Bloomberg Model 3 tracker shows production crashing below 1000/week

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Your main aim seems to be to annoy. Fortunately, even that seems to be beyond you. I have never known you reach more than a low level of mild irritation.

Yeah, you amply demonstrated how "little" you care about my comments when you posted no less than 57 (not a typo; fifty-seven) posts to my "How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax" thread here at the InsideEVs forum, including 38 posts by you after I specifically asked you -- twice -- to stop posting there.

Now, on the subject of someone whose objective is to annoy: I think it's quite telling that of the many screen names you used at TheEEStory forum, the first one you chose was "Excoriator".

ex·co·ri·ate
verb

1. formal
   censure or criticize severely.
   "the papers that had been excoriating him were now lauding him"
2. Medicine
   damage or remove part of the surface of (the skin).

That's certainly appropriate for you. You are indeed very abrasive; literally in the first sense of "excoriate" and figuratively in the second! I guess you decided that made your agenda a little too obvious, hmmm? So you changed screen names before long.

* * * * * *

"Teslainvestors likes this"

Well that sums it up quite well, doesn't it? One serial Tesla basher applauding another on a pro-EV forum!
-

 

[Domenick]

"TeslaInvestors likes this"

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? About both of you serial Tesla bashers.
-

Well, not everyone has to be a Tesla fan. It is odd that someone would name themselves with a company which they haven't confidence in, though.

Anyhow, it's always better to focus on the the subject at hand rather than the personalities in the discussion. It's clear we aren't all on the same page, but as long as we present our arguments accurately, we shouldn't waste a lot of energy worrying about other's motives. I have every confidence if we lay out facts cogently, observers will reach an accurate conclusion.

 

[Martin Williams]

I'd rather tear the paper off the wall to expose the cracks than paper over them as you seem to want to do.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

I have every confidence if we lay out facts cogently, observers will reach an accurate conclusion.

That's the traditional view, considered one of the principles of democracy: that the best way to deal with propaganda is to allow it to be exposed, so that everyone can see the lies that it is built on.

Unfortunately, in an era of information warfare and social media psychologically engineered to be addictive, and fake news / propaganda / FUD which has been weaponized -- psychologically engineered -- to push our subconscious buttons, this ideal is increasingly outdated and, in light of modern psychological studies, naive.

A relevant quote:

Truly fake news is the inception layer cake that never stops being baked. Because pouring FUD onto an already polarized debate — and seeking to shift what are by nature shifty sands (after all information, misinformation and disinformation can be relative concepts, depending on your personal perspective/prejudices) — makes it hard for any outsider to nail this gelatinous fakery to the wall.

Why would social media platforms want to participate in this FUDing? Because it’s in their business interests not to be identified as the primary conduit for democracy damaging disinformation.

And because they’re terrified of being regulated on account of the content they serve. They absolutely do not want to be treated as the digital equivalents to traditional media outlets.

But the stakes are high indeed when democracy and the rule of law are on the line. And by failing to be pro-active about the existential threat posed by digitally accelerated disinformation, social media platforms have unwittingly made the case for external regulation of their global information-shaping and distribution platforms louder and more compelling than ever.
​

Full article: "Fake news is an existential crisis for social media"

​

 

[Martin Williams]

I am all for a dispassionate discussion. Personal obsessions and insults are not helpful. Attack points made rather than the people making them.

 

[Domenick]

That's the traditional view, considered one of the principles of democracy: that the best way to deal with propaganda is to allow it to be exposed, so that everyone can see the lies that it is built on.

Unfortunately, in an era of information warfare and social media psychologically engineered to be addictive, and fake news / propaganda / FUD which has been weaponized -- psychologically engineered -- to push our subconscious buttons, this ideal is increasingly outdated and, in light of modern psychological studies, naive.

A relevant quote:

Truly fake news is the inception layer cake that never stops being baked. Because pouring FUD onto an already polarized debate — and seeking to shift what are by nature shifty sands (after all information, misinformation and disinformation can be relative concepts, depending on your personal perspective/prejudices) — makes it hard for any outsider to nail this gelatinous fakery to the wall.

Why would social media platforms want to participate in this FUDing? Because it’s in their business interests not to be identified as the primary conduit for democracy damaging disinformation.

And because they’re terrified of being regulated on account of the content they serve. They absolutely do not want to be treated as the digital equivalents to traditional media outlets.

