Small patent for die casting

Because most of them are traditional car factories and most of them are conservatives. Tesla is an extremely radical person. Traditional automobile manufacturers all think that integrated die casting is not feasible, or have never thought about Tesla's cost reduction. Tesla's overall cast body with high safety has almost no welding points, and all surfaces are absolutely and reliably connected, which makes the overall structure of the vehicle have high strength. Compared with the traditional welded car body, Tesla's integral cast car body is safer and can better protect passengers in the actual collision process.

The die-casting process has fewer parts and lighter aluminum, which also reduces the use of solder joints and bolts and greatly reduces the weight of the car body. Once the vehicle becomes lighter, its endurance will definitely improve. The advantages of high maintenance cost of die castings include good dimensional accuracy of castings. The internal structure can be directly cast. The production speed is fast. The disadvantage is that the cost is too high, only for car buyers. So far, all I can think of is mixed feelings. On the positive side, the integrally cast body reduces the cost and contributes to the price of Tesla.

In addition, the aluminum body is likely to be lighter than the original body, bringing energy-saving effect, and the same power can run further. On the negative side, I can only think of one thing at present: when a minor accident requires maintenance, the original car body does not need to be replaced, and it may need to be replaced as a whole. Will it lead to a substantial increase in maintenance costs? Of course, not every car will have an accident, but if the insurance company uses this as an excuse to increase the insurance cost of all models, I think this is a good opportunity. Simply put, the cost of auto insurance will increase.

Tesla's body parts changed from 70 to 1, which is undoubtedly a simplification of its internal design. My answer is no, for the following reasons: the original 70 distributed assembly parts are a simple and complicated process in production, with few changes. From the beginning of multi-machine tools to the present single machine tools, manpower and material resources have been liberated, and the cost has undoubtedly been reduced.

From a professional point of view, it simplifies the supply chain control, improves the torsional rigidity of the product (vehicle), improves the manufacturing accuracy (better appearance), reduces the weight (further improves the range of lightweight coefficient), simplifies the assembly process, improves the production efficiency (reduces the cost) and improves the material utilization rate. The disadvantage is that the fixed investment (mold cost) increases, mainly depending on the sales volume, and the maintenance is simpler but the cost is better.