Tesla's head of battery engineering exits(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Tesla's head of battery engineering exits
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-moves-jon-wagner/teslas-head-of-battery-engineering-exits-idUSKBN1D62OO
191 comments
> So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined
Chevy shipped a few hundred more Bolts than Teslas one month. Tesla is way ahead on the year, and October is always a slow month for Tesla for whatever reason. It’s netiher a trend (yet) not is it ‘many’.
Also, those are dealer shipments - anecdotally, I see tons of them on dealership lots being advertised way under list price. The exact opposite of the situation Tesla is in.
Chevy shipped a few hundred more Bolts than Teslas one month. Tesla is way ahead on the year, and October is always a slow month for Tesla for whatever reason. It’s netiher a trend (yet) not is it ‘many’.
Also, those are dealer shipments - anecdotally, I see tons of them on dealership lots being advertised way under list price. The exact opposite of the situation Tesla is in.
This point about dealer shipments and number of vehicles in the lots, is conveniently skipped by many reporters reporting to feed the "Tesla is dead" hype cycle.
In terms of whats happening with the teams at Tesla, it certainly looks like a lot of churn, but it's hard to know the real severity of it because of the over reactions by the press.
4 years at a company is a good amount of time. I'd be worried if the Head of Battery at Tesla was a super star engineer who joined with a lot of fanfare and then left the company in less than a year or two (e.g. Chris Lattner joining Tesla and leaving after a very short stint).
In terms of whats happening with the teams at Tesla, it certainly looks like a lot of churn, but it's hard to know the real severity of it because of the over reactions by the press.
4 years at a company is a good amount of time. I'd be worried if the Head of Battery at Tesla was a super star engineer who joined with a lot of fanfare and then left the company in less than a year or two (e.g. Chris Lattner joining Tesla and leaving after a very short stint).
TSLA is bleeding talent all over. Your allusion to Lattner is just one example out of many.
Their CFO churn is one great example. I’m surprised they can find anybody to happily sign off on Musk’s borderline fraudulent activity.
Their CFO churn is one great example. I’m surprised they can find anybody to happily sign off on Musk’s borderline fraudulent activity.
People will be poached in a hot market, people will burn out, people's job will outgrow their ability to perform it. That's just the way it is in a high growth company.
After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team.
After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team.
> After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team.
Do you have a link where I can read more about this?
Do you have a link where I can read more about this?
No one is saying TSLA is dead, this is the most annoying argument from fan boys, they have a market cap over 50 Billion dollars and ship Cars in only thousands. So, here is the point, a significant part of their valuation is scaling up from thousands to half a million to million in immediate future. That is the real bet.
Scaling up in Auto-industry is not an easy one, and they are having tough time, also not being highlighted is that the base price of $35,000 is not realistic and every thing is said and upgraded the Model 3 averages in high 40s or low 50s. These are important factors esp. when Model 3 is supposed to the Model T of 21st Century.
TSLA currently is in a bad situation and they have to turn around swiftly, because their stock-price assumes they will hit home runs in perpetuity, while they are struggling to get their Second home run.. That is the point of discussion.
Scaling up in Auto-industry is not an easy one, and they are having tough time, also not being highlighted is that the base price of $35,000 is not realistic and every thing is said and upgraded the Model 3 averages in high 40s or low 50s. These are important factors esp. when Model 3 is supposed to the Model T of 21st Century.
TSLA currently is in a bad situation and they have to turn around swiftly, because their stock-price assumes they will hit home runs in perpetuity, while they are struggling to get their Second home run.. That is the point of discussion.
Tesla is about to ship 100k electrical cars this year, not counting in the Model 3. So they are the largest producer of electrical cars by a large margin.
The Model T was $575 in 1912, when the average salary was ~$600/year.
> Chevy shipped a few hundred more Bolts than Teslas one month
In the US only (majority of Teslas sold oversees in October, as is always the case in the first month of each quarter).
In the US only (majority of Teslas sold oversees in October, as is always the case in the first month of each quarter).
Wasn’t the “Bolt outsells Tesla” thing also based only on US sales?
Bolt is not outselling Tesla anywhere. They're getting crushed in the US and abroad. Tesla has ~75,000 deliveries from q1-q3 vs Bolt deliveries of less than 17,000. Not to mention these are ModelS and ModelX sales which are way more expensive than Bolts. The reason why Tesla does not publish monthly numbers is because they ship in batches and monthly numbers won't make any sense. So for example in October they mostly ship abroad so domestic sales are practically nothing. This is only because Tesla decided to ship foreign cars for this period, not because out of the blue the entire nation decided not to buy any Tesla cars in October. People have used this as propaganda against Tesla and to misinform people to think that no one is buying Tesla and everyone is buying the Bolt which isn't remotely true
I've never understood what their lead in batteries really is. Isn't it well known that Panasonic manufacturers and supplies battery cells to Tesla?
And cost-wise LG Chem seems competitive enough to Panasonic anyway, keeping in mind leaked figures for Bolt.
And cost-wise LG Chem seems competitive enough to Panasonic anyway, keeping in mind leaked figures for Bolt.
18650 cells are a commodity component. Combining thousands of them into an effective battery pack is a very complex engineering task. Tesla have filed hundreds of patents relating to pack design and battery management. They have several just relating to "thermal runaway mitigation", which is a fancy euphemism for "stopping the battery pack from catching fire". It's not sexy, but it's crucial stuff.
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Tesla+Inc
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Tesla+Inc
You're free to use their patents, there is no charge.
For anyone wondering: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
There is actually a charge, you are also giving up the right to enforce you own patents on Tesla I believe.
Can you please provide a reference of this? Sounds very heroic of Tesla/Musk.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Sibling post also has the link but I don't want you to miss it.
Sibling post also has the link but I don't want you to miss it.
It was that since they secured rights to a key resource for it's products.
It's essentially the Apple move - by outmaneuvering competitors on key resources it allows higher margin or products that others can't even create.
It's essentially the Apple move - by outmaneuvering competitors on key resources it allows higher margin or products that others can't even create.
That is even more unbelievable. What are they implying, nobody else will manufacture batteries?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-...
If Tesla has an adequate supply of cells for their needs (due to contracts with Panasonic and their own factory), but other car manufacturers have to compete with each other on the open market for a supply of cells that is inadequate for high-volume production, then that's a big advantage for Tesla in the short/medium term. They can focus 100% on electric, whereas the major manufacturers will have to stick mostly with gas and hybrids for the majority of their revenue.
If China were to produce many times more cells than Tesla, we could still have a major battery shortage for most of the world's auto manufacturers.
If China were to produce many times more cells than Tesla, we could still have a major battery shortage for most of the world's auto manufacturers.
According to an Economist article from Aug 12 2017, the Chinese companies currently in a margin-sacrificing battle to outscale each other. Increasing volume allows them to drive down per-unit costs, so everyone is expanding their production and exceeding the demand for customers. I would be very hesitant to bet on an American company beating the Chinese companies on price and scale for battery production.
> But getting prices down this way has not just produced cheaper, better batteries. It has also resulted in significant overcapacity. Cairn ERA estimates that last year the manufacturing capacity for lithium-ion batteries exceeded demand by about a third. Both it and BNEF say that the battery manufacturers are either losing money or making only wafer-thin profits on every electric-vehicle battery they produce. Despite the seeming glut, though, they all have plans to expand, in part to drive prices even lower. Mr Jaffe explains their thinking as that of the “traditional Asian conglomerate model”: sacrificing margins for market share. This may be a sound strategy given the ever-greater hopes for electric vehicles in the near future. But at the moment it is also one that looks rather unnerving. Although Mr Jaffe believes that increased demand for both electric vehicles and stationary storage will justify the rush to expand, he accepts that, for now, “It feels like a gold rush—but there’s no gold.”
