Slashdot Mirror
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.
...year of profits!
I'm just angered by the insinuance that somehow because someone owns something that was granted to them by the government that somehow they have a monopoly over it and the right to shut me out on a whim.
What is hopeful is how Tesla is working with the auto industry to spread their battery and electric vehicle patents in a cooperative way rather than trying to submarine them. I see a profitable road ahead for Tesla if they can keep their IP chest ahead of the curve.
This should be taken with a bit of skepticism. There's a difference between positive cash flow (more cash coming in than going out), positive net income (what most people think of as 'profit') and positive EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or profit from operations). TFA doesn't mention which Tesla is reporting.
What the heck is your problem????
Don't you find it good that a company in CALIFORNIA manages to turn a profit on new technology? If the company had to reinvent the wheel on batteries, motors and everything else they would be years from a model and profit. This is why GM's electric system is so far behind. They have to invent everything themselves. And what results is a crappy car called the volt, which is not even completely electric. It reaches 40 miles before needing juice. GIVE ME A BREAK...
BTW China is starting to honor IP... Why? Chinese companies are starting to sue Chinese companies for stealing of their IP.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
This is slashdot, if it is not an Apple product made in China, then it is not worth bothering with.
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?
In a sense they are pushing for these things by creating a market for those factors of production. It may be that in the end that the market for those factors will be filled by foreign companies who can provide them more efficiently and cheaper. American companies are more than welcome to enter that market -- they certainly have an advantage of being able to supply the factors on-demand, with minimal transportation costs, and free from customs clearance due to their geographic and political proximity. Currently I don't see why Tesla would even consider purchasing their factors of production from an American company for a higher price or at lower quality. Jingoism will only work to the detriment of Tesla.
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I don't completely disagree with you, but you might want to take price into consideration as well. The Model S is supposed to retail for $57,000. The Volt is supposed to retail for $40,000. Both have a $7500 tax credit attached to them.
Which do you think is more affordable for the average person? A $33,000 car, or a $50,000 car? Neither is an acceptable answer, but at least the Volt is in the ballpark.
A 40 mile electric charge range ain't bad. On most days I don't drive more than 40 miles, and I commute to work every workday. If I were making the choice between them, I'd easily choose the Volt over the Model S and do something else with the $17,000 in savings (hell, you could buy a whole other car for that if you were so inclined). In reality I'll buy neither of them, but at least it's a start.
AccountKiller
I at least feel better about money going towards developing a product that may help out ongoing energy problems
Just because its all electric doesn't mean it will solve our energy problems. It just offloads the burden to another infrastructure. Currently our use of fossil fuels is generating most of our electricity, dump a few million electric cars on the grid and sure you save some gas and emissions (and coal plants have much better filtration and carbon capture than combustion engines) but at the cost of stressing our electric grid. The efficiency of converting gas into kinetic energy is relatively high, as far as energy conversions go. Converting fuels into electricity is far less efficient, not to mention losses from battery storage.
don't get me wrong, i'd love for everyone to drive an electric car instead of a combustion engine, but our grid isn't capable of supporting that dream yet. The change will come, but it will be slow, and driven by economics.
Don't you find it good that a company in CALIFORNIA manages to turn a profit on new technology?
$1mil "profit" after a $465mil "loan" is a profit?
How about the sub $20K, 100 mile Aptera 2e? (Or if you wait until 2010, the hybrid model that goes 600 miles on one tank?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
It is quite uderstandable that Tesla turns a profit. After all, their roadster is on parity with other sports cars, has the same performance (at least in a drag race, not so sure about handling on a race track) as a Porsche 911 and makes the owner feel good about him/herself. And, on a more subjective point of view, it's quite nice to look at. If I had $100k to blow on a car, I would buy one.
The problem I see with Tesla is if they can turn what they've done until now into an afordable sedan or they will fade into oblivion. This has much to do with the fact that I'm not quite sure that electric cars are the way to go. After all, in a couple of years hydrogen could be the next big thing. Time will tell.