But the stakes are high indeed when democracy and the rule of law are on the line. And by failing to be pro-active about the existential threat posed by digitally accelerated disinformation, social media platforms have unwittingly made the case for external regulation of their global information-shaping and distribution platforms louder and more compelling than ever.
​

Full article: "Fake news is an existential crisis for social media"

​

I get all that, but without evidence to say unquestionably whether any particular person has a hidden agenda, it remains hearsay, and if untrue is unhelpful in our conversation.

That's one of the difficulties in communicating indirectly over the internet: we can't read body language, like we traditionally might, to help us gauge a person's true intentions.

 

[Martin Williams]

I don't think you need to worry about hidden agendas or true intentions unless you have one of your own that may be under threat.

The object, surely, is to get a clear picture of the facts, and the best way I know of doing this is for both sides to examine statements made by others if they appear flawed. There is no need for abuse or jeering or cheerleading. Just a civilised discussion that allows anyone to make any point they like and have it examined and perhaps destroyed or agreed with by others. No need for anyone to be offensive or to take offence at being proved wrong.

We can all learn from this, and gain something about how to agree to disagree without rancour.

 

[WadeTyhon]

I get all that, but without evidence to say unquestionably whether any particular person has a hidden agenda, it remains hearsay, and if untrue is unhelpful in our conversation.

That's one of the difficulties in communicating indirectly over the internet: we can't read body language, like we traditionally might, to help us gauge a person's true intentions.

I'm with Pushy. I can disagree with people that are honest in their positions.

When confronted with being wrong, Martin deflects, denies culpability, ignores, changes the subject, takes jabs at Tesla and repeats the lie again a day or two later.

I tried to give him an honest assessment of the bloomberg tracker, weighing the pro's and cons of their system... a subject he seemingly wanted to talk about. He ignored everything I posted and followed it up with:

WadeTyhon said: ↑
But it isn't particularly useful as a real time estimator.

Neither is Mr Musk, evidently!

That's it? That's his entire response to me taking the time to speak with him on the topic that he started? Every time I try to talk with him he does basically the same thing. If it was a one time thing, fine... but it's every single time I talk to him. Why would I waste my time talking to him?

There are literally dozens of instances where he is proven wrong in his initial post about random EV-related topic. He then primarily ignores anyone's response unless it serves his purpose. At best he uses a persons response to pivots to whatever topic it is that he really wants to cram down people's throats. Such as a) EVs suck b) Tesla's suck c) HFCV are huge successes and EVs are total failures d) people are too smart to fall for BEVs etc etc. What the heck is he doing on an EV forum if he hates them so much?

Talking to people like this is nothing but a time sink. He doesn't actually want to know what any of us thinks and we should stop engaging with him. When I come to the forum all I see are the same lies posted by Martin or 101101 and see the same people arguing with them over and over about the same topics endlessly... it's depressing and discourages meaningful discussion.

Honest people get tired of dealing with intellectually dishonest people. They can have the forum if they want it so bad. Change it from the Inside EVs forum to the Honda Clarity and FCEV forum and get it over with.

 

[David Green]

I'm with Pushy. I can disagree with people that are honest in their positions.

When confronted with being wrong, Martin deflects, denies culpability, ignores, changes the subject, takes jabs at Tesla and repeats the lie again a day or two later.

I tried to give him an honest assessment of the bloomberg tracker, weighing the pro's and cons of their system... a subject he seemingly wanted to talk about. He ignored everything I posted and followed it up with:



That's it? That's his entire response to me taking the time to speak with him on the topic that he started? Every time I try to talk with him he does basically the same thing. If it was a one time thing, fine... but it's every single time I talk to him. Why would I waste my time talking to him?

There are literally dozens of instances where he is proven wrong in his initial post about random EV-related topic. He then primarily ignores anyone's response unless it serves his purpose. At best he uses a persons response to pivots to whatever topic it is that he really wants to cram down people's throats. Such as a) EVs suck b) Tesla's suck c) HFCV are huge successes and EVs are total failures d) people are too smart to fall for BEVs etc etc. What the heck is he doing on an EV forum if he hates them so much?

Talking to people like this is nothing but a time sink. He doesn't actually want to know what any of us thinks and we should stop engaging with him. When I come to the forum all I see are the same lies posted by Martin or 101101 and see the same people arguing with them over and over about the same topics endlessly... it's depressing and discourages meaningful discussion.

Honest people get tired of dealing with intellectually dishonest people. They can have the forum if they want it so bad. Change it from the Inside EVs forum to the Honda Clarity and FCEV forum and get it over with.

