4 ms·

> It wasn't long ago that they were only doing 1000 per week for the Model 3, so why (fundamentally) couldn't they increase it to near 6000 in a few months, too

> It wasn't long ago that they were only doing 1000 per week for the Model 3, so why (fundamentally) couldn't they increase it to near 6000 in a few months, too? It was almost 4 months ago that they hit a peak rate of 1000 per week if this article is correct: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4143164-tesla-model-3-1000-per-week-entering-january https://seekingalpha.com/article/4143164-tesla-model-3-1000-...

Robotbeat 9y ago
Right, and they hit over 2000 a week about 2 and a half months after that (end of March). Setting an internal goal of 6000 per week (burst) in another 3 months from then seems appropriate if they want to actually achieve 4000-5000 per week in that time frame. EDIT: If their production ramp doubling time really is 2.5 months, then based on the Bloomberg Model 3 tracker's estimate of 2600 Model 3s per week right now[0], they'll have about 4900/week by the end of June: https://www.google.com/search?&q=2600*e^(2.26*ln(2)/2.5 https://www.google.com/search?&q=2600*e^(2.26*ln(2)/2.5) I just don't understand this implicit idea that setting lower internal goals would actually help them achieve a higher production level sooner. That goes against common sense and experience. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Or they could set a realistic and achievable goal, and not stress out their entire workforce (and not expose their workforce to excess health and safety risks) trying to reach a goal that they know is impossible based on their current process constraints.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Tesla’s existence itself was never realistic nor achievable, from the very start, a point that the author makes. Also, the goal isn’t impossible; in fact, the goal is close to their current ramp rate. Improbable is not a synonym for impossible, no matter how common that misunderstanding is. As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve. Media sensationalist coverage of anecdotes doesn’t count as objective evidence of being worse than the industry overall. Admittedly, this is a low bar.
    - lobsternumber1 9y ago
      They are only measuring physical injuries, not psychological burnout, then they are missing the point. You cant treat automotive manufacture like a AAA video game. Nobody dies if Arkham Asylum 5 is janky on playstation. But if you are missing bolts on your brake lines....
    - bjl 9y ago
      > As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve. You mean, apart from the investigative reporting at Reason that uncovered systematic under reporting of injuries.

Robotbeat 9y ago

Right, and they hit over 2000 a week about 2 and a half months after that (end of March). Setting an internal goal of 6000 per week (burst) in another 3 months from then seems appropriate if they want to actually achieve 4000-5000 per week in that time frame. EDIT: If their production ramp doubling time really is 2.5 months, then based on the Bloomberg Model 3 tracker's estimate of 2600 Model 3s per week right now[0], they'll have about 4900/week by the end of June: https://www.google.com/search?&q=2600*e^(2.26*ln(2)/2.5 https://www.google.com/search?&q=2600*e^(2.26*ln(2)/2.5) I just don't understand this implicit idea that setting lower internal goals would actually help them achieve a higher production level sooner. That goes against common sense and experience. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

gamblor956 9y ago
Or they could set a realistic and achievable goal, and not stress out their entire workforce (and not expose their workforce to excess health and safety risks) trying to reach a goal that they know is impossible based on their current process constraints.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Tesla’s existence itself was never realistic nor achievable, from the very start, a point that the author makes. Also, the goal isn’t impossible; in fact, the goal is close to their current ramp rate. Improbable is not a synonym for impossible, no matter how common that misunderstanding is. As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve. Media sensationalist coverage of anecdotes doesn’t count as objective evidence of being worse than the industry overall. Admittedly, this is a low bar.
  - lobsternumber1 9y ago
    They are only measuring physical injuries, not psychological burnout, then they are missing the point. You cant treat automotive manufacture like a AAA video game. Nobody dies if Arkham Asylum 5 is janky on playstation. But if you are missing bolts on your brake lines....
  - bjl 9y ago
    > As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve. You mean, apart from the investigative reporting at Reason that uncovered systematic under reporting of injuries.