Technosports, Elio Prototypes

[Craig]

I just don't buy the REASON for the 'delay', (ie. lease for the PLANT and 'evaluating' the contents).... when they don't even have a "Production Ready Product" to build in it. And they won't (according to them) until they BUILD and TEST the "18 to 26 vehicles" ("E" series) needed to finalize their production design! They need the FUNDING and CAPABILITY (which they have not shown, or told HOW) to make and 'test' that many in such a short time. In fact, they have stated;
"Elio Motors:-- Ray. We will have 18 Prototypes in 3 -4 months.
Like · 2 · August 10, 2013 at 1:11pm"...... FIVE months later...... ONE P4 #1.--- and still NO P5 with the IAV engine/drivetrain!
and FAILED to deliver on that 'Prototype Production' PROMISE.

So, may we ask, what are you going to do about it?

 

[RogWild]

I am assuming Elio Motors is not their only customer. I'm sure they have other projects going on all the time as they do similar work for other vehicle manufacturers. Z

Yes, and working on 'other projects' only TAKES AWAY from their ability to work on making Elio Prototypes! I'm sure they are able to make more than 1 Prototype per year (as they have in the past); but 18-26 vehicles in less than a year (to allow time for testing) without an assembly line (or increased workers/space) seems like a Herculean task!

 

[RogWild]

So, may we ask, what are you going to do about it?

Nothing I can do but "Sit & Wait"....... pray for a miracle, and hope to see a P5 / "E" series (with the IAV engine) in the 'near' future!

In the mean time, I am working to get the Department of Defense to change their Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment Regulation (that presently requires ALL motorcycle riders/passengers [including the enclosed Elio] to wear; Helmet, Goggles, Gloves, long-sleeved shirts/pants, Boots above the ankles, and a Hi-Visibility/Reflective Vest) while driving or riding on any Military or Federal installations.

 

[Craig]

Nothing I can do but "Sit & Wait"....... pray for a miracle, and hope to see a P5 / "E" series (with the IAV engine) in the 'near' future!

I guess I'm missing the point of your post.

 

[Lil4X]

Only one of the great lessons you learn after your first prototype goes out for testing/demonstration is how to produce it in quantity. Baby steps here. All those fittings you had to relocate, all of the angles that were just a smidge off - come back to bite you. When prototyping you just reach for the "fine adjusting tool" (sledgehammer) or the "blue-tipped pen" (torch) and make the fix right on the shop floor, but this doesn't help the NEXT development model unless these changes are noted and drawn up. Otherwise you are doomed to repeating these little "adjustments" on every article that comes down the line.

I once had to referee a teleconference between our development manager in Houston and our engineering project lead in LA as they "discussed" a field failure of a prototype. The conversation (heavily redacted for oilfield language) sounded something like this:

"The &%+## safety latch pin broke."
"It can't break, there's no load applied to it"
"How come I'm sitting here with that #$*&@ in two pieces in my hand?"
"It CAN'T break!"
"The #$%%($&*#) BROKE *#&$@($* it!!"
"You must have done something to it."
"#&$@*%, it's 4140 steel, how could I break it??
"You installed it incorrectly!"
"I didn't install NOTHIN', you sent the whole thing assembled, you @*%^&*&$#!!"

I'll spare you further details, but before this turned to bloodshed I had to step in. We sent the whole thing back to the plant where a detailed analysis was run. The product carried a 500-ton capacity rating and was pull tested (for API certification) at double the rated load and x-rayed. No cracks, it passed with flying colors. What nobody realized on the line was that the body that received the pin was bored about .0015 off, meaning that the linkage allowed a .004 inch gap between the latch faces - in other words, the entire load (on that test about 300 tons) was being carried by the safety latch rather than the large main latch faces, after about 5 days of service, it failed. The safety latch was designed to hold the latch closed, never to carry the latch's load. Ruh-roh. Fortunately, the pin failure only allowed the latch faces to engage properly and no accident ensued . . . but it could have.

