Roadster production is being done with a whole plethora of 3rd party sub-contractors and a very complex supply chain, not the least of which is the fact that the main chassis and a good number of the components are being produced through Lotus and their parts suppliers. In addition, a fairly substantial part of the Roadster was also outsources as well.
The Model S represents an attempt by Tesla to bring much of that production "in house" where the base chassis and other critical parts are going to be manufactured at the NUMMI plant in California. That takes time simply to set up the production lines, much less be able to design, build prototypes, and be able to pass all of the Department of Transportation requirements necessary to be legal to have the vehicle on the road in the first place. Since Tesla is also going to aim for higher production numbers, the standards they have to meet are also a little bit higher than it was for the Roadster. The DOT is a little more forgiving for "untested" parts and designs when they are in low production numbers or for custom-built cars, but production cars have different expectations.
Lotus was retooling their production line anyway at the production plant where the Roadster was being made, which was going to require some significant engineering and essentially a whole new vehicle by the time they were done. Simply put, it was easier for Tesla to discontinue the Roadster rather than trying to redevelop the whole thing.
BTW, I would have to agree with you that I find it highly unlikely Tesla is going to give up the "sportscar" market in favor of the more mid-sized luxury automobiles market that the Model S is targeting. Given the nature of Elon Musk and many of the existing customers who have been buying the Roadster, I would expect a really kick-ass model coming out or at least announced a little bit after the Model S is put into formal production. It may end up costing even more than the Roadster does right now for the really high-end customers who don't care about the $100k price tag because that is easily affordable for them. In fact, I'd dare say Tesla may go for perhaps something more like $300k or higher but with a performance curve that really screams. That, of course, is going to take some time to develop.
The other issue is that Tesla has now become a "public" company, due to the IPO they had somewhat recently. That also changes the nature of the company in some subtle but interesting ways because they can't really be acting like a small entrepreneurial start-up company any more. Wall Street simply won't let them. Still, the telling thing is that with this announcement to discontinue the Roadster, the stock price of the company went up. Shouldn't that say something about what the shareholders think of how Elon Musk is running the company?
The trick with the Volt, and while I haven't crawled under and see it myself I've seen it reported in trade journals, is that the Volt as well as most of the other hybrids decide to "solve" this issue by having a transmission that can directly take power from the internal combustion engine and apply it directly to the wheels. That was a design consideration on the part of GM. They may have made some changes since I originally read the articles about the engine, so take that with a grain of salt and that was at least the early design concept being used when the internal diagrams for the Volt engine started to be made public.
Just think of the Rube Goldberg type contraption it takes to get that to happen. It takes what could be a simple motor that can last for years without maintenance (like the motor of your refrigerator) and adds in all of the complications that come with internal combustion engines along with all of the maintenance that goes with it. The nice thing about the trailer is that it doesn't have to be "certified" as strongly like a production automobile engine requires, it could be built by "after-market" companies very easily so there would be some competition driving the cost down further (also meaning that the Tesla or electric car manufacturers don't even have to spend engineering resources to worry about it), and if it fails you can still operate your vehicle safely... at least long enough to find a safe place to park or even to physically get to a repair shop instead of being stranded on the middle of a stretch of rural highway.
There have been Diesel generators for "electric trains" for decades now. In fact they are called "Diesel-Electric" locomotives so far as they simply have an electric power plant on board the vehicle that also is essentially an electric locomotive. For something like a locomotive the scale of operation and the efficiencies that come with power generation for that much electricity are sufficient that it is a very effective solution. Essentially it is just like the trailer idea I mention, but the trailer is simply incorporated into the vehicle itself. For those areas where the traffic is heavier and the rationale for off-loading the generating facilities can be made, overhead wires or a "3rd rail" is implemented that can provide the power generation in the first place but the Diesel-Electrics can operate in more rural areas where it isn't economical to string those power lines. This isn't a particularly novel idea in other words or even something that at least other other transportation systems have ignored, but it is a bit new for automobiles because the scaling factors to make a smaller engine are harder.
