Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive (Vol. 2)

[snowandrocks]

off_again said:

Yeah, I agree. There are obvious areas in which we can innovate and bring convenience. But this shouldnt be at the excuse basic functionality. Its not because you are getting old, I am frequently finding more and more people who prefer simple things - door handles are a great example.

That's probably the biggest issue I have with Tesla - ruining basic functionality just so as to be seen as doing things differently. Take the model 3 handles, an absolutely terrible piece of design - they're awkward to use even with practice and anyone who hasn't used them before takes ages to work out how to get in!

[skwdenyer]

snowandrocks said:

off_again said:

Yeah, I agree. There are obvious areas in which we can innovate and bring convenience. But this shouldnt be at the excuse basic functionality. Its not because you are getting old, I am frequently finding more and more people who prefer simple things - door handles are a great example.

That's probably the biggest issue I have with Tesla - ruining basic functionality just so as to be seen as doing things differently. Take the model 3 handles, an absolutely terrible piece of design - they're awkward to use even with practice and anyone who hasn't used them before takes ages to work out how to get in!

Aren't we seeing the same design choices emerging all over the place, though? In my book, it is hard to improve on something like, say, a classic Saab 900 door handle People will say "but they have to be electric to allow the window to drop" without understanding that Bristol (of all people) solved this problem back in the 1970s on the 412 without sacrificing a mechanical door handle

[Tuna]

skwdenyer said:

And I've never said they're not. I'm just a little bemused by this constant knocking of them when they attempt to evolve stuff that was ripe for evolution. If Mercedes, say, had come out with a large-scale cast component, I've no doubt it would be viewed as a step-change in production engineering.

I think to be honest, there appear to be two very different points being argued.

There are a group arguing that things like large-scale cast components make Tesla unique, unassailable and justify their current valuation.

There are also a group who think these things are signs of a company doing what every other car company does when developing new products.

When people 'knock' stuff like large scale castings, they're mainly questioning why posters think this is the sign of the second coming - most of these things are design decisions that have both pros and cons. Even when they could be regarded as a step change (like the many other step changes we've seen in car production over the years) it does not make Tesla immune to all of the challenges of being a car company, or all of the compromises needed when developing consumer products.

Nor is it unique in the EV space, or amongst mainstream manufacturers - yet we've had pages of discussion with posters trying to argue that only Tesla is making these steps, and that only these specific design decisions are the "right way" to build a car. Do you not also find that bemusing?

[TameBritishMuslim]

Tuna said:

skwdenyer said:

And I've never said they're not. I'm just a little bemused by this constant knocking of them when they attempt to evolve stuff that was ripe for evolution. If Mercedes, say, had come out with a large-scale cast component, I've no doubt it would be viewed as a step-change in production engineering.

Nor is it unique in the EV space, or amongst mainstream manufacturers..

Who else is making and using such large castings at scale?

[Tuna]

TameBritishMuslim said:

Who else is making and using such large castings at scale?

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

[TameBritishMuslim]

Tuna said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

Who else is making and using such large castings at scale?

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

You're saying that this is not unique to Tesla?

[EddieSteadyGo]

Tuna said:

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

There is a definite pattern - he decides in advance what he thinks the other person is saying (usually an exaggerated or oversimplified version, like a strawman), and without then reading what they actually said, answers based on that. Which means he constantly gets the wrong end of the stick.

[anonymous-user]

TameBritishMuslim said:

You're saying that this is not unique to Tesla?

The 2009 designed Ferrari 458 is built around 3 large chassis castings, 2 up front, one at the rear. So no, not unique to Tesla. Although not a mass produced car on the sales numbers of your average econobox, they did make 21K of them in 6 years, so not so shabby.

Crashing a road car built like this isn't going to be cheap to repair, you are not straightening those big castings on a jig, it's a scrap the assembly and build up around a new section. How much will that cost compared to pulling a chassis and replacing a small panel or chassis section?

Affordable and justifiable on an exotic like a Ferrari, probably a write off on an econobox.

[ZesPak]

jsf said:

Crashing a road car built like this isn't going to be cheap to repair, you are not straightening those big castings on a jig, it's a scrap the assembly and build up around a new section. How much will that cost compared to pulling a chassis and replacing a small panel or chassis section?

Hmm, from the casting I've seen they used, any damage to that is structural chassis damage, so a write-off either way?

[anonymous-user]

ZesPak said:

Hmm, from the casting I've seen they used, any damage to that is structural chassis damage, so a write-off either way?

You would rebuild the Ferrari, you can buy every part of the chassis. Will Tesla be selling their castings?

[ZesPak]

jsf said:

ZesPak said:

Hmm, from the casting I've seen they used, any damage to that is structural chassis damage, so a write-off either way?

You would rebuild the Ferrari, you can buy every part of the chassis. Will Tesla be selling their castings?

Sorry, I meant compared to a mundane 3 series. Either would be a write off with that kind of chassis damage.

[TameBritishMuslim]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Tuna said:

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

There is a definite pattern - he decides in advance what he thinks the other person is saying (usually an exaggerated or oversimplified version, like a strawman), and without then reading what they actually said, answers based on that. Which means he constantly gets the wrong end of the stick.

Perhaps try expressing things clearly so as not to leave any room for misinterpretation then.

[TameBritishMuslim]

jsf said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

You're saying that this is not unique to Tesla?

The 2009 designed Ferrari 458 is built around 3 large chassis castings, 2 up front, one at the rear. So no, not unique to Tesla. Although not a mass produced car on the sales numbers of your average econobox, they did make 21K of them in 6 years, so not so shabby.

