seen first hand that people who drive electric cars like to talk about
clean energy and if they've got solar panels on their roof, it refutes the
argument about burning coal to generate the electricity. As solar panels
continue to drop in price, it starts to make more sense for the rest of the
population, too.

------
danhak
I'm on board with most of this. The goals here are obviously ambitious by any
standard, and would seem totally absurd if put forth by anyone who didn't
happen to berth a private spacecraft with the ISS earlier this morning.

~~~
2bitencryption
I've read a fair share of criticisms against Tesla, and many of them are
founded on solid points.

However, in the grand scheme of things, this really does seem like I am
watching history unfold. I don't know if I've ever truly believed the "grand
mission statement" of a company before so much as I do Tesla's. Mostly
because, when it has come down to it, Musk has proved that he really means it.
Silicon Valley has made the joke a billion times of start-ups saying they're
trying "To make the world a better place." The difference with Tesla (and
probably also SpaceX) is that if they succeed, it seems they really _will_
make the world a better place. ..and probably cement Musk a pretty good
paragraph in the history books, it seems.

~~~
Animats
Well, Microsoft's mission statement was once "A computer on every desk,
running Microsoft software." Mission accomplished, 20 years ago.

------
rbosinger
I have stock in Solar City and I don't care if I lose it all. It's not my life
savings though. I invested because I enjoy day dreaming a similar dream to
what Musk must be dreaming. Like any great science we just have to try and be
excited, together. We can all banter about economics, rationality and history
but I'm stoked. Who cares. I don't see how Tesla or SolarCity failing would
lead to mass starvation or anything so let's strap in and be pumped!

------
d_t_w
"Coal is the future" \- Tony Abbott, Australian PM, 2014.

There are many things to take from Musk's master plan part deux, but the most
important for me is the intent and aspiration.

I live in Australia, the leadership here is absolutely dire both political and
economic. A relentless cycle of vested mining interests and climate change
deniers espousing at length on the cattle exports to Asia suffering if
marriage equality is passed.

Maybe Musk succeeds, maybe not, but here's someone with vision, a plan, and
he's going to have a fair swing at it.

~~~
vacri
Abbott is the last person anyone should quote to support an argument. He
wasn't voted in; the other party was voted out. His policy for everything was
"No!", and once in power, found out that "No!" didn't cut it anymore. He did
do a lot of damage, but his leadership was so bad that he was ejected by his
own party in his first term _despite_ them using that 'they ejected in first
term!' argument in their election campaign to win power. That's kind've
promising, actually... the party was worried about the public enough that
they'd eject a lunatic leader.

The leadership here isn't dire, it's just boring (in global terms) and a bit
of a soap opera. The country is still a great place to live. If you look
beyond the media, there is leadership - for example, in Gillard's tenure, more
articles of legislation were passed than in any previous government, including
some key items, despite the media loudly claiming (with plenty of misogyny)
that the minority government was hamstrung and paralysed.

Turnbull is not the guy I want in right now, but his leadership is hardly
'dire'. Besides, if you use 'dire' for something as beige as Turnbull, what
have you got left for something like Erdogan's latest activities in Turkey?

~~~
d_t_w
"He wasn't voted in; the other party was voted out"

He won the 2013 federal election as the leader of the Liberals, that's fairly
conclusive.

"The leadership here isn't dire"

We disagree.

"Besides, if you use 'dire' for something as beige as Turnbull, what have you
got left for something like Erdogan's latest activities in Turkey?"

Criminal? The question is whataboutery.

~~~
vacri
Ah, you're right. Rather than living in one of the most stable and wealthy
societies on the planet, we're actually falling fast towards a Mad Max-style
dystopia. I must remember to weld some more armour onto my car tonight...

Just because we're not living in an impossible utopia doesn't mean the
situation is dire. We haven't had great leadership since the Hawke/Keating
years (over 20 years ago), yet still the country is going grand - not having
great leadership doesn't mean we must be having the polar opposite.

~~~
d_t_w
I don't know what you think this hyperbole adds to the conversation?

~~~
vacri
"Dire" is hyperbole, and pretending that you don't know what I mean when I say
"voted out, not voted in" is just insulting.

I also tried giving you reasoned paragraphs, and you responded with trite
lines adding very little - I wouldn't go taking the high road here about
'contributing to the conversation'.

------
paulsutter
> We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the
> order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is
> happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day.

This seems very significant for Tesla vs competitors. Yes Google has a strong
technology lead today, but how long will that last when Tesla is collecting
more miles of data every day than Google has collected in 5 years? (Sincere
question) Not to mention Apple and existing car vendors, who each have 0
million miles of experience.

Tesla should reach 6 billion miles very quickly once the model 3 is out.

~~~
ams6110
It seems to me the data tesla are collecting are not unique. How many times
logging the same driver driving the same 20 mile commute before you're in
diminishing returns?

With deliberately chosen conditions, scenarios, and routes, it seems to me
Google could be collecting data that are just as useful although maybe
covering much a smaller number of miles.

~~~
dpcx
I don't know where you live, but my daily commute is _never_ the same. They
either start/end at different times, or I have to take different routes, or
the weather is different. I think it would take a lot longer than 3 years
before they start seeing actual diminishing returns on mileage collection.

~~~
arcticfox
More than 3 years? I would confidently wager that noticeable diminishing
returns would occur after 3 days, and very significant diminishing returns
after 3 weeks.

~~~
robszumski
Think about seasons, varying weather, light levels, traffic fluctuation,
construction, changing parking patterns, delivery drivers/stopped trucks...the
list goes on. It would be very useful to have that occur within a relatively
known route, where you can isolate and model what isn't understood already.

------
mrfusion
I didn't understand what enables them to get rid of aisles inside buses?
People still need to reach their seats right?

