15 ms·

Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are. It seems

Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are. It seems doubtful that anyone could leapfrog this amount of accumulated process knowledge and optimization simply by way of being new. Automation is not a black-and-white thing, either, as it is often portrayed. Sure, some things are fully automated (e.g. assembling the car body), but many things are partially automated. For example, there is a tool which is essentially 5/6/7 torque wrenches coupled to a lifting arm. This tool allows a line worker to mount a tire with little physical exertion in seconds. You see this sort of thing all the time at car assembly lines; offloading mechanical power to the machine, while having a human line up and steer things. (This also avoids a whole bunch of safety concerns you normally have when operating autonomous equipment in the same physical space occupied by humans) Another example: The body of virtually any car is self-supporting (there is no frame), so getting it right is rather critical. To achieve both the high strength and low weight of a modern car body the steel is deformed very closely to the maximum deformation it can withstand. This needs very good matching of the process to the steel. So, the manufacturer of the steel coil tests each coil individually for its exact properties. For mass production lines only coils meeting very tight tolerances are used. For low volume lines the process is adjusted individually for each coil based on the manufacturers testing and some in-house testing.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Agreed. This is not the tech industry where you can change direction anytime and do something totally new. Manufacturing physical goods is very hard especially something as complex as a car. I have worked at a German manufacturer for a while (chainsaws) and it's amazing how many people are working on optimizing processes. This is not something you can pick up in a few years.
- abc_lisper 9y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, I think we can be empathetic about where Musk comes from. The same arguments have been raised about making rockets, how non-states cannot make them, or how they cannot be reused. They probably even had good reasons for them. But still Musk and his team upended the status quo and showed it’s possible. His teams push the envelope forward all the time. Sure they are bound to have some failures - but hey we need people like him to understand what’s not possible(now)
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    The same arguments have been raised about making rockets, how non-states cannot make them, or how they cannot be reused. Non-state entities have made all of the USA's rockets. They weren't reusable because at the time they weren't cost effective. It's only recently that material sciences has reached the point where reusable rockets are potentially cheaper than single-use rockets (and even then, only after 5-6 launches).
    - nardi 9y ago
      Really depends on what you mean, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure all, or nearly all funding for every orbital+ rocket launched in the world came from governments before SpaceX. Yes, the work was often done by private companies. But all of the money came from governments. SpaceX was the first company to successfully launch an orbital rocket without government backing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1
    - jernfrost 9y ago
      That is belittling SpaceX accomplishments. They were told by all the "big boys" in the rocket industry that what they were doing could not be done. Nobody had landed a rocket that way before SpaceX and Blue Origin did it. There is nothing fancy about Falcon 9 rockets materially wise as far as I know. The key innovation was in the control software and using software industry style rapid iterations to try again and again until they nailed it. SpaceX developed rockets at much faster pace and lower cost than the competition thanks to this iterative approach vs the water fall method used by the competition which cost 10x as much and is significantly slower. Your talk of material science would be more relevant to the space shuttle I think. That was an attempt at reuse using sophisticated technology and materials. The spaceX innovation is reusing a cheap rocket. NASA developed a reuse system based on a very expensive and advance design.
      - DuskStar 9y ago
        > Nobody had landed a rocket that way before SpaceX and Blue Origin did it. Let's not give SpaceX accomplishments that weren't actually theirs - it makes it easier to dismiss everything else they're doing. The DC-X did this (as a sub-scale SSTO demonstrator) in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
std_throwaway 9y ago
Some things are surprisingly hard to automate. When your parts are hard to grip and have high tolerances and some are broken, good luck in getting a robot working reliably. Humans are in many conditions surprisingly fast, accurate, flexible, space saving and cheap when compared to a special robot that does the same thing.
cornholio 9y ago
The process used by the car industry is state of the art and highly competitive. But the product itself has areas that have seen very little innovation for decades - just incremental optimization. Tesla started with a clean slate, of course they will repeat some mistakes but they have the prospect of building a revolutionary product. In a way, a bit of chaos comes with the territory.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Name one thing that Tesla has done that is revolutionary rather than evolutionary? (Working features only, otherwise you're comparing it to a very long list of revolutionary features being researched by mainstream auto companies)
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Being cool. People don’t like to acknowledge this as an accomplishment. But the idea, and successful implementation, of selling an electric car that isn’t what a soy patty on gluten-free bread is to a burger was quite a revolution.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Being cool is a matter of marketing, not engineering. The Prius design is beloved in Japan, where it was designed. The Bolt is considered extremely stylish for a compact sedan/hatchback. And both are considered cool within their target markets.
      - nugga 9y ago
        Tesla doesn't advertise (yet). They have a huge word of mouth / Elon Musk cult following. He must be doing something right for getting all that loyalty and hype. A few hundred thousand preorders with 1000 bux down is something.
        gamblor956 9y ago
api 9y ago
The SV crowd picked up a lot of hubris from SpaceX, Uber / Lyft, AirBnB, and other efforts to disrupt moribund industries. The key to success in those cases was that those industries were quite moribund. In the case of space it was nearly comatose. Attempts to radically leapfrog and disrupt less stale industries are going to be quite a bit harder.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- neaden 9y ago
  I mean, in the case of Uber, Lyft, and AirBnB a lot of their advantages came from breaking laws as well, something that can be tolerated a lot more in those industries.
- ptero 9y ago
  It is still worthwhile to try though. Yes, many attempts fail, but they might still give some useful nuggets. And they are often cheap: a failure of established process may 10000 times more expensive than a disruption attempt (e.g. 1.5T F-35 vs 100M for cheaper drones).
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  Where exactly is the lodging industry moribund?
wpietri 9y ago
It's also shocking to anybody who had studied Toyota's history. Toyota spent decades honing their processes, but are notoriously automation-averse [1], as automation locks in a (hoped-for) short-term productivity gain but prevents the human-driven continuous improvement that has made them highly productive. [2] In some ways, I think the long software-is-eating-the-world boom has been bad for us as an industry. We have been so successful with "throw tech at it" solutions that we don't know when that isn't a good idea. E.g., the Silicon-Valley-reinvents-grilled-cheese flop The Melt [3], or the $120m clown show that was Juicero [4]. American car companies spent decades trying and failing to learn Toyota's approach. They even had enthusiastic help from Toyota, who even went so far as to take GM's worst plant and redo it as a joint venture. (Interestingly, it's the same plant that Tesla now uses. [5]) For those unfamiliar with the story, I strongly recommend This American Life's episode on it. [6] But my takeaway was that executive arrogance kept GM from learning that there was a much better way to make cars. That sounds more and more familiar these days. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40461624/how-toyota-is-putting-humans-first-in-an-era-of-increasing-automation https://www.fastcompany.com/40461624/how-toyota-is-putting-h... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18960044/ns/business-autos/t/study-toyota-most-productive-automaker/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18960044/ns/business-autos/t/study... [3] https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese-venture-got-burnt/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese... [4] https://blog.bolt.io/heres-why-juicero-s-press-is-so-expensive-6add74594e50 https://blog.bolt.io/heres-why-juicero-s-press-is-so-expensi... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI [6] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015
