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!
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.
That would seem to be a fairly accurate definition of "patent"...
rj
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"
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.
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?
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 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!
I call bs on this statement: "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."
The efficiency of converting gas into kinetic energy is NOT relatively high, Theoretical max of ~30%, in a high efficiency car it will be in the upper 20s.
Converting fuels into electricity is NOT far less efficient, Theoretical max of ~70%, and this is just using a steam turbine generator, ie coal plant.
The truth is that ~70% of the energy stored in gas is heat, ~30% is expansion. The internal combustion engine uses the expansion of gasses, and then uses energy to throw away the heat.
In order for gas to be more efficient you have to have over 50% loss. The loss areas include: electric transmission 92.8% efficient, storage in lithium batteries 90%, and the electric to kinetic( the electric motor) 89%. This is equivalent to over 48% net efficiency. and 48% >> 28%. This is not even taking into account the benefit of regenerative braking.
If you convert the cost per mile (of energy ie electricity) of a tesla to mpg, is will be in the 230 mpg range. Find me a internal combustion engine that can support that.
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
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.
!#&*
...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
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)).
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.