~~~
Vik1ng
Also sounds like it's written by someone who has never used public transport
his entire life. In my bus in the morning 70% of the passengers are standing
not sitting.

~~~
frankchn
Yeah, higher densities on public transports can be achieved by standing rather
than sitting. For instance, BART has been testing removing seats to fit more
people into each train carriage [1].

[1]: [http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/04/bart-tests-new-seat-
layo...](http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/04/bart-tests-new-seat-layout-to-
ease-crowding-on-trains)

~~~
pfranz
I think they're removing seats out of desperation. I've was hearing the
planned capacity was many, many times smaller than the current ridership. It
can take lots of money, political sway, and quite a few years to catch up.

------
unabst
Tesla isn't a car company. It's building Rome. All great "startups" are not
some good idea executed well. They are companies with a long term vision that
generate ideas to execute that will get them there. Anyone might steal an idea
or copy a product, but no one can steal a mission or a destination far in the
future. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google... all started as or at some
point became "build Rome" companies.

~~~
whatever_dude
After reading this master plan yesterday, I came to work today thinking along
the same lines.

I feel like Musk's actions are a great example of McLuhan's "The Medium is the
Message". Tesla is not a car company. They're doing cars because it's a way
into their actual business. He wants them to invest in solar power because
it's another way that ties into a general plan.

------
_s
Uber is betting on car manufacturers to have autonomous driving in place,
while it builds up a worldwide user base of logistics (moving people and goods
from X to Y). It doesn't care if vehicles are driven by a horse or by
electricity.

Tesla is building the vehicles and energy source for the vehicles, and
building the autonomy in to them, but it's betting on a user-base acquisition
via hardware (vehicle) ownership and/or eventually some form of subscription
to the "Tesla" club.

Carbon-based fuel(s) will eventually run out. Tesla via SolarCity will be in
an incredible position of offering energy, so I'll be looking at how well
their plan of putting Solar on every roof works rather than autonomy / vehicle
manufacturing / sales. I think this is likely going to be their make or break
asset.

~~~
FreedomToCreate
Good points except that we are a century, if not centuries from carbon fuel
reaching a point where people start to worry. And companies like Toyota are
investing in alternatives fuels like Hydrogen, so it not as straight forward
as you state for Tesla.

~~~
tdy721
Most Hydrogen is generated from natural gas today and for the foreseeable
future... It's no more an alternative source than Electricity, probably less,
because we don't have Nuclear Hydrogen plants.

------
Evgeny
_As of 2016, the number of American car companies that haven 't gone bankrupt
is a grand total of two: Ford and Tesla._

Also, four entities have launched rockets into space: the US, China, the
Soviet Union (Russia) and Elon Musk.

This guy is thinking and planning on a scale I find it hard to even imagine,
to fit in my brain.

~~~
spenczar5
What? No. Orbital
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation))
launched a rocket into space in 1990, entirely privately.

France [1], Japan [2], India [3], Israel [4], Iran [5], and even North Korea
[6] have developed and launched rockets that successfully put satellites in
orbit.

I like Elon as much as the next guy, but this mythologizing is just too much.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_(rocket_family)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_\(rocket_family\))

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Launch_Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Launch_Vehicle)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavit)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safir_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safir_\(rocket\))

[6] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha)

~~~
RubberSpoon
It's a misquote from the Elon Musk Wait But Why article:
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-
raddest-m...](http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-
man.html)

"the four entities in history who have managed to launch a spacecraft into
orbit and successfully return it to Earth are the US, Russia, China—and
SpaceX"

------
sp527
I'm genuinely surprised at the quality of Musk's writing and the presentation
of certain ideas. He clearly insisted against copyediting, and that was
probably a mistake judging by the output. I suspect that he was attempting to
eschew the formality of typical press releases, but this 'Master Plan' (which
is itself a somewhat juvenile moniker) feels like something that warranted
rigor.

~~~
d23
I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You think it's bad he wrote it
himself, or good? Are you saying his writing it himself was a mistake, or
wasn't? And it does or doesn't sound formal enough? It needs rigor and doesn't
have it, or it does have it?

~~~
sp527
He should have written it with more formality and more rigor. Tesla is a
public company and there is already a perception among investors that this is
a facade. Musk needs to reposition Tesla as less of a personal
experiment/quest and more of a legitimate enterprise that acknowledges its
fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Tone and communication are very important
in this regard. This release failed to adopt a tone and style of communication
commensurate with the severity of Tesla's present situation. Instead, it feels
like Musk is treating Tesla as he might a startup. In short, he's being
facetious. I doubt the stock will plummet as a result of this, but it was
certainly a missed opportunity to reassure investors.

~~~
brandonbloom
1) It appears that Musk genuinely believes that he is acting as a fiduciary
with _long term_ outlook. If the investors don't like the time scale, they can
put their money somewhere else. Fuck 'em.

2) In most cases, "formality" and "rigor" only works to mask unfortunate
realities and incompetence. Being plain spoken need not imply ignorance nor
thoughtlessness. I may not be a sophisticated investor, but Musk's ability to
so clearly outline the plan (and proven track record of executing such plans!)
gives me great confidence.

