Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Businesses Transportation

'A Lot of Hoped-for Automation Was Counterproductive', Remembers Elon Musk (bloomberg.com) 208

Posted by EditorDavid from the bad-robots dept.
Thursday Elon Musk gave a surprisingly candid interview about Tesla's massive push to increase production of Model 3 sedans to 5,000 a week. An anonymous reader quotes Musk's remarks to Bloomberg: I spent almost the entire time in the factory the final week, and yeah, it was essentially three months with a tiny break of like one day that I wasn't there. I was wearing the same clothes for five days. Yeah, it was really intense. And everybody else was really intense, too... I think we had to prove that we could make 5,000 cars in a week -- 5,000 Model 3s and at the same time make 2,000 S and X's, so essentially show that we could make 7,000 cars. We had to prove ourselves. The number of people who thought we would actually make it is very tiny, like vanishingly small. There was suddenly the credibility of the company, my credibility, you know, the credibility of the whole team. It was like, "Can you actually do this or not?"

There were a lot of issues that we had to address in order to do it. You know, we had to create the new general assembly line in basically less than a month -- to create it and get to an excess of a 1,000-cars-a-week rate in like four weeks... A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell...? A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out. When the robot faults out -- like the vision system can't figure out how to put the object in -- then you've got to reset the system. You've got to manually seat the components. It stops the whole production line while you sort out why the robot faults out.
When the interviewer asks why that happens, Musk replies, "Because we were huge idiots and didn't know what we were doing. That's why."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'A Lot of Hoped-for Automation Was Counterproductive', Remembers Elon Musk More

'A Lot of Hoped-for Automation Was Counterproductive', Remembers Elon Musk

Comments Filter:

  • best way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @03:38AM (#56950286) Journal
    For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works. That is, a human assembly line (or a mix like all factories have these days). Then instead of redesigning the whole thing from scratch, replace one humn component at a time. Then you have minimal risk. (That may notbe the best way to do it, but it is a way that works)

    • Re:best way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, 2018 @04:05AM (#56950350)

      Nothing particularly wrong with automation. I deal with it all the time, but my production is predictable, has accumulation to deal for errors and gives me a lot of balance. I find automation that starts to deal with vision systems where things completely fall apart. I've yet to find a "good" vision system, they're all pretty primitive, even for quality control, but if you allow for errors, you can develop things to mitigate the inherit problems with it.

      I don't know what Tesla's automation has or what particular situation they have, but I'm sure they have good people trying to think of new ways to automate things. But I do run into a lot of designers trying to eliminate any type of accumulation system (Because it takes up a lot of space) and then utterly fail because of low tolerances in the system. Human error translates into computer systems multiplied by a huge factor.

      • The problem is that automation works really well when the processes are established or the variance to an established process is minor. For example, automating the creation of Lego blocks for Lego is probably pretty easy. Automating a new sky blue variant of an existing block is even easier. A competitor automating a brand new line of toys that compete with Lego blocks is vastly more difficult.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 )

      For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works.....

      But I've been told that because Musk could land a rocket booster, he was absolutely going to be able revolutionize the car assembly line. It perfect logic, right?

      The problem for Musk isn't that he's had to change his approach, the problem is that he now requires more assembly lines and labor than he planned, therefore production costs will remain higher than planned.

      • But I've been told that because Musk could land a rocket booster, he was absolutely going to be able revolutionize the car assembly line. It perfect logic, right?

        It is perfect logic. You have to be able to take risks and try something new to achieve a new outcome. Ford did it too 90 years ago. Unfortunately innovation in the entire industry died in the 70s in favour of incremental engineering improvements.

        • So now your logic is.......because he takes risks he will revolutionize the car assembly line?

          Not working very well.

          • Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.

            But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.

            • Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.

              But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.

              So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production. To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem. He now uses more production lines than planned to produce the same amount of vehicles and he's caused delays that could have been avoided by using proven methods.

              You know who hasn't made any advancement over well establish production capability....Musk, whose assembly line doesn't appear to be any improvement at all.