I agree with the point of what you are saying 100%, but the problem is there are some people on this forum of which 101101, and Pushmi-Pullyu are not in touch with reality... I think the site needs some moderation in certain areas to keep conversations from descending into chaos. I am not going to spend my time here if everything I post is attacked. If you look that the progression of conversation on the Jaguar I-Pace board where I compared the size of the Model X to the I-Pace. I posted scaled section images of the two vehicles from all angles for direct comparison, but Pushmi-Pullyu came in (posts an angled photo that is cropped from a video) and just start ripping me for being FUD, Tesla Hater, etc... I have better things to do with my time then field personal attacks on an EV blog back and forth with a guy that just wants to argue and is not using facts. Domenick, if you are the moderator here, you need to watch over this, so the site is a place people can have peaceful discussion, and at times some debate, but stay on subject.. Name calling and personal attacks are not needed, nor productive. Also your boards should be for the people interested in the title and not just randomly going around causing trouble. There are many people here who are far separated from reality and have a hard time sticking to the facts. For example Pushmi-Pullyu does not like the Jaguar I-Pace, so stay out of the I-Pace board, because if you go there you are just looking for trouble. Likewise, I like I-Pace, you do not see me post anywhere near the Model X board... Some maturity would be nice!!! And Pushmi-Pullyu, your attacking comments can be seen all over this board escalating discussions, You could help all of us if you just stick to the topic and refrain from insulting people as that just escalates the chaos.

 

[bwilson4web]

Perspective:

The ignore user function works great. There is no need to waste time with the corrupt and ignorant. Fortunately, we have enough enlightened posters to make it worth while.

If you really want to be frustrated, visit USENET.

Bob Wilson

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

bwilson4web said: "Perspective:"

Hey! How did you find that picture of me?
-

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

I agree with the point of what you are saying 100%, but the problem is there are some people on this forum of which 101101, and Pushmi-Pullyu are not in touch with reality...

Perhaps you would care to give an example of any statement or comment of mine which you think shows, in whole or in part, a disconnect from reality.

Really, I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm genuinely curious.
-

 

[David Green]

Perhaps you would care to give an example of any comment of mine which you think shows a disconnect from reality.

Really, I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm genuinely curious.
-

Go read the I-Pace board, I-Pace size compared to Model X, read the entire conversation from all parties, and you might realize how out of line you were. Remember, you came to the I-Pace board to attack... If you do not like the car, don't come to the board... Its Simple...

 

[WadeTyhon]

Perspective:

The ignore user function works great. There is no need to waste time with the corrupt and ignorant. Fortunately, we have enough enlightened posters to make it worth while.

If you really want to be frustrated, visit USENET.

Bob Wilson

a more recent xkcd that is similarly relevant...

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Go read the I-Pace board, I-Pace size compared to Model X, read the entire conversation from all parties, and you might realize how out of line you were. Remember, you came to the I-Pace board to attack... If you do not like the car, don't come to the board... Its Simple...

My first contribution to that thread was merely to post a side-by-side photo of the I-Pace and the Tesla Model X -- which happened to be from a Jaguar publicity event for the I-Pace. That was a follow-up to posts where people were comparing the size of the two cars, but did not include any photos. My caption was:

A picture is worth a thousand words: I-Pace vs. Tesla Model X.

And you responded:

So lets use a real picture...

...which was a caption for a "picture" which was not a real picture. You used the term "graphic comparison" in your first post in that thread, and that's an apt description of what you posted.

Perhaps you didn't intend for your response to come across as belittling my comment and the photo I took the time and effort to find and contribute to the discussion, but that's certainly how it came across to me.

But whether or not you intended to provoke a fight with me in that instance, that's rather irrelevant to my challenge to you: To find any example of where I made a comment that shows a disconnect from reality of the sort that we see in nearly all posts from 101101.

As it is, I submit you owe me an apology.
-

 

[Martin Williams]

Let's get back to the point of this thread. Is Bloomberg as unreliable as Wade claims? Are there better sources of data? Why is there such a difference between monthly sales and monthly production?

 

[TeslaInvestors]

Let's get back to the point of this thread. Is Bloomberg as unreliable as Wade claims? Are there better sources of data? Why is there such a difference between monthly sales and monthly production?

Yes, Bloomberg is not too accurate week by week. but it is a godo smoothed out function. It can also be misled by huger VIN registration,s, which may or may not be produced in the near future.

 

[bwilson4web]

Since GM has decided to post quarterly sales, I wonder if the same technique might work with them ... as if I cared about the Volt vs Bolt sales. The reason is we once owned a 1981 Chevette which was arguably the worst car ever made in the Yugo class.

Bob Wilson

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Why is there such a difference between monthly sales and monthly production?