- walshemj 9y ago
  You should say this is after a key player in Production management had his ideas turned down in the UK and USA in the 50's.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Are you talking about Deming here? If not, I'd love to learn more.
pbreit 9y ago
The takeaway here is not that Elon/Tesla did anything “wrong”. I’m glad the article acknowledges that if Elon has listened to the experts he would not have started in the first place. And that by over-shooting Tesla may end up ahead even after the blips. Many journalists who point out the staff size disparity fail to note, unlike ARS, that Tesla outsources way less.
manomanowicz 9y ago
As someone who works in the car industry in a manufacturing plant, what surprises me is the lack of complexity in their product (especially in the powertrain i.e. battery and motors vs fuel tanks and engines) and yet their inability to ramp up their volume. If you look at most production facilities (at least in Europe) there is usually one line which produces several models, in various body styles each with various different engine/transmission combinations and additional parts for specific emissions markets and climates. (That's just some of the complexity in the Powertrain system, there's more related to the interior, exterior, electrical systems, suspension, HVAC) Tesla's model 3 line has virtually none of this complexity but still has issues in productions. Needless to say, if this was an established automaker producing this line, they would easily be up to full production volumes within months. (For me, this is part of the reason why people in the car industry are bearish on Tesla, they understand the challenge in setting up a whole new production line by a novice to the industry. By the time, Tesla have ramped up to a significant volume at good quality, the VAG, PSA/Opels, FCA, GM, Fords of the world would have their relatively simple (complexity wise) EVs designed and ready to ship (or almost ready to ship)) To me it seems like their current woes are a production quality issue or logistics and planning issue. The Model S was their first attempt at volume production so should have been a good chance to resolve the basic issues, learn from their mistakes and build up good practices. The Model S was notorious for its poor panel alignment, squeaks and rattles and other minor quality issues but things had improved as the production went on. Dishearteningly though, it seems that this wasn't enough. The challenge of producing a low volume product like the Model S really doesn't compare to the Model 3's 6000/week ambitious target. Previously, they could ship a Model S and have their service centers fix all the production issues. At significant volume, you need first time through quality to be almost perfect. For continuous production systems to work, all the processes need to keep to their 'takt time' and also be done to the correct standard (sufficient 'process capability'). Making sure your processes are capable is the hardest part and where your Six Sigma (Master) black belts are worth their weight in gold. The other thing they need is suppliers delivering on time and to spec. Logistics planning also is huge, with delays in supplier shipments potentially stopping the whole line. Supplier quality can also be an issue so having your own knowledgeable engineers working with them is key. They have a huge task ahead and everyday they build below target, they are burning millions of dollars of revenue potential.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mk89 9y ago
> Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are. It seems doubtful that anyone could leapfrog this amount of accumulated process knowledge and optimization simply by way of being new. I think with this way of thinking there will never be progress. It's thanks to this try-and-fail that this man was able to build things that nobody thought to be feasible. We are talking about mistakes that were done in the '80s, meaning that this man is trying to leverage what we have nowadays and he still can't, which is pretty sad, considering how advanced we think of ourselves compared to 40 years ago. Sometimes it's this way of thinking that really prevents innovation: we tried, it didn't work. Sure, you tried under different circumstances, I am quite sure you gave up on that for whatever reason and you are fine with it. Good lesson. However, there will be a new generation that will make it, no matter all your "I told you so". I want to see if in the future, when we'll have highly developed AIs, we will think "oh, 200 years ago we tried already and it didn't work".
- blattimwind 9y ago
  This is about punching pieces of metal into a car, not about inventing a sentient AI for 4D chess.
  - mk89 9y ago
    Sorry, but this comment is really diminishing the entire purpose of years and years of studies in AI.
    - mk89 9y ago
      I think I misunderstood the parent comment. I can't delete the answer, though :) sorry about that!
- dannyw 9y ago
  Well, trying to build AI using failed papers from the 1980s have near zero value today. What Tesla is doing is like building a modern app but refusing to do A/B tests or code review or version control, generally universally accepted methods in the current industry, and going back to re-try software development patterns of the 1980s that failed.
rjdagost 9y ago
During their most recent earnings call, there was a very interesting back and forth between Elon, JB Straubel, and a stock analyst. The stock analyst pressed them to distinguish their proposed vision of a fully integrated factory from the industry leading Toyota Production System (TPS). You got the distinct impression that Elon and JB didn't even know what TPS was. Very eye-opening that the CEO and CTO of an automotive company lack basic industry knowledge. I appreciate the value of thinking things through from first principles, but there comes a time when you have to stand on the shoulders of giants and save a few billion dollars of wasted cap-ex...
- fma 9y ago
  Ironic given that their Fremont plant was used by Toyota. You'd think they would have gotten some knowledge transfer on car assembly 101 when buying the plant.
  - avs733 9y ago
    as I remember...they were offered it and even had a partnership with Toyota that lasted until Musk started being rude about Toyota products.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Do you have a link to the audio or an article about it?
  - rjdagost 9y ago
    Here's a link to the transcript and the audio: https://insideevs.com/tesla-q4-conference-call-entirety-video/ https://insideevs.com/tesla-q4-conference-call-entirety-vide... The relevant portion with the stock analyst starts about 46:00 in.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
ianamartin 9y ago
People made the same argument about Apple when the iPhone first happened. "Apple is not going to just come into this product space and get it. It's too complicated." What we know now is that Apple had been investing in the supply chain and the manufacturing side of things for a very long time before they actually got into this business. Tesla seems to me to be a company based on the idea of, "Yeah, Apple just went off and pwned the smartphone market, just like they pwned the mp3 player market. So, yeah! We're going to do the same thing. But with cars." I don't really think that Tesla really understands the situation, the planning, and the investment it took for Apple to really do what it did.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Given that Tesla hired a bunch of car people to scale their car production, it's safe to say that understanding what Apple did isn't their forte. I suspect it wouldn't have helped; you can't cost-effectively send final assembly of a car to a contract manufacturer, but you can for a phone.
ggg9990 9y ago
How many people from automakers would Tesla need to hire to hoover up all this knowledge?
jk2323 9y ago
"Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are." You can buy this knowledge.
tomaskafka 9y ago
> For example, there is a tool which is essentially 5/6/7 torque wrenches coupled to a lifting arm. This tool allows a line worker to mount a tire with little physical exertion in seconds. You see this sort of thing all the time at car assembly lines; offloading mechanical power to the machine, while having a human line up and steer things. This is my new favourite metaphor for AI.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Agreed. This is not the tech industry where you can change direction anytime and do something totally new. Manufacturing physical goods is very hard especially something as complex as a car. I have worked at a German manufacturer for a while (chainsaws) and it's amazing how many people are working on optimizing processes. This is not something you can pick up in a few years.

