Tesla Delivered Over 76,000 Vehicles In 2016, Falling Slightly Short of Goal (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Delivered Over 76,000 Vehicles In 2016, Falling Slightly Short of Goal (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday January 3, 2017 @01:45PM from the not-good-enough dept.

Tesla delivered 76,230 electric vehicles in 2016, falling just shy of its goal of delivering 80,000 cars for the year. The electric carmaker claimed that "short-term production challenges" starting at the end of October were to blame for the shipment of fewer vehicles than anticipated. The Verge reports: Tesla said the transition to new Autopilot hardware resulted in the company's vehicle production being "weighted more heavily towards the end of the quarter than we had originally planned." In total, about 2,750 Tesla vehicles missed being counted as deliveries in the fourth quarter of 2016, which the company ascribes to "last-minute delays in transport or because the customer was unable to physically take delivery." Tesla said that even though those sales were counted toward 2016, the deliveries were not because the customers did not physically take possession of their cars. Tesla says about 6,450 vehicles are still in transit, and that their deliveries will be counted toward the first quarter of 2017. While it fell short on delivery, Tesla was able to beat its production rate for 2015. Tesla said it produced 24,882 vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2016, resulting in a total of 83,922 vehicles produced in 2016. This was an increase of 64 percent from 2015. Vehicle demand in Q4 was particularly strong, Tesla says. Net orders for Model S and X, which were an all-time record, were 52 percent higher than Q4 2015 and 24 percent higher than the company's previous record quarter in Q3 2016. "We were ultimately able to recover and hit our production goal, but the delay in production resulted in challenges that impacted quarterly deliveries, including, among other things, cars missing shipping cutoffs for Europe and Asia," the company says. "Although we tried to recover these deliveries and expedite others by the end of the quarter, time ran out before we could deliver all customer cars."

179 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 13:47 · Score: -1

as being UNRELIABLE!
1. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  as being UNRELIABLE!
  Yeah, but they also failed to recommend the Macbook, and we all know that it has no flaws. Clearly they don't know what they are doing.
2. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'd never heard of what you implied.. .but a quick google search shows that not only did the car get one of their best scores, the 'reliability' issues...
  
  "But those problems mostly still fall under Tesla’s four-year/50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty (and eight-year/unlimited mileage battery and drivetrain warranty), so they are generally being corrected at no cost to owners"
  http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt-match-its-high-performance/
  Which I'd personally take over VW's emissions practices or FF's total no-show of real deliverables
3. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by PoopJuggler · 2017-01-03 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Not really. Average Reliability but better than most.
4. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Not bad for cars from a factory that started production five years ago.
5. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by hambone142 · 2017-01-03 14:38 · Score: -1
  
  It's an environmental "fashion statement" that will never have a return on investment.
  If you doubt it, run the numbers.
6. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can't run the numbers because you don't have the future cost of gasoline.
7. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:44 · Score: -1
  
  Morons that buy teslas are too stupid to perform simple math.
8. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  battery can account for one-third of the price of the car, which is why something like the Nissan Leaf or Fiat 500e costs about $30,000, while offering only about 100 miles of range. But those costs are falling, fast. Between 2010 and 2015, the average cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) dropped 65 percent, from $1,000 to $350, according to a recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. âoeBy 2022,â the report says, âoethe unsubsidized total cost of ownership of [battery electric vehicles] will fall below that of an internal combustion engine vehicle.â (Wired, 2015)
9. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today's EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners -- including both purchase and operating costs -- that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles.
10. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by dgatwood · 2017-01-03 15:42 · Score: 2
  Depends on what you view as the investment and the return. From my perspective (as someone who is considering buying one as soon as I'm certain that they've gotten most of the kinks out of the Model X), energy costs are only part of the equation.
  But just to confirm your assertion, assuming an installed cost of $3.50 per watt, 8 full-sun-equivalent hours per day, and a 40-year solar panel life (typical for current-generation panels), that comes to about 2.9 cents per kWh. A Tesla goes about 3 miles per kWh, which means this comes out to only about 0.96 cents per mile. At $2 per gallon, a similar vehicle gets about 22-28 MPG. Let's go with 30 as a best-case estimate. That's almost 7 cents per mile. So if you build your own solar farm, the Tesla will cost you a quarter as much per mile as gasoline even at current prices. Let's say that this costs you a $50,000 premium in the cost of the vehicle. The 5.7 cents per mile you save won't cause you to break even until you cross the 875k mile mark. If you recompute with Bay Area gasoline prices averaging more like $3 per gallon, it's more like 550,000 miles, which is maybe plausible for an EV.
  On the other hand, your gasoline-powered vehicle will keel over long before that break-even point, whereas an electric vehicle might actually reach that number of miles, because there are a lot fewer moving parts. So if you have to factor in the cost of a second gasoline-powered car over that same time period, the value equation changes considerably, because that $50k premium is now a $25k premium, and the break-even point is at 275–438k miles, which starts to sound a lot more likely.
  And that value proposition still ignores several other important factors:
  
  You can potentially be completely green, powering your vehicle entirely from renewable energy sources.
  You never have to delay your commute by ten minutes (potentially catching worse traffic as a result) to get gasoline.
  You never have to worry about running out of fuel. Just plug in every night when you get home, and you'll always be ready to go.
  EVs generally have carpool lane access, which can save a considerable amount of commute time, depending.
  All of these things have some value, whether in terms of saved time, saving the planet, etc. How much those savings are worth to you tends to be directly proportional to the length of your commute.
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
11. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Shompol · 2017-01-03 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  By Tesla's own calculations, gas savings will net you slightly over $1000 per year. That's nowhere near to justify a $90K price tag, unless you are comparing to an $80K luxury SUV. On a flip side, Model X might make sense for commercial use, where it can easily hit the insane mileage you quoted within its lifetime.
12. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by dgatwood · 2017-01-03 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  500k miles really shouldn't be considered insane mileage. I know plenty of people who have gotten well over 300k on internal-combustion-based vehicles. Mind you, none of them would pass California emissions, but then again, EVs don't have that problem. They don't have transmissions (one of the weak points of ICE designs and one of the most commonly repaired components) or oxygen sensors or Nox sensors or fuel injectors or any of the other crap that makes ICE designs fail early and often. Unless the undercarriage rusts out, I can't imagine any reason that an EV wouldn't last 500k miles, though you'd probably have to replace the battery at least once. :-)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
13. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by fluffernutter · 2017-01-03 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, that doesn't matter to a lot of people. You want a car to work, period. If you have to get it fixed it's a pain in the ass, even if it's free.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
14. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by AvitarX · 2017-01-03 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure? I thought it was the model X
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
15. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by AvitarX · 2017-01-03 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's about the same price as its competitors (such as a fully loaded 7 series BMW).
  It isn't an investment in saving on gas. It's a "I hate the Gas Station and never drive more than 200 miles a day" car for people in the $80k+ segment. Nobody is saving money on a Tesla, but plenty are getting a car that better meets their needs.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
16. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:40 · Score: 0
  