3) I view the entertainment and excitement that Musk provides is a small, but
welcome dividend that I'm happy to share with non-investors alike. I feel sad
for you that you can't or won't appreciate it.

~~~
sp527
Well in SV I've often seen informality leveraged to mask Kool-Aid. 'If I'm
talking like the cool kids, how could I possibly be punking you?' Bit of a
cliched strategy really. Clearly some people still fall for it.

------
sna1l
> "Create a smoothly integrated and beautiful solar-roof-with-battery product
> that just works, empowering the individual as their own utility, and then
> scale that throughout the world. One ordering experience, one installation,
> one service contact, one phone app.

We can't do this well if Tesla and SolarCity are different companies, which is
why we need to combine and break down the barriers inherent to being separate
companies. That they are separate at all, despite similar origins and pursuit
of the same overarching goal of sustainable energy, is largely an accident of
history. Now that Tesla is ready to scale Powerwall and SolarCity is ready to
provide highly differentiated solar, the time has come to bring them
together."

I don't really see how this answers the question as to why they need to merge?
Why can't their just be a partnership?

~~~
duncan_bayne
The friction caused by integration points between two companies in that sort
of arrangement is usually a significant pain point for customers.

(Anecdotal evidence, based on working in an energy startup in Australia for a
few years).

------
SigmundA
Anyone else think AbstractTelsaFactoryFactory?

~~~
devonkim
AbstractTeslaIndustry is my personal convention in this case.

~~~
marvin
Aha! But how would you create a TeslaFactoryFactoryFactory?

~~~
devonkim
AbstractTeslaEconomy. Then it'd be eventually AbstractTeslaNation or
AbstractTeslaCivilization depending upon if the class is a singleton.

Also, I would probably be evaluating a DI framework long before thinking of
anything beyond an Industry. Even an EJB sounds great by that point.

------
stephenitis
I hear about bus drivers and truck drivers getting into accidents due to
drowsiness enough that it's a constant worry whenever I'm on the highway next
to one. I wonder if I'd feel safer if i saw a Tesla Semi knowing that were
wasn't a human behind the wheel.

Should autonomous vehicles be identified as such (special lights or label) so
that real humans can know not to be erratic around it?

~~~
manachar
This comment reminds me of the various (likely apocryphal) laws when cars were
still new and shared the road with cars.

Cars we considered the new weird thing that needed to take special steps to
not spook horses or their riders/drivers.

Now, of course, the situation is reversed and horses often are required to
have special visibility gear to be seen more clearly by cars.

So, perhaps in the future there will be some sort of indicator light that
turns on when the idiot driver turns on manual driving mode so you (edit, or
your car!) can give them a wide berth.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> So, perhaps in the future there will be some sort of indicator light that
> turns on when the idiot driver turns on manual driving mode so you (edit, or
> your car!) can give them a wide berth.

Agreed. Don't mark the autonomous vehicles. Mark the ones to be more concerned
about: the ones with a human driving.

------
stephenitis
"So, in short, Master Plan, Part Deux is:

\- Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage \-
Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments \-
Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive
fleet learning \- Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using
it"

I take this as...

Having solar powered superchargers power autonomous semitrucks transporting
cargo across america.

Having solar powered superchargers power autonomous public buses transporting
people around a city.

Have my car join a fleet of uber-like autonomous teslas while i'm not using
it.

~~~
manicdee
Note the Tesla focus on solar, since wind power doesn't work so well on Mars
:)

~~~
D_Alex
Neither does solar :(

~~~
guftagu
Why not?

~~~
bolasanibk
Distance from sun. At the surface, Mars only gets 60% of energy from Sun as
compared to Earth. The dust storms only make it worse.

------
j0e1
Haven't seen such a clean, crisp plan that has been implemented flawlessly by
a company. Makes me reconsider how I should think the next time I'm asked to
write a vision/mission statement for anything-company/product.

~~~
mulcahey
Now let's just wait and see if SpaceX's full vision comes to fruition.

------
Double_Cast
> _A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that
> somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a
> roughly 2 year iteration cycle._

How does one calculate this? Does there exist some canonical Productivity-
Equation?

------
stcredzero
_A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests..._

This is the part I really want to see.

------
mshenfield
Less of a master plan, and more a list of goals. The original was awesome
because it clearly laid what Tesla wanted to accomplish "Consumer electric
vehicles" and how. This just lays out the what.

~~~
dave1619
Agree. The first plan laid out the chronological steps to reach the goal. This
second plan is more scattered.

------
davnicwil
> _increased passenger areal density [on buses] by eliminating the center
> aisle and putting seats where there are currently entryways_

I can't picture the layout he's describing here - not sure if it's been
discussed in more detail elsewhere - anyone got a better idea or a reference
image?

~~~
hrnnnnnn
The only way I could imagine it, is if it was describing a much smaller bus
than we're currently used to, which I think he also mentions.

------
lsllc
My favorite quote:

"Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy
squared."

~~~
ams6110
Well honestly, the entire plan can be read as either the work of a highly
ambitious genious or a raving madman.

------
mrfusion
Are there any more details on the factory factory? I didn't understand that
part.

~~~
jrv
Check out this video around 1h22m:
[https://youtu.be/6WyaO29XDf8](https://youtu.be/6WyaO29XDf8)

------
Tiktaalik
The best part of this is automated semi trucks. I think that's the perfect
sort of business for Tesla to be in.

I have a lot of trouble understanding the public transportation part. The
ideas presented fall apart when you remove the baffling assumption that
traffic congestion _decreases_ with the introduction of autonomous vehicles.
Autonomous vehicles will expand the possible set of drivers. That will
dramatically increase the amount of vehicles on the road. If anything our
future with autonomous vehicles will be unbearable gridlock.

