| > According to Moravy, vehicle assembly processes haven’t changed in the last 100 years, which he says is “really silly. Where to start with this article? Here is a good spot I guess. First off, Moravy is wrong. If anyone thinks that auto manufacturing and the "vehicle assembly process" has not substantially changed in the last 100 years, then they are totally ignorant of the industry and of the exacting details associated with something as complex as automotive manufacturing. The other vital thing that this article fails to mention at all is how manufacturing is shaped by the larger concerns of the product lifecycle - which is (or should be) the actual "product" that leaves the factory. "The car" is just a hunk of metal that embodies the product lifecycle - which can be competitively unique from manufacturer-to-manufacturer. One cannot talk myopically about "costs" and whatever happens on the manufacturing floor without bringing in the total concerns of the product lifecycle (i.e. service, end-of-life, market requirements). That is difficult to do in an article because the total size and complexity of each automaker's product lifecycle is immense (and largely unknown externally from the automaker in question), but it must be done. > If something goes wrong in final assembly, you block the whole line and you end up with buffering in between.” Which is how, fundamentally or in part fundamentally, the Toyota Production System works - and it is difficult to argue with the quality results at Toyota. Honestly, I am not seeing much of a difference here overall. There are various component assembly lines that do run outside and "in parallel" with the General Assembly lines at incumbent automakers. I am not even sure how this is debatable. > “However, there are some quality-related risks involved, such as potential gaps in fit and finish,” warns Pischalnikov. (snip) “The reason that’s always been done is for color consistency, to ensure that there’s a perfect match between the doors and the rest of the car body,” Prasad points out. “By not having to assemble, disassemble and reassemble vehicles, you can reduce production costs and eliminate waste. Which are quality control aspects that Tesla still seemingly struggles with, near as I can tell. I am all for encouraging automakers to explore new methods of automotive manufacturing and BEV production will present significant opportunities to do so, but this article from Assembly Magazine is, at the very least, incomplete. |
1) Tesla customers seem extraordinarily willing to overlook production defects and servicing/repair issues compared to customers of other OEMs. This lets them get away with lower manufacturing quality tolerances than they normally would, as noted in the article mentioning the water ingress issues. Seems like they're going to further capitalize on this customer tolerance with the paint process changes.
2) As a result of only building BEVs with no legacy support requirements, Tesla is able to design the manufacturing process and vehicles themselves to be more efficient to assemble. It's a definite competitive advantage today and that's another thing some of their intended changes here will try to capitalize on. The question to me is how long it will be until the traditional OEMs catch up here.