Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models
An anonymous reader notes this story about what Tesla will have to do in order to double production every year for the next several years as Elon Musk intends. "Having just reported a $107.6-million fourth-quarter loss that sent its stock tumbling, Tesla Motors Inc. intends to double vehicle production in the next year as it finally introduces its Model X sport utility vehicle — after about two years of delays. Meanwhile, Tesla is racing to finish the design of its Model 3, the "affordable" Tesla, expected to sell in the $30,000 range after government subsidies. Musk's company is chasing General Motors Co., which plans a 2017 release of its all-electric Bolt, with a similar price and 200-mile driving range between charges."
It's nice to see the walls of the reality distortion field collapsing around Musk.
This is the second "article" in one day about Elon Musk.
Maybe some of you should read this.
And I am now thinking that Slashdot has been bombarded or even maybe paid to feature Elon Musk promoting articles.
It's not just Cramer. See, Wall Street has a much different opinion on Tesla and Musk than Silicon Valley's misguided hero worship.
Say what you want about Wall Street - and I'll be right there to join in - but they do know bullshitters and bullshit.
There will be a surge and resulting peak in demand for their expensive cars and then demand will fall off a cliff and the company will eventually disappear. Maybe then we'll finally stop seeing the endless supply of pump and dump stock articles that appear on /., esp positive-spin articles like this one that magically appear whenever there is negative news about the company.
Niche vehicles is easy.
Scaling production to 100K units/year is hugely capital-intensive and Tesla still has to find out what the old-school automakers have already learned.
It seems that every other story is related to either Tesla Motors or Elon Musk. Is perhaps Slashdot owned by Tesla?
Just wait for the Apple electrical car!
That's what Steve Jobs would have wanted.
"factory"? Only Luddites still use old ideas like factories. What's next? A supply chain?
Everyone knows we can 3D print cars, people must be 3D printing their cars at home now, Elon. Your old factory ideas are obsolete.
And peddling too... ;-)
Seriously, we've heard this gripe before, and gotten over it just fine. They used to complain that it couldn't be done. Then the Roadster proved them wrong. Then they said it couldn't be repackaged for the "mainstream" luxury market, until Tesla started shipping the Model S. Then they said Tesla would never be able to ramp up Model S production to meet demand, until... well, they're still trying to catch up with the backlog of orders, but they are making progress.
And simultaneously they are also (finally) bringing the Model X to market and investing heavily in the Giga Factory to enable high-volume production of ALL electric vehicles, especially their own Model 3.
FTFA: "Tesla has lost its luster, he said, and could soon lose credibility."
Any investor who is so short-sighted as to sell off Tesla shares based on the incidental losses last quarter had no business buying those shares in the first place. Elon has been crystal clear about his plans for Tesla's development right from the beginning. If you're freaked out about strict GAAP losses at such an early stage of growth, then you don't have a realistic understanding of how such large (huge) capital-intensive enterprises bootstrap themselves. Such investors were just looking for a short-term capital gain, and wet their pants at the first sign of slow-down in Tesla's meteoric rise. Good riddance to them.
Bottom line: Tesla has a multi-thousand-customer waiting list for the Model S, and 20K reservations for the Model X... If you do the math, that's a couple BILLION in pent-up demand for a product that only Tesla currently provides. And lucky for them, they haven't even built those factories yet. So unlike the "major players" in the market, they don't have to "re-tool"... they're building from scratch, which gives them an advantage at least as big as the disadvantage you claim.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
China gets 72% of its power from fossil fuels - electric cars like the tesla actually pollute more than regular economy cars. 420hp 4700lbs is niether 'green' nor 'efficient'. It will take many decades to wean ourselves off fossil fueled electricity - cars last a decade or less
tl:dr while teslas are a nice car, fully electric cars pollute more co2 per mile than electrics in the vast majority of electric power markets, which by they way, cost 2-3x as much before subsidy. You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric. Given finite money and actually wanting to reduce co2 the factual answer is efficient fossil fuel cars. Lying to people and hiding the tailpipe fifty miles away under fifty feet of bs is part of the problem, not solution.
I am currently working as a skilled tradesman in the fremont tesla plant. installing a massive body line that will be able to manufacture 3 body styles. Tesla is paying upwards of 12 million to get this line finished by fall. So they can ramp up production. Anyone that says it won't happen should take a tour of the plant on Wednesdays. The new line is massive and we are doing our best to finish it.