abc_lisper 9y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, I think we can be empathetic about where Musk comes from. The same arguments have been raised about making rockets, how non-states cannot make them, or how they cannot be reused. They probably even had good reasons for them. But still Musk and his team upended the status quo and showed it’s possible. His teams push the envelope forward all the time. Sure they are bound to have some failures - but hey we need people like him to understand what’s not possible(now)
- gamblor956 9y ago
  The same arguments have been raised about making rockets, how non-states cannot make them, or how they cannot be reused. Non-state entities have made all of the USA's rockets. They weren't reusable because at the time they weren't cost effective. It's only recently that material sciences has reached the point where reusable rockets are potentially cheaper than single-use rockets (and even then, only after 5-6 launches).
  - nardi 9y ago
    Really depends on what you mean, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure all, or nearly all funding for every orbital+ rocket launched in the world came from governments before SpaceX. Yes, the work was often done by private companies. But all of the money came from governments. SpaceX was the first company to successfully launch an orbital rocket without government backing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1
  - jernfrost 9y ago
    That is belittling SpaceX accomplishments. They were told by all the "big boys" in the rocket industry that what they were doing could not be done. Nobody had landed a rocket that way before SpaceX and Blue Origin did it. There is nothing fancy about Falcon 9 rockets materially wise as far as I know. The key innovation was in the control software and using software industry style rapid iterations to try again and again until they nailed it. SpaceX developed rockets at much faster pace and lower cost than the competition thanks to this iterative approach vs the water fall method used by the competition which cost 10x as much and is significantly slower. Your talk of material science would be more relevant to the space shuttle I think. That was an attempt at reuse using sophisticated technology and materials. The spaceX innovation is reusing a cheap rocket. NASA developed a reuse system based on a very expensive and advance design.
    - DuskStar 9y ago
      > Nobody had landed a rocket that way before SpaceX and Blue Origin did it. Let's not give SpaceX accomplishments that weren't actually theirs - it makes it easier to dismiss everything else they're doing. The DC-X did this (as a sub-scale SSTO demonstrator) in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

