Tesla IPO Raises $226 Million

An anonymous reader writes "Tesla, which will trade under TSLA on Nasdaq, has been priced at $17 per share, allowing the electric car start-up to raise more than $226 million in its IPO. Investors were expecting the share price target range to be between $14 and $16 but the overflow of excitement saw Tesla increase the number of shares it plans to offer to 13.3 million, nearly 20 percent more than originally planned." Reader hlovy contributes a link from Xconomy.com summarizing the skepticism among some analysts as to how much staying power TSLA will demonstrate.

Comments

Curious Guests at the IPO Celebration

[eldavojohn]

Today Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, was seen shaking the robotic arm of a submersible BP robot at the IPO celebration ...

Re:Curious Guests at the IPO Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not one to troll, eldavojohn. Why now?

Re:Curious Guests at the IPO Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not one to miss an opportunity to troll, Anonymous Coward. Why now?

Re:Curious Guests at the IPO Celebration

[AnonymousClown]

You're not one to troll, eldavojohn. Why now?

Afternoon drinks?

In this economy, who could blame him.

On another note: Munsk made his billions by stating Paypal and selling it to eBay; thereby amplifying its evil. I think if Tesla finances these cars and you miss a payment, they will freeze all of you bank accounts and get the locks on the doors on your home changed until they investigate the situation.

unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately in other news the founder of Jigaboo Motors, creators of the nigger-powered car, Gary Niger reported that his company's IPO was less succesful at a closing price of 15 cents a share for 371337 shares up for sale.

Re:unfortunately

[Yvan256]

Not much of an IPO if all you got is 37 leet shares for sale.

Nearly 20 percent more than originally planned

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite a down market, there seems a lack of resistance to the shares at these prices.

Re:Nearly 20 percent more than originally planned

[0100010001010011]

Seems investors were fully charged.

Re:Nearly 20 percent more than originally planned

[CarpetShark]

Investors charged? Naw man, investors suck their power from alternate dimensions.

Stock price already increased

[qortra]

As of this posting, the stock price is already over $20.5. Clearly, some people think it's better than $17

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, Sherlock. It's a "Green" company IPO in the year 2010. That's like a dot-com IPO in the late 90's.

Re:Stock price already increased

[SLot]

Clearly, many people don't remember pets.com

Re:Stock price already increased

[qortra]

Are you seriously comparing the quintessential .com bubble site to a profitable and innovative car company? Just because their stock price is increasing on opening day doesn't mean that they're about to burst.

For instance, take - Google's stock. There were a multitude of pundits and "experts" claiming that their $100 IPO price levels were totally unsustainable. They looked pretty stupid when the price doubled in 6 months. Sure, Tesla is no Google, but don't imagine that their stock price is guaranteed plummet just because there is a lot of excitement surrounding their IPO.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

$21.85 at 2:58 pm. Holy shit, did we just Slashdot the market?

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you smoking? Tesla is burning through cash: http://www.businessinsider.com/teslas-elon-musk-i-ran-out-of-cash-2010-5-2

Re:Stock price already increased

[savanik]

No revenue stream now; no revenue stream until 2012.

This seems to be pretty much parallel to most of the business plans of dot-coms. "We have cool new technology! What, we also need sales?"

It really depends on how well they can market the roadsters... which they have not shown to be one of their strong suits yet. Time will tell. Opening day will not.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Tekfactory]

Nope, they stopped making the Roadsters, all work now is on the S-Sedan and licensing their Drivetrain technology to Mercedes and Toyota.

Re:Stock price already increased

[qortra]

No revenue stream now; no revenue stream until 2012.

I thought they were selling the current roadster through 2011.

What, we also need sales?

They are aware that they need sales. As I mentioned before, they have at one point turned a profit (though they aren't right now, as an anon pointed out). The co-founder of Tesla, Elon Musk previously co-founded Paypal which was (is) quite profitable. I don't think that Musk needs to be schooled on how to make a business plan.

It really depends on how well they can market the roadsters

I would think it would depend on how well they can market their Model S since that will be their bread and butter starting in 2012. It will be their first car in the slightly more accessible $50,000 price range.

Re:Stock price already increased

[qortra]

No, we didn't. The Slashdot article was posted at 2:34 EST. The stock had already made its biggest gains by then. Plus, with all the negativity here, Slashdot is far more likely to depress the price than inflate it.

Re:Stock price already increased

[cayenne8]

"Nope, they stopped making the Roadsters, all work now is on the S-Sedan and licensing their Drivetrain technology to Mercedes and Toyota."

Oh..that blows.

Why would anyone want just another run of the mill "family car".

If it's got > 2 functional seats, I ain't interested. If they could have just gotten the Tesla roadster down to around Corvette prices....I think a LOT more of us would have them.

Re:Stock price already increased

[qortra]

I read some articles that claimed they won't stop producing Roadsters until 2011 - are those articles out of date?

Re:Stock price already increased

[lowrydr310]

For the immediate future, the S sedan seems like a niche product. Not too many people have $50K to drop on a vehicle that's really only good for a daily commuter (300 mile range and 45 minutes for a 'quick charge' make it impractical for long road trips). I'm not saying there's no market, I'm just pointing out some limitations (mostly the price - I think I can live with a 300 mile range).

Electric vehicles are awesome, and I'm glad that Tesla continues to innovate and improve. Hopefully they can invest this money and get the price down to a reasonable level for the masses within the next decade.

Speaking of tech investments and IPOs, wouldn't it be nice if all the money that flows into Facebook and Zynga could be used for something that would improve the world, like electric vehicles?

Re:Stock price already increased

[qortra]

Why would anyone want just another run of the mill "family car".

Obviously, there's a huge government conspiracy to make us think that people want "family cars". Heck, Wikipedia is claiming that a compact family sedan called the "Corolla" is the best selling car of all time.

If it's got > 2 functional seats, I ain't interested.

Sucker - I'm not interested unless it only has one functional seat and zero doors.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we didn't. The Slashdot article was posted at 2:34 EST. The stock had already made its biggest gains by then. Plus, with all the negativity here, Slashdot is far more likely to depress the price than inflate it.

Take a look at a 1-minute chart. That spike around 2:30 is pretty neat.

Re:Stock price already increased

[FrameRotBlues]

I don't think that Musk needs to be schooled on how to make a business plan.

While his previous business was successful, it depended heavily on two key aspects: the revenue stream came from taking "off the top" of what amounts to providing a simple service, and it depended very heavily on one key player for the majority of its revenue: eBay.

This is different. His company will be required to produce a physical good with a warranty, which will have to meet expectations and requirements. When PayPal began, there were no real precedents to meet because it was a fledgling market and people discovered what worked and didn't work. That business grew as people's understanding of it grew. Here, people are going to expect that all 4 wheels turn the same direction, it have seat belts and airbags, and enough 12 volt power ports to suit their theirPods and PowerBerries. It's a whole 'nother ball game. And this time, there probably won't be another key player that they can ride the coattails of to break into the market.

Also, I dunno that I would have chosen the direction of R&D funding that he did, but that's just my baseless opinion - maybe he has a real winner with that theory.

Re:Stock price already increased

[blueg3]

Why would anyone want just another run of the mill "family car".

Probably because they have a family and use a car for transportation?

Re:Stock price already increased

[phantomfive]

If it's got > 2 functional seats, I ain't interested.

Hard to set up a threesome if you only have one extra seat. I see what your priorities are.

Re:Stock price already increased

[cowscows]

It's still probably a bigger market than the $100k+ roadster model. While it's by no means certain that they'll become profitable and ultimately successful, I think that if you take a longer-term view, their plan makes sense. They'll keep working hard and continue to push the costs of the good technology down, rather than creating a piece of garbage version just for the sake of being cheap. And in the meantime, their higher priced vehicles will appeal to wealthier consumers, for whom the financial risks of buying less proven technology are less dangerous.

Re:Stock price already increased

[spazdor]

One of the oldest ways to initiate a threesome is to not have quite enough seating.

Re:Stock price already increased

[cusco]

What's the problem with a 300 mile range? I've never understood that. That's five hours of driving at 60 mph, which far exceeds what most family sedans will ever need. If I'm going to travel more than 300 miles I'm letting someone else (pilot, engineer, bus driver, etc.) do the driving for me. Even on my most ridiculous days at work I'm not driving more than two hours from home.

If my neighbors will cough up $70,000 for a Land Rover or H2 then I don't see that price point as an issue, either. Especially since Tesla is known as a luxury vehicle.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, my girlfriend any I just bought a brand new Corolla three days ago. It's great.

Re:Stock price already increased

[MichaelSmith]

The article is about his divorce. Its SOP for rich men to cry poor when their wives are populating their spreadsheets.

Re:Stock price already increased

[winwar]

"For the immediate future, the S sedan seems like a niche product."

It doesn't matter. Tesla IS a niche car maker. Anything they could possibly make is a niche car by definition.

Consider that Volvo was unable to succeed as an independent car maker. Not to mention Saab, Jaguar, etc. And they made more cars than Tesla has. Fiat bought Chrysler in part because they determined that they had to sell over 6 million cars a year to survive.

It will be amazing if Tesla survives.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you merely have to run down to the nearest store and get your new broom.

Re:Stock price already increased

[mister_playboy]

Here, people are going to expect that all 4 wheels turn the same direction

Actually, I'm quite confident that no one will be expecting that! Test drives should be quite exciting... :)

Re:Stock price already increased

[CrimsonAvenger]

What's the problem with a 300 mile range? I've never understood that. That's five hours of driving at 60 mph, which far exceeds what most family sedans will ever need.

More like four hours at 75, which is a more typical highway speed.

And oddly enough, I'm planning on a 500+ mile drive in a couple weeks to see family. I think you'll find that rather more people than you might expect want to be able to go more than 300 miles in a day from time to time.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone want just another run of the mill "family car".

This question is just hilarious. Run of the mill? First of all the simple fact that it's all electric means it's not "run of the mill."

Furthermore, have you seen the Model S? Maybe you ought to take a look at the car first: Model S

That car looks cool. If you've seen it and read the specs and are still calling it run of the mill, then I guess we're just not on the same wavelength.

I'd call the car groundbreaking as the first serious potentially viable consumer electric car (not hybrid) that is going to be competing with the likes of BMW, and Audi.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Colin Smith]

Probably because they have a family and use a car for transportation?

You clearly just moved the discussion way out of his realm of experience.

 

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

>And oddly enough, I'm planning on a 500+ mile drive in a couple weeks to see family.

And the 45 minute stop you'd need to charge up isn't worth the $40 you'd save in gas? (The website says you can charge it for $4.)

You must make a lot of money if your leisure time is worth $60/hour. By all means, keep driving IC's. I'm quite interested in a car that doesn't make noise and doesn't smell like cancer.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Teancum]

Part of the problem is that Elon Musk is required to maintain at least 60% ownership in Tesla for the duration of the loans that Tesla just took out for the production of the "Model S". If he gives half of that to his soon to be ex-wife, while she will certainly be a multi-millionaire, it would also mean the end of Tesla so far as putting a significant cash crunch on the company. The IPO helps, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed though that Mr. Musk's personal financial troubles have little to do with the companies he is running. He isn't giving up either Tesla or SpaceX, so I guess Justine is going to end up with a bunch of shares in Solar City instead.

Frankly, I know too much about this guy's personal life as it is. Anything else is fit only for National Enquirer.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Teancum]

I thought that the order for Roadsters was extended and that the production line was going to continue as is for at least another year. You can still order a brand-new Roadster on-line with the official Tesla website, so it seems a bit premature to say that "they stopped making the Roadsters". Yes the announcement is to halt production some time next year, but that isn't quite yet past tense as in having production already stopped.

This article in Wired sort of spells out the near term future of the Roadster, which doesn't sound like they are having problems at least making some basic revenue from this model. With all of the money dumped into the Roadster, it would be a crying shame to discard the design, particularly if it continues to be a money maker. It should be noted that this article was written after the IPO prospectus and is more recent information.

