Musk Admits to Factory Sleepovers as Tesla Gets Real on Production Forecast

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

There’s probably no s’mores or ghost stories, but Tesla founder Elon Musk is still a fan of camping out at his company’s Fremont, California production facility.

Musk admitted to giving his sleeping bag a regular workout during a recent earnings call, during which he outlined his production goals for the upcoming Model 3. The optimistic deadline of July 1, 2017 is now viewed as impossible (due to supply issues), but Musk is optimistic that significant quantities of the $35,000 EV will be out the door before New Year’s Eve.

Musk might need to splurge on an upgraded sleeping bag next summer.

Besides sleeping over, Musk said he keeps his desk at the end of the Model X production line, and test drives models to ensure quality control. Quality proved a thorny issue with the automaker’s electric SUV, so his work obsession has utility, even if it might make some workers nervous.

A bigger issue for the company is the matter of turning 400,000 Model 3 reservations into driveway-ready models before prospective customers get tired of waiting.

Musk estimates Tesla can produce between 100,000 and 200,000 Model 3s before the end of 2017, with production of all models hitting his near-term goal of 500,000 units in 2018. To put that goal into perspective, Tesla has delivered 121,820 vehicles over the lifespan of the company.

Musk plans to wring as much capacity out of the Fremont plant as possible, estimating it could be set up to product one million vehicles a year by 2020, but he admits a second North American plant is an eventual necessity. An overseas plant, either in Europe, China or both, would satisfy demand in other growth markets.

A recent management shakeup at Tesla has some wondering if Musk is purging problem staff in advance of the production boom. News of the departure of Greg Reichow, the company’s vice-president of production, and Josh Ensign, vice-president of manufacturing, came the same day as the updated production targets.

A source close to the issue said there is a link between the departures and the quality and supply issues that bedeviled Model X production earlier this year, a claim Tesla denies.

Tesla reported a net loss of $282 million in the first quarter of 2016, but posted a 22 percent increase in revenue ($1.1 billion) compared to the same period last year.

[Sources: CNET, Electrek, SF Gate, Bloomberg]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
18 of 150 comments
  • Master Baiter Master Baiter on May 05, 2016

    If Musk really does have a sleeping bag at work, I wouldn't want to be part of his team, as you can bet he expects all his key people to have the same or greater level of devotion to the cause. . .

    • See 15 previous
    • Porschespeed Porschespeed on May 07, 2016

      @VoGo MCS, The point is that *Musk* had nothing to do with landing a booster. The 'if only we were allowed to play with money' has been the conversation in NASA and JPL bars for decades. The one thing *Musk* had to do was hire a bunch of people and turn them loose. God knows he has no actual input at the place, seeing how he's camping out at Tesla. Don't forget about SpaceX's failures - they have more than a few. SpaceX is a contractor - so it's cost+. He's guaranteed a profit. But it isn't anywhere near the burn rate of Tesla per quarter, let alone Solar City.

  • WheelMcCoy WheelMcCoy on May 06, 2016

    There's no denying Tesla burns through money ($1B a year?). Yet, it's too soon to measure Tesla in traditional financial terms. I'm not religious about Tesla, but I believe there's room, and a future, for the electric car. (Not so much the hydrogen fuel cell, but that's another discussion). Musk needs to be a salesman, so I understand the theatrics of the sleeping bag. But he's not a con man as many commenters claim. Con men go after easy marks, like stealing retirement money from widows. Con men have insider advantages, like Goldman Sachs who plays both sides and then brags "I ripped their face off!" (Google it.) Producing an electric car is hard hard work, and the road is littered with failed attempts -- Fisker comes to mind. I actually saw 2 Karma Fiskers on the road -- beautiful car, and they came close! So Tesla didn't come all this way without a healthy dose of competition. And new competition appears in the form of the Nissan Leaf, the BMW i3, and the Chevy Bolt. Con men wouldn't bother with electric cars, and I believe Musk is sincere in his efforts.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next