At least partly, it's because of Tesla's quarterly production cycle. They pull out the stops at the end of every quarter, maximizing deliveries and putting off needed maintenance so they can run the production line as close to 24/7 as they can. As the deadline approaches, Tesla will concentrate production on those orders which are closest to the Fremont plant, for the shortest delivery time.

Then, after they have made every car which can possibly be delivered by the deadline of the end of the month, everybody relaxes, overtime is cancelled, the maintenance which has been put off is performed. Any tweaks which needs to be done to the line over the next quarter are planned. in general, production drops like a rock in the first month of a quarter. Deliveries will be even worse, as Tesla switches from the orders with the shortest delivery times to the ones with the longest of those in the queue. (Not the longest-distance reservations, but the longest distance orders.)

Sometime during the first or second month in a quarter, Tesla is likely to pause production for a week (or even two), to make major changes to the Model 3 production line. Let's remember that they're still trying to ramp up production rapidly, so we can expect such down-time as Tesla continues to speed up the Model 3 assembly line. (Contrary to what some have claimed, there is a separate Model 3 production line in the Fremont plant. There may be certain areas where production is shared with the Model S & Model X, but at least parts of the Model 3 production line are physically separated.)

Tesla also uses batch processing, making many cars in a row with similar options, paint colors, etc. Since different options require different times for assembly, paint drying, and other factors, switching from one set of options to another may speed up or slow down throughput.

All this, taken together, means we should expect that during the first month in a quarter, deliveries will be somewhat lower than production. And it's possible that in the last month of a quarter, deliveries may exceed production, as deliveries come closer to catching up with production than they were in the first two months of that quarter.

Last month was, apparently, a "perfect storm" of several factors making a surprisingly high disparity between Model 3 production and deliveries. In fact, the disparity was so great that several people commenting on the last month's InsideEVs Monthly Plug-in Sales Scorecard article seriously questioned that IEVs got the number right.

See discussion of that particular subject earlier in this very thread.

​

 

[Martin Williams]

OK, well thanks for a clear answer.

Batch processing is a bit old fashioned these days from what an acquaintance who worked until recently in a car plant told me. In his plant, each car starts as an electronic specification of the finished vehicle. In effect it is a box saying "I want to be a black car with leather seats, alloy wheels, with the following options..." As it proceeds through the production process the robots and people interrogate it to see what the chosen option is at that point. Each car can be different in theory anyway, without slowing down production.

In passing, I came across an item describing an agreement between Rolls-Royce and Superdielectrics Ltd. - the company developing supercapacitors with energy densities claimed to be higher than Lithium Ion cells.. From the latter's website

19 March 2018
Rolls-Royce has signed a collaboration agreement with UK-based technology start-up Superdielectrics Ltd to explore the potential of using polymers with recently discovered remarkable properties to create next generation high energy storage technology.

The agreement will see Rolls-Royce combine its world-class material science and technical expertise with Superdielectrics’ novel hydrophilic polymers that have been shown by Superdielectrics Ltd, in partnership with researchers from the Universities of Bristol and Surrey, to have potentially outstanding energy storage properties.

Dr. Dave Smith, Director of Central Technology, Rolls-Royce, said: “We are very pleased to be working with Superdielectrics Ltd at a time of rapidly-evolving developments in the energy storage industry. We bring deep experience of materials technology and advanced applications that require high energy storage capabilities with controllable rates of recovery.

We believe that electrification will play an increasingly important role in many of our markets over the coming years and by working with partners on potential new technologies for energy storage we can ensure that Rolls-Royce is well positioned to take advantage of new developments.”

Jim Heathcote CEO of Superdielectrics Ltd, said: “We are delighted to be working with Rolls-Royce in the global race to develop advanced energy storage systems. This agreement gives us access to their unparalleled scientific and technical expertise. I hope this agreement will ultimately create new jobs and business opportunities in the UK.”

Working with researchers from the Universities of Bristol and Surrey, Superdielectrics Ltd has been developing hydrophilic materials, similar to those originally designed for soft contact lenses, to increase the electricity storage capabilities of capacitors, which store electricity by creating electrostatic fields. These potentially exciting dielectric polymers may provide an opportunity to create capacitors that are able to rival – and even exceed – the storage capacity of traditional rechargeable batteries. The resulting supercapacitors may also be able to charge much faster than existing lithium-ion batteries. The exact terms of the agreement between Rolls-Royce and Superdielectrics remain confidential.

I can't work out whether this is the Aircraft engine bit of Rolls or the car-making bit or both. The last sentence is probably the most intriguing. Perhaps they are planning a capacitor powered roller? I'd still like to see them charging it in two minutes though - from a safe distance of course!