Then again, due to the significant outsourcing of the Roadster design, the profit margins for the Roadster are not nearly as good as Elon Musk would like to have. With his experience on developing the Falcon 9 and with SpaceX in general, he has certainly become an evangelist for a vertically integrated company that keeps most of its production in-house if possible. It seems like that may be the motive, if any, for discontinuing the Roadster and moving on to a new design or at least a new iteration of the Roadster.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Hognoxious]

Idiots Piling On

Insiders Pulling Out.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Calinous]

Koenigsegg survives, and sells just "a couple" of cars. There are other specialty car (and motorcycle) makers that survive without selling millions and millions of cars a year.
      Tesla (the roadster and the upcoming sedan) are aiming to sell "just a couple of cars" - to people that value the fact that they have a car almost nobody else has.

Re:Stock price already increased

[cusco]

And I need a yard of cement from time to time, but that doesn't mean that I have to own a cement mixer. If I owned an electric vehicle and needed to take that once- or twice-yearly long trip I'd rent a long-distance vehicle, the same as I'd rent a cement mixer. Even better is my neighbor's solution for the occasional need for a pickup. The parents bought it used a decade ago, now three of the kids split the insurance and the other stores it in his back yard. When any of the kids or grandkids need a truck they have one, but no one is saddled with the daily cost of driving the gas hog.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about what happens after that 300 miles. I can drive from Detroit to Miami tomorrow, all I need is my debit card. The range for a gasoline engine is totally recharged in a 5 minute refuel, that you can do practically anywhere along the route.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Teancum]

It amazes me how capital intensive the automobile industry really is, and it shouldn't be too surprising that the company has been sinking a huge amount of cash into a major production line that will produce a vehicle with half the price and increased driving range from the Roadster. Yeah, the Model S doesn't have quite the same driving performance as a Roadster, but it still is going to be a sweet car.

The real interesting thing is going to watch the competition between the Volt, the Model S, and the Leaf... which are all going after the same group of automobile consumers. Tesla made the first move in this industry, but the rest of the companies aren't taking it lightly in terms of ignoring the situation. I'm sure that is one of the reasons why Toyota decided to back Tesla in terms of trying to push up the production schedule and form a "strategic partnership" with Tesla.

Re:Stock price already increased

[Cytotoxic]

Sucker - I'm not interested unless it only has one functional seat and zero doors.

Sounds like you need an Ariel Atom

Re:Stock price already increased

[lowrydr310]

Doesn't the Volt have a gasoline engine? To me, this makes it a better option than the Tesla S. It makes the transition away from gasoline use much easier, at least until charging stations become more common. The Volt actually looks pretty sweet too. I never thought I'd ever say that about any GM product outside of Cadillac or a Corvette. It's too bad they don't put that kind of design effort into their other cars.

That Kramer guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes i actually watched the "Booyah" (?) shouting guy on CNBC last week. He was going on about how this was expected to shoot through the roof in the initial IPO but as a company faced too many hurdles (competition, public interest, etc.) to justify holding on to the stock long term. He said get in early, then get out early. Also, apparently some brokers make you hold IPO stock for 30+ days. He said basically don't use them then.

And that's one to grow on.
(The more you know?)

Re:That Kramer guy...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Kramer? Is he the one who's going to have me strung upside-down with a fork in my ass?

Re:That Kramer guy...

[mattack2]

AFAIK, they don't (can't?) "make" you hold the IPO stock.. If you sell within 30 days, however, you are likely not going to be allocated IPO shares again, at least for a while. Yes, I'm nitpicking the difference, but I do think it's significant, esp. if one is willing to risk missing future IPOs.

(I got some at $18, since my brokers weren't in the IPO.)

Re:That Kramer guy...

[besalope]

Yes i actually watched the "Booyah" (?) shouting guy on CNBC last week. He was going on about how this was expected to shoot through the roof in the initial IPO but as a company faced too many hurdles (competition, public interest, etc.) to justify holding on to the stock long term. He said get in early, then get out early. Also, apparently some brokers make you hold IPO stock for 30+ days. He said basically don't use them then.

And that's one to grow on. (The more you know?)

You mean Cramer?

The same guy Jon Stewart completely ripped apart 15 months ago for causing just about everyone who listened to him to lose their money during the financial melt down of 2008-2009? And at the end of the interview the point seemed to have been made to just do the opposite of what Cramer says if you actually want to make money. He's the interview: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3.

Re:That Kramer guy...

[fiannaFailMan]

Yes i actually watched the "Booyah" (?) shouting guy on CNBC last week. He was going on about how this was expected to shoot through the roof in the initial IPO but as a company faced too many hurdles (competition, public interest, etc.) to justify holding on to the stock long term. He said get in early, then get out early. Also, apparently some brokers make you hold IPO stock for 30+ days. He said basically don't use them then.

And that's one to grow on.
(The more you know?)

He also said "Buy Bear" before the Bear Stearns fiasco, then flat out denied saying it afterwards. He's a lying sack of shit who was busted by Jon Stewart quicker than you can say "Roll 2:12!"

Re:That Kramer guy...

[Chih]

Yeah, Cramer went down in flames at the hand of a self-described clown. Do people really still take him seriously?

That's a reversal

[Mad-Bassist]

I distinctly remember them saying a few years ago they didn't want to go public with the company so they'd retain complete control.

Maybe this is a good thing to grow the company, but will being beholden to the stockholders be a problem down the road?

Re:That's a reversal

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously they need the money

Re:That's a reversal

[ImABanker]

My guess is that the company weighed the merits of continuing to exist against the issues of giving up control. They've lost over $250MM over the last few years and are probably still looking at a few years of losses ahead of them; that money has to come from somewhere. It might as well be public shareholders.

Re:That's a reversal

[Yvan256]

will being beholden to the stockholders be a problem down the road?

I see what you did, there.

Re:That's a reversal

[Anonymous Coward]

"...will being beholden to the stockholders be a problem down the road?"

Yes.

Re:That's a reversal

[Anonymous Coward]

They have lost about as much as the IPO got them. Perhaps it will buy them another 7 years to become profitable.

Re:That's a reversal

[DriedClexler]

I thought they got a big loan from the government at obscenely low interest rate for a venture capital startup? (It was the program intended as a giveaway to the failing Big Three but dressed up as a program to increase fuel efficiency, and Tesla apparently called their bluff.)

Re:That's a reversal

[loshwomp]

I thought they got a big loan from the government at obscenely low interest rate for a venture capital startup?

Tesla is perilously low on cash, and the government loan can't be used to fund operations. Although not quite this simple, it's basically only available for capital investments.

Re:That's a reversal

[wiredlogic]

I distinctly remember them saying a few years ago they didn't want to go public with the company so they'd retain complete control.

That was before the economy imploded and Musk has now run out of cash to float the company on his own. The only choice for survival was to either attract private investment or a public offering. I'm sure Musk feels the latter is the lesser of two evils for maintaining control into the future. Once he rebuilds his fortune he can buy back enough shares to call the shots again.

Re:That's a reversal

[DriedClexler]

A few questions, though:

Does the government or Tesla know that money is fungible?

Is the government enforcing this requirement against the Big Three companies that took this loan? I mean, they pretty obviously pissed away this "capital investment loan" on operating costs just to keep their heads above the water.

Can Tesla shift all its assets to Tesla2, leave the debt with Tesla, and then have Tesla declare bankruptcy and stiff the government on its loan, like GM and Chrysler got to do with their assets and debt?

Re:That's a reversal

[Anonymous Coward]

This probably has more to do with the Toyota deal.

Re:That's a reversal

[ravenspear]

Well he can still call the shots as long as he does his job as CEO well.

Re:That's a reversal

[Anonymous Coward]

Explaining the joke ruins it. Stop being a buzzkill.

-- Reverend Lovejoy

IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the IPO at $17, and with it now trading at $20.50, some 20% higher than the already-raised IPO price, it really is probably overpriced.

What makes TSLA an interesting business proposition (although not, for me, at $20+) is that if (and it's a huge "if") they can get production up and running in a timely fashion, they really do stand to reform the auto industry.

The old model - manufacturers sell to dealers, and dealers sell to end users, but the dealers are franchisees who actually have no real relationship with the manufacturer. Your GM dealer sucks? Your GM dealer's mechanic sucks? It all reflects poorly on GM, and what's worse (from GM's point of view) is that all the short-term gains made by shady dealers and overpriced service departments go to the dealer, not to GM. Dealerships are profit centers for the dealer, but often breakeven or even loss centers for the manufacturer.

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments. That's nothing new in high tech: Apple's made a fortune using that model. The "Apple Store" gives a retail presence, but the guy at the Apple Store doesn't really care whether you buy the thing on the spot or go back home and buy it through the website.

Applying that model to cars is interesting - and potentially groundbreaking. In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers. If Tesla's model works, Telsa won't need a network of thousands of independent dealerships, because the only function of the dealerships will be to provide test drives and occasional servicing. Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[codepunk]

Ok so I am a consumer in the market for a new car I can buy a toyota yaris that get 36 mpg for 13k new. Or I can buy a tesla for 50k that does not use gas but I still have to pay for the electricty to charge it. I could put 12,333 gallons of gas in my yaris for the price difference that comes out to a estimated 443988 miles. I did not even count the money spent of electricity to charge the tesla.

I wish them luck but in todays environment I don't think they have a chance in hell.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

The Model S doesn't compete against a Yaris. It competes against the BMW 5 series and the Mercedes E class. You're not the target market.

Disclaimer: I own a Roadster, have a $5k down payment on a Model S, and bought a couple thousand shares of TSLA this morning.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[0123456]

If Tesla's model works, Telsa won't need a network of thousands of independent dealerships, because the only function of the dealerships will be to provide test drives and occasional servicing. Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer.

So Tesla will not only have to fund cars, but also thousands of Tesla dealers around the world? I don't think that $200,000,000 is going to go very far in that case.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[0123456]

The Model S doesn't compete against a Yaris. It competes against the BMW 5 series and the Mercedes E class. You're not the target market.

If you can afford a new Merc, you can afford the gas to run it. If you can't afford the gas to run a half-decent ICE car then you can't afford $50k to buy an electric car.

So ultimatley the target market appears to be people with more money than sense; which obviously exists, but I doubt it's large enough to sustain a company like Tesla.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[timeOday]

Teslas aren't "just" electric cars, they're very nice cars, period. What is the purely economic justification for buying a Lexus over a Yaris? There is none. People do buy them though.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Tool,

You are not the target market if your other car choice is a yaris (sub compact car).

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, I can buy a base-model Chevy Aveo for $9,000 new, or I can buy a Ferrari F458 for $200,000. I don't understand how Ferrari can compete.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[FooAtWFU]

Tesla's innovative organizational structure won't be enough to save them if their cars are a flop, though - and sure, the Roadster is a cool car and could be construed as being ahead of the competition so far, but it's also expensive, the batteries suffer from massive depreciation, and the economy's not looking spectacularly hot right now. Moreover the regular automakers aren't really that far behind (a plug-in hybrid Prius would be a perfectly reasonable substitute for the normal-consumer-oriented version of the Tesla technology).

There's a lot of optimism priced into the stock right now. I wouldn't expect them to go out of business in the next couple of years or anything, and I might pick up a few shares if it gets down to $10-$12 or so, but a $22/share price sounds way too optimistic for my liking. I'd wait for the headline-buzz to fade a little before pouring too much money into it.

Telsa is not GOOG. Automobiles are a capital-intensive business.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Why do you assume that people who are buying these cars are ones that can't afford gas?

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

So ultimatley the target market appears to be people with more money than sense; which obviously exists, but I doubt it's large enough to sustain a company like Tesla.

Right. Because if you've got tons of cash you're going to drive a Yaris because the TCO is low. Fark no. You're going to drive a nice ride. You can have sense, cash, and still want a high-end car. It's not an investment.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Retric]

They are in no way targeting the same market as the Yaris. They are currently selling the Tesla Roadster sports car, which has a base price of US$109,000.

