Tesla Motors Turns a Profit For the First Time

d0rp writes with news that Tesla Motors has reported earning a profit for the first time in its six-year history. Sales of the $109,000 Roadster earned the company $20 million in revenue, which settled out to $1 million in profits. "Most of that money rolled in after Tesla delivered cars customers had already placed deposits on. Although the company has, according to spokeswoman Rachel Konrad, seen a 'surge' in orders for the Roadster and the higher-performance Roadster Sport (price: $127,500), it isn't likely to keep rolling cars out so quickly. Konrad says Tesla is 'definitely on pace' to meet its goal of 1,000 to 1,200 cars a year but didn't say when that might happen. Tesla has so far delivered about 609 Roadsters since production started in March, 2008." The company is working on a new 'Model S' sedan, with the help of $465 million in government loans, and has also entered into a partnership with Daimler to help the German auto company produce electric Smart cars.

Comments

Re:Private property. Keep out

[Deadstick]

the insinuance that somehow because someone owns something that was granted to them by the government that somehow they have a monopoly over it

That would seem to be a fairly accurate definition of "patent"...

rj

Re:Private property. Keep out

[BadAnalogyGuy]

No. It's pure naivete to think that Tesla will somehow continue in this business as a car manufacturer. They don't even manufacture the body of the car they sell. They are an IP company through and through. Their only hope is to have a good patent chest and find licensees.

Daimler seems to be interested, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones who want to build an electric vehicle.

Anyone who thinks Tesla will be around as a car manufacturer 3 years from now ought to buy stock in Moller today.

465 Million $ loan??

[smallshot]

How does a company that makes $1,000,000 in profit over 1 full year, get 465 Million dollars in loans from our government?? How will they pay that back in a reasonable time?

Re:465 Million $ loan??

[Jeremi]

I would feel better if they were making an AFFORDABLE economical vehicle that would benefit the majority of Americans (and the environment).

Me too, but experience has shown that you can't approach the problem that way. A number of companies have tried make "economical" electric cars, and they end up looking (and driving) like golf carts, while still costing more than, say, a Honda Civic. So when the companies go to sell these cars, the American public just laughs at them, and the companies quickly go out of business. The companies never have a chance to produce a more attractive product, because they never have a chance to establish the manufacturing base necessary to make electric vehicles efficiently, and therefore they can't compete with gas-powered cars.

Tesla is trying to opposite approach: instead of trying to compete with Ford/Honda/Toyota/GM/etc on the low end (an economic suicide mission), they are starting from the high end and working their way down. It turns out that you can make a fairly competitive electric sports-car, because at the high end, pricing is less of an obstacle to consumer acceptance, and therefore you can sell cars even if you have to give them a pretty large markup to offset your startup costs.

Tesla's next step after the Roadster will be to sell the Model S, which will compete with the Mercedes and the BMWs of the world and sell in greater numbers than the niche Roadster product. Assuming the Model S is successful, their next product will be an even more inexpensive model to compete with the Nissans and Hondas of the world. At each step of the way, they leverage the capital and knowledge gained in the previous product to make something that is more mainstream, more cheaply than they previously could have done. In this way, they (hopefully) have a viable path towards making electric cars a popular mass-market product, which is something that you can't say for the electric-car companies that tried things your way and failed.

Who knows whether they will succeed or not, but the plan certainly has its merits.

Making 10,000 unaffordable "green" cars over 10 years has very little environmental impact and not worth my tax dollars in my opinion

That isn't the goal, so your opinion is unfounded.

Re:Where in the hell do people get this money?

[Frosty Piss]

Seriously, I don't know anyone that could just blow $100k on a car. Where are these people getting all this money and why does it seem like there are so many of them?!

Well, look around you next time you're out on the road. See those huge new pick-ups and SUVs? Many are up in the 60k range, and for a sports car, those same type of people are the customers. People who have few obligations such as family and making "good money" plunk down that kind of change for toys all the time.

But the carrot is that the technology in these 100k$ cars will trickle down to cheaper, more consumer targeted vehicles.

Re:Customer is a sucker... do the math

[Bobby Mahoney]

Why does it have to be about the environment or saving fuel?

How about having 100% of torque available at all speeds?

Besides, $109k for any car that does 0-60 in less than 4 (and has a chassis designed by lotus) is not a bad a deal - bonus if you never have to fill the thing with some flammable/combustible liquid to get it to work.

Maybe it makes me an asshole, but electric cars and hybrids for the sake of being 'green' are a stupid idea anyways, and I've grown to hate the notion that electric motivation = environmentally minded.

Eliminating the power curve and hundreds of additional moving parts from the gasoline engine formula makes for such huge performance potential for electric motivation.

Finally an electric car that can stand on its own in terms of performance, and is actually usable for every day - an electric car for those who appreciate performance, and decidedly not, kids with beards.