  A Tesla Model S is not a competitor to a fully loaded BMW 7 series. It does not come close to it in any way except for price.
17. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by jeremyp · 2017-01-04 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  No object that contains half a ton of lithium cells could ever be considered to be "completely green".
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
18. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by naughtynaughty · 2017-01-04 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Few cars have a positive return on investment but that's OK because most people buy a car for transportation not as an investment.
19. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  I take it your just going to sit at home looking at it then?
  If the solar is at your house how the hell do you get the power to where you work during the day...
  fucking pointless
20. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by pscottdv · 2017-01-04 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Or electricity
  
  --
  this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
21. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by GTRacer · 2017-01-04 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you work more than 125 miles or so from home, it's all good. More than 250 miles of range on a full charge will get you back home for more juice.
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
22. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by AvitarX · 2017-01-04 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Not some metrics of performance? Not in the fact that you don't need to fill the tank?
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
23. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite. The report that I think you are thinking of said that personal vehicles could be satisfied with an EV for 90% of the days. That is a big difference because that means the average personal vehicle could be required to make an EV-incapable drive once every two weeks, which really means people would have to rent a vehicle 24 times a year or keep another non-EV vehicle for longer trips. You'd still be saving on fuel, but the cost of the extra vehicle and insurance makes it a tough sell for many.
24. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Well, straight-line acceleration, but that is hardly ever relevant. Not having to fill up the tank is great, but you have to charge the battery instead, which takes longer and can be done at fewer places.
  In aspects that will matter most to most buyers, the 7 series is the better product. It's nicer to drive, more comfortable, more luxurious, more reliable and it is likely to last a lot longer.
25. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Tesla could get you a software upgrade to reduce the performance to BMW 7 levels for you ;-)
  But I agree, the comparison should be a model s and a a 6 series grand coupe, and if fit/finish is what you are most concerned about a BMW wins hands down (well except maybe for the crappy 3 series stuff). I personally dislike the seats the ergonomics on the 7 series, but the wife likes it. The tesla wasn't any better though.
26. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by AvitarX · 2017-01-04 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I would only consider an electric car if I'd never have to charge it outside of home when I wasn't driving it.
  I assume for most people that makes it a terrible only car in the household, but in a two car household, or a very rare road tripper, I'd call not getting gas an almost unbeatable perk.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
27. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by lgw · 2017-01-04 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Only in straight-line acceleration, but so does a kid's muscle car. It's not a luxury car in any way but "smoothness" (no engine vibration), and even there it's not much better than the high-end German cars. At both the $80k and $140k price-points, the competition is nicer inside, has more luxury car features, is more reliable, and handles much better.
  The Model S keeps improving, and maybe one day it will reach parity in everything but cornering. Today, however, its primary appeal is "green". The Germans have been amazingly slow in bringing out competing models in that space. You'd expect at least a plug-in hybrid from Mercedes by now. Lot's of hybrids on the Japanese side, but still not plug-in hybrids or pure electrics in the luxury space, AFAIK.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
28. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by DanielRavenNest · 2017-01-04 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  The batteries can be recycled, and the batter factory will be solar powered. How is that not green?
29. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I don't read it that way...at all.
30. Re:Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'd call not getting gas an almost unbeatable perk
  
  Depends on whether the wind chill is below -20F/-30C/243K.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
31. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by LinuxLuver · 2017-01-05 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  True. And every automaker has lemons. I'd never buy a car from Ford or GM, for example. Been there. Never again. As for electric vehicles generally, the Nissan Leaf is gaining a reputation as the car mechanics never see because they so rarely ever need one. All the stuff that breaks or requires maintenance in regular cars doesn't even exist in electric cars: no belts (cam, alternator, fan etc) no radiator (so no coolant to leak), no fan, no oil or spark plugs because no combustion, no gearbox or transmission fluid because the electric motors are more powerful then gas motors, so don't need gears to amplify the torque......An electric motors are incredibly durable. There is almost nothing to break in a pure EV. I own one. I'll never go back to a gas or diesel car.
  
  --
  Only boring people are ever bored.
32. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by kaybee · 2017-01-06 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  I've had two minor issues with my Tesla. They drive a loaner Tesla to my office, drive my car to the service center, and then swap back again. No skin off my back so no big deal.
33. Re: Consumer Reports Calls the S model out by fluffernutter · 2017-01-06 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  It won't stay that way.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Looking Back by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-01-03 13:56 · Score: 3, Informative

3 years ago they predicted 100,000 in 2016

http://insideevs.com/tesla-pro...

In January of 2016 they were projecting over 3,200

http://www.fool.com/investing/...
1. Re:Looking Back by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-01-03 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  3,200 should be 83,200.
2. Re:Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  They did well over 3200! Great job Tesla!!!
3. Re:Looking Back by haruchai · 2017-01-03 14:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  3 years ago they predicted 100,000 in 2016
  http://insideevs.com/tesla-pro...
  In January of 2016 they were projecting over 3,200
  http://www.fool.com/investing/...
  
  The 100k prediction for 2016 was by a Forbes contributor, not Musk or Tesla.
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch...
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re: Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla delivered 76,230 vehicles last year, just slightly below the 80,000 the company had set as its 2016 goal.
5. Re: Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  No, that guy said 3200 was their goal. Great job Tesla!!!
6. Re:Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  3,200 should be 83,200.
  Pretty impressive... the produced 83,922. They were not able to deliver all of them before the end of the year, but that production number is damn close to your estimate.
7. Re:Looking Back by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-01-03 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  The 100k prediction for 2016 was by a Forbes contributor, not Musk or Tesla. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch...
  They usually get their projections from the company, and don't make up their own. Either way, I was just trying to get a little historical perspective on how their projections evolve. They've gotten better as one would expect and were pretty accurate at the start of the year.
8. Re: Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 16:11 · Score: -1
  
  3,200 should be 83,200
  Yeah right Mr D...
  That's what you meant to say all along.
  Right.
  Plonker...
9. Re:Looking Back by dbIII · 2017-01-03 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  People are seriously still using Forbes as something to cite? Why not use the National Enquirer or MAD Magazine, they have a similar level of credibility.
10. Re:Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  hate to tell you this, but hitting 80K with a relatively new company, is pretty impressive.
  All in all, Tesla continues to grow and looks like 2018 will be HUGE for them, upon their new line structure for the Model 3.
  
