Tesla rethinks the assembly line(assemblymag.com)
assemblymag.com
Tesla rethinks the assembly line
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/97788-tesla-rethinks-the-assembly-line
69 comments
Wow, if churning out the "lousiest shitboxes on the road" leads to the making the best selling car in the world, imagine what could happen after all of these improvements? It's such a mystery why Toyota, a paragon of automotive excellence, would describe the Model Y as a "work of art". I mean, that's just puzzling, isn't it?
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best...
https://electrek.co/2023/02/28/tesla-model-y-work-of-art-toy...
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best...
https://electrek.co/2023/02/28/tesla-model-y-work-of-art-toy...
So pop music stars are now the best musicians?
Be careful with conflating 'popularity' with 'quality.' Tesla should be wary of their recent success. There's the potential for huge backlash when people start to realize Tesla's support is poor if your issue lies outside the bounds of the 'typical' issues they're expecting.
Bad news travels fast.
Be careful with conflating 'popularity' with 'quality.' Tesla should be wary of their recent success. There's the potential for huge backlash when people start to realize Tesla's support is poor if your issue lies outside the bounds of the 'typical' issues they're expecting.
Bad news travels fast.
Interesting to see this article linked right next to the Guardian piece about what a terrible and unsafe system Tesla has created... (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/tesla-dat...)
On the day of the leak I read that the whistleblower leak was about safety, but all of these newer articles (e.g. the one you linked) focus way more about privacy/GDPR. Like, the opening sentence begins with how Tesla didn't adequately protect personal data and the conclusion is about the size of GDPR fines.
The wording in the article "[t]he breach would violate the GDPR" implies that the act of the whistleblower leaking the information IS directly the violation...
I'm a fan of whistleblower protections, but if there isn't anything reasonably interpreted as illegal on the safety front, and he shared everyone's private information creating a violation of the law, then he should obviously face legal consequences without any extra protection whatsoever.
I am struggling to even see what the whistleblower intention is really. He leaked a seven year period of drive assistance complaints and it was just 4,000 (this sounds like a surprisingly small amount of complaints for a layman like me). Was Tesla hiding this in court cases? Were they not following regulatory reporting requirements?
The wording in the article "[t]he breach would violate the GDPR" implies that the act of the whistleblower leaking the information IS directly the violation...
I'm a fan of whistleblower protections, but if there isn't anything reasonably interpreted as illegal on the safety front, and he shared everyone's private information creating a violation of the law, then he should obviously face legal consequences without any extra protection whatsoever.
I am struggling to even see what the whistleblower intention is really. He leaked a seven year period of drive assistance complaints and it was just 4,000 (this sounds like a surprisingly small amount of complaints for a layman like me). Was Tesla hiding this in court cases? Were they not following regulatory reporting requirements?
beerpls(2)
I don't see a date on this article. If it's just been published, I can't helped but wonder it's part of a rainy day campaign given the Guardian article that was just published.
The article date is 8 May 2023. You have to scroll down a bit.
It's also based on the info Tesla gave out at their last big show and tell thing recently.
[deleted]
photochemsyn(2)
> According to Moravy, vehicle assembly processes haven’t changed in the last 100 years, which he says is “really silly.
Where to start with this article?
Here is a good spot I guess.
First off, Moravy is wrong.
If anyone thinks that auto manufacturing and the "vehicle assembly process" has not substantially changed in the last 100 years, then they are totally ignorant of the industry and of the exacting details associated with something as complex as automotive manufacturing.
The other vital thing that this article fails to mention at all is how manufacturing is shaped by the larger concerns of the product lifecycle - which is (or should be) the actual "product" that leaves the factory.
"The car" is just a hunk of metal that embodies the product lifecycle - which can be competitively unique from manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
One cannot talk myopically about "costs" and whatever happens on the manufacturing floor without bringing in the total concerns of the product lifecycle (i.e. service, end-of-life, market requirements).
That is difficult to do in an article because the total size and complexity of each automaker's product lifecycle is immense (and largely unknown externally from the automaker in question), but it must be done.
> If something goes wrong in final assembly, you block the whole line and you end up with buffering in between.”
Which is how, fundamentally or in part fundamentally, the Toyota Production System works - and it is difficult to argue with the quality results at Toyota.
Honestly, I am not seeing much of a difference here overall.
There are various component assembly lines that do run outside and "in parallel" with the General Assembly lines at incumbent automakers.
I am not even sure how this is debatable.
