🚘def(tesla) - amoon.world🌙

using [tesla info idx table cld](https://claude.ai/chat/d0107e5e-72ee-4a64-baf3-5e0551336acd), [[🧬AGCT taxanomy]] [[decide(charlie-jb,(tesla s or ford t))]], [[🗄️⬆️up(🌲level, 🏎️tesla)]] --- [[2025-08-01|25-08-01-20]] ## Success Pattern: Certain WHAT, Flexible HOW **Amazon (Bezos):** - WHAT: "Earth's most customer-centric company" (certain) - HOW: "Books? CDs? Electronics? Marketplace? Cloud?" (flexible) **Apple (Jobs):** - WHAT: "Computers for the rest of us" (certain) - HOW: "Desktop? Laptop? Music player? Phone? Tablet?" (flexible) **Tesla (Musk):** - WHAT: "Accelerate sustainable transport" (certain) - HOW: "Roadster? Model S? Model 3? Charging network?" (flexible) ## Failure Pattern: Certain WHAT, Rigid HOW → Prison **Theranos (Holmes):** - WHAT: "Revolutionize blood testing" (certain) - HOW: "MUST be one drop, 200 tests, proprietary device" (rigid) → fraud **FTX (SBF):** - WHAT: "Democratize crypto trading" (certain) - HOW: "MUST use customer funds for arbitrage" (rigid) → fraud **Nikola (Milton):** - WHAT: "Zero-emission trucking" (certain) - HOW: "MUST be hydrogen, 1000-mile range, 2¢/kWh" (rigid) → fraud The pattern is stark: Winners kept their vision constant but their methods fluid. Losers locked both their vision AND their method, leaving no room to adapt when reality disagreed. 2025-06-05 # 🍗opportunity that excited Xcellent Straubel reflected, “We concluded that, rather than seek out rock-bottom labor costs, we should compromise between low labor costs and technological capability, and so we ended up choosing Xcellent.” At the time the battery assembly was moved to Thailand, Tesla had built fewer than 10 production battery packs at their engineering shop in California, and had built those by hand without specialized production tooling. Xcellent specialized in the manufacturing of aluminum forming for BBQ grills, which surprisingly had a very similar geometry and fabrication process to the battery pack enclosure. Xcellent’s available capacity consisted of an essentially empty warehouse that could be purposed for whatever needs Tesla deemed necessary. However, as Xcellent was a small manufacturer and the battery cells were expensive, Tesla needed to pay for raw materials up-front at Xcellent in order to have enough inventory on-hand to keep up with production. Each cell cost approximately $2.50 at the time. The battery pack with 6,831 cells would contain more than $17,000 worth of cells. The assembly process included packing the cells into the 11 sheets and encapsulating them in plastic. It also included fabrication of the enclosure and assembling the sheets into the pack. On average, assembling one sheet took an assembly worker one day. The majority of the time was spent packing cells and connecting the cells into the circuit. Both of these tasks were simple and required little training. The pack enclosure and installation of the 11 sheets took an assembly worker approximately8 half a day. training. This was a relatively complex electro mechanical assembly that required significant Tesla manufacturing engineers Jason Mendez and John Williams were sent to Xcellent to teach employees how to assemble the li-ion cells into sheets and then assemble the sheets into the battery pack. When they arrived at Xcellent, they received a warm greeting and were given an office filled with BBQ’s proudly displayed, all products Xcellent had made in its factory (Exhibit 8). Jason Mendez said, “Making a battery pack was nothing like building a BBQ but they were ready to learn and excited to enter the high tech industry. We built the battery factory in Thailand together with the Xcellent team.” The Xcellent team was very excited to have the opportunity to enter into a new cutting edge technology. But their resources to support the development of the manufacturing process were very limited. Even development of the equipment to build simple parts and subassemblies was challenging. Exhibit 9 shows the Xcellent team examining a prototype part against the engineering drawing on the floor. Tesla had not anticipated that Xcellent would have virtually no design or quality control capabilities. 