  Windbourne (moderating).
11. Re:Looking Back by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  So they met 76% of a 3 year old prediction on their production capacity? That doesn't sound all that bad, and if another submitter (~84k produced, just a few not yet delivered) is correct that number is closer to 84% which would exceed their January estimate. Sure it would be nice if they were exceeding all estimates, but this is car manufacturing which is fraught with supply chain difficulties.
But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:17 · Score: 0

Are they yet making a profit on each sold?
1. Re:But.... by haruchai · 2017-01-03 14:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Are they yet making a profit on each sold?
  Very likely but how much is uncertain and their infrastructure spending on growth means they'll bleed quite a bit of red ink for a few years yet.
  But they do need to get that under control, especially by improving the build quality and making cars that are easier to assemble & repair.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
2. Re: But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  Is profit the goal?
3. Re:But.... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-01-03 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  You know, most companies make a profit if they can discount things like growth costs, capital expenditures, tooling costs, etc. The problem is - with GAAP you can't discount that stuff. You can talk about gross profit - but net profit (or at the very least EBITDA) is well-defined and means you cannot ignore those costs that Tesla is so fond of downplaying as "not important". Meaning that - even with the Government-mandated funds transfers from other car companies to Tesla, and the subsidies to Tesla, and the big buyer's subsidies from the Government - they still lose money.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
4. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 01:43 · Score: -1
  
  profit? yes from the subsidies payed by taxpayers and flogging off carbon vouchers.
  ho, you meant profit from actual sales of cars, nope not a fucking hope.
5. Re:But.... by fodder69 · 2017-01-04 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  What about the government mandated funds transfers propping up the gasoline car industry? Pretty sure tax subsidies to oil companies far outweigh subsidies going to incentivize EVs.
6. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  are you talking total or per vehicle?
7. Re:But.... by haruchai · 2017-01-04 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  profit? yes from the subsidies payed by taxpayers and flogging off carbon vouchers.
  ho, you meant profit from actual sales of cars, nope not a fucking hope.
  The subsidies are paid to the buyers, not to Tesla so that's out.
  The carbon vouchers / ZEV credits help but not as much as one would think. Tesla isn't able to see them for full market value and the total ZEV sales are much smaller than the overall gross margin on the cars.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
8. Re:But.... by butchersong · 2017-01-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I would appreciate it if someone could supply more accurate numbers but last I heard Eli's ventures in total and received just under 5 billion dollars in subsidies and last year they were losing 4k per car sold. I don't have that broken down between spacex and tesla.. Could you detail some of the subsidies you believe oil companies receive? I'm not aware of any oil company specific subsidies other than some small business subsidies that don't really apply to the big boys. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
9. Re:But.... by haruchai · 2017-01-04 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Meaning that - even with the Government-mandated funds transfers from other car companies to Tesla, and the subsidies to Tesla, and the big buyer's subsidies from the Government - they still lose money
  
  "Government-mandated funds transfers from other car companies to Tesla" - ZEV credits? That's not all that much money compared to their sales and Tesla gets ~50 cents on the dollar for those. Also, automakers can easily dodge those with compliance cars - I think.
  "and the subsidies to Tesla" - which ones? The $5000 credit Fed credit? That's a tax credit to the buyer not to Tesla
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
10. Re:But.... by haruchai · 2017-01-04 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Tesla isn't able to see them for full market value"
  Sell, not see.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
11. Re:But.... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-01-04 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  And those tax subsidies are?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
12. Re:But.... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-01-04 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Between $12,500 and $35,000 per car in ZEV credits - forced subsidies by other manufacturers. In 2012 ZEV credits were at least $119 million in the first half of the year. That's not insignificant income. And Tesla STILL loses money with that kind of credit.
  As far as the Federal (and State, at least in CA) buyer's credit goes - why does Tesla advertise the subsidized price? Because it's easier to list as "starts at under $70,000" when you add in the credit on a $75,000 car.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Seems Impressive to me by colinduplantis · 2017-01-03 14:21 · Score: 1

Seems like Tesla did pretty well against an aggressive target. I'm impressed, though I admittedly know next to nothing about the auto industry.

--
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, hump its leg.
1. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-03 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think the target is aggressive?
2. Re:Seems Impressive to me by MouseR · 2017-01-03 15:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Every negative comments in this thread about the viability of EVs and Tesla's general goal.
  Koch Brothers work hard to push out negative info and bullcrap that the dimwitted will repeat. Things like DO THE MATH while they can't calculate how much gas they actually waste every year. Plus disk brakes. Plus oil changes & filters.
  Heck. I spent only 48L of fuel in a Gen2 Volt for the entire year, saving well above 1000$ for the Canadian fillups, with about 100$ in hydroelectricity bill, just for driving 10,000kms.
  Anyone that drives 20,000kms/year or more can justify a Tesla purchase. Taxi companies are converting to EVs around here. Lookup Teo Taxi. They have a Uber style app and have an entirely EV fleet.
  Surely someone knows how to do math. Just not the fncking ACs here and the other twats.
3. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Digital+Mage · 2017-01-03 16:01 · Score: 2
  
  While 76,000 vehicles may seem like a lot, compared to other car company assembly lines that's actually quite slow. At full speed with all shifts running an assembly plant can push out more than 1000 vehicles a day. Most of the big car companies usually have upwards of 20 assembly plants around the world. Not all run at that capacity but it gives you some scale. If they can continue to solve some of the supply chain issues and further increase production they should be able to drive the price of the Tesla down or make a bigger profit with some economies of scale.
4. Re:Seems Impressive to me by CanadianRealist · 2017-01-03 16:49 · Score: 2
  
  But that's not a reasonable comparison to make. How many more years have those other companies had to set up those assembly lines? Maybe try comparing Tesla's production rate with another 13 year old car company. (Or compare Tesla's numbers to what those other companies did in their 13th year.) And don't forget that Tesla is making a new type (electric) of car. And before you say electric cars aren't new, how do those other companies' production numbers for electric cars compare to Tesla's numbers?
5. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-03 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  I'm curious what math you're using.
  Extra vehicle cost: 72000 (Tesla S) - 18600 (Mazda 3) = $53400
  Cost of 20,000 city miles - 20000 miles / 29 mpg * 2.30 $/g = $1600
  Number of years to payback: 53400 / 1600 = 33 years
  Cost of 20,000 highway miles - 20000 miles / 39 mpg * 2.30 $/g = $1200
  Number of years to payback: 53400 / 1600 = 44 years
  Also consider the cost of electricity, and you will definitely find a Mazda3 on the lot for less than sticker at some point in the year both of which increase the payback time by a few years. We're also ignoring interest, if you invested the 50k or finance the car over 30-40 years that is massive.
  I'm all for EVs, I just don't think Tesla fanboism is justified. A Chevy Bolt is 37500 (30k w/ credits) so the break-even is <10 years though we're also dealing with a first generation product that probably won't last as long as a combustion engine which we have a 100-years of experience building.
6. Re:Seems Impressive to me by sxpert · 2017-01-03 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  your maths are flawed, you compare 2 cars that are definately NOT in the same segment.
  if you want to compare the tesla to an ICE, at least have the decency of doing so with way a BMW series 6 or 7, or something...
7. Re:Seems Impressive to me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-01-03 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  $2.3 per gallon? Try $4.5 like we have around here. Or even quite a bit more in some other European countries. Don't worry, EVs will find their buyers just fine...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Rei · 2017-01-03 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, Mazda 3, that famous luxury supercar that beats all but a handful of the fastest cars on earth....
  
