4 ms·

Here it is visualized/explained: https://www.core77.com/posts/120223/Teslas-Radical-Unboxed-Manufacturing-Technique-Could-Reduce-Costs-by-50 https://www.core77

by jaclaz 3y ago

Here it is visualized/explained: https://www.core77.com/posts/120223/Teslas-Radical-Unboxed-Manufacturing-Technique-Could-Reduce-Costs-by-50 https://www.core77.com/posts/120223/Teslas-Radical-Unboxed-M... Though while it seems to me at first sight more efficient (in the sense that it may be faster) I cannot see where the 50% savings could be.

Ancalagon 3y ago
I think its economy of scale and time/labor savings. Right now there is one main assembly line, that almost everyone interacts with during final assembly (especially for the interior of the car). So you might have less efficiency if something goes wrong earlier in the line. In the unboxed method, it looks like there are five or six main assembly lines running in parallel, and all of the interior work also occurs on these lines for their respective sub-components. Finally assembly in this method should literally just be bolting the sub-components together, attaching wiring adaptors, and you should have a working car.
- jaclaz 3y ago
  Yes, but all that can lead to 50% savings? And at the same time reduce factory footprint by 40%? >Officials said the unboxed process could cut production costs in half and reduce the factory footprint by 40%. It sounds optimistic to me.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I don't think they mean 50% saving in the whole car. I think they mean 50% saving of the production cost, outside of the materials costs. And that I assume would be achieved by having a higher threw-put with the same input in terms of humans and machines, like early RISC processors. Simpler pain shop would be big savings, in floorspace and amount of robots. Less moving of the whole car around reduces a lot of big robots. Humans and robots have easier access to the parts they need to work on, increasing both human and robot productivty. I think this number also includes the changes to the wiring that Tesla has been working on for a few years now. Wires are one of the most difficult and labor intensive parts of car building, and a frequent source of errors. The traditional process isn't really feasible anymore with this assembly method. So I assume this number also includes the elimination of those task. Footprint by 40% seems reasonable to me, saving of 50% seems high I would agree. Depending on what all is included in that number.
    - jaclaz 3y ago
      Yes but even if the halved costs are production costs, without materials, they are essentially investment in robots/machinery and labour. I don't think that much can be saved on robots/machinery, so it must be largely labour, and to cut down those costs by 50%, of even 40%, seems to me like very improbable. About the footprint, it could be reasonable and actually feasible, but that could be a great thing from some viewpoints (less visual impact of the factory on the territory or possibility to build a new factory on an area too small for a traditional plant ), but it doesn't sound like it could lead to relevant savings, the costs of actual land area and buildings should be a minimal percentage of the production costs.

by jaclaz 3y ago

Ancalagon 3y ago

I think its economy of scale and time/labor savings. Right now there is one main assembly line, that almost everyone interacts with during final assembly (especially for the interior of the car). So you might have less efficiency if something goes wrong earlier in the line. In the unboxed method, it looks like there are five or six main assembly lines running in parallel, and all of the interior work also occurs on these lines for their respective sub-components. Finally assembly in this method should literally just be bolting the sub-components together, attaching wiring adaptors, and you should have a working car.

jaclaz 3y ago
Yes, but all that can lead to 50% savings? And at the same time reduce factory footprint by 40%? >Officials said the unboxed process could cut production costs in half and reduce the factory footprint by 40%. It sounds optimistic to me.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I don't think they mean 50% saving in the whole car. I think they mean 50% saving of the production cost, outside of the materials costs. And that I assume would be achieved by having a higher threw-put with the same input in terms of humans and machines, like early RISC processors. Simpler pain shop would be big savings, in floorspace and amount of robots. Less moving of the whole car around reduces a lot of big robots. Humans and robots have easier access to the parts they need to work on, increasing both human and robot productivty. I think this number also includes the changes to the wiring that Tesla has been working on for a few years now. Wires are one of the most difficult and labor intensive parts of car building, and a frequent source of errors. The traditional process isn't really feasible anymore with this assembly method. So I assume this number also includes the elimination of those task. Footprint by 40% seems reasonable to me, saving of 50% seems high I would agree. Depending on what all is included in that number.
  - jaclaz 3y ago
    Yes but even if the halved costs are production costs, without materials, they are essentially investment in robots/machinery and labour. I don't think that much can be saved on robots/machinery, so it must be largely labour, and to cut down those costs by 50%, of even 40%, seems to me like very improbable. About the footprint, it could be reasonable and actually feasible, but that could be a great thing from some viewpoints (less visual impact of the factory on the territory or possibility to build a new factory on an area too small for a traditional plant ), but it doesn't sound like it could lead to relevant savings, the costs of actual land area and buildings should be a minimal percentage of the production costs.