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21726069-no-need-sub...
> But getting prices down this way has not just produced cheaper, better batteries. It has also resulted in significant overcapacity. Cairn ERA estimates that last year the manufacturing capacity for lithium-ion batteries exceeded demand by about a third. Both it and BNEF say that the battery manufacturers are either losing money or making only wafer-thin profits on every electric-vehicle battery they produce. Despite the seeming glut, though, they all have plans to expand, in part to drive prices even lower. Mr Jaffe explains their thinking as that of the “traditional Asian conglomerate model”: sacrificing margins for market share. This may be a sound strategy given the ever-greater hopes for electric vehicles in the near future. But at the moment it is also one that looks rather unnerving. Although Mr Jaffe believes that increased demand for both electric vehicles and stationary storage will justify the rush to expand, he accepts that, for now, “It feels like a gold rush—but there’s no gold.”
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21726069-no-need-sub...
It's more of a cost per kWh or total volume advantage they were hoping to secure, I think.
Apple has a couple moves for cornering the supply chain. Sometimes they work with manufacturers to develop specialized hardware under the terms that they will only be used to build Apple products for a certain timeframe (usually a couple years IIRC).
Apple also uses some fairly specialized, extremely high-precision equipment that only a few companies in the world have the skill to manufacture. Apple has enough purchasing power to buy up all of the capacity that those manufacturers can produce for years at a time, and in doing so they lock out competitors from using that equipment.
It's possible, but seems really unlikely to me that Tesla has the capacity or purchasing power at this point to corner the supply chain like Apple does.
Apple also uses some fairly specialized, extremely high-precision equipment that only a few companies in the world have the skill to manufacture. Apple has enough purchasing power to buy up all of the capacity that those manufacturers can produce for years at a time, and in doing so they lock out competitors from using that equipment.
It's possible, but seems really unlikely to me that Tesla has the capacity or purchasing power at this point to corner the supply chain like Apple does.
I'm interested in learning more about this. Could you links some resources, especially around the manufacturing equipment?
https://blog.bolt.io/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-like-apple...
https://www.engadget.com/2011/08/04/apples-hold-on-metal-cha...
Discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2848283
> When Apple's iPhone4 was nearing production, Foxconn and Apple discovered that the metal frame was so specialized that it could be made only by an expensive, low-volume machine usually reserved for prototypes. Apple's designers wouldn't budge on their specs, so Gou ordered more than 1,000 of the $20,000 machines from Tokyo-based Fanuc. Most companies have just one.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b41950584...
https://www.engadget.com/2011/08/04/apples-hold-on-metal-cha...
Discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2848283
> When Apple's iPhone4 was nearing production, Foxconn and Apple discovered that the metal frame was so specialized that it could be made only by an expensive, low-volume machine usually reserved for prototypes. Apple's designers wouldn't budge on their specs, so Gou ordered more than 1,000 of the $20,000 machines from Tokyo-based Fanuc. Most companies have just one.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b41950584...
My brain: "They're not lead batteries." "Oh, their LEAD in batteries! Stupid homonyms!"
Homographs actually. Homonyms are two words that are spelled differently but sound the same.
If you're going to correct someone, get it right. Homographs have the same spelling but different meaning. Homophones have the same sound but different meaning. Historically, a homonym was both a homograph and a homophone. Nowadays, homonym can be used to mean either homograph or homophone. So homonym was correct for modern usage.
Looks like you're right. I've never seen that usage before, but according to dictionary.com's third definition, that is "loosely" correct. An example of language evolving I guess!
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homonym
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homonym
1) Tesla likely secured a good deal for Panasonic batteries, as I think some of them were co-designed, like the latest bigger 207000 battery cell. From what I've seen in past articles, Tesla always had the cheapest battery packs per kWh.
2) Tesla also likely has a significant advantage in battery pack architecture, from safety (they offered to teach Boeing how to design battery packs so their EV planes don't catch fire a couple of years back), to withstand more extreme weather conditions (hot or cold), to having an industry-leading battery degradation performance. I think I've seen reports of Tesla batteries only losing 4-5% of charge capacity after 100,000 miles.
2) Tesla also likely has a significant advantage in battery pack architecture, from safety (they offered to teach Boeing how to design battery packs so their EV planes don't catch fire a couple of years back), to withstand more extreme weather conditions (hot or cold), to having an industry-leading battery degradation performance. I think I've seen reports of Tesla batteries only losing 4-5% of charge capacity after 100,000 miles.
> I think I've seen reports of Tesla batteries only losing 4-5% of charge capacity after 100,000 miles.
That one is easy to do with overprovisioning - similar to SSDs and I believe even HDDs do this to account for inevitable degradations during operation.
That one is easy to do with overprovisioning - similar to SSDs and I believe even HDDs do this to account for inevitable degradations during operation.
Tesla was always an oddity in using such small cells (18650s) in the first place. A Model S has thousands of cells; a Renault Zoe, say, has 192. The 20700 is rather similar to the existing, and fairly old, 26650. Tesla may well have interesting battery technology, but it’s not the cells; they’re nothing very special.
IMO it's a deliberate choice - 18650s have a much higher surface-to-mass ratio, so are much easier to cool. For a car like the Model S, thermal management of the battery pack is one of the key limits on performance.
Yep the universe conspires to prove something... even that ordinary battery turns info a pinnacle od battery-goodness when Tesla touches it
The narrative I've heard is that the secret sauce is the battery-pack that combines the cells, controls temperature, balances loads, etc. Not sure if this is an accurate narrative.
That can only explain the performance or the ludicrous mode, if really.
I thought Tesla was always marketing that their selling point is cheaper batteries, which cant be a USP, as Panasonic can always manufacture the same for GM/Ford etc.
I thought Tesla was always marketing that their selling point is cheaper batteries, which cant be a USP, as Panasonic can always manufacture the same for GM/Ford etc.
How can it explain the performance or the ludicrous mode?
Ludicrous mode being a software update could easily be that you already have the performance innately but they cap your output at 85%. Same as any game where you have to pay to get the extra features/items (DLC) but every other player in the game already has the item when you're around them. All the players get it, it's just a flip of a bit to enable the item for you. Just costs $10k in this case...
Ludicrous mode being a software update could easily be that you already have the performance innately but they cap your output at 85%. Same as any game where you have to pay to get the extra features/items (DLC) but every other player in the game already has the item when you're around them. All the players get it, it's just a flip of a bit to enable the item for you. Just costs $10k in this case...
There a lot more electronic / electric circuit magic in there with the battery for it to achieve the ludicrous mode ability.
Initially when I heard that, I thought Tesla was bluffing. But the Ludicrous mode with P100D performance, and the fact that no other electric car maker is able to match that, leads me to believe that they are not bluffing.
Initially when I heard that, I thought Tesla was bluffing. But the Ludicrous mode with P100D performance, and the fact that no other electric car maker is able to match that, leads me to believe that they are not bluffing.
> ...the fact that no other electric car maker is able to match that...
The 100,000 dollar plus luxury electric saloon market isn't exactly overflowing with competition yet, so I'm not sure this really proves anything. Given time and a stronger focus on electric models, I have few doubts the usual German contenders will build electric cars every bit as quick.
The "legacy" car manufacturers have been slow to wake to Tesla's successes in some regards, but that looks set to change rapidly over the next decade.
The 100,000 dollar plus luxury electric saloon market isn't exactly overflowing with competition yet, so I'm not sure this really proves anything. Given time and a stronger focus on electric models, I have few doubts the usual German contenders will build electric cars every bit as quick.
The "legacy" car manufacturers have been slow to wake to Tesla's successes in some regards, but that looks set to change rapidly over the next decade.