  --
  For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
9. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  It has a nicer interior and it is much more reliable than a Tesla Model S. Both of these aspects are a lot more important to me (and probably many other people) than whether it can beat some other on a track.
10. Re:Seems Impressive to me by thegarbz · 2017-01-03 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  Oh it's even better. When I compare the math of buying a Bugatti Veyron compared to stealing a bicycle I come out far cheaper when stealing a bicycle.
  I assume that was your point when you compared a very premium car to a bottom of the line compact right?
  Steal a bicycle.
11. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to have left out an important factor : much more frequent trips to the garage for the ICE.
12. Re:Seems Impressive to me by jeremyp · 2017-01-04 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  If missing the target is considered to be "doing well".
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
13. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  For most electric cars that is true, but not for Tesla's Model S and X. Tesla has somehow managed to make cars without the part of an ICE car that requires the most maintenance require more maintenance than most ICE cars. And unlike dealerships from established car brands, which are hardly ever more than a few dozens of kilometres away even in sparsely populated areas, there are only a few Tesla maintenance facilities per country, which tend to be overburdened by warranty repair work, so you have to plan well ahead.
14. Re:Seems Impressive to me by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  A Chevy Bolt is 37500 [...]
  for comparison, the Nissan Leaf is not better here?
15. Re:Seems Impressive to me by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  good catch sir!
16. Re:Seems Impressive to me by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not a reasonable comparison to make.
  This (GP is probably just BSing...)
17. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  The range on the Leaf is very small, its fine for most people to daily but you'd need a second car, or to rent something else the instant you leave town.
18. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  I heard tesla repairs are like canadian health care...free, mediocre and a long wait.
19. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I Googled US gas prices and that was supposedly the average.
20. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  The poster specifically stated - if you drive 200000 km you can justify a Tesla which is clearly not the case. Incidentally I also thought the poster said 20k miles so the break even point is 60% more than what I said.
21. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla is rated as one of the least reliable brands.
22. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Electric cars are older than internal combustion cars and several companies make more electric cars than Tesla.
23. Re:Seems Impressive to me by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  not meets the use case on this thread?
24. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you think a Tesla Model S is in the same segment as some of the more expensive BMWs? Only the price is comparable; the Model S has a cheap looking and feeling interior, even compared to cars a fraction of the price, mediocre driving dynamics and the build quality is best described as 'American'.
25. Re:Seems Impressive to me by tepples · 2017-01-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a reason why Tesla isn't expanding more aggressively in markets where petrol is more heavily taxed? Or is electric power also expensive in 230 V land?
26. Re:Seems Impressive to me by ventsyv · 2017-01-04 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  BMW, Lexus, and Audi each sell around 350,000 cars per year, so Tesla are selling 20 - 25% of that. The difference is that those are well established companies that have a wide selection of vehicles in fairly large price range. I expect that Tesla will start closing that gap once Model 3 hits the market.
27. Re:Seems Impressive to me by DanielRavenNest · 2017-01-04 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  A fair comparison is that the same factory that Tesla is using now used to produce 428,000 internal combustion cars in one year, back when it was owned by GM and Toyota.
28. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Tax credits? Probably also infrastructure on their charging network, service & sales. In Europe, Japan or South Korea they also deal with tariffs as well as preference for domestic manufacturers.
29. Re:Seems Impressive to me by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  $2.30/gallon sounds reasonable for now in the US, but I think gas prices are a lot likelier to go well above that than much below.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
30. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Luthair · 2017-01-04 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  As the person who did the math, I would say no :) To me a 100-mile optimal range (winter, etc. reducing the range) isn't sufficient for most people unless they are a 2-car family. Its likely good enough for the daily commute but side-trips, hiking, etc. will give you range anxiety or leave you stranded :)
31. Re:Seems Impressive to me by tepples · 2017-01-04 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Is a manufacturer that sets up a factory in that country considered "domestic" enough?
32. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  You cannot seriously claim a Tesla Model S is a 'very premium car'. You should drive one. Or even just be a passenger. The price may be premium, but the car isn't.
33. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  For Lexus, you are about right, but Audi and BMW sell around six times as many cars as you presume. The most recent sales numbers I could find:
  BMW: 2 247 485 in 2015 (source)
  Audi: 2 024 881 in 2015 (source)
34. Re:Seems Impressive to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  Fuel prices in the US are not representative. The fuel taxes over there are tiny.
Reserved Model 3? by Luthair · 2017-01-03 14:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe you should pull that $1000 and go buy a Chevrolet Bolt. Its available now, has the same range and.... all the panel gaps & trim will line-up.
1. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Cyberax · 2017-01-03 17:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Oh please. I've test-driven Bolt and it's nowhere close to Tesla. It's also purely a city car, you can't use it for road trips. There's no fast charging infrastructure for CCS (Combined Charging System) and even existing few stations are limited to 50kW versus 120kW for the current-gen Tesla superchargers.
  
  With superchargers and some planning you can comfortably drive pretty much to any point of interest in the US - I have more than 50k miles on my 2 year old Tesla just from road trips.
2. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Luthair · 2017-01-03 18:04 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  The model 3 isn't years from production and you know what its like? Any tips on lottery tickets.
3. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Cyberax · 2017-01-03 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Even low-end Tesla S60 is way nicer than Bolt - it has nicer handling, better acceleration and range. And the charging infrastructure for Tesla is available right now: https://supercharge.info/
4. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa. Are you telling me that a "low end" $60K luxury car is "way nicer" than a mass-market electric Chevy that sells for about half of that?
  Holy. Shit. Disruption to the max!
5. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 20:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's still a GM product, built in the US. It is probably nowhere near as bad as a Tesla, but do expect below average build quality and a short lifespan.
6. Re:Reserved Model 3? by short · 2017-01-03 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Bolt has no 4WD variant - for snowy roads (plus other disadvantages in other comments).
7. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  A "low end" Tesla is about as luxury as a Camry. Mind you, a high end Tesla is also about as luxury as a Camry...
  The only thing Tesla as a company has going for it is first to market advantage and a shit load of rabid fanboys. They make poor quality cars that they charge extortionate amounts for because the batteries remain very expensive. If the Tesla cars were ICE then nobody would be being the poor quality, fugly things.
8. Re:Reserved Model 3? by bgarcia · 2017-01-03 22:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's a great idea!
  I went on Chevy's website, and configured a Bolt exactly the way I want it. I got all the way to the end... and there was no "BUY" button! WTF? How are they able to sell these when they forgot to even put a BUY button on their website?
  