The point is that prototype testing and production tests are meant to catch those small but potentially catastrophic errors. That's why so much time is invested in testing. Nobody realized just how precisely that pin had to be located, because it occupied a critical position in the geometry of the entire latch mechanism. It wasn't quite a safety issue, but in service it would snap unnoticed and quickly nullify the safety system built into the product, leaving the user with no back-up, a derrickman with a stunned expression on his face, and a couple miles of pipe on its way to China . . . by the direct route, straight down.

Of course later when parts were machined they got the centers on target, but the next problem was one that a rookie engineer with no shop experience became famous for. He had a hole in a cast body bored to .450 inches - and a pin turned to .450 to fit into it. Trust me, no amount of oil and hammer application is going to make that fit. You can expend a lot of emery paper on a 4140 pin and not get anywhere - that stuff is tough - it required another very light pass through the lathe and finally a tweak to the CNC machining center.

Along the way, just when they thought the problem was solved, the first guy to install a pin without a press got a nasty surprise: in a blind hole in a 300# block of steel, a solid closely-fitted pin makes a pretty good piston. Every time you whack it with a hammer, it tries to bore a hole in your forehead, then you have to chase it across the shop floor. The hole, filled with air, compresses and spits the pin back at you. It's something else that engineering had to learn from the field. It was a great source of amusement for our old machinists who saw the problem coming but had no formal channels back to engineering. Close that feedback loop and you get a viable product that can be assembled easily - without so many of those head-slapping moments and screaming contests on the phone with the guys who baby-sit the prototypes on field test.

One of the most important and most overlooked systems that has to be installed in any manufacturing operation is a clear channel of communication. It appears that EM is well aware and is working on those systems.

 

[Ty]

Only one of the great lessons you learn after your first prototype goes out for testing/demonstration is how to produce it in quantity. Baby steps here. All those fittings you had to relocate, all of the angles that were just a smidge off - come back to bite you. When prototyping you just reach for the "fine adjusting tool" (sledgehammer) or the "blue-tipped pen" (torch) and make the fix right on the shop floor, but this doesn't help the NEXT development model unless these changes are noted and drawn up. Otherwise you are doomed to repeating these little "adjustments" on every article that comes down the line.

I once had to referee a teleconference between our development manager in Houston and our engineering project lead in LA as they "discussed" a field failure of a prototype. The conversation (heavily redacted for oilfield language) sounded something like this:

"The &%+## safety latch pin broke."
"It can't break, there's no load applied to it"
"How come I'm sitting here with that #$*&@ in two pieces in my hand?"
"It CAN'T break!"
"The #$%%($&*#) BROKE *#&$@($* it!!"
"You must have done something to it."
"#&$@*%, it's 4140 steel, how could I break it??
"You installed it incorrectly!"
"I didn't install NOTHIN', you sent the whole thing assembled, you @*%^&*&$#!!"

I'll spare you further details, but before this turned to bloodshed I had to step in. We sent the whole thing back to the plant where a detailed analysis was run. The product carried a 500-ton capacity rating and was pull tested (for API certification) at double the rated load and x-rayed. No cracks, it passed with flying colors. What nobody realized on the line was that the body that received the pin was bored about .0015 off, meaning that the linkage allowed a .004 inch gap between the latch faces - in other words, the entire load (on that test about 300 tons) was being carried by the safety latch rather than the large main latch faces, after about 5 days of service, it failed. The safety latch was designed to hold the latch closed, never to carry the latch's load. Ruh-roh. Fortunately, the pin failure only allowed the latch faces to engage properly and no accident ensued . . . but it could have.

The point is that prototype testing and production tests are meant to catch those small but potentially catastrophic errors. That's why so much time is invested in testing. Nobody realized just how precisely that pin had to be located, because it occupied a critical position in the geometry of the entire latch mechanism. It wasn't quite a safety issue, but in service it would snap unnoticed and quickly nullify the safety system built into the product, leaving the user with no back-up, a derrickman with a stunned expression on his face, and a couple miles of pipe on its way to China . . . by the direct route, straight down.

Of course later when parts were machined they got the centers on target, but the next problem was one that a rookie engineer with no shop experience became famous for. He had a hole in a cast body bored to .450 inches - and a pin turned to .045 to fit into it. Trust me, no amount of oil and hammer application is going to make that fit. You can expend a lot of emery paper on a 4140 pin and not get anywhere - that stuff is tough - it required another very light pass through the lathe and finally a tweak to the CNC machining center.