> “However, there are some quality-related risks involved, such as potential gaps in fit and finish,” warns Pischalnikov. (snip) “The reason that’s always been done is for color consistency, to ensure that there’s a perfect match between the doors and the rest of the car body,” Prasad points out. “By not having to assemble, disassemble and reassemble vehicles, you can reduce production costs and eliminate waste.
Which are quality control aspects that Tesla still seemingly struggles with, near as I can tell.
I am all for encouraging automakers to explore new methods of automotive manufacturing and BEV production will present significant opportunities to do so, but this article from Assembly Magazine is, at the very least, incomplete.
Where to start with this article?
Here is a good spot I guess.
First off, Moravy is wrong.
If anyone thinks that auto manufacturing and the "vehicle assembly process" has not substantially changed in the last 100 years, then they are totally ignorant of the industry and of the exacting details associated with something as complex as automotive manufacturing.
The other vital thing that this article fails to mention at all is how manufacturing is shaped by the larger concerns of the product lifecycle - which is (or should be) the actual "product" that leaves the factory.
"The car" is just a hunk of metal that embodies the product lifecycle - which can be competitively unique from manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
One cannot talk myopically about "costs" and whatever happens on the manufacturing floor without bringing in the total concerns of the product lifecycle (i.e. service, end-of-life, market requirements).
That is difficult to do in an article because the total size and complexity of each automaker's product lifecycle is immense (and largely unknown externally from the automaker in question), but it must be done.
> If something goes wrong in final assembly, you block the whole line and you end up with buffering in between.”
Which is how, fundamentally or in part fundamentally, the Toyota Production System works - and it is difficult to argue with the quality results at Toyota.
Honestly, I am not seeing much of a difference here overall.
There are various component assembly lines that do run outside and "in parallel" with the General Assembly lines at incumbent automakers.
I am not even sure how this is debatable.
> “However, there are some quality-related risks involved, such as potential gaps in fit and finish,” warns Pischalnikov. (snip) “The reason that’s always been done is for color consistency, to ensure that there’s a perfect match between the doors and the rest of the car body,” Prasad points out. “By not having to assemble, disassemble and reassemble vehicles, you can reduce production costs and eliminate waste.
Which are quality control aspects that Tesla still seemingly struggles with, near as I can tell.
I am all for encouraging automakers to explore new methods of automotive manufacturing and BEV production will present significant opportunities to do so, but this article from Assembly Magazine is, at the very least, incomplete.
100% agree with you, having been in and around automotive factories for years. Tesla is really capitalizing on two things here:
1) Tesla customers seem extraordinarily willing to overlook production defects and servicing/repair issues compared to customers of other OEMs. This lets them get away with lower manufacturing quality tolerances than they normally would, as noted in the article mentioning the water ingress issues. Seems like they're going to further capitalize on this customer tolerance with the paint process changes.
2) As a result of only building BEVs with no legacy support requirements, Tesla is able to design the manufacturing process and vehicles themselves to be more efficient to assemble. It's a definite competitive advantage today and that's another thing some of their intended changes here will try to capitalize on. The question to me is how long it will be until the traditional OEMs catch up here.
1) Tesla customers seem extraordinarily willing to overlook production defects and servicing/repair issues compared to customers of other OEMs. This lets them get away with lower manufacturing quality tolerances than they normally would, as noted in the article mentioning the water ingress issues. Seems like they're going to further capitalize on this customer tolerance with the paint process changes.
2) As a result of only building BEVs with no legacy support requirements, Tesla is able to design the manufacturing process and vehicles themselves to be more efficient to assemble. It's a definite competitive advantage today and that's another thing some of their intended changes here will try to capitalize on. The question to me is how long it will be until the traditional OEMs catch up here.
> As a result of only building BEVs with no legacy support requirements, Tesla is able to design the manufacturing process and vehicles themselves to be more efficient to assemble.
While automakers reuse factories, they have no qualms about building new ones and closing old. I have family that works on assembly lines and every couple years they get an offer to move to New Mexico, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia or wherever the new factory is being built.
What is the legacy albatross that hangs around ICE manufacturer necks?
While automakers reuse factories, they have no qualms about building new ones and closing old. I have family that works on assembly lines and every couple years they get an offer to move to New Mexico, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia or wherever the new factory is being built.
What is the legacy albatross that hangs around ICE manufacturer necks?
A combination of supply chains, unions, dealers (they hate BEVs), support requirements for existing vehicles, cannibalization of existing vehicle lines, and (at the moment) cost of capital.