Did anyone else read that head line and think "hey, I didn't realize that Tesla had a Factory Racing team, those races would be fun to watch"....
so the short term rats dont like that i'll take time for this comapny top be succesfull. Why the fuck didn you buy into the stock in the first place. If I had the $$$$ i'd be into Tesla now and hopefully the new model shoiuld come out as the same time as my current car is paid off. Nice trade in towards the Model 3.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Teslas are for rich people. Why is the government giving subsidies to people for buying these cars? That means middle class people like me have to pay more in taxes so we continue to not be able to afford an expensive car like a Tesla and so that the rich can afford to buy a Tesla for less than the true cost.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
$30k for an electric car doesn't sound too bad. Now drop the weight by half and double the range and count me in.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Well, you know, for all the success it brings (with all loses and public subsidies, hey, what? is this socialism or capitalism?) I would love to hear Elon Musk's opinion on sustainability (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/15/1253255/elon-musk-to-write-a-book-about-earth-sustainability-and-mars-colonization) especially now that we are past peak oil, about 80% of transport world wide energy is fossil, and electric cars still have a huge fossil bill (try to make a car with just renewable energies), or charging your battery fast.
Seriously, Musk (and Tesla) are not a win for the world.
mid-range BMW, Audi, Volvo, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, and top trim Ford, Chevy, Buick, Chrysler, Toyota etc. sedans. I believe I've seen a few of those around. Wait, I've seen lots.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Teslas are for rich people.
This year. Unlike certain whiners, the government is thinking long-term.
Why is the government giving subsidies to people for buying these cars?
Because the government has a long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions and reducing America's reliance on oil. Subsidies for electric cars help develop battery technology and other infrastructure necessary for making that transition, sooner and less disruptively than the market would manage on its own.
That means middle class people like me have to pay more in taxes so we continue to not be able to afford an expensive car like a Tesla and so that the rich can afford to buy a Tesla for less than the true cost.
The upside for you is that when the shit finally hits the fan regarding oil consumption (either due to geopolitical problems, peak oil, or the effects of global warming becoming intolerable), you will be much more likely at that point to have the option of buying an affordably priced electric car to serve your transportation needs. That will be less painful for you than paying $20/gallon for gas, or going without a car -- your other two options in a scenario where the electric cars market was not well developed in advance of our need for it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
If you think burning fossil fuels in an ICE at 25% efficiency is green, then keep on sending your money to the terrorists.... EVs emit less CO2 than ICE cars even if the electricity comes from dirty coal because there is much higher efficiency at all stages.
if by "much higher efficiency" you mean 40% vs 25%
then yes.
factor in transmission line losses (6%) and charging losses (10-20%)
and it's not so much more efficient.
I've been a TSLA stock holder long enough to be extremely happy with my stock purchase. And you're right anyone who is just buying it for short term I think is terribly misguided. When I bought it, I bought it both for ideological statement of supporting a technology I want to see change the market and also because this is was one of those rare opportunities to buy a stock like Microsoft or Ford when their future was still uncertain.
That being said I can see why people would be worried about TSLA. I'm going to hold it until they go bankrupt but there is a pretty sizable risk that the entire automotive industry isn't going to just be disrupted by going electric, it's going to be disrupted by driver-less technology. I have no idea how Tesla is going to respond to that challenge. Apple has a market cap of $750Billion. They had a 4th QUARTER profit of $18Billion. TSLA has a market cap of $25B. Apple could buy a controlling share of Tesla with their profit from just a single quarter. Or they could take $18B from one quarter and start a car company. Microsoft has $92 Billion in cash.
Ford's market cap is $63B. If Microsoft or Apple were so inclined they could buy Ford and have a worldwide manufacturing infrastructure to build self-driving cars. There is actually a pretty long list of companies who if they really put their mind to it could enter the market at nearly a moment's notice. Then again supposedly someone could barge into the smartphone market at any moment but it doesn't seem to happen.
