Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Posts 13th Straight Loss, Says On Track For Second-Half Deliveries (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Tesla Motors Inc reported its 13th straight quarterly loss as a rise in sales of its Model S and Model X electric cars failed to make up for the huge cost of ramping up production. The company, run by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Elon Musk, said on Wednesday it was on track to deliver about 50,000 new Model S and Model X vehicles during the second half of 2016. Shares of Tesla, which has offered to buy solar panel installer SolarCity Corp for $2.6 billion, were volatile in after-hours trading. They were last up 1 percent. Tesla delivered 14,402 vehicles in the second quarter, missing its goal of 17,000. It delivered 14,810 vehicles in the first quarter, which was also less than its expectations. Tesla said its net loss widened to $293.2 million, or $2.09 per share, in the second quarter, from $184.2 million, or $1.45 per share, a year earlier. Total revenue rose 33 percent to $1.27 billion in the quarter ended June 30. In addition to acquiring SolarCity, Tesla has unveiled its massive $5 billion Gigafactory in Nevada last week and announced its "Master Plan, Part Deux" not too long before that, which includes manufacturing electric trucks and buses, as well as a ride-sharing program.
They really need to take Charge of their profits. Things are looking very Negative for them. The Current situation is dire. These losses are simply reVolting. They need to Amp up production and eliminate all Resistance. It's coming down to the wire, time to think Positive.
If nobody wanted it, their sales last month wouldn't have been 267,258 units (GM) / 215,268 units (Ford) vs. just an estimated 3,300 units (Tesla). Those two brands also wouldn't own one-third of the entire market between them, versus 0.2% of the market for Tesla.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
doesn't look good for the home team.
And when Tesla announces a model at a price people do want, they do 325,000 pre-orders in a week. At $1000 per, that is $325M in deposits in a week.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11385146/tesla-model-3-preorders-375000-elon-musk
So the truth is there is a demand for a low cost Tesla, now we wait and see if Elon and Co can deliver.
When asked how the company can survive by selling each unit at a loss, Elon Musk responded "Although Tesla sells each vehicle below the cost to manufacture, we will attain profitability by selling in volume".
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
Early adopter costs are high. Then, production of commodity items ramps up and they're sold at a more reasonable price. There are intermediate steps along the way with progressively larger prouction, lower cost, less flashy models.
This isn't just a modern high-tech phenomenon. The internal combustion automobiles went through it, too. They started as rich-people's playthings/status symbols and worked down through things like country-doctor housecall vehicles before Ford's commodity "A" and "T" vehicles put them within reach of the mass of the population. Why should new-tech battery-electric cars be any different?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think anyone at Tesla was expecting to make a profit whilst outlaying the money required to get the Model 3 going.
Obviously they'd like to at least meet their targets - but I'd be very surprised if they hadn't accounted for the possibilities of reality being either side of their targets.
Yes, but as an anonymous coward, you are nobody in particular.
I'm waiting to see what the real battery life of these low cost electric cars is... not just range when new, but miles driven until that range has deteriorated to something unacceptable.
As it turns out, businesses are like the governments in that you can't reconcile their economies in the same manner as your personal budgeting.
The leading number? That's Elon Musk's salary from Tesla, and I believe he is making California's minimum wage with that. Folks who can afford to roll with that kind of backstory play by different rules, too.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
The actual truth of the matter is most people can't afford a Tesla.
I'm not sure why that was so hard to say for you, since the reality here is what consumers want has fuck-all to do with what they can afford.
"but miles driven until that range has deteriorated to something unacceptable"
What range would be unacceptable?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
They're the same batteries that are used in the current Tesla, just less of them. How are the current cars doing in your opinion?
I won't hazard a guess as to what is unacceptable to him, but if our scarecrow model is Average American that's about 25.5 miles, times 2 (one to go, one to come back). We may have fantasies about our weekends, but on average that's also about as much as we drive on weekends too based on the model I have.
I will admit, I wouldn't buy another Ford if I were paid to do so.