The 50k Model S (which is not out yet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S is targeting the BMW 5 Series market (528i = $44,550+ to 550i = $66,000+ MSRP) and when you run the numbers comparing them the Model S is vary cost effective.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[asukasoryu]

You are correct. However, the S sedan does not target the Yaris market. Telsa's goal when they started was to make a $35,000 model and transform the auto industry. This is just a stepping stone. You should include the value of using electricity which could be drawn from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that model will fail, and I think they bought into that model because they had little choice; I don't believe franchise dealers wanted their cars on their markets. You're not quite correct that manufacturers and dealers have little relationship, they actually get locked into one brand, maybe two if they're big enough, per dealer. No franchise dealer would risk themselves on a startup so they were forced to use their own dealerships (my analysis of their situation, not necessarily true).

What Tesla should do is what Qualcommm did. Qualcomm in the late 90's had the best cell phone technology with CDMA and tried to manufacture it but were simply too small to compete with the big phone manufacturers like Motorola or Erickson. So they sold off their manufacturing business and changed their business to one of technology development and licenced their technology to all the big manufacturers, and in the span of a few weeks the company's stock literally went up by a factor of 10 (only time I've ever seen an 8 for 1 stock split).

Tesla's in the same boat; they have the best technology and a good package for it. It's far better than the Volt or the Leaf could ever hope to be. They should skip the manufacturing bs because the capital involved is too high, and instead license the technology to some big car manufacturers like Ford, Toyota, and Honda to compete with GM and Nissan. The big manufacturers win because they don't have to develop the tech, and Tesla wins because the big manufacturers have manufacturing assets in place to build on a large scale to keep production costs down. I might buy the stock on the hopes they'll do that; if they do their stock will skyrocket just like Qualcomm did.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[coolsnowmen]

Some people with money care about the environment/politics enough to reduce gas consumption.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Chris Burke]

You could describe people who buy Beemers and Mercs as having more money than sense for not buying a Yaris in the first place.

The appeal of the Model S to these folks isn't going to be cost savings on fuel. It's going to be the performance of a high-torque electric motor. It may not beat the other options on the straightaway, but it will beat them out of the gate which is what a lot of people care more about since you rarely get to exercise your max speed what with the po-lice around.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk or anything, but in as much as I can understand the mentality of BMW owners to begin with, I can see the appeal of the Model S.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[0123456]

Right. Because if you've got tons of cash you're going to drive a Yaris because the TCO is low. Fark no. You're going to drive a nice ride. You can have sense, cash, and still want a high-end car. It's not an investment.

Which part of "If you can afford a new Merc, you can afford the gas to run it" is hard to understand?

If you can afford a new Merc, why would you buy an unproven electric car from a company which probably won't be around in five years just to save a few bucks on gas? Even you seem to agree that there is no rational justification for worrying about fuel economy if you're the kind of person who'd pay $50k for a Merc, yet you're claiming I said the opposite.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[0123456]

Why do you assume that people who are buying these cars are ones that can't afford gas?

Which part of "the target market appears to be people with more money than sense" is hard to understand?

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

If you can afford a new Merc, why would you buy an unproven electric car from a company which probably won't be around in five years just to save a few bucks on gas?

Because you can afford to and don't mind taking the risk to have something that is on the cutting edge of technology. If I want proven, I'd buy a Toyota. I reserved a Model S because it'll be fast, combustionless, and around the same cost of a 5 series. Risky? Sure. But if I can afford the Model S, I can afford the risk.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I own a Roadster,

Then get off slashdot and go enjoy it!!!!

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any daughters in the 18-29 year old range?

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[westlake]

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments. That's nothing new in high tech: Apple's made a fortune using that model.

One difference is that Apple's exposure in a recall is limited to the replacement cost of a small household appliance.

It doesn't have to "service" anything.

Tesla has a $100K Roadster and a $65K Model S sedan in the works.

That implies a full-scale luxury dealer showroom and auto repair garage. Not a niche in the Galleria Mall.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Nothing. It's just fucking bullshit.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[mattack2]

If you can afford a new Merc, why would you buy an unproven electric car from a company which probably won't be around in five years just to save a few bucks on gas?

How about, besides saving "a few bucks on gas", you want to simply drive a more environmentally sound car, and are WILLING to be a first-adopter (paying a higher price) to help get rid of the companies like the one that has been ruining the Gulf of Mexico by spewing oil into it for 70+ freaking days with no signs of it stopping?

(I say this hypocritically as someone who drives as a solo driver in a gasoline powered car the vast vast vast vast majority of the time.. My next car will at _worst_ be a Prius, however, and hopefully an electric or some other technology.)

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[mhajicek]

The Tesla is not an economy car, it's a performance car. It doesn't have a super high top speed, but unless you're on a track you can't use that anyway. It does have kick-ass acceleration and superb handling, which can be used legally on the street. Compare using a Tesla for commuting to work and back to using a Ferrari, Lambo, or Merc; the Tesla wins in all respects.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[GooberToo]

and the economy's not looking spectacularly hot right now

While that's true, the people who are at such a price point are largely unaffected by the current state of the economy. In fact, a large number of those people are likely seeing new profits at this time. Last I heard they are still back ordered by several thousand units.

While I too believe they are overvalued, I presume the price reflects what someone else already pointed out; they could be a game changer. This is likely further tempered by the fact they are pushing to enter a mid priced value point as well, which frankly even the big boys don't have. It probably doesn't hurt that they've done what every other established car company around the world said couldn't be done; ignoring the fact that engineers and researchers have been saying for a decade it can.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[GooberToo]

The Tesla is not an economy car, it's a performance car.

Right. And because its an electric car, it brings "economy" along for the ride. Driving 250 miles on a couple bucks worth of electricity is hardly the typical "gas hog" which one typically associates with the performance class.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

No, solely because I'm in the 18-29 year range (only for another 2 years or so).

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

That's what a commute is for =)

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[tknd]

I don't see your argument. You've already proven that at the $50k price point, fuel is not a factor. But you've fumbled on the reason why people buy cars at the $50k price point. It has more to do with exclusivity, brand, and image than "sense" or "money". It is the same reason why people buy expensive jewelry, certain brands of clothing, and such. The same reason why people show up at Morton's and pay the prices. It isn't just the service or quality, it also has to do with "I can do this because I'm so rich and you can't" philosophy.

The $50k price point for autos is also an interesting one for upper middle class areas like the coastal region of southern California. You'll find lots of professionals around here that are willing to blow their cash or take a loan just to be part of the "cool club." Now you tell them they can stop using oil and help out the environment a bit while expressing themselves, yeah, they'll line up and buy your car like ipads, iphones, True Religion jeans, and Burberry sweaters.

The people in the target market you've describe are still driving Corollas and Camrys because they simply don't care about image.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[FearlessReader]

Disclaimer: You are attempting to show off, you have failed...I hope you sold those shares at the close otherwise you might have just made a 15K down payment (5k + 19-24 * 2000)

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Chris Burke]

I'm sure that will be a factor for people who already own one when the price of gas starts to shoot up. But I think it's more than "green" is coming along for the ride. Buy a nice luxury car with kick-ass acceleration and be able to make a (barely plausible but hey) claim to being "environmentally conscious"? Take that, Joneses!

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

Because, clearly, I have nothing better to do than show off on Slashdot. I put money down on the Model S because I like the car, I bought stock in Tesla because I believe in the company. That's not flashy, that's just putting your money where your mouth is. The disclaimer was simply to point out my bias.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your epic logic fail is thinking that someone who buys this car (roadster or model s) is doing so to save money on gas. The more likely scenario is that they are doing it because they want to do it (cut down on emissions, support an emerging technology/ paradigm change) and are not basing the decision on their personal finances. Eventually this will trickle down to the lowly middle class in the form of a (hopefully) $15K to $20K commuter sedan which I would buy regardless of the cost of gas at that point (theoretically once demand for gas dies, the price will plumet as well).

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[SleazyRidr]

Because, when you go up to your rich friends and say 'check out my new BMW 5 series', they'll say, 'cool it's just like mine!'

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[SleazyRidr]

Not sure if it'll last 250 miles with the hammer down, but then again neither will most gas cars.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[TooMuchToDo]

After I saw your post I decided to check the stock price (thanks!). 2120 shares bought at $18.43 and the stock is already at $23.89. Not a bad day.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactamundo!

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the US, the "Luxury Green" market is a joke.

If you want a car that gets near 40mpg highway with leather seats and a few nice options, your choices are:

1. Prius/Insight (native hybrids)
2. Mini Cooper
3. Hybrid version of a an economy car.

While #3 may seem to add a lot of options, it really doesn't. While a few of these hybridized versions do get close to 40mpg, at the end of the day, you still get the feeling that you're driving a camry or a civic. In fact, many would say that the Prius/Insight have an economy feel to them despite the availability of a few nice options. This leaves the mini cooper, which is a nice but tiny car and clearly not for everyone.

I personally think that if Cadillac/Buick/Lincoln came out with a fuel efficient luxery model (hybrid or not) it could do quite well....of course, this is assuming that it isn't a rebadged version of a cheap-o chevy/ford model already in existence.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[SirGarlon]

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments.

I thought that had been tried in the early history of the U.S. auto industry, but had run afoul of antitrust laws on the grounds that it turned the car manufacturers into vertical monopolies.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

That implies a full-scale luxury dealer showroom and auto repair garage. Not a niche in the Galleria Mall.

But without an internal combustion engine or transmission, you're looking at much lighter servicing needs. Oil changes? Coolant leaks? Transmission service? Nope, nope, and nope. The only fluids in the thing are the brake fluid and the air conditioning system's refrigerant. Suspension and steering components aren't going to be failing in the first 5-10 years, and that leaves brake pads/rotors and software/firmware upgrades. The only expensive servicing requirement is gonna be the battery, and it won't take long to swap out an old one for a new one.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[winwar]

"In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers."

So that explains why GM and Chrysler got rid of all of their dealers during bankruptcy. Oh, wait, they didn't.

"Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer."

The Big Three dealers made/make plenty of profit. There were just too many of them for the market share of their product. And the contracts were hard/expensive to get out of.

Tesla won't need many dealerships because they don't sell many cars. And if they don't require much service, they aren't going to be profitable.

Car companies need dealers. People aren't going to spend large amounts of money on vehicles they can't touch. If Tesla is going to survive long term they are going to become just like every other car company. Or be bought by one.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[cusco]

Really? They've kept Land Rover in business for decades.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[winwar]

"...run afoul of antitrust laws on the grounds that it turned the car manufacturers into vertical monopolies."

I suspect this would not be an issue. However it would not scale well. It costs serious money to build your own network when many already exist. In any case, various potential fatal flaws exist include people wanting to touch and drive expensive cars before they buy (the reason behind dealers), people are legally allowed to get their car serviced by independent shops, and the fact that selling cars is not their core business.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So Tesla will not only have to fund cars, but also thousands of Tesla dealers around the world? I don't think that $200,000,000 is going to go very far in that case.

Beats the heck out of the old way of selling cars to dozens of overlapping dealers, all of whom are cutting each others' throats to steal market share from each other in order to stay alive, at the expense of your margins and reputation.

Tesla will have the option of saying "Live in Xtown? Sorry. Drive to Ytown to buy one, because we're just not gonna open an outlet in Xtown when Ytown's only (20? 50? 100?) miles away. It's not profitable for us to have thousands of dealerships when we're already (a) doing so well that every car we make is already spoken for, or (b) doing so poorly that we can't justify opening an outlet in your area, or (c) some combination of the above -- if the cars aren't selling in Ytown, but they are selling like hotcakes in Ztown, then just move the inventory over to 500MilesAwaytown and close the Ytown outlet too.

