5 ms·

Wall Street analysts were blown away by Model 3's next-gen, military-grade tech

52 points by evo_9 8y ago

PAClearner 8y ago
while there are good parts to this analysis - military grade tech <---> wildly over-budget and delayed
- kuro68k 8y ago
  It's missed the boat for being the first long range affordable EV. Hyundai got there first with the Kona, which has the range of the more expensive Model 3 Long Range but at the price of the cheaper Short Range one. Don't get me wrong, the M3 is okay as a stripped down sporty hatchback, but the $35k model is looking a bit basic and overpriced already.
  - mavhc 8y ago
    Well, 40 and 64kW batteries in Kona compared to 50 and 75 in Model 3. Plus Kona is only available in 24 weeks according to their website, so 6 month wait.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    That may not be necessarily the case. Hyundai is having issues with producing an appropriate amount of battery packs[0] and it's not planning on delivering more than 2500 units to Norway in 2018. I don't think they're planning to sell more than 25k overall this year. Sure the Model 3 is considerably less affordable, but it has scale[2]. [0] https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/hyundai-kona-ev-gets-norwegian-price-specs-as-company-plans-to-make-own-batteries/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/hyundai-kona-ev-gets-norwegia... [1] https://electrek.co/2018/05/08/hyundai-ioniq-electric-battery-shortage-limiting-production/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/08/hyundai-ioniq-electric-batter... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Can you point at a source giving a similar range to the Model 3 Long Range? I googled and I found that the US EPA numbers are quite different: Kona Long Range 250, Kona short range ~166, Model 3 Long Range 334, Model 3 Standard ~220.
syntaxing 8y ago
I wish there was more details and pictures to see. But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article. Military grade actually means something. Just because it is advanced does not make it military grade. There are many stringent requirements and standards especially in testing when it's used in the Military which is why everything seems like it cost so much. Just look at MIL-SPEC hardware like screws. Easily 2-3x the cost of regular bolts but I can exactly pinpoint the metal composition and expected lifetime for it.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Most mil grade tech is not that advanced. Electronics are 20+ years behind the technology forefront but are built for durability and reliability. Some of that you want in a car but it's nice to have modern high speed gear for infotainment and advanced engine controls.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  When I was at (German) military "military grade" seemed to mean 5 times as expensive and frequently not working :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- octorian 8y ago
  > But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article. This description has been paraded around ever since the original Munro comment using those words. I'm still waiting for someone to actually explain what they meant by that. Does that mean MIL spec components? Does it mean an approach to board layout or packaging? Or does it just mean that it looks like a modern high quality design? Of course a Tesla is going to have fancy power electronics in their vehicles, and these will obviously look more sophisticated than some off-the-shelf ICE car's ECU. Its kinda a design requirement for a high performance electric car.
- ttwtf 8y ago
  "military grade tech" sounds like bullshit. In the military the highest priority is hat things are reliable. Costs are only a second factor. Most "military grade" is far too expensive for consumer goods. 1. The US military is trying to go the other way. Trying to apply cheap consumer technology for military applications. You may google it. 2. The former Soviet union military production companies also build consumer electronics on the side. It was far too expensive since they used "military grade" electronics for mainstream market consumer goods. This is the reason some people still love this old equipment that was also sometimes exported into the west.
gaius 8y ago
The F35 is “military grade” too. It’s massively over budget, doesn’t work and never will. Oh and rival states already stole all the blueprints.
- adventured 8y ago
  According to the Norwegian pilots currently flying the F35, it defeats all other planes it has gone up against due to its tech and stealth superiority. Only the F22 - which was recently in Norway for exercises - provided it a good challenge. The Israelis are actively using the F35 in missions. Their air force is not known for spending large sums of money on planes that don't work. Nobody else has fielded a 5th gen plane in meaningful numbers, including Russia and China. There's a reason for that.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    Wondering if that reason is not being necessary or beneficial? At this point we’ve built several generations of advanced jets that’ve never seen meaningful combat or use starting with, from what I remember, the F-117.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      Well, there was one F-117 that was shot down, and conversely, since it was solely an attack aircraft, avoiding combat was more what it was supposed to do, no?
      - gaius 8y ago
        Yes, stealth defeated by "obsolete" equipment. F35s don't stand a chance against modern Russian S-400s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
    - nradov 8y ago
      The F-117 flew combat missions all over the world before it was retired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Opera...
jdietrich 8y ago
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. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/tesla-model-3-critic-flips-view-sees-sedan-being-profitable https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/tesla-mod... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCrkO1x-Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCrkO1x-Qo
technofiend 8y ago
If Tesla were actually so far ahead that his tech represented an advantage when applied in a military context, he'd no longer be able to export it much less share the tech by building in China. I really don't see that happening based on the article here.
davidgould 8y ago
I dunno about military-grade, but the Model 3 is definitely special. I found this video series [0] about disassembling and analyzing a Model 3 very interesting and informative. If you have worked on cars much, particularly if you have ever changed a clutch or removed an engine, there will be some mind blowing things here. For example, removing the entire drive train requires unplugging a half dozen connectors, two coolant hoses and undoing four bolts. Probably a half hour job, given a lift, a transmission jack and a few hand basic hand tools. [1] Take a look at the inverter. [2] It's about twice the size of the one on my electric bike, but it's good for 300kw. The 100kw inverter in my Chevy Spark EV is huge by comparison. It's the lower module in the big stack of boxes [3]. Above it is the 3.3kw charger. I already have an electric car, and the Chevy Bolt would suit my needs better (small, hatchback) than the Model 3, but I'm tempted by the artistry of it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/user/Ingineerix/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/Ingineerix/videos [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4eQ7nN_Lwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4eQ7nN_Lwo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dV2re3rtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dV2re3rtM [3] https://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/2015-chevrolet-spark-ev/2015-chevrolet-spark-ev-24.jpg https://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/2015-chevrolet-spa...
- joshlittle 8y ago
  Love my Chevy Bolt EV. I like that Chevrolet has adopted a lot of standards - J1772A/CCS Combo Charging, android auto and carplay in the infotainment system. Surround vision and rear view camera are amazing. Model 3 is ok, but there are few things to consider about that Tesla. - The lack of the free Tesla supercharging perk for m3. Without spending any additional money, that car is locked into only having support for Tesla's proprietary standard "out of box." There is no other hardware included with the car which make it compatible with other technologies. (CCS/Chademo) - And that proprietary built in charge port requires a $500 Chademo adapter if you want to use a different network for fast charging. Even that standard is being replaced by SAE/CCS - No support at all by Tesla, but is the standard used by Volkswagens upcoming Electrify America EVSE Network. - Are you a do it yourselfer? You won't be buying Tesla parts - they don't make them available to customers. Whatever their service charges - that's what you pay. I find the right to repair my own equipment is a must for something I'm spending over $30,000 on. I don't wanna have to teach a lesson to anyone on how to open my car doors. Emergency exit handle is in a bad spot... Yep. Right where you expect it to be - In the face of a normal handle on any car! If someone in your car uses the emergency exit handle which is right on the door, the infotainment system present a warning message telling you not to do that again as the window trim can be damaged. Humans are going to always look for the handle on a car door... Only one camera is actually useful - rear backup camera. But there are a lot more cameras for the autopilot feature. What's the point of having all these cameras if you can't do anything with them? - Even $35,000 is a lot to spend on a vehicle that was assembled inside of a circus tent in Fremont.

