Tesla car fail

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY5YudGurBk

[Cebu_4_2]

Some asshole fucks up and speeds into a tree and we blame the car manufature. Pretty pathetic with this one.

[expat4ever]

any chance that Hillary was in there?

[Neuro]

any chance that Hillary was in there?

Have a cigar Sir!

[Glass]

I know this is another brand but it shows the mind set situation is wide spread.

The war of words in the viewer comments speaks volumes about the attitude of people. I feel like we keep sliding and it's sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYp95XqKot8

And belief in things like this
they brought in a high-up VW Canada representative who has confidential tech information and will be making the decisions on what to do.

I suppose It's thinking like this that makes it possible to sell iPhones and auto pilot cars that aren't. Still doesn't make it any less troubling. It's dangerous enough already dodging people using their phones behind the wheel. How bad is it going to be when the phones are doing the driving?

[Glass]

New video. He still has problems. Most satisfying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJfFTArgths

I recollect that even with 15 year old cars when you do a reset or a battery swap over they take about 20 minutes or so of idle to reconfigure themselves. Seems no body knows this or someone is not listening.

[Cebu_4_2]

I recollect that even with 15 year old cars when you do a reset or a battery swap over they take about 20 minutes or so of idle to reconfigure themselves. Seems no body knows this or someone is not listening.

This is our youth, book smart life stupid. Just like the medical industry as a small example.

[Glass]

the main issue with the first vw video is that the blind spot indicator malfunctions. This makes the car "undrivable". The car is now dangerous because the driver doesn't know what, if anything is in the blind spot. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of the weakness of thought there. The viewer comments back this up.

1 Person points out that the solution is to turn ones head and look into the blind spot to identify if anything is there. This apparently is unacceptable because there is technology for that now. Flame war ensues. Even to the point where it is too "dangerous" to take ones eyes off the road ahead to look and see if you are driving under a truck which might be beside you. And blind spot indicators are especially necessary because you might be texting.

No recognition that some tech is a gimmick designed to extract either a) more money or b) more money for me (car maker/dealer/sales person). No recognition that all tech needs supervision. No recognition that there was a world before blind spot indicators. No recognition that all the unnecessary tech might be the reason why the damn car doesn't work.

and to wrap that up. I think the blind spot monitor is actually working, its just the dash light indicating a problem. I think he said he cut the video because someone walked past the car setting it off.

I thought it fitted with the Tesla issues of auto pilot. It seems that people misunderstand the term auto pilot. Clearly mistaking the truncated word Auto for autonomous when it actually means automatic. Still requires human oversight.

[Dogman]

Old school style driving IS the best and safest school of driving for they that heed the lessons !

Look twice or more then move !

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

[Glass]

Still trying to cover up faulty vehicles on top of major cash burn $1 billion and $4000 loss per vehicle.


Tesla Performs Stealth Recall With Misleading Messages, Customer NDAs

In early 2014, a Tesla Motors Model S that was part of the Edmunds.com test fleet suddenly lost power (https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-stuck-on-the-freeway.html) while merging onto a freeway. The car flashed several warning messages — "12V Battery Power Low - Car May Shut Down Unexpectedly" and "Car Needs Service - Car May Shut Down Unexpectedly" — before coming to a stop on the freeway onramp. Eventually a tow truck came to haul the stricken vehicle to a Tesla service shop, where the company replaced its drive unit for the third time (https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-is-the-third-drive-unit-the-charm.html).


This was a big deal. Not only is it embarrassing when a media outlet’s car breaks down in such a dramatic fashion, but any defect that causes a sudden loss of vehicle power is typically considered safety-related (http://www.autonews.com/article/20140526/OEM11/140529905/why-didnt-stalling-alone-trigger-gm-recall). There was also a grim point of comparison: the GM ignition switch scandal that was just starting to explode into the mainstream media had involved a defect that produced a similar sudden loss of vehicle power. Several months later, on Tesla’s second quarter earnings call, CEO Elon Musk addressed the incident by telling analysts:

“Well, there's definitely some genuine issues we have with the car, but they had one of our early production units, and in fact most of the problems that they have encountered there are not present in current cars. We also -- I think this may be ending up being counterproductive, but the service team was ultra proactive with the Edmunds car. So they would -- they were doing their best to make Edmunds happy, and I think unfortunately that resulted in them changing things up, just on the off-chance something might go wrong.