  --
  I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
9. Re:Reserved Model 3? by misnohmer · 2017-01-03 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Available now? To whom? People like Woz, sure, they'll be delivering his shortly because it buys good PR. Regular people, not so much. So far Bolt is shipping only in CA and OR, in limited quantities and only if you reserved a while back. Of course, Model 3 is not available either, so as of right now, except for very few people, neither is available. However, I bet there are more Model 3 reservation holders that decided and actually took possession of a used Model S or even a new one, than there are people who took delivery of a Bolt.
  Also, as far as range of Bolt vs. Tesla, read Woz'es comments on the subject, and he really is trying to love the Bolt. Unfortunately Bolt is missing a charging infrastructure (and charging speed) which is the main reason why Woz is keeping his Model S (or two). For most people trying to decide on Bolt vs. Model 3, keeping two cars, one Tesla for trips and one Bolt for around town is not really an option - they need one car that can do both. Hopefully GM and others will build out their own charging infrastructure soon to compete with Tesla - competition is great for consumers.
10. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Luthair · 2017-01-04 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  A Tesla S 60 is 72k a Bolt is 37k.
11. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Luthair · 2017-01-04 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'll make you a bet, $100 to charity. Someone who takes a 3-year lease on the a Chevy Bolt today will return the car before Tesla fulfills even half the pre-orders on the 3.
12. Re:Reserved Model 3? by randallman · 2017-01-04 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Bolt's looking more and more like another compliance car. Notice they minimized any capital investment, outsourcing the drivetrain to LG and building it on the same line as the Sonic. They are only offering it in CARB states and at negative margins of 9k, which happen to coincide with the available ZEV credits. https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
  I think it's clear by now that Tesla is 100% committed to the success of the EV. If the ZEV requirements were dropped tomorrow, GM would ax the Bolt without hesitation. As the old saying goes, vote with your wallet.
  Oh, and I don't live in a CARB state, so no Bolt for me.
13. Re:Reserved Model 3? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'll make you a bet, $100 to charity. Someone who takes a 3-year lease on the a Chevy Bolt today will return the car before Tesla fulfills even half the pre-orders on the 3.
  No bet. OTOH, they'll probably be returning the Bolt so that they can get a Tesla.
That's not a lot of vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:43 · Score: 1

I am not a hater of EV technology but if your going to really make a dent you can't cater to the 1%. The people who could really benefit from EV technology are not the 1% it's the rest of us. Is Tesla trying to serve everyone? Or just a few? When Henry Ford made history he was making a vehicle for the masses.
1. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by jblues · 2017-01-03 14:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's exactly the strategy:
  "The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.
  https://www.tesla.com/nl_NL/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me
  
  --
  If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
2. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by RhettLivingston · 2017-01-03 14:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's a hell of a growth curve, and the rest of us have always come after the 1% pays for the development. Frankly, I'd rather have it that way.
3. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Kjella · 2017-01-03 16:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am not a hater of EV technology but if your going to really make a dent you can't cater to the 1%. The people who could really benefit from EV technology are not the 1% it's the rest of us. Is Tesla trying to serve everyone? Or just a few? When Henry Ford made history he was making a vehicle for the masses.
  The Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903. The first mass market car was the Model T in 1908. Before T there was A, S and K that was their "Roadster", "Model S" and "Model X". It's just that hardly anyone remembers, because T became the famous one. If the giga-factory and "Model 3" pays off and sells millions, it'll be straight out of the same playbook.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Luthair · 2017-01-03 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla was founded 9-years ago, and we're still years away from any mass market product.
5. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by sxpert · 2017-01-03 18:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "years away" in your book is about 400 days...
6. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  I am not a hater of EV technology but if your going to really make a dent you can't cater to the 1%. The people who could really benefit from EV technology are not the 1% it's the rest of us. Is Tesla trying to serve everyone? Or just a few? When Henry Ford made history he was making a vehicle for the masses.
  Uh, did you miss all the stories about the Model 3?
7. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by thegarbz · 2017-01-03 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla was founded 9-years ago, and we're still years away from any mass market product.
  Interesting you're so specific on years and the term mass market.
  FoMoCo founded in 1903, but in 1912 they sold 68000 Model T cars.
  Tesla 9 years after being founded sold 76000 Model S cars. Also in terms of total units sold Telsa is miles ahead of where Ford was after 9 years.
8. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  has any fucker got one yet?
  I can promise you the moon on a fucking stick if you deposit $5000 in my account for a few years. doesn't mean your going to get it...
9. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah.... you are a genius for making this comparison. Nothing has changed in 100 years to make ramping up a car company easier.
10. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by BostonPilot · 2017-01-04 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.... you are a genius for making this comparison. Nothing has changed in 100 years to make ramping up a car company easier.
  Not sure if you're implying that it's easier now to ramp up a car company? I would have guessed the opposite: lots more governmental regulations to meet now. You obviously couldn't bring a Model T car to market today - it would fail on so many fronts it would be crazy to try. Also, people's expectations of even a basic car are pretty high now. No electric start? No air conditioning? No AM/FM/BT/SAT/USB entertainment system? People have pretty high expectations even for a basic car.
  Additionally, when the Model T was introduced, there was a huge market of first time buyers available (most people didn't have cars). Now, not so much...
11. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  to make ramping up a car company easier.
  EVs are a new tech, you know... Testa can't be called a "car company", in a traditional way (that is already very well suited in our community...)
12. Re:That's not a lot of vehicles by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-01-04 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... predicted at 400 days. Given my standard x3 for implementation multiplier (for software, probably should be higher for hardware) for anything that long, I say "years" is probably accurate.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
One word: LITHIUM-ION propellent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:54 · Score: -1

In a crash, the most lethal compound known to man (those thinking about maybe not pulling your lithium-ion flaming ass out). I'm betting Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Kirty Allen do not have or want one of these funeral pyres.
1. Re:One word: LITHIUM-ION propellent by sxpert · 2017-01-03 18:20 · Score: 2
  
  like there are NO ice car fires WHATSOEVER... right
2. Re:One word: LITHIUM-ION propellent by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-04 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Is it any worse than driving around with a tank full of flammable liquid in a car powered by explosions?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:One word: LITHIUM-ION propellent by MoaDweeb · 2017-01-04 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Xenu will pull their asses out of the purifying fire.
  
