Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Will Discontinue the Roadster
Attila Dimedici writes "Tesla has announced that their business model has failed. Their basic idea was to sell a boutique electric car to fund the development of a regular consumer electric car. With this announcement they are saying that they did not sell enough of the Roadster to make producing it profitable. If that is the case, it is only a matter of time until Tesla closes its doors. I thought their approach was the most likely to create a successful fully electric car. Although it is possible that the technology they have developed will allow the existing car companies to develop successful fully electric cars, it is a shame that Tesla has failed to become a successful car manufacturer." CT: As a huge number of you pointed out, the linked article is not nearly as doom and gloom as the submitter: Tesla isn't locking the doors and throwing away the keys, they plan on selling a $80k sedan in 2012 with a 300 mile range.
... unlike Chrysler and GM. Between automaker loans and clean-energy, get-off-oil money, there's got to be something to help Tesla out.
Failing that, guys, make cars people can afford. You make a bad ass Roadster. Now make a RegularCar, that I can buy for 75k, and I'll have one in the driveway tomorrow.
Closing? And here they just opened a showroom with two cars in it in my local mall. Maybe less high rent showrooms would have helped. I wonder how fancy their corporate HQ offices are.
The plan has long been to stop roadster production to tool up for the Model S. This is not news and not a failure.
Until we're completely out of fossil fuels and their alternatives either run out or become too prohibitively expensive for the general population to afford, I'm afraid this is going to be a recurring theme for electric vehicles: not enough interest, when a fossil-fuel-powered vehicle is relatively cheap to purchase and simple to operate.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Probably it's hard to build a business around expensive boutique electric roadsters when the economy is in the shape it's in. That wasn't as much the case when Tesla was starting out their business, but things have changed.
Not what I heard from the SF Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/17/BU9U1JUUEO.DTL
it is a shame that Tesla has failed
Doesn't make any sense if you read the linked article.
From TFA:
Tesla Motors (TSLA) will stop taking orders for the car in the U.S. in about two months as the carmaker focuses on its Model S electric sedan
Further:
the two seat Tesla Roadster sports car was never intended to be a huge seller. Tesla reported sales of 1,650 Roadsters worldwide by the end of April, 2011.
And
Tesla's next big thing: Tesla's roadster production is coming to halt as the maker of battery-powered cars switches its focus to the upcoming Model S electric sedan.
There is absolutely no indication in the provided article that Tesla is going away. They are just stopping the roadster so they can focus on a new car, which was part of their long-term plan some time ago.
In other words, things are going as planned for Tesla. People claiming this is the end of the company are just spouting FUD for whatever reason.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This summary seems to have nothing at all to do with the article.
From TFA:
Tesla's next big thing: Tesla's roadster production is coming to halt as the maker of battery-powered cars switches its focus to the upcoming Model S electric sedan.
TFA doesn't imply anything of the sort. The Roadster is being stopped to allow focus on the S.
The article says they they are focusing on the Model S, their new luxury sedan. He obviously didn't read the article that he linked.
Wow, I think this summary is pretty much the opposite of the article. They have not at all said their business model has failed, and are planning on making a less expensive car in the future.
The linked article implies that their business model for the roadster has succeeded, and they now have the cash reserves to switch production over to making a more affordable car, exactly the opposite of the conclusion drawn in the summary.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
From TFA: "Automaker Tesla Motors (TSLA) will stop taking orders for the car in the U.S. in about two months as the carmaker focuses on its Model S electric sedan."
Everything in the article says simply that they are discontinuing the Roadster to focus on the Model S. Their business model seems to be working just fine.
Paul Allen, Donald Trump, T. Boone Pickens...
They are an awesome machine, but the Tesla is a high end green vehicle. Most (not all) people who could afford such a beast don't give a damn about the environment.
The summary is -- as is so often the case, but I really would expect better here -- not only wrong, but *exactly wrong*.
It is Pessimal.
The article says they're stopping production of the roadster to focus on the S. It says nothing about anything failing.
I am disappoint.
One of the 187.
Summary is just some guy's half-assed opinion, and has nothing to do with the article.
tesla is not going to be shutting its doors. it has always been a part of the plan that the roadster would be phased out as they began to focus on the model s. this isn't some harbinger of the end, its a implementation of a business plan that has been discussed publicly for quite some time. as tesla moves to the model s and makes contracts with toyota and daimler they will no longer need the showpiece of the roadster to keep the company alive
Didn't Tesla say at one point that the cars they built were more about testing and demonstrating the technology behind electric vehicles, and that the real money was to be made in licensing the technology to other car makers?
Also, doesn't TFA state that the Model S is still going ahead as planned, even if the Roadster is not?
The news bit linked only says they've stopped producing a car, intended to be low volume, to focus on a sedan designed of higher volume. While they may or not be successful, nothing ITFA says "there business model has failed."