So that drive unit issue that I mentioned earlier were, the drive units [were] replaced even though it wasn't a drive unit problem, that happened with them twice. So, unfortunate sort of case, but I don't think it's broadly correct.”


Earlier in the call Musk had addressed the issue of Model S drive unit failures (https://www.teslarati.com/like-need-tesla-drive-unit-replacement/) more broadly, explaining that the issues were often unrelated to the drive unit itself and that the necessary fixes --a $3 cable tie and a 50 cent shim for the differential-- were not expensive. With Musk’s assurance that these mysterious issues were not costing the company significant amounts of money, investors and the public eventually lost interest. NHTSA, which had its hands full with the GM scandal, never investigated.

Though apparent drive unit failures continued to be reported, including several instances of cars suddenly losing power as the Edmunds car had, the whole issue steadily receded from public attention.

Then, in January of 2015, a Model S owned by a French taxi driver lost power while accelerating on a highway. The car threw the same error messages as the Edmunds car had before coming to a stop on the side of the road. The Model S taxi was also towed to a Tesla repair shop, but there its story diverges from the Edmunds story. Tesla didn’t replace the car’s drive unit, as it had with Edmunds, and its service invoice made no reference to the terrifying loss of power the driver had just experienced. In the field designated “Description du probleme: customer states,” Tesla wrote (in English):



“As part of providing peace of mind and a great ownership experience, Tesla vehicles are equipped with telematics systems to provide remote diagnostics support. We have been notified this vehicle has been remotely diagnosed that the Power Switch and Power Supply would benefit from the latest generation components.”


This use of what appeared to be boilerplate language surprised the taxi driver. Why didn’t Tesla simply describe what had happened to him in the space designated for just that? Why was a repair following a potentially dangerous incident being described as an “update” intended to “benefit” his car, and attributed to Tesla’s remote diagnostics? The taxi driver became suspicious.

It turned out that a number of Tesla owners had reported remarkably similar incidents in online forums, and that the failure of high voltage contactors was a fairly well-known issue (https://teslatap.com/undocumented/contactors/). An owner who posts on the Tesla Motor Club forum under the username mknox describes an almost identical failure (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/that-very-loud-and-painful-clunk.27853/page-10#post-921409), complete with the loud bang and warning messages, and reported (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/that-very-loud-and-painful-clunk.27853/page-11#post-922279) that Tesla service subsequently replaced his car’s high voltage contactors. Another owner, posting on the official Tesla.com forum under the name bobgriswold, reported the same malfunction (https://forums.tesla.com/it_IT/forum/forums/12v-battery-warning-and-sudden-shutdown-highway?page=1) while accelerating on a highway, which was also traced back to a faulty contactor. A TMC poster going by wk057 also lost power (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-lost-power-on-road-pull-over-safely.43075/#post-916996) on the road, and after initially being told (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/917634/) by Tesla engineering that the car’s firmware was to blame, the problem seemed to sort itself out.
Then, about a month later he reported (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/power-switch-and-power-supply-proactive-replacement-on-d-pack.44827/#post-950482) receiving an email from Tesla that was identical to the message that appeared on the French taxi driver’s invoice:

“I got the call about a month ago, but they were not specific and required the car to be in the SC for two days, they did not provide details why needed to be changed, they keep insisting that nothing is wrong and is a ‘proactive’ fix.”




Rather than report and recall the contactors as a safety-related defect, Tesla issued a technical service bulletin (TSB). It is unclear when exactly the original TSB was issued, but the first revision was issued in May of 2013 and a second revision was issued in June of 2014. TSBs are only an accepted alternative to a recall by NHTSA if the defect it repairs is not safety related, and Tesla was careful to avoid giving the safety regulator any hint of a risk to drivers. For starters, Tesla called SB-13-44-003 a “HVIL [High Voltage Interlock Loop] Connector Upgrade,” implying that it was intended to improve performance rather than fix a defect.
There wasn’t a hint in the bulletin that faulty contactors could cause sudden power loss, just the possibility the defect might make a car fail to start.