The batteries lose very little capacity as long as they are thermally managed and never fully charged or discharged. GM's Gen-1 Volt has a "charge window" of 20% to 85%. They increased a bit with the Gen2 Volt after getting real-world data from Gen-1 Volts in the wild.
There are 2011/2012 Chevy Volts in the wild with around 100K EV miles and no apparent battery degradation.
Here is all-time the leader, "Sparkie",a GM employee from Michigan:
http://www.voltstats.net/Stats...
And mine... ;) (Yes, I'm totally biased)
http://www.voltstats.net/Stats...
You can browse the leaderboard, sort by "EV miles" and browse others.
As for Tesla, I don't think their batteries are quite up to the level of GM's, but they do employ active battery cooling and a charge window.
The one model that doesn't have active liquid cooling, the Nissan Leaf, is notorious for suffering significant range degradation after only a few years.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I like my 2015 Mustang Ecoboost convertible... Fair price, great car, very good mileage, a hoot to drive.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And, I live and drive in Florida... most days less than 30 miles, but on weekends we do actually travel more than 120 miles in a single trip at least one time a month.
When ambient temp is over 100F, and the temperature on the black asphalt can reach 130F easily, I'd be quite concerned if the batteries aren't actively thermally managed.
So, if that range capacity drops to less than 120 miles at 60mph, it's going to hurt our common weekend plans.
And when Tesla announces a model at a price people do want, they do 325,000 pre-orders in a week.
Yes, sort of. Tesla announces a free car because there is absolutely zero commitment to buy the car. That free price is pivotable. Who know how many people would have put down a non-refundable $1000 deposit. The number of pre-orders would have been lower, and probably much lower.
I didn't say it because unlike my statement, which is grounded in fact, yours attempts to imply a desire which is not in any way backed up by the evidence. Sure, most people *might* want a Tesla they can't afford, but equally most people *might* have no interest in that Tesla even if they could afford it. I'm not in the habit of making statements with no grounding in fact; perhaps you are.
While orders for nearly all other car makers are slowing down, Tesla continues to grow faster. In fact, it has always been ahead of supply.
And upon looking at competitors to Model X, we can see that they are also slowing down FASTER than the average.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's worth noting that preorders -- even with a meager deposit -- are not the same thing as orders. Just how many of those preorders are speculative in the hopes of turning around and selling immediately at a profit? I'd wager the answer is "many of them", and many more will likely never be turned into actual orders.
I'd also argue that the Model 3 is far from being "low cost" or sold at "a price people do want". At US$35,000 base, there are 564 new vehicle types (that's models and trim levels together) listed on Edmunds.com which are less expensive (I ruled out 11 vehicles that were almost $35k, accepting only anything sub-$34.5k.) And as of late last year, the average new car sale price in the US market was $33,500.
The Model 3 is, by most people's standards, still an expensive car.
Exactly. Tesla could be profitable any time they wanted to, but it would be a death sentence in the long term. They're spending a lot of money tooling up for new products which require large capital expenditures. It cost a lot of money to build a new production line and even more to build the massive battery factory. Long term, though, these expenditures will increase profits by allowing them to mass-produce vehicles. A lot has also spent on R&D.
The model S, for example, is very profitable with a profit margin of around 28% which is much higher than the industry average.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If you wear ice vests instead of using air conditioning, you can squeak out a few more miles.
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
Half of the initial pre-order list, but none after that. Which is one of the reasons for the pre-order list rush.
I didn't say it because unlike my statement, which is grounded in fact, yours attempts to imply a desire which is not in any way backed up by the evidence. Sure, most people *might* want a Tesla they can't afford, but equally most people *might* have no interest in that Tesla even if they could afford it. I'm not in the habit of making statements with no grounding in fact; perhaps you are.
The lower-end Tesla price tag today is around $75,000. It's not hard to argue the fact that most people don't have that lying about in cash, so let's talk about what happens after the bank evaluates your income and debt.
The lease due-at-signing cost is over $7500. Then you get to settle in and enjoy a $900+/month car payment.