Maybe nobody else thought ridiculous mode is worth the money. What magic exactly do you need to discharge 100 kWh in 10 minutes?
I dont know. If I knew, I'd be working for Tesla, or working on a startup that'd compete with Tesla, similar to how the head of battery engineering at Tesla did. :)
Initially ludicrous mode was not just a software update.
You could get it on your (already delivered) MS P90D, but had to bring it into service. They changed a fuse and activated ludicrous mode in software.
Of course, today all Tesla P100D get built with that fuse already in place - so it's "just a software upgrade" today.
There's quite a bit of electrical magic going on for a fuse to be able to handle insane current bursts while retaining a good response time in case of a catastrophic fault.
Of course, today all Tesla P100D get built with that fuse already in place - so it's "just a software upgrade" today.
There's quite a bit of electrical magic going on for a fuse to be able to handle insane current bursts while retaining a good response time in case of a catastrophic fault.
IIUC the fuse is an electrically triggered explosive device. Badass, huh?
What's going on is that the current drawn while flooring a ludicrous vehicle is a largish fraction of the current that should cause an instantaneous fuse blow. A fuse that melts at a given temperature and heats up as I^2 R wasn't going to cut it. In the electrical distribution industry, you'd get a fancy circuit breaker with an electrical trip device and call it a day. This has two issues for Tesla. First, your average electrical trip device uses a current transformer, and those don't work for DC. Second, DC current is considerably harder to interrupt than AC, and the current the fuse needs to carry is in the kA range (I have no idea what the short circuit current is), so a circuit breaker would be rather large. Hence a fuse, with a little explosive inside, with an active circuit, presumably using a Hall effect sensor, the voltage drop across the fuse, or maybe just a reed switch.
(Hmm. It's nice when fuses and such don't need external power. I wonder if there's sufficient voltage drop across the fuse during a fault to power the circuit that blows the fuse? I bet there is. It could even be a very simple circuit like a Zener diode in series with a resistive heater that sets off the explosive.)
What's going on is that the current drawn while flooring a ludicrous vehicle is a largish fraction of the current that should cause an instantaneous fuse blow. A fuse that melts at a given temperature and heats up as I^2 R wasn't going to cut it. In the electrical distribution industry, you'd get a fancy circuit breaker with an electrical trip device and call it a day. This has two issues for Tesla. First, your average electrical trip device uses a current transformer, and those don't work for DC. Second, DC current is considerably harder to interrupt than AC, and the current the fuse needs to carry is in the kA range (I have no idea what the short circuit current is), so a circuit breaker would be rather large. Hence a fuse, with a little explosive inside, with an active circuit, presumably using a Hall effect sensor, the voltage drop across the fuse, or maybe just a reed switch.
(Hmm. It's nice when fuses and such don't need external power. I wonder if there's sufficient voltage drop across the fuse during a fault to power the circuit that blows the fuse? I bet there is. It could even be a very simple circuit like a Zener diode in series with a resistive heater that sets off the explosive.)
Explosives in high current fuses is interesting, but not new or specific to Tesla. https://youtu.be/yTdngnsyNSE
I think that's the other way around. The fuses in that video trigger a tiny exclusive as a side effect of blowing. IIUC Tesla'a fuse blows because an explosive is triggered.
The company behind lithium-ion battery technology in Tesla Gigafactories is Panasonic. They own the core patents and IP. Same is true for solar PV cells.
Tesla currently has a lead in:
- battery range (the tech and battery production capacity doesn't disappear with the manager)
- charging network (passing 1,000 stations)
- autonomous driving (miles recorded and in all kinds of traffic and weather)
- selling online and through own dealers in malls as opposed to through independent dealers in the outskirts of town
- integrating electric into every part of the car design
- over the air updates
- brand (you don't think f Nissan, Chevy, BMW etc. as EV makers)
They are also still the only manufacturer that makes EVs look attractive and perform better than ordinary cars. Everybody else on the market seem to deliberately make ugly cars with mediocre performance. The reason probably is the simple fact that Tesla wants you to buy electric cars whereas the other manufacturers already make money on selling combustion engine cars and would make less selling EVs. They are in the EV market reluctantly.
In theory, the above could change quickly. But how does a company that for 100 years has made combustion engine cars and has thousands of employees, suppliers, facilities, contracts, etc all geared up on selling combustion engine cars through dealerships and who are dependent on making money on spare parts and repairs of mechanical parts suddenly pivot into selling EVs that barely need repairs online or in malls? It's as likely as Google launching a Facebook challenger. Or Microsoft beating Amazon on selling consumer goods. Actually, it's less likely since all the incumbent car manufacturers run on razor thin margins. They don't have piles of cash to reinvent themselves. It's more like Nokia winning the smart phone game or a news paper beating Google on selling online ads.
My bet is still on Tesla, but it would be nice if I'm wrong and the incumbents rise to the challenge.
- battery range (the tech and battery production capacity doesn't disappear with the manager)
- charging network (passing 1,000 stations)
- autonomous driving (miles recorded and in all kinds of traffic and weather)
- selling online and through own dealers in malls as opposed to through independent dealers in the outskirts of town
- integrating electric into every part of the car design
- over the air updates
- brand (you don't think f Nissan, Chevy, BMW etc. as EV makers)
They are also still the only manufacturer that makes EVs look attractive and perform better than ordinary cars. Everybody else on the market seem to deliberately make ugly cars with mediocre performance. The reason probably is the simple fact that Tesla wants you to buy electric cars whereas the other manufacturers already make money on selling combustion engine cars and would make less selling EVs. They are in the EV market reluctantly.
In theory, the above could change quickly. But how does a company that for 100 years has made combustion engine cars and has thousands of employees, suppliers, facilities, contracts, etc all geared up on selling combustion engine cars through dealerships and who are dependent on making money on spare parts and repairs of mechanical parts suddenly pivot into selling EVs that barely need repairs online or in malls? It's as likely as Google launching a Facebook challenger. Or Microsoft beating Amazon on selling consumer goods. Actually, it's less likely since all the incumbent car manufacturers run on razor thin margins. They don't have piles of cash to reinvent themselves. It's more like Nokia winning the smart phone game or a news paper beating Google on selling online ads.
My bet is still on Tesla, but it would be nice if I'm wrong and the incumbents rise to the challenge.
Its not about the car, its about company unable to make money
"Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries."
Perhaps a look at this from the other way around is more revealing. They were having issues with batteries --> now their head of battery tech is gone.
Perhaps a look at this from the other way around is more revealing. They were having issues with batteries --> now their head of battery tech is gone.
Its not a bad theory but it is one that I am not sure evidence supports that inference.
First, the problems (as stated in the article) that Tesla is claiming are the primary constraint with the Model 3 are related to battery manufacturing capacity. That could potentially be related to technology/design obviously, but manufacturing could also just be a production problem. Those batteries in NV are actually built primarily by Panasonic [0]. Interestingly, that article also discusses the fact that Tesla has pulled back on plans to power the factory using a solar roof. Critically, that has left them relying on grid power which has enough power bumps (2-3/week) that it is a major production headache and is combined with labor difficulties in the factory in regards to talented and trained technicians.
Second, according to other industry sources [1] The issue is not the batteries but the body manufacturing. The body (which is also the frame in modern unibody cars and even most trucks) line is almost certainly being done by hand based on rate of production. The line isn't just not installed in CA yet, its not even fully built by the Michigan supplier. Why? Someone has to take the blame and it can be either Musk [2] or Tesla [3] because it sure isn't my fault. Toyota gives away the secrets of its internal process for free (partially as internal motivation to continue to improve...because they now must get better to stay on top) but hey they also have a full time CEO. Toyota offered to help Tesla, until Musk kept making fun of fuel cells. On the otherside there is what is happening now, with Tesla sending (confused and in flux) plans to their body line supplier a year after major OEM's sent plans for NEXT years models. Not to mention that the same journalists reported this all a year ago...because Tesla hadn't even begun the permitting process necessary to hit its own ramp timeline with the state of California [4].