By calling the bulletin an “upgrade” and by suggesting that the worst case scenario was an inability to start the car, just four months after the Edmunds car had lost power on a highway onramp, Tesla buried the problem.

more here (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/guest-post-tesla-performs-stealth-recall-misleading-messages-customer-ndas)

[Cebu_4_2]

Propaganda. No one in the US supports an electric car.

[Glass]

Propaganda. No one in the US supports an electric car.

Everyone in America supports electric cars. Thats the point. Its a scam.

[madfranks]

Everyone in America supports electric cars. Thats the point. Its a scam.

I see what you're getting at, but really it's all taxpaying Americans that support electric cars, through forced subsidies of the industry paid for by our taxes. In essence, us poor taxpaying rubes are paying money so rich millionaire/billionaires can show how much they care for mother gaia by buying a Tesla, subsidized by the rubes. Yep, a scam!

[Glass]

Good news or is it "nothing to worry about" "a mere trifle".

Lets make up a small problem as an excuse to fix a bigger problem or will the bigger problem remain?

Tesla Tumbles After Recalling Over 50,000 Vehicles; Faces "Demonstrably Dangerous" Autopilot Lawsuit

Tesla just issued a voluntary recall for approximately 53,000 examples of the Model S hatchback and the Model crossover vehicles, sending the stock back down to $300..

As CNET reports, (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-recalls-53000-model-s-model-x-cars-for-stuck-parking-brakes/)the problem lies with the electric parking brakes that help secure the vehicles when placed in Park. The parking brakes contain a small gear that might fracture, which would prevent the parking brake from releasing. Thus, a car that enters Park may not be able to move again. This has no bearing on the vehicles' regular brakes, and Tesla has received no reports of the parking brake system failing to hold a car in place.

Tesla estimates that about 2 percent of the vehicles recalled contain the improperly manufactured gear. It should be noted that the parking brake assembly is from a third-party supplier, as well.

The reaction has pushed Tesla back toward $300...

As a reminder, we have noted the so-called 'stealth' recall (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/guest-post-tesla-performs-stealth-recall-misleading-messages-customer-ndas) of various Teslas in the past.
And additionally, as Fortune reports, (http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/tesla-lawsuit-autopilot/)Tesla (http://fortune.com/2017/04/17/tesla-model-s-cost/) owners filed a class-action lawsuit against the automaker for allegedly mischaracterizing the capabilities of its Autopilot 2 (http://fortune.com/2017/04/16/tesla-caddilac-autopilot-maps/) feature to consumers


The lawsuit, filed (https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/tesla-autopilot-2-ap2-defect/pressrelease/tesla-autopilot-2-ap2-defect-tesla-owners-hit-automaker-with-class-action-lawsuit-for-botched-nonfunctional-autopilot-and-missing-standard-safety-features) by law firm Hagens Berman on Wednesday in California’s Northern district court, said Tesla’s partial autopilot technology (http://fortune.com/2017/01/19/tesla-autopilot-death-probe/) was advertised as safe and “stress-free,” but instead “is essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous.”

“Unwittingly, buyers of the affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged,” the lawsuit says.


more @ ZH (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-20/tesla-tumbles-after-recalling-over-50000-cars-suvs)

[Glass]

Some detail on the home solar scammery. While I don't exactly agree with the authors premise that you have to live in the house for 30 years if you get solar, I still agree it's a major scam.

You obviously sell on the "benefit" of the solar when you sell the home to recoup your as yet unrealised free electricity and you bank that in to your next home because it will have solar too.... won't it?