It'd be nice if some actually read the submission before... oh wait, this is /.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Tesla is not closing or going away. Some idiot here at slashdot didn't bother to read the linked article. If they had, they would realize that this is not the end for Tesla as a company, just the end of a vehicle that was too expensive for many people to buy.
Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about Tesla knows that this has been part of their plan for some time. Build a roadster to get the technology working - and to show to the public that it really is as good as claimed - and then discontinue it to focus on a family sedan. Their first car achieved brand recognition and proof of concept, while bringing in investors. Now they are retooling and setting up a new shop to show that they can make it work on a larger scale.
Unfortunately, they have already sold out in part to a traditional auto maker, so how far they will be able to go unhindered is anyone's guess.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Tesla never intended to continue building the Roadster. They only have one production line, and cannot produce two models at the same time. They are shutting down production of the Roadster so they can switch the line over to the new S sedan that they've been taking orders for.
This is just another conspiracy by the big oil companies. lol I write this because of the dumb a$$e$ on here.
The article implies a much less dramatic situation than your comment indicates. Although the roadster has indeed come to the end of its production life (and as you mentioned, perhaps it could never be a profitable venture for Tesla), there's no mention of intense financial struggles or an impending doom for Tesla. A partnership with Toyota certainly seems to encourage faith in Tesla's future S model sedan and their future as a company. Did you find other information to support your comment?
I have always suspected that Tesla's REAL business model involved being bought out by one of the major automobile manufacturers.
Proverbs 21:19
First the article title sucks and the summary is worse.
They are not going out of business, not yet at least. They are going to stop producing the roadster which had a very limited market and work on getting their sedan out.
As to the person I am replying too, it is not the big American three that are at fault, as far as I can tell each continent it quite adept at producing and buying gas guzzlers. In fact while the average person in Europe might be keen on efficient small cars Europe is the land of gas guzzling exotics. I guess the little people should be happy with their itty bitty cars while the rich and powerful blissfully ignore any such concerns.
Don't pile accolades on Tesla, they have yet to prove they can deliver this sedan and have a sustainable business models. All the dreams in the world amount to nothing if they don't come to fruition. Just because someone claims they can solve the problems of the world does not excuse them from actually delivering. Seems to me that vaporware is very common in most industries and far too many investor's lose their shirts over well executed glossy presentations.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The article sounds like they are pretty much on track with their original plan...
They were probably never going to succeed beyond being a boutique auto manufacturer. Their real innovation is their battery pack technology. Sure its a bunch of small cells, but its semi affordable, and more development may bring down to fully affordable.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
This isn't the first confusing report in the press I've heard. While it might be true that the Roadster didn't bring in enough revenue to fund ongoing operations, VC money, IPO money, and the new model will certainly help. To paraphrase the (perhaps misattributed) late great Mark Twain, "tales of their death are greatly exaggerated".
Now make a RegularCar, that I can buy for 75k, and I'll have one in the driveway tomorrow
The actual article - which sadly the slashdot editor apparently made no attempt whatsoever to read in any way, shape, or form - says that is exactly what they are working on next.
Actually, they'll do you one better. The Tesla model S (for sedan) will start at $58k. Some details are in the article; you can get a 300 mile range version for around $80k. If you look up information on it, you can find prototype pictures, it looks like a Jaguar XJ or XF sedan of the current generation.
However, there is a wait list. You won't have it tomorrow, but if you go put some money down, you can have one when one is ready for you.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>Subby writes bad summary totally at odds with the meat of an article - probably didn't read the article and submits it anyway.
>gets "voted up" in the firehose by idiots that didn't read the article.
>gets posted on the front page by an "editor" that didn't read the article.
There are 3 layers of fail here, all of them inexcusable.
>Slashdot readers actually read the article and call Subby and the editor stupid
The Apocalypse is here.
--
BMO
Well: there's a surprise. Summary says: Tesla announces business model has failed and bankrupcy imminent.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Tesla's stock is up in an down market. The company is trading comfortably above its six month average price. The company, IIRC, always said that there would only be 2,500 Roadsters made...
Next year, the Model S will launch. The company has thousands of preorders, with people having put real money down.
The Model S may, of course, fail miserably. But the absurd FUD in the summary is ridiculous.
--- My dad's political betting
As I understand it, the current Lotus Elise, on which the Tesla is based, is also being discontinued. In Lotus case, they're replacing it with a brand new Elise built on a slightly larger chassis - and they can afford to do this because (compared to Tesla at least) they're high volume.
Tesla on the other hand doesn't have the time & money to reengineer the Roadster to work with the new Elise chassis at the same time they're trying to launch their sedan model. And they certainly don't have the clout to force Lotus to keep churning out an obsolete chassis for them.