I noticed a lot of negative comments but the news was amazing. We aren't even talking 18 months after they delivered their first car they showed a profit! I've never heard of that from anyone in recent history. Breaking even for a car maker takes years not months. Yes I know it's not a true profit to the investors but that was always going to take years, probably 5 to 10 years and they all knew it. Ask any investor if they are happy or disappointed and I'll bet you couldn't wipe the grin off their faces. I've seen claims Tesla won't survive 3 years get modded Insightful. I'd mod it shortsighted. Dan hasn't peaked yet so declaring their death is a little premature. They are doing the right thing and expanding their car line to more afordable models. They are partnering up with established companies. They seem to be doing all the right things to not only survive but thrive. People have called the roadster expensive but haven't pointed out that it can beat a car costing twice as much in the straightaway. Once batteries get lighter they'll corner better and they can beat them in the corners as well. People say electrics must be cheaper to be acceptable because of range and recharge limitations. How's half priced for cheaper? Yes they can't make a family car cheaper and they probably never will. The range and recharge will improve over time. You've got to remember a Tesla car is exactly the same as a hydrogen car it just uses batteries instead of a fuel cell. The cars could use fuel cells just as easily. The batteries are the major expense. Electric motors tend to be cheaper than gas engines and they lack all the extra bits like fuel pumps and such to keep them going. How much geekier can you get than an electric car??? Time to celibrate. Also you've got to remember the single biggest point. They did it in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression! Two out of the big three car makers just declared backruptcy!
This is a standard accounting operating procedure for Silicon Valley startups. In fact, compared to the late 90s "boom", this is positively conservative.
Back in the day when I worked in mortgages (more than a quarter of a century ago - yes, I am older than dirt underneath my feet), we didn't have credit scores. We just used common sense. What a concept.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
No thanks. If I didn't care about my safety I'd just buy a motorcycle rather than something that looks like it came from an issue of Popular Mechanics 20 years ago.
AccountKiller
But the carrot is that the technology in these 100k$ cars will trickle down to cheaper, more consumer targeted vehicles.
This is delusional. Sorry but it is. You're not alone and it's the support argument that gets repeated the most. But think about what technology it is that is supposed to magically trickle down: batteries.
Hmm, where have I see those before? I don't know maybe in millions of laptops, cell phones, handheld devices, power tools, calculators, and cars. Nearly everything uses batteries, but good batteries still cost about $100 per pound.
If all those batteries haven't reduce the price thus far why would a car company selling a few thousand cars make any difference at all? I highly suspect it won't.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
No need to fight wars for a nuclear, or solar or wind energie or geo-energie.
That is the beauty of the electric grid. it don't give a damn what you hook up to it.
Petrol cars run on petrol.
Electric cars run on anything that pump out juice.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So far, they sell one nice electric sports car. And they announced to make a sedan for a somewhat wider audience. But Tesla does not have the market share yet to put real pressure on the major car makers.
I think Toyota played a bigger role there:
While only partially electric, their Prius demonstrated that a hybrid can actually sell serious numbers. AFAIK one million worldwide so far.
C - the footgun of programming languages
They've spent far less money than GM spent on the EV-1, and have almost as many cars on the road. About 1100 EV1 cars were produced.
The current version of the Tesla roadster is a reasonably good sports car. Speed is good, acceleration is very good, the range is 200 miles, and it looks good as it whooshes by. It's overpriced, but there's hope of getting that down as volume goes up.
They had some initial problems stemming from trying to make it go fast. First they had motor overheating problems at high revs, so they put in a two-speed transmission. That was a disaster; shifting under load ate up the transmission because the two speeds were too far apart. Then they went back to a simple single speed transmission, but water-cooled the motor, which simplified the mechanics and got them the desired top speed. The current drive train seems to be holding up well. Top speed is only 125MPH, which is low for $100K+ sports cars, but few customers really take their Ferraris to a track anyway.
I see Teslas on the road almost daily. I live near the Silicon Valley dealership and on a road the sales reps use for demos. They change lanes very smoothly, with all that battery mass holding the center of gravity down.
