[Dyefrog]

This could be good news for the GM employees in the Lordstown facility.
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...for-u-s-stateside?AID=/20181211/OEM/181219881


"GM is unlikely to build a new vehicle at Lordstown once it halts Cruze production in March, company officials say, and GM executives have told Congress it would take two years or longer to develop and prepare the plant to assemble a new vehicle."


Sounds like they could use a sprung structure.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/the-future-of-tesla-hinges-on-this-gigantic-tent


"Hence, apparently, the tent. Musk announced it on Twitter on June 16, saying the company had put together an “entire new general assembly line” in three weeks with spare parts; the building permit was issued on June 13, though the company could have started working on aspects of the project before that."

 

[Dimitrij]

This could be good news for the GM employees in the Lordstown facility.
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...for-u-s-stateside?AID=/20181211/OEM/181219881

"GM is unlikely to build a new vehicle at Lordstown once it halts Cruze production in March, company officials say, and GM executives have told Congress it would take two years or longer to develop and prepare the plant to assemble a new vehicle."

I am sure some analysts and think tanks are publicly scratching their heads as to what GM's strategy may be, but a direct application of Occam's Razor yields a frightfully simple explanation: the current GM's leadership kind of figured out that the next recession may well be their last one, so they are looking to increase short-term profits where possible, thus gaining enough time to collect their performance bonuses and send out resumes before curtains. DISCLAIMER: I don not necessarily share the views of Occam's Razor.

 

[NY-Rob]

...the current GM's leadership kind of figured out that the next recession may well be their last one, so they are looking to increase short-term profits where possible, thus gaining enough time to collect their performance bonuses and send out resumes before curtains.

Well, that seems like reasonable conjecture, but by pissing off POTUS, Congress, Taxpayers/the US public (which also happen to be their customers) they have pretty much burned their bridges as far as looking for another government bail-out in the near future.

As bad as it would be for the country, I could envision POTUS letting GM fail at this point because they got the better of him.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

I am sure some analysts and think tanks are publicly scratching their heads as to what GM's strategy may be, but a direct application of Occam's Razor yields a frightfully simple explanation: the current GM's leadership kind of figured out that the next recession may well be their last one, so they are looking to increase short-term profits where possible, thus gaining enough time to collect their performance bonuses and send out resumes before curtains. DISCLAIMER: I don not necessarily share the views of Occam's Razor.

Most people are not likely to make it through the next recession.

The transition that is currently underway requires a lot of money, which makes much more sense as to why GM is cutting back in certain areas. The fact is, none of us can see GM's books, so we're all just guessing.

 

[psyflyjohn]

On the other hand, GM could be considered to be responsibly preparing for the next recession. Then, when they go to the govt. for help, they can claim that they took good precautions with the layoffs. I'd be more inclined to give them a loan than if they blithely continued to produce vehicles that didn't sell. Don't worry about Trump - he won't be around that much longer...

 

[GJETSON]

When Bernie Sanders, and the resident are both beating up on you, it is not a good day.

Once stuff hits the fan, the next time, I doubt any car companies will survive. General Dynamics should do a brisk business in tanks, however.

 

[NY-Rob]

Most people are not likely to make it through the next recession.

Could you expand on the above statement... in just a couple of sentences maybe?


Almost seems it's time to start digging the survival bunker in the backyard....

 

[TimBolt]

I am sure some analysts and think tanks are publicly scratching their heads as to what GM's strategy may be, but a direct application of Occam's Razor yields a frightfully simple explanation: the current GM's leadership kind of figured out that the next recession may well be their last one, so they are looking to increase short-term profits where possible, thus gaining enough time to collect their performance bonuses and send out resumes before curtains. DISCLAIMER: I don not necessarily share the views of Occam's Razor.

I think the explanation for GM’s plans to idle a few plants is pretty simple: they have overcapacity, and the plants that are scheduled to shut down are building cars nobody wants to buy.

As for where GM should build their cars, they should build them where it makes the most economic sense to do so.

I don’t see any nefarious motive on the part of GM management, and, as for “increasing short-term profits”, GM is committing tens of billions of dollars to EV development, which undercuts any notion of short-term profit motivation.

Of the US big three (or the big two, since Fiat-Chrysler isn’t an American company) I think that GM is in the strongest position as the marketplace transitions to EVs. Tesla may be the EV leader in the USA right now, but I wouldn’t discount a company that manufactures over 10 million cars a year, and that knows how to mass produce vehicles, without using a tent.

 

[redpoint5]

I have 2 thoughts about the tangent this thread went.

1. The current trajectory of the world is increasing resource consumption per capita, and a population still on the rise. That's a double-whammy for resource consumption, and fossil fuels in particular. Something has to give.

2. Autonomous vehicles will seriously disrupt everything. We might be 20 years out, but auto sales will plummet when people no longer want the expense of owning their own vehicles. Transportation will move to a service, and there will be higher utilization of existing vehicles and fewer vehicles overall Current utilization is something like 2%, which is horrendous considering a vehicle is typically the 2nd largest personal expense. This might help mitigate problem 1 above. Reducing the transportation budget will free up resources for other things.

Many auto manufacturers will fail, and the industry will consolidate to a few big players. So many jobs rely on this industry that will vastly shrink, so we'll suffer an unemployment crisis.

 

[NoMoPetrol]

...but I wouldn’t discount a company that manufactures over 10 million cars a year, and that knows how to mass produce vehicles, without using a tent.

Not only did the tent work, but I read last week (can't find the link) that Airbus is constructing tents to meet demands for their intercontinental passenger jets until they can increase permanent capacity. Another case of (Tesla's) necessity being the mother of innovation.