Compare to their same reports on Jaguar's upcoming EV [5], It looks like Tesla continues to either (1) not now how to do manufacturing or (2) are still working to define the disruptive innovation in manufacturing that allows them to not test their production line. That disruption has escaped places like Toyota (and every other car manufacturer), Intel (and every other semiconductor manufacturer), and every other manufacturer in general who run a LOT of prototype prior to committing to production and build that time into their schedules. The other option is (3) Musk knew all this a long time ago and has been misleading folks for quite a while.
TL;DR: Tesla thought it was immune from the god given rules of running a factory. Human and robot factory employees are not AWS instances. Meatspace =/= code
Side story: One area Toyota save immense time was reducing the time it took to change over metal stamping dies from 3 days to less than ten minutes [6]. GM took a lot longer to learn these lessons [7].
[0] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-powe...
[1] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-d...
[2] https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/
[3] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-mod...
[4] https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-productio...
[5] https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-p...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die
[7] https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die...
First, the problems (as stated in the article) that Tesla is claiming are the primary constraint with the Model 3 are related to battery manufacturing capacity. That could potentially be related to technology/design obviously, but manufacturing could also just be a production problem. Those batteries in NV are actually built primarily by Panasonic [0]. Interestingly, that article also discusses the fact that Tesla has pulled back on plans to power the factory using a solar roof. Critically, that has left them relying on grid power which has enough power bumps (2-3/week) that it is a major production headache and is combined with labor difficulties in the factory in regards to talented and trained technicians.
Second, according to other industry sources [1] The issue is not the batteries but the body manufacturing. The body (which is also the frame in modern unibody cars and even most trucks) line is almost certainly being done by hand based on rate of production. The line isn't just not installed in CA yet, its not even fully built by the Michigan supplier. Why? Someone has to take the blame and it can be either Musk [2] or Tesla [3] because it sure isn't my fault. Toyota gives away the secrets of its internal process for free (partially as internal motivation to continue to improve...because they now must get better to stay on top) but hey they also have a full time CEO. Toyota offered to help Tesla, until Musk kept making fun of fuel cells. On the otherside there is what is happening now, with Tesla sending (confused and in flux) plans to their body line supplier a year after major OEM's sent plans for NEXT years models. Not to mention that the same journalists reported this all a year ago...because Tesla hadn't even begun the permitting process necessary to hit its own ramp timeline with the state of California [4].
Compare to their same reports on Jaguar's upcoming EV [5], It looks like Tesla continues to either (1) not now how to do manufacturing or (2) are still working to define the disruptive innovation in manufacturing that allows them to not test their production line. That disruption has escaped places like Toyota (and every other car manufacturer), Intel (and every other semiconductor manufacturer), and every other manufacturer in general who run a LOT of prototype prior to committing to production and build that time into their schedules. The other option is (3) Musk knew all this a long time ago and has been misleading folks for quite a while.
TL;DR: Tesla thought it was immune from the god given rules of running a factory. Human and robot factory employees are not AWS instances. Meatspace =/= code
Side story: One area Toyota save immense time was reducing the time it took to change over metal stamping dies from 3 days to less than ten minutes [6]. GM took a lot longer to learn these lessons [7].
[0] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-powe...
[1] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-d...
[2] https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/
[3] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-mod...
[4] https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-productio...
[5] https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-p...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die
[7] https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die...
>So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined
What? That's not even remotely accurate. Tesla sold ~75,000 vehicles in q1-q3. Year to date sales for Bolt is approximately 17,000. And that includes all cars sitting at the car dealership not even sold. Tesla only counts a sale once it's delivered into the customers hands. Bolt sales are a very tiny fraction of Tesla's sales.
What? That's not even remotely accurate. Tesla sold ~75,000 vehicles in q1-q3. Year to date sales for Bolt is approximately 17,000. And that includes all cars sitting at the car dealership not even sold. Tesla only counts a sale once it's delivered into the customers hands. Bolt sales are a very tiny fraction of Tesla's sales.
Do you have a reference for the statement that Chevy is selling more Bolts than all Teslas combined? This sounds farfetched.
It's true for October, at least: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/the-chevrolet-bolt-was-...
For the US only. Tesla generally ships most cars oversees on the first month of the quarter and loads up in the US in the last month of each quarter.
Also supposedly Chevy is losing money on the Bolt.
Lets play a game. How much would you have to be paid to drive a Chevy Bolt? I would probably do it for 50% of the cost of the thing.
While this comment was snarky, it gets at something very real.
The Bolt has great range and I’m sure it’s a joy to drive, but it’s an ugly, tiny subcompact.
No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is.
The reason the Model 3 has a higher ceiling than the Bolt (if Tesla can figure out their production hell) is because it has the looks and amenities expected of a $35,000 car.
We’re never going to solve emissions if only environmentalists and tech lovers like us stop driving gas cars. There have to be alternatives that are compelling to the masses - and not just that, but compelling at their price point.
The Bolt has great range and I’m sure it’s a joy to drive, but it’s an ugly, tiny subcompact.
No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is.
The reason the Model 3 has a higher ceiling than the Bolt (if Tesla can figure out their production hell) is because it has the looks and amenities expected of a $35,000 car.
We’re never going to solve emissions if only environmentalists and tech lovers like us stop driving gas cars. There have to be alternatives that are compelling to the masses - and not just that, but compelling at their price point.
> No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is.
People care about the TCO though. If you're gonna make that extra $15k back in fuel savings in the first two years (and I have no idea whether that's the real number or not, and it's probably very dependent on local fuel charges) then regular people will sign up for that.
People care about the TCO though. If you're gonna make that extra $15k back in fuel savings in the first two years (and I have no idea whether that's the real number or not, and it's probably very dependent on local fuel charges) then regular people will sign up for that.
Also, aesthetics aren't universal. Just because you might think it looks like an ugly car doesn't mean that everyone does. IMNSHO there are much uglier cars on the road than the Bolt, which seems to me rather squarely mediocre/median in looks.
As much as I'm into Tesla, a friend of mine has a Bolt and they're way fun to drive, for a Chevy and that kind of car. They accelerate pretty well. Nowhere near what I'd expect of a Tesla, but still pretty torque-ish.
I've not driven the Bolt, but a few of the other "cheap" electric cars (Leaf, Kia Soul, NV200). They all feel pretty torquey-ish. It never really made sense to me compared to petrol cars I've driven based on the actual torques.
Then I figured: it's because you can floor it in an EV and nobody notices, so you do it all the time. Whereas in a similar class petrol car, if you floor it from zero and keep it in the optimal rev band, you sound and look like a huge idiot.
Then I figured: it's because you can floor it in an EV and nobody notices, so you do it all the time. Whereas in a similar class petrol car, if you floor it from zero and keep it in the optimal rev band, you sound and look like a huge idiot.
Petrol engines will have higher "peak torque", but only in the ideal part of their rev range, whereas EVs have almost flat torque at any speed.
I don't think that's the case here. Electric engines have more torque at 0 RPM and over their RPM curve, and it's clearly observable/reproducible if you like, ~race with someone else at a red light, where the other person in their petrol car is also flooring.
The advantage of electric engines, any electric engine, over ICE is that something like 99% of the maximum torque is available from 0rpm to redline.
That doesn't make any sense. Just think how much power the engine would have to be able to produce near the redline if it produced anything decent at 5 MPH for that to be true (considering that Tesla's mainstream cars only have 1 gear).