              The auto industry has steadily impr

              • So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production.

                It si revolutionary to take risks in the auto industry. If you were expecting a positive result with every risk then that is you incorrectly reading into what other people have said.

                To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem.

                Yeah I know. It made him a billionaire who successfully started multiple companies that have completed upsended their respective industries. He should have just bought a factory, employed 100 union fitters and cranked out ICE cars. That would be MUCH better. /sarcasm.

                Not every risk needs to be perfectly successful for the proces

                • Having fun parsing? How about making a cohesive point instead, like I did.

                  "it is revolution to take risks in the auto industry". What a laugh. Again, his risks in 'revolutionary' manufacturing have not resulted in any improvements at all. His production numbers are based on creating extra lines to make up for the under performance of the initial one, and also on working massive numbers of people 24/7 just to eek out numbers that he was supposed to hit months ago. And nobody ever said you couldn't build a
    • From TFS;

      ................. A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out. When the robot faults out -- like the vision system can't figure out how to put the object in -- then you've got to reset the system. You've got to manually seat the components. It stops the whole production line while you sort out why the robot faults out.

      That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.

      I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.

      • Re:best way to do it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SWPadnos ( 191329 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @08:42AM (#56951012)

        From TFS;

        That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.

        Well, yes and no. Assembly lines are tuned so that you produce the correct quantity of each item in the same amount of time it takes to complete the "full product". It's called Takt time. There are just over 10,000 minutes in a week, so the production goal of 5,000 cars per week requires a new Model 3 to roll off the line every 2 minutes.

        Let's say they're building the battery packs as part of the assembly line, and it takes 60 minutes to build each pack. Just for grins, let's assume that it takes 10 minutes to install that battery pack. This implies that you need 6x as many battery assembly stations (or sub-assembly lines) to make batteries as you need battery installation stations.

        If you have a robot installing batteries, and that robot fails, then you want to stop making batteries before you fill up all the available space with battery packs you can't use (because you can't install them). Similarly, you no longer have chassis with batteries to move further down the line, so anything after the battery installation has to stop, at least for that line.

        There is slack in the process - it might be 59:30 to build the packs or 9:18 to install them, and there would likely be some parts storage as well, so the line could whether an employee going to the bathroom or something. It couldn't whether a continuous failure or a permanent change in process time (ie, it may take a human 13 minutes to install the pack and inspect their work).

        Most assembly lines work this way. The more slack you have, the less efficient your line is (because you have all this extra time ...). The less slack you have, the less you can tolerate a fault.

        I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.

        I'd bet most of the lost money is whatever was spent on programming the units, and the lost opportunity cost for both the hardware and its configuration. The robots themselves are likely still usable, but they'll need to refine how they're used in order to recoup that investment.

        • Re: best way to do it (Score:4)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @11:25AM (#56951736)
          Also most automation is designed to handle a small number of faults because if a well tuned process produces only a small number. For large number of faults, it is hard to deal with automation or not. For example the famous Lucille Ball skit where she and her friend are working on a chocolate candy assembly line. At first she and her friend can deal with the mounting issues but as they start piling she resorts to eating the chocolate.

        • Re:best way to do it (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @12:45PM (#56952148)

          This slack time is a serious consideration as you get toward the tail of a production line. A mile-long production line is a hugely complex dependency chain. Each of the hundreds of individual steps might have 99% uptime, but since each depends on the next the real uptime is 50%.

          Case in point: my father worked in the packaging/shipping area of an auto glass manufacturer. When the line had a problem he could go an entire shift or even two (with overtime!) with nothing to do. When things were running right, he could barely keep up.

          The former was much more common than the latter.

          • As robots become smarter and more versatile, will we start so see shorter, slower production lines in which machines do more things at each step?

            Having multiple shorter lines would make logistics much easier. Failures would be localized. And production could be distributed nearer to markets.

