Animats has been repeatedly told that mixing the labor numbers for low-volume high-end aluminum-bodied cars with some parts insourced with a new high-volume line with kinks to be worked out is meaningless. But don't worry, he will probably be making the same comment next month, and the month after, in rotation with his other usual negative Tesla comments he makes in every Tesla thread.

Your tone is definitely negative, but, in this case, I'm afraid that it might be warranted. Its hard to imagine being this far off on production numbers by accident.

I'm all for having a conversation about Tesla's staffing numbers. Seeing the same comments repeated with absolutely no interaction, post after post, that's not conversing.

I cannot comment either way on Animats' thoughts (because I do not have enough information to do any concrete analysis).

However, for what it is worth, Bloomberg's latest article on the trials and tribulations of Model 3 production (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-12/how-tesla...) indicates that "compared with Toyota...even with all the robots, Tesla spends more than three times that number of hours on each car".

Overall, I thought the Bloomberg article cited was pretty interesting/revealing and, crucially, it seemed pretty balanced.

Where I think that Tesla might have some issues is on Model 3 quality. The "burst periods" may be contributing negatively to that. But that remains an open question in terms of how it compares with competitors' first model year problems and industry standards overall (information that I do not have). There is some anecdotal evidence in the "Tesla forums" of strange quality issues. How representative that is, again, an open question in my view.

Tesla does more than final assembly, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Plus, aluminum-bodied cars are famous for needing more human labor. Bloomberg fails to go into that, which makes for bad journalism. Great to have an actual discussion about it... for a change.

> Tesla does more than final assembly, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

True, but, this estimate of labor was provided by Michelle Hill, a manufacturing expert at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman who is likely aware of that and, I would think, would add that fact into their analysis. Naturally, I cannot be sure that Michelle did this (because I do not have access to the report), but it is probable I suppose given their time in this industry.

> Plus, aluminum-bodied cars are famous for needing more human labor.

As someone who has worked in automative assembly (I design automation equipment and industrial systems), the "body line" where most of the "aluminum handling/assembly/welding" is typically highly automated (> 95% by time). This is true of Tesla now I think (https://electrek.co/2018/06/08/tesla-model-3-body-line/) and very much true of several of the big name automotive manufacturers that I have had the occasion to work with.

Again, it is difficult for me to make broad generalizations of Tesla's manufacturing situation. Mr. Musk has indicated some "over-automation" issues (a pretty classic amateur manufacturing mistake). The "tent" thing was strange, but I think it was a necessary evil likely in terms of the lack of capacity planning at the get-go. So Tesla did what it needed to.

If I were Tesla, I would take a serious look at quality over production volume (not implying that they are neglecting quality). Mandatory recalls and serious/safety quality issues in terms of consumer perception can bite much harder than just meeting a 5,000/week production volume.

F-150s are fully aluminum and they do pretty well turning those around.

Yep, but do they do the labor-intensive stuff in the plant that does final assembly? Given that it converted from steel to aluminum in a couple of steps (initially, just the hood was aluminum) and stayed at the same volume, I'd guess "no way".

It's much-discussed in the industry.[1] Tesla Fremont is running 3 shifts, 7 days, to get about 3500 cars a week out the door.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2018/05/01/no-way-t...

Except that their current production rate, according to your previous Bloomberg link and the well-known and little-changing S and X numbers, is 5,500/week.

Just one day later, and the Bloomberg estimate is 4,330 Model 3's per week, plus the usual 2,000 S/X. Good timing for getting a pessimistic comment in.

It’s easy for me to imagine. All attention is on the Model 3. You see a figure like “3,500 cars/week” and it’s easy to assume that’s everything they’re making, and forget they have two other models. Of course, this becomes less believable if it persists after correction....