Tesla

[Morris Minor]

There was no shortage of takers...

Tesla closes $2.7 billion mixed offering of shares, debt
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-offering/tesla-closes-27-billion-mixed-offering-of-shares-debt-idUSKCN1SE1BM

[CaminoRacer]

Why the hell would you offer debt to Tesla right now? It better have a great interest rate

[MrH]

Why the hell would you offer debt to Tesla right now? It better have a great interest rate

It was 8.1% IRR I believe. And they're ahead in priority in case of liquidation over their massive accounts payable supply base.

[12,000 RPM]

What is the heirarchy of corporate bankruptcy buzzards?

[GoCougs]

Why the hell would you offer debt to Tesla right now? It better have a great interest rate

Junk bonds.

Like an Enron or Madoff or Washington Mutual - the king has no clothes.

[Morris Minor]

What is the heirarchy of corporate bankruptcy buzzards?

Depends entirely on the paper they're holding: shares, preferred shares, secured bonds, unsecured. There are a zillion ways to structure it.
But nothing beats solid profit generation from the company - or at least a plausible path to future profits.

[12,000 RPM]

Tesla, Uber, Lyft, some other companies trading on double digit sales multiples............ it's all very fascinating to watch

[CaminoRacer]

Tesla, Uber, Lyft, some other companies trading on double digit sales multiples............ it's all very fascinating to watch

All hype.

Which is funny, because all of those companies have a good, legit product. But they're burning money at an insane pace in order to sell "the future" without any ability to actually deliver.

[MrH]

What is the heirarchy of corporate bankruptcy buzzards?

Secured debt
unsecured debt
equity stakeholders aka bag holders

[12,000 RPM]

More fire fuel

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27989/teslas-screen-saga-shows-why-automotive-grade-matters

Cliffs: that big screen in the S and X is not automotive grade. Guess what's happening as a result....

#Disruptors

[MX793]

More fire fuel

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27989/teslas-screen-saga-shows-why-automotive-grade-matters

Cliffs: that big screen in the S and X is not automotive grade. Guess what's happening as a result....

#Disruptors

To Tesla's credit, they did test the screens to more stringent and harsher conditions than their manufacturers' originally rated them to.  Their failure was selecting conditions that still weren't severe enough for automotive use.

[MrH]

It's almost as if the OEMs that have spent decades developing their validation tests and criteria know what they're doing on some of these things

Naw, can't be right.  Rocketman is smarter and knows better.

[giant_mtb]

Ouch.

[MX793]

It's almost as if the OEMs that have spent decades developing their validation tests and criteria know what they're doing on some of these things

Naw, can't be right.  Rocketman is smarter and knows better.

Having spent years designing equipment for severe conditions (worse than automotive), I've had to go the route of qualifying "industrial" grade parts to harsher conditions because nobody made anything more rugged and we didn't have time or money to have something custom made for us (with volumes in the tens of units per year, most commercial OEMs don't want to talk to us anyway).  I have definitely encountered OEMs who don't actually know what their products are capable of.  Testing is expensive and most only test for the conditions they intend the product to be used in, not to failure.  I remember finding some waterproof connectors that looked perfect for a design I was working on, except the MFR listed the low end of their temperature range at 25F and I needed to operate to -40F.  Called the OEM to ask what in the design limited the low end temperature and they said there was nothing in the design that would preclude using them at lower temperatures, they just never bothered to test it because their normal customer base would never expose them to anything colder than 25F.

We also frequently have to qualify stuff to shock and vibe because we usually have some non-standard PSD curves or pulse waveforms and frequencies that nobody tests to.  A lot of times they are similar to something the OEM has tested to such that we and the OEM are confident they'll pass, but we still have to run the test.

Now, I'd expect rugged display OEMs to generally know what their stuff can tolerate (and even if it can survive greater extremes, it usually comes at the cost of MTBF), but not every OEM does.

[MrH]

I did quite a bit of validation work in automotive.  I'm not new to it

Yeah, for things like industrial connectors, they aren't necessarily testing to find the failure points.  Most OEMs (at least, the better ones) are really good are determining validation protocols that translate to real world reliability and sticking to standards they know works.  Toyota is really good at this.  The level of scrutiny they have for deviating from their established validation procedures is astounding.

Tesla openly is disregarding industry standards and now they're paying for it.