Oh, because the batteries used in electric vehicles are quite a bit different than the ones used in laptops and cell phones? Laptops and Cell phones draw a small amount of current compared to the ones needed for electric vehicles. Also, the cell size and capacity are difference. Portable devices need light weight, SMALL battery cells. Battery cells for electric cars need a high power density and high current output, volume and weight are much less of an object. Among other things, the multiple order of magnitude difference in current draw makes the two types significantly different. Then there is the battery life. Your portable battery may a few years before becoming mostly useless. Car batteries need to last 10 years.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
They don't even manufacture the body of the car they sell.
That's not so unusual. Do you think the big auto makers actually make most of the parts that go into their cars? They don't. In fact it is standard practice to outsource even entire subsystems of the car to the Tier 1 suppliers. The body of the car is just another part which can be purchased from a supplier if desired. It's less common to outsource that part but not unheard of.
They are an IP company through and through.
So are most manufacturers when you get right down to it. Any sophisticated product not covered by patents and trade secrets will be copied quite rapidly these days.
Basic accounting does not consider a loan as profit. The Balance Sheet is defined as Assets = Liabilities + Equity. The loan increases cash(assets) and increases liabilities (obligation to repay). Profit appears on the Income Statement. Profit = revenue from sales less expenses of those sales over a defined time period.
But think about what technology it is that is supposed to magically trickle down: batteries.
I'm sorry, but if you think batteries are the only trickle-down technology from efficient and well engineered electric cars, you're ignorant. Think more in terms of the entire drive-train.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Model S is priced at 49.900$
It somehow already happened. Cool, eh.
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
That's my point exactly. The batteries you're talking about don't exist. The Tesla uses standard Li-ions found in laptops and cell phones. There is no innovative technology here. There is nothing to trickle down.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
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.
!#&*
Right, that's what has been holding the electric car back, "efficient drive-trains".
If you think the drive train adds anything significant to the car's "efficiency", then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
...but they make no financial sense. $109,000???
You also miss the point entirely. The roadster was never intended to be economical. It was intended as a tool to persuade the masses that electric is cool. It was intended to provide a flexible platform on which to develop their technology while retaining the financial flexibility afforded by a sexy roadster tailored to appeal to financially enabled early adopters. Their next vehicle, a luxury sedan, is built upon the technology developments made through their roadster project. The sedan is effectively half the price and is put within reach of many working professionals and also giving it economics not far removed from a Prius. In addition, they're now licensing (manufacturing?) their roadster developed technology to other manufacturers. They're following the traditional path of new technology developments. Early adoption of new technology almost never makes financial sense. The horse was most certainly more financially sensible than the Model T but without the early adopters of it you wouldn't have that $9,000 gas guzzling pile, just a lot more manure.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
On the other hand, they're helping to support a new technology that will hopefully one day be cheap enough to worthwhile. Early adopters with too much money are helpful for supporting research..
Yes, i know that, and you do, but did they manage to insert the money in there?
Were they loans, or grants that Tesla got?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I would think most of the "trickle down", like any other manufacturing company, would come from the fact that with the more expensive line of cars they now have the basic infrastructure to begin planing new models with possibly many parts in common with the old model, thus reducing the price of both design and hard manufacturing.
While it is true that Lithium-ion batteries seem to have stagnated in price for nearly a decade, by the time the Model S comes out, maybe even in order for the Model S to be able to come out, we may see lead carbon batteries paired with an Ultracapacitor become viable. Or maybe Lithium-ion batteries may actually decrease in price as they as promised for about 9 years now, possibly due to lower consumer demand.
Seriously, I don't know anyone that could just blow $100k on a car.
You must not know any upper-level managers or executives, especially in high cost-of-living areas like Boston, New York, or Los Angeles. It's okay, though, I only know a couple (I worked at a small company for a couple years, so I personally knew the CEO and CFO), and it's not uncommon for typical employees not to know any.
To be clear I really hope this does happen. I hope some new battery tech comes out and I really hope the cost comes down. It just hasn't happened and I don't think Tesla is making any headway. As far as I know they're not developing batteries or researching new battery tech. They're using off the shelf batteries and they will not move enough volume to reduce costs. The Model S appears to just use less batteries to reduce the price.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Why worry?