The way the factory is set up one line of robots builds all models, so all they have to do is stretch the line or create a new one from scratch in the same factory...a lot easier than a traditional factory could be tooled up. The cars being built are on carts that follow a magnetic strip on the ground through the line of robots. Its essentially built to be expanded upon and improved as they go. Genius really.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index....
and now trying to make it up on volume? I'll pass on that business plan.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
That money should go into R&D and infrastructure where eventually a larger percentage of the people can benefit.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
You have a lot more energy security with electric vehicles though. If for whatever reason the market changes you can switch the generators without replacing all the cars on the road.
Wrong, wrong. Tesla's current market cap (valuation) is a little over $25B. Thus in terms of size they're about 40% as big as Ford, who no doubt sells millions of vehicles per year, pays a dividend, has huge product lines and a wide dealer base.
So, if Tesla's sales were to double along with their market cap, they would be a size roughly comparable to Ford, but their business is nowhere near as brisk as Ford's. What I'm trying to say is current investors have priced in perfection in reaching the company's goals of being a major auto player. A report like this is definitely justification to sell, because what do you know, reality is not as easy and rosy as investors had thought.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
I'm still in favor of the professionals making laws and public policy, rather than leaving decisions to *your* imagination.
But still... let me give it a try - "I imagine that Assad and the Syrian rebels would come to some accord if the U.S. threatened to nuke the entire country, so let's start with one of their smaller cities, and see if they take the hint."
Hey, I like this!
If you're gonna factor in transmission line losses and charging loss, then you also have to factor in idling and drivetrain losses, which brings the fuel efficiency of an ICE down to about 15%. Not counting the energy required to actually make the fuel in the first place (which is also not zero). More importantly, though, electric cars are source-neutral: they don't give a shit if their electricity comes from coal, nuclear, or solar.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It is just a figure of speech, and if you have any understanding of the market you would feel pretty confident that the assumption is accurate. I don't see you denying that it is probable, so you resort to a petty smart ass response that adds nothing to the conversation.
And GMAFB about "professionals making the law". You must live under a rock if you think these laws are not as much political/lobby driven as they are substantiated.
So, if you don't believe most Tesla owners are relatively wealthy, please say so, otherwise you really have not point other than to show us you are mad.
Hm.. well... you pretty-much validate my point here. If you are buying TSLA as a "hot stock" investment, then you deserve to take your short-term loss. But if you instead had the "vision" to see this as a long-term opportunity, you might understand why we are still YEARS away from knowing how the TSLA gamble will play out. And you would not be perturbed by random fluctuations in the market.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
1) You missed out the "transmission" losses for the fuel (it takes roughly 1.2 gallons of fuel on average to transport 5 gallons of fuel to the petrol station)
2) You missed out the transmission losses for a mechanical car (around 30% of your energy is lost in the gearbox/diff/...)
3) EVs are actually about 90% efficient, not 40%.
4) Power plants are roughly 50-60% efficient even if you assume you use fossil fuels to generate the power.
What this adds up to:
Fuel powered car = 80% (fuel tanker efficiency) * 26% (engine efficiency) * 70% (transmission efficiency) = roughly 15% efficient total system (ignoring the amount of energy it takes to dig up the fuel and carry it to shore)
Electrically powered car = 60% (power plant efficiency) * 94% (power grid efficiency) * 85% (charging efficiency) * 90% (engine efficiency) = roughly 43% efficient total system.
Add to that that you hypothetically in the future can then replace the fossil fuel burning power plant with a {nuclear | wind | solar | ... } one, and you get a rather huge win. You're literally using one third the power to drive your vehicle.