Edit: Just to be clear, a constant torque would imply a linearly increasing power output when increasing the revs. Of course Tesla doesn't have that – what they have is high torque, and thus significant power output already at very low revolutions. A typical small DC electric engine has an almost linearly decreasing torque curve (unless capped), although I don't really know specifics about Tesla's engines.
Edit: Just to be clear, a constant torque would imply a linearly increasing power output when increasing the revs. Of course Tesla doesn't have that – what they have is high torque, and thus significant power output already at very low revolutions. A typical small DC electric engine has an almost linearly decreasing torque curve (unless capped), although I don't really know specifics about Tesla's engines.
Force, not power.
Basically: for an internal combustion engine the force is the force of the explosion averaged over time, so the higher the RPM the shorter the time between explosions the higher the average force (until you get to a point where your cylinders are moving so fast the start fighting against each other).
For an electric car the force is the voltage, there's no impulse to average out, it's just continuous force.
Now of course in reality it's not that simple and you actually do have a torque curve, but compared to ICE it's basically a square wave.
Basically: for an internal combustion engine the force is the force of the explosion averaged over time, so the higher the RPM the shorter the time between explosions the higher the average force (until you get to a point where your cylinders are moving so fast the start fighting against each other).
For an electric car the force is the voltage, there's no impulse to average out, it's just continuous force.
Now of course in reality it's not that simple and you actually do have a torque curve, but compared to ICE it's basically a square wave.
That's not true, the other poster had it right. You have peak torque at stall and it decreases mostly linearly all the way to zero at peak rpm. Power is simply torque times speed. Also torque has a basically linear relationship with current, not voltage.
It's a shame seeing people just downvote comments without doing even the most basic research to try to disprove someone.
For proof, here's the actual torque curve for a Model S. http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png And you can see very clearly the torque curve looks nothing like a square wave.
Also your assertion about internal combustion engines is wrong as well. At higher RPMs you get less duration with the valves open and you can't get as much fuel and air into the cylinder. It's not that mechanical losses are taking away that force, it's that those explosions are less powerful as you approach redline. Then once you're right up at max RPM you start having to deal with stuff like valve float where the springs pushing the valves back up can't keep up with the camshaft but that's over complicating it for a basic explanation.
It's a shame seeing people just downvote comments without doing even the most basic research to try to disprove someone.
For proof, here's the actual torque curve for a Model S. http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png And you can see very clearly the torque curve looks nothing like a square wave.
Also your assertion about internal combustion engines is wrong as well. At higher RPMs you get less duration with the valves open and you can't get as much fuel and air into the cylinder. It's not that mechanical losses are taking away that force, it's that those explosions are less powerful as you approach redline. Then once you're right up at max RPM you start having to deal with stuff like valve float where the springs pushing the valves back up can't keep up with the camshaft but that's over complicating it for a basic explanation.
At the price of a Bolt, it's great fun to drive. It doesn't compare to a $100k Tesla, obviously, but for a $30k car, it's nice.
I’ll answer your question after you tell me how many hours you’ve spent behind the wheel of a Bolt.
Is Tesla shipping a compact?
Margins get thinner (or in this case negative) closer to the bottom of the market.
Tesla doesn't have the EPA slowly tightening the CAFE noose so selling Bolts at a loss might still be a net profit for GM over all because it offsets more profitable products.
Margins get thinner (or in this case negative) closer to the bottom of the market.
Tesla doesn't have the EPA slowly tightening the CAFE noose so selling Bolts at a loss might still be a net profit for GM over all because it offsets more profitable products.
But if come Republicans have their way then all federal subsidies will be gone, but Tesla's were going to start tailing off shortly anyway (they're close to reaching their subsidy cap); so it would hurt GM (and others) more than Tesla.
So?
Why is this a political discussion all of a sudden?
Why is this a political discussion all of a sudden?
As a Tesla shareholder, I advise caution going down the "profitability" line of argument when making comparisons.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/03/2192188/electric-vehi...
GM lose $9k on every Volt right now after subsidies and are also having trouble selling them.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/
GM lose $9k on every Volt right now after subsidies and are also having trouble selling them.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/
[deleted]
Here in Quebec, they're sold out as soon as they're available.
Here in Northern Europe, where the Bolt is sold as the Opel Ampera-E, if you order one today you're not getting it until 2019 because of the huge waiting list.
But they make up for that with volume.
Is the supercharger network really all that big of a deal for the average electric car user, though? As of 2016, there were about 13k charging stations with 30k chargers in the US. 613 of these, with 3600 chargers, were Tesla. And the US is behind the curve here; there are 5000 stations with 14k chargers in the UK. Even most fast chargers are not Tesla, either in the US or worldwide. In the US, Tesla’s network is arguably better distributed along interstates, but this is mostly a US-specific problem.
The superchargers are arguably a big deal for model S and X users, who I believe often have free charging. As I understand it, Model 3 users wont have this, though? So what’s so special about the Tesla ones, especially outside the US?
The superchargers are arguably a big deal for model S and X users, who I believe often have free charging. As I understand it, Model 3 users wont have this, though? So what’s so special about the Tesla ones, especially outside the US?
Have you driven an electric vehicle for any significant amount of time?
Number of stations is meaningless. At any given time, a sizeable portion of them will be out of commission. Some will not be accessible outside business hours (the ones at dealerships being the biggest offenders) or will be ICE'd. Even worse, some will be listed as working, but then fail to connect and charge your car at all. This has happened to me, multiple times. In one case, leaving me stranded, as I did not have range to reach the next one, after being unable to charge at two different locations. And that was in San Jose, not in the middle of a desert.
I have not checked your numbers, but I seriously doubt 30k is the number of fast chargers. Instead, those will be the slow, L2 chargers, which take 4 hours for a full charge on a Nissan Leaf. Quick chargers are much fewer in number, break frequently and, in the US, can be on two, competing standards (CHADEMO and whatever is that Ford and other manufacturers use).
In contrast, Tesla's network is much better maintained, each location has many chargers, and they are all Tesla's proprietary fast chargers.
Not to mention, Tesla cars can use their chargers, L2, and have adapters for other quick chargers.
TL;DR- This is not an apples to apples comparison.
Number of stations is meaningless. At any given time, a sizeable portion of them will be out of commission. Some will not be accessible outside business hours (the ones at dealerships being the biggest offenders) or will be ICE'd. Even worse, some will be listed as working, but then fail to connect and charge your car at all. This has happened to me, multiple times. In one case, leaving me stranded, as I did not have range to reach the next one, after being unable to charge at two different locations. And that was in San Jose, not in the middle of a desert.
I have not checked your numbers, but I seriously doubt 30k is the number of fast chargers. Instead, those will be the slow, L2 chargers, which take 4 hours for a full charge on a Nissan Leaf. Quick chargers are much fewer in number, break frequently and, in the US, can be on two, competing standards (CHADEMO and whatever is that Ford and other manufacturers use).
In contrast, Tesla's network is much better maintained, each location has many chargers, and they are all Tesla's proprietary fast chargers.
Not to mention, Tesla cars can use their chargers, L2, and have adapters for other quick chargers.
TL;DR- This is not an apples to apples comparison.
Here in Shenzhen I believe the government sponsors the installation of a new charging point wherever you want it when you buy a car. About half of the taxis are electric, and that is growing. The electric taxis are cheaper (combustion taxis have an extra per-trip tax) and more spacious, and manufactured by BYD.