In the unlikely event that you live in a small town that's further away than the range of the car, Tesla can just as easily solve the problem by providing a roadside assistance plan that includes a free tow to anywhere. You hand the tow truck guy (he might even wear a Tesla uniform) your keys, and a day or so later, your car shows back up in your driveway, safe and sound. If organizations like AAA can provide a 200-mile tow per year for $80/year, anyone can. (AAA can do it for the same reason Tesla can do it: nobody calls in and asks for a 200-mile tow just for the hell of it, and the overwhelming majority of customers never need to use the service for anything more than a few miles, once every 5-10 years.)

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

many dealers are owned by the manufacturer, but unlike apple, they are not allowed to compete unfairly against franchisees.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[westlake]

But without an internal combustion engine or transmission, you're looking at much lighter servicing needs.

The Tesla Roadster has a transmission - only one forward gear - but still a transmission.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[DigiShaman]

And on behalf of the rest of us that can't afford a Tesla. THANK YOU!!!

If it wasn't for early adopters such as yourself, we wouldn't have the horseless carriage (CAR), economy flight, and ultra fast/portable computing technologies on the cheap. I hope people like you can get into space flight as well. If enough people do it, the economy of scale will match.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Eric Green]

1) Tesla's direct-to-consumer model is illegal in numerous states, which require all new automobiles to be sold via dealers with full service departments in order to handle warranty claims. Granted, there's ways around that, such as the dealer merely being a delivery mechanism rather than themselves having an inventory of the cars, but you still end up needing dealers and the infrastructure for dealing with dealers.

2) The auto industry is an incredibly capital-intensive industry, it on average takes $2B to create an all-new car from scratch. Tesla doesn't have some of those costs (like the costs of emissions certification and engine design), but has additional new costs (the costs of battery design and electric motor design). Even with the money they just raised, by my counting they're still some $1.5B short of the amount of money needed to mass-produce a competitive design.

3) Manufacturing is *HARD*. Tesla has a lot of design geeks, but very few manufacturing engineers and technicians with automotive industry experience. Manufacturing is where most of these plans fall astray. Tesla now has a gigantic manufacturing facility, thanks to Toyota, but has to fill it with the tooling and processes to mass-produce their car, and that is *not* an easy chore.

In short, add me to the list of those who are dubious. By the time Tesla gets the glitches out and figures out how to manufacture their car, competitors from Nissan and GM will be available for less money. Competing with entrenched incumbents with the same basic product is *never* a recipe for success in today's "free market" environment, which highly favors incumbents in both the financial marketplace and in the supplier marketplace (where most of the suppliers are captive to the incumbents and will supply the incumbents before they supply you, and will supply the incumbents for less money than they'll supply you -- a major problem when critical components in short supply are required by both yourself and the incumbent). I've run into these issues before with manufacturing startups I've worked for, and the solution was either to run for a niche market where the incumbent was not competitive (which usually ended up with the company being bought out by an incumbent if the niche proved profitable) or going out of business (the usual result). If Tesla had started shipping their mass market car two years ago, they would have a chance. Right now, against the Volt and Leaf... uhm.

The wild card: Tesla's battery technology. If Tesla turns into a battery supplier to the auto makers rather than an automaker themselves, they could survive. As an automaker? Color me dubious... this sounds awfully lot like the DeLorean situation, makes you wonder which Tesla founder is going to be discovered shipping crates of cocaine in order to finance parts inventory, hmm.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[mattack2]

Why wouldn't it be the same as the movie studio system, which had the production companies and theaters owned by the same companies.. and was broken up (e.g. RKO Pictures & RKO Theaters)

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of "If you can afford a new Merc, you can afford the gas to run it" is hard to understand?

Wow what an unnecessary dose of snark. I'm sure he had a lot of difficulty understanding your statement of the blatantly obvious. Good thing you repeated it or it might have been missed.

Your problem is your assumptions are all wrong. You're assuming that the only reason someone would buy a Model S is because they want to save gas money, which you would know, if you were even remotely informed, is not accurate.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

>But you've fumbled on the reason why people buy cars at the $50k price point. It has more to do with exclusivity, brand, and image

You're basically saying the only reason to spend lots of money is to waste it. Not quite. Did it occur to you that a $50k car might be a better car? Are we all supposed to wear jeans for the rest of our lives because suit pants are ostentatious?

I drive a domestic car, and I remember getting into a friend's Honda Accord and noticing that the doors fit better. Tighter tolerances. There's more to product design than just numbers.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell now. You just made $11,575 in one day. Are you going to wait for $30 just to make twice as much? How many years will that take?

For comparison, Microsoft also trades at $23, and has been in business for about three decades.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comparison is retarded. Microsoft stock has split 9 times (7 times 2:1 and 2 times 3:2) if my math is right that means that 1 share of 1985 MS stock is equal to 288 shares today. So if you had bought 1 share of Microsoft stock on the first day (March 14, 1986) for $21 it would be worth about 288 * $23.32 (today's price) = $6716.16.

Do you have any more financial advice genius?

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[spage]

So ultimatley the target market appears to be people with more money than sense;

What exactly is wrong with spending $60,000 on a nice-looking car that doesn't burn gasoline? Jealous much?

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[drinkypoo]

If you can afford a new Merc, why would you buy an unproven electric car from a company which probably won't be around in five years just to save a few bucks on gas?

It doesn't work like that. First of all, you buy the Tesla because you want the Tesla. You want it because of the cachet, or the performance unmatched by any MBZ, or just a quiet, fun to drive car. Second, Mercedes are now shit. Sorry, but their reliability has gone directly into the toilet. You can scarcely buy a Mercedes that doesn't require warranty service. BMW went this way a long time ago but Mercedes wasn't far behind. You could see the writing on the wall with the W140 S-Class, which already had massive reliability problems compared to its W126 predecessor. So you do NOT buy a Mercedes based on reliability, you buy it for the ride, or the cachet. Tesla has more cachet and MBZ has no roadster which is competitive with the Tesla's performance; they are constitutionally unable to build a lightweight road vehicle.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[drinkypoo]

You could describe people who buy Beemers and Mercs as having more money than sense for not buying a Yaris in the first place.

The Yaris, like the Echo before it, is a fucking deathtrap. It's also a complete piece of shit. When I was in Panama I drove the 1.6l Yaris and the 1.6l Almera (latest-generation Sentra) and the Almera kicked the living shit out of it in every department, most notably handling and power — and the Almera had a slush box, while the Yaris had a stick, yet the Almera still accelerated better on steep hills like the road to Santa Fe, which I drove in both vehicles. So no, if you buy a Yaris, you're a fucking moron, because it's a total shitpile.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk or anything, but in as much as I can understand the mentality of BMW owners to begin with, I can see the appeal of the Model S.

If you've examined the reliability of BMW plotted as a curve beginning in the 1970s, the mentality of BMW owners is inexplicable.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[men0s]

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments. That's nothing new in high tech: Apple's made a fortune using that model. The "Apple Store" gives a retail presence, but the guy at the Apple Store doesn't really care whether you buy the thing on the spot or go back home and buy it through the website.

Applying that model to cars is interesting - and potentially groundbreaking. In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers. If Tesla's model works, Telsa won't need a network of thousands of independent dealerships, because the only function of the dealerships will be to provide test drives and occasional servicing. Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer.

Actually, it's not new: Europe has this model in place right now. Over there, manufacturers are allowed to sell directly to customers - as well as to franchised dealerships. Customers are able to go and pick up their cars straight from the factory in some cases (see Autostadt in Wolfsburg).

However, in most states in the US, it's illegal for manufacturers to sell directly to the customer (page two, footnote four). My Google-fu is not terribly strong so I was not able to easily find an accessible list of states that permit direct manufacturer-to-consumer sales. That's not to say that manufacturers can't own a stake in dealerships, but that's not quite the same.

For additional bed-time reading, check out a DOJ paper on the effects of bans on direct manufacturer-to-dealer sales.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Chris Burke]

Those were just the examples already used in the thread. Pick whatever sub-compact econo-car and luxury sedan meet your standards, fact is they're still not competing with each other.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Teancum]

Funny..... Tesla shares (as of today, the day after the IPO) are now at around $30 / share. Years? How about a day!

FYI, although Microsoft trades at $23/share, it has had numerous splits and dividend payouts since it went public. Most companies try to keep the price of their shares somewhere between $10 and $100 per share as it makes it easier for smaller investors to get into their company. If a stock is less than $10 you find that broker commissions tend to eat up more of the price and if the stock is over $100 there tends to be a drop off in the number of investors wanting to get in.

A significant exception is Berkshire Hathaway (current share price is $120,833.00 for class "A" shares), but that is incredibly unusual and sort of a badge of honor among its investors. You won't typically be investing an IRA or 401K fund into stocks of that nature.

Basically, comparing stock prices between one company vs. another is a joke and really not comparing the same thing. If you are comparing the "market cap" (how much money all of the shares outstanding represent in value), that is something to legitimately compare. That was not done in this case, however.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Teancum]

One advantage that Tesla has is that they have already been through the whole cycle of trying to get a vehicle from initial concept through to full U.S. Department of Transportation certification and formal production. Yes, that is not a trivial process and it does cost quite a bit of money.

It should be noted that the Model S is already at the engineering prototype stage where working vehicles are already being tested, including the final tweaks that will be necessary for formal DOT approval (including crash tests and other related tests to see if the vehicle will meet safety standards for highway use). Typically most electric car companies don't get even this far, so it is a valid point to raise in terms of the capital requirements for getting a new car into production will entail.

One thing going for Tesla is that they are a small company operating with essentially a shoestring management that is also lean in terms of salaries and overhead. Only now is Tesla even worrying about actually getting the production facilities built. As for suppliers, Tesla is also trying to build most of the parts in-house, and certainly more than they have done with the Roadster. If they are their own supplier, issues of contracts with "incumbents" is not really going to be an issue, is it? They already have established supply chains and a vehicle already in production, so they certainly are aware of what challenges they are facing and people who are dealing with those issues.

If this IPO represented two guys, a cardboard box with a business plan, and a small office rented in an office park, I'd agree that this would seem like a real silly idea and that they would be considered dreamers. Fortunately for Tesla that is not their situation.

One of the real ground breaking technologies for Tesla, BTW, is the engine design itself. It was based on an engine design originally done by Nikola Tesla (hence the name of the company) and really has some interesting characteristics that can offer a competitive advantage over other electric car manufacturers. This is also something that Tesla (the company) has kept completely in-house, and is covered with enough patents that it would be difficult for other companies to copy at least for a little while. The design is an alternating current induction motor that has some benefits that include some very high efficiency even compared to other electric motors. The energy storage method is certainly interesting and innovative, but the advantage that Tesla has there is that Tesla system is the only Lithium-ion storage system that has DOT approval so far.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Teancum]

It will be interesting to see how Tesla deals with this situation. They have a number of local offices, including full automotive repair shops that are there to perform annual maintenance, and for those places where they have established these offices I believe they have dealership licenses to operate there. Tesla is certainly large enough to have their own corporate lawyers that are working to make whatever it is that they do legal, and I'm sure they are not getting their legal advise off of slashdot.

Tesla stores are located in a number of places both within the USA and in Europe. All of these are 100% owned by Tesla, although I'm sure they may be set up as separate LLC corporations or something along those lines to be legal. There may be problems with individual states but I don't think it will be a major issue. The largest markets in America certainly are well covered and have a local service center.

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla cars are for people who pretend they like cars. They build a Roadster based on the Lotus Elise, but unlike the Elise its an utterly pussy driving experience. Gone is the decent manual gearbox, gone is the weight balance. An understeering monstrosity for people who like to go fast but don't really enjoy driving. I'll keep my manual F430 thanks. Now get off my lawn.

Waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

I was originally interested in buying TSLA today, but even knowing that stock prices usually reflect the future potential profit and value of a company, I'm hoping TSLA will go down in price over the next couple of years before I put money in it (even below its original target for today, even though it's already up several dollars), simply because a lot of investors will get impatient with it (and may need their money back in a bad economy). They don't plan on making a profit until at least 2012. They aren't selling anything right now, and their first "affordable" car won't come for a couple of years, and will cost $50,000. They have pre-orders for the next iteration of their high end car, but they are cancelable, and there aren't very many of them. I think the company has potential to make some people very rich, but at this point it's a risky buy, especially if the big companies start getting into the electric race, in which case Tesla won't stand a chance (even with the head start they have).