Power plant 'systemic' efficiency varies widely based on the generating technology.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
But, with that said, I'm not sure that is the right way to compare overall energy benefit anyhow. If you were burning oil for electrical generation vs burning gas in a car, the car would likely show a greater systemic energy efficiency. What would be more interesting is total energy put into the system vs total mileage extracted. Calculating that would be quite challenging, IMO.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience. Before Tesla, the general thought in the car industry was that electric cars would have to be cheaper than gasoline cars in order to sell, but that idea never worked -- because it was impossible to price an electric car that cheap without stripping it down into an unsellable golf-cart. Tesla demonstrated that the way to sell electric cars wasn't to make them cheaper than gasoline cars, but rather to make them better. Now we have other manufacturers (BMW, Nissan, GM) competing to get into that market, and the development-and-competition ball is rolling. The next step is for competition and volume production to bring prices down, just like they did for gasoline cars in the early 20th century.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
Perhaps, if you knew which companies to throw the development money at. But that's a hard thing to predict reliably (witness the long succession of "visionary" electric car companies whose products went nowhere, despite significant investment). This way, the customers decide which electric car designs are worth supporting and which are not.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
You are defending the continued use of petroleum byproducts in the powering of inefficient IC engines for personal transport. Please, lets not. If they can somehow cut out the necessary transportation for the raw material from the source to the refining plant by way of IC engine, and the refining process fueled by electricity (produced by said petroleum byproducts), then transported to the distribution stations by IC powered transports, and stations powered by electricity (produced by said petroleum byproducts), then the fuel spillage, waste, etc. that happens at gas stations, then I can maybe get behind it, maybe. But I have trouble ignoring the inane daily price hikes and that $0.009. Do you really have to show my that hundredth of a cent? Its a f***ed up system all the way around. Lets trade it in for something I already have available at my home, at my convenience.
Even the Sun goes down.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience
Tesla was not first to market with an EV. They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell. And, Tesla has yet to make money even though they are selling high end and have subsidies working in their favor, so that's not exactly the model that others will rush to.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla. That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
So a 60% jump in efficiency is "not so much" in your opinion? (15% is 60% of 25% after all)
At least in the U.S. it has been proven time and again that its better to let the market drive innovation than for Uncle Sam to toss money into a crowd of "innovators" and hope they develop something innovative. iPhone's were only for the rich years back, now market pressure has pushed innovation and we have phablets with 3-sided screens. Moreover, I believe the typical luxury car consumer often has multiple vehicles.
Even the Sun goes down.
I don't know, Apple and Google did a pretty thorough job of barging into that exact market.
You think the only people buying $67K cars are rich? Umm, wow.
Even the Sun goes down.
In order to have a Tesla Model S in hand as of December 2014, you would have had to plunk down a decent sized deposit more than a year ago. I do not have the resources to tie up that amount of cash for a year for a car that hasn't been built yet, hoping it will be built on time. Do you? Typically only those for whom money is not a pressing issue have the flexibility to do so. Hence the majority of Model S owners we see today are the well heeled (Them that Got's are Those who Gets -R. Charles).
Even the Sun goes down.
Exactly. It didn't take subsidies for the Iphone to sell like mad, it won't for EV's either. Once the product capabilities and mass market needs match. And when the market gets big enough, there will be many products and suppliers bringing the price down through competition.
No, I don't even have the resources to buy a $35K car, and I make a decent living. I buy used cars in cash. We need 2 cars, I paid less for both together and they are very good cars. I also have an old truck that I used occasionally. Buying a $35K EV would be a huge financial mistake for me.
An affordable vehicle is one that actually is about the same price as any other kind of vehicle that is physically comparable to it.
Last I heard, the model was expected to cost no less than about $45k CDN... which is more than double what my wife and I spent our current automobile.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You think the only people buying $67K cars are rich? Umm, wow.
No, I am well aware that the lower middle class also buy cars like that. However, only the rich can AFFORD cars like that. Back when I had a job, my household income was just about $110k, and I considered an affordable car for my income to be about $25k. People shouldn't be buying cars that cost more than their yearly income. They really shouldn't be buying cars that are even 1/4 of their yearly income.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Rich or very stupid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The cost of the car is the combination of the purchase price, and the price of fuel, maintenance over the life of the car.
The "average American" spends $3,000 per year on gas. That is $30,000 over ten years. Tesla supercharger stations are free. And, electricity is cheaper than gas.
That Tesla will never need an oil change.
Interestingly, ignoring the recommended maintenance does NOT void your Tesla warrantee.
Just something to think about.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
You miss his point. The current price of Tesla prices in more or less perfect execution. There is only downside, no upside.
Like buying/staying in Krispy Cream donuts when they were worth as much as the rest of the baking/donut industry. Take your profits.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How are you thinking about the capital cost of a car? While there is depreciation a car still retains some of its capital value. I buy cars that are 2 years old and sell them after a 3 or 6 year cycle. Across a 3 year period I have never sold a car at less than 60% of what I originally paid for it, and usually it is a higher percentage than that.