            The idea of a machine (the production line) pushing out something as complex as a car every couple of minutes boggles the mind. The number of things that could go wrong is huge. It is not surprising that it sometimes

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by delt0r ( 999393 )
          What you need is buffer chests.. But fan of buffer chest in Factori... oh wait. This is Real life, never mind.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 )

          Slight correction to your math- the 5000 goal was for all lines, and they had multiple lines. So they may have only needed one off a single line every 6-10 minutes.

          Also, another way to add in slack is redundancy. If you need 6 battery assembly stations, build 7. That way 1 can be down at any time without slowing the line. That costs extra equipment, but in addition to fault tolerance it allows routine maintenance while the line is on.

      • Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?

        What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?

        • Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?

          What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?

          Hmm, possibly a backup system, or a manual control to keep things going. Its not so much a brief stop in production, but as explained a complete reset of many items just due to one fault.

          • What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.

            • What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.

              Wow , sounds complicated. I wonder how other manufacturers keep their lines running. They must have geniuses.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by pnutjam ( 523990 )
            I've heard this is one of the things that killed GM in the 70's. Their line would never stop and they would "try" to intercept bad builds at the end and fix them.

            Toyota rolled in and had a clear policy that anyone could and should stop the line if something went wrong.

            If you want to hear more: https://www.thisamericanlife.o... [thisamericanlife.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nnull ( 1148259 )

        There's a major push in the industry to build such designs. Lack of fault tolerance approaches like building accumulators or other error mitigation systems ends up eating a lot of floor space which to a lot of people buying machines don't like. However, most people don't understand that these mitigation techniques is what allows for increased production speed and allows for human error. From the looks of it, Tesla doesn't have enough floor space, so it doesn't surprise me they're trying to build a system wi

        • Agree there is a balance that makes sense. Needed to do a complete line reset after one fault seems extreme though. Fault tolerance is not limited to 'keep going' but can also be 'quick recovery'.

    • For a large automation project like this, it's better to start with something you know works.

      You're talking about a company that prides itself on technology and cutting edge, not bogged down by unions or 100 years of history. Honestly it's better for new blood to push the boundaries rather than playing it safe. It didn't work in this case. But if you start with something you know works then Musk's companies would be pushing ICE cars and super expensive rockets that can't be reused since after all everyone said that doesn't work.

    • Yes. But to paraphrase Ford, you'll end up with a better horse, not with a car.

  • So Musk Admits... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, 2018 @04:15AM (#56950368)

    I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

    • at least he did it quicker than 120 years

      • Except he hasn't caught up to where every other auto manufacturing is, much less an industry leader like Toyota.

        • Re: So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jiriw ( 444695 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @10:34AM (#56951480) Homepage

          Then he still has a 100 years to make up for it, doesn't he?

          I jest. No-one will deny Musk isn't stubbornly trying to partly redo what the big car manufacturers already can do while sleeping. It's the other parts those big boys, also stubbornly, refuse to do that he tries to make a viable business from. Most EVs from other manufacturers are either 'show productions' with limited numbers or have known horrible flaws baked in (especially in battery degradation) from the start. I'd thank Musk for his tries to do it right (not saying he does already, but he's damned well trying) and I admire him for doing it in grand style.

          If I had a drivers license* and enough money to spare for a car, I'd buy a Tesla. Like I bought a Ryzen the moment they were released. I like to put my money in the camp that tries and manages to make at least a decent product over those that sit on their butts and make money while sleeping.

          (*By the way, I don't have a drivers license because I never had the need to - my job is a decent bike ride away - the exercise keeps me healthy, and we have proper public transport where I live.)

    • Re:So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DeBaas ( 470886 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @05:23AM (#56950506) Homepage

      Well I would choose the 'let's try something ambitious and if it doesn't work just admit and stop doing it' over the trillion dollar corporate method of 'very small, committee stamped and approved, steps towards innovation' any day.
      But admittedly, I am a fanboy...