IMHO two things:
a) "fast charger" is a loose term and is often used for anything exceeding 20kW. Superchargers deliver up to 140 kW (split between two cars) or 120 kW (to one car). That's why Tesla/Elon sometimes refer to them as "level 4 charger", although the specification ends at level 3. Other manufacturers are now getting on that train with (according to specification) up to 400 kW
b) The notion of the "average electric car user" does not take into account that yes, people drive less than 80km per day on average, BUT they go on the occasional road trip. And they don't want to have a car sitting around just for road trips. They want one that can do both (commute & roadtrip). That's where the supercharger network helps
a) "fast charger" is a loose term and is often used for anything exceeding 20kW. Superchargers deliver up to 140 kW (split between two cars) or 120 kW (to one car). That's why Tesla/Elon sometimes refer to them as "level 4 charger", although the specification ends at level 3. Other manufacturers are now getting on that train with (according to specification) up to 400 kW
b) The notion of the "average electric car user" does not take into account that yes, people drive less than 80km per day on average, BUT they go on the occasional road trip. And they don't want to have a car sitting around just for road trips. They want one that can do both (commute & roadtrip). That's where the supercharger network helps
Not sure about the situation in the US. The bulk of the ‘fast chargers’ in the UK, mentioned above, are CHAdeMO (40-60kW, generally, though higher power are coming) and Mennekes (usually 44kW). This isn’t as fast as the Tesla ones, but it’s not 20kW either.
They might still have a lead in battery tech.
For instance, suppose Chevy needs to go through this retooling at some point in the future and set back production at that point.
A set back is not proof that they don't have a lead in battery tech.
However, it should be asked: what is the nature of the lead? What is superior about the batteries? How does this lead manifest?
For instance, suppose Chevy needs to go through this retooling at some point in the future and set back production at that point.
A set back is not proof that they don't have a lead in battery tech.
However, it should be asked: what is the nature of the lead? What is superior about the batteries? How does this lead manifest?
A Bolt is a $36K-$7.5K car. A Tesla is a $100K-$7.5K car. These are very different cars, a Golden Delicious vs Honeycrisp comparison. Of course the Bolt is going to outsell the Tesla.
Who cares how many Bolts are sold, if the average Tesla sells for two or three times as much. As they used to teach in business school, its not your share of the market that counts, its your share of the market's profits. Also, maybe no one is making a profit yet but the point is, if you can charge a lot more than your competitor you don't have to outsell them in units.
In their earnings call last week, Tesla said that their margins on existing vehicles were dropping, and they were diverting resources from the Model S and Model X to focus on the Model 3.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480
Even dropping, Tesla’s margins are still higher than legacy automakers.
Except that they use wildly different accounting practices than the rest of the industry to make their numbers look better. For example, they don't include the cost of R&D (like every other manufacturer does), and they use retail price instead of wholesale price when calculating margin.
If you use the correct numbers, their margins are significantly lower than the rest of the industry.
If you use the correct numbers, their margins are significantly lower than the rest of the industry.
It's fair to use the retail price since they sell direct to consumer
> Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries.
Maybe there is some causality between these two statements...
Maybe there is some causality between these two statements...
And my state has just invested millions in a big bank of Tesla batteries to stop us losing power again this summer. Hurray?
I'm graduating with my BS in EE next month and I've been applying to lots of places working on battery technology since it's incredibly interesting to me, but I have no idea how anyone becomes a "specialist" in that field. Everything I've learned has been outside of class, and there aren't any offered in my department or in Materials Science or Chemistry, and a few of my friends at top-tier schools like CMU and Purdue have said the same thing. It seems so critical for everything from energy grids during natural disasters to environmentally friendly material sourcing/disposal. I hope schools start focusing on it.
I’m an EE doing asic design. Everything I do for a living I learned outside of school. Aside from the basics like reading/maths etc.
Huh, this is hard to swallow. What digital EE courses did you take in school?
I've had the same thing said to me by my professor about FPGAs. You can't really find much about current EE practices because companies just don't give them away or blog like the software guys do.
Textbooks tend to be very general (also old) and don't focus on the tooling used which is the bulk of the work you have to do.
Textbooks tend to be very general (also old) and don't focus on the tooling used which is the bulk of the work you have to do.
Also skeptical of this one. Tooling seems kind of beside the point? It's like arguing that your school taught you Python and that didn't prepare you for Java (or whatever).
Tooling is most definitely not beside the point. And if your focus is backend, that is what you spend most of your time on.
> Tooling is most definitely not beside the point. And if your focus is backend, that is what you spend most of your time on.
The question isn't what you spend your time on though. It's what is worth spending time teaching/learning in school. You also spend all your time using a mouse and keyboard but (hopefully) you don't take courses to learn how to use the mouse and the keyboard in school. If most people could pick it up in a short period of time on the job then it doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time to teach in a course.
The question isn't what you spend your time on though. It's what is worth spending time teaching/learning in school. You also spend all your time using a mouse and keyboard but (hopefully) you don't take courses to learn how to use the mouse and the keyboard in school. If most people could pick it up in a short period of time on the job then it doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time to teach in a course.
Bulk of the work is done in simulation and verification with FPGAs.
This is true, but those tools doesn’t change that often at a given company. VCS and questa probably cover 99% of the fpga market.
That's exactly my point. You don't get access to those tools in school unless you are in an excellent graduate program AFAIK if that.
The simulation I can do in Vivado is apparently nothing compared to the scale those tools take it to. I've talked to someone in the industry that they told me Vivado's simulation is only okay for beginner projects.
The simulation I can do in Vivado is apparently nothing compared to the scale those tools take it to. I've talked to someone in the industry that they told me Vivado's simulation is only okay for beginner projects.
Tooling changes (very) regularly. Learning concepts and techniques is far better for the long term since many of those techniques/concepts can be applied to new situations.
Fair point, I had one class called logic design. It was my favorite, although I hated breadboarding 7400 logic.
The class was mainly Boolean algebra with some flip flops thrown in at some point. If I recall correctly that was my sophomore year.
There was next to no digital in my courses. Heavy on math and analog circuits. I think that one class on digital logic was it.
The class was mainly Boolean algebra with some flip flops thrown in at some point. If I recall correctly that was my sophomore year.
There was next to no digital in my courses. Heavy on math and analog circuits. I think that one class on digital logic was it.
Take me back to K-maps and XOR gates. At the time I remember struggling with them, but now I look back on the experience fondly.
> Fair point, I had one class called logic design. The class was mainly Boolean algebra with some flip flops thrown in at some point.
Yeah that explains it. :-) So nothing about writing Verilog, feedback pipelining, adder design, clock skew, and stuff like that? Because those are the kinds of things I'd expect in a digital logic course (if one were available) and I would be shocked if you didn't need to know those concepts for a job in ASIC design.
Yeah that explains it. :-) So nothing about writing Verilog, feedback pipelining, adder design, clock skew, and stuff like that? Because those are the kinds of things I'd expect in a digital logic course (if one were available) and I would be shocked if you didn't need to know those concepts for a job in ASIC design.
Nope. Well, I’m sure we learned simple adders, again...Boolean algebra.
Everything else I learned on the job. If I had gone into board design, I’m sure a lot more would have been relevant.
Many places the chip designer is also the board designer, but sadly that is not the case here.
Everything else I learned on the job. If I had gone into board design, I’m sure a lot more would have been relevant.
Many places the chip designer is also the board designer, but sadly that is not the case here.
CE/EE departments sometimes offer an undergraduate VLSI intro course where you learn the theory from a textbook like Weste and Harris and get to design and tape-out your own chip via the Cadence or Synopsys tools and then fab it through an MPW service like MOSIS or CMP. So, it's certainly possible to learn some hands-on chip design fundamentals in school, but if your department doesn't offer it, you're pretty much out of luck. You could do your own extracurricular MPW run of a small design for maybe a thousand dollars, but you'll be stuck with SCMOS cell libraries and free tools like Magic or Electric, which aren't representative of industry.
We've got all that in an Advanced Digital Design course, but you have to be pretty far down a class path to take it so most students don't.