~~~
TillE
No, look at the whole system. Instead of four people with four cars (or even
two cars and a couple bikes), you can have one autonomous shared cab driving
an optimized route.

~~~
Tiktaalik
This assumes that everyone is sharing cars. What if they don't? Then you
simply have what we have now plus the addition of people who otherwise
wouldn't be able to drive (people without licenses, 13 year olds, 80 year olds
etc).

------
cpwright
I'm very curious what the pickup offering will be like, and compare to
existing offerings from the big 3, since it is a "a new kind of pickup truck".
I think the segment of the pickup market that is mostly an SUV, but
occasionally needs to haul/tow stuff could be well served by Tesla. They also
have plans for a semi, so maybe they'll actually be able to compete for actual
work trucks that haul/tow on a regular basis too; but the energy density of
the battery compared to gasoline/diesel makes me doubtful.

------
ejz
This isn't really that interesting. There's nothing here that hasn't been said
already or at least very strongly suggested by Musk. The last master plan was
interesting because no one had ever really made a successful electric car
company, so no one imagined it could be anything but a rich person's toy, so
Musk's claim that he could make a desirable mass production car was a huge
shock.

It's also very sloppy; it's not an actual plan, with goals and steps that
logically follow each other. The last master plan had a clear logic to it: you
used the margin of each successive step to fund research and development
further down in order to increase the use of electric cars and limit global
warming. This is more like a wish list than a plan. "We want to make semis."
"It'd be great if we also provided the solar part of the stack because it
dovetails with this other initiative we're doing." "Once we have solar, we can
do this new thing." Etc, etc. Unlike the first master plan, I can't gauge how
long any of this will take or whether it is feasible. I can't gauge what the
actual strategy is any better than I could yesterday. And isn't that the point
of a Master Plan?

------
shasheene
Hopefully Tesla will be able to achieve this new plan. Looking back at the
first 'master plan' from 2006, it's clear that it failed pretty badly as Tesla
Motors wasn't close to being able to _self fund_ its goals over that time.

Since the first master plan was published in 2006, Tesla Motors has raised
money privately (during its near death experience in 2008), sold a 10% stake
to Daimler (which was recently divested), went public which has a side effect
of raising even more (though the main reason to IPO in most cases liquidity to
existing investors), and since then have continually raised money from the
public market every year or two. There's probably private and public capital
raisings since 2006 that I'm forgetting too (and they raised other capital
streams like debt, such as the DoE loan)

The very lofty stock price of Tesla in recent years has helped it fund Model
S, Model X and Model 3 designs, development, manufacturing (at large scales)
and delivery, as well as the building of a large battery factory which Tesla
owns a stake in. This constant fund raising has kept Tesla alive and I don't
argue that it was very good corporate governance by Elon Musk and team to get
Tesla Motors to where it is now (approaching the delivery date for the first
Model 3 shipments and having a huge capacity to manufacture battery packs).

However, it's still a failure in its attempt to bootstrap the funding of Model
3 based on sales of previous models.

Of course, Tesla and SpaceX has consistently ended up achieving great things,
even if the timeline is optimistic and the budget ends up blowing out. But
issuing stock and eventually debt can only stretch Tesla so far. Hopefully
Tesla can become a more sustainable business before that happens.

~~~
codeulike
Was self funding ever part of the plan? One can take it for granted that the
company has to survive economically for the plan to work, but besides that why
say the plan must be funded in a particular way?

~~~
shasheene
Yes, self-funding was a definitely the core part of the plan. Here's the
original "master plan" text from 2006 [1]

    
    
      Build sports car
      Use that money to build an affordable car
      Use *that* money to build an even more affordable car
      While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
      Don't tell anyone.
    

I think the term "that money" ('that' is italicized in the original) is pretty
clear he means funding from the profits of the prior models. (Elon Musk has
definitely articulated the funding thing in interviews.)

Also, the summary Elon Musk has just posted continues using the same
italicized emphasis:

    
    
      Create a low volume car, which would necessarily be expensive
      Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price
      Use *that* money to create an affordable, high volume car
    

[1] [https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-
plan-j...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-
between-you-and-me)

~~~
codeulike
OK, but swap 'investment' for money and it still makes sense. Does it seem
likely that someone like Elon Musk would refuse to leverage investment and
insist on funding all growth and r+d from profits only? That would take
decades surely?

------
dredmorbius
For rates of process and cost improvement with scale, look to J. Doyne
Farmer's work, and particularly Wright's Law (Moore's Law is a special case,
and less accurate), which looks at cost improvements with volume increase
through learning functions.

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-
measurem...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-
measurement/wrights-law-edges-out-moores-law-in-predicting-technology-
development)

[http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263107](http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263107)

[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052669#pone.0052669-Alberth1)

[http://www.santafe.edu/research/working-
papers/abstract/0650...](http://www.santafe.edu/research/working-
papers/abstract/0650f0fb526862cb048a74a33c5417ac/)

------
maxander
Elon Musk is like the cat who tried to jump from the sofa to the top of the
bookcase, fell to the floor in a tangle of wildly gyrating limbs, and is now
sitting there quietly licking its paw like it was intending to do that all
along. Even with his brilliance he's fooling no one into thinking the
SolarCity merger was actually in his plan- there are some synergies, sure, but
they're easily outweighed by the added corporate complexity.

But I mean, he's Elon Musk. He could still pull it off.