People spend money on what's important to them. I spend 2-3 hours per day in my car commuting. I might as well spend some money to drive something I enjoy (It's all highway miles, so it's an enjoyable drive). I can afford it without mortgaging my home. Which is fortunate, as I would move closer to where I work, except that I can't sell my home for a significant fraction of what I bought it for 3 years ago. :-(
My car cost me ~$50K. I do have a close friend who drives a Porsche GT RS. (I think it runs for ~$130K.) A beautiful car, but not my sort of thing. I sure as hell don't begrudge him. He enjoys taking it out for a spin. He can afford it. Why worry?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
It's not *that* far fetched. A successful software engineer can pull down $100-200K per year in the USA, and if s/he's single, it's quite easy to buy a $100K car on that kind of salary.
Err, yeah. There's not THAT many software engineers making >$100K, and if they are, you have to consider that they're certainly in higher cost of living areas and, more importantly, you can expect the number of software engineers getting paid that kind of money to decrease dramatically as jobs are shipped overseas.
There are many people who can afford a $100K car without breaking the bank. On a 5 year loan, financing $80K of the price, it's around $1500/month at 6% loan rate. Plenty of people can do that.
Plenty of highly paid doctors and lawyers, perhaps. But even then they'd probably think twice about it. $1500 a month is more than a mortgage/insurance/tax payment on a $200K house, and you think people who aren't EXTREMELY wealthy would be willing to drop that much a month for five years ON TOP of a $20K downpayment? On a depreciating asset? In an economy that's going to stay ugly for years to come? Get real. It's out of reach for a large percentage of the population.
What are you talking about?? Tesla Motors does not live off government money. GM and AIG do. Tesla Motors borrowed money from the government. And now that it is turning profits the chances of it paying the money back are higher than ever. That's what bailout should do -- lend money to companies that are viable and will even pay that money back! (As opposed to the companies that will use up the money and go bankrupt (GM) or continue sucking money down without being useful (AIG)).
Another good thing about renting a vehicle for long trips is peace of mind. You aren't adding excessive miles to your own car, plus the rental company is 100% there for any potential breakdowns, etc. In your own vehicle, you could get stuck a thousand miles from home and have to eat expensive repairs, parts and labor. Closer to home, like normal just get a cheap tow in and fix it yourself, save a lot, only pay for parts.
It's actually a terrible deal, considering you can buy a used Lotus Elise for under $40,000 USD, and then add a turbo kit by Force Fed for around $10k. That puts it in the 4.0 or less area for less than half the cost of a Tesla.
Similarly, a BMW 1 or 3 series (x35i) with modified boost will run at those speeds, for even less. You can pick up a base 135i for under $40k, then add in a JB3 unit from Burger Tuning for $600.
Frankly, I think the Tesla Roadster is vastly overpriced. I'd love to own one, but it's just so far out of the realm of possibility, it's ridiculous. I could even afford an Elise/Exige, but not the all-electric equivalent. Shame.
The Nissan Leaf going on sale next year is coming in at 25 grand, all electric, 100 mile range. They get by cheaper by selling the car, but renting the battery pack (don't know what that will cost yet). But eventually the car will get paid off, and when you go to upgrade the battery pack, no doubt it will be cheaper/more power/last longer, etc. I think they will do more to get affordable electrics in the hands of joe working guy more than Tesla will. Tesla is still going to be higher end for quite some time, Nissan is coming in right at almost base entry level. They are also the ones who are partners with the Better Place project, who are developing the fast battery swap out stations and recharge stations all over, to address range issues. They have entire *nations* signed up for this so far, starting with Israel. They are designing the electric charging infrastructure stack, nissan/renault are building the cars.
I'm wary about jumping 30 years to the future on one purchase.
Considering it's for a separate model of car completely, yes. The loan is for them to ramp up production of the Model S; the profit was on Roadster sales.