std_throwaway 9y ago

Some things are surprisingly hard to automate. When your parts are hard to grip and have high tolerances and some are broken, good luck in getting a robot working reliably. Humans are in many conditions surprisingly fast, accurate, flexible, space saving and cheap when compared to a special robot that does the same thing.

cornholio 9y ago

The process used by the car industry is state of the art and highly competitive. But the product itself has areas that have seen very little innovation for decades - just incremental optimization. Tesla started with a clean slate, of course they will repeat some mistakes but they have the prospect of building a revolutionary product. In a way, a bit of chaos comes with the territory.

gamblor956 9y ago
Name one thing that Tesla has done that is revolutionary rather than evolutionary? (Working features only, otherwise you're comparing it to a very long list of revolutionary features being researched by mainstream auto companies)
- matt4077 9y ago
  Being cool. People don’t like to acknowledge this as an accomplishment. But the idea, and successful implementation, of selling an electric car that isn’t what a soy patty on gluten-free bread is to a burger was quite a revolution.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Being cool is a matter of marketing, not engineering. The Prius design is beloved in Japan, where it was designed. The Bolt is considered extremely stylish for a compact sedan/hatchback. And both are considered cool within their target markets.
    - nugga 9y ago
      Tesla doesn't advertise (yet). They have a huge word of mouth / Elon Musk cult following. He must be doing something right for getting all that loyalty and hype. A few hundred thousand preorders with 1000 bux down is something.
      - gamblor956 9y ago

api 9y ago

The SV crowd picked up a lot of hubris from SpaceX, Uber / Lyft, AirBnB, and other efforts to disrupt moribund industries. The key to success in those cases was that those industries were quite moribund. In the case of space it was nearly comatose. Attempts to radically leapfrog and disrupt less stale industries are going to be quite a bit harder.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
neaden 9y ago
I mean, in the case of Uber, Lyft, and AirBnB a lot of their advantages came from breaking laws as well, something that can be tolerated a lot more in those industries.
ptero 9y ago
It is still worthwhile to try though. Yes, many attempts fail, but they might still give some useful nuggets. And they are often cheap: a failure of established process may 10000 times more expensive than a disruption attempt (e.g. 1.5T F-35 vs 100M for cheaper drones).
CaptainZapp 9y ago
Where exactly is the lodging industry moribund?