His biggest problem by far (excepting, perhaps, Model 3 production targets)
will be regulations. It makes a nice story when you talk about the relative
risks rationally, but there's no chance whatsoever American politics will deal
with the issue in a rational fashion. Autopilot may retroactively _become_
illegal in places people currently get away with it; cars driving themselves
around is a different and _titanic_ can of worms. What if a terrorist gets
their hands on a Tesla and stuffs it full of explosives?

~~~
tdy721
There are Nepotism conflicts between the boards of the two companies... Not a
plan? If anything, it swings/stinks too far to the other side. IMHO...

[http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/tesla-elon-musk-
solarcity/](http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/tesla-elon-musk-solarcity/)

------
Shivetya
Can we talk about what I see as the most important driving force behind
acceptance of full or partial electrification of transportation? Heavy duty
and transport. Specifically I think Tesla would be best off getting school
buses to full EV or even partial EV capability.

Using a Cobb County Georgia as an example, stats posted awhile ago listed over
a thousand school buses traveling almost seventy thousand miles a day. Seventy
thousand miles a day! Since the buses have to load/unload at schools and such
its easy to establish charging points to include fast top offs where five or
six minutes of charging can extend enough to the next time. Then between major
routes, elementary, middle, and high school, longer charge periods can be
done.

Get kids and parents used to silent electric buses and you go a long way to
establishing a generation on them. Get autopilot to work well in that
environment and you get to sell them on two innovations at once

------
dskloet
> The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already
> significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would
> therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release

Doesn't Tesla charge a large fee to have autopilot enabled on your car? Isn't
that equally morally reprehensible?

------
back_beyond
Master Plan, Part Trois:

Solar-powered, autonomous spacecraft.

~~~
mrfusion
Actually aircraft could be a very real possibility of you read up on his
ideas.

------
kilroy123
> We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the
> order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is
> happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day.

So he is essentially say, in at most five in a half years, they'll be ready
for fully self driving cars?

~~~
mrtron
He is saying the government will be ready to approve them then.

------
OliverJones
Fleets, Mr. Musk. Centrally owned fleets of vehicles, where you can make your
sales case based on total cost of system ownership rather than sex appeal.

It's a tall order, but can you set your sights on those "long life vehicles"
presently used by the US Postal Service in urban and suburban areas, or maybe
similar vehicles in Europe. Those machines return to base daily and usually
are unused at least 8 hr/day. Massive buildings with large roofs.

Cop cars. Lots of slow speed cruising combined with a very occasional need for
high speed and agility. Return to base every shift. Location awareness.

These sales cycles will be long, and probably a pain in the neck for your
major account teams. But you're in it for the long haul.

From the owner of Model S #146761

------
amluto
Master plan part one made sense: it all lead to Tesla as it is today.

But master plan part deux seems odd: what exactly does "One ordering
experience, one installation, one service contact, one phone app" for solar
have to do with the Tesla transportation part?

~~~
qaq
batteries :)

~~~
amluto
Could you clarify?

Tesla needs batteries. SolarCity does _not_ need batteries except in
jurisdictions that make having a battery significantly favorable over having
one. Also, the high energy density batteries that Tesla needs are, IMO, mostly
unnecessary for stationary use. Compare Powerwall prices to lead-acid -- lead-
acid wins hands down. Sure, the lead acid batteries are heavy, but that's not
a problem if you plunk them in the basement or crawlspace.

------
esusatyo
It's interesting that they portray self-driving capabilities as something that
can be turned on or off, unlike Google's where it's just always on.

I think in the long run Google might be building the correct solution for
greater number of people.

~~~
mortenjorck
This is a big part of why we're at such an exciting point with autonomous
vehicles: there are several highly promising, meaningfully different
methodologies contending right now, including Google's top-down approach,
Tesla's incremental approach, and even Comma.ai's maverick pure-learning
approach.

------
hackguru
I am in no position to question EM. But I was hoping he would give some good
explanation for spending resources on SolarCity acquisition but nothing.
Nothing in this master plan explains why SolarCity was bought other than some
hand wavy explanation about inherent difficulties of two separate companies
working together. It still doesn't seem like a good purchase for Tesla
specially at the moment. Solar car and SolarCity seem to only have the word
solar in common :) TBH I am still fuzzy how expensive purchase of SolarCity
can benefit a solar car manufacturing even in long run.

~~~
jrv
If you're interested in learning more about the reasoning for the SolarCity
acquisition, I can recommend listening to the conference call recording about
that: [http://edge.media-server.com/m/p/makhvjt8](http://edge.media-
server.com/m/p/makhvjt8)

~~~
Decade
I see. It’s not just a bailout, to stave off SolarCity’s looming demise,
though it is partially about that. It’s also expected to be profitable,
because they could consolidate SolarCity’s sales operations into Tesla’s
existing showrooms, and sell a complete package that’s more attractive than
solar panels or PowerWalls on their own.

Not entirely contradictory with my previous guess; being profitable by laying
off the sales department is basically saying the company will not soon be
profitable by itself; but Musk is so certain that it’s a good deal for the
respective companies that he’s promising to recuse himself from the vote.

The other interesting aspect is that they don’t expect the sale to close and
the details to be official for several months. It’s actually near the
beginning of the negotiating process, with due diligence and stuff yet to be
done. Since Musk is a large shareholder of both companies, they decided to
announce it publicly this early.

------
freshyill
I feel like there must have been a few pages left off the beginning and this
whole post was a summary of an article that doesn't exist. I guess that's just
Elon Musk's train of thought.

------
thatfrenchguy
"In addition to consumer vehicles, there are two other types of electric
vehicle needed: heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport"

Where I'm from, we call that trains.

~~~
draxofavalon
Hyperloop will be what we used to call trains.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
I'll believe it when it will ship :-).

Meanwhile, most of Europe, Japan and China has a really cool high-speed
working train system and suburban trains that really work.

I remember how shocked I was when I first when into the NYC subway. And don't
start me on BART or MUNI in SF, those are awful.

------
rjdevereux
Why is residential solar important to the plan? Aren't large solar
installations a more cost effective way of switching houses already on the
grid to solar energy.

~~~
abalone
Adoption. By offering a standalone solution that can be adopted at the
grassroots level they hope to drive adoption faster than any other way.

This is why they're including batteries instead of telling customers to feed
excess energy back into the grid. Feeding into the grid is technically more
efficient and doesn't require all those batteries, but does require the
headache of interfacing with your local utility.

