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 an error in the summary and/or article. Elon still claims that the Model 3 will sell for 30k before subsidies.
No, Elon says it's $35,000 before subsidies.
Seems like Cramer has changed his tune on Tesla: http://www.thestreet.com/video...
Anyway, is that guy really taken seriously as an analyst or viewed just as a talking head?
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
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. Coal is on it's way out for electricity generation, BTW, in case you haven't heard. Worldwide coal consumption has decreased for the past few years and the "war on coal" is just getting started. Wind and solar electricity are now cost competitive with coal and much cheaper than nuclear.
EV cars are much cheaper than gas... even the cheap gas we have today. Gas would have to go below $0.50 a gallon to be cheaper than electricity for cars.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Average sales price of a new car in 2013 was $31,762. Apparently a lot of people have that kind of money to buy a car.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
This has been debunked numerous times. EVs have less CO2 emission than gasoline cars even when the electricity comes from dirty coal.
Here's one good article with references:
http://www.greencarreports.com...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
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.
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.
Not that far. Admittedly the Tesla's are nice cars but the thing is the other manufacturers are not standing still. A lot of the traditional manufactures will have their own, lower cost, electrics with similar ranges. Sure the Tesla might be a nicer car but most people cannot afford high end or even midrange luxury sedans. They need something serviceable and ideally at least somewhat nice, but not necessarily the top of the line. This could bite them if their margins are not similar to a company like BMW. If they cannot corner the market then 10 years from now they are just another luxury car manufacturer and might even struggle under their costs. They could find them selves being bought up by someone like VW. Not the worst fate but not the success that i suspect they want.
Just because they are cool does not mean they will prevail.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
Whoever thinks the average American, or for that matter, car consumer only shops for fuel efficiency is deluded. High MPG is nice, but it is a distant 4th maybe 5th on my list. Many will trade looks for MPG readily. Space for MPG, comforts for MPG, etc. In general, those shopping for 40+ MPG are NOT the average. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking this issue of "green" or efficient is in the forefront. Moreover, the emissions controls on a billion $ powerplant are more effective, reliable and less DEFEATABLE than on a $20K econobox.
Even the Sun goes down.
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.
I know quite a few Gen II Prius owners that are the 2nd, or 3rd owner, and are NOT replacing battery packs; but still driving and still getting 40+MPG. I guess the sky didn't fall like the naysayers claimed. Perhaps it suddenly will in 7yrs for Teslas. Probably not though. But I DO know a LOT of used car owners including myself who were stuck with replacing the timing belt, transmission filters, coilpacks and other assorted expensive service parts on 2nd or 3rd hand used cars. Even worse, foregoing regular maintenance with modern cars almost ensure catastrophic/unrecoverable failure.
Even the Sun goes down.
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'
Leave it to the trolls of Slashdot to trash anyone successful... Even an Engineer with a vision of a better tomorrow.
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.
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
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.
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.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s
Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s
Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8%
2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Really? I guess you haven't made it to high school yet. I'll just describe the graph for those who won't follow the link. At 10% load the tested 25 horse power premium efficiency motor hits 80% efficiency. At 40% load, it hits 97% efficiency and it never drops below that, all the way out to 160% of its rated load.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution.
My infernal combustion car is 14 years old, thanks. Right now, if you care about pollution, and can afford the gasoline-competitive electric cars (either of them), you can also afford to cover your roof in solar panels from one end to the other. I can't, just yet, but someday I will. At which point I won't care what "industrial power production" is doing.
Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
I replied with links. With numbers. You didn't. You should stop typing now.
Then you would be wondering how far Gutierrez would have come if his last name had been Musk.
Seriously, you think "Elon Musk" is a great name and a recipe for success? How much would you have bet on that before he became famous?
By the same logic, I suppose Walt Disney had it easy with his last name, and Obama was born to be president with such a last name. Really, why am I even responding to such bollocks?
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.