> The other vital thing that this article fails to mention at all is how manufacturing is shaped by the larger concerns of the product lifecycle - which is (or should be) the actual "product" that leaves the factory.
> "The car" is just a hunk of metal that embodies the product lifecycle - which can be competitively unique from manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
The thing is, Tesla doesn't have a concept about product lifecycle once the car rolls off the line. They don't care about tuners and tinkerers, they don't care about aftermarket sales (e.g. people realizing they might want a trailer hitch), they don't care about people ending in accidents (or why else does it need months for spare parts for a body shop), they don't care about maintenance (because let's be real, unless you get a lemon car, all you'll need to do for 10-15 years is brake and tire changes!) and no one forces them to do so either, so they do what makes the most profit for them: easy assembly trumps everything, and not having much of a dealer/service station network means you don't have to invest money into building it and schmoozing up dealers' arses for incentives.
Their entire structure is fundamentally different from conventional car makers. Add on top what the Chinese are doing, and the conventionals are headed for some really dark times.
> "The car" is just a hunk of metal that embodies the product lifecycle - which can be competitively unique from manufacturer-to-manufacturer.
The thing is, Tesla doesn't have a concept about product lifecycle once the car rolls off the line. They don't care about tuners and tinkerers, they don't care about aftermarket sales (e.g. people realizing they might want a trailer hitch), they don't care about people ending in accidents (or why else does it need months for spare parts for a body shop), they don't care about maintenance (because let's be real, unless you get a lemon car, all you'll need to do for 10-15 years is brake and tire changes!) and no one forces them to do so either, so they do what makes the most profit for them: easy assembly trumps everything, and not having much of a dealer/service station network means you don't have to invest money into building it and schmoozing up dealers' arses for incentives.
Their entire structure is fundamentally different from conventional car makers. Add on top what the Chinese are doing, and the conventionals are headed for some really dark times.
The sad thing is, I ran into actual mechanical engineers who failed to see these issues with Tesla's approach, and hype, showing a shocking lack of knowledge about mass manufacturing. So the Tesla hype is working, even if it is mostly unfounded in reality.
This article is a learning example on how submarine advertising and marketing looks like. This is how you write a "legitimate article" that spreads disinformation and praises a corporation.
What they're describing is really just copying the processes used by EV manufacturers in China.
This article repeats itself multiple times (in a way that frustrated me). Here is the result of throwing it through the Kagi Universal Summarizer:
"Tesla plans to revolutionize automotive assembly with its unboxed production concept, which aims to reduce costs by 50% and factory space by 40%. Instead of linear assembly lines, Tesla will produce subassemblies from large castings and assemble vehicles in parallel. Tesla engineers believe this will enable them to scale production to 20 million vehicles per year. The unboxed process involves delaying 3D assembly for as long as possible to simplify operations and automation. While some experts are skeptical, others think the concept has merit and could transform automotive manufacturing if Tesla can overcome challenges with parts alignment and sealing. The unboxed assembly concept could enable huge gains in the paint shop by compartmentalizing and painting different vehicle sections simultaneously."
"Tesla plans to revolutionize automotive assembly with its unboxed production concept, which aims to reduce costs by 50% and factory space by 40%. Instead of linear assembly lines, Tesla will produce subassemblies from large castings and assemble vehicles in parallel. Tesla engineers believe this will enable them to scale production to 20 million vehicles per year. The unboxed process involves delaying 3D assembly for as long as possible to simplify operations and automation. While some experts are skeptical, others think the concept has merit and could transform automotive manufacturing if Tesla can overcome challenges with parts alignment and sealing. The unboxed assembly concept could enable huge gains in the paint shop by compartmentalizing and painting different vehicle sections simultaneously."
They are certainly selling substandard cars with this rethink.
I recommend watching the original presentation by Tesla's lead designer from Investor Day, it's about 12 mins and has great visuals: https://www.youtube.com/live/Hl1zEzVUV7w?feature=share&t=242...
One change that people don't appreciate much is that Tesla has gotten much better at making their cars. While other automakers now have models which spec-wise are competitive with the 3 and and Y, only Tesla and maybe BYD can make EVs profitably at scale. This is why they've been able to cut prices and still be decently profitable - a Model 3 RWD costs $40,240, which is about $33,500 in 2018 dollars (when the Model 3 started selling).
I expect legacy car makers will follow Tesla's lead on this process (and switching to 48V) much as they are now following and introducing large castings in their cars.