------
bambax
> _Enable your car to make money for you when you aren 't using it_

In cities, everyone needs their car at exactly the same time, that's why we
have congestions. When I'm not using my car, no one else needs one (that's an
exaggeration of course but not by much).

So in order to get to sustainability, we need to understand why remote working
(for instance) hasn't happened yet.

------
lazyjones
Battery-powered trucks and buses seem like a logical next step, since there's
not much competition there yet (save some obscure small players) and weight is
less of an issue.

[I'd still like to own a fully autonomous mobile home that drives me to work
while I am eating breakfast in my bath robe or taking a shower and then moves
me to a beach while I'm sleeping on Friday nights. Well, one can hope, right?]

------
plcancel
If this article is accurate, the Master Plan, Part Un narrative is a bit more
nuanced.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesl...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesla_is_worse_than_solyndra_how_the_u_s_government_bungled_its_investment.html)

------
paul_milovanov
For a bit of a reality check, go take a look at Financial Times coverage of
Tesla.

Tesla will require regular infusions of capital over, say, the next 5 years.
The only source for that is more equity, and to do that you need to actually
start meeting some of your self-declared profitability goals. Up to now, Tesla
hasn't.

The tactic of diverting attention with "but look, here's this great awesome
world-changing thing we'll do next" has worked so far but it's rapidly getting
old. In general, the frequency with which sleights of hand are starting to be
employed is concerning. Remember the "but don't just take my word on it — I
myself will be buying $20M of new stock!" thing? Sure you will to reassure
investors, given that loss of confidence will cost you personally far more
than $20M.

SolarCity? "If Musk thought Tesla really needs a solar company, he might as
well buy a good one. But it doesn't" [FT Lex]. Given how important it is that
they are able to keep raising capital through equity offerings, taking the
risk of freaking the investors out with SolarCity acquisition (otherwise
expected to go into bankruptcy protection by next year) makes sense only if
letting SC fail presents a bigger risk of the same. The Musk fairytale would
certainly take a hit from a SC bankruptcy.

And Musk setting these crazy numbers goals practically guarantees he's setting
TSLA shareholders up for disappointment.

Non-profit-making Amazon has been raised as a counterargument in the comments
on this thread; the amount of trust the market has extended to Bezos for the
time that it has is practically unprecedented; and Bezos has worked hard to
make that happen by making investment/direction choices & providing
information to earn the trust of the market. Musk, to the contrary, is doing
everything to the opposite.

Now, what's the likelihood of a macro downturn within the next 2-5 years?
Massive. That might trip up the availability of capital a bit—those refundable
$1000 deposits too but who cares about them (by the way, much of T's capital
has been raised during the period of literally historically unprecedented low
cost of capital)

I didn't even begin to talk about competition. Or that Panasonic, T's critical
gigafactory partner, isn't just sitting around twiddling thumbs (or the
Chinese).

So, it'd be prudent to curb your enthusiasm. There might not be a part trois.

~~~
Kutta
Musk doesn't primarily raise capital by selling prospects of eventual
dividend. He openly doesn't care at all about profitability, he only cares
about the oft-stated SpaceX/Tesla goals, and is pretty much willing to take
any money and opportunity that comes his way, be it public rounds or
government support. Musk raises capital by selling the prospect of the
achievement of his stated goals. Part of the investors care about Musk's
goals, and another part invest in Musk because they think that other people
caring about Musk's goals sets Tesla's market value.

------
femto
> via massive fleet learning

Is Tesla going to make this data freely available, to accelerate the
development of safer autonomous driving software? Given that it's "morally
reprehensible to delay release" of autopilot, it is also morally reprehensible
not to publicly release such data if more groups working on the task will lead
to safer software.

~~~
dpcx
Likely. They gave away all of their patents ([https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-
our-patent-are-belong-you](https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-
belong-you)), so it's likely they'd be willing to share this data.

~~~
fudged71
But they aren't sharing their accident data...

------
DrNuke
Nice plan, good luck! If that happens, though, I can't see why owning a car at
all, ten to twenty years from now: just make an enormous fleet of electric
unmanned buses running up and down every major road on Earth, uh? No jams, no
accidents, only a regular and pre-determined flow of vehicles. One planet, one
network.

------
restalis
Hey, Musk, small nitpick: I think when you say „inertial impedance” you're
actually referring to „mechanical impedance”:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_impedance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_impedance)

------
k__
Somehow these discussions about human driven cars feel like the discussions
about smoking or owning a gun to me.

The world could be a better place for so many people, but somehow a bunch of
other people think it's okay to continue doing them until they die.

~~~
yoo1I
> The world could be a better place for so many people, but somehow a bunch of
> other people think it's okay to continue doing them until they die.

The other day I came across an article in which a school prohibited their
students clapping when cheering, instead making the cheer in quiet with a
fistpump or something like that.

The stated reason for this was that some of their pupils were noise sensitive
and it made them feel bad/anxious/terrified.

Now, regardless of whether this particular story is true like that, it
illustrates something interesting.

There is a whole bag of human behavior that has the possibility to affect
their environment negatively. I would go so far to say

> Being alive is an interruption to your environment

You can't not be a nuisance. Nor should you strive to be. That doesn't mean
you should be as annoying as possible to everyone you meet, but it means to
recognize that we live in a society in which people are different, and
specifically to your point, have different trade-offs when it comes to
acceptable risk and freedom.

That you have different trade-offs doesn't give you a moral high-ground, over
people "thinking it's ok until they die". And I'm not totally relativist here,
I think there should be limits and that some trade-offs are wrong.