Financially I treat my vehicles as a rental. I structure my income so that I pay my fuel, financing, servicing and insurance from my gross income. This means that for my $55,000 car I spend a total of $235 per week pre tax. This is for a budget of 25,000 km per year and an average fuel price of $1.55 per litre (yeah I'm not in the states)
Given that the vehicle is fully financed and that weekly cost includes the finance cost based on the sale value at 3 years I have a TCO of $12,220 per year. That figure would not be significantly lower if I reduced the capital cost of the car.
Tesla was not first to market with an EV.
No, but they were the first to sell an EV that made non-geeks' pulses quicken. The vehicles sold before that were more of the "eat your vegetables" variety, and thus doomed to be money-losing niche vehicles, useful only as arguments against the viability of the electric vehicle market.
They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell.
Sure, but you can't get to the mass market without starting somewhere viable. Previous attempts to start at the low end failed (see: EV-1, RAV4 EV), and failures don't help the EV market grow.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla.
That's an assertion only -- I don't see any evidence to back it up. Before Tesla's successes, no other companies were marketing a desirable electric car, and there was little evidence that any of them had much interest in doing so in the future.
Sure, the EV market would have caught on anyway, decades from now, after gas prices rose high enough that almost nobody could to afford to drive a traditional car anymore; but that's a rather grim scenario that I think we are well-served to avoid.
That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
Them, and Tesla, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs, and all the other car companies that can now take advantage of the technology Tesla developed.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Erm... whaa....? I'm not sure... was there a verb in your second sentence there?
Imagine for a sec that I'm not high on cocaine... how would you explain your point now?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
A fat lot of good all the money it can save on gas in the long run will do if the car is so expensive to begin with that the difference between the monthly payments on it versus a gasoline vehicle is more than double what you'd be ordinarily pay for gas anyways in the interim. Of course you could reduce the monthly payments by stretching out the loan over a longer period, but then you are paying even more money for the car, causing it to take even longer to pay for itself with the gasoline that you aren't buying, and running the risk of the car never being cost effective before its battery dies and needs to be replaced.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs
A very speculative statement, not to mention the fact that Tesla has been losing money.
Tesla has some self-driving attributes, and is likely capable of switching to full autonomy well before Ford could produce 50k cars per year with the technology. What Tesla can't do is handle things that would require 5-10 different models to be in parallel development. They don't do "platforms" that let you cheat that development and just make a new body and interior for each version.
Tesla has not seen saturation levels yet for their $100k automobile; their very real challenge is in sustaining that production while rolling out the Model X and ramping up production there. Frankly, I am significantly more worried about the longshoremen and ports impacting Tesla than Ford, Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
A very speculative statement, not to mention the fact that Tesla has been losing money.
I don't think I can convince you with further argument, so I'll just leave you with this paragraph from the "History of Electric Vehicles" page on Wikipedia (see the page itself for citations):
Senior leaders at several large automakers, including Nissan and General Motors, have stated that the [Tesla] Roadster was a catalyst which demonstrated that there is pent-up consumer demand for more efficient vehicles. GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz said in 2007 that the Tesla Roadster inspired him to push GM to develop the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid sedan prototype that aims to reverse years of dwindling market share and massive financial losses for America's largest automaker.[79] In an August 2009 edition of The New Yorker, Lutz was quoted as saying, "All the geniuses here at General Motors kept saying lithium-ion technology is 10 years away, and Toyota agreed with us -- and boom, along comes Tesla. So I said, 'How come some tiny little California startup, run by guys who know nothing about the car business, can do this, and we can't?' That was the crowbar that helped break up the log jam."
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
True, but there are a couple substantial differences: Ford has thin gross profit margins and lacks the vertical integration between manufacturing, sales, and service. It also has substantial legacy costs which limit its flexibility.
Long term, Tesla's P/E should be closer to 15, not the 20 that Musk seems to think. They have a future, but there is plenty of risk.
Interesting paragraph. Thanks. It does back your point, but also note that was 6 years ago and though the market is there, it still hasn't proven to be profitable yet and that is was really gets things moving. The Volt hasn't exactly "reversed years of dwindling market share" for GM, and other industry execs have had less enthusiastic takes.
I think the biggest impact Tesla will have is in mass battery production as they plan, but that is in the future, not the present.
How do you assume that it's not their primary vehicle?