Electric vehicles aren't the same as your RC toy car. Batteries, while using similar compounds aren't really the same. Formulations are specialized for a flatter output curve through far more charge/discharge cycles than a mobile electronic device. Packaging is specialized for optimum and safe charge/discharge for the massively larger stacks. There are specialized charging systems and drive trains. The engineering in general have numerous considerations different from a traditional car or a cell phone.
Their technology is being stuffed into their own luxury sedan at about half the cost of the roadster, a next gen electric Daimler Smart car will be powered by their technology. It is trickling down, as in just about any automotive development, from the track to the street, luxury to common. Your concern, the electric vehicle battery will most certainly get cheaper. Right now there simply isn't much online manufacturing capacity, and the technology to produce them at scale is in its infancy. Power densities are continually improving. It is my understanding that the raw materials really aren't a dominant contributor to the cost. The raw materials are relatively plentiful, the cost is in manufacturing which almost always drops as production increases.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Except that the Tesla cars use off the shelf Li-ions. It's not tech it hype!
The sedan uses less batteries that's where the reduced cost comes from. It also comes at the cost of less range.
Tesla is a hype company and you guys are drinking it up like there is no tomorrow.
Seriously I'm not trying to be a dick to anyone here. I'm just being realistic. Tesla is not going to save us and they're not going to turn the industry upside down. They'll make a few buck no doubt and they might even get lucky when someone really does develop the mythical "batteries" they need.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Because everyone knows that any Li-ion battery is just like any other Li-ion battery. It's a solved chemistry, and there's no improvements to be made anywhere. Right?
Kid-proof tablet..
Er, they DO exist. LG Chem and A123 have been developing them for GM and Chrysler. Lithium batteries capable of sourcing hundreds of amps per cell have been developed for the military as well.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Perhaps, but it didn't trickle down or come from Tesla in anyway. Not to mention it probably cost even more than off the shelf Li-ions, so it's still not the magic bullet.
The LG Chem ones are being used in the Chevrolet Volt which only goes 40 miles on a charge and still needs a gas engine for distance. It cost $40,000 too. That's not affordable by any stretch of the imagination, especially when you consider the replacement cost of the batteries (keeping in mind that 10 years is what GM "expects" not what will be reality). If it turns out the batteries don't last as long as they expect then I wouldn't expect to see this car on the road anytime soon.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Why should it be about having 100% torque available at all speeds?
Sure, Lotus knows how to build a race chassis and 4 seconds to 60 is very quick but for $109k I'd much rather have a base model Corvette and $60k in the bank.
Insist on spending the whole $109k? The ZR1 Corvette will embarrass the Tesla by any meaningful performance metric.
If Elon was smart, he would push for motors from America...
1) Elon IS smart. Probably smarter than either of us.
2) My pet peeve is that despite the publicity and global design and parts-bin, they're only selling domestically. America is a big market sure, but the World is a bigger one.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Improvements, yes. But practical affordable electric cars, not likely. Not unless the price comes way down. I don't see how Tesla shipping a few thousand cars will bring the price down.
I mean, does that make sense? I get the feeling I'm missing something since everyone is so adamant about Tesla's "trickle down" effect. How does selling a few extra batteries change the market?
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
I feel like I'm posting on twitter yelling into the wind. Not a single person remotely understands what the fuck I am saying.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Sure, I guess I'm a little arrogant today, but this kind of delusion really annoys me. It really boils down to this: companies are going to take advantage of people's desire to be environmentally friendly. They will talk up their "tech" to get buyers and investors, but when it comes down to it all they will be selling is the good feeling of going green. The Tesla hasn't produce anything new or innovative. There's no industry changing technology coming from them that I can see. Even there business model isn't new, it is basically duping consumers, investors and government. They're promising the world and delivering nothing.
And as to not be so arrogant and full-of-myself, please someone tell me how Tesla is going to make electric cars more efficient and affordable? I'm pretty damn sure it all boils down to batteries, but they use standard computer batteries. Are they going to take the millions of dollars of government money and develop better battery tech? What is their plan? And will it really benefit us or will the Tesla people get rich and jump ship?