It's just that that goes both ways between recklessly irresponsible and
fascist government limiting everything dangerous, and there is a lot of space
in between the two.

~~~
k__
so true.

I'm a left-wing guy, but the older I get the more I have the feeling, getting
my life rid of socalist projects (public healthcare, retirment funds, etc)
lets me live a more lefty life, haha.

------
caf
I would have thought you'd want to go for delivery vans before semi-trailers.

------
helicon
Forgive me if this is a silly question but when he talks about "beautiful
solar-roof-with-battery", is he talking about car roofs or roofs of buildings?

An electric car with a solar roof that charges all day would be pretty cool.

~~~
maxerickson
Buildings. A car roof isn't enough area and isn't pointed in the right
direction.

~~~
tamersalama
Not if it's a trailer.

~~~
maxerickson
I haven't figured it out, but my intuition is that the increased energy
requirements of a tractor trailer mean that there isn't enough area there
either.

Back of napkin, it looks like you get ~3*15 meters of roof which seems to
translate to 10 kW of output under good conditions and then you need something
like 150 kW to rumble up the highway.

~~~
mrfusion
Well trucks still have a lot of low hanging fruit for becoming more
aerodynamic.

Plus you could use the sides of the trailer for some power too.

Finally even if 10kw can't power the truck. It could extend its range by some
amount. Plus that's still a significant amount of power you don't need to buy.
2-3 rooftops worth?

~~~
maxerickson
Those improvements are presently not done because of cost. Grid electricity is
a lot cheaper than diesel.

I guess electric trucks would still put a lot more effort into avoiding air
resistance because of the lower energy per unit mass of batteries (the
aerodynamic improvements can be pretty directly traded for either range or
cargo capacity).

I think present day solar cells are a combination of too expensive and too
heavy to bother with. That could change in the future.

------
serge2k
> Traffic congestion would improve due to increased passenger areal density by
> eliminating the center aisle and putting seats where there are currently
> entryways

I don't see how automation reduces the need to get on the bus.

------
jzawodn
The most interesting bit, to me, was: "Enable your car to make money for you
when you aren't using it"

Things are gonna get real interesting in the auto world in the next few years,
aren't they?

~~~
Dowwie
yes indeed, and not just autos

------
orky56
I was hoping to see another zero to one approach with the master plan where he
is taking on some other industry goal. I totally get that part deux is still
very, very ambitious and one that no other company can truly realize. But if
we're just talking about Musk's master plan, I'm curious why he didn't talk
about the synergies with his other company, SpaceX. Tesla and SpaceX both rely
on vehicles & transport while SpaceX and Solar City both revolve around
innovation in energy/physics. I'm wondering if Tesla's mission/vision will
dwarf SolarCity's when solar harvesting in space could be one of many
opportunities to partner with SpaceX. /rant

~~~
aerovistae
I suspect Tesla will move into aircraft and oceancraft in the long-run, if
you're interested in "other industries." He's mentioned the electric jet
enough times. And why would he create a new company for it when he's got all
the expertise and business structure at his fingertips already?

Solar harvesting in space sounds really cool, but how do you get that power
back to earth? Even if there were a way, it's not necessary or effective. He's
said very clearly that you could just have a giant square of solar panels in
the desert and it would power the whole country. Why bother putting them in
space? No advantage.

However, SolarCity IS likely to provide the panels for SpaceX's satellites, of
course. So there is _that_ form of solar harvesting in space.

~~~
ams6110
If there were a way to collect additional solar energy in space and somehow
get it back to earth, that is now a net increase in energy, which will
ultimately end up as heat, being delivered to the planet. At a large enough
scale and over time this would be a global warming contributor.

Solar power collected on earth is just using energy that is already being
delivered to the surface -- no net change.

~~~
jnicholasp
At some point we will need to take an active part in regulating the planet's
weather and various climates. Orbiting solar panels on orbits that pass
between us and the sun, that can be selectively turned edge on, or
perpendicular, to the sun, would let us control solar influx to particular
surface regions, limiting energy input in specific places while also
harvesting that energy and enabling us to put it to use as needed without
increasing total energy/heat input.

------
lowglow
Last year I pitched Playa ([http://getplaya.com/](http://getplaya.com/)) at
Launch conference and was laughed off stage by Jason Calacanis. My example use
of the technology was that your autonomous vehicle would be able to contract
itself out as an 'uber', earning you money while you slept. Today Tesla
announced that this is part of its plans for the future and everyone is going
wild.

We're now going a step further and building a next-gen interface for that
autonomous future. ‪#‎Asteria‬.

[http://getasteria.com/](http://getasteria.com/)

~~~
puranjay
The problem with your idea was that it wasn't SOCIAL or VIRAL or could
leverage SEO, like Jason likes his businesses ;)

------
Dowwie
Note his last point: Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't
using it.

I suspect Tesla won't be alone in that space. Good luck to those who are.

------
3327
So how do we go work for Elon if we have particular expertise on the Solar and
storage part - particularly in the way that he has mentioned here?

------
untilHellbanned
Its so rubegoldbergtastic it puts all other _successful_ entrepreneurs in
history to shame, which is to say I'm incredibly bearish on it.

------
suprgeek
Obscured under " Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than
manual via massive fleet learning " is the cold hard truth that that learning
will be paid for in lives - mostly of Tesla drivers possibly of others.

The rates of accidents in manual vs current version of autopilot may work out
to be favorable - (and that is still under debate) - but there certainly will
be people who will die (and have died) due to a premature roll-out of
Autopilot and their trust of it. This is some bloody cold calculation

~~~
gozur88
While it's true people are going to die on autopilot, what you need to compare
it with is the number of people who would otherwise have caused collisions the
autopilot avoided. Statistically if it isn't already safer than the average
driver it's very close.