Re:Waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I am of a similar opinion too. I am of the opinion that, they should have approached venture capitalist (or private investors) for funds instead of hitting the market at such a early stage. No one really knows if they will be worth anything in the next few years.

Its too risky for my appetite too.

Re:Waiting

[tompaulco]

Maybe the Vulture Capitalists turned them down, or offered them the usual stranglehold deal that vulture capitalists are famous for.

Re:Waiting

[Nadaka]

Its pretty damn hard to get a venture capitalist to hand over a quarter billion dollar for anything less than your eternal soul plus interest.

Assuming

[codepunk]

Of course all of this hinges on if they can build a product that consumers want at a affordable price. Considering todays battery technology and the current prices of oil I am betting heavily against them.

Re:Assuming

[qortra]

Considering [...] the current prices of oil

The current prices of oil are immaterial to their long term value. Sure, there are people who are going to invest heavily in the IPO and try to turn a profit in the extreme short term (investors generally buy in for the long term. So, the real question is whether the cost of oil will increase significantly over the medium term (the next few years).

Considering todays battery technology

I have the same problem with this statement - there are way too many companies with a vested interest in developing better battery technology for the industry to stay stagnant. Heck, even other care companies are starting to look into it. Expect heavy innovation in battery technology the next 5 years. Who knows, we might even have a better portable electricity source by then anyway.

Re:Assuming

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same problem with this statement - there are way too many companies with a vested interest in developing better battery technology for the industry to stay stagnant. Heck, even other care companies are starting to look into it. Expect heavy innovation in battery technology the next 5 years. Who knows, we might even have a better portable electricity source by then anyway.

There is better battery tech that's been around since 1985 or so. It's called Mr. Fusion! A banana peel and a stale beer is enough to power the car for quite a distance, albeit no faster than 88 mph.

Isn't that half...

[ducomputergeek]

What the company got in the form of government loan from the stimulus package (seems like $544M was the number I remember of the top of my head). Also, isn't the CEO about broke?

Re:Isn't that half...

[TooMuchToDo]

1) Yes. Also, several much larger car manufacturers received around the same amount or more.

2) Yes, Elon is cash poor. All the cash is tied up in assets. This is not unusual.

Re:Isn't that half...

[sunking2]

More like tied up to hide it from his soon to be ex wife :)

Re:Isn't that half...

[TooMuchToDo]

She'll just end up with a chunk of Tesla out of his 65% he can't divest himself (due to the conditions of the DOE loan) and a chunk of SpaceX.

Re:Isn't that half...

[HeckRuler]

Well I'd marry Elon for a chunk of SpaceX.

Re:Isn't that half...

[TooMuchToDo]

As long as it's the chunk that'll get you into space ;)

Re:Isn't that half...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he's as broke as you think. SpaceX (which he owns) is one of maybe three companies slated for competition for the Orion program. The company also won a recent contract to resupply the ISS.

pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[sshir]

I think Warren Buffett said that as a rule companies which pioneered most revolutionary technologies, those which changed our lives in profound ways, didn't make money for original investors... Especially in transportation (think airlines, car companies etc.)

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[oblivinated]

Hi Google. Boeing. Ford.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I like Google as much as the next geek, but I don't know if I'd call them a revolutionary technology company -- more a company that has done things that others had already done, better.

If anything that proves the GP poster's point -- as far as I know, people didn't make a lot of money investing in WebCrawler.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[wdavies]

Indeed, and Google is a classic case in point. It wasn't Altavista, Infoseek, Excite, or even GOTO (remember them, they invented bidded search ads), it was Google that came after and put together a very scalable and flexible architecture. They refined the standard IR algs, refined bidded ads, etc as well, but they weren't the first movers. Same goes for Ford, and I suspect Boeing (hello, Wright Brothers Airlines anyone?)

Its the person that gets the large scale infrastructure right that wins. What is the correct infrastructure is going to be almost unpredictable at the start of a new technology.

Winton

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with Boeing and Ford. The Wright Brother's company still exists in the form of Curtiss-Wright, they pioneered aviation but Boeing made aviation a true business. Ford didn't invent the car, he invented the cheap to produce, boxy, ugly Model T that the average person could reasonably afford and the production line. Google was not the first search engine out there, they just did it best.

Although I would have to say that Pan Am pioneered the airliner industry and drove some of the real enhancements to aviation technology, and their investors made money hand over fist for the 5 or so decades they were in business.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[oblivinated]

Then by your standards, Tesla is definitely NOT revolutionary. They did not invent the electric car, far, far, far from it. Therefore, if the original post is correct, it's irrelevant because it does not apply to Tesla Motors.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[fiannaFailMan]

Hi Google. Boeing. Ford.

Google was far from the first search engine, there were plenty of competitors before it in the days when the web was hard to search.

Ford didn't pioneer cars, but it did pioneer mass production.

Boeing? Well they were founded in the early days of aviation, I suppose you might have something there.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[HeckRuler]

Sure, but then Tesla isn't a revolutionary company at all. Electric cars were the hot shit back in 1900. And the EV1 was a viable electric car that GM killed.

Re:pessimism about EV cars or Tesla as a company?

[oblivinated]

Once again, Tesla is also not a pioneer (electric cars have been around for much, much longer than Tesla), therefore the original post is moot.

Good for them

[Chris Burke]

I have to admit though I'm a little disappointed they didn't get the stock ticker COIL.

Re:Good for them

[SnarfQuest]

You don't like "Tasty Smelly Little A*s"?

Re:Good for them

[yanyan]

Good one. But "COIL" is owned by Svenska Capital Oil.

$226 million?

[tompaulco]

$226 million? Double that and they could probably build and tool their own automobile manufacturing factory. Well, not in the United States, that would be a lot more expensive.

Re:$226 million?

[Tekfactory]

They are buying a factory in California that is jointly owned by Toyota and Chevy.

Re:$226 million?

[HeckRuler]

Well shit, they're gonna need a bigger IPO.

Re:$226 million?

[Ziest]

Tesla has partnered with Toyota and will be building cars in Toyota's NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA. Look up NUMMI on Wikipedia

Re:$226 million?

[adwarf]

They only bought a part of the plant, Toyota also bought $50 million of Tesla stock (I have a feeling the part they bought was roughly worth $50 million, although I couldn't easily find a number ).

Re:$226 million?

[HeckRuler]

It was just a cheap crack at the cost of manufacturing in America.

Re:$226 million?

[Teancum]

The $50 million of Tesla stock was going to be based upon the IPO price... or "market price" subject to later negotiation. This was a necessary part of the negotiations between Tesla and Toyota due to the pending IPO at the time the deal was made.

Essentially, if the price of Tesla shares continues to go up, Toyota is going to have a smaller share of the company. The Toyota shares are going to be new shares so it will be in addition to those sold with the IPO, but it is cash that can be used for developing the Fremont, California manufacturing plant above and beyond what came from the IPO.

Considering that Tesla thought they were only going to get between $50 million and $100 million from the IPO, it is good news that they were able to get considerably more from the markets.

I'd say it's overpriced

[mpapet]

Their cars come in at about the cost of a Ferrari. How is that *not* overpriced for a car that cannot go as far as a Ferrari?

How is that business model ever, possibly, going to work?

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that not just can't they go as far as a Ferrari, refilling them takes a day.

It's a major issue with pure electric cars, and while hybrids are really idiotic idea also, because you have two motors, the real alternative, fuel cells, isn't really ready for mass market.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[TheRealFixer]

Economy of Scale

The mass-produced Model S is expected to price in at BMW and Audi levels.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[skids]

It's not a major issue for 30% or so of consumers, and for a small car company, playing niches is just fine. For most consumers, the fact that it's a sports car with a sports car price-tag is a bigger issue than having to plug it in when they pull into their garage, especially since it takes less time to do that than it does to drive a mile out of their way to hit a gas pump.

Not that I blame them for doing sports cars first -- I mean, you need the torque for regen braking anyway, so why not recycle that for market appeal.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, because that's why people buy Ferraris -- range.

The Roadster handily beats similarly priced Ferraris in acceleration. It's not the greatest sports car ever, but in terms of performance it's quite impressive.

I'm not going to buy one, but that's because I think a Mustang is too ostentatious for me. :P

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, helicopter footage of the highway out of Houston stuffed with cars fleeing Hurricane Rita that had run out of gas, while Priuses chugged along merrily on the shoulders, was great marketing for the Prius.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[coolsnowmen]

As someone who just bought a used prius, I'd have to say that your insult is off base. At an AVERAGE of 48.5 mpg, this car doesn't suck. It is big enough for me an my wife, and enough space in the back to drag around groceries/skies/camping equipment/or mulch. As my drag racing days are behind me, what more do you/I need in a car?

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[atrain728]

Most exotic car owners own multiple cars - this probably isn't the vehicle they'll be taking on their weekend trips to Vermont.

In fact, it's a pretty smart niche. Most people that I know that own exotic cars don't even drive them every day, but rather only on occasion. The recharge time isn't a problem for those people, and neither certainly is the range.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[city]

Base price $50K. what about that Ferrari? http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Late Adopter]

I don't mean to completely debase the car, it's surely sufficient for many people; I'm just saying you can get a lot more for that level of money. Sticker on Priuses within 30 miles of me right now *start* at $22k. For less than that I can get a fairly well-equipped Mazda 6, an Altima, or even Toyota's own Camry.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Achromatic1978]

Yeah, I gotta say, agreed. Our 2007 Prius has a lifetime average of 49.8MPG, meaning I have spent less than $3,000 on almost 60,000 miles in gas.

It actually has more space for cargo than the Camry, in all respects, largely as much as most station wagons. Driving from Seattle to Boise, it has enough power to easily cruise up the huge hill at Pendleton Oregon at 75mph (I actually have to turn cruise control off, because my wife doesn't like the corners being taken at that speed).

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you can fit the whole sky in it?

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[cayenne8]

"Their cars come in at about the cost of a Ferrari. How is that *not* overpriced for a car that cannot go as far as a Ferrari?"

Umm...where exactly can you buy a new Ferrari for under $100K? And with tax/green rebates feds and state are giving...less than that....?

I know the avg distance between charges for the Tesla is ab out 250mi or so...but I think you will have to spend significant more $$$ on a Ferrari or any other super car to get it to beat a Tesla off the line, etc...

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[mattack2]

But (1) do those put out more pollution, and (2) use enough more gas to make up for the lower purchase price?

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Hybrids are a long-proven technology. EMD and GE have been building them for a long time. All of the railroad engines in the US have been diesels with electric traction motors. The question is in the technology and scaling. However, I don't know anyone whith a prius who plans to get another one. That's my concern. That and the seats in the 1st gen suck. However, it's an adequate vehicle. Low ROI, particularly compared to a few other cars, but it's not the disaster that you seem to think.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[addaon]

But if you had a car that got only 25 MPG, you would have spent less than $3000 more on gas. Do you really feel like the hybrid drive system added less than $3000 in cost to your initial purchase price (even ignoring time value of money)?

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Dare nMc]

comparing on NADA prices, it looks like your prius with 60k miles cost $10k more than the camry new, and is currently with $2500 more than a 2006 camry with 60k miles. the camry would have burned $4500 in fuel ($1500 more than you) during this same time frame. If you borrowed that $10k at 6% interest, you paid $1800 more in interest than a camry owner. Add it up you likely spent $7800 more driving the prius (so far) than a camry owner would have. Nothing wrong with it, but that's alot more if the goal was saving money.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Achromatic1978]

I should have specified Camry Hybrid, which was approximately $3000 more than our Prius (our package was $27,000, the comparable one was $30,000).

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes 2) ABSOLUTELY NO.

Re:I'd say it's overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "I'm married" answered the question just fine.

Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[damn_registrars]

Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).