52 points by evo_9 8y ago

PAClearner 8y ago

while there are good parts to this analysis - military grade tech <---> wildly over-budget and delayed

kuro68k 8y ago
It's missed the boat for being the first long range affordable EV. Hyundai got there first with the Kona, which has the range of the more expensive Model 3 Long Range but at the price of the cheaper Short Range one. Don't get me wrong, the M3 is okay as a stripped down sporty hatchback, but the $35k model is looking a bit basic and overpriced already.
- mavhc 8y ago
  Well, 40 and 64kW batteries in Kona compared to 50 and 75 in Model 3. Plus Kona is only available in 24 weeks according to their website, so 6 month wait.
- Tade0 8y ago
  That may not be necessarily the case. Hyundai is having issues with producing an appropriate amount of battery packs[0] and it's not planning on delivering more than 2500 units to Norway in 2018. I don't think they're planning to sell more than 25k overall this year. Sure the Model 3 is considerably less affordable, but it has scale[2]. [0] https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/hyundai-kona-ev-gets-norwegian-price-specs-as-company-plans-to-make-own-batteries/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/hyundai-kona-ev-gets-norwegia... [1] https://electrek.co/2018/05/08/hyundai-ioniq-electric-battery-shortage-limiting-production/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/08/hyundai-ioniq-electric-batter... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Can you point at a source giving a similar range to the Model 3 Long Range? I googled and I found that the US EPA numbers are quite different: Kona Long Range 250, Kona short range ~166, Model 3 Long Range 334, Model 3 Standard ~220.

syntaxing 8y ago

I wish there was more details and pictures to see. But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article. Military grade actually means something. Just because it is advanced does not make it military grade. There are many stringent requirements and standards especially in testing when it's used in the Military which is why everything seems like it cost so much. Just look at MIL-SPEC hardware like screws. Easily 2-3x the cost of regular bolts but I can exactly pinpoint the metal composition and expected lifetime for it.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Most mil grade tech is not that advanced. Electronics are 20+ years behind the technology forefront but are built for durability and reliability. Some of that you want in a car but it's nice to have modern high speed gear for infotainment and advanced engine controls.
maxxxxx 8y ago
When I was at (German) military "military grade" seemed to mean 5 times as expensive and frequently not working :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
octorian 8y ago
> But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article. This description has been paraded around ever since the original Munro comment using those words. I'm still waiting for someone to actually explain what they meant by that. Does that mean MIL spec components? Does it mean an approach to board layout or packaging? Or does it just mean that it looks like a modern high quality design? Of course a Tesla is going to have fancy power electronics in their vehicles, and these will obviously look more sophisticated than some off-the-shelf ICE car's ECU. Its kinda a design requirement for a high performance electric car.
ttwtf 8y ago
"military grade tech" sounds like bullshit. In the military the highest priority is hat things are reliable. Costs are only a second factor. Most "military grade" is far too expensive for consumer goods. 1. The US military is trying to go the other way. Trying to apply cheap consumer technology for military applications. You may google it. 2. The former Soviet union military production companies also build consumer electronics on the side. It was far too expensive since they used "military grade" electronics for mainstream market consumer goods. This is the reason some people still love this old equipment that was also sometimes exported into the west.