Why Tesla's Solar Roof Is Just Another Giant Taxpayer Gift To Elon Musk

There are two things in which Elon Musk is an undisputed champion: creating hype and buzz for massively cash-flow burning products and companies, and abusing every possible loophole in the US tax code to get explicit and implicit subsidies from the government. He demonstrated the latter on Wednesday, when Tesla began taking orders for its solar roof tiles, a cornerstone strategy of Elon Musk's strategy to sell a "green", fossil-fuel-free lifestyle under the brand name of its luxury electric vehicles.

First the bad news: Tesla said the product, which generates solar energy without the need for traditional rooftop panels - assuming one lives in a traditionally sunny climate - will be substantially pricier than a conventional roof but don't worry, it will "look better" and ultimately pay for itself through reduced electricity costs... it just may take 20 or more years for the payback period to occur (more on the math below).

Made with tempered glass, Tesla assures that "Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles" and is why the company offers the "best warranty in the industry - the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first." There is just one problem: most Americans live in their house less than a decade before they end up selling it and moving to a different roof, which means that the vast majority of Americans who end up buying the new Tesla product offering will have moved out of their home long before the investment pays back for itself.

The solar roof tiles were unveiled in October as Musk sought to convince shareholders of the benefits of combining his electric vehicle maker with SolarCity, the solar installer run by his cousins.


Tesla said the solar tiles cost $42 per square foot to install, making them far more costly than slate, which costs around $17 per square foot, or asphalt, which costs around $5. To mitigate the price shock, Musk said average homes would only need between 30 and 40% of their roof tiles to be solar; the rest would be Tesla's cheaper nonsolar tiles which would blend in with the solar ones.

Tesla said the typical homeowner can expect to pay $21.85 per square foot for a Tesla solar roof. A 1700-square-foot roof in Southern California, with half the roof covered in "active" solar tiles, would cost about $34,300 after a federal tax credit, according to the website calculator. And this is where the fibbing began: the company said its solar roofs would cost between 10 and 15% less than an ordinary new roof plus traditional solar panels. However, according to Jim Petersen, CEO of PetersenDean, which installs about 30,000 new roofs plus solar a year, told Reuters that a 1700-square-foot roof with new solar panels, including the tax credit, would cost about $22,000, well below the Tesla website's estimate.

Tesla also calculates that every roof would generate an estimated $62,100 in electricity over 30 years. Over that time period, Tesla estimates, the homeowner would save $8,500. However, as explained above the breakeven period take places somewhere between 20 and 25 years into the life of the roof, by which point the original buyer is most likely long, long gone, unable to capitalize on the full IRR.

But the punchline is all the roof costs are net of, drumroll, federal tax credits, also known as subsidies to the producer in this case Elon Musk, who has made a living off capitalizing on state and government generosity. Here is the bottom line: every Tesla roof would be eligible for a roughly $15,500 federal tax credit.

Here is an actual example of how Tesla "pitches" a typical solar roof on its website, in this case let's assume the White House will be "solarized."

The bottom line is a cost of $57,500 for a roof that is 50% covered in solar tiles, or roughly $33/square foot, double the cost of slate, oh and which would also require the purchase of a Tesla $7,000 Powerwall battery. The kicker, however, is that the entire purchase would be uneconomical over the entire life if its wasn't for the $15,800 tax credit! Only with that "freebie" is the "net earned" over 30 years positive, and even so it comes to less than the actual tax credit received!


Zerohedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-11/why-teslas-solar-roof-just-another-giant-taxpayer-gift-elon-musk)

[madfranks]

So essentially every Tesla roof is a net loss in money, materials, productivity, etc., and the only way it can stay above water is with constant infusions of government (taxpayer) money!

[Glass]

So essentially every Tesla roof is a net loss in money, materials, productivity, etc., and the only way it can stay above water is with constant infusions of government (taxpayer) money!

Government policy at it's finest. Line the pockets of those in the clan. Confirming yet again Government is a crime syndicate.

[Glass]

This article goes on to say how wonderful Elon Musk is because despite all the lost money and all the catastrophes, he still keeps trying and despite all the lost money and all the catastrophes he is still a multi Billionaire.