wpietri 9y ago

It's also shocking to anybody who had studied Toyota's history. Toyota spent decades honing their processes, but are notoriously automation-averse [1], as automation locks in a (hoped-for) short-term productivity gain but prevents the human-driven continuous improvement that has made them highly productive. [2] In some ways, I think the long software-is-eating-the-world boom has been bad for us as an industry. We have been so successful with "throw tech at it" solutions that we don't know when that isn't a good idea. E.g., the Silicon-Valley-reinvents-grilled-cheese flop The Melt [3], or the $120m clown show that was Juicero [4]. American car companies spent decades trying and failing to learn Toyota's approach. They even had enthusiastic help from Toyota, who even went so far as to take GM's worst plant and redo it as a joint venture. (Interestingly, it's the same plant that Tesla now uses. [5]) For those unfamiliar with the story, I strongly recommend This American Life's episode on it. [6] But my takeaway was that executive arrogance kept GM from learning that there was a much better way to make cars. That sounds more and more familiar these days. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40461624/how-toyota-is-putting-humans-first-in-an-era-of-increasing-automation https://www.fastcompany.com/40461624/how-toyota-is-putting-h... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18960044/ns/business-autos/t/study-toyota-most-productive-automaker/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18960044/ns/business-autos/t/study... [3] https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese-venture-got-burnt/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese... [4] https://blog.bolt.io/heres-why-juicero-s-press-is-so-expensive-6add74594e50 https://blog.bolt.io/heres-why-juicero-s-press-is-so-expensi... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI [6] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015

walshemj 9y ago
You should say this is after a key player in Production management had his ideas turned down in the UK and USA in the 50's.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Are you talking about Deming here? If not, I'd love to learn more.

pbreit 9y ago

The takeaway here is not that Elon/Tesla did anything “wrong”. I’m glad the article acknowledges that if Elon has listened to the experts he would not have started in the first place. And that by over-shooting Tesla may end up ahead even after the blips. Many journalists who point out the staff size disparity fail to note, unlike ARS, that Tesla outsources way less.

manomanowicz 9y ago

As someone who works in the car industry in a manufacturing plant, what surprises me is the lack of complexity in their product (especially in the powertrain i.e. battery and motors vs fuel tanks and engines) and yet their inability to ramp up their volume. If you look at most production facilities (at least in Europe) there is usually one line which produces several models, in various body styles each with various different engine/transmission combinations and additional parts for specific emissions markets and climates. (That's just some of the complexity in the Powertrain system, there's more related to the interior, exterior, electrical systems, suspension, HVAC) Tesla's model 3 line has virtually none of this complexity but still has issues in productions. Needless to say, if this was an established automaker producing this line, they would easily be up to full production volumes within months. (For me, this is part of the reason why people in the car industry are bearish on Tesla, they understand the challenge in setting up a whole new production line by a novice to the industry. By the time, Tesla have ramped up to a significant volume at good quality, the VAG, PSA/Opels, FCA, GM, Fords of the world would have their relatively simple (complexity wise) EVs designed and ready to ship (or almost ready to ship)) To me it seems like their current woes are a production quality issue or logistics and planning issue. The Model S was their first attempt at volume production so should have been a good chance to resolve the basic issues, learn from their mistakes and build up good practices. The Model S was notorious for its poor panel alignment, squeaks and rattles and other minor quality issues but things had improved as the production went on. Dishearteningly though, it seems that this wasn't enough. The challenge of producing a low volume product like the Model S really doesn't compare to the Model 3's 6000/week ambitious target. Previously, they could ship a Model S and have their service centers fix all the production issues. At significant volume, you need first time through quality to be almost perfect. For continuous production systems to work, all the processes need to keep to their 'takt time' and also be done to the correct standard (sufficient 'process capability'). Making sure your processes are capable is the hardest part and where your Six Sigma (Master) black belts are worth their weight in gold. The other thing they need is suppliers delivering on time and to spec. Logistics planning also is huge, with delays in supplier shipments potentially stopping the whole line. Supplier quality can also be an issue so having your own knowledgeable engineers working with them is key. They have a huge task ahead and everyday they build below target, they are burning millions of dollars of revenue potential.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mk89 9y ago

> Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are. It seems doubtful that anyone could leapfrog this amount of accumulated process knowledge and optimization simply by way of being new. I think with this way of thinking there will never be progress. It's thanks to this try-and-fail that this man was able to build things that nobody thought to be feasible. We are talking about mistakes that were done in the '80s, meaning that this man is trying to leverage what we have nowadays and he still can't, which is pretty sad, considering how advanced we think of ourselves compared to 40 years ago. Sometimes it's this way of thinking that really prevents innovation: we tried, it didn't work. Sure, you tried under different circumstances, I am quite sure you gave up on that for whatever reason and you are fine with it. Good lesson. However, there will be a new generation that will make it, no matter all your "I told you so". I want to see if in the future, when we'll have highly developed AIs, we will think "oh, 200 years ago we tried already and it didn't work".

blattimwind 9y ago
This is about punching pieces of metal into a car, not about inventing a sentient AI for 4D chess.
- mk89 9y ago
  Sorry, but this comment is really diminishing the entire purpose of years and years of studies in AI.
  - mk89 9y ago
    I think I misunderstood the parent comment. I can't delete the answer, though :) sorry about that!
dannyw 9y ago
Well, trying to build AI using failed papers from the 1980s have near zero value today. What Tesla is doing is like building a modern app but refusing to do A/B tests or code review or version control, generally universally accepted methods in the current industry, and going back to re-try software development patterns of the 1980s that failed.

rjdagost 9y ago

During their most recent earnings call, there was a very interesting back and forth between Elon, JB Straubel, and a stock analyst. The stock analyst pressed them to distinguish their proposed vision of a fully integrated factory from the industry leading Toyota Production System (TPS). You got the distinct impression that Elon and JB didn't even know what TPS was. Very eye-opening that the CEO and CTO of an automotive company lack basic industry knowledge. I appreciate the value of thinking things through from first principles, but there comes a time when you have to stand on the shoulders of giants and save a few billion dollars of wasted cap-ex...

fma 9y ago
Ironic given that their Fremont plant was used by Toyota. You'd think they would have gotten some knowledge transfer on car assembly 101 when buying the plant.
- avs733 9y ago
  as I remember...they were offered it and even had a partnership with Toyota that lasted until Musk started being rude about Toyota products.
forapurpose 9y ago
Do you have a link to the audio or an article about it?
- rjdagost 9y ago
  Here's a link to the transcript and the audio: https://insideevs.com/tesla-q4-conference-call-entirety-video/ https://insideevs.com/tesla-q4-conference-call-entirety-vide... The relevant portion with the stock analyst starts about 46:00 in.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

ianamartin 9y ago

People made the same argument about Apple when the iPhone first happened. "Apple is not going to just come into this product space and get it. It's too complicated." What we know now is that Apple had been investing in the supply chain and the manufacturing side of things for a very long time before they actually got into this business. Tesla seems to me to be a company based on the idea of, "Yeah, Apple just went off and pwned the smartphone market, just like they pwned the mp3 player market. So, yeah! We're going to do the same thing. But with cars." I don't really think that Tesla really understands the situation, the planning, and the investment it took for Apple to really do what it did.

greglindahl 9y ago
Given that Tesla hired a bunch of car people to scale their car production, it's safe to say that understanding what Apple did isn't their forte. I suspect it wouldn't have helped; you can't cost-effectively send final assembly of a car to a contract manufacturer, but you can for a phone.

ggg9990 9y ago

How many people from automakers would Tesla need to hire to hoover up all this knowledge?

jk2323 9y ago

"Anyone who has had to do with the manufacturing side of car makers (German ones anyway) knows how highly optimized from end-to-end their processes are." You can buy this knowledge.

tomaskafka 9y ago

> For example, there is a tool which is essentially 5/6/7 torque wrenches coupled to a lifting arm. This tool allows a line worker to mount a tire with little physical exertion in seconds. You see this sort of thing all the time at car assembly lines; offloading mechanical power to the machine, while having a human line up and steer things. This is my new favourite metaphor for AI.