One change that people don't appreciate much is that Tesla has gotten much better at making their cars. While other automakers now have models which spec-wise are competitive with the 3 and and Y, only Tesla and maybe BYD can make EVs profitably at scale. This is why they've been able to cut prices and still be decently profitable - a Model 3 RWD costs $40,240, which is about $33,500 in 2018 dollars (when the Model 3 started selling).
I expect legacy car makers will follow Tesla's lead on this process (and switching to 48V) much as they are now following and introducing large castings in their cars.
fooker(4)
I have no insight into car manufacturing.
But I have a few decades of insight into software development. And from that I can say that it is actually possible that a whole industry can be insanely inefficient without anybody noticing.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the same holds for cars and huge efficiency gains are possible.
But I have a few decades of insight into software development. And from that I can say that it is actually possible that a whole industry can be insanely inefficient without anybody noticing.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the same holds for cars and huge efficiency gains are possible.
Have you heard what happened to the US car industry in 1990-2000s? The loss of trust from their customer base. The loss of market share to the Japanese car makers. The demise of Detroit.
Certainly something was wrong with the entire industry, and nobody seemed to pay enough attention, at least among its captains.
Certainly something was wrong with the entire industry, and nobody seemed to pay enough attention, at least among its captains.
[deleted]
> “The reason that’s always been done is for color consistency, to ensure that there’s a perfect match between the doors and the rest of the car body,”
I was interested to learn this was also a consideration in apparel manufacturing: dyed fabrics have some perceptible color variation between batches. So, although some complex components are made separately before being combined, these components have to be managed so that all the visible fabrics from the separate components being combined into a unit came from the same dyed batches of materials.
(Our startup had to figure out at which stage of a high-end production line to integrate part of our supply chain integrity technology.)
I was interested to learn this was also a consideration in apparel manufacturing: dyed fabrics have some perceptible color variation between batches. So, although some complex components are made separately before being combined, these components have to be managed so that all the visible fabrics from the separate components being combined into a unit came from the same dyed batches of materials.
(Our startup had to figure out at which stage of a high-end production line to integrate part of our supply chain integrity technology.)
[deleted]
The main benefit of assembling subassemblies separately appears to be that if there is some issue on the production line (eg. a machine is broken), then just that one subassembly line has to stop, and everything else can continue.
To get the benefits, you need storage racks for completed subassemblies.
And, when the machine is fixed, you have the opportunity to run just that line with more operators faster to 'catch up' and refill stocks of that subassembly.
To get the benefits, you need storage racks for completed subassemblies.
And, when the machine is fixed, you have the opportunity to run just that line with more operators faster to 'catch up' and refill stocks of that subassembly.
I really wished people read up on the Toyota Production System, JIT and actually understood it before commenting on whatever press release Tesla or other put out.
No shit, you need storage? Please, do tell me more...
No shit, you need storage? Please, do tell me more...
I'm afraid most of the JIT methods of 'not needing storage, everything is just in time', is in fact asking the suppliers to do storage for you.
JIT tells a supplier, 'I need X parts available at exactly Y time. If they are late, I will punish you massively. You can't deliver them early either.'.
So the supplier builds the parts early (so that any machine breakdowns/unforseen problems don't cause them to be late). The supplier then stores the parts till the exact time and delivers them. Parts are still stored, just the cost and effort of the storage is borne by the supplier.
You can see this if you take apart a car and look at date codes on, for example, microprocessors. They'll be months or sometimes even years apart.
JIT tells a supplier, 'I need X parts available at exactly Y time. If they are late, I will punish you massively. You can't deliver them early either.'.
So the supplier builds the parts early (so that any machine breakdowns/unforseen problems don't cause them to be late). The supplier then stores the parts till the exact time and delivers them. Parts are still stored, just the cost and effort of the storage is borne by the supplier.
You can see this if you take apart a car and look at date codes on, for example, microprocessors. They'll be months or sometimes even years apart.
Good, I knew supply cains and logistics is not necessarily your core competence.
I don't buy the floor area benefits...
Floor area of a warehouse is very cheap compared to the ~ $13 Billion worth of cars that a factory will churn out in a year.
The machines you put in a factory, and the people you employ in the factory are the expensive bits. The actual concrete floor area is super cheap.
If someone has looked at the total cost of a factory, calculated the cost per square foot, and then said "if only we could reduce the square footage, we would save money", then they are fooling themselves.