I only know two people with a Model S, but for both of them it's a primary vehicle (here in a snowy northern climate).
Unless you regularly need to drive for 6 hours into the wilderness, or be on the road 8-10 hours per day, there's nothing it does worse than a gasoline car, as far as I'm aware. The range is reduced by the cold, however, so I guess maybe "4 hours into the wilderness" is more reasonable.
What the hell are you talking about?
The Model S was the highest rated car *Ever tested* by both Consumer Reports and JD Power.
It won car & driver's "best car" of 2014.
Are you also calling for Mercedes to go out of business?
I think you COMPLETELY MADE UP this whole comment.
The Tesla Model S is only surpassed in performance by 1-3 supercars. The Bugatti Veyron, Maybe the new Corvette ZX10. It is comparable to the McLaren F1.
The efficiency of the car... 4700 lbs with over 90% efficiency at transforming power to torque (as opposed to about 38% in a combusion engine). Also, electric motors get full torque at all RPMs, reducing the loss from gearing and low-RPM torque loss.
Are you seriously joking? Or are you a shill for GM?
yawn.
No way could Apple (or other rich company) just jump in and start cranking out cars at any reasonable volume.
Having done the factory tour (and, also, I one a P85D) I can assure you that it isn't just having the cash... they have a LOT of very specialized robots and stamping presses that I can't fathom are available to the general public with 2 day shipping. The Gigafactory helps address one of the main limitations- lack of battery availability.
The entire process- from design, to car, to supercharger, to OTA updates to firmware... TSLA gets it. Detroit does not. Japan might - the Leaf is a nice car for a certain market segment- but it is still a LOT of work to get right.
Tesla is building out a high-speed charging network and funding R&D for a mass-market $35k electric car.
So there's a good example of a vehicle costing more than the vehicle it replaces.
There are a lot of different market segments in the auto industry. The Model S is extremely competitive in the high-end luxury sedan segment where cars regularly sell for $80K+. The Model 3 will be targeted at the $35-40K midrange sedan segment, a segment in which hundreds of thousands of cars are sold right now (BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, etc.)--the Model 3 will be sold at a similar price-point as those other cars.
Eventually electric car technology will ripple down into economy segments. That's how new technology works. In the mean time maybe you can try to wrap your head around the fact that your needs are not everyone's needs--i.e., not everyone is in the market for a 1999 honda civic.
$16.5k gets you a fucking corolla, $26k gets you a high end camry, $12k used to be able to get a low end, new Nissan. A base Prius costs $24.5k, with 48 mpg city, so it will use 40% less gas. We have not brought up using natural gas instead of gasoline, or hydrogen produced from coal gasification for cheaper fossil fuels.
The average american family will probably just use smaller cars, drive less, and more carpooling. Less driving favors fossil fuel cars.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%
I took it to mean the "last mile" road transportation of fuel to gas stations. That's going to be less efficient than supertankers on the high seas.
Affordable is a relative term. Affordable to whom? Everyone in the world, or people in the segment where the vehicle is targeted?
And what does "physically comparable" mean? Same rough size and door count or do you get down to powertrain specifics, interiors, etc?
And I would argue whatever Tesla's affordable model is it will not be physically comparable to what you can buy for $18K USD. It will very likely have a far more luxurious trim, more bells and whistles and better performance.
They are "losing" money because they are pooring all their profits into R&D and expansion. Next year, they plan to produce twice as many cars as this year. Kind of hard to grow that quickly while paying dividends. If they decided to just keep selling Teslas at the current rate without doing any new development, they would be very profitable.
That money is going into R&D. At Tesla.
Waiting time for the model S is around 4 months if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not more than a year.
The model X is a different matter of course. No way you're getting one in 2015 if you order today.
Looks like he's disagreeing, and saying that Tesla stock is currently at its high point, and can only go down from here.
They are re-tooling to keep up with the market. If you have to keep doing that and don't make money, then it really doesn't matter. You can't just sit on one product in the car market, it requires constant development.
For Tesla's own IP, no doubt.
No, but they were the first to sell an EV that made non-geeks' pulses quicken. The vehicles sold before that were more of the "eat your vegetables" variety, and thus doomed to be money-losing niche vehicles, useful only as arguments against the viability of the electric vehicle market.