      • Re:So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @08:23AM (#56950926) Journal

        I'm not a fanboy but I'm still impressed at how well Musk gets this stuff working. They met their target, no-one thought they would, I was pretty sceptical myself.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jimbo ( 1370 )

          Not only that but he's brutally honest about mistakes and takes responsibility. How often do we see that in any industry?! He's an engineer and communicates openly and honestly like so many engineers I've worked with, as opposed to the career management people/CEOs that was typically full of hot air.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by delt0r ( 999393 )
          I think his strength is to pick the right people. He mostly doesn't do it himself. But rinse and repeat, he has pulled things like this off more than a few times now.

      • Re:So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by raftpeople ( 844215 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @11:51AM (#56951878)
        He thinks he is going to out-Toyota Toyota. If you think Toyota's approach is 'very small, committee stamped and approved, steps towards innovation' then I would encourage you to read up on the history and workings of Toyota's systems, it's pretty impressive. They were smart, from top down, no Dilbert Pointy Haired Boss stuff but rather thoughtful systems designed and tuned over the years.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DeBaas ( 470886 )

          I am actually quite familiar with the Toyota way. It is very impressive and it's impact on quality is one of the reasons I'm happy with my own Toyota. It's got over 200000 Km and I have never spent more than the official planned maintenance costs, no 'surprises'.

          I do fail to see however why you think he thought he was going to out-Toyota Toyota? Of the traditional car manufacturers Toyota certainly is an exception in it's management/quality approach as well as innovation (they championed hybrid tech when n

      • Well I would choose the 'let's try something ambitious and if it doesn't work just admit and stop doing it'

        Using somebody else's money? Of course I would - who wouldn't?

        Something ambitious might involve cheerleaders, sheep and a jacuzzi full of Theakston's, mind.

        • Fun fact - Musk was a primary investor in Tesla when no one else would invest - using money he *personally borrowed* (after having already put literally all of his money in the company). When he ran out of investor money, he used his own. When he ran out of money, he borrowed money to invest.

          Say what you want about him - he believes in what he is working on. He put his money where his mouth is in a *very* real way.

    • Re: So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Sunday July 15, 2018 @06:03AM (#56950536)

      They are smarter. Also smart enough to admit when they've gone down a wrong path and need to retract.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

      His willingness to question industry doctrines is the reason why he is rich and successful.

      • Re: So Musk Admits... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        happening to cash out of the dot-com bubble at the right time is why he is rich

      • His willingness to question industry doctrines is the reason why he is rich and successful.

        No, he's rich because Paypal took off like gangbusters. SpaceX is successful because a series of government contracts kept him afloat long enough to question industry doctrine. (It's not clear that anyone is getting rich off of SpaceX.) Tesla is successful (to an extent) because a set of government loans got him off the ground, and tax credits increased the attractiveness of his products. Nobody is getting rich of

    • Re:So Musk Admits... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bgarcia ( 33222 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @08:35AM (#56950982) Homepage Journal
      Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?

      • Outside of the luxury market, that's still largely the case. Even the "mainstream" Model 3 is selling for almost twice its projected price, and Tesla still wants to make more expensive luxury versions so they don't have to sell at a loss.

        Middle-class electric cars are still not a profitable market. Tesla can survive on the wow factor among the BMW/Mercedes crowd, but they won't magically overtake a mature, trillion-dollar industry with 120 years of experience.

      • Ironically 120 years ago their cars were electric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • No, they said it was impossible to do it profitably. And look at Tesla's losses, they couldn't even make a profit on 100k cars that had the interiors of 10k cars.

    • Or making a rocket better than a 60 year old government agency with a budget a not-so-insignificant percentage of GDP? The mode of thinking that another more experienced company or organization would have accomplished something were it feasible is valid until someone else tries. I am however also a fanboy (though as of late he seems to be Hughes-ing himself).

    • It is pretty weird that Tesla and GM have the same market capitalization - about $55 billion. Tesla has a lot of potential, but it seems most of it is already in the stock price.

    • I think only Musk and his fanboys believed that they were smarter than the countless production engineers in 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry.