2025-05-19 # Tesla Experiments Aligned with Existing Examples | Set | Definition | Market Validation Examples | Operational Verification Examples | BINARIZED CHOICE | | :----------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Technology | Potential tools, techniques, designs, and knowledge for value creation | Customer willingness to pay premium for lithium-ion battery technology | Battery range testing under real-world conditions | 1. Lithium-ion battery technology vs. Other energy storage options 2. Focus on battery technology improvement vs. Focus on electric powertrain efficiency | | Organization | Potential capabilities, resources, team compositions, and culture | Silicon Valley tech startup culture appeal to premium consumers | Testing global supply chain coordination (CA design, Thailand manufacturing) | 1. Silicon Valley tech startup culture vs. Traditional automotive industry culture 2. In-house manufacturing vs. Outsourcing production | | Product | Potential product designs, features, and attributes | Customer interest in high-performance sports car vs. compact city car | Custom-designed vehicle manufacturing tolerances verification | 1. High-performance sports car vs. Compact city car 2. Custom-designed vehicle vs. Conversion of existing model | | Customer | Potential persons, groups, or organizations who will pay | Wealthy tech enthusiasts' preference research vs. mass-market consumers | Validation of delivery timelines matching customer expectations | 1. Wealthy tech enthusiasts vs. Mass-market consumers 2. Urban residents vs. Rural residents | | Competitor | Potential firms providing similar products or solving similar needs | Positioning against traditional luxury manufacturers and EV startups | Quality control benchmarking against traditional automotive standards | 1. Traditional luxury car manufacturers vs. Other electric vehicle startups 2. High-end sports car makers vs. Mass-market electric vehicle manufacturers | *Note: SKU = Singular Known Unknown, MKU = Multiple Known Unknowns* | Component | Value Creation Decision | Value Capture Decision | | :---------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Decision $x_t=$ $\left[x_{1 t}, x_{2 t}\right]$ | invest in battery technology or marketing | make-or-buy decision for each battery pack and PEM | | Intermediary Var. | $\begin{aligned}& {B}_t=f_1\left(x_{1 t}, t\right) \sim w_{1 t} x_{1 t} \\& {V}_t=f_2\left(x_{1 t}, t\right) \sim w_{2 t} x_{2 t}\end{aligned}$ | $\begin{aligned}& D_t=g_1\left(x_{1 t}, t\right) \sim w_{1 t} x_{1 t} \\& =g_2\left(x_{1 t}, t\right) \sim w_{2 t} x_{2 t}\end{aligned}$ | | Weight | $W_t$ : Weights for battery performance and vehicle sale in utility function | $W_t$ : Weights for battery pack quality and power electronics module quality in utility function | | Fixed Cost $c_t\left(x_t\right)$ | Fixed costs in year t | Fixed costs based on make-or-buy decisions | | Const. Matrix $A_t$ | Cost and resource requirements of each investment | Resource requirements for in-house production vs. supplier capacity | | Const. Limits $b_t$ | Budget and resource availability over time | Production capacity, quality thresholds, budget constraints | | Utility Function $U_t$ | $W_t^{\prime}\left[\mathrm{B}_t\right.$, $\left.{V}_t\right]-c_t=R_t^{\prime}\left[x_{1 t}, x_{2 t}\right]-$ $c_t$ | $W_t^{\prime}[{ Q1_t, Q2_t}]-c_t(x_t)=R_t^{\prime}[x_{1 t}, x_{2 t}]$ | | Complexity | Temporal: Opportunitydependent utility evolving with market conditions | Spatial: Non-additive utility from discrete make-or-buy choices and their interactions | | | | | example of value creation and capture decision; $B_t$ is battery performance, $V_{t}$ is vehicle sales, $Q1_t$ is batter pack quality, $Q2_t$ is power electronics module quality --- todo 1. culture and reputation that are carried over are similar to process 2. tesla roadster vs S (⚙️M2I then 📦M2I) 2025-04-15 opportunity to pitch my theory to j straubel