3 ms·

It was never worth it to retool for decades? Or was there a pathological lock-in between suppliers and manufacturers that prevented even the most obvious innov

It was never worth it to retool for decades? Or was there a pathological lock-in between suppliers and manufacturers that prevented even the most obvious innovations from happening if they required any amount of coordination?

hef19898 3y ago
Since car manufacturing, and design, wasn't held back at all by something like auxiliary current, the reason more likely was people not wanting to waste energy to improve on something that is working just fine for everyone.
- Closi 3y ago
  Well according to Tesla it wasn't working just fine for everyone - they have been able to massively simplify their internal wiring. Classic example of legacy automakers happy to maintain the status-quo because it is easiest, while the new kid on the block is pointing out that things don't have to be the way they are just because they are that way.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Its the same with aluminum casting. The car makers used the technology once in a while in some specific parts, Tesla was like 'why not make half the car out of one casting'. Tesla worked closely with a supplier, did lots of its own research and development and continue to work with a supplier to make the technology better over time. This was considered stupid at first. This is now very widely copied. First automakers from China copied it. And now others are copying it as well. Even Toyota (who everybody believes are some kind of gods of manufacturing) are copying this now. If you have been doing something one way for long enough, going into a radically different direction is hard. Your whole workforce knows about welding steel sheets together, and nobody knows anything about casting. Your whole workforce knows about V12 and the ecosystem for that. Its hard to fundamentally change how you do things when you are producing millions of vehicles a year.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      A quick search turned up this: >> S&P Global Mobility forecasts 15% to 20% of traditional body-in-white (BIW) stampings in 2030 may be at risk from these gigacastings. Underbody components typically comprise about 50% of a vehicle's BIW shell, and this soft underbelly is the target of gigacasting's focus. Source: https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/gigacasting-the-hottest-trend-in-car-manufacturing.html https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/gigac... Obviously not a technical journal, nor did I double check anything. What the numbers say 15-20% might be replaced by gigastampings (sidenote: I ak surprised Elon didn't rename Twitter to Giga-X). Which, ok, is a thing. But nowhere near the revolution people seem to believe. First, it has to happen. Second, others have to consider it better, read overall cheaper, and continue doing it. Then we can properly judge. Until then, it might as well be in the category of Teslas fully automated factories that ended with Elon doing pyjama parties with his workers on the shopfloor and ad-hoc tents. And Toyota, as per the linked article, is not copying it, they are "eyeing" it. And believe itbor not, manufacturers are eyeing new production tech all the time. And Toyotas reputation in car manufacturing is well earned.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        You are underestimating how long things take in the car industry. 2030 is really, really soon. The majority of cars sold then will be existing models with minor updates. And car companies only upgrade their major platforms every 5-7 years. Many companies are currently planning their second (or first real) EV platform. But by 2030 even the waste number of EV will be on first generation EV platforms still. Companies have 100s of million invested in their current body lines. So unless you build a totally new factory you are not gone adopt this technology. When Toyota came out with their production system it took decades for all the practices to become established.
        hef19898 3y ago
        I'm more an aerospace guy, but I am fully aware of the time scale around production technology changes. Thing is so, 2030 is an estimate, not a commitment. And I didn't find anything about actual investments or announcememts from OEMs around that. Also, 20% of castings still means a lot of welding before a car body is made. One thing regarding Toyotas production system so: it is all about management and processes and not about the actual machinery. And it share a lot of principles ranging as far back as Venice's Arsenal in the 16/17th century and, especially, WW2 mass manifavturing of, e.g., planes. Anothet major difference: TPS is a proven methodology for longer than Tesla, let alone any production tech coming out of Tesla, exists as a company.
  - wil421 3y ago
    Legacy automakers have no need for a 48v system. Most vehicles have an ICEs and they will for the next decade(s) as EV and PHEV adoption rises. 12 years is the average age for cars in the EU/US. Why would they upgrade a system when they don’t need to? Tesla can be a front runner and companies like Bosch will start creating 48v parts as EVs become more popular for legacy auto to use.
- hulitu 3y ago
  Also 48 V semiconductors are more expensive and not so easily available.
wayfinder 3y ago
I mean there have always been a market for 48V components. The problem is that the market is much smaller so as a customer, you’re paying a lot more and it’s hard to justify raising the price of your car because you decided to go 48V.
brnt 3y ago
Try counting the number of businesses involved in making a vehicle.
arghwhat 3y ago
24V is common in trucks, and yet never made it to regular cars because there was never sufficient reason. Using a higher voltage is not an innovation (it's an obvious change, and we've gone from 6V to 12V to, in some cases, 24V already) - rather it's just a slight efficiency improvement in largely non-critical systems, with not a lot of incentive to take on the cost of transition. In a a personal ICE vehicle, the only real significant power was to the starter motor and from the generator, and the distance there was short so the copper didn't really matter and thus no one cared for 24V - unlike industry where you might have significant aux systems. With EVs, you have heat pumps and brake boosters on the auxillary power, so you now have a stronger driver for conversion. Even within 12V, you'd get a larger weight reduction from not carrying an aux battery, and just feeding through a converter from the HV system.
- chipsa 3y ago
  The 12v battery performs the very significant safety feature of allowing the HV battery to be disconnected when the car isn’t ready to move. You’d need to have a converter in the HV battery to avoid that down side, and then you have a new downside of a fault could cause your 12v line to be HV instead.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    Fair point, but I imagine disconnecting is mainly to avoid live HV wiring throughout the vehicle, and thus reducing risk of catastrophic shorts or arcing. If the aux supply is near or in the battery, leaving that connected would while the rest of HV is interrupted would probably not cause any notable increase in risk. At the same time, vehicle fires have been caused by a shorted auxillary battery (I have personally experienced an entire industrial building burn down because the 12V battery in a parked ICE car shorted and went up in flames), so I imagine only having one battery to worry about is a risk reduction.

hef19898 3y ago

Since car manufacturing, and design, wasn't held back at all by something like auxiliary current, the reason more likely was people not wanting to waste energy to improve on something that is working just fine for everyone.