End result: they disco'd an old model to focus on a new model. For every other car company on the planet this is called "Business As Usual", but apparently when you're Tesla it's a sign of impending collapse.
Correct. The Tesla was sold to help offset R&D costs. What better way to get real world data than have people pay you $100k to be test drivers. If they really sold 1650 cars at 100k that is $165 million towards R&D.
All of the lessons learned are going into the sedan which will be priced to be profitable. We shall see what happens.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
electric cars charge YOU!
This was Tesla's plan for a while now, and the article says nothing about their business model failing. The cannot use the government funds they were given to develop a sports car, it must be used for the Model S. Also they based the Roadster on the Elise Chassis, and Lotus has quit making them. This isn't reddit or I'd down vote for the horrific summary. There is lots of info in their IPO filing, and elsewhere..
Also the basis of the business model for the Roadster was to smash the image of the electric car being a hippie-green eco-shitbox, which most electric car's to date have been. That was a resounding success.
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-gets-loan-approval-us-department-energy
http://www.allcarselectric.com/news/1042150_tesla-roadster-production-to-end-in-2011-new-version-expected-in-2013
#740..
Fix this shit. Submitter didn't read the article and is making things up.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
This article and the general green lighting of false and incorrect stories are making me not read Slashdot anymore. Seriously WTF is going on with your editors?
I see Tesla roadsters on the road almost every day. I live in Silicon Valley on a hilly, winding road which leads to a lightly used road along a lake. It's about the only place in Silicon Valley where driving a sports car is a fun experience. The Silicon Valley Tesla dealership is nearby . So I see the little roadsters go quietly swooshing by as the dealership demos them.
There are enough Teslas in Silicon Valley that I see them around, being driven, parked in parking lots, and just routinely being used. Only once have I seen one on a flatbed truck, being hauled into the shop.
Not having anything to sell for a year seems a business mistake. Even if they're not making much money on the roadsters, keeping some product on the market seems necessary to retain attention. There are competing electric sedans, after all. The Tesla Roadster was unique, and finally killed the image of the electric car as wussy.
It was an interesting project, but the Roadster was just a heavier, slower, more expensive Lotus Elise . The Lotus, however, could be had new for under $55k, where the Tesla was roughly double that and had all the various limitations of an electric car.
The real innovation is happening now with the Nissan Leaf. It's truly a mass-market electric car that doesn't cost a fortune. It also doesn't try to be a sports car. The Prius and Insight didn't spark hybrid innovation because they were for the super-rich. Similarly, the Leaf is also inexpensive to the point where normal people (who don't care about performance) might buy one.
I thought I had seen a craptacular job by this hack before, and indeed, back in 2009 we saw a completely inaccurate front-page story posted by him where he didn't bother to read the article that he linked to.
But apparently on the front page, FUD sells, eh?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
They sold over $1.5B worth of Roadsters (1650 @ $109,000) and have used Roadster technology to help produce a more affordable car that will let them sell more cars. The $100K car market is only so big, I don't think they planned on selling millions of the Roadsters. The new "affordable" Model S won't hit the market until next mid next year.
Tell me again where the failure is?
Tesla received $465M in Federal money according to engadget. They couldn't possibly have burned thru it already.
While I agree the intro did not reflect the article many responses act as if they have succeeded which is also not true. As of now they are burning investor and government money in search of profit. They might get there or they might not. But acting like they have failed is wrong but so is acting like they have succeeded based on an announced product and no history of profit is also wrong. There is a lot of 'green' technology that is cost effective and despite the desires of some the technologies that are not cost effective will fail no matter the 'green' factor. The only temporary exception is something that is mandated and even that will expire after causing damage to the economy.
"business model failed" ??? that's not even close to summarizing or paraphrasing the article. They delivered 1650 Tesla roadsters. Lamoborghini, which is somewhat a competitor, sold around 1200 units over roughly the same time period. The Model S should be comparable to the Porsche Panamera, Aston Martin Rapide or Maserati Quattroporte in terms of luxury and performance. They will probably be competitive with these high performance gas drinkers. So to say a low volume boutique company's business model failed is stupid and irresponsible. The relative rarity of the Roadster makes it even more desirable, which is what buyers of low volume boutique cars want. I think Elon Musk and his team have done a extremely difficult thing, albeit with a lot of money to help them along. RTFA before you write shit like this.
Is still a pretty big deal. If everyone cut the transportation portion of their fossil fuel use by a third, we could put a big dent oil imports and cut pollution by quite a bit (probably even more than a third cut in this, as it's easier to capture pollution from one big smokestack than from millions of tiny ones). Additionally, you'd probably actually cut energy usage by more than a third, because electric vehicles are a lot more energy efficient than internal combustion ones (most of your energy is lost as heat). Further, as wind/solar/nuclear use replace coal/oil/natural gas, you automatically improve all this stuff without having to do anything else, just because your cars instantly become even less dependent on fossil fuels.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Switching to electric cars would be a big step forward.