https://web.cvent.com/event/87df9b30-eb21-4af6-81ef-40211d19666a/websitePage:e5662a6a-4a0a-4300-a602-dcfad8cc9a2b?environment=P2 2025-04-06 ![[tesla_betterplace.png|200]] 2025-04-04 # Tesla vs. Better Place: Comparison of Probabilistic Models using [modeling entrep4ops with markov chains cld](https://claude.ai/chat/62fb7470-2b95-4bab-8df9-60329a8ea677) ![[Pasted image 20250404083022.png|300]] ![[Pasted image 20250404081950.png|300]] 2025-03-09 from [[📜ehrig22_theory_exp]], Tesla's strategy was formulated as a set of premises that logically lead to the conjecture that "Tesla will sell enough electric cars in the midsize segment to be among the five largest players in that segment." The table captures: 1. Elon Musk's original "Secret Masterplan" from 2006 2. The hierarchical structure of Tesla's theory with main premises, sub-premises, and sub-sub-premises 3. The identified weakest premise (battery technology constraints) 4. Two counter-theories that challenge Tesla's assumptions (charging infrastructure and battery weight vs. acceleration) 5. The hidden premises revealed through counter-theory analysis 6. An alternative theory based on a disruptive low-end approach 7. Implications for focused experimentation This Tesla example demonstrates how the authors' framework allows strategists to articulate their assumptions clearly, identify which premises to test first, learn from objections, and make inferences about otherwise untestable beliefs. | Aspect | Details | | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Tesla's Conjecture (TZ)** | "Tesla will sell enough electric cars in the midsize segment to be among the five largest players in that segment" | | **Musk's 2006 "Secret Masterplan"** | "The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy toward a solar electric economy... The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model." | | **Key Premises of Tesla's Theory** | **TA**: Customers perceive Tesla's high-end electric car to be equal or superior to ICE-powered high-end cars **TB**: If customers perceive Tesla's high-end electric car as superior, Tesla will sell as many or more high-end electric cars as ICE-powered competitors **TC**: If Tesla sells many high-end cars, midsize segment customers will perceive Tesla's midsize electric cars as equal or superior to ICE-powered cars **TD**: If midsize customers perceive Tesla's cars as superior, Tesla will sell enough to be among top five players | | **Sub-Premises of TA** | **TAA**: Tesla's high-end electric car will have lower emissions than high-end limousine models **TAB**: Tesla's high-end electric car will have faster acceleration than ICE-powered cars **TAC**: Tesla's high-end electric car will have a battery with sufficient charge for 450 km ride **TAD**: If TAA, TAB, and TAC are true, customers perceive Tesla's high-end car as superior | | **Sub-Sub-Premises of TAC** | **TACA**: A battery can be developed with optimal trade-off between capacity and weight for 450 km range **TACB**: If such a battery can be developed, Tesla's car will have sufficient charge for 450 km ride | | **Weakest Premise (W)** | **TACA**: The battery technology assumption was considered most questionable given the state of battery technology in 2008 | | **Counter-Theory 1: Charging Infrastructure** | **TL**: Customers will NOT perceive Tesla's high-end electric car as equal or superior to ICE-powered cars **TLA**: Customers in high-end segment will consider charging inconvenient unless there's out-of-home charging infrastructure within 5 miles **TLB**: Out-of-home charging infrastructure will not be built **TLC**: Inconvenient charging means customers won't perceive Tesla's cars as superior | | **Weakest Premise of Counter-Theory 1** | **TLAB**: Customers buying the Tesla Roadster consider charging more inconvenient than filling up gas unless there is out-of-home charging infrastructure within 5 miles | | **Counter-Theory 2: Battery Weight vs Acceleration** | **TM**: Tesla's high-end electric car cannot both have a battery with sufficient charge for 450 km ride AND enable accelerations faster