Personally I think this is the key. They were the first manufacture of EVs to make one that young boys would want a poster of to put on their wall, or would want a Hot Wheels car of. Seriously my oldest child really wanted the poster of the Tesla roadster at his school's book fair and my youngest though the Tesla roadster Hot Wheels car was really cool looking.
Also I would say most of the previous EVs were less "eat your vegetables" and more 1970s space cadet category (who wants to buy a strange looking little car), but the Nissan Leaf I would put in eat your veggies category.
Time to offend someone
Which they've opened up for free.
So doing a little math, I may be corrected by someone, but here goes. $35000 - $7000 tax refund = $28000. 72 months at 3.7% (wife just got that, some people get better) is $434 per month, -$75 per month for gas (most people I know spend $100 or more on gas per month, and that's at current rates). That's $359 per month, after gas savings. That doesn't account for oil changes, or other normal servicing for internal combustion engines, so I'm giving it some leeway.
once more into the breach
Hey don't give away the secrete to becoming wealthy. Don't you know that to sustain the economy we need to spend every dime we make and then some.
In all seriousness I see way too many people buying vehicles that they really can't afford and even at my fairly well paying job am an oddity in that I drive a vehicle until it isn't worth repairing and then go pay cash for a different used one in good condition. I seem to spend between 1-10% of my income on a vehicle when I buy one with the lower percentage being spent on a beater truck/SUV for bad weather and doing truck things with. I have always been the last owner of every vehicle I have ever purchased and after I am done they get hauled off to the scrap yard and I get $200-$300 for it.
Time to offend someone
What are the details of that? "Applying the open source philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Is that all their patents or just a selection? But it is a good move, I agree.
Anybody could use all of their patents in good faith (e.g. if they wanted to sue Tesla over their own patents, Tesla could revoke their right to use the Tesla patents). At least that's how I understood it.
http://my.teslamotors.com/it_I... don't forget a 12 thousand dollar battery pack every 8 years. That may throw a damper in your napkin calculations.
a 12,000 USD battery every 8 years may throw off your napkin calculation. You are probably spending more on the electric even with oil changes.
It is an interesting move. I suppose now that they made that statement, they would really have a hard time stopping anyone for using the patents for just about anything. The definition of "good faith" seems like it would be difficult to legally use as a basis to stop someone. In the patent world, once you open the door it is really hard to close.
I know some 'open source' licensing says you can use it for free as long as you don't sell it, I doesn't sound like that is what Tesla is doing, but surely they've drafted up some legal boundaries.
I imagine you still need to enter a contract with them which will spell out exactly what they mean by good faith.
I agree. Good discussion, and it was a very good counterpoint to my R&D argument. Thanks.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
That got me curious so I looked up some numbers. Using Swedish figures (i.e. 50 kubic meters, i.e. 13k gallons, load for tanker, 0.020 litres/tonkilometer, that's for a milk tanker, doing long haul, which is the closest I could find), I get a fully laden tanker doing about 2.35 miles/gal (US).
So to burn 20% of it's load the shortest it could travel would be 6k miles (a bit longer as it would burn its own fuel during that time, and even more if it would offload part of its haul during the trip). I don't know how that would measure up to how they actually drive to their delivery point, but it seems on the long side.
P.S. I didn't check my calculations so feel free to do that, before betting any money.
Stefan Axelsson
pity that EV's are fucking useless, and don't really reduce Co2, pretty much the same shit as the windmills
Interesting. I don't think I'll spend too much time checking, so I'll just go with this.
Well, it's your funeral... :-)
Stefan Axelsson
Why are you having such a hard time following the argument?
VW sells cars for $35K+ (their CC line, for example). Now I'm going to talk really slowly so you can try to keep up. Imagine if the people who already buy those cars instead start to purchase Model 3's for about the same price. Is your mind blown?
That's exactly what happened with the Model S. It's not that people who were in the market for a $35K car and instead bought an $80K car--it's that people were in market for an $80K car chose the Tesla over other $80K cars.
It is irrelevant that there are other cars that are much cheaper--Tesla isn't selling into that segment yet. They will get there, just not in the next couple years.
I support them for this reason, even though we'll never go to nuclear.
drivetrain losses, that's a damn good point.
I support them because nuclear, even though it'll never happen
those are really good points
Obviously Tesla is not competing directly with $15K cars.