gaius 8y ago

The F35 is “military grade” too. It’s massively over budget, doesn’t work and never will. Oh and rival states already stole all the blueprints.

adventured 8y ago
According to the Norwegian pilots currently flying the F35, it defeats all other planes it has gone up against due to its tech and stealth superiority. Only the F22 - which was recently in Norway for exercises - provided it a good challenge. The Israelis are actively using the F35 in missions. Their air force is not known for spending large sums of money on planes that don't work. Nobody else has fielded a 5th gen plane in meaningful numbers, including Russia and China. There's a reason for that.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Wondering if that reason is not being necessary or beneficial? At this point we’ve built several generations of advanced jets that’ve never seen meaningful combat or use starting with, from what I remember, the F-117.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Well, there was one F-117 that was shot down, and conversely, since it was solely an attack aircraft, avoiding combat was more what it was supposed to do, no?
    - gaius 8y ago
      Yes, stealth defeated by "obsolete" equipment. F35s don't stand a chance against modern Russian S-400s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
  - nradov 8y ago
    The F-117 flew combat missions all over the world before it was retired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Opera...

jdietrich 8y ago

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. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/tesla-model-3-critic-flips-view-sees-sedan-being-profitable https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/tesla-mod... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCrkO1x-Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCrkO1x-Qo

technofiend 8y ago

If Tesla were actually so far ahead that his tech represented an advantage when applied in a military context, he'd no longer be able to export it much less share the tech by building in China. I really don't see that happening based on the article here.

davidgould 8y ago

I dunno about military-grade, but the Model 3 is definitely special. I found this video series [0] about disassembling and analyzing a Model 3 very interesting and informative. If you have worked on cars much, particularly if you have ever changed a clutch or removed an engine, there will be some mind blowing things here. For example, removing the entire drive train requires unplugging a half dozen connectors, two coolant hoses and undoing four bolts. Probably a half hour job, given a lift, a transmission jack and a few hand basic hand tools. [1] Take a look at the inverter. [2] It's about twice the size of the one on my electric bike, but it's good for 300kw. The 100kw inverter in my Chevy Spark EV is huge by comparison. It's the lower module in the big stack of boxes [3]. Above it is the 3.3kw charger. I already have an electric car, and the Chevy Bolt would suit my needs better (small, hatchback) than the Model 3, but I'm tempted by the artistry of it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/user/Ingineerix/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/Ingineerix/videos [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4eQ7nN_Lwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4eQ7nN_Lwo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dV2re3rtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dV2re3rtM [3] https://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/2015-chevrolet-spark-ev/2015-chevrolet-spark-ev-24.jpg https://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/2015-chevrolet-spa...

joshlittle 8y ago
Love my Chevy Bolt EV. I like that Chevrolet has adopted a lot of standards - J1772A/CCS Combo Charging, android auto and carplay in the infotainment system. Surround vision and rear view camera are amazing. Model 3 is ok, but there are few things to consider about that Tesla. - The lack of the free Tesla supercharging perk for m3. Without spending any additional money, that car is locked into only having support for Tesla's proprietary standard "out of box." There is no other hardware included with the car which make it compatible with other technologies. (CCS/Chademo) - And that proprietary built in charge port requires a $500 Chademo adapter if you want to use a different network for fast charging. Even that standard is being replaced by SAE/CCS - No support at all by Tesla, but is the standard used by Volkswagens upcoming Electrify America EVSE Network. - Are you a do it yourselfer? You won't be buying Tesla parts - they don't make them available to customers. Whatever their service charges - that's what you pay. I find the right to repair my own equipment is a must for something I'm spending over $30,000 on. I don't wanna have to teach a lesson to anyone on how to open my car doors. Emergency exit handle is in a bad spot... Yep. Right where you expect it to be - In the face of a normal handle on any car! If someone in your car uses the emergency exit handle which is right on the door, the infotainment system present a warning message telling you not to do that again as the window trim can be damaged. Humans are going to always look for the handle on a car door... Only one camera is actually useful - rear backup camera. But there are a lot more cameras for the autopilot feature. What's the point of having all these cameras if you can't do anything with them? - Even $35,000 is a lot to spend on a vehicle that was assembled inside of a circus tent in Fremont.