Tesla · Architecture

Module architecture & variant reduction

The goal was one part number across platforms. Four investigations tested how far commonisation could actually go.

4Investigations
−$64Per-unit identified
7Opportunities scoped

The four investigations

A single part for everything; a shared bounding box with content variants; different bounding boxes with the same contents; and finally different bounding boxes sharing integration technologies. The first three failed on packaging or requirements coverage. The fourth showed that even when the box must change, the integration technologies commonise — which is where the durable savings live.

Four architecture investigations, and why each did or did not package.
Four architecture investigations, and why each did or did not package.

Scoping the opportunities

Each change was assessed by cost, technical risk and schedule rather than picked by instinct. Two of the largest savings carried medium risk; the very-high-risk items were worth far less, which is exactly the sort of thing that stays invisible until you tabulate it.

Cost-down opportunities, assessed per unit
Design changeCostRisk
Eliminate flex busbars−$28Med
Integrate planar magnetics−$20Med
Harness reduction — solder devices to HVC PCB−$9Very high
Consolidate insulators−$5Med
Reduce module extents−$2Very high
Weld busbars to devicesNeutralHigh
Charger outside penthouseNeutral / negativeHigh