There's really no point in running the numbers to buy one. It doesn't get much better.
My original statement now stands with Common F. Sense; most people can't afford a Tesla.
As far as predicting what consumers *might* want or implying desire, let me know the next time a Ford or Chevy breaks the Consumer Reports rating system.
Tesla sold >50K cars in 2015 and is on track to sell >80K cars in 2016. The WSJ reports ~10K in 2015 for some reason.
Tesla sells cars as fast as they can make them; they already sell a lot of cars, and they are increasing production by >1.5x per year. Extrapolate out a few years and GM & Ford are very worried.
Not sure the carbon-balance is there, ice costs quite a bit of energy to make.
Personally, I like the "cool seats", but most of those are air-circulators - which don't seem like they're going to have really good longevity.
You must be either ignoring the facts or purposefully trying to mislead readers.
I like my 2015 Mustang Ecoboost convertible... Fair price, great car, very good mileage, a hoot to drive.
IME Fords are generally quite reliable; I own a 2005 Ford Mondeo with 300000km on it with only 3 non-service repairs in its life. Also own a 1992 Ford Sierra with god only knows how many miles on it (I'm not the first owner). Both cars are used daily by my wife and myself, no problems.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If you think current oil prices has anything to do with crushing Tesla you're a moron. While part of the reason the oil prices are low is the changing demand side dynamics, the current prices isn't to crush that change but rather as a reaction to it.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Haven't driven a Ford in a LONG time; had a Tempo that I'll would have happily put a bumper sticker on that read "my other car is a Trabant"
Drove a Volvo station wagon for a summer about 20 years ago that was a great car - lots of capacity, respectable power and surprisingly good handling.
Had a VW Golf that was just fantastic and was considering a Volt until the GM ignition fiasco came to light.
So if I don't go with Tesla, I'll be looking for another new (to me). Perhaps I'll finally go Japanese although I drove a Corolla last summer and didn't like it at all.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I think you should account for the significant savings in energy and maintenance cost though.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
A lot of troll posts here, wonder if they are by the same person? Possibly as they show a basic grasp of fundamentals.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
That savings can't possibly be counted before the car even exists. It could be a huge savings, or it could turn out to be a small one or none at all. Just because it's electric or Tesla is no guarantee.
Everything I've read says nowhere *near* "half" of Tesla Model 3 owners will get that. But OK, let's humor you: There are at *least* 357 types which cost the same or less than the Tesla Model 3, meaning that almost two thirds of the vehicles I mentioned (not "perhaps most") are still cheaper even if you get the subsidy -- and you don't have to gamble on getting it.
You also don't have to pay sales tax on the rebate amount, which I'm guessing most folks will have to do (since the sales tax on the rebate will almost certainly not be refunded). That's a non-trivial amount: $525 in my market.
OK, so you're a fanboi. Fair enough.
OK, so you're a fanboi. Fair enough.
Fanbois usually own the thing they're crazy about. I drive what I can afford.
And I really don't care who you are. From corporate suit to drag strip junkie, this technology is impressive, and I give credit where it is due.
And when someone else steps up to the plate and presents a product that crushes Teslas numbers, I'll be impressed then too. Likely so would Elon.
Not sure the carbon-balance is there, ice costs quite a bit of energy to make.
You freeze a hundred or so during the winter and keep them in an isolated cellar..
Just add more insulation, then!
One third.
Let's remember that they are still a small company. More important is getting the company structure right and people to deal with future growth.
It's easy to see that once they break even the other car manufacturers will be knocking down their doors just to do collaboration deals since they will be so far behind. If they produced 200,000 vehicles a year they wouldn't be a threat.
It's all about the batteries. It's the most expensive part of the car. And the new gigafactories by 2020 will drive cost down at least by a conservative 50%.
The hard thing right now is getting quality batteries for electric vehicles. Once the batteries pass quality control and validation we will see staggering growth in units delivered and actually turning a profit.
If Tesla produced a 1/4 ton truck people would be breaking their pens trying to write a check fast enough. But to be fair that won't happen til they turn profitable and so I think that will actually be a collaboration with a couple truck companies since they have never produced a truck before. That would make more sense to me.