> We've got all that in an Advanced Digital Design course, but you have to be pretty far down a class path to take it
How far down? I wouldn't expect it to be popular but I also wouldn't expect it to have a long prereq chain (a sophomore-level course on computer architecture seems enough?)... it doesn't seem like analog which is where you actually need a long prereq chain to get anywhere.
> so most students don't
Most students... in EE? Or most students planning to do digital design after graduation?
How far down? I wouldn't expect it to be popular but I also wouldn't expect it to have a long prereq chain (a sophomore-level course on computer architecture seems enough?)... it doesn't seem like analog which is where you actually need a long prereq chain to get anywhere.
> so most students don't
Most students... in EE? Or most students planning to do digital design after graduation?
Honestly I’m jealous of what is taught these days.
But until the stuff I was being taught became practical (because it paid for dinner), I wasn’t really able to retain much once I had finished a class. So I don’t think it would have mattered time much if I had learned about clock skew in college. I’d have forgotten about its importance the next semester anyway.
Information without relevance is hard to maintain.
But until the stuff I was being taught became practical (because it paid for dinner), I wasn’t really able to retain much once I had finished a class. So I don’t think it would have mattered time much if I had learned about clock skew in college. I’d have forgotten about its importance the next semester anyway.
Information without relevance is hard to maintain.
Digital logic was also one of my favorite classes. Really fun to think about some of the problems.
My sister's path was getting an unrelated Ph.D. in chemistry, getting a postdoc at Lawrence Berkeley Lab in battery chemistry, and then getting a job at a startup in the field that's commercializing and extending its founder's university research. That company appears to hire chemists, ChemEs, and MechEs/industrial engineers right now.
Honestly most of the job is learned at the job. Then additionally comes reading papers, blogs and HN to extend the area of theoretical knowledge. Don't underestimate the power of pure crunching on experiment after experiment for 60h/week for 2-3 years though. If you want to become better, find a job in a company serious about battery development and then work your ass off.
Are you sure it is interesting from a career perspective? It seems that battery tech is a pretty mature field since it hasn't gone anywhere in the last decades despite huge commercial interests. Of course, things might change and probably they will somewhere in the future, but my guess is that patents will make it a winner-takes-all situation.
You will find jobs at different levels, from Intern to Researcher
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?keywords=battery&locat...
Once you know who does the work, target them as a goal.
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?keywords=battery&locat...
Once you know who does the work, target them as a goal.
>I hope schools start focusing on it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Right now you stand to make a lot of money. If schools start cranking out undergrads who know what you know you won't be very valuable.
edit: looks like I struck a nerve.
Be careful what you wish for.
Right now you stand to make a lot of money. If schools start cranking out undergrads who know what you know you won't be very valuable.
edit: looks like I struck a nerve.
1) I know nothing and 2) that's not the worst thing in the world if we have genius engineers making batteries better.
This advice isn't useful because you don't know the market conditions of the future. It's like saying in 1992 "Don't become a programmer, we just had an economic bust, it's overvalued"
It's not advice nor does it depend on the market conditions in the future. Boom or bust it's better to have a skill set that is in higher demand than supply.
So either he was "asked to leave" (fired) for somehow being responsible for the battery issue that was the rate-limiting factor for Model 3 production, OR he was being leaned on so hard by management to fix the problem that he left for work-life-balance reasons (ragequit.)
Either way, he gets to put in his expertise to found a new company in one of the hottest technologies there is in 2017, probably becoming rich by selling Tesla's own upgraded tech back to it, as well as to everyone else in the electric car race. All while not having Elon Musk looming over his shoulder. Not bad!
Either way, he gets to put in his expertise to found a new company in one of the hottest technologies there is in 2017, probably becoming rich by selling Tesla's own upgraded tech back to it, as well as to everyone else in the electric car race. All while not having Elon Musk looming over his shoulder. Not bad!
Thomas Watson (founder of IBM) is quoted to have once said to an employee who tried to resign after a big mistake, “Fire you? I’ve just invested one million dollars in your education, and you think I’m going to fire you?”
Sounds like the sunken cost fallacy in action.
I think experience is the biggest educator in the field, and one will be careful not to repeat a mistake, especially when it is a big one.
I think sunk cost fallacy can be quoted if someone messes up multiple times but they still don't want to let them go. Then the problem is nonchalance or incompetence.
I think sunk cost fallacy can be quoted if someone messes up multiple times but they still don't want to let them go. Then the problem is nonchalance or incompetence.
The only people that don't make mistakes are the people that never do anything at all.
Trolley problem. First mistake could be to do nothing at all!
There are people who are very productive who make very few mistakes.
Just like there people who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory nearly every time.
Just like there people who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory nearly every time.
Few is not none, besides that those people who are very productive and that make very few mistakes usually also were younger when they were still learning and likely learned a lot from those mistakes so now you see the end product.
That is true, but realize that those are the people that stay in their comfort zone and repeat the things they already know.
Sunken cost in addition to replacement cost, where the latter may be higher than the former.
It sounds like the battery issues aren't even completely within Tesla's control - you try sourcing that much lithium!
...seriously, I'm sorta worried about our continued access to enough lithium for all this electric technology that's rapidly emerging. Counterarguments?
...seriously, I'm sorta worried about our continued access to enough lithium for all this electric technology that's rapidly emerging. Counterarguments?
There's no shortage of lithium, just lithium at the current price point. Like with oilsand it should get to a sufficient price to encourage investment in extraction technology and then price will drop.
Yes, the issue is being overblown. It's the "we're reaching peak oil" debate of 30 years ago. We're still nowhere near peak oil (supply).
Current world production is only 36,000 tonnes per year. Chile alone has 7.5 million tonnes known reserves. So 200 years of current requirements, known, in one country.
And the lithium doesn’t just go away. Lithium batteries can be recycled, though in practice it is currently often cheaper to just mine more lithium.
And the lithium doesn’t just go away. Lithium batteries can be recycled, though in practice it is currently often cheaper to just mine more lithium.
The values I heard some years ago (~10) was that there were well over 1000 years of known lithium reserves even when assuming some truly impressive rates of electric vehicle production and zero recycling.
Coolio, so we just have to scale up? Phew!
If lithium prices get too high, then SpaceX will have a financial incentive to get space-based lithium mining from asteroids in production, probably using Boring tech. :)
That's a good point...it's not like it's a super heavy metal that only gets born in the bellies of colliding neutron stars or something.
Interesting, given last week's reports of Model 3 production being bottlenecked due to battery supply issues. Is his departure the result of him being held responsible for these issues? Or did he decide to leave of his own accord, and if so, why? Either way, I'd like to hear some more details.
Let's just appreciate this rare piece of news. All the information presented, without interpretation, no fuss or ads around the post (maybe due to adblocker, don't know). Clean and simple. This is way, waaay, too rare.
I've been describing Tesla as a "battery company" for a while now; it's essential for their solar roof and electric car businesses.
This makes me nervous as an investor..
This makes me nervous as an investor..
Does that mean you weren't nervous before now? I got nervous a long time ago. I sold my modest investment in Tesla and got my Model 3 pre-order deposit back. I sleep much better now..
Have you heard the conf call ?
Musk says half of the Model 3 battery assembly zones (2 out of 4) in the factory were badly designed, so they had to redo them from scratch.
I don't think it entails anything for their batteries in general, more "were new at the automated robotic assembly thing".
Musk says half of the Model 3 battery assembly zones (2 out of 4) in the factory were badly designed, so they had to redo them from scratch.
I don't think it entails anything for their batteries in general, more "were new at the automated robotic assembly thing".
> [...] joined the company in January 2013,
> was involved in developing technology
> for all of Tesla's cars [according to
> his LinkedIn profile]
Does Tesla use European style "Director" designations for VP/Senior Execs?
