Monro says the chassis was amateur because it should have been lighter and used different material choices and been less complex.
This is contradicted by the following.
1. Amateur's did not work on the model 3. Tesla had its pick of the industry and took advantage of it. The people they chose, to borrow Sandy's language, literally have been mopping the floor with the competition at the high end of the market where the most intensive tech and the most ego is involved. Tesla used that track record and the same people with the Model 3. These same people put even more into the Model 3 as Musk has alluded the Model 3 was the most difficult vehicle Tesla has yet made, more challenging apparently than then X or the Semi. And if it means anything there were certainly a lot of PhDs in the mix from the best schools. Tesla actually did the X 2x because simply grafting onto a generic skate didn't work out.
2. A bad chassis would impact handling even with a good tuner and Munro admits the handling is great.
3. Too much weight would impact range, but Model 3 is class leading and by a very large margin in the higher spec which will only improve with the dual motor- suspect this means we will see updated S and X shortly.
4. The differences are more credibly due as Tesla says to higher safety standards- more tellingly Munro says there is nothing cut rate in the Model 3, but presumably he had to please his normal customers with some sort of token criticism. Also Munro seems to be saying that Tesla should have cut corners on sound deadening gel use- but how when NVH will stand out in quieter electrics?
5. Also contradicting the narrative of a defective or amateur chassis is the motive for suggesting Tesla would have gained from contracting out. You see this is a huge competitive weakness of the ICE makers and they are trying to accuse Tesla of not engaging in their weakness. They are in the silly habit of not really building or designing anything but the obsolete ICE engines or simply picking like some sort of vitamin label builder what will go into a another wise braded but still generic formula of vitamins. It is the ICE makers who have drifted from their craft where Tesla has been doing from-the-ground-up work, the kind of work that would appeal to an artist and/or scientist. So this is another case of accusing Tesla of not having the ICEs makers weaknesses and trying to paint that as a weakness to hide their own vulnerabilities.
6. The chassis may actually be one of the very best parts of the Model 3 design, after all Tesla gets highest safety marks and they are aiming to bring a level of safety not seen at this level of car. But the petrol industry being all about fear and terror and trying to spread it tries to say in every way it can that leaving petrol is unsafe- this is another example of that pattern, any change from them or what they are comfortable with (which has been broke for 70 years) is deemed unsafe and unwise. That chassis may be the core of the true and corrective narrative that tells actual story.
7. Part of praise for the electronic systems and emphasis may have to do with knowing ahead of time that Keller would be leaving Tesla. But really, Keller did his work on the model 3 to establish a foundation for the hardware. He is a chip guy and Intel seems to be falling behind in its microprocessor and GPU gig and in line with recent headlines this may be due to the foundation Keller laid at AMD- see the new reviews of AMD products and the damage to Intel- vice some issue at Tesla. Intel also seems hugely focused more than anything on autonomy now so it likely sees Tesla as a competitor more than AMD is presently. Maybe it thinks Google will be its new partner the way Microsoft was for software, despite Google tending to do its own chips.
My take is Munro was skeptical, this blind-sided him professionally in that he really didn't see it coming and is needing the proper time to process what is happening. His skill set and his companies skill set will still be very valuable but they need to re-tool. Probably blindsided because he was too focused on his traditional business and too busy. But turns out they came to him because he had the full tool box even if it needs an over haul. Looking at what Tesla and Silicon Valley will do to automotive is like looking at aerospace coming into the automotive space to a degree that far eclipsed GM's purchase of Hughes. It will fit perfectly with Lilium and what comes next. Evaluating EVs will be more like evaluating air planes. But also understand that cars will come to be made like chips. A new EV is not a cell phone it is a chip, this is part of why you see Intel trying to take from Tesla. Almost everything will come to be made like chips in the better sense of the meaning. Munro still has time to correct these flaws in response to Tesla.
This is contradicted by the following.
1. Amateur's did not work on the model 3. Tesla had its pick of the industry and took advantage of it. The people they chose, to borrow Sandy's language, literally have been mopping the floor with the competition at the high end of the market where the most intensive tech and the most ego is involved. Tesla used that track record and the same people with the Model 3. These same people put even more into the Model 3 as Musk has alluded the Model 3 was the most difficult vehicle Tesla has yet made, more challenging apparently than then X or the Semi. And if it means anything there were certainly a lot of PhDs in the mix from the best schools. Tesla actually did the X 2x because simply grafting onto a generic skate didn't work out.
2. A bad chassis would impact handling even with a good tuner and Munro admits the handling is great.
3. Too much weight would impact range, but Model 3 is class leading and by a very large margin in the higher spec which will only improve with the dual motor- suspect this means we will see updated S and X shortly.
4. The differences are more credibly due as Tesla says to higher safety standards- more tellingly Munro says there is nothing cut rate in the Model 3, but presumably he had to please his normal customers with some sort of token criticism. Also Munro seems to be saying that Tesla should have cut corners on sound deadening gel use- but how when NVH will stand out in quieter electrics?
5. Also contradicting the narrative of a defective or amateur chassis is the motive for suggesting Tesla would have gained from contracting out. You see this is a huge competitive weakness of the ICE makers and they are trying to accuse Tesla of not engaging in their weakness. They are in the silly habit of not really building or designing anything but the obsolete ICE engines or simply picking like some sort of vitamin label builder what will go into a another wise braded but still generic formula of vitamins. It is the ICE makers who have drifted from their craft where Tesla has been doing from-the-ground-up work, the kind of work that would appeal to an artist and/or scientist. So this is another case of accusing Tesla of not having the ICEs makers weaknesses and trying to paint that as a weakness to hide their own vulnerabilities.
6. The chassis may actually be one of the very best parts of the Model 3 design, after all Tesla gets highest safety marks and they are aiming to bring a level of safety not seen at this level of car. But the petrol industry being all about fear and terror and trying to spread it tries to say in every way it can that leaving petrol is unsafe- this is another example of that pattern, any change from them or what they are comfortable with (which has been broke for 70 years) is deemed unsafe and unwise. That chassis may be the core of the true and corrective narrative that tells actual story.
7. Part of praise for the electronic systems and emphasis may have to do with knowing ahead of time that Keller would be leaving Tesla. But really, Keller did his work on the model 3 to establish a foundation for the hardware. He is a chip guy and Intel seems to be falling behind in its microprocessor and GPU gig and in line with recent headlines this may be due to the foundation Keller laid at AMD- see the new reviews of AMD products and the damage to Intel- vice some issue at Tesla. Intel also seems hugely focused more than anything on autonomy now so it likely sees Tesla as a competitor more than AMD is presently. Maybe it thinks Google will be its new partner the way Microsoft was for software, despite Google tending to do its own chips.
My take is Munro was skeptical, this blind-sided him professionally in that he really didn't see it coming and is needing the proper time to process what is happening. His skill set and his companies skill set will still be very valuable but they need to re-tool. Probably blindsided because he was too focused on his traditional business and too busy. But turns out they came to him because he had the full tool box even if it needs an over haul. Looking at what Tesla and Silicon Valley will do to automotive is like looking at aerospace coming into the automotive space to a degree that far eclipsed GM's purchase of Hughes. It will fit perfectly with Lilium and what comes next. Evaluating EVs will be more like evaluating air planes. But also understand that cars will come to be made like chips. A new EV is not a cell phone it is a chip, this is part of why you see Intel trying to take from Tesla. Almost everything will come to be made like chips in the better sense of the meaning. Munro still has time to correct these flaws in response to Tesla.
) and admit it. I call upon you to do the same, here.
~