      Indeed. I mean they were smarter than the 50 year old space industry. They were smarter than the 200 year old banking industry. They were smarter than the 120 year old auto industry. ... Wait what? Oh yeah that's right they gave the entire industry a kick in the balls regardless of the fact that they had some failures in automation.

      I never fail because I never try. Therefore I am the best at absolutely everything I ever do.

  • The most popular EVs sell around 20k units *per year*. Once they've worked through all the hype-driven backorders I see no reason to think Teslas will sell an order of magnitude more, especially if they never manage to get the price down to """only""" $35k.

  • It starts in the design phase. When you design your "Object"(automobile for example) without certain constraints an automation unit can easily work within - then it needs manual labour because "HI" can adapt easily - or try your luck with CV Systems. However computer 3D-Vision is much more complex and error prone in contrast to for example state of the art 2D-Vision systems where you can really high speed place & sort and do things.

    I think it's good that Elon Musk is true about that fact - we didnt know

    • Re:Automation does not start in production phase. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Corbets ( 169101 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @06:39AM (#56950608) Homepage

      Ironically, that character flaw is also what has allowed him to succeed in breaking into markets the world thought he could never enter (upsetting established auto manufacturers with a tech electric startup, reusable rockets stealing market share from the Lockheeds of the world).

      So maybe we ought to write it as “flaw” with the quotes instead.

    • It just means we have to wait for Musk to learn the lessons on his own.

    • From all information I have on Elon Musk, my picture of him tells me that has the same problem as Trump. He is impervious to counciling from people that actually know better and are more "earthbound".

      I highly suggest dispensing with the notion that you're at all good at analysing people: it's very clear from Musk's [success in a wide variety of endeavours] that we're looking at someone more than capable of delegating... and that runs entirely contrary to your above theory.

    • Re: character flaw, calling the diver in the Thailand rescue a pedophile this morning lends credence to the fact that he doesn't listen to his large investors, let alone those related to development of the company's product.

      https://twitter.com/MidwestHed... [twitter.com]
      https://twitter.com/TeslaChart... [twitter.com]

      A while back Baillie clearly told him to shut up with the unprofessional tweeting and focus on the work. And it seems they're not alone. The other large funds are clearly spooked by the balance sheet, product defects and

  • Well shit. Guess we can stop working on the song about how great it was going to all be. Just as well, we only had the first bit...

    Come with me, and you'll be... in a world of Tesla Automation!

    • Come with me
      And you'll be
      In a world of Tesla Automation

      Take a look
      And you'll see
      Tesla Automation

      We'll begin
      With a spin
      Traveling in
      The world of Musks' creation

      What we'll see
      Will defy
      Explanation

      If you want to view paradise
      Simply look around and view it
      Anything you want to, do it
      Want to change the world?
      There's nothing to it

      There is no
      Life I know
      To compare with pure automation

      Living there
      You'll be free
      If you truly wish to be
      If you want to see Martian lands

      Close your eyes and you will see one
      Want to be a dreame

  • How many vehicles can other auto manufacturers produce in one week? I would have through their volume is more than 13,009 (7,000 + 5,000)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      That would depend on the price range and brand of vehicle? What other brands are making a product range at that quality and price?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Big Nemo '60 ( 749108 )

      Many years ago (keep this in mind - things may have changed) I worked at an European company, designing and building production plants for the automotive industry, especially for the body shops.

      A typical production line for European mid-sized cars had a theoretical capacity of fifty (50) car bodies per hour - that would be at 100% efficiency, actual yeld was lower but not much. A typical production facility for non-premium class cars had two production lines running in parallel on two eight-hour shifts per

    • How many vehicles can other auto manufacturers produce in one week?

      How many production lines do they have?

      How many years of investment and plowing-revenue-into-building-or-buying-production-capaity did they spend to get to that point?