than ICE-powered cars **TMA**: If the weight of a battery for 450 km ride makes Tesla's car heavier than competitors, it cannot accelerate faster **TMB**: A battery with sufficient charge for 450 km ride will make Tesla's car heavier than competitors | | **Weakest Premise of Counter-Theory 2** | **TMA**: The belief that a heavier electric vehicle cannot accelerate faster than ICE-powered cars | | **Learned Hidden Premises** | If Counter-Theory 1 is rejected: Charging can be made convenient even without dense charging infrastructure If Counter-Theory 2 is rejected: Electric vehicles must accelerate faster than ICE-powered cars despite being heavier | | **Alternative Theory for Tesla** | A disruptive "low-end" strategy where Tesla would first produce cheaper electric vehicles for the low-end segment, build scale, achieve cost leadership, and then move upmarket to the midsize segment | | **Focused Experiment Implications** | Tesla should test both battery development (TACA) and the relationship between battery weight and acceleration (TMA) | ---- ## 🌳NAIL | Year | Asset/Organization (A)🔴🟩 | Customer/Market (C)🟩💜 | Key Outcomes | | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | | **EARLY PHASE (2003-2008)** | | | | | 2003 | 🌟 Founded by Eberhard & Tarpenning | 🎯 Initial market research and validation | Established vision for premium EV | | 2004 | 💰 Series A funding led by Musk ($7.5M) 👥 Early team formation | 🌟 Brand positioning: "performance + green" | Secured initial resources | | 2005 | 🤝 Lotus partnership for chassis design 🛠️ First prototype development | 📊 Market analysis of luxury sports segment | Technical validation begins | | 2006 | 💰 Series B funding ($13M) 🔋 Battery tech development | 📢 First public prototype reveal 🌐 Website launch | Proof of concept achieved | | 2007 | 💰 Series C funding ($40M) 👥 Engineering team expansion | 💫 Early adopter engagement 📱 Online reservation system | Production preparation | | **ROADSTER PHASE (2008-2012)** | | | | | 2008 | 🏭 Production starts at Lotus 🤝 Daimler partnership begins | 🚗 First Roadster deliveries 💫 Celebrity customers (Brin, Page) | First revenue generation | | 2009 | 💰 Daimler invests $50M 🔋 Battery improvements | 🌐 European market entry 📢 Positive press coverage | International expansion | | 2010 | 🤝 Toyota partnership ($50M) 🏢 NUMMI factory acquisition | 📈 300th Roadster delivered 🏪 First Tesla stores open | Retail strategy established | | 2011 | 🛠️ Roadster 2.5 launch 🏭 NUMMI retooling begins | 🌍 Asia market entry 🎯 Model S pre-orders | Production capability growth | ## ⛰️SCALE | Year | Asset/Organization (A)🔴🟩 | Customer/Market (C)🟩💜 | Key Outcomes | | --------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | | **SCALING PHASE 1 - MODEL S (2010-2015)** | | | | | 2012 | 🏭 End of Roadster production 💰 DOE loan repayment | 🚗 Model S launch 📢 Car of the Year awards | Premium sedan market entry | | 2013 | 🔋 Battery swap demo 🛠️ Service center expansion | 📈 20,000+ Model S sold 🌐 Supercharger network expansion | Infrastructure growth | | 2014 | 🏭 Gigafactory announcement 🤝 Panasonic partnership deepens | 🚗 Model X pre-orders 📱 Direct sales model challenges | Production scale-up begins | | 2015 | ⚡ Tesla Energy launch 🏭 Gigafactory construction | 📢 Powerwall announcement 💫 AutoPilot launch | Product line diversification | | **SCALING PHASE 2 - MASS MARKET (2015-2018)** | | | | | 2016 | 🔄 SolarCity acquisition ($2.6B) 🏭 Gigafactory starts production | 🌟 Model 3 unveiling 📈 400,000+ reservations | Mass market preparation | | 2017 | 🏭 Production hell begins 👥 Workforce doubles | 🚗 Model 3 first deliveries 📊 Mass market entry | Manufacturing challenges | | **CHALLENGES IN SCALING (2018)** | | | | | Q1 2018 | 💸 $700M cash burn 🏭 Production bottlenecks | ⚠️ Model 3 delivery delays 📉 Stock volatility | Financial pressure | | Q2 2018 | 🛠️ GA4 assembly line in tent 🔋 Battery constraints | 🚧 Norway delivery issues ⚠️ Autopilot concerns | Operational struggles | | Q3 2018 | 🏭 5000 Model 3/week achieved 👥 Management restructuring | 📈 Production ramp success 💫 