The Model S competes against other $80K cars. They didn't invent that market segment--they are competing within it. Yes, that is a premium luxury segment.
By all accounts, the Model 3 will be somewhere in the $35-45K range. There are already cars selling for that price--that segment already exists, and it is much larger than the $80K+ segment. Again, Tesla will compete more or less head-on against similarly priced vehicles that already exist. You can call that a luxury segment if you want, but the average price of a new car is $32K so there are a lot of people buying cars for that price.
When competing against cars that are approximately the same price (within 20% or so), one could make an argument about the long-term savings of energy costs and maintenance for an ICE vs. EV.
Literally no one on the entire fucking planet is arguing that you can save money with a Model 3 vs. the cheapest gas car you can find. That is an entirely fictional argument that you've constructed inside your delusional little mind. It's completely absurd on its face, since by that logic there should be noone purchasing *any* car over $15K and yet the average price of a new car is $32K.
for all the tax dollars that you are giving them in subsidies and fighting wars in the middle east?
How about I just pretend you know how to read?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the dollar is not worth nearly as much as it was a "few years ago". Inflation has been running fast for a long time. This is a suprise to us who bought their current car for $12K new, but that was not last year!
I think $35K is not really as high as it sounds to us... 8-)
I'm done with this conversation. My conclusion is that you are mentally incapable of understanding why anyone pays more than $25K for a car to the point that you refuse to acknowledge that millions of people do.
It may or may not need that new battery after 8 years. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the electrics and hybrids out there that have been on the road for a decade now still mostly haven't had to get a new battery. It is also very likely that by the time you do need a new battery it won't cost as much as it does today. The new battery pack will probably be cheaper, store a lot more energy, and possibly be more efficient making for an actual upgrade. Given that electric cars have relatively few moving and wearing parts a Tesla Model M might be perfectly road worthy for 40+ years, only haveing to replace the battery pack a couple times.
Regardless, arguing economics for luxury cars is a bit silly. Anyone who's buying a Model S today and claiming that they are doing it because gas is too expensive is delusional. If they can afford $60k plus for a car the price of gas is trivial. The Model M, when it's finally ready will have to answer to questions of actual economy. But then again it probably won't be a big deal because it still won't be in the real economy section of the market.
Those are some valid points. I really hope the giant battery factory in the works brings down the price on all lithium batteries. However, even economy electric cars have 10k usd battery packs - for the low end cars it's a major percentage of the vehicle. Additionally while you may not 'need' one your already low end range will be reduced by a significant amount. It's pretty amazing they get nearly the same technology that lasts 3-5 years in a phone or laptop and extend it to 8 but honestly it's pretty likely people will abandon perfectly good older economy electrics due to the massive battery replacement costs.
When we get down to the really cheap economy level I'm thinking we might see options for purchasing lower capacity battery packs and such as replacements. That could result in the batteries being a quarter of the price for a full size pack if you are willing to go with a quarter of the capacity, which would still far exceed the average daily mileage for most people. And that is without any increase in battery performance or decrease in cost. If batteries improve significantly we could get to the point that the cost of replacing the battery pack in a 20 year old electric with something adequate for your daily needs would displace the vehicles currently populating the $500 junker market, where you get a rust bucket that you hope to drive for a year before replacing.
sadly we don't see subsidy for vehicles based on co2 per distance in each region, 10k usd modern economy diesels (with a 7-10k subsidy to get them there) would do the most good for the most people until the electrics and hybrids make more sense. If you live in a few select places in Europe, have a 50-100k usd solar installation (which subsidy for is great) that's great electrics are the best choice for the enviornment. Sadly when science is overridden by media and manufacturer hype, even people who don't think critically here on /. we all seem to lose.
http://my.teslamotors.com/models/design
Unfortunately, when you get past a certain price point, the monthly payment is just not possible for most people. Model S is 972 dollars per month for a 5 year loan at 3%.
If more people saved money and could buy it outright, it would make more sense. But that will always be the minority of people. Electric won't go mainstream until you see leases/loans on the order of a Camry (200-300 a month).
My point was obviously that I was tweaking you for throwing in a casual edict based on whatever bias is dangling in front of your nose at the moment.
My conclusion was also obviously that I'm glad you don't get a say in public policy. Sorry to put your knickers in a twist.