Toyota have already delivered something like 3 million of their hybrid drivechains. The latest Prius is the biggest, heaviest, fastest and most economical to date, and now they will produce a small hybrid (Yaris). They have nearly 20 years of hybrid development. GM has what is in reality a plug in hybrid. Mercedes planned the original A-class to be electric; they have lots of development, as yet unused, probably over 20 years. Nissan has the Leaf entering volume production. Mitsubishi is ramping up its city car. The simple fact is that the moment batteries are good enough to go it alone - and they are not, yet, except for niches - these manufacturers can do it all over Tesla because they can crank out reliable, proven designs in volume. The sheer amount of development it takes nowadays to build a car reliably and economically is staggering, and Tesla cannot amortise that over large production runs. Their products are always likely to be way overpriced - and although some people will pay for a badge, the total number as a percentage of the market is very small indeed.
Toyota is in the strongest position because they can vary the relative amount of electric and gasoline power according to the state of energy costs. As gasoline gets more expensive, the gas engine can shrink and the battery can grow. As a result they can sell vehicles people actually want to buy. (OK, I admit it, I ended my support for Diesels and bought a Prius this year.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
He just wanted to spin the results in a certain way. Even on Slashdot, though, there's only so much spin you can get away with without people noticing.
Are the Slashdot editors pissed off because Tesla doesn't accept bitcoins for their cars?
I'm pretty sure Tesla has been planing this all along. They had announced a few months ago that they didn't plan on keeping the current Roadster around once they ran out of contract with the Lotus gliders. Sure they never said that they were taking the Roadster off the market, but it seemed like a possibility as they never announced another model of Roadster.
And a failing car company? Probably not, even though they aren't racking in the cash, they still move a lot of money around.
Tesla has in fact succeeded with most of their goals for the Roadster:
Created a good looking, high performance, pure electric vehicle that both proved the advances in electric car tech and that electric cars can be a viable alternative for some people NOW.
Admittedly the Roadster is not viable for everyone- lack of cargo space and lack of real range being the biggest problems.
But they PROVED that a pure electric can also be a GOOD, enjoyable car.
Something that no other manufacturer has done.
Since their business model was to use the Roadster to test and prove tech in small numbers and create buzz about the product and company and then stop production in favor of more mass-market friendly models.... well, so far they are doing exactly what they intended, and doing so successfully so far.
Strange situation here- I am not a fan of pure electrics as they don't meet my needs and I don't care for the increased pollution they cause in most of the US (electric generation plants are not exactly the "greenest" things around, not to mention battery disposal!) but Tesla has improved automotive tech for both pure electric and Hybrid (which I DO see as truly viable in the real world) and has so far been a very successful company.
Cowboy Neal needs to slap Attila Dimedici down for being an idiot, methinks.
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
"So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that gallon. Alternatively - energy use (electricity and natural gas) state wide goes DOWN if a mile in a RAV4EV is substituted for a mile in an ICE!"
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It is interesting to watch both companies run by Elon Musk: SpaceX and Tesla. Both companies step into fields which were so far not run by big businesses. What sets his ventures apart from others, is that they are executed along plans which not only span many years but most importantly on a clear path of technical evolution. When SpaceX went from Falcon1 to Falcon9 and soon to Falcon9 Heavy they followed a clear technical concept, where on each iteration main parts of the previous step were reused, keeping the technological and financial risks in control. What is so faszinating is, that that this progression was clearly planned from the start for a long time and range of products. Tesla is built on the same principle. They started with the roadster. No one expected it to generate multi-billion dollar revenue. But if you multiply its price with the sold number of cars, some nice revenue comes together. By price and concept it was targeted to a small group of wealthy enthusiasts. The roadster created a lot of awareness in the media. Now the technology and the price for batteries has improved vs. the time the roadster has been designed. Also now Tesla has many years of more experience with the technology and production of electrical cars. So the second step in the chain of products is a car which is targeted to a broader audience, by concept and price. The S will be the first model intended to reach higher production numbers. Consequently, in a few years we might expect another Tesla car, once again cheaper and more geared to the mass market, based on the revenue and experiences obtained with the model S.
So that's why they closed their showroom in Boulder. I was sad when I didn't see the Roadster that marked the end of Pearl Street.
OP, did you even read the article past the title before going on your little monologue?
It doesn't even remotely mean that! The Roadster was profitable, however, given its price it has now saturated the market (not too many people can buy a $125,000+ car). Continuing to make them would be unprofitable. Hence the switch to a $50,000 car.