Along the way, just when they thought the problem was solved, the first guy to install a pin without a press got a nasty surprise: in a blind hole in a 300# block of steel, a solid closely-fitted pin makes a pretty good piston. Every time you whack it with a hammer, it tries to bore a hole in your forehead, then you have to chase it across the shop floor. The hole, filled with air, compresses and spits the pin back at you. It's something else that engineering had to learn from the field. It was a great source of amusement for our old machinists who saw the problem coming but had no formal channels back to engineering. Close that feedback loop and you get a viable product that can be assembled easily - without so many of those head-slapping moments and screaming contests on the phone with the guys who baby-sit the prototypes on field test.

One of the most important and most overlooked systems that has to be installed in any manufacturing operation is a clear channel of communication. It appears that EM is well aware and is working on those systems.

Funny, and well told. People who are hung up on the whole "It took them a year to build one, it'll take them forever to build 18" must not realize that while it may take 30 minutes to set up the break to bend widget A, and then 10 seconds to do the actual bending, it only takes seconds for each successive part to be completed.

 

[Lil4X]

Exactly. Serial #1 takes forever, #'s 2-50 take incrementally less time until you arrive at a "stable" product - one that looks exactly like the next one on the line. Depending on the complexity of the product and numbers to be produced, this (in the words of at least one plant manager) "will take a while".

 

[RogWild]

Funny, and well told. People who are hung up on the whole "It took them a year to build one, it'll take them forever to build 18" must not realize that while it may take 30 minutes to set up the break to bend widget A, and then 10 seconds to do the actual bending, it only takes seconds for each successive part to be completed.

Very True, but there are Thousands of 'widgets' in a prototype Elio that have to be custom made, and assembled 'by hand' without assembly line workers or robotic machines. With the stated time to hire/train the Shreveport workers (three months), and a few months to do the 'testing', before final design acceptance; that means that Technosports Creative have to turn out at least 2-3 completed (road ready) "E" series prototypes per month. Not IMPOSSIBLE, but they have not demonstrated that capability yet. That also assumes that the IAV engine will be ready for installation in JUNE. If it is not ready until OCTOBER (as some have said) the rate of building will have to be even quicker.

What has been demonstrated is that Elio Motors claimed last year; "
"Elio Motors:-- Ray. We will have 18 Prototypes in 3 -4 months.
Like · 2 · August 10, 2013 at 1:11pm"...... and FIVE MONTHS later; they produced ONE P4.

Just basing my comments on documented past 'comments' and demonstrated 'performance', not on what I HOPE, and what 'could be'.

 

[Ty]

Very True, but there are Thousands of 'widgets' in a prototype Elio that have to be custom made, and assembled 'by hand' without assembly line workers or robotic machines. With the stated time to hire/train the Shreveport workers (three months), and a few months to do the 'testing', before final design acceptance; that means that Technosports Creative have to turn out at least 2-3 completed (road ready) "E" series prototypes per month. Not IMPOSSIBLE, but they have not demonstrated that capability yet. That also assumes that the IAV engine will be ready for installation in JUNE. If it is not ready until OCTOBER (as some have said) the rate of building will have to be even quicker.

What has been demonstrated is that Elio Motors claimed last year; "
"Elio Motors:-- Ray. We will have 18 Prototypes in 3 -4 months.
Like · 2 · August 10, 2013 at 1:11pm"...... and FIVE MONTHS later; they produced ONE P4.

Just basing my comments on documented past 'comments' and demonstrated 'performance', not on what I HOPE, and what 'could be'.

How long did it take them to build the last one? Months? days? hours? or minutes? I meant that as an example. They have already built one. Some or most of the jigs, molds, etc won't change much. The time to build one will be about the time it will take to build a bunch... assembly shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Ryan]

How long did it take them to build the last one? Months? days? hours? or minutes? I meant that as an example. They have already built one. Some or most of the jigs, molds, etc won't change much. The time to build one will be about the time it will take to build a bunch... assembly shouldn't be too difficult.

Looks like about a month, the blog posted the first photos of the P4 chassis under construction on December 18, and the completed P4 on January 18.