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
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 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.
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.
!#&*
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.