  --
  New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 14:54 · Score: 0

Tesla is known for innovation and speed, but people overlook the Model S's luxury. The vehicle sits five, no problem, as long as the rear passengers are shorter than 6 feet tall. The leather seats were cozy and the wood and suede trim in the cabin add a dash of class without being ostentatious.
If you need to do more than drive folks around, the trunk is huge. During a Costco run, I was able to fit a microwave, space heater, random food and enough toilet paper to survive the zombie apocalypse in it with no problem. That's without using the hidden space below the trunk floor. With seating and cargo space aplenty, the interior feels almost cavernous. (Engadget)
Re: Model S by Luthair · 2017-01-03 15:07 · Score: 2

The S and X are generally considered to have worse interiors than other 100k+ cars.
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:15 · Score: 0

They've got better interiors than your average $25K economy car, but not your average pickup truck. That's embarrassing.
In addition... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:19 · Score: 0

The mathematics have long shown that solar power is the Earthâ(TM)s most abundant energy resource. What is new is that the economics of making it into electricity have improved to the point where it is beginning to attract bigger buyers as the price for silicon panels falls.
In the United States, for example, electric utilities are now the nationâ(TM)s largest customers for solar panels, constituting 60 percent of the market. (SciAm)
1. Re: In addition... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  Due to the drop in costs for solar technology and increases in electric utility rates, solar photovoltaic-generated electricity is now less expensive than grid electricity, and adoption is rising rapidly throughout the U.S. In fact, Bloomberg reported that the American solar industry had a record first quarter in 2016, and for the first time, it drove the majority of new power generation. Consumer Reports points out such consumers donâ(TM)t save as much money, but they still come out comfortably aheadâ"they save thousands on electricity bills, while helping to green and modernize the grid by generating non-polluting power. Regulations help utilities retain their monopoly on energy generation. Some utilities interpret the regulations to not allow distributed generation at all. Many of these regulations were put in place before modern inverters (which allow solar electricity to safely feed back to the grid) existed, and so local utilities are largely responsible for interpreting them, despite the inherent conflict of interest to maintain their monopolies. (Harvard Business Review, Jan 2017)
2. Re: In addition... by anegg · 2017-01-04 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe the claim that "solar photo-voltaic electricity is now less expensive than grid electricity" as bare fact. This all sounds *great*, but when I ran the numbers on a solar installation at my house, I was disappointed. I needed to lay out $23k capital cost, to generate slightly over $600 of electricity per year. Even with generous incentives, my break-even point on the installation was at around 11 years, assuming no other costs on my end. One possible cost that was not included was that of cleaning off the arrays, which would be about $150/year as a service (which really cuts into the net value of the $600/year electricity being generated). If I need to re-roof my house within the lifetime of the system, I had a several thousand dollar cost to de-install the panels, then re-install them.
  The other challenge was that this installation was not sufficient to put me "off the grid," so I still needed to buy electricity in lean times (and to "sell" electricity in good times). However, the current rates structures and incentives in my area ignore the cost to the electric utility of maintaining the distribution grid. As the percentage of homeowners generating their own solar power increases, the cost of utility-generated electricity will need to increase as well, in order for the utilities to cover the cost of maintaining the grid (alternatively, people will have to pay a "grid connection fee" that will be substantial). Distributed power generation is a great idea, but too many folks are ignoring the cost of the utility system that still needs to be in place. This ignorance is sustainable at low self-generation adoption rates, but will become unattainable as adoption rates rise into a significant fraction of the utility's consumer base. Sort of like how some electric car owners are surprised when they are charged additional registration fees (over gasoline vehicles) because the existing road maintenance cost recovery is through gasoline taxes that electric vehicles are sidestepping.
  I'm not slamming the idea of distributed generation, and I dearly want to have my own solar-photovoltaic generation capability, but the business case for the individual homeowner is still not in favor of it. A few more years, some additional efficiencies, and maybe we'll be there. A radical increase in storage capability would really help.
3. Re: In addition... by DanielRavenNest · 2017-01-04 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  > I don't believe the claim that "solar photo-voltaic electricity is now less expensive than grid electricity" as bare fact.
  That only applies to utility-scale tracking arrays, not to residential: http://www.seia.org/research-r...
  Rooftop residential fell to $2.98/Wdc in the 3rd quarter of 2016, while utility tracking came in at $1.21. Tracking systems tilt the panels to follow the Sun, and therefore produce more power than fixed ones on rooftops. So overall, the utility systems are about three times cheaper. Why are they so much less? It is much more efficient for a work crew on level ground than on a sloped roof, and they don't have to pack up their gear and drive to a new location every two dozen panels. You only need one big connection to the utility grid for a solar farm, rather than one for every house, so less wiring/transformers/etc.
  At $1.21/W, and assuming the solar farm returns 8% annually and produces for 2000 hours/year, the net cost is $0.0484/kWh, which is competitive with wind and natural gas.
4. Re: In addition... by anegg · 2017-01-04 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Thank-you for your insight. That makes sense; my potential small rooftop solar system was priced at $3.72/Wdc, with some wiggle room in the price as indicated by the installer when I balked. I can see where a large utility system would have a lower cost due to economies of scale, tracking systems, etc.
  I'm curious as to how the cost of land affects the utility cost, however. In a home rooftop situation, there is no cost for the land since its going on top of the structure that is already on the land. But a utility would need to acquire (buy/lease) a large chunk of land for a decent size solar farm, and to pay taxes on that land on a recurring basis. A wind farm also needs a large chunk of land. Seems like this might be a significant cost factor that isn't there for plants using carbon-based fuels.
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:21 · Score: 0

They've got worse interiors than your average $25K economy car
Fixed that for you.
I didn't get mine by Snotnose · 2017-01-03 15:27 · Score: 1