      5000 cars/month is about 8 2/3 minutes per car. That's if you run your lines three shifts, 7 days a week, and they NEVER STOP. With 5-day weeks it's about 6 minutes between cars (and thus per-station on a line), with two shifts it's 4, with one shift it's 2, with coffee break

      • 5,000 a WEEK, not a MONTH. Let's try that again:

        2 min and a shaved second between cars. That's running flat out 24/7. No coffee breaks, no shift change, no stop-the-line-for-an-oopsie. (Easy to see why he needed more than one line.)

        A target of 5,000 cars a WEEK this early in the company's history? And they HIT it? I'm FLOORED!

  • "Because we were huge idiots and didn't know what we were doing. That's why."

    Just like with Boring Co, Solar City, etc? Nothing but distributing tax money to your family members, eh, Musk?

  • Lessons GM learned in the 80s (Score:3)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @08:56AM (#56951084)

    = = = A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell...? A whole bunch of the robots are turned off, and it was reverted to a manual station because the robots kept faulting out = = =

    How could Musk have possibly known that would happen? Just because he was operating in a factory he bought from GM, which went through the exact same process in the 1980s and the failures of excess automation in the assembly process were well documented in both the trade press and business press? No One Could Have Anticipated(tm).

    Sometimes the people who have been doing something for 120 years are hidebound. And sometimes they really do know what they are doing.

    [IMHO the stock market has done Telsa a real disservice by bidding up the stock price beyond reasonable levels. At the time Ford needed the cash it received from selling Land Rover and Jaguar, but now it really needs a new luxury division. Tesla would make an excellent division of Ford - but at the stock price that can't happen]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There would be no progress if you just replicated what other companies had done in the past.

      New products made with new processes require you to not listen to the experienced people at some point. It's extremely difficult to tell when you need to listen and when you need to ignore. Tesla made a mistake here, but the mistake was definitely not that they were ignoring some of what GM had done previously, it's that they made a bad choice on which things to ignore and which not to ignore. They had to ignore some

  • A lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive. It's not like we knew it would be bad, because why would we buy a ticket to hell? We don't actually want to go for hell. We just didn't realize it was a ticket to hell. We thought it would be good, but it was not good.

    I read that I could think of countless situations on company projects where you could replace "automation" in the above sentence with a third party library, or some super complex internally developed framework that was supposed to cure

  • It may seem ironic but I'll give credit to Elon Musk for saying "We were huge idiots" (emphasis mine) where he could have said 'THEY (my employees) were huge idiots'. He's part of the team, he's taking responsibility for failures as quickly as he takes responsibility for successes; this is a trait that in my perception is all to uncommon these last few decades.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Very much so. Only those that can admit personal failures can improve. The more accurately, the better. In this egocentric age in the west, this quality has indeed become rare, and even much more so in the "leaders". This is probably the single key factor for his success.

  • As a future M3 owner, it concerns me that Elon would admit that he was a "huge idiot" to rely on automation at a time when his company is selling a product that promises to use similar tech for self-driving, If Tesla can't even get their robot's vision system to recognize parts and where to put them in a controlled environment, what are their chances of getting their cars to recognize objects out on on the road and act accordingly?

    • As a future M3 owner, it concerns me that Elon would admit that he was a "huge idiot" to rely on automation

      He didn't say they were huge idiots in relying on automation. They still use automation in a number of places in production.

      He was saying they were "huge idiots" generally in designing the whole manufacturing process, which they obviously had to re-work quite a bit. Automation is only one small part of that, simple logistics in moving things around another... all had to be re-jiggered it turns out.

      Re

  • This is what happens when people try to do something new. It is called Research and Development, and it happens on -every- project to some extent. Whether it is planned that way or not...

    What is different is telling the truth, which has become quite rare in recent decades. Partly because the "Internet" seems to require lies.

    If you punish those who say "I was wrong" ot "I don't know", then you will end up buying from the liars. Good luck with that. 8-}

  • "Because we were huge idiots..." (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday July 15, 2018 @12:31PM (#56952074)

    And that is why Musk is successful. He may only be a mediocre engineer, but he is not only able to learn, he is able to be brutally honest with himself and that puts him far ahead of the crowd.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close