More interesting would be if Tesla got a contract to produce short busses with automatic driving. Could be a hybrid possibly. It will take a few years of validation with a driver behind the wheel before we see the first true driverless bus. They could also be used be someone like Uber. After that the sky is the limit for delivery, garbage, and street sweepers.
FWIW my Honda's have been pretty good. I've heard quality on the newer models has declined, but my 2006 accord hybrid is still going strong with less problems in 10 years than either of my Ford's had their first 3.
But I do want a Tesla, I'm just not ready to throw my money at something sight unseen.
It's worth noting that preorders -- even with a meager deposit -- are not the same thing as orders. Just how many of those preorders are speculative in the hopes of turning around and selling immediately at a profit? I'd wager the answer is "many of them", and many more will likely never be turned into actual orders.
I'd also argue that the Model 3 is far from being "low cost" or sold at "a price people do want". At US$35,000 base, there are 564 new vehicle types (that's models and trim levels together) listed on Edmunds.com which are less expensive (I ruled out 11 vehicles that were almost $35k, accepting only anything sub-$34.5k.) And as of late last year, the average new car sale price in the US market was $33,500.
The Model 3 is, by most people's standards, still an expensive car.
Average passenger car is something like $26k. $33k+ includes trucks and SUVs.
And no way you will get usable Model 3 for $35k in 2017 or 2018, as second quarter report shows Capex investment for production and service stalled and highly unlikely to reach more than half of 2.25 billion target for this year. Sorry guys, urgent SolarCity bailout is priority now.
Just quick charging access will cost you some thousands extra above base price, and most likely you will not be able to use standard chargers like every other competitor car on the road without paying "supercharger activation fee" like it is with older Model S even if you'll buy some clumsy adapter from Tesla for half a grand.
Accounting for dummies: This year investment doesn't affect profit. Or loss in this case. It may only affect next year through depreciation.
And if nobody ever saw my posts, I wouldn't have a +2 by default.
Nicely biased answer. Compare a really inefficient, unaerodynamic vehicle (18mpg average per EPA) with utterly outdated technology that's been out of production for years (last sold in 2012) against a modern vehicle that has an aerodynamic design, uses current technology, and doesn't even exist yet. And even then, the numbers are complete crap.
The Jeep Liberty takes regular gas. At current national average retail prices (US$2.12/gallon per GasBuddy) and with the EPA-rated average economy, we're talking US$1,413 to fuel this archaic junkheap for 12,000 miles.
And since we're comparing American cars based on an American website's review, we should also be using American electricity costs -- what Ottawans pay is irrelevant. Per the EIA, the national average US electricity price for consumers is 12.67/kWh, almost 10% above your figure. Even assuming your other assumptions are correct, your cost is now US$570.
Instead of a savings of 4.75x on gas, we're already down to just 1.47x simply by using accurate figures. And that's against an intentionally inefficient vehicle from a totally different class than the Model 3. Now let's make a comparison that's actually valid -- a 2015 Mazda 6. Now we're managing 32mpg average per the EPA. Our gas cost is down to just US$795, and your savings is down to just 39%.
And while yes, you don't pay the minor costs you mentioned for some routine service associated with gas engines, instead you'll be paying US$10,000 to replace your battery once it dies. Swings and roundabouts. And as for some handwaving about the "company policy of not intending to make a profit off of car repairs", that's pretty much meaningless. You're a fool if you count on that as a reason for buying an overpriced car in the first place, and the Model 3 is badly overpriced. The Mazda6 sedan we've compared to here has a starting price that's fully one-third lower than the Tesla -- and if anything, it's going to be the larger and more comfortable vehicle despite that.
And in my experience, my mileage is typically significantly better than the EPA predictions, so frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the difference in gas versus electricity cost was, in the end, little to none at all. But this is Tesladot, and it's 24/7 Elon Musk fellation session here, so I'm not surprised to see utterly biased figures supplied as "fact".