For Tesla I'd be surprised if the "Head of Battery Engineering" was only a "Director" level position in US style corporate ladders?
For Tesla I'd be surprised if the "Head of Battery Engineering" was only a "Director" level position in US style corporate ladders?
Some articles reported the Model 3 delays were about the Fremont car assembly plant, but this hints at the Gigafactory being the bottleneck. If both are stuck/dead it's gonna smell bad. I wish Musk finds the help needed to at least "land" the project as smooth as his rockets.
In the investors call last week Tesla stated that the problem is at the Gigafactory with battery production.
Here's a link to a summary of conference call: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/7ao4m0/conferenc...
That forum is quite anti-Tesla (as opposed to /r/teslamotors). The whole Tesla thing is quite controversial - lots of haters, lots of fanboys.
Best advice I can give you: Read what both sides have to say and weigh the arguments. Then just stick with the truth you've always believed in - it's what everyone does in 2017 ;-)
Here's a link to a summary of conference call: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/7ao4m0/conferenc...
That forum is quite anti-Tesla (as opposed to /r/teslamotors). The whole Tesla thing is quite controversial - lots of haters, lots of fanboys.
Best advice I can give you: Read what both sides have to say and weigh the arguments. Then just stick with the truth you've always believed in - it's what everyone does in 2017 ;-)
I just read the story of William Browder (putin's nonfriend) that's indeed what I ended up doing.
Thanks a lot for the report, I guess I misinterpreted what article said about which factory the problems were happening.
Thanks a lot for the report, I guess I misinterpreted what article said about which factory the problems were happening.
You're not wrong about that - there were news reports that Tesla was having serious issues with their car assembly line too (not least that parts of it weren't even there yet, and the parts that were there weren't working properly and would likely be hell to fix due to Tesla skipping a bunch of the normal steps in having such equipment designed and manufactured).
I've read that article, Musk choose to rush things to "save time" at the risk of "not saving time".
Didn't Toyota just announce their new battery tech due in 2022? Solid state batteries with short/fast recharge time? Maybe this engineer didn't have anything up his sleeve to get there before toyota
Japanese automakers are circling their wagons. Toyota, Mazda, and Denso are collaborating in a JV, with Suzuki expected to join. Toyota leadership is demanding longer range and faster charging batteries from the alliance engineers. The important markets in play are US, China, and South Asia (including India).
Mazda and other partners won't get solid state batteries from Toyota. They cooperate on a shared platform for EVs, not on the batteries tech.
Source: http://www.thedrive.com/tech/15514/toyota-wont-share-solid-s...
Source: http://www.thedrive.com/tech/15514/toyota-wont-share-solid-s...
You're right. I wonder how the alliance partners will handle charging stations. I know from living in Japan that Nissan chargers are at nearly every dealership lot, and many parking garages have charging areas.
Toyota is heavily invested in lithium mining, their solid state claim isn’t their only game
Can anyone explain what the rules are regarding the head of battery engineering leaving Tesla to make similar batteries on his own? Wouldn't it be IP theft if he tried copying the tech he developed at Tesla?
not if he copies all their designs but intends to sell his fake startup to a competitor shortly after a few announcements
Haha, what could possibly go wrong?
If his pay was in any way tied to productivity, he was probably taking a big hit. Regardless of fault.
Let’s be real — he was probably asked to leave.
That's conjecture. There are many reasons why a person might leave a company, and not all of them are because the person is unhappy with the company or the company is unhappy with the person. I'd rather we didn't jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.
You are correct that it’s conjecture. I did include the weasel word “probably.” I certainly do not have inside info.
But, in the real world, if he were interviewing for a new job, the prospective employer would surely have this conversation:
Q: So, why did you leave Tesla?
A: Oh, just felt like it was time to go. Wanted to start my own thing.
Q: Ok. But, didn’t your departure coincide with the announcement that the Model 3’s primary production bottleneck was with assembly of the battery pack?
A: Yes, but that was just a coincidence. I had been talking about leaving for a while.
Q: Ok. Would you mind if we talked with 3 references from Tesla? Perhaps your direct manager, a peer, and one of your subordinates?
A: Sure.....
But, in the real world, if he were interviewing for a new job, the prospective employer would surely have this conversation:
Q: So, why did you leave Tesla?
A: Oh, just felt like it was time to go. Wanted to start my own thing.
Q: Ok. But, didn’t your departure coincide with the announcement that the Model 3’s primary production bottleneck was with assembly of the battery pack?
A: Yes, but that was just a coincidence. I had been talking about leaving for a while.
Q: Ok. Would you mind if we talked with 3 references from Tesla? Perhaps your direct manager, a peer, and one of your subordinates?
A: Sure.....
> According to Wagner’s LinkedIn page, he is launching a battery and powertrain startup in California.
It seems like he left to start his own company?
It seems like he left to start his own company?
> he is launching a battery and powertrain startup in California
I'm betting Tesla couldn't pay him enough and he's starting his own shop to sell to the other major auto manufacturers.
I'm betting Tesla couldn't pay him enough and he's starting his own shop to sell to the other major auto manufacturers.
I doubt it's for the money. I'm sure he made a pretty penny on his stock options, and stood to make more.
But he could get yelled at by Elon Musk every day, or he could walk into any VC in Silicon Valley, drop his own name, and have a fat stack of VC cash to gamble on something of his own design.
But he could get yelled at by Elon Musk every day, or he could walk into any VC in Silicon Valley, drop his own name, and have a fat stack of VC cash to gamble on something of his own design.
Plus didn’t Tesla state that all their patents were open source, so there is no IP precluding him from doing such...
There might also be trade secrets he'd be precluded from disclosing by an NDA. (No idea if there actually are, but patents wouldn't be the only potential barrier.)
Tesla likely has trade secrets that they do not release? And I believe using such in a new company would not be legal (ianal).
Without Tesla publishing a license that explicitly specifies this, you'd be insane to use Tesla's patents in your own product.
That's the reason why nobody in the auto industry has taken them up on it. It's not a demonstration of good faith - it was a publicity stunt.
That's the reason why nobody in the auto industry has taken them up on it. It's not a demonstration of good faith - it was a publicity stunt.
Real question is why.
The implication being of course that as the head of the division responsible for making batteries, he took the fall for not enough batteries available to sell product.
What is interesting about that implication though is that while to me and others it seems "clearly" implied, there isn't any one thing you would point to that says it is what it is. I have seen so many cases where the message the company sent about somebody leaving was really different that I no longer believe anything except what the person says.
What is interesting about that implication though is that while to me and others it seems "clearly" implied, there isn't any one thing you would point to that says it is what it is. I have seen so many cases where the message the company sent about somebody leaving was really different that I no longer believe anything except what the person says.
Does anybody else find it incredibly weird?
They were able to manufacture batteries for 50k+ Model S/X.
But couldn't scale the same batteries for Model 3?
They were able to manufacture batteries for 50k+ Model S/X.
But couldn't scale the same batteries for Model 3?
The Model 3 batteries are a somewhat different form factor from what Tesla has used in the past ('18650' are the old ones, '2170' the new), and might have slightly different chemistry as well.
Here's one source on it, with a few more details:
https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/tesla-model-3-exclusive-batte...
Here's one source on it, with a few more details:
https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/tesla-model-3-exclusive-batte...
[deleted]
The one thing Tesla supporters have pointed to more than anything is that Tesla had a large head-start in battery tech over all of the competitors. So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined, but Tesla's headstart in battery tech and manufacturing would keep them a contender.
Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries.
I'm not sure how reliable their lead in batteries is right now.
There's still that supercharger network, though. I suspect we'll be hearing more about that now that other points in Tesla's favor are dwindling.