If you would bother to read a few paragraphs from the Wikipedia article, you'd understand a little better what they've accomplished. They promised a $100k electric sports car that would perform comparably to a $100k gasoline sports car (sub-4 second 0-60 time, less than 13 second quarter mile, although top speed is a little weak at 125 mph) and delivered 600 of them. Oh and by the way, they go about 240 miles on one charge, which is much farther than any other electric vehicle, so there must be something to this "efficiency" thing. So who's being duped here? The people who bought it got what they were promised and now the investors are seeing profits.
If you think what makes electric cars more efficient is just the batteries, you're pretty off base. A lot of the same things that make gasoline cars efficient have to be re-done for an electric version. For example, since the entire drive train and power system are completely different, it has to be designed in such a way to fit in the chassis properly and keep the car's weight balanced, otherwise you get undesirable handling characteristics. Electric cars use a completely different type of transmission. The Roadster originally used a 2-speed, but then changed (and retrofitted existing cars) to a single speed that shaved 1.7 seconds off its 0-60 time, which is a huuuuuuuge amount. There are cooling and ventilation issues that needed to be solved. There is software that monitors and adjusts a zillion parameters all the time to keep from wasting power. So no, it's not as simple as just having better batteries, even though that is a major factor in efficiency.
Honestly, you sound like someone that doesn't know the first thing about automobiles, physics, or anything mechanical, but you're choosing to troll the one company in the US that's coming anywhere close to walking the walk with regard to electric vehicles.
The tax rebates were GM's doing, not Tesla's, and came into being long after Tesla started selling cars.
The GP is correct; Tesla became profitable despite a disastrous start (which required basically a redesign and a big spike in their prices) because of the unexpectedly large demand for their vehicle. And they're profitable now even *with* the Model S devel consuming a lot of their money. The government loan is to accelerate the devel of the Model S; it has nothing to do with the Roadsters.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Wow, you can spend $10k on a used car with a poorer chassis (less carbon fiber, higher door sills, etc) to reach the Roadster's 0-60 time? You don't say.
You can also do an EV conversion of a Ford Pinto and get 0-60 in 3.5 seconds (it's been done). But it's still a Ford Pinto.
The Tesla Roadster (~3.9 sec) and Roadster Sport (~3.7 sec) have about the performance of a Lamborghini Murcielago (3.6 to 4.0 sec, depending on model) -- and that'll run you about ~$400k. $109k-$129k for that kind of accel, stock, new is good deal.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Forget selling it -- they're spending great, heaping piles of cash on figuring out how to produce useful electric vehicles.
The government loan to them was, what, a bit more than $400 million? Sheesh. Where else is that cash to go? It's plain and obvious that the largest barrier for electric cars is battery tech, and it follows that they spend a huge amount of money on improving that aspect first.
(And don't say the government loan money will go toward "hookers and blow," since if that was their primary purpose they'd still be unprofitable today instead of being technically in the black.)
Kid-proof tablet..
The roadster has a range of 220/244 miles, the model S has a range of 300 miles. They did not just "remove" batteries. Since the car is larger and heavier, intended for a different purpose, they are not really comparable, like a Ferrari and BMW sedan are not really comparable.
Except that you are incorrect, the sedan has a longer range, i.e. 300 miles.
They are loans at the same rate as a US Treasury of the same maturity.
Insist on spending the whole $109k? The ZR1 Corvette will embarrass the Tesla by any meaningful performance metric.
Fuel economy? >.>
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Hm. Very interesting on the carbon variations of the good old lead acid battery. I just read a couple of his articles. He's right that it's hard to beat lead acid in bang for the buck, and environmentally; when you recycle them it's fairly easy to get it all back.
But this "new" carbon/lead mix that's going to revolutionize it?
I manufactured lead acid car batteries for a number of years. We put a big old bag of carbon black in every negative paste mix. Looks a lot like toner. I didn't think it was negative paste without it. So color me suspicious.
