The funny thing is, had Tesla just said: we don't need to innovate upon lean manufacturing at the same time as we're innovating on electric cars, they'd be super safe now. Instead they had to automate everything, then rollback, and now are limping towards 10k cars per week.
I think this hubris is what is going to kill them (unless they , hopefully, wake-up). They couldn't admit that maybe other people made cars pretty well already and that they'd make that process even better over time.
I think they imagined themselves too much like Apple and it's attempts at automating it's production of the Mac. However, they forgot that by this point Apple/SJ had already figured out a lot of how to do assembly of computers quickly and automating a good process is much easier than figuring out a process that'll be automated.
Prior to this automation everything was done semi-manually for Model S and Model X, with huge delays, so automating whatever they had was not the next logical step. It was short sighted of them to go to automation first and it's frankly causing unneeded delays to delivering the Model 3s and volatility in the market.
The problem was they are trying to shift to large-scale car manufacturing, and car manufacturing is hard.
They basically have a tent erected in the Nevada desert, next to their stalled plant, where they are hand-assembling cars now, which is causing all kinds of quality issues [1].
Honestly, the buyout from VW would have solved this issue because VW knows how to build cars at scale [2]. The fact they shot this down is exactly that - hubris - and now they're burning through the last of their cash reserves on their way to bankruptcy.
The tent and plant are in Fremont, in the East Bay of the SF Bay Area. You’re thinking of the Gigafactory plant, which is where they make the batteries.
Actually, it's worse than that. Humans can hide mistakes, but as soon as you introduce automation, even the smallest of unaccounted for variance can stop everything.
> The i3 one might be technically interesting, but the car was never intended to be produced in volume so it's just a nice niche thing.
It's a proof of concept, and a way to test the market before really committing to sustained production of electric cars. BMW could produce other electric cars in volume if they decide the market is viable.
It's worth pointing out that even though the sales were disappointing to the point that BMW might be losing money on the car (I remember reading back in the day an estimate that they needed to sell 20k to be profitable), it was also their way of testing out a process for making inexpensive carbon fiber which is currently making money in other areas. They're the only auto manufacturer who has got that technology right now, and it's highly relevant in the luxury electric space.
The McLaren people make carbon fibre tubs for their road cars and they are opening a new factory for this in the UK 'due to Brexit' (the carbon fibre tubs were being made in Austria).
In the bigger scheme of things McLaren sell roughly as many cars as BMW sell i3s, i.e. a rounding error in global auto sales.
McLaren got there first in making carbon fibre tub a road going reality, for the super-rich, just as they did on the track in the world of F1 almost four decades ago.
Nobody is arguing BMW invented the use of carbon fiber in an automobile. BMW's process is a big step forward in terms of cost (different chemistry, much faster production at lower temperature).
The i3 costs about as much as the brakes on a McLaren. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just an odd comparison to make.
If you're looking for a way to attenuate somebody's enthusiasm about BMW's amazing, relatively cheap carbon fiber process, it's that BMW is publicly downplaying its importance in favor of aluminum. That's either about production costs or about complicated problems of meeting passenger car safety standards with carbon fiber, depending on who you talk to...
> McLaren got there first in making carbon fibre tub a road going reality
The i3 is actually a carbon fiber body-on-frame design relying on aluminum. It's wild, but definitely not something McLaren would want to use for a 700-hp sports car.
I think you underestimate how many i3 BMW have sold, they built almost 100 000 from 2013 to 2017[0]. McLaren on the other hand celebrated 15 000 cars total in may this year[1]. BMW also have a smaller budget for each tub so it's pretty impressive that they have a production car with a carbon fiber tub.
Maybe, but why don't they have any big plan for EV now? Did the i3 lead them to conclude they can't ramp up with their current tech / production?
Meanwhile, every review about the Model 3 (LR and Performance) shows that the 3 series and the M3 don't appeal much. And the Model Y will be shown in a few months to compete head to head with the BMW X3 and X5 in a few months.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, since the i3 teardown is utterly fascinating.
A better comparison might be Toyota, though, when it comes to innovating on manufacturing. One of the things you'd really want to hear from Tesla is why a given part of the assembly line differs from established best practices, and that sort of explanation is something you never really hear from them. You do hear things like "oh, yeah, we just got rid of that stupid, fantastically expensive automatic conveyor belt system and replaced it with something simpler," and if you read the histories you know that Toyota and others retreated from systems similar to that in years past for similar reasons.
I agree, knowing why things were done the way they were is far more interesting just knowing how they were done and the supposed advantages.
Maybe if Tesla fails (or succeeds wildly, has a IPO and many people cash out and take jobs at more established car makers) we'll get to hear the stories behind these sorts of decisions.
However, the issues that Tesla has with production aren't because their cars are electric. It's because they are bad at building cars compared to GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc.
Toyota could be making a lot of Model S's per week and Tesla would struggle to produce 10k Prius's a week.
> Toyota could be making a lot of Model S's per week (...)
Then, why don't they? It's a lucrative segment that creates lots of goodwill and free publicity.
They don't because they can't. Everyone assumes automakers will easily catch up to the lead that Tesla holds. I don't think it's all that easy.
Tesla has at least a six year lead on everyone else. The Model S came out in 2012, established brands are coming out with S competitors in 2018-2020. It will take time for them to scale production so that mid-range segments are profitable. Don't expect to see model 3 competitors in the next five years (no prototypes, so design hasn't even started).
The single exception is Renault-Nissan. They have the know-how and are already in the market in relevant numbers.
They don't have the appeal of a Tesla. Tesla fans seem to repeat the idea that car manufacturers don't want to make money. Luxury priced car with bare bones interior selling like hotcakes, why don't they make one?
Because the customers won't turn up, they aren't turning up for the bolt either. And say whatever about external looks, I don't believe that's why customers aren't turning up. It's the futuristic hype of Tesla and Elon musk, which is why he must harp on about autonomous cars which can go coast to coast in summon mode, or taking over manufacturing with alien dreadnaught. It is all a hype factory to keep up the high tech image, while the truth remains far from that image.
I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure Renault and Nissan produce more electric cars than Tesla. I think the Leaf alone accounts for more than Tesla, and then the Zoe probably also accounts for as many cars as the whole Tesla lineup.