Crashing a road car built like this isn't going to be cheap to repair, you are not straightening those big castings on a jig, it's a scrap the assembly and build up around a new section. How much will that cost compared to pulling a chassis and replacing a small panel or chassis section?

Affordable and justifiable on an exotic like a Ferrari, probably a write off on an econobox.

I wonder what advantages it offered them to go down that route?

[EddieSteadyGo]

TameBritishMuslim said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Tuna said:

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

There is a definite pattern - he decides in advance what he thinks the other person is saying (usually an exaggerated or oversimplified version, like a strawman), and without then reading what they actually said, answers based on that. Which means he constantly gets the wrong end of the stick.

Perhaps try expressing things clearly so as not to leave any room for misinterpretation then.

Read back what I wrote, I specifically said Tesla had a competitive advantage else I wouldn't have bought one. Yet as you had already decided what I thought, you ignored it, and decided instead to argue what you hoped I would say.

You should stick to humblebragging - as your inability to follow the nuance and detail of an argument frankly makes you look slow.

[TameBritishMuslim]

EddieSteadyGo said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Tuna said:

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

There is a definite pattern - he decides in advance what he thinks the other person is saying (usually an exaggerated or oversimplified version, like a strawman), and without then reading what they actually said, answers based on that. Which means he constantly gets the wrong end of the stick.

Perhaps try expressing things clearly so as not to leave any room for misinterpretation then.

Read back what I wrote, I specifically said Tesla had a competitive advantage else I wouldn't have bought one. Yet as you had already decided what I thought, you ignored it, and decided instead to argue what you hoped I would say.

You should stick to humblebragging - as your inability to follow the nuance and detail of an argument frankly makes you look slow.

I was referring to this:

Tuna said:

Nor is it unique in the EV space, or amongst mainstream manufacturers

[Tuna]

TameBritishMuslim said:

Tuna said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

Who else is making and using such large castings at scale?

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

You're saying that this is not unique to Tesla?

I'm saying that making big technical changes "like large scale castings" is common with EV designers and mainstream manufacturers. As has been pointed out, Ferrari have used large scale castings, and companies like Lucid are making significant advances on Teslas' motor technology.

You're fixating on large scale castings as though it's the only way to make a "better" car, and only Tesla can use it. Neither of those things are true and I'm not the only one to explain that - at length.

[anonymous-user]

TameBritishMuslim said:

I wonder what advantages it offered them to go down that route?

Cheaper and faster to build when the whole chassis is aluminium, repair costs are irrelevant.

[skwdenyer]

jsf said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

I wonder what advantages it offered them to go down that route?

Cheaper and faster to build when the whole chassis is aluminium, repair costs are irrelevant.

Also, as per the technical analyses of it at the time:

- lighter (2 parts joined are not as stiff and/or strong as 1 part for the same weight)
- quicker to build
- more consistently dimensionally-accurate
- better crash performance (where that is relevant)

Once you have larger, consistent parts that do not require joining together, you can start to play some interesting games. Take a front crash tube, for instance. Conventionally these are designed with geometry that promotes progressive collapse, which can be quite complex. But if you don't have to fabricate them (extruding or casting instead), you can do some different things: for instance, a simple extrusion can have variable temper along its length to provide progressive characteristics not possible with geometry alone, yet may be far cheaper and lighter than an alternative. You couldn't realistically do that with a fabricated part.

Not just at Tesla, there is some very smart stuff going on with apparently-familiar materials, to produce better and better outcomes.

[TameBritishMuslim]

skwdenyer said:

jsf said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

I wonder what advantages it offered them to go down that route?

Cheaper and faster to build when the whole chassis is aluminium, repair costs are irrelevant.

Also, as per the technical analyses of it at the time:

- lighter (2 parts joined are not as stiff and/or strong as 1 part for the same weight)
- quicker to build
- more consistently dimensionally-accurate
- better crash performance (where that is relevant)

Once you have larger, consistent parts that do not require joining together, you can start to play some interesting games. Take a front crash tube, for instance. Conventionally these are designed with geometry that promotes progressive collapse, which can be quite complex. But if you don't have to fabricate them (extruding or casting instead), you can do some different things: for instance, a simple extrusion can have variable temper along its length to provide progressive characteristics not possible with geometry alone, yet may be far cheaper and lighter than an alternative. You couldn't realistically do that with a fabricated part.

Not just at Tesla, there is some very smart stuff going on with apparently-familiar materials, to produce better and better outcomes.

It was a rhetorical question on my part but good detail.

[TameBritishMuslim]

Tuna said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

Tuna said:

TameBritishMuslim said:

Who else is making and using such large castings at scale?

I give in with you - you really don't understand the point being made, do you?

You're saying that this is not unique to Tesla?

I'm saying that making big technical changes "like large scale castings" is common with EV designers and mainstream manufacturers. As has been pointed out, Ferrari have used large scale castings, and companies like Lucid are making significant advances on Teslas' motor technology.

You're fixating on large scale castings as though it's the only way to make a "better" car, and only Tesla can use it. Neither of those things are true and I'm not the only one to explain that - at length.

I mentioned large scale castings amongst other things; you and others called this particular point out and until now you haven't given one example.

But that's the thing, it isn't common with EV designer and mainstream manufacturers, is it? The only example we have had so far is about a 20k cars from an exotics manufacturer (Ferrari) that someone kindly contributed. If there are other examples then please elucidate.