BTW, "3rd rail" electrical systems for automobiles have also been suggested and even developed on an experimental basis. Unfortunately the infrastructure costs and the fact that it would be a disruptive technology offering little short-term benefit (even if the long-term benefits might be huge) are reasons why it hasn't been done yet and possibly ever. It also doesn't solve the problem for rural areas as something like that could only be done in a large city or on something like an Interstate Highway and also be prone to failures.
It is a completely different chassis. I did read between the lines and see that the Roadster and the Elise are using the same airbag components, so that would require a redesign on the part of Tesla to get into conformance.... something that Lotus isn't even bothering to deal with because they are jettisoning that particular line and are doing something different with their production facility.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other considerations, but please don't perpetuate the myth that the Roadster is using the same platform as the Elise. That is a patently false lie altogether. Lotus helped Tesla in terms of its production and it happened to be using the same production facility and at least part of the same supply chain, but it isn't identical and the vehicles are quite different on a basic level with some fairly important differences between the two vehicles. Simply put, the Roadster isn't just an Elise with an electric motor installed.
It looks like the largest problem facing Tesla, and the reason why they are shutting down the Roadster, has to do with the fact that Lotus has essentially shut down the entire production facility for retooling and a new product line of their own. Simply put, the contract with Tesla isn't sufficient to justify keeping the production line going where common parts and molds used to produce the Roadster (it was put into the Elise production facility) require re-engineering anyway for the new line. It is a manufacturing engineering issue and something where there is considerable cost and time required before more Roadsters can be built again because of the changeover. That they may be using the excuse of the airbag issue to cover their behinds, that is hardly the only thing that is causing this model to be discontinued.
Besides, I'm betting that Elon Musk wants to bring this vehicle "in-house" after they get their Model "S" into production, so a convenient excuse like this is all that more of a reason to essentially terminate their contract with Lotus. They have to essentially engineer a whole new vehicle anyway, so why not do it right and really target hard the high end market with a vehicle that has real muscle and make the Roadster look like a toy. I really have a hard time believing that Tesla is going to give up that particular market segment.
Not quite. You can have liability that goes beyond the value of your shares if you are a member of the board of directors or are one of the major officers of the company.
BTW, that is why they get the big bucks too, as they do take that personal risk when running a company. If any criminal conduct was happening while you were running the company, that can even compound the situation even further, and shareholder lawsuits can really ruin your day if you aren't careful, where your personal assets can be at risk when you are in such a leadership position.
That is also why it is a stupid idea to set up a "personal" corporation just to cover your behind as you are still just as much at risk. At best all it provides is a speed bump for somebody trying to go after you if for some reason you have some financial liability. It is also part of the fiduciary responsibility of a company CEO to make sure that kind of liability never happens to a "real" corporation.
If all you have done is invest in the company and others are making the decisions, you are covered much more. But the size of your ownership in a company and more importantly your role in the governance of that company can increase your liability considerably if that company does some stuff that can cause liability. Just ask Bernie Madoff. I'm sure he would have loved to have been in a position where his liability was only limited to just the value of the shares he invested into his companies.
Actually no, you can't start your own corporation. I mean, you can, but it won't protect your personal assets if the person suing you can show that the corporation exists only to serve as a firewall. If the corporation is a real company that employs real people, that's a different story, but if it's just a shell, it's of very limited value.
Even being a real company isn't going to protect you if you are a principle shareholder and member of the board of directors/VP or CEO. You can personally be sued for damages if that is the case. As a middle manager or mere peon, yes it can protect you. As a minority shareholder you are likely going to be protected as well (particularly if you weren't involved in any decision making that led to patent infringement).