Otherwise I think they have a fine product (although I cannot afford it) and I hope them well. Furthermore if the company name helps to make Nikola Tesla better known in this country, I think that would be great as I view Tesla as amongst the greatest scientists to ever work in the US.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Thelasko]

Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).

Only the batteries are DC. The motor is AC and driven by an inverter in the car's Power Electronics Module.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Animats]

Their cars run on DC motors...

No, like most modern high-powered variable speed motors, they're synchronous polyphase AC motors driven by a variable frequency drive. One of the confusing issues in this area is that small motors of this type are referred to as "brushless DC" motors, while larger ones are called AC motors driven by variable speed AC drives.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[nido]

Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors... Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).

/methinks Tesla himself would be disappointed that "Tesla" Motor's cars require batteries, when his Black Magic Touring Car ran on free energy delivered through a "dozen vacuum tubes -- 70-L-7 type -- and other electrical parts".

Around the turn of the century Tesla concluded that it would be possible to transmit electrical power without wires. To optimise results, he chose to experiment at high altitude, where the air was thinner and therefore more conductive. As a result he ended up building a research laboratory in Colorado Springs where he conducted some of his most extraordinary experiments; tests that even to this day are shrouded in mystery. Tesla theorised that unlimited amounts of power could be transmitted anywhere on earth, without wires and with virtually no loss of energy. It is not clear exactly how he intended to do this, but right up until the end of his life he maintained that it was quite possible and that he only needed sufficient funds to make it a reality.

The funds however were not forthcoming, and Tesla was eventually forced to abandon his Colorado experiments in what was to become a recurrent feature in his life; no money or insufficient finance to pursue an idea . . . but a constant stream of new ideas.

-Nikola Tesla: Maverick, Visionary and Master of Light

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[asukasoryu]

The Roadster uses a 3-phase induction motor (i.e. ac motor). Still working on that wireless ac battery.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[OzPeter]

Only the batteries are DC.

Well its been a while since I have seen any AC batteries, so I guess that's why they went with the DC ones.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[evilviper]

Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).

Tesla had many accomplishments. While AC is an important one, so is radio communications, and the like. Some of his accomplishments are in the DC realm, at least due to having worked for Edison early in his career.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[SnarfQuest]

He was also nuttier than a Snickers bar. He had several impressive inventions, but in his "normal" life, he did many strange things.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[loshwomp]

No, like most modern high-powered variable speed motors, they're synchronous polyphase AC motors driven by a variable frequency drive.

Close, but no: While synchronous motors are indeed most common in shipping vehicles today, Tesla, like AC Propulsion (from which Tesla licensed its technology) uses asynchronous AC motors.

One of the confusing issues in this area is that small motors of this type are referred to as "brushless DC" motors, while larger ones are called AC motors driven by variable speed AC drives.

The distinction is not one of size. Brushless DC motors are really synchronous AC in nature, with permanent magnets and zero field slip. These can be small (e.g. driving the fans in your computer) or large (the electric motor in a Prius). ACP and Tesla use asynchronous motors with field slip. These motors use no permanent magnets, in favor of copper, iron, and/or aluminum rotors.

Both types of motors rely on modern switching electronics for control, but require different control strategies and have different cost vs. efficiency trade-offs.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[smellsofbikes]

Only the batteries are DC.

Well its been a while since I have seen any AC batteries, so I guess that's why they went with the DC ones.

You try buying replacement laptop batteries off ebay, you'll see so many Anonymous Coward batteries you'll wish you'd never heard of ebay OR batteries. Here is a friend's discussion of the performance of ebay batteries.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[HeckRuler]

Aren't all the best geniuses?

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Anonymous Coward]

What advantage do AC motors have over DC ones? Isn't there a power loss because of the inversion?

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Thelasko]

What advantage do AC motors have over DC ones? Isn't there a power loss because of the inversion?

In a DC drive system, torque is proportional to current, and speed is proportional to voltage. AC drives don't have that relationship.

Think of the inverter like a transmission in a car.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[sabre86]

Thanks for the explanation!

Speaking of AC Propulsion, I always thought the tZero was a great idea, particularly the towed engine for long range travel. Any idea why Tesla hasn't replicated this?

--sabre86

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[turing_m]

Aren't all the best geniuses?

Exactly. I'm reminded of the following quote from Beating the Averages.

"As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub."

i.e. When a normal or even moderately intelligent person looks at anything a genius does, they see things that are out of the ordinary. Like the hypothetical blub programmer, they see things they don't understand, and those things appear weird to them, even insane. It's different, and therefore eccentric. Well, eccentric is just another word for "deviating from the ordinary". Anyone from moderately intelligent on down has no way to differentiate between an act of superior intelligence and an outright loon.

The only way a non-genius can recognize a genius is through the creation of something that the non-genius can appreciate. e.g. a musical genius creates a song with great hooks, a comic genius makes them laugh harder than anyone else, an engineering genius creates a useful device that no one has thought of before, and that they in turn find useful. A financial genius amasses a hoard of wealth that is obvious to anyone. But everything out of the ordinary that the genius does other than their overt demonstration of genius will appear as nutty to most people, because most people are incapable of understanding the reason for it. And there will be one - pondering things and breaking established convention is just what a genius does.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Air is an incredible insulator. Sure, you can transmit any amount of power anywhere on Earth, assuming an infinite source of power. It's not efficient though and you have to generate a shit-ton more energy than what can actually be used remotely.

Very wasteful... Hell, solar electric is probably more efficient.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[loshwomp]

Speaking of AC Propulsion, I always thought the tZero was a great idea, particularly the towed engine for long range travel. Any idea why Tesla hasn't replicated this?

The "range extending trailer" represents an enormous amount of engineering (i.e. cost) relative to its utility. A battery electric vehicle with 100-mile range is already a good fit for between 90 and 95% of what we do with light-duty vehicles today. There are several prominent strategies for making the vehicles suitable for the remaining 5 or 10% of use cases, including:

• large batteries ("as far as you'd ever want to drive in a day"--to some extent this is Tesla's approach with the Roadster)
• series hybrids (range extending trailers are a variation on this)
• battery swapping (exchange your empty battery for a fully-charged one)
• pervasive public charging infrastructure
• HVDC (high voltage DC, or "fast") charging

All of these strategies come at significant cost, but are based on the false premise that battery electrics must meet the needs of 100% of drivers. In reality, we can use the right tool for the job--electrics for 90% of our needs, with other specialized vehicles filling in the gaps.

In particular, series hybrids (which is really what the range-extending trailer is) are the worst of both worlds in many significant ways: They come burdened with the cost and weight of the entire IC engine system even when operated as electrics, but in long range mode they will always be less efficient than a parallel hybrid arrangement.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! At least read the specs:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/tech_specs.php

What does it say there to the right of Motor? Oh yeah, 375 volt AC induction, air-cooled with variable frequency drive. Its 3 phase even! So yeah, they call themselves Tesla motors because they are using the very invention Nikola Tesla is famous for! (Polyphase induction motors.)

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Yunzil]

No, not really.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Anonymous Coward]

i see verbal battery commited by AC here all the time, idiot.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[jackbird]

Sure, if you're talking about arcing. Microwaves do fine, though.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Teancum]

Elon Musk originally wanted to put the tZero into production, but AC Propulsion blew him off when presented with the idea. Indeed it was because of AC Propulsion that Musk became acquainted with Martin Eberhard and went on to make Tesla what it is today. I'm sure that Elon Musk is intimately familiar with the tZero and what was done with it.

In terms of the towed engine, Tesla has stated that they might put in some sort of adapter in the rear of the vehicle to support a trailer, any sort of engineering or design would have to be done as a after-market product by a 3rd party. Tesla is especially interested in supporting aftermarket companies that come up with original products that can support their vehicles, but they aren't interested in doing the engineering or design work themselves.... or getting DOT approval for those kind of devices that are at best a niche market on what is already a niche market.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[drinkypoo]

The "range extending trailer" represents an enormous amount of engineering (i.e. cost) relative to its utility.

There is no reason that it should be so. There are vehicle/trailer-mountable generators and appropriate trailers readily available as commodity items.

In reality, we can use the right tool for the job--electrics for 90% of our needs, with other specialized vehicles filling in the gaps.

Agreed.

In particular, series hybrids (which is really what the range-extending trailer is) are the worst of both worlds in many significant ways: They come burdened with the cost and weight of the entire IC engine system even when operated as electrics, but in long range mode they will always be less efficient than a parallel hybrid arrangement.

That's only true if the engine is only run at peak efficiency, which is not generally the case in parallel hybrids, but is generally the case in series ones.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[loshwomp]

There are vehicle/trailer-mountable generators and appropriate trailers readily available as commodity items.

Not that can sustain 50-80 kW, which is about what you need for a small passenger vehicle. Remember, the idea is to operate the generator after the electric system is depleted, so you need to provide 100% of traction power. Unless this is an oddball vehicle that can't drive in the mountains or accelerate comparably to other vehicles on the road, you need more power than you realize.

The "commodity" generators in this class tend to weigh several tons and cost between $10,000 and $30,000.

That's only true if the engine is only run at peak efficiency, which is not generally the case in parallel hybrids, but is generally the case in series ones.

This is also often claimed, and there is a grain of truth, here, but it's not of much practical value, because in a series hybrid configuration you do have to vary the power output (considerably) to match road load. Otherwise, you're buffering power output with the electrical system, and the round-trip (in)efficiency of doing so more than counteracts the "engine peak efficiency" theory.

Bottom line: It is not a coincidence that Toyota's Prius and virtually every other hybrid on the road uses a parallel configuration.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[petermgreen]

Disclaimer i have a degree in electronic systems engineering but motors aren't really my strong point and this is from memory, some of the details may be slightly off.

Isn't there a power loss because of the inversion?
Every motor must contain changing currents somewhere. A rotating device where all currents were constant would rotate to the position of lowest potential energy and stay there.

A traditional DC motor achieves this by using a commutator to supply current to coils on the rotor which is suspended in a fixed magnetic field (generated either by DC fed electromagnets or by permanent magnets). This is a simple method that works well but it's relatively high maintinance. The brushes wear out over time and in doing so also produce carbon dust (usually the brushes are made of carbon) which can cause other problems. As the brushes wear you also get arcing which generates lots of electrical interference. The "universal motor" (commonly seen in electric drills and similar) which can run off either DC or AC works on basically the same principles.

A synchronous motor has a permanent magnet rotor sitting in a field that changes at a speed related to the input AC frequency. They work best on polyphase AC but with some trickery can be made to work on single phase AC. They are very good at maintinaing a thier natural speed transitioning smoothly between acting as motors and as generators but basically their speed can only be changed as a function of the input frequency. Permanent magnets are also a relatively expensive way of making motors .

A "brushless DC motor" (as seen in your cdrom drive) is a synchronous motor with a feedback control system bolted on so that the rather than having a motor that either runs at one speed or stalls you have a motor that behaves more like a traditional DC motor but without the problems of brushes.

An induction motor is the final basic category. In this type the rotating field induces magnetism in the rotor which then causes forces to turn it it. In these motors the induced field in the rotor "slips" causing the motor to turn slower than the magnetic field (how much slower dpeends on the load). This design has the massive advantage that it avoids both brushes (unreliable) and permanent magnets (expensive).

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[Beliskner]

Tesla theorised that unlimited amounts of power could be transmitted anywhere on earth, without wires and with virtually no loss of energy. It is not clear exactly how he intended to do this, but right up until the end of his life he maintained that it was quite possible and that he only needed sufficient funds to make it a reality

I've been to Tesla's museum in Serbia, Tesla theorised that extremely high voltage AC which alternates at Earth's resonant frequency could deliver electricity to the whole planet, but the Americans bombed it during World War Two because the Communist model of "electricity free for all to use" was incompatible with the American Capitalist model of "Restrict electricity to power lines and bill for it in proportion to use".

