Tesla Model 3: Inside & Out - Autoline After Hours 417

I don't disagree, and most of what I know about Tesla early history comes from the Isaacson biography, but: it seems pretty clear the "actual" founders would never have been able to clear the hurdle of scale production without him. It wasn't just the funding (which would have been hard to come by), it's really hard to build a large, real-things-in-the-world industrial company from scratch, doubly so for something as complex as a car with all the complexities supply chains, regulations, literal factory construction require. All glory to the guys who started the company (I love my Tesla Y), but I don't believe it would have gone anywhere without Musk. (I was add something about Stacy Munro and the auto industry, but I'll just link to his first teardown of the Model 3[1].) [1] ▶ this video

Munro & Associates, one of the most respected teardown and costing consultancies in the automotive industry, is of the opinion that the Model 3 is "solidly profitable". They have previously been harshly critical of Tesla and remain unimpressed with the fit-and-finish of the Model 3, particularly the large and inconsistent panel gaps. link ▶ this video

> The $35k base model made at scale later this year will be profitable Here's the thing. SV Tech companies aren't too great at the whole "at scale" manufacturing thing. Maybe Tesla can figure it out, but they need to pay more attention to what the "boring dinosaurs" are doing this this regard. If you're interested, this video is great: ▶ this video

It could certainly be that the German automakers are more concerned about present profitability. That could easily turn into falling victim to the classic innovator's dilemma. It seems that by year end, both the Model S and Model 3 will have taken significant market share from their European competitors: link . The cannibalization is real, and that's why luxury automakers like BMW have announced plans for 12 fully-electric models by 2025 ( link ). Your points about electrical infrastructure are definitely thought-provoking ones. I'd agree that the infrastructure as of today doesn't exist for widespread adoption. At the same time, the market that Tesla and the luxury European automakers compete for today doesn't hit that 5% threshold ( link ). Add up the market share of car (not truck) sales from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, and you're looking at a ~3% market share. I think this section of the video from Sandy Munro is worth a watch: ▶ this video . Munro has been a huge critic of the build quality of the Model 3, but that everything "below the skateboard [the floor]" is seriously impressive. The cells in Tesla's battery pack have a maximum of a 0.2 milliamp difference between cells. Say that I accept your premise that the German automakers today are biding their time, and could spend their R&D money on electric cars if they so chose. Who will they source their battery packs from? Will they try to build their own supply chain for the raw materials? What competence have they d

Daimler (parent of Mercedes) reportedly rented Model X and disassembled it to learn how it works. link Munro & Associates did a complete Tesla 3 teardown and disassembly in order to sell what they've learned to Tesla competitors for hundreds of thousands of dollars ( ▶ this video ) So did some German engineering company ( link ). Apparently there are plenty of companies interested in how Tesla's cars are made.

The cells and the packs are different things. The packs aren't just a bunch of cells glued together. See this[1] fun teardown discussion. Another company building battery packs would have different costs even if they were buying the same exact cells from Panasonic, and it's likely Tesla had a hand in designing the cells so I don't know if that's particularly possible. The reason for the Gigafactory is to compress supply chains, but more importantly because there isn't enough global demand/supply for batteries to support the volumes Tesla wants. Without building their own factory, the global supply would be a constraining factor for Tesla's plans. The Gigafactory is a long-term bet that they will need that much supply in the future. This is not a problem that other carmakers have where they would want to "vertically integrate" oil refineries and gas stations, because availability of gasoline is not a problem. [1] ▶ this video

▶ this video 90 minute discussion of Tesla 3 with Munro and others on the excellent autoline network youtube channel ('Really heavy, really expensive')

> The fact that Tesla can simultaneously demonstrate brilliance and incompetence in the same vehicle is not surprising, considering it is a high-tech software company trying to master complex manufacturing processes that took established automakers more than 100 years to perfect. >> This is wrong. At the very least it would be since the 60's and probably later. If you watch the video on Youtube (that someone else posted here) where Munro is talking about the Model 3, (jump to 36m20s, he gets into it about 15-20s later [1]), you'll realize that the "complex manufacturing processes that took established automakers more than 100 years to perfect" are not about advances in tooling/tech, but advances in quality control processes. If you don't want to watch the video, the acronyms Munro drops are AIAG, PPS, PPAP and APQP. Things get even more interesting when someone on the panel asks him what would have happened if Tesla would have subbed out the design and manufacturing to a company like Magna. [1] ▶ this video

And here's him discussing the Model 3 teardown on Autoline (don't see a link to this in the article) ▶ this video

He also thinks that the the suspension system is amazing and comments that anything having to do with the "skateboard" (floorboards, suspension, lower chassis) are absolutely phenomenally good. So, you have a car with highly advanced electronics that drives spectacularly well but has lousy fit and finish. That combination has produced a lot of very profitable cars over the years. Basically, the stuff that can be improved gradually got pushed down on the list while the core stuff is correct from start. ▶ this video "Anybody that's in the car industry that ignores this car is doing it at their own peril."

Another parallel: Over-automation ▶ this video (the whole thing is worth watching if you are into this sort of thing)

There will come a time when Musk needs to step away from Tesla, but that day is not today. He's publicly mused about stepping away (SpaceX is his real fav), but had his tenure renewed recently. If all Tesla did was sell pretty good cars, they'd probably get crushed by the incumbents. Tesla, is selling way more than that - they're selling the idea of a brighter, better future. You're not just buying an EV, but you're helping climate change, you're reducing pollution, you'll be reducing human death and suffering and ending traffic jams and hey - it all comes in a exclusive, technologically-advanced, aesthetically pleasing package. Now, some might object that this is largely a bunch of marketing/PR bullshit, and you will likely be technically correct, but would still miss the point. If people wanted a nice, efficient EV, they'd buy the Bolt, which by all accounts, is pretty damn good. But Tesla sells this "bullshit" because it's what people actually want to buy, and EVs happen to be the delivery vehicle. So as much as you might dislike this "bullshit", it's a core reason why Tesla even exists in 2018. Where does Musk fit into this? He happens to be the personification of this idea today. In the popular mind he is "cool" so when you buy a Tesla, you're also implicitly buying part of this cool, much like buying an iPhone back in the day got you a part of Jobs' cool. Eventually Tesla will become it's own thing (as Apple is today) and outgrow Musk, but that's still years away. OTOH,