Submitter apparently did not read the article s/he submitted! Content samples: "...was never intended to be a huge seller" and "...production is coming to halt as the maker of battery-powered cars switches its focus to the upcoming Model S electric sedan...for the middle of 2012". Sure as hell doesn't sound like Tesla believe that they've failed in their goal, nor that they're shutting down. Damn, this is the first time I've ever posting a bitch-fit (I've edited to take out the multiple f-bombs I had here), but shit, read the article before you submit, and before it is accepted!
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
N/T
Was this summary written by an oil company executive? Or was this a contest to see how different the summary can be from the actual article? I RTFA'd this news story yesterday was glad that the Roadster has achieved its purpose -- now Tesla Motors can focus on its Model S, not to mention the Mercedes A-Class E-Cell, Smart EV, and Toyota Rav4 EV 2nd gen. I think the 10s could be the decade of the electric car.
While an electric sports car is indeed innovative, if companies actually want to make a successful business from hybrid or electric cars they need to sell to the masses first, then target disposable incomes second. The Nissan Leaf, Ford Fiesta and even the Wheego are all more realistic options. Granted they're above the average consumer level too being in the $30-40k range which places them in the luxury price tag category of the lower end and great gas mileage cars from Mercedes and BMW, but still no where near the small pool of people who would actually pay $110k for an electric roadster. I think most who can afford that price for a car would still rather have an Aston Martin or Bentley due to their status symbolism.
As someone who lives in the bay area, I think I saw maybe 1 Tesla around Palo Alto near Stanford's campus once. I see a dozen Prius's ($23k) every time I get in my car.
Ave Molech Setting
Plenty of others have commented on how inaccurate the summary is so I'll avoid the recap. There are multiple reasons why they have for some time planned to drop the roadster. Most of them actually have to do with the suppliers. I know they've had trouble getting the chassis they need from Lotus . Another car called the Brubaker Box was killed when Volkswagon refused to sell them the chassis they needed. Volkswagon thought it'd compete with their ill fated "The Thing". They have always been able to sell as many roadsters as they can make but the goal has always been to make mass production electric cars not sports cars.
Well it seems that the Roadster was not priced high enough to be in the black. Tesla's decision to discontinue it may be a bit rash, they should shelve it until they have a car in production that DOES earn them a profit, the model S could be that car. Just as Chrysler was selling a few crazy V12 powered motercycles (I'm sure they did NOT lose money on them as long as nuts like Leno would buy them at any price), Tesla could then offer the Roadster at it's REAL cost to the deep heeled crowd that doesn't look at price tags. The roadster has done it's job, it has made a name for Tesla. Now they need to get a more down to earth electric out there. The model S still is in the high end "beamer" class so it won't be the average man's car. But maybe there will be a follow up to the model S that will be in the volt/prius/leaf class.
There are more innovative companies out there. http://commutercars.com/
I have ridden in a Tango, and a Tesla. I prefer the Tango, yes the Tango was a bit more cramped but it felt safer.
I remember reading an article a while back about how the CEO of Tesla was flying private jets around, even though they were in the middle of desperately asking for funding. I think this was more a case of poor advertising, and horrible management. Can really expect to go anywhere in this world shooting yourself in the foot.
At $58k before the subsidies they won't have too much trouble selling them.
Really? That's way more than the Leaf or Volt. Look at the volumes those are selling at (few hundred/month across the U.S.). How exactly can Telsa sustain at those levels (or lower) of sales? They can't even count on many California people buying as subsidies there are done for the year...
The summary might be bombastic but I'm not sure the conclusion is not correct.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The underlying issue is that Lotus is ceasing production of the Elise, which the Roadster shares the underpinnings for, because of upcoming regulations in North America that it cannot or will not comply with. Something about airbags if memory serves correct.
I don't think I've seen a more misleading /. article summary in quite a while. Tesla has announced nothing of the sort.
Their stock price also very much begs to differ.
Tesla has announced that their business model has failed.
The technology failed, not the business model.
The battery tech remains unready and over-promised.
Why do you see some hot shot kid in a Porsche, while they live in a low rent apartment.
Drug dealer. He has to live there because any place better neighbors would notice and report the traffic coming and going.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
just using the energy to refine that gallon.
Sure ... IF and ONLY IF you ignore all the other things that were produced during the refinement process that we'd need anyway or actually produce energy as well.
If we totally stopped using fossil fuel based engines RIGHT THIS INSTANT, the only thing that would change is we'd have a massive surpluss of fossil fuels useful for a combustion engine. You do like plastics and lubricants and medicines and food by products, and all the other shit that stims from oil productions ... DON'T YOU? You turn off the energy to produce that gallon of refined gasoline and your world would turn upside down even if you ignored the direct results of not having gasoline.
There is practically 0 waste in an oil refinery, yes, they have big flames all over burning waste gases, and those are trivial in comparison to the amount of crude that goes through them.