 

[TimBolt]

Not only did the tent work, but I read last week (can't find the link) that Airbus is constructing tents to meet demands for their intercontinental passenger jets until they can increase permanent capacity. Another case of (Tesla's) necessity being the mother of innovation.

The tent was a stunt, put up to meet a promised weekly production goal, a goal that Tesla still isn’t consistently meeting, tent or no tent. Latest Bloomberg estimate is about 4,500 Model 3 being built per week.

I have no doubt that Tesla wil be conducting another fire drill to hit a decent year-end number, but it’s still struggling to consistently build 5k Model 3 cars per week, six months after promising to do so.

When it comes to Elon Musk, cheap publicity is often the mother of invention.

 

[redpoint5]

Setting a just-out-of-reach goal seems to be better for spurring productivity rather than setting one sure to be obtained. I'm not sure his ambitious targets are a problem. Ill conceived tweets are though.

 

[TimBolt]

Setting a just-out-of-reach goal seems to be better for spurring productivity rather than setting one sure to be obtained. I'm not sure his ambitious targets are a problem. Ill conceived tweets are though.

I agree that setting an aspirational goal isn’t an issue, but that goal was set for mid-year 2018, and it’s still an elusive goal nearly six months later.

I really do admire Tesla, going from a niche EV player to a mass market manufacturer in a very short time, it’s a remarkable achievement, but there’s no doubt the Tesla production line still has a long way to go when it comes to efficiency and consistency.

Many Tesla watchers saw 2018 as the critical make-or-break year, I believe that Tesla’s performance in 2019 is at least as important. Tesla has proven that it can build hundreds of thousands of EVs a year. In 2019 they’ll need to prove that they can do that profitably, with cars of a consistent high quality, with robust nationwide customer service and support.

We’ll see.

 

[Dyefrog]

Not only did the tent work, but I read last week (can't find the link) that Airbus is constructing tents to meet demands for their intercontinental passenger jets until they can increase permanent capacity. Another case of (Tesla's) necessity being the mother of innovation.

I think the topic came up in the 60 minutes interview. Basically, if it weren't for the tent, Q3 would probably not have been profitable. It was certainly a critical element to their survival and you may see a repeat in China. Definitely a lot of crow eaten due to it's success.

 

[Dyefrog]

The tent was a stunt, put up to meet a promised weekly production goal, a goal that Tesla still isn’t consistently meeting, tent or no tent. Latest Bloomberg estimate is about 4,500 Model 3 being built per week.

I have no doubt that Tesla wil be conducting another fire drill to hit a decent year-end number, but it’s still struggling to consistently build 5k Model 3 cars per week, six months after promising to do so.

When it comes to Elon Musk, cheap publicity is often the mother of invention.

How is it a stunt? It's still being used and exceeded it's expectations. You just can't bring yourself to admit it was a brilliant solution to a serious problem can you?
Not many people that follow Tesla closely give the Bloomberg estimate much credibility any more. You will see that once the real numbers are published, they go back and edit their numbers to claim they were on point.
Based on Troy's numbers which have been extremely accurate, they are expected to produce just under 60k for the quarter which would be 5k/week. So struggling for 12 weeks, not to mention the September numbers which were also over 5k/week would tend to dismantle your observation.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3262305/

 

[SparkE]

Frankly, even if they hit at least 4500 consistently and often 5000, that's not that much difference in numbers (and I was a big doubter that they would be able to meet the goal). The *shortfall* of maybe 10% (if it really is a shortfall) seems to be more than what almost every other EV manufacturer sells as their total sales per month (exceptions being GM, Nissan, and maybe BMW).

I never understood the Tesla bashing. (Musk bashing, yeah - I think that he's an egotistic tool.)

 

[SparkE]

Oh, and looking at insideevs.com guestimates of U.S. sales, they seem to surpass shipments of 4500/week just within the U.S. alone.

 

[GJETSON]

Almost seems it's time to start digging the survival bunker in the backyard....

Naw. You are probably way too late. Just face DC and watch the flash.

 

[TimBolt]

How is it a stunt? It's still being used and exceeded it's expectations. You just can't bring yourself to admit it was a brilliant solution to a serious problem can you?
Not many people that follow Tesla closely give the Bloomberg estimate much credibility any more. You will see that once the real numbers are published, they go back and edit their numbers to claim they were on point.
Based on Troy's numbers which have been extremely accurate, they are expected to produce just under 60k for the quarter which would be 5k/week. So struggling for 12 weeks, not to mention the September numbers which were also over 5k/week would tend to dismantle your observation.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3262305/

The Bloomberg estimate has proven to be fairly accurate in the past. Once Tesla releases Q4 numbers we’ll see if that continues to be the case.

From a publicity standpoint the erection of the tent was undoubtedly brilliant. The serious problem at the Tesla plant was a fundamentally flawed assembly line design, as admitted by Musk. The solution to that issue was not a tent, it was fixes to the line.

The fact that Tesla has been able to nearly triple annual production in a year is truly remarkable. The fact that anyone has been able to build a major new US auto manufacturer from scratch is one of the most compelling business success stories in the modern era.

Having said that, this achievement has not been without drama, and missteps. The tent was not a brilliant production solution, it was instead a sideshow, used to hit an artificial 5k weekly goal and silence critics. From that perspective it was a resounding success. The tent did nothing to resolve the assembly line problems that led to it being erected.

 

[Dyefrog]

Oh, and looking at insideevs.com guestimates of U.S. sales, they seem to surpass shipments of 4500/week just within the U.S. alone.

Well, to be fair, their "global" sales only adds Canada to the lot. I don't think they are getting that many at least until the credit drops to half in January. They have opened the configurator though in some European countries now though with an estimated 3k/week to Europe starting in February.