Floor area of a warehouse is very cheap compared to the ~ $13 Billion worth of cars that a factory will churn out in a year.
The machines you put in a factory, and the people you employ in the factory are the expensive bits. The actual concrete floor area is super cheap.
If someone has looked at the total cost of a factory, calculated the cost per square foot, and then said "if only we could reduce the square footage, we would save money", then they are fooling themselves.
The article alluded to the idea that reducing floor area and would reduce the cost of getting parts to the right place. If your process is 500 feet long instead of 1000 feet long, you just made your material handling workers up to twice as productive.
True, but in a way you want stuff to be spread out for the same reason.
If the truck that delivers window motors can unload at a loading bay near the window motor storage racks, which is in turn near the place on the production line where window motors is installed, then at no point does a member of staff transport any goods along the length of the line.
Cram the line into a tiny floor area, and you are unlikely to be able to achieve that.
If the truck that delivers window motors can unload at a loading bay near the window motor storage racks, which is in turn near the place on the production line where window motors is installed, then at no point does a member of staff transport any goods along the length of the line.
Cram the line into a tiny floor area, and you are unlikely to be able to achieve that.
Moving material from A to B has gotta be one of the most easy to automate things in a car factory.
I believe that this modified assembly line has another unstated yet massive benefit...
Namely, cars are expensive and hard to ship - they don't pack well, and they have tariffs.
Yet car subassemblies in many cases ship really well - you can probably pack 500 doors in a 40 ft container for example, with a shipping cost half way around the globe of $5/door.
And tesla, having factories all over the world, can then manufacture subassemblies in places with low material or labor costs (depending on the subassembly), and do far less final assembly in the destination country, avoiding import tariffs, high labor prices, and loss of efficiencies of scale.
Since they're vertically integrated, they have a lot of pricing power - can can decide if a car door is worth $50 or $1000 as they like as far as 'country of origin of materials' goes.
And they can also build a 'car factory' (ie. subassembly bolting together factory) in nearly every country worldwide, grabbing tax incentives from a lot of governments who would love to have a car factory. They can write "Proudly made in X to a US design" on all cars sold in X - saving on destination shipping, while also being the 'local' car for buyers who are nationalistic.
Namely, cars are expensive and hard to ship - they don't pack well, and they have tariffs.
Yet car subassemblies in many cases ship really well - you can probably pack 500 doors in a 40 ft container for example, with a shipping cost half way around the globe of $5/door.
And tesla, having factories all over the world, can then manufacture subassemblies in places with low material or labor costs (depending on the subassembly), and do far less final assembly in the destination country, avoiding import tariffs, high labor prices, and loss of efficiencies of scale.
Since they're vertically integrated, they have a lot of pricing power - can can decide if a car door is worth $50 or $1000 as they like as far as 'country of origin of materials' goes.
And they can also build a 'car factory' (ie. subassembly bolting together factory) in nearly every country worldwide, grabbing tax incentives from a lot of governments who would love to have a car factory. They can write "Proudly made in X to a US design" on all cars sold in X - saving on destination shipping, while also being the 'local' car for buyers who are nationalistic.
You just described ever single automotive, aerospace or heavy machining equipment supply chain currently running on this planet. Every single one of them.
But yeah, Tesla is the first company to try that.
But yeah, Tesla is the first company to try that.
The keyword here is vertically integrated.
Apple is the only other company which can claim to be similar in that aspect.
Apple is the only other company which can claim to be similar in that aspect.
Apple? Verticaly integrated? Tell that Foxxconn, they'd like to hear their contracts got cancelled.
Ford, like the first one, tried vertical integration. You can google how his rubber plantations worked out. Vertical integration stopped being a thing in the 70s, and for good reasons.
Ford, like the first one, tried vertical integration. You can google how his rubber plantations worked out. Vertical integration stopped being a thing in the 70s, and for good reasons.
It seems like this is great for producing a car as cheaply as possible. If one of those 3 parts (front casting, rear casting, structural battery) is damaged in a wreck, it seems probable that the car would be totaled by the insurance company.
It's not clear how a damaged casting could even be repaired.
In an ideal world, cars would be driving themselves and not crashing into one another, of course.
It's not clear how a damaged casting could even be repaired.
In an ideal world, cars would be driving themselves and not crashing into one another, of course.
[deleted]
https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...
Tesla's problem is not scale. Their problem is that they cut every corner known to man in pursuit of scale. As a result, their cars are the lousiest shitboxes on the road.