But hey, don't let taking the big picture into account prevent you from sayings something stupid.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
"Tesla has announced that their business model has failed. "
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!! WHO HAS LET THIS FUD GET IN?
Tesla is working on a new model and we knew ONE YEAR AGO that they were going to stop making roadsters to focus on the sedan.
Tesla HAS NOT ANNOUNCES that their business model has failed!! WTF!!
Tesla is on track on the sedan, they sold stock and are doing fine. They have money from stock and from other automakers partners.
There is no FAIL here. This is obviously a WIN. In order to enrich the culture of Slashdot that has "obviously" been in the decline for the past decade, the editors and submitters of slashdot have decided to do something about it. By posting grossly inaccurate summaries, they have taken advantage of our greatest strength, our ability to complain and find fault in anything. Only via posting obviously inaccurate summaries with poor spellings would the slashdot community get the message that we should not completely trust any news source. Instead we should actually read the posted articles and question them.
Well, I must say it's work. Good show editors and submitters. Good show. Now if we could please cut the bullshit and practice some actual quality control, it might teach us another value that is sorely needed within the tech community.
Pride.
Samzenpus' post is one of the biggest pieces of crap posts I've ever seen on Slashdot and Attila Dimedici is a liar, liar pant on fire. Anyone who bothers to read the linked article will see that the summary posted is full of flaming piles of conjecture and outright lies. Those, like myself, who are fans of Tesla Motors and follow the company on a regular basis know this to be undoubtedly the case in this instance.
Where the fuck is the Slashdot editor and how on earth did this crap get past them? If this kind of bull continues to leak through on Slashdot they will quickly find their RSS feed replaced on my devices for sites who bother to at least read before they post.
Meantime, in the real world, Tesla's stock is up nearly 1% today and has been slowly rising for the past 3 months. Get bent editors.
I know so many other people are pointing this out, but I must also chime in and say that this is one of the worst summaries ever. How the poster took the original article, which merely states that Tesla is focusing on their lower cost sedan and discontinuing their luxury sportscar, and changed it to "Tesla has announced their business model has failed" and "it is only a matter of time until Tesla closes its doors". This summary needs to be fixed, it's nothing but wild speculation and misinformation.
Whoever posted this summary has failed... to read the article and comprehend what it says...
Add to that the recent independent studies that found that electric cars produce more CO2 and other environmental hazards (producing, maintaining and replacing batteries) than running a gas powered vehicle over their life (indeed over twice their forecasted lifetimes), and the attractiveness of the electric car option goes way down.
First off, you are not clear about what percentage of petroleum becomes plastics and lubricants, and what is burned. I'd suggest the part used for products is relatively small. One example: .002 percent of that amount. Comparatively, 71 percent of total petroleum used in the US is used for gasoline, jet, and diesel fuel, and 26 percent for the production of asphalt, oils and lubricants."
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/770859.html
"The manufacture of all plastics consumed approximately three percent of the total petroleum used in the US in 1997, and PS production comprised approximately
Most drugs are essentially a scam anyway, compared to eating better:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
Also, plastics and many other products including lubricants can be derived from other sources, such as plants, and things can be redesigned with magnetic bearings to reduce lubrication needs. Example:
http://www.maglevwindturbine.com/
Asphalt can be replaced at possibly less cost by solar roadways:
http://www.solarroadways.com/
I've worked a bit over the years towards systems that would help people figure out how to do that:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
So, we have lots of options. We don't have to pollute or otherwise destroy our world for the reasons you suggest. We have plenty of alternatives.
That said, I'm not going to disagree that you make a good point about integrated systems. But your tone suggests you have not really looked into alternatives. Why is that?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The person who wrote the summary probably wants to create a dip in Tesla stock prices so he can buy-in cheaper. The other note I want to make is that one of the reasons that the roadster must be discontinued is that Lotus is discontinuing its Elise that the roadster is based on, so unless they start making their own chassis, Tesla has no choice but to discontinue their roadster. Now, with the Model S, they aren't reliant on anybody else for the chassis, so they should be in better shape.
Summery is a total FAIL.
in other news Global warming was a hoax by the CIA...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wonder if someone is an Oil industry shill?
http://www.pctechs.org/tag/attila-dimedici/
Someone seems a bit too much pro-fossil fuel.
I was considering whether to purchase a Tesla Roadster but the single biggest issue that broke my sales pitch to my accountant (wife) was the maintenance setup & fees. Nearest mobile service center was over 300 miles away.
sorry, doesn't work that way. it's not $165 million net revenue on 1650 cars sold. that's the gross.
when you cannot compete in the marketplace the first thing a business tries to do is blame someone else and sue.
The other reason the roadster is going away is because the car its based on (a Lotus) is also going away.