[MX793]

I did quite a bit of validation work in automotive.  I'm not new to it

Yeah, for things like industrial connectors, they aren't necessarily testing to find the failure points.  Most OEMs (at least, the better ones) are really good are determining validation protocols that translate to real world reliability and sticking to standards they know works.  Toyota is really good at this.  The level of scrutiny they have for deviating from their established validation procedures is astounding.

Tesla openly is disregarding industry standards and now they're paying for it.

Like I said, they screwed up, but the headlines make it read like Tesla just dropped lower grade parts in without even considering qualifying or vetting them for the application, which isn't true.

Some of Tesla's hardware missteps are a pretty clear warning of the dangers and consequences of applying SW development mindset to hardware.  Software is entirely NRE, with most of the expense in labor.  If you find a mistake in the code later, it only costs you the time to fix it and then you push a patch or update.  Hardware has NRE, but also considerable RE.  Make a mistake on a blueprint and not only do you have the cost of updating the drawing, but the sunk cost of any parts that were ordered to the incorrect print that will need to be scrapped and re-ordered (which then adds potentially weeks of schedule delay).  Even worse if bad product was released into the wild.  Hardware moves at a different pace because the cost and schedule consequences of making mistakes are vastly higher.

[r0tor]

In pharma we throw away all OEM/Industry validation and internally validate everything to our own standards...

[Eye of the Tiger]

In pharma we throw away all OEM/Industry validation and internally validate everything to our own standards...

I do the same thing in auto mechanics.

[Soup DeVille]

I do the same thing in auto mechanics.

"well it looks like the picture" is not a standardized validation procedure.

[Eye of the Tiger]

"well it looks like the picture" is not a standardized validation procedure.

You think I have pictures? As in repair manuals? LOL. I can't afford those. I literally create my own standards.

[12,000 RPM]

In pharma we throw away all OEM/Industry validation and internally validate everything to our own standards...

That's reassuring

[93JC]

I'm going to assume he meant "...to our own, more stringent standards"...

[MrH]

In pharma we throw away all OEM/Industry validation and internally validate everything to our own standards...

Are you talking equipment or actual drug product?

[r0tor]

Are you talking equipment or actual drug product?

Both... Our internal drug quality standards and equipment standards are stricter and therefore the defining validated parameter.

[12,000 RPM]

But who verifies your tests? Having standards is one thing, demonstrably meeting them is another

[SJ_GTI]

r0tor works for one of the legit top pharma companies in the world.

As a supplier to both his company and his competitors, my perception is that they do in fact have tighter standards than the industry in general.

I think we also do a small amount of business with MrH's employer. Its much smaller volumes...but the products we are selling to them are at an even higher level. My perception though is that these are specialty/niche products that we are supplying for.

[Laconian]

What do you sell? Cocaine, and cocaine accessories?

[NomisR]

What do you sell? Cocaine, and cocaine accessories?

i think it's glassware?  So sounds about right.

[MrH]

Both... Our internal drug quality standards and equipment standards are stricter and therefore the defining validated parameter.

Automotive works the same way in a sense.  All OEMs have their own validation protocols that they develop over time.  For certain components, it all converges across companies and industry standards are made.  Tesla just pretty much ignored all of those and these are the results of doing that.

The biggest difference I've noticed in pharma:  pretty much everything purchased is double checked at each stage.  A raw material supplier sends something, and they include all of their lab results, etc.  Then it's received in at the site and tested to confirm it's actually the material they claim it is and a lot of tests are performed again.  Some stuff gets on reduced testing, depending on past performance, etc, there's a whole process for it.

In automotive, they can't afford to do that.  So they audit the hell out of each supplier and poke yoke their processes to the point that they'll catch any out of spec item mid process.  It's a very, very different approach, but it's just one of a million reasons why cars are a lot cheaper than drugs.

[r0tor]

But who verifies your tests? Having standards is one thing, demonstrably meeting them is another

The FDA/(enter hoards of other countries equivalent) audit pharma against their own standards primarily and then some "Good Manufacturing Practices" standards that the governments have set.  Basic architecture and admin processes can be audited against a FDA "GMP" guidelines - but only the manufacturer understands what actually effects their product potency or quality.


So just an example is maybe you are buying a freezer to store product. You know your products temperature need and setup a validated range.  The FDA will audit you against your storage performance relative to your validated range.  They can't tell you want temperature or how big the control range is as they have no idea. To replace a freezer you go out to a reputable freezer manufacturer and get one that's validated for your range.  You then receive it and throw away the OEM info and begin testing it yourself against your own standards - perhaps even in the room conditions in will sit in to be 99.999999% sure it will work. Fuck ups are not tolerated.