As every entrepreneur knows, any business venture can be upended by failures at any moment – and it is how one bounces back from those failures that counts. Today’s infographic from Kickresume (https://blog.kickresume.com/2017/04/18/elon-musks-resume-of-failures/) shows Musk’s struggles and failures throughout his career, and how he persevered to become a modern business icon.

And Then

WHAT WE CAN LEARN
Entrepreneurs hold people like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Richard Branson in high reverence. Sometimes, we even put them on a pedestal, thinking we could only dream of making such a profound impact on the world. However, this is obviously a one dimensional view. These figures are not superhuman, and the reality is that they’ve all experienced tragic failures throughout the course of their careers. They’ve been disheartened, but they bounced back. We have to recognize that success in business isn’t what it appears to be on magazine covers and headlines. Failure is an everyday part of doing business, and it plagues almost every entrepreneur in some shape or form. The difference is in how you react to it.

...and of course, it helps to be on the right side of government handouts too...



More at ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-23/if-first-you-dont-succeed-timeline-elon-musks-long-list-failures)including a nice graphic of failures.

[Glass]

More Duh moments for Tesla. I guess when you're on a roll.


Tesla Furious After AAA Hits Carmaker With Higher Premiums Due To "Abnormally High Claims"

AAA is raising premiums on Tesla vehicles by 30% after data showed that owners of Model S and Model X cars filed claims at abnormally high rates, and that those claims cost more compared with other cars in the same class, Automotive News reported. (http://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURANCE/170609884/-tesla-owners-should-pay-more-for-insurance-aaa-says?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Tesla, of course, is disputing the insurer's analysis.

"This analysis is severely flawed and is not reflective of reality," the electric-vehicle maker said in a statement emailed to Automotive News (http://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURANCE/170609884/-tesla-owners-should-pay-more-for-insurance-aaa-says?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter). "Among other things, it compares Model S and X to cars that are not remotely peers, including even a Volvo station wagon."

Its not fair. You're not comparing Apples to Apples!

So true. They are comparing Apples to Lemons.

AAA’ chief actuary said the insurer noticed the anomaly in its own data before confirming it with data provided by a second source, the Highway Loss Data Institute.

"Looking at a much broader set of countrywide data, we saw the same patterns observed in our own data, and that gave us the confidence to change rates," he said.



Collision damage claims for large luxury vehicles are reported 13 percent more frequently than average, and those claims cost about 50 percent higher than average, the Highway Loss Data Institute said. The rear-wheel-drive Tesla Model S is involved in 46 percent more claims than average, and those claims cost more than twice the average, it said.

In the large luxury SUV class, where collision coverage claim frequency is the same as the average for all vehicles and the cost of claims is 43 percent above average, the owners of the Model X file for claims 41 percent more often than average, and those claims cost 89 percent more than average, according to the institute.

But but...

"As part of the Insure My Tesla program, Tesla is working with leading insurers resulting in lower prices for Tesla insurance, not higher," Tesla said in its statement. "These leading insurers also appreciate the added safety benefit of Autopilot."

ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-04/aaa-raises-premiums-teslas-saying-owners-file-claims-abnormally-high-rates)
The only benefit of Autopilot will be the owner will be dead and not making any claims. Win Win.

Now if they could power these vehicles with B.S. Tesla owners would have enough free fuel from Head Office for life.

[Glass]

But wait, there's more..... with charts.

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode

According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies (http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/EV_incentives_overview_2017.pdf).
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/06/04/EV%20sales%20Europe%201_0.jpg
As Bloomberg writes (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-02/denmark-is-killing-tesla-and-other-electric-cars), and as Elon Musk knows all too well, the results confirm that "clean-energy vehicles aren’t attractive enough to compete without some form of taxpayer-backed subsidy (http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/EV_incentives_overview_2017.pdf)."
The Denmark case study is emblematic of where the tech/cost curve for clean energy vehicles currently stands, and why for "green" pioneers the continued generosity of governments around the globe is of absolutely critical importance, and also why Trump's recent withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty is nothing short of a business model death threat.