And it is true - who would pay for the consutruction of power stations a mile long? Only Ameriuca has that amount of money - so why should it provide electricity to the entire world for free? That's why the American government bombed it. CNN and all American news channels censor this fact, mod me down if you love Ruper Murdoch's censorship and the censorship of the American powers-that-be

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[drinkypoo]

Bottom line: It is not a coincidence that Toyota's Prius and virtually every other hybrid on the road uses a parallel configuration.

Series hybrids are harder to do, that is the actual reason. And you DO NOT need 50-80kW to maintain cruising on the typical vehicle, 80kW is 107HP which is at least four times what you need to get a Prius to cruise on flat ground with those skinny tires and its aerodynamic profile.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[loshwomp]

Series hybrids are harder to do, that is the actual reason.

"Harder" is a bit of a dodge. In an engineering context, "harder" usually means "more expensive to design/manufacture" or "less efficient".

And you DO NOT need 50-80kW to maintain cruising on the typical vehicle, 80kW is 107HP which is at least four times what you need to get a Prius to cruise on flat ground with those skinny tires and its aerodynamic profile.

Your imaginary series hybrid isn't going to be very fun to drive if you engineer it with only enough power to cruise at constant speed on level ground. If you ever intend to accelerate from a stop or drive up a hill you will need substantially more power. The battery system can't contribute significant additional power unless:

- You operate the IC engine prior to depleting the battery (but remember, the whole point was to maximize the battery-only range)

OR

- You buffer surplus IC power via the battery. In this case you need a bare minimum 40 kW IC engine (note that the Volt is presently spec'd at ~55 kW) and you can say goodbye to overall efficiency approaching that of modern parallel hybrids.

No offense intended, but I'm about done with this thread. Series hybrids will certainly continue to appear attractive and simple, especially to engineers (amrchair style and otherwise) who have never even attempted to build one. The reality is that the engineering trade-offs are enormous, and probably not worthwhile in the general case. GM is wagering that the cost and inefficiency is worth the "comfort" factor in getting people to adopt electrics. I'm not aware of any other credible series hybrid project that is on its way to market.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[drinkypoo]

Your imaginary series hybrid isn't going to be very fun to drive if you engineer it with only enough power to cruise at constant speed on level ground. If you ever intend to accelerate from a stop or drive up a hill you will need substantially more power. The battery system can't contribute significant additional power unless:

You operate the IC engine prior to depleting the battery (but remember, the whole point was to maximize the battery-only range)

The point of a series hybrid is not to maximize battery-only range, that's the point of a hybrid with a whole lot of batteries in it.

OR
- You buffer surplus IC power via the battery.

Yes, we covered that. In many situations the vehicle is using LESS than cruising power.

Further, you have presented a false dichotomy. Because there is another option: You plug it in overnight. Which you obviously understand since you mention the Volt.

No offense intended, but I'm about done with this thread.

You were done before you started.

GM is wagering that the cost and inefficiency is worth the "comfort" factor in getting people to adopt electrics.

We'll see what efficiency is like finally... but GM has frankly proven themselves to be largely incompetent and incapable of existing without purpose-bought legislation time and time again, so referring to anything built by GM as proof of the limits of engineering is just stupid.

The assumptions you make about power requirements assume that vehicles will be built as foolishly as they have tended to be so far, which is reasonable but not the law. Well, maybe it IS the law in the USA. I've never personally had to design a vehicle to pass federal crash test standards.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[loshwomp]

The point of a series hybrid is not to maximize battery-only range

No, terminology confusion aside, that is absolutely the point, at least as far as concerns any credible automaker with a hybrid program. Efficiency is the goal, and the point of a plug-in series hybrid is to drive in "EV mode" most of the time, because (even while dragging around a full-scale IC engine system) the vehicle is dramatically more efficient in this mode.

If you're not using most of your EV range in the design application, then your energy storage is too great, and energy storage is incredibly expensive (on the order of $100/mile).

There are other reasons for building hybrids (e.g. some people just want to reduce oil consumption at any cost) but, barring some outside (e.g., political) influence, cars are not built for these reasons.

GM has frankly proven themselves to be largely incompetent and incapable of existing without purpose-bought legislation

...and they're the only credible automaker with a plug-in series hybrid program. That ought to tell you something.

The assumptions you make about power requirements

...are based on the goal of engineering real products in the real world.

I've never personally had to design a vehicle to pass federal crash test standards.

I know.

Re:Only One Thing I Dislike About Tesla Motors...

[nido]

As I understand it, Tesla's later work required no power stations whatsoever. His 'Black Magic' touring car pulled the energy directly from a field of infinite potential...

Look at what the Joe Cell/Brown's Gas researchers are doing now... They jiggle water apart with exactly the right electric pulse and exactly the right setup (stainless steel tubes) to create enough HHO gas to run a vehicle on. I know a builder personally, and his setup is simple and elegant. And it works.

Power On!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got a call from the power company, it was just heavy breathing...

Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't he invent anonymous coward? Or was it air conditioning

I think he was involved in the Philadelphia experiment too.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Overzeetop]

Nice, I guess, if you don't mind driving something so fucking ugly that it hurts just to look at.

Worse than Delorean

[KarmaKhameleon]

At least Delorean sold 9x as many cars before his project dramatically imploded (with no small help from Thatcher and DEA bungling (24 federal counts overturned - that's some bungling!).

If it weren't for Toyota's participation, I'd be wary of someone who has sold less cars than even the miniscule General Vehicle Motors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricklin_SV-1

The best news is it looks like it's going to save the plant in the east bay that was closing down. So that's good karma, but woof - they need some production and sales numbers to take them out of Tucker territory.

Re:Worse than Delorean

[avandesande]

Stainless cars are a stupid idea and the performance stunk.

Re:Worse than Delorean

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stainless cars are a stupid idea"

Why?

Re:Hippy alert!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Here's my ride. Look for it passing you on the highway.

Most people don't try to go out of their way to show off to the world that they have a tiny penis.

All stock is overpriced.

[Anonymous Coward]

People buy stock to sell eventually, at a higher price. The person who buys stock as an investment in the business, is a rarity nowadays.

Re:All stock is overpriced.

[HeckRuler]

I think you need to reread the definition of investment. Stocks are worth exactly what the buyer will pay for and what the seller will sell for. All other definitions are an illusion.

PT Barnum must be proud.

[scottbomb]

People keep proving him right: "A sucker is born every day".

WTF

[SnarfQuest]

I don't forsee this company selling large numbers of cars, with a price tag over $100,000. You might get several early buyers, with more money than brains, who want to buy "green" cars, but there will be few others willing to put up that much money for what amnounts to "green jewelry".

For the price difference, you could buy a maxed out HumVee, several years worth of gas, and a roof covered with solar cells. You won't see any real "savings" by going green this way.

Unless they can rapidly drop their prices to be competive with regular cars, then this isn't likely to go very far.

Re:WTF

[Nadaka]

That is precisely the plan.

Right now they are custom building high performance sports cars at $100k+.

They are planning on building a factory to produce a luxury sedan in the $50k range.

Re:WTF

[Rockoon]

I don't forsee this company selling large numbers of cars, with a price tag over $100,000.

They stopped making the $100K Model R's, which they sold profitably.

This money is to start up making the Model S's, at an estimated price tag of $50K, which they will almost certainly again sell profitably.

Then they will make the Model T's, which in their road map is the electric car for middle class folk.

This is all about economies of scale, and only Tesla is doing this right. They are planning for the long haul, not bursting into the market on a gamble.

Car dealerships are protected by state-level moats

[Scareduck]

Virtually every state in the union has dealership siting laws that stifle competition, and in particular, the sort of business model you speak of (i.e. an automotive analogue to the Apple store). When I was in the car business (aftermarket sales to parts departments) about 20 years ago, the carmakers had very limited options if they wanted to rescind a bad dealership's contract. There are limits on the number of manufacturer-owned franchises available, too, IIRC. The whole thing is a hugely rigged game in favor of the local resellers, who, thanks to the Internet, are now largely superfluous, or would be if the states would let competition play out.

I don't know what to think

[GodfatherofSoul]

The last 10 years I've gone from knowing zilch about the financial industry to having a trust level of zilch. I've watched way too much fraud, IPOs of companies designed to dazzle investors and little else, and reckless greed that have combined to produce scores of great sounding ideas like this one. I simply have no way of telling whether this company stands a chance of creating a real product, or if they'll putter around burning through investor cash until everyone figures out It'll never work and it probably never had a chance in the first place.

Re:I don't know what to think

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Their cars ARE REAL.

This isn't like vaporware.

They have a legit chance to change the auto industry. I would love to support them.

Re:I don't know what to think

[Nadaka]

Here is at least one indication...

They do already have a real product. The tesla roadster is being built and sold right now.

They also have a working prototype of their model S luxury sedan and need the capital to build their first mass production facility.

Its one thing to assemble a custom ordered high performance sports car by hand, but the semi-mass production required for a luxury sedan requires a factory.

Re:I don't know what to think

[GodfatherofSoul]

By *real*, I mean viable. Are these cars ever going to be more than toys for the rich or will the technology filter down to the general consumer? This is what I can't figure out yet.

Re:I don't know what to think

[GooberToo]

Are these cars ever going to be more than toys for the rich or will the technology filter down to the general consumer?

Look at BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. You have your answer, at least in the near term.

Re:I don't know what to think

[winwar]

"Look at BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus."

Not very good examples. Lexus is the luxury brand created by Toyota. BMW and Mercedes aren't inherently toys for the rich. They are common cars in Europe.

Re:I don't know what to think

[stanjo74]

People are confusing the technology with the stock. Just because they can make cars doesn't mean the stock is worth anything - see General Motors for reference. As for the stock, the upside is unknown (new technology, new market, etc.). The downside is guaranteed by the taxpayer and the government (at least this is what investors are assuming in this "bailout era") - Tesla received a $465 million stimulus money from the government.

Re:I don't know what to think

[GooberToo]

Not very good examples. Lexus is the luxury brand created by Toyota. BMW and Mercedes aren't inherently toys for the rich. They are common cars in Europe.

Nothing you said invalidates they are good examples. The simple fact is, they are who Tesla is targeting. They are the price point they will be competing against. As such, they are spot on good examples.

Additional shares from CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to note is that the additional shares were actually shares held by the CEO and others that wanted to cash out. The additional money that they bring in will go directly to him, not benefit the company. TechCrunch article with more numbers.

Re:Additional shares from CEO

[HEbGb]

That is extremely telling. Good catch!

fail

[charliemopps11]

Has anyone seen the episode of Top Gear in which they test drive this car? Basically all the claims by the company are BS. The charge lasted a fraction of the time claimed, the time it took to charge up the car was far longer than was claimed, and they ended up blowing the motor on it at some point. It was failure after failure and this was on a car that costs more than some Ferraris. Good luck Tesla investors.

Re:fail

[MozeeToby]

That particular episode of Top Gear is (especially) derided as FUD. The car never ran out of batteries, they never recharged the car (just an off the cuff remark about it taking 16 hours to charge from their windmill(!?)), and the 'brake down' that they reported was a blown fuse (not a drive train one either, just a regular one like could and does happen in every car). The put the car into neutral and pushed it off the track to 'show what would happen if you ran out of charge', obviously you could say the exact same thing about running out of gas on the track.

To me, that really brought to light just how much the people at Top Gear are biased towards the cars that they like and against the cars that they don't.

Re:fail

[pablo_max]

To me, that really brought to light just how much the people at Top Gear are biased towards the cars that they like and against the cars that they don't.

As opposed to most people who have no bias towards car they like and against those which they don't like?

The electric part they like. It's the extremely heavy, negative handling characteristics or the massive batteries which they don't like.

Re:fail

[Perky_Goth]

To me, that really brought to light just how much the people at Top Gear are biased towards the cars that they like and against the cars that they don't.

And this was new to you? I think it's so strikingly obvious that anyone wanting to learn anything about cars isn't getting anything from Top Gear. I watch it for the Lulz.