So they failed my personal goal.
1. Re:I didn't get mine by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't get mine either, but I did forget to buy one.
2. Re:I didn't get mine by redcliffe · 2017-01-03 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Did you order one? I didn't get mine either despite how much I want one. However I didn't order one because I'm poor lol.
What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Brannon · 2017-01-03 15:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
Different people care about different things, and everyone can spend their money on whatever they want. The only ROI that matters for personal purchases is whether the buyer thinks they got their money's worth.
For example, do you believe you got your money's worth on that "degree" from University of Phoenix? Then good for you.
1. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Noble713 · 2017-01-03 16:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
  ^This. I only have an anecdotal data point: I've spent a few days in Hong Kong and was amazed at how common the Model S is there. Residents there don't need to drive far, enjoy not having to pay for fuel, but definitely want something further up-market than a typical hybrid like a Prius so they can park next to their friend's/coworker's German luxo-barge without being embarrassed. The city is flush with money, so in an environment where basically price is no object it was nice to see so many people had chosen an American-made status symbol.
2. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Luthair · 2017-01-03 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  0-60 isn't a relevant performance metric. Put a Tesla against porsches in any performance scenario (barring say a single 0-60 pull) and it will lose, the Porsche will do more 0-60s, will corner, and will pull away from the Tesla at high speeds. The Porsche will also have a better interior and better build quality. I'm not sure that too many people would seriously cross-shop the two brands.
  Mercedes & BMW seem more likely to be cross shopped (ignoring M-cars and AMGs), however both will have significantly better build quality & interiors which would sell them to a lot of buyers.
3. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
  Who cares about doing 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds? I barely ever even do 0 to 100 in less than ten seconds. Faster acceleration is nice, but it's not very high on my list and straight-line performance is useless if the chassis does manage corners well. The handling of the Model S is not that good (and outright sub par for its price) and it does not go through corners very fast. I haven't driven a Model X, but I can only imagine it is worse, due to its higher and heavier body. Many C segment cars costing a fraction of the price of a base model Tesla Model S handle better.
  More importantly, Teslas are very poorly built and rather unreliable, even to American car standards, and while the price may be comparable to the higher-end offerings of Mercedes-Benz, Audi and BMW, the interior (very important for a car in the market segment they are aiming at) is more like what one would find in a ten-year old Korean car. It's not just not luxury - it looks and feels cheap.
  People buy a Tesla to look environmentally conscious or because they like specific things about the cars, but not because Tesla offers a better deal overall than other brands - they don't.
4. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by jabuzz · 2017-01-04 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  That just about describes every American car ever made though and they have sold in their tens of millions, so it's hardly a barrier to making a car.
5. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  While that is mostly true, American cars are notoriously hard to sell outside of the US and Canada.
6. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  I also noticed this when I was in HK. But really it probably has less to do with prestige and more the fact that you can buy it for half of its pricetag with guaranteed buyback of up to 75%. That's a crazy good deal.
7. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Altus · 2017-01-04 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Most of them also cost well under a third of what a model S does.
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
8. Re: What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by rhodespa · 2017-01-04 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's more because in hong kong other non electric cars have a ~100% import tax, versus none for the tesla.
9. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Mothra? No... Tesra!
10. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by michelcolman · 2017-01-04 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well, just as an anecdotal data point, I remember a post on the Tesla forums titled "dead battery", where I naturally assumed the poster was refering to the battery of his Tesla, but no, it was his Porsche that had a dead battery because he hadn't driven it for months.
  Yes, the Porsche is quicker on the race track. But the Tesla pulls away from a stoplight more quickly, is smoother, reacts instantaneously (no Porsche even comes near the throttle response of a Tesla), makes no noise... Going back to a Porsche is like going back in time. Seriously, loads of Porsche owners have bought Teslas and then either sold their Porsche or just take it out once in a while for a long trip or simply to keep it in working order. I have yet to read a post from someone who prefers his Porsche over his Tesla.
11. Re:What's the ROI on any $80K+ car? by Luthair · 2017-01-04 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have yet to read a post from someone who prefers his Porsche over his Tesla.
  Maybe that is because you're looking for confirmation on the Tesla forums?
Car & Driver by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 15:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Rank in Luxury Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
1. Tesla Model S
$72,700 - $110,700
(Beating out the)
2. BMW i8
$141,695
The Tesla Model S has benefited from constant revisions throughout its life cycle, but its looks have stayed almost exactly the same since it was introduced in 2012. That finally changes with an update for the 2017 Model S that brings it in line with the recently revealed Model 3 sedan and the Model X crossover. Gone is the faux front grille, which is replaced by a new front fascia with slightly reshaped headlights and a sleeker, more streamlined look.
Tesla also claims increased driving range for the 90D and P90D models but doesnâ(TM)t cite any mechanical changes that account for the improved numbers. The 90D, with its 90-kWh battery, improves from 270 miles to 294 miles on a full charge, while the P90D sees range go from 253 miles to 270 miles. These numbers havenâ(TM)t yet been published on the EPAâ(TM)s website, although Teslaâ(TM)s own site says theyâ(TM)re EPA-official. ...newly standard 48-amp onboard charger that replaces the previous modelâ(TM)s 40-amp charger. Tesla says it enables quicker charging than before when connected to a 240-volt NEMA 14-50 power outlet or to a Tesla Wall Connector. We donâ(TM)t have exact numbers for the new charger, but the old 40-amp system was estimated to deliver 29 miles of range per hour of charge, so expect more than 30 miles per hour for the new car. This change wonâ(TM)t affect the amount of time it takes to juice up with Teslaâ(TM)s Supercharger network of quick chargers. (April, 2016)
1. Re:Car & Driver by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-01-03 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  The Tesla Model S has benefited from constant revisions throughout its life cycle, but its looks have stayed almost exactly the same since it was introduced in 2012.
  Why the "but"? That sounds like "the new version is improved, but it wasn't screwed up for no good reason".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re: Car & Driver by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  Software changes could account for consumption changes.
Wow by fluffernutter · 2017-01-03 17:15 · Score: -1, Troll

Wow.. Even mediocre news about Tesla makes it here. Surely there are other companies there are mediocre news about.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, Tesla make mediocre cars that they somehow manage to sell for astronomical prices, so perhaps that makes mediocre news into something astronomical?
2. Re:Wow by msevior · 2017-01-03 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on.Tesla is about the geekiest company in the world and one that is doing a hell of a lot of interesting things. Of course we're interested! I was just googling yesterday to see if the latest production numbers were out.
Does not have to be by SuperKendall · 2017-01-03 18:09 · Score: 1

You want a car to work, period. If you have to get it fixed it's a pain in the ass, even if it's free.
I'm not sure what Tesla has for a repair policy but if you take in a MINI to get fixed you can get a free loaner car, that you keep and use as long as your car is being fixed... That takes away a lot of the hassle of repairs.
Also Tesla it seems like could do much more than most auto makers in the way of remote diagnostics, so they could save you a a trip if you really didn't need to come in.
As Tesla expands one thing they could do to improve service is to offer remote technical support for local auto shops, so that you could take it to a local place to have something simple addressed and still have someone who really knew what there were doing overseeing the work. Maybe even offer Tesla certification for smaller auto repair shops.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Does not have to be by lgw · 2017-01-04 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  How close is the dealership? Can you manage it on the way to work, or do you have to take a day off just to mess with something that should just work in the first place? This is the problem with any car repair - even if it's free, my time is valuable.
  I was shocked to see my Infiniti make it onto CR's most reliable list; Nissan isn't exactly famous for reliability. But times change, I guess - Honda has slid far down from former glory, and Nissan seems to actually care, at least for the high end.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
2. Re:Does not have to be by SuperKendall · 2017-01-04 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  How close is the dealership? Can you manage it on the way to work, or do you have to take a day off just to mess with something that should just work in the first place?
  For me the dealers are a fair ways off, basically across town in opposite directions. About an hour drive. But I don't have to take a day off work, I can simply go early, pick uptake loaner car, and then go into work - maybe an hour of delay from when I would start otherwise. Then I can either pick it up in the evening, or reverse the process some other morning. So even if dealers are spread out the service is still really useful, especially for anything beyond basic maintenance (like oil changes) where you often cannot be sure if the work will really be done in a day.
  Honda has slid far down from former glory
  That is sad to hear as the first car I had was a Honda and it was extremely reliable. So reliable that when I ran out of oil (it was an old car and I was a stupid kid who didn't check often enough) and the engine seized, it was fine after I cooled down and added more oil... I think I got about 50k more miles out of it, and it still ran when I gave it up.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:Does not have to be by fluffernutter · 2017-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  The service is really useful in the way that if it were a dealership that didn't care about your convenience it could be far worse, but it is still massively inconvenient when you compare to the car not breaking in the first place. Therefore I would never purchase a car that was known to be less than average reliability. My hours are all spoken for, and I don't have any to spare for the sake of my car.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re: Model S by RhettLivingston · 2017-01-03 18:22 · Score: 1