Where are Attila Dimedici's comments where he can justify such an outrageous summary? I think if I submitted a story, I would at least follow the discussion. The impression he is leaving about Tesla closing it's doors is irresponsible at best.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
The Roadster is built on the same assembly lines as the Lotus Elise (and shares some components like airbags windshield, and some of the interior).
Lotus is no longer going to make the Elise, so that manufacturing partner is going away for the Roadster. It will cost to much money to try and move the glider manufacturing elsewhere in the short term. Tesla is focused on getting their own manufacturing up and running for the Model S, so they are stopping production of the Roadster. I am sure if Lotus were going to continue to manufacture the glider, Tesla would continue to sell them - but it is unfortunate timing while they try to get the Sedan out the door.
Tesla has talked about possibly creating a convertible version of the Model S in the future (sometime after the Model S and the Model X crossover) but they have not set a timetable on it. I assume no real Roadster-style replacement for many years, unless they partner with a different manufacturer to help produce it.
Fossil fuels are not restricted to oil. In fact very little of our electricity comes from oil. That means a shift from oil to electricity reduces our oil dependence which is a good thing. It's not the ultimate solution, just mid-term solution. I also didn't see you offer anything that would classify as an actual alternative...
All they have to do is start selling the electric motor they put in the Roadster.
Anyone who has looked into doing an electric car conversion can tell you the motor in the roadster is much better than anything else on the market in terms of size to power output. They have the market locked down though so you can't buy them.
Scaling back from a $109k roadster to a potentially $80k ultra luxury sedan is hardly the way to crack open the mass market. Even at a "modest" $40k it's hard to find mass appeal -- esp with an effective range of less than 200 miles. Plus, plugging that baby into your electric mains each and every evening is going to seriously impact monthly electric bills. I seriously don't see this sedan having a more compelling business model (or success, frankly) than its predecessor. Odds are that Tesla will be absorbed into a GM or somesuch gutted for its drive train (the only real tech they have). Although I don't think they are a sustainable business, kudos for their part in helping to kick-start the EV shift.
Who has a couple feet of snow?
Ever heard of Canada? ...although we'd call it 60cm. We even managed a respectable 1.4 cm snow this June.
The Lesson is: They sold to the wrong market segment, becasue the rich are the last ones who will want to save on fuel costs. They think about security and comfort first.
The demand is still there, but not for the price that they offered. Others will gladly eat up the market. BMW and Audi are currently running ads for their electric cars in Germany.
Best Regards, Your
If they needed to learn the lessons, they could have set up shop in Detroit and hired people who already knew the answers. I work with guys who have been doing this stuff since the early 90's. I even worked on battery systems for one of the big 3 last millenium before doing some other things. Now I'm back with some of the same guys working on volume production stuff now that the cost is down and the market is better. Oh, but teslas whole marketing message was that Detroit fucked up the electric car so their cool California company was going to show them how to do it right.
I'm no made-of-money type guy, but every once in a while I get a crazy idea to save for something seemingly rediculous. The Tesla Roadster was just the type of product that catches my interest. Sure, in reality it is highly unlikely that I ever would have saved enough to buy one in the next 10 years, but such goals do prompt some of us to save. Oh, well. Now I'll just need to find some other crazy toy to convince me to put away all my pennies (and dollars).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Electronics prices are constantly dropping. The Roadster came out a few years ago. They're probably saving a lot simply by getting the same (or better) electronics for a lot less money.
I wrote them off when they became a corporate welfare case.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ok, this is it:
ATTENTION SLASHDOT: With the increasing use of inaccurate headlines, how about you give us, the users, the ability to mod headlines up or down? That way, we can see a little red or green bar that indicates if a headline is legit or full of shit.
-
I would love to have one of these with a 5L DOHC 32V V8.
The last was about ten years ago when some moron put that The Lone Gunmen were killed off in X-Files in the story title. Before it had aired on the West Coast. And this is well after TIVO was alive. I sat down to the TV, pulled out my laptop, and... boom. I can't remember the editor's name, but *ZAP*.
This story makes the second one.
Pretty sure Edison is behind whatever level of failure Tesla is experiencing...
The summary needs to be rewritten or the article needs to be deleted. It isn't just mildly inaccurate, it's completely wrong.
The Tesla Roadster is made from Lotus Elise gliders (an Elise without the engine). The Elise is old and Lotus is cancelling it (possibly readying a new model). Since Tesla can't get the first generation Elise anymore, they can't make first generation Roadsters. If the model S and X are successful, I'm sure there'll be a second generation Roadster later.
So we give money to Big GM and Dodge and not Tesla, funny, I wonder why?
If you can buy a BMW 7 series, you can buy a Tesla. Target market.
Attila Dimedici has posted an article to /. and failed to understand the subject matter in a manner that is simply amazing.