Re:fail

[soppsa]

Maybe its because Tesla cars arent for people who like cars, and the Top Gear folks enjoy driving? If I wanted something fast, heavy and automatic I'd buy a Mercedes, not some silent electric nonsense. If I want something that looks like a Tesla but is enjoyable to drive, I'll buy a Lotus.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

The jealously from the tesla fanboi's is palpable!

Re:Car dealerships are protected by state-level mo

[mattack2]

I'm not sure if you mean the "dealerships" by "local resellers", because I essentially bought my '99 car (that I got in about April '98, yes earlier than most cars change model year) online. It wasn't through a regular Mazda dealership.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, I wish I could have a 3 inch cock and a junker car. Where do I sign up?!?!?!

Re:Hippy alert!

[Wiarumas]

Not to mention a small wallet. I wouldn't go out of my way to brag to anyone about a $30k car.

Government has Tesla's back

[stanjo74]

Tesla is the government's sweetheart and this is what investors are betting on. Piling losses and insolvent CEO don't matter, as long as the government and the taxpayer have your back. Too "green' to fail? http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/tesla-funding-460609

It is a sign ....

[wsanders]

... that if you believe all those Tesla-stock-pimpers' advice, your investment, like your investments in Webvan, CMGI, Pets.Com, etc., will soon sleep with the fishes.

Re:Hippy alert!

[flanders123]

Here's my ride. Look for it passing you on the highway.

Prepare to get dusted by hippies at red lights.

The tesla is faster 0-60....and close in quarter mile. MotorTrend recorded the Tesla 0-60 mph of 3.70 seconds, quarter-mile test at 12.6 sec. The "Super Snake" (honestly, Freud must be rolling over in his grave) does 0-60 in 4.1 with a 12.0 sec quarter mile.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

They do if it's the TINIEST penis. It's all about exclusivity!

Needless to say

[Dunbal]

This is now the best time to sell it short.

Re:Needless to say

[Teancum]

Wonderful advise. Had anybody listened to you, they would have lost their shirts and nearly 100% of any such investment into shorting Tesla at the IPO price.

While I do think that the price of Tesla shares will drop after awhile (perhaps even slightly below the IPO price), it is not a good time to short right after the IPO. At least wait until after the stock settles down into roughly predictable trading patterns before you do something stupid like shorting a company that has massive buzz about it.

Re:Needless to say

[Dunbal]

Wonderful advise.

      Yes it is. Oh and it's spelled advice, by the way. Don't look at the $30. Look at what will happen to the stock over the next few weeks. Had you shorted on the open of the second day (I posted after the close of the first day) you would be making a couple bucks per share.

      But don't mind me, I just make money this way. IPO's are (usually) for suckers. Especially companies that don't have a sensible product (yeah let's sell cars that can only be re-charged within a 200 mile radius in LA, can only be serviced in LA, at a time when the US government is bending over backwards to subsidize GM and no one has any money). While I'm all for electric cars, Tesla is ultra-ultra niche - at least right now.

Stumped.

[S-100]

I was going to make a brilliant analogy to the car business, but I can't think of one...

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting comment considering Car and Driver was able to push a 2010 Tesla Sport from 0-60 in 4.0 seconds, while the 2011 GT500 did it in 4.1.

No revenue 'til WHEN?

[CarpetShark]

No revenue stream now; no revenue stream until 2012.

And we all know 2012 is the end of the world.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you'll be looking at the taillights of my ZR1 and wondering why you spent so much cash on the most riced out version of the quintessential hairdresser's car.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my ride. Look for it passing you on the highway.

Most people don't try to go out of their way to show off to the world that they have a tiny penis.

Most fags don't go out of their way to show off to the world they are fags. Oh wait... nevermind, please continue!

Range includes return trip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out west, we make longer trips in general (and faster than 60 MPH). We periodically drive 375 miles, one way, to visit my parents, which takes 5-6 hours door to door, depending on traffic. It costs more to fly one person than to drive a carload, and takes almost the same amount of time when you consider local transportation and normal airport dead time. If there is any significant flight delay, it can take longer to fly. Logistics are also simpler to get family and luggage into the car and leave "today", rather than to have to get the family through the airport with luggage on a flight schedule.

However, where range really matters is trips out into the woods, where we may spend a week away from civilization with local driving trips and a very long and inconvenient detour to refuel in the middle. So I really want the range to get out there, tool around, and get back with plenty of safety margin. And while I can consider the first gas station to be civilization with my current car, I may have to travel much further to find a viable charging station for an electric car (and I cannot refuel in a brief 10 minute pause from the highway). As it is, we've nearly run out of fuel on a week long camping trip in the Sierra Nevada, because there are no gas stations inside some of the national parks and a lot of distance between the camping areas, trialheads, and concessions.

For electric cars to take off out here, I suspect a new form of "car stop" would have to emerge, with charging stations in the parking area of restaurants where families could take their meal break from a long trip while the car charges for the 45-60 mins it requires...

Re:Range includes return trip?

[Teancum]

For electric cars to take off out here, I suspect a new form of "car stop" would have to emerge, with charging stations in the parking area of restaurants where families could take their meal break from a long trip while the car charges for the 45-60 mins it requires...

This is already happening in California, with a number of hotels and restaurants which offer a "plug-in service" to customers who have electric vehicles. Based on a number of the blogs I've been reading, most 4 & 5 star hotels will generally be accommodating in terms of getting an extension cord or some sort of electrical power supply to an electric car to charge overnight. It makes business sense as it can be one more "amenity" that they can brag about on brochures and websites to try and lure in customers.

If you have an electric vehicle, it would be useful to do a web search at the moment to try and find where these hotels and restaurants are located at, or at the very least call ahead to see if the business will make the necessary arrangements, but it is something happening with the hospitality business. I would expect some campgrounds might eventually offer that sort of service too, and certainly any place that offers electrical power to RVs could be used to recharge an electric automobile as well. Places like that have been around for decades.

I've also seen some after-market designs for a solar battery "blanket" that you can roll out to recharge an electric vehicle, if for example you went camping to a remote place and let the vehicle recharge over the course of a few days. It wouldn't be useful for everyday driving, but it could do the trick if a remote destination was within the driving range to get there and you wanted to get some juice to get out of the place on the way back.

There are also some electrical storage technologies that suggest a doubling to as high as ten times the current energy storage levels. Assuming that the high end works out, it could be as much as a 3000 mile driving range for some of these vehicles on a single charge. That represents an incredible amount of energy that has to be stored, but that could certainly take you places if it works out. The only reason a 300 mile driving range is even possible is because of advancements in battery technology.... Tesla uses Lithium-ion batteries. In fact, they are the standard AA cells that most people use for most consumer electric devices, including laptops. Tesla just has a huge pile of the things wrapped up with some funky environmental monitoring (checking the temperature and conditions of the cells themselves) to keep them from melting down and taking the car with it.

Re:Hippy alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except the fact that the Tesla outperforms nearly every supercar in existance. I'm sure you're modified sub-par Ford Mustang will really fly by it. If you didn't catch the tone of this message by now, this is where I roll my eyes.

ATVM Loan program

[spage]

"This loan" is from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
a $25 billion direct loan program funded by Congress in fall 2008 to provide debt capital to the U.S. automotive industry for the purpose of funding projects that help vehicles manufactured in the U.S. meet higher millage requirements and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This program is unrelated to the United States Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which has been providing bailout funding [many billions!] to two of the big three U.S. automakers.

The loan commitments include a $5.9 billion loan to Ford for upgrading factories in five states to produce 13 more fuel-efficient models, a $1.6 billion loan to Nissan to build advanced electric vehicles and advanced batteries, and a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors to manufacture its new electric sedan. [and] a $528.7 million loan for Fisker Automotive for the development of two lines of plug-in hybrids by 2016

It has been speculated that at least two of the Big Three U.S. automobile manufacturers may not be able to qualify for this program because of its fuel economy and financial solvency requirements.

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing

Re:ATVM Loan program

[DriedClexler]

Wikipedia is great, but the info you posted from it isn't responsive to my questions. The Big Three got their money *before* two of them were bailed out. And I already knew the program about fuel efficiency was (nominally) distinct from TARP, but it was a bullshit distinction, as the government used it for a backdoor bailout.

Re:ATVM Loan program

[Teancum]

The problem with how this money was used around the same time as TARP is that the terms for its use were modified to permit other general automotive development instead of just for "alternative energy development". Tesla met the initial conditions for when the legislation was passed, not the watered down version that was eventually used to throw money at other car companies.

Yeah, that is an important distinction, and noting this program wasn't just a little bit before TARP but quite a bit before that happened.

Re:ATVM Loan program

[spage]

The Big 3 didn't get ATVM loans, only Ford has.

I'm confused by 'The Big Three got their money *before* two of them were bailed out.' GM got an early $300M loan before bankruptcy, and there was talk of federal funds and loan guarantees near the end of 2008. But Google won't confirm tell if Bush's December 2008 $13.4 billion rescue loan for the American automakers actually occurred! I know the version that had all the blahblah about a new dawn of fuel-efficiency was blocked in the Senate. In the end the USA put $57 billion from TARP funds into taking over GM in bankruptcy, and "supported" Chrysler's sale to Fiat; if Detroit got big loans before that I don't know what happened to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_reorganization

Re:ATVM Loan program

[DriedClexler]

Yeah, I've found it painfully confusing to figure out how much the government gave to the automakers, under what terms, at what times, and what part of it was effectively a gift in light of later events ... even in the Google era.

Prius is a marvel

[spage]

Are you serious? Those other cars pollute at a standstill, can't reclaim energy when braking or going downhill, get significantly worse MPG (and thus will consume TONS more gasoline and emit many TONS more CO2 over their lifespan), and aren't the most reliable midsize car model according to all of Consumer Reports/JD Power/Tru Delta surveys.

If you don't like it, then don't buy one but don't pretend the Prius is anything less than a fantastic engineering accomplishment. The 2009 model got bigger and faster, and yet its MPG *improved* to a USA-leading 50, which is mind-bending. If you sacrifice and buy a smaller, less practical, and/or slower new car, then you'll get *worse* MPG. And until you spend $109,000 for a Tesla Roadster, you can't get better MPG for more money.

Stores and funding

[spage]

If you watch Tesla's informative roadshow, their CEO Deepak Ahuja talks about this. They think the 50 stores costing $1M each that Tesla are planning to open will be enough for them to sell 20,000 Model S a year, which they think will be profitable. That's only 400 cars per store a year.

He also says Tesla spent $125M and 6 years developing the Roadster and the Model S will only take $400M. So Tesla's previous funding and the DoE ATVM loan are enough to bring the Model S to market. The IPO and Toyota investment are gravy that lets them develop other models off the Model S platform. Obviously that's all roadshow happy talk, so reality will be different.

http://www.retailroadshow.com/roadshows.asp (note this site intentionally restricts access to a few well-known browsers and versions, bozos).

Roadster production, Model S follow-on

[spage]

They stopped making the $100K Model R's, which they sold profitably.

No, the Roadster is still being manufactured. In their initial SEC filing Tesla warned We do not plan to sell our current generation Tesla Roadster after 2011 due to planned tooling changes at a supplier for the Tesla Roadster.

The assumption was that Lotus is going to stop making the Elise chassis, but later Tesla clarified Responding to customer demand, Tesla has negotiated agreements with key suppliers that will increase total Roadster production by 40% and extend sales into 2012.

Also, you're the first person I've heard call the follow-on to the Model S (codename "Whitestar") the Model T. Tesla has been very quiet about that car, probably because Nissan will be cranking out hundreds of thousand of Nissan Leafs by then. Instead they're talking about a family of cars based on the Model S.

Poor Elise

[brufleth]

I do not like Tesla because they take Lotus Elises and screw them up. I can't support a car company that has a business of messing up my favorite car.

Re:Poor Elise

[Teancum]

There is almost no common parts between the Lotus Elise and the Tesla Roadster. That the Lotus manufacturing plant is being used to make the chassis of the Roadster is true, but it really is a clean sheet design that has very little in common between the two vehicles.

In some places, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't expect it to work in Wyoming.