I think they imagined themselves too much like Apple and it's attempts at automating it's production of the Mac. However, they forgot that by this point Apple/SJ had already figured out a lot of how to do assembly of computers quickly and automating a good process is much easier than figuring out a process that'll be automated.
Prior to this automation everything was done semi-manually for Model S and Model X, with huge delays, so automating whatever they had was not the next logical step. It was short sighted of them to go to automation first and it's frankly causing unneeded delays to delivering the Model 3s and volatility in the market.
They basically have a tent erected in the Nevada desert, next to their stalled plant, where they are hand-assembling cars now, which is causing all kinds of quality issues [1].
Honestly, the buyout from VW would have solved this issue because VW knows how to build cars at scale [2]. The fact they shot this down is exactly that - hubris - and now they're burning through the last of their cash reserves on their way to bankruptcy.
[1] https://jalopnik.com/bumper-falls-off-brand-new-tesla-model-...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/public-bravado-private-doubts-h...
Or had they done it the right way like BMW did with the i3.
Source:
BMW i3 Teardown: An Electronics Masterpiece: http://www.techinsights.com/teardown.com/bmw-i3-teardown-ele...
Tearing Down the Model T of Our Time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDr4L6BzpP8
(both are about the same teardown by Munro & Associates)
The i3 one might be technically interesting, but the car was never intended to be produced in volume so it's just a nice niche thing.
It's a proof of concept, and a way to test the market before really committing to sustained production of electric cars. BMW could produce other electric cars in volume if they decide the market is viable.
In the bigger scheme of things McLaren sell roughly as many cars as BMW sell i3s, i.e. a rounding error in global auto sales.
McLaren got there first in making carbon fibre tub a road going reality, for the super-rich, just as they did on the track in the world of F1 almost four decades ago.
The i3 costs about as much as the brakes on a McLaren. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just an odd comparison to make.
If you're looking for a way to attenuate somebody's enthusiasm about BMW's amazing, relatively cheap carbon fiber process, it's that BMW is publicly downplaying its importance in favor of aluminum. That's either about production costs or about complicated problems of meeting passenger car safety standards with carbon fiber, depending on who you talk to...
> McLaren got there first in making carbon fibre tub a road going reality
The i3 is actually a carbon fiber body-on-frame design relying on aluminum. It's wild, but definitely not something McLaren would want to use for a 700-hp sports car.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3#Marketing_and_sales [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nargessbanks/2018/05/29/mclaren...
Meanwhile, every review about the Model 3 (LR and Performance) shows that the 3 series and the M3 don't appeal much. And the Model Y will be shown in a few months to compete head to head with the BMW X3 and X5 in a few months.
A better comparison might be Toyota, though, when it comes to innovating on manufacturing. One of the things you'd really want to hear from Tesla is why a given part of the assembly line differs from established best practices, and that sort of explanation is something you never really hear from them. You do hear things like "oh, yeah, we just got rid of that stupid, fantastically expensive automatic conveyor belt system and replaced it with something simpler," and if you read the histories you know that Toyota and others retreated from systems similar to that in years past for similar reasons.
Maybe if Tesla fails (or succeeds wildly, has a IPO and many people cash out and take jobs at more established car makers) we'll get to hear the stories behind these sorts of decisions.
However, the issues that Tesla has with production aren't because their cars are electric. It's because they are bad at building cars compared to GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc.
Toyota could be making a lot of Model S's per week and Tesla would struggle to produce 10k Prius's a week.
Then, why don't they? It's a lucrative segment that creates lots of goodwill and free publicity.
They don't because they can't. Everyone assumes automakers will easily catch up to the lead that Tesla holds. I don't think it's all that easy.
Tesla has at least a six year lead on everyone else. The Model S came out in 2012, established brands are coming out with S competitors in 2018-2020. It will take time for them to scale production so that mid-range segments are profitable. Don't expect to see model 3 competitors in the next five years (no prototypes, so design hasn't even started).
The single exception is Renault-Nissan. They have the know-how and are already in the market in relevant numbers.
Because the customers won't turn up, they aren't turning up for the bolt either. And say whatever about external looks, I don't believe that's why customers aren't turning up. It's the futuristic hype of Tesla and Elon musk, which is why he must harp on about autonomous cars which can go coast to coast in summon mode, or taking over manufacturing with alien dreadnaught. It is all a hype factory to keep up the high tech image, while the truth remains far from that image.
Also, the Chevy Bolt is a model 3 competitor and you can buy one today.