4 ms·
A sense of proportion is important here. So far as I've been able to determine data total sales of Model S cars seem hard to come by. You'd think Tesla would
by rebootthesystem 12y ago
A sense of proportion is important here.
So far as I've been able to determine data total sales of Model S cars seem hard to come by. You'd think Tesla would be a bit more open. I'll go ahead and throw in my own estimate of about 30K to 40K Model S cars sold since the beginning of time. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am wrong by an order of magnitude.
In sharp contrast to this, once you are selling millions of cars per year ([1]Ford, 2013, 2.5MM; [2]Others) this idea of making twenty changes per week that actually make it out to the production line is simply impossible.
At volume supply pipelines have huge inertia. You can't make changes on a whim. Doing very simplistic math and assuming a JIT process, Ford receives 50,000 parts per week. Tesla, assuming 20K cars per year, receives 370. I am not trying to be dismissive, but that's the difference between a garage operation and a real industrial operation at scale. A constant flow of 50,000 parts per week needs to be planned months in advance with all sorts of tests and controls during the process. Changes require the same planning and effort. Imagine making a change that does not work well (for whatever reasons) and you have 50,000 parts per week descending on you. By the time you make a change tons (literally) of raw materials are being processed at some factory, container cargo ships are in the middle of the ocean on their way to your port and trucks are en-route to deliver your parts for the coming wees.
At a few hundred parts per week you can pretty much afford to experiment and throw out whole shipments if something goes wrong. Your supply pipeline is much shorter. You don't have dealers to feed and contractual obligations in terms of delivery. You don't have the same kind of output pipeline. Add to this perhaps having a lot of the small-scale manufacturing done in-house and, yes, it's a garage operation, an expensive one, but the scale simply doesn't compare to that of a high volume manufacturer.
I am not saying any of this to diminish Tesla. It's a neat company. Their cars are not for the masses. And that's OK. However, I really don't subscribe to the idea of Musk walking on water. Is he a great CEO? It sure looks that way. Nobody could dispute that for a minute. I am simply proposing that we do not ascribe supernatural powers to an organization that operates at a scale and within a framework that allows it to behave in a manner very different from that of larger volume producers.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/here-are-december-2013-big-eight-us-auto-sales-numbers-gm-ford-chrysler-toyota-honda-nissan-1525492 http://www.ibtimes.com/here-are-december-2013-big-eight-us-a...
- sahaskatta 12y agoTesla is now at over 50k Model S vehicles sold.
- josefresco 12y agoThis is a really thoughtful counter-point and I appreciate the response. The problem with it is that I don't see Tesla changing, or morphing into a "traditional" car company as it scales. Yes Ford and the like are constrained by old business models and huge scale, but that's kind of the point. Tesla is not, and has the chance to scale and do things differently along the way. I'm amazed at how they continue to grow (from roadster to model S), and consistently reveal products and technologies that seem genuinely very progressive and well though out. I'm also struck by their ability to address issues and controversies that like landmines, stand in the way of anyone trying to break into this very established marketplace. I would love to have two horses in this game, Tesla and another to see how contrasting methodologies in the modern car market would play out.