Musk SEC settlement | Stabilization begins | | Q4 2018 | 🏢 Shanghai factory announced 💰 Positive cash flow | 🌐 European/China expansion plans 📊 Market share growth | Recovery signs | | **GLOBAL EXPANSION PHASE (2019-2021)** | | | | | 2019 | 🏭 Shanghai Gigafactory opens 🛠️ V3 Supercharging launch 💰 $1.1B debt payment | 🚗 Model Y unveiling 📈 367,500 total deliveries 🌐 China market push | Global manufacturing footprint | | 2020 | 🏭 Berlin/Texas Gigafactory construction 🔋 Battery Day - 4680 cells 💰 $5B capital raise | 🌟 S&P 500 inclusion 📈 500,000 annual deliveries 🎯 FSD beta release | Production scale milestone | | 2021 | 🏭 Model Y ramp in Shanghai 🔋 Battery cell production starts 🤝 Hertz 100k order | 📈 936,172 deliveries 💫 $1T market cap 🌐 Europe expansion | Mass market dominance | | **MATURE MARKET PHASE (2022-2024)** | | | | | 2022 | 🏭 Texas & Berlin factories open 🔋 4680 production challenges 💸 Price cuts begin | 🚗 1.31M deliveries 📉 Stock decline (65%) ⚠️ FSD controversies | Production capacity growth | | 2023 | 🛠️ Cybertruck production starts 🏭 Mexico factory announced 💰 Margin pressure | 📊 1.81M deliveries 🎯 Cybertruck launch ⚠️ Price war pressures | Market share defense | | 2024* | 🏭 Mexico factory construction 🔋 Battery cost reduction 🤝 Third-party charging | 🌟 Next-gen platform plans 🎯 $25K model development 🌐 India market entry | Market expansion continues | Key Trends Observed: 1. Market Evolution: From supply-constrained to demand-challenged, Increasing competition in EV space, Price sensitivity becoming crucial 2. Operational Changes: Global manufacturing footprint, Vertical integration in battery production, Focus on cost reduction 3. Strategic Shifts: More aggressive pricing strategy, Broader market accessibility, Geographic diversification 4. Key Challenges:Margin preservation, Market share defense, Technology leadership maintenance Notable Market-Operations Interactions: 1. Production Capacity vs Demand: - 2019-2021: Demand exceeded supply - 2022-2024: Supply catches up, leading to price competition 2. Geographic Expansion: - Production follows market demand (China, Europe, Mexico) - Local manufacturing enables market competitiveness 3. Product Strategy: - Moving down-market with more affordable options - Balancing premium features with cost optimization ---- | Date | Source | Key Topic | One-Sentence Summary | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Tesla Motors: The Startup That Wants to Revolutionize the Automotive Industry | 2003-2006 | Early company history and startup phase | - Founded by Eberhard and Tarpenning in 2003 - Early funding from Elon Musk - Strategic decision to start with high-end Roadster - Focus on building strong technical team - Key partnerships with Lotus and other suppliers | | The Tesla Roadster (A): Accelerated Supply Chain Learning | 2003-2007 | Early supply chain and manufacturing challenges | - Outsourced manufacturing strategy with Lotus for vehicle assembly - Battery pack manufacturing outsourced to Xcellent in Thailand - Power Electronics Module (PEM) manufacturing to Chroma in Taiwan - Complex logistics caused delays and high costs - Early focus on Silicon Valley approach of "Design in California, Manufacture Overseas" | | The 21st Century Electric Car | 2006 technical analysis | Technical comparison of EVs vs other vehicles | - Detailed analysis of energy efficiency of different vehicle types - Shows EVs superior efficiency vs gas, hybrid, and hydrogen vehicles - Demonstrates Tesla's battery technology advantages - Makes case for EVs as both high performance and efficient - Addresses range and charging infrastructure challenges | | TESLA TOMORROW THE FUTURE OF TESLA MOTORS | 2010-2015 projection | Comprehensive business analysis and recommendations | - Future success depends on Model S launch - Recommended expanding service infrastructure through Toyota partnership - Suggested focusing on luxury EV market before economy vehicles - Emphasized need for marketing campaign around Model S - Financial analysis showed need for strong Model S sales performance | | 2018-03-24 | tesla-deliveries-norway | Norway Deliveries | Tesla decides to slow deliveries in Norway, its third-largest market, due to safety concerns with delivery trucks and logistics capacity issues. | | 2018-03-27 | tesla-stock-down | Stock Performance | Tesla stock drops 8% following NTSB investigation announcement of a fatal crash and bearish analyst notes about Model 3 competition. | | 2018-03-28 | elon-musk-tesla-solarcity-lawsuit | SolarCity Lawsuit | Tesla shareholders win a round in court allowing them to proceed with a lawsuit against Elon Musk regarding the $2.6 billion SolarCity acquisition. | | 2018-03-29 | tesla-model-s-recall | Model S Recall | Tesla recalls 123,000 Model S vehicles due to power steering bolt corrosion issues in cold climates. | | 2018-03-31 | tesla-model-x-crash-autopilot | Autopilot Crash | Tesla confirms Autopilot was engaged during a fatal Model X crash in Mountain View, California, with the driver's hands off the wheel for six seconds before impact. | | 2018-04-04 | tesla-elon-musk | Analysis & Standards | Analysis argues that Tesla should be held to higher standards like traditional automakers rather than being treated as a startup, especially regarding production targets. | | 2018-04-12 | tesla-ntsb | Autopilot Investigation | Tesla and NTSB clash over an Autopilot crash investigation after Tesla violated the party agreement by making public statements about the crash without NTSB permission. | | 2018-04-13 | elon-musk-tesla-profit | Profit Promises | Elon Musk makes a bold promise on Twitter that Tesla would become profitable in Q3 and Q4 of 2018, despite the company's history of consistent losses. | | 2018-05-02 | tesla-earnings | Financial Performance | Tesla burns through $700 million in Q1 but shows signs of improvement in Model 3 production, reaching 2,270 cars per week in April. | - early years, technical foundations, manufacturing challenges, and future strategic planning. - early 2018, Tesla faced multiple challenges including fatal Autopilot crashes, production and delivery issues, legal troubles over the SolarCity merger, a major Model S recall, and financial pressures, while CEO Elon Musk maintained an optimistic outlook about the company's future profitability despite mounting skepticism. | Component | Value Creation (2003-2012) | Value Capture (2012-2018) | |-----------|---------------------------|-------------------------| | Strategic Focus | 🌱 Battery technology innovation & premium market positioning | 🏭 Manufacturing optimization & market expansion | | Key Decisions | • Invest in proprietary battery tech • Target luxury sports car segment • Partner with Lotus for manufacturing • Build direct sales model | • Scale Model S production • Make-or-buy decisions for components • Vertical integration with Gigafactory • Expand service infrastructure | | Performance Metrics | • 🌱 Battery performance (range/power) • 🏎️ Vehicle sales (Roadster) | • 🏁 Battery pack quality/cost • ⚡ Power electronics efficiency | | Fixed Costs | R&D investments & initial production setup | Manufacturing infrastructure & operations | | Constraints | • Limited budget/resources • Small supplier network • Unproven technology | • Production capacity • Quality standards • Supply chain complexity | | Utility Function | Focus on technology validation and market acceptance | Focus on production efficiency and cost optimization | | Key Complexity | Temporal: Managing market uncertainty & evolving technology | Spatial: Coordinating complex manufacturing & supply chain networks | Understanding the Framing: - The table follows the EDMNO (Entrepreneurial Decision Making with Non-additive Opportunity-dependent utility) framework - Shows transition from temporal complexity (early stage, high uncertainty) to spatial complexity (scaling stage, operational challenges) - Reflects Tesla's evolution from a technology-focused startup to a manufacturing-focused automaker Note: Emojis used: - 🌱 = Battery performance - 🏎️ = Vehicle sales - 🏁 = Battery pack quality - ⚡ = Power electronics module quality