Closi 3y ago
Well according to Tesla it wasn't working just fine for everyone - they have been able to massively simplify their internal wiring. Classic example of legacy automakers happy to maintain the status-quo because it is easiest, while the new kid on the block is pointing out that things don't have to be the way they are just because they are that way.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Its the same with aluminum casting. The car makers used the technology once in a while in some specific parts, Tesla was like 'why not make half the car out of one casting'. Tesla worked closely with a supplier, did lots of its own research and development and continue to work with a supplier to make the technology better over time. This was considered stupid at first. This is now very widely copied. First automakers from China copied it. And now others are copying it as well. Even Toyota (who everybody believes are some kind of gods of manufacturing) are copying this now. If you have been doing something one way for long enough, going into a radically different direction is hard. Your whole workforce knows about welding steel sheets together, and nobody knows anything about casting. Your whole workforce knows about V12 and the ecosystem for that. Its hard to fundamentally change how you do things when you are producing millions of vehicles a year.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    A quick search turned up this: >> S&P Global Mobility forecasts 15% to 20% of traditional body-in-white (BIW) stampings in 2030 may be at risk from these gigacastings. Underbody components typically comprise about 50% of a vehicle's BIW shell, and this soft underbelly is the target of gigacasting's focus. Source: https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/gigacasting-the-hottest-trend-in-car-manufacturing.html https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/gigac... Obviously not a technical journal, nor did I double check anything. What the numbers say 15-20% might be replaced by gigastampings (sidenote: I ak surprised Elon didn't rename Twitter to Giga-X). Which, ok, is a thing. But nowhere near the revolution people seem to believe. First, it has to happen. Second, others have to consider it better, read overall cheaper, and continue doing it. Then we can properly judge. Until then, it might as well be in the category of Teslas fully automated factories that ended with Elon doing pyjama parties with his workers on the shopfloor and ad-hoc tents. And Toyota, as per the linked article, is not copying it, they are "eyeing" it. And believe itbor not, manufacturers are eyeing new production tech all the time. And Toyotas reputation in car manufacturing is well earned.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      You are underestimating how long things take in the car industry. 2030 is really, really soon. The majority of cars sold then will be existing models with minor updates. And car companies only upgrade their major platforms every 5-7 years. Many companies are currently planning their second (or first real) EV platform. But by 2030 even the waste number of EV will be on first generation EV platforms still. Companies have 100s of million invested in their current body lines. So unless you build a totally new factory you are not gone adopt this technology. When Toyota came out with their production system it took decades for all the practices to become established.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I'm more an aerospace guy, but I am fully aware of the time scale around production technology changes. Thing is so, 2030 is an estimate, not a commitment. And I didn't find anything about actual investments or announcememts from OEMs around that. Also, 20% of castings still means a lot of welding before a car body is made. One thing regarding Toyotas production system so: it is all about management and processes and not about the actual machinery. And it share a lot of principles ranging as far back as Venice's Arsenal in the 16/17th century and, especially, WW2 mass manifavturing of, e.g., planes. Anothet major difference: TPS is a proven methodology for longer than Tesla, let alone any production tech coming out of Tesla, exists as a company.
- wil421 3y ago
  Legacy automakers have no need for a 48v system. Most vehicles have an ICEs and they will for the next decade(s) as EV and PHEV adoption rises. 12 years is the average age for cars in the EU/US. Why would they upgrade a system when they don’t need to? Tesla can be a front runner and companies like Bosch will start creating 48v parts as EVs become more popular for legacy auto to use.
hulitu 3y ago
Also 48 V semiconductors are more expensive and not so easily available.

wayfinder 3y ago

I mean there have always been a market for 48V components. The problem is that the market is much smaller so as a customer, you’re paying a lot more and it’s hard to justify raising the price of your car because you decided to go 48V.

brnt 3y ago

Try counting the number of businesses involved in making a vehicle.

arghwhat 3y ago

24V is common in trucks, and yet never made it to regular cars because there was never sufficient reason. Using a higher voltage is not an innovation (it's an obvious change, and we've gone from 6V to 12V to, in some cases, 24V already) - rather it's just a slight efficiency improvement in largely non-critical systems, with not a lot of incentive to take on the cost of transition. In a a personal ICE vehicle, the only real significant power was to the starter motor and from the generator, and the distance there was short so the copper didn't really matter and thus no one cared for 24V - unlike industry where you might have significant aux systems. With EVs, you have heat pumps and brake boosters on the auxillary power, so you now have a stronger driver for conversion. Even within 12V, you'd get a larger weight reduction from not carrying an aux battery, and just feeding through a converter from the HV system.

chipsa 3y ago
The 12v battery performs the very significant safety feature of allowing the HV battery to be disconnected when the car isn’t ready to move. You’d need to have a converter in the HV battery to avoid that down side, and then you have a new downside of a fault could cause your 12v line to be HV instead.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Fair point, but I imagine disconnecting is mainly to avoid live HV wiring throughout the vehicle, and thus reducing risk of catastrophic shorts or arcing. If the aux supply is near or in the battery, leaving that connected would while the rest of HV is interrupted would probably not cause any notable increase in risk. At the same time, vehicle fires have been caused by a shorted auxillary battery (I have personally experienced an entire industrial building burn down because the 12V battery in a parked ICE car shorted and went up in flames), so I imagine only having one battery to worry about is a risk reduction.