There are 1.5 million heart attacks and strokes in the US every year. Self
driving cars might end up being safer even if we were all perfect drivers.

------
Tloewald
I think the fundamental error here is assuming the existing car ownership
model. I think the future is autonomous taxis (or Ubers). This actually
reduces congestion, eliminates the need for parking, and plays to the
strengths of electric vehicles. Building a master plan based on families
owning cars is, I think, skating to where the puck was ten years ago (car
ownership is dropping in the Western world, especially among the young).

~~~
mvdwoord
This only works in well connected/urban areas though. Waiting for 15 minutes
or longer whenever you need to get somewhere is not acceptable for a lot of
people. Also, cars act as mobile lockers for your stuff. Etc. Autonomous
taxi's will supplement the car owner model, but that model in and of itself is
not going anywhere. Don't underestimate the aversion people have for "public"
transport, many people I know bend over backwards to not use a shared form of
transportation.

~~~
Tloewald
Solar powered cars are only working well in Urban areas, and they don't make
economic sense, they're simply a form of guilt-free conspicuous consumption.

There will definitely be people who need their own vehicles, but typical
families (and typical families live in urban or suburban areas) won't.

------
puranjay
This is just mind blowing to me.

This man is dreaming the future. Nay, he is _building_ the future.

------
themark
"...transition the role of bus driver to that of fleet manager..."

Does he really think that ?

~~~
sashk
I hope I will live to use that bus, which won't be handled by driver, who
thinks that he is god in the bus and can do whatever he wants while he has
steering wheel in his hands. i hope, this will bring few things which will
improve my commute:

\- on time performance (I'm yet to leave bus stop in the morning on-time after
about 10 years -- bus is always late); \- less traffic in the bus terminal,
where drives always make wrong assumption and create traffic where it could
have been avoided; \- safer commute (not that it isn't safe enough now, but
there are drivers who prefer driving way too fast).

Oh well, this is only dreams.

------
firewalkwithme
The footer is covering the entire page in my glorious IE11 browser

------
soheil
I'm wondering what the effect of this plan will be on Uber.

~~~
Axsuul
It would seem Tesla's ride sharing service is more about getting more of the
public into a Tesla with a side effect of selling more cars. Electric vehicles
aren't essential to autonomous ride sharing--market share and technology are.
Uber's app is already installed in orders of magnitude more phones than Tesla
right now.

~~~
ryanelkins
A ride in an autonomous vehicle should be far less expensive than a ride in a
manually driven Uber vehicle.

If the end goal for both is a fleet of autonomous vehicles and a strong app to
facilitate the use of that fleet by the public, I would much rather be in
Tesla's position. Having a fleet and needing to create an app sounds a lot
more promising than having an app but no fleet. Tesla will be able to get an
app up and running far sooner than Uber will be able to get a fleet.

------
8note
the question is how to keep those cars clean though

------
rukittenme
> Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it

Gives "pimp my ride" a whole new meaning.

------
thruflo22
Car roof or house roof?

~~~
aembleton
House roof.

------
crypticlizard
So tesla is in the business of making Model 3 factory factories.

------
simonhughes22
Wow. Just wow.

------
lebca
and post Tesla acquisition of SpaceX,

Master Plan: Part Tres

Solar powered flying cars that will take you to Mars and beyond.

------
mgoldberg524
a

------
mitul_45
Tesla should buy Uber to manager all booking, locating taxis and other stuff.
Then it would be badass combination!

------
dcw303
> Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it

I really like this, but the laws of supply and demand still apply. If you live
in a sparsely populated area there's not going to be much for your car to do.

Great for those in urban centres, but then if you lived there why bother
owning at all when there will be more cabs to hail?

~~~
BurningFrog
Someone has to own the cabs.

------
jpeg_hero
Meh.

Sure, stuff sounds neat, but where are you going to get the capital from?

Another secondary share offering?

I guess the most concrete thing I saw was new factory for Model 3. Shouldn't
that be your only priority?

Not designing an electric semi truck on paper to entice Joe Q Public into
stepping up for another secondary share offer?

~~~
aerovistae
I swear to god he could do it all just as described and there will still be
people who have nothing to say but "meh."

Blows my mind.

~~~
serge2k
Natural counter to the people who worship at the feet of their god king musk.

~~~
rybosome
We should always be thoughtful and critical of ideas regardless from whom they
are coming, but autonomously landed first stage rocket boosters returning from
orbit is a _big_ fucking deal. There may be some blind worship, but we are not
talking about a charlatan here.

------
sonink
If I am on a self-driving car and it meets with an accident, there might be a
case to be made against Tesla if I consider myself a very safe driver. Even
though on an average self-driving might cause less casualties but that figure
might not hold good compared to what my personal accident rate is.

And this should be good enough for law enforcement to nail Tesla.

I think, like everyone else, that Musk is probably the smartest entrepreneurs
of our time. In this case though, maybe he is over his head a bit:

\- Getting Tesla 3 to production volume will not be easy.

\- Autopilot is NOT good enough to be used in production. This can be fatal to
Tesla if FCC catches up. Tesla needs to quit Autopilot and focus only on
getting Tesla 3 out. Tesla 3 will face competition sooner rather than later
and market dominance is not guaranteed.

\- SolarCity has absolutely no synergies with this business. It should be sold
off.

\- SpaceX is again a distraction given how hard it will be for Tesla 3 to roll
off.

~~~
LAMike
Will be fun to revisit your comment in 10 years

~~~
sonink
I won't mind being wrong at all, and I have been wrong before. But this is
what I feel about the whole thing right now. There are real issues with
driverless cars and google has scaled back for this very reason.

Elon is very smart, but even Jobs didnt get it right with Next.