And, I thought there was something about lead's outer electron shell having a lot of give and take on charge, as a result of lead's high number, that makes it suitable for batteries. (the biggest bitch of lead acid is that lead is damned heavy) So if a purely carbon substrate can hold the same charge as lead, well then they need to get all over that. Btw, they posted an article on the plant's bulletin board about the new pure carbon battery tech that was going to put us out of business in 5 to 10 years - in 1990.
Seems to me the breakthrough will be not so much in ionizing atoms; as in forcing atoms to retain and release electrons while trying to control the heat from such a reaction. It will come more in storing electrons "loose", in bulk as it were. Maybe buckyballs are the answer. ;)
Are you getting one?
Meselfs, being of the low budget crowd, will have to wait until such a time as they have both electric pickup truck models, and also they are on the cheaper used market. But eventually I'll get one. Combined with my solar panels..having all or most of my transportation needs and costs covered for free eventually is quite an inducement.
AS more people buy electric cars, more places will spring up where you can plug it in to charge it. But the only way that enough people will buy electric cars to make it practical to have places to charge them is if someone makes cars and markets them the way Tesla does.
"Someone" would be Chevrolet, a division of Government Motors. Around this time next year, Chevrolet plans to start selling the Volt to compete with Tesla's products. The Volt operates on a battery but also carries a gasoline generator to keep the battery charged on long trips. Hotels that want to attract travelers driving a Volt or another plug-in hybrid might want to provide convenient charging stations for their customers.
The range is 150 miles for the $57,400 version. There will be "larger" battery packs available that will increase the range for an unannounced price. Yeah they just took batteries out.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Dude, electric cars are really easy to build. The hard part is making them affordable. Tesla hasn't demonstrated they can do that. No one has. That's why they made a Roadster. The Model S isn't with the affordable range either. It's all hype, nothing more.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
If I were making the choice between them, I'd easily choose the Volt over the Model S and do something else with the $17,000 in savings (hell, you could buy a whole other car for that if you were so inclined). In reality I'll buy neither of them, but at least it's a start.
Maybe, but the Model-S is certainly the more impressive car, and since when has hard-value and economics played a part in automobile purchases, particularly the higher segment of the market?
It's 500 mm longer, but will likely be comparatively light for not having a combustion engine. While I couldn't find more specific details, I expect it will also be more powerful, also due to the larger battery. The touchscreen middle-console is awesome. And if they do it right, a fully electric car will need less maintenance and be easier to service.
If it was off the shelf, then the technology would already have trickled down.
As to $40,000. That is a lot more affordable than all other electric cars have been and that price INCLUDES a replacement of the batteries. GM is giving a 10 year warranty and that includes a replacement cost in the cost of the vehicle.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
2) My pet peeve is that despite the publicity and global design and parts-bin, they're only selling domestically. America is a big market sure, but the World is a bigger one.
Oh so I better ring Simon Hackett, owner of Austraian ISP Internode and tell him the Tesla he drove at the recent Clipsal motor race in Adelaide is a figment of his imagination .
http://wotnews.com.au/news/Simon_Hackett/.
Like the sig, heres my version.
There are 2 essentials needed to fly, airspeed and money!
True to the very nature of the man, he is capable to extend his influence beyond the grave, and make money for others, other then himself. Tragic, very tragic!
If you consider economy a meaningful performance metric then you don't know much about fast cars.
If you don't consider economy a meaningful performance metric then you don't know much about racing. In any race with pit stops, your strategy will change depending on how many laps you can get out of a tank. Knowing your opponents' economy is important too - you by knowing the flow rate of the fuel hose and timing their pit stop you know to within a few laps when their next stop has to be.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I've spent plenty of time in race shops and pits. Performance is performance and economy is economy. Two different things.
Even Tesla doesn't mention efficiency in their performance specs. http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/perf_specs.php
They do talk about range, which can make a difference on the track but look at their numbers. They're not good. The Corvette is still the better performer. Wanna talk about recharge/refill times?
Don't get me wrong. I think the Tesla is a very impressive car with some great performance specs but it's not the giant killer people make it out to be.
I stand corrected. Last time I looked at their site, they weren't selling overseas, and IIRC you could only get it serviced in California.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.