To be sure, Denmark's infatuation with green cars is well-known: the country's bicycle-loving people bought 5,298 of them in 2015, more than double the amount sold that year in Italy, which has a population more than 10 times the size of Denmark's. However, those phenomenal sales figures had as much to do with price and convenience as with environmental concerns: electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.

Then, in the fall of 2015, everything changed: that's when the government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced the progressive phasing out of tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field. In retrospect the "leveling" effectively nuked the market: the chart below shows the total collapse in sales following the elimination of subsidies.

Well Done Denmark!
But then there are people Riding the wave of tax payer subsidy profitability. Because, well it's a sure thing right?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/06/07/20170609_bmw_0.jpg
That translates directly into per vehicle profitability of over $800,000.00 per vehicle. Awesome!
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/06/07/20170609_bmw1_1_0.jpg

Zerohedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-11/its-confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode)

The S does have very clever gullwing doors though. That's something to hold onto.

[Glass]

ZH likes hating on Tesla.

This is just an addendum to previous article. Although it does read like a PR release from a Union.

Tesla doesn't make any money because they don't employ enough people. But really the story is about how they make less cars and have a smaller workforce so the car to worker production ratio is lower. Obviously this doesn't simply translate in to more workers = more cars per worker.


Here's The Real Reason Tesla Makes No Money
................

But, if Tesla is truly the lean manufacturing powerhouse that it purports itself to be then we do wonder why it continues to burn through ~$600 million of cash every single quarter, or roughly $30,000 for every car that it sells?

Perhaps this 'anomaly' has something to do with the fact that, as Automotive News points out, Tesla's real 'capacity problem' has nothing to do with the size of their manufacturing facility but rather the staggering number of people they're using to build their cars.

The 5.3 million square feet of manufacturing space that Tesla now occupies started off as a joint operation between General Motors and Toyota which began in 1984 and was intended to help the Japanese automaker learn about doing business in America and teach GM the principles of lean manufacturing. 20 years ago the plant pumped out over 350,000 new cars each year or roughly 74 vehicles per worker.

Meanwhile, Tesla, the 'pinnacle' of lean manufacturing with a 20-year technology advantage, somehow only manages to build somewhere between 8-14 cars per employee.

It's because in this temple of lean manufacturing, Tesla uses far more workers than NUMMI employed to build far fewer cars. In 1985, its first full year of production, NUMMI had 2,470 employees and produced 64,764 vehicles — about 26 vehicles per worker per year. By 1997, it had 4,844 ? workers and produced 357,809 vehicles — about 74 vehicles per worker per year.

Tesla, on the other hand, had between 6,000 and 10,000 workers in 2016 and manufactured 83,922 vehicles. That puts its vehicle-per-worker number between 8 and 14, about one-seventh the efficiency of NUMMI at its peak.

"The number of people Musk's got in there has a great deal to do with why he doesn't make money building vehicles," said automotive manufacturing consultant Michael Tracy of Agile Group in Howell, Mich. "Toyota's numbers reflect the number of people you expect to have if you were going to efficiently build vehicles for a profit."


ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-13/heres-real-reason-tesla-makes-no-money)

Tesla will of course say you can't compare lemons with Toyotas. We have more complexity and also Autopilot. And cool gullwing doors.

Tesla expects to increase production to 5,000 cars per week then going to 10,000 per week in 2018. 500,000 cars per year.

[Cebu_4_2]

ZH likes hating on Tesla.

This is just an addendum to previous article. Although it does read like a PR release from a Union.

Tesla doesn't make any money because they don't employ enough people. But really the story is about how they make less cars and have a smaller workforce so the car to worker production ratio is lower. Obviously this doesn't simply translate in to more workers = more cars per worker.


ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-13/heres-real-reason-tesla-makes-no-money)

Tesla will of course say you can't compare lemons with Toyotas. We have more complexity and also Autopilot. And cool gullwing doors.

Tesla expects to increase production to 5,000 cars per week then going to 10,000 per week in 2018. 500,000 cars per year.

Looks like a good place to get a job.