Even more incredible is his attempts to reply to corrections with more inaccurate and contradictory statements.
This type of thing is not exactly new to Slashdot or other news websites but what IS new is the fact that he continues to defend his position with such vehemence even when faced with a complete lack of factual material to back up any statement he has made.
It has become increasingly obvious to this writer- and most readers of the thread- that Attila Dimedici is simply not attempting to understand anything on the topic but appears to be spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt on the subject due to a personal agenda.
What this agenda may be has come under discussion as well- politics, an "Opinion for Hire" situation or even possibly rank stupidity, but at his time there is no conclusive evidence for any one of the three possibilities.
What IS clear is that he knows little about anything in an automotive or business sense.
And probably should not be allowed to submit articles to Slashdot.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Solar roadways? Eating better? Are you fucking serious?
Tesla got something like $400M in bailout funds.
It is absolutely true. Here is the story:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-timeline-1916-tesla-declares-bankruptcy
Still better than this pile of dogshit story.
Tesla's plan, from the very beginning of the company, was to create the Roadster (an overpriced concept), to generate the seed money to develop the technology further. Thanks to the rich folks who spent the 100k+ and supported this company, they were able to take step two which is the 50k luxury sedan. Step 3 is the 30k sedan, which was still part of their plan and where I have always hoped to come into the picture. I'm removing Slashdot from Google reader and not coming back. The site has been "on the decline" for a very long time, but it's just complete trash now.
The Lone Gunmen were killed off in X-Files ;)
Uh sh..wha? DAMMIT!
Well I may as well throw away the friggin' DVD collection now. Thanks a bundle, feep. Ya jerk.
This summary is the exactly opposite of the article. It is not just poor journalism, it is borderline commercial defamation.
These days Slashdot a) gets stories more slowly than everyone else, b) very, very often completely misrepresents the article being presented and/or presents it with a strong implicit ideological position that immediately marks everything out as a political or economic discussion rather than a technological one, and c) is full of commenters that clearly have no first-hand experience with anything prior to 32-bit Windows and thus understand the "discussion of technology" in a way completely different from the way that I imagine it (it is, on Slashdot these days, the discussion of consumer electronics, commodity economics, and political regulation).
In short, this is disgusting and I'm tired of it. I think my clicks are going to go somewhere else.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Since the performance doesn't compare, the Leaf serves just as well as an image car as the Model S (and yes I have seen pictures of the Model S).
I have doubts that the ModelS can really match refinements people used to buying a Mercedes would not be in for this car.
To me Telsa has always been about courting the technical, not the luxury, crowd. I admire what they have done and are trying to do but I just don't see how the current plan can work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The moderation on this thread shows how badly the fanboys want Tesla to succeed - but the example of other niche manufacturers is that you either have to be extremely niche and conservative (Morgan) or get bought out by a sugar daddy (Lamborghini) - it's reckoned you need a project team of 300-500 engineers juust to design a new volume car, depending on how much work you have to do on customising the powertrain. And yes, I have worked in vehicle R&D.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You are missing the point. The Tesla WAS the R&D.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Could this article be mistaken? Weren't they going to suspend the roadster for 2 or 3 years to produce the model S? Seems to me the article might be inaccurate. If Tesla is able to make a profit on the Model S I expect the Roadster will be back as a new model. The whole point of the Roadster was to gear up for production slowly; to work out the kinks and push the tech. I think Tesla's big goal is sublease their tech and or produce the electric subsystems for other manufacturers. Producing the cars themselves is a fallback position so auto makers can't strong-arm them. If Tesla makes it 10 years in the auto market they will be standing on solid ground. Unless the company is closing it's doors and going bankrupt I think it's likely we will see the Roadster again and leaner and meaner than ever before.
had GM and Chrysler simply gone under, the economy would be even more fucked than it is now.
Nope. It would have been worse for a short time, would probably still be worse in a localized area, but it would be MUCH better all over.
The point given is refuting what you say because unions are dragging everything down, bankruptcy for GM would have meant the union would have had to take cutbacks whereas right now they continue to drain GM, and through GM the rest of the country.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Two different friends tell me they hear Tesla is in trouble... when there is so much demand for the car and the technology that since I started working at Tesla I've hardly seen my friends because I've been working crazy hours to get the last roadsters out the door and the Model S on the road. The Roadster is going away because Lotus isn't going to be making the base for them anymore, and as a result, people are clamoring to get them while they can. There are a lot of people working very hard at a company doing wildly well and some jerk writes a couple lines that are straight up lies and now we're a "Failure"? I'm glad so many people actually read the article, which says, as many other people pointed out, the exact opposite of the summary.
Why is the original poster so negative - so hostile - towards Tesla Motors? What is he trying to accomplish and why?
Yes. :-)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.