But not better than other 100K+ cars that can do 0-60 in 2.5. It outperforms cars that cost several times more AND STILL seats 5. Performance will win the long game in the US market. The same will be seen in the trucking industry soon. The low RPM torque of electric motors will be a big boon for heavy vehicles.
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 18:43 · Score: 0

The X for sure has a stupid design. The S is on par.
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 21:46 · Score: 1

The S and X are generally considered to have worse interiors than other 100k+ cars.
I heard that they recently hired a new design team for their interiors, so they clearly know about the problem and are working to improve.
Interior design is not the only factor that attracts people to buy a one car type over another, not even in the 100k segment of the market. Tesla has several other points in its favour that are sufficient to outweigh the issues with the interiors, at least for some buyers. That gives Tesla enough customers right now that it can sell all the cars it can build. As it expands capacity, it will need to work on the interiors to increase its appeal, but as I noted, they are already working on that.
Reason is pretty simple by nehumanuscrede · 2017-01-04 01:36 · Score: 0

It's the cost.
Sure there are other vehicles in the same price range as the Tesla, but my guess is they don't sell as many of them either and for the same reason. The majority of folks lack the financial excess to spend $80k+ on a vehicle.
Unlike many, I actually do have the cash on hand to buy one outright. Still won't do it though.
I have YET to actually see a charging station.
Insurance on an $80k vehicle would be much higher.
Electric powered vehicles are a bad idea in areas prone to flooding. ( hurricane zone )
Oh and. . . it's still $80k+
I don't care how trendy ( read that status symbol ) they are, I'll let the 1% folks spend their money on such things.
My goal is retirement. I don't get there buying overpriced goods that cater to the rich.
They get the costs down to compete with everything else, then Tesla may survive as a car company.
1. Re:Reason is pretty simple by ventsyv · 2017-01-04 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of people who don't mind spending that kind of money on a car. BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari, nicely equipped pickup trucks - millions of vehicles sell every year in that price range. There is plenty of money to be made in that market even without selling cheap cars. As for charging stations - plenty of those around: https://www.plugshare.com/
the good thing is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 02:56 · Score: 0

they probably deliver more news than cars, so they can always change overnight into media
Re: Model S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 03:44 · Score: 0

But that won't be tesla. I think the big turning point for EVs/hybrids in the US will be when ford releases the hybrid F150, assuming they don't screw it up.
Re: Model S by fbobraga · 2017-01-04 03:50 · Score: 1

your average pickup truck
suvsux.org is fucked since when? It was a great and very informative site...
Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by Brannon · 2017-01-04 05:04 · Score: 2

Why has the Model S get glowing reviews?
Is there really nothing objectively interesting about a whisper quiet luxury sedan that does a smooth 0-60 in 2.6s? How about one that never requires going to a gas station because you can charge it at home at night? How about the giant screen in the console? The excellent crash rating? Oh, right, those things are "not relevant" because you don't personally care about them.
This is standard /. zealotry. Start with the assumption that the only reason anyone could want anything from Tesla (or Apple, whatever) is because they are stupid fashion-craving SJW fanbois and then dismiss any legitimate reason one might favor those products as "not relevant".
Why can't you just accept that different people care about different things? It's their money, they can spend it however they want.
1. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by david_thornley · 2017-01-04 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  What strikes me about the zealotry is its inherent ineffectiveness. Don't like X? Don't like their success? Then understand what they're doing and why it's working. Sitting around and making up disparaging reasons or invoking the magic words "marketing" and "fanbois" serves no useful purpose.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by Luthair · 2017-01-04 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it when someone points out the flaws in someone's vapid espousing of the Tesla sales pamphlet people get defensive? Its pretty clearly not competitive with real performance cars and its pretty clearly not competitive with luxury cars at that price point. Its also selling an order of magnitude less than other brands yet its cleaning up the segment?
3. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  Fanboiism and hype.
  Oh, and the crash rating of the Tesla Model S is below average in its price segment. It just received 5 stars in Euro NCAP, like most not-extremely-cheap cars do nowadays. That doesn't make it anything special.
4. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by david_thornley · 2017-01-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's doing very well for the situation it's in, which is a new car company gaining market share and getting great reviews. If you don't understand why that is happening, you might want to figure out why. I'm not defensive about this; I'm interested in the thought processes. Tesla has something going for it that you don't get (and I don't know enough to understand). What is it?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
5. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  If having nearly twice as many sales as your nearest competitor is not cleaning up the segment, then I don't know what is.
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/tesla-dominates-u-s-luxury-sedan-sales
6. Re:Then why is Tesla selling so many $80K+ cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  Firstly, that article covers one specific country. Tesla isn't doing so great in the rest of the world. Secondly, you can't seriously compare a Tesla Model S to an actual luxury car. The price may be comparable, but the car isn't. You should compare Tesla Model S sales to those of cars of a similar refinement and luxury level (e.g. Ford, Hyundai, Kia, Chevrolet).
Then don't buy a Tesla, you dumb fuck. by Brannon · 2017-01-04 05:05 · Score: 1

It's not complicated.
Some people prefer electric cars. They're fun. by Brannon · 2017-01-04 05:06 · Score: 1

Deal with it.
1. Re:Some people prefer electric cars. They're fun. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  I have no issue with electric cars. In fact, I like them. I do have an issue with a dishonest company selling crappy products being hyped by the media.
Re: Model S by lgw · 2017-01-04 07:34 · Score: 1

Straight-line acceleration just isn't that important. The Tesla can't corner for shit, which makes the acceleration a bit dangerous. Seating 5 adults? Some people care I guess, but the interior is just less nice than any competing long wheelbase car (all of which have plenty of room). It compares quite poorly to something like an Audi S8+, Mercedes S-class AMG, or BWM Alpina B7.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
4K crashed auto-driving to dealer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 11:07 · Score: 0

They did manufacture 80K however