But if you actually own the company, forget it. Your assets are as good as gone if you lose the legal challenge. Your only benefit by being a part of a corporation is the access to resources where potentially your business partners might have a reason to defend you and that you may be able to pay for a lawyer to represent you in court. That gives little comfort. Potentially if you lose you could also be the target of a shareholder lawsuit to really make life lovely, particularly if you violated the company charter in some way (subject to interpretation by a judge and jury).
The limited liability mainly applies to minority shareholders. Those from large corporations can often get away with murder (or at least seem to) but that is mainly because they also have politicians in their pocket to write the laws to keep them from jail or have enough competent lawyers to warn them well before they get close to danger. Money talks real well, which is where the legal system is truly different for a corporation than a private individual... because a corporation has access to more wealth alone.
Exactly, the Elise/Exige losses the DOT waiver for the old standard airbags later this year, hence the stoppage of sales of the Elise/Exige and Tesla Roadster.
Please tell me how the loss of the "DOT waiver" for the Elise has anything to do with the Roadster? They aren't the same car, not even the same chassis. The only similarity is that both has the chassis manufactured in the same physical facility. Is that where you get the mistaken notion that somehow they are one and the same car, where the Roadster is merely an electric version of the Elise?
I think many commentators on Slashdot don't know of anything prior to Windows XP or OSX. Those who even realized there were 32-bit interfaces for Windows 3.1 are certainly few and far between.
Some of us olde tymers are still around though. I wrote some software on Hollerith punch cards back when it was still state of the art and even learned how to read the cards by sight without the crutch of the fancy lettering on the top of the card. A drawer of punched tape rolls was also something I fondly remember, trying to figure out where that cool Star Trek was at, giving a whole new definition of "folder" for "mass storage".
That said, I too am disgusted by this story and the misleading nature of the headline + story intro on the OP. It is a new low for Slashdot, where likely the editors really don't care either.
I would rather trust a million people to "do the right thing" eventually than to trust a bureaucrat to tell me what that right thing to do is.
My point is that economics alone could have been a sufficient driver in the market place, and that rather than outlawing the bulbs simply placing a tax upon them might have been a better way to deal with the situation. Or perhaps a dozen other strategies. Unfortunately, it is the process of flat out making them illegal that is the most concerning to me and something that is to me even offensive.
My point is also that adoption was happening even without these coercive laws, and that it froze in place technologies instead of trying to encourage inventors and others who might have come up with something better in the marketplace of ideas. Now we'll never know, which to me is the real tragedy.
If mercury in CFL's is a concern it may be heartening for you to know that using a CFL actually causes less mercury to be released into the environment over the lifetime of the bulb.
I'm curious about how that works, unless there is a nuclear process going on within CF lights that I'm not aware of. Mercury is an element, and as such does not changes its nature or character through normal chemical means or merely being bombarded by electrons. Perhaps the electron excitation creates some more "exotic" Mercury compounds that are more tolerable to living creatures?
Is it instead that by using the lightbulbs that the Mercury simply seeps out slowly through the glass and into your house as you are using it? That is a bit more concerning to me by itself and a pollution source that concerns me even more than having the metal get into landfills.
The local recycling center that I do use on a pretty regular basis doesn't do CFL recycling, although they do have a "hazardous materials" area that accepts unused paint and electronic devices. Sort of odd and perhaps that is a local issue, but it is something I've noticed.
The GM EV1 took care of the proof of concept years before the Tesla. It had the same range problems, but was clearly intended for short distance commuting, which the Tesla isn't. I stand by my statement that it's a really cool toy and technology demonstrator, but not much of a car unless you're only intending it as a commuter vehicle, and other options handle that better for far less money.
The huge difference between the GM EV1 and the Tesla Roadster is that the Roadster went to a Li-ion battery system and the EV1 used a conventional Lead-Acid battery for its energy storage system. The EV1 hardly had the "same range problems", as its driving range was considerably smaller, by a whole order of magnitude.
I admit that this driving rang issue is a big deal, and something that has plagued electric automobiles since they were first introduced. As a matter of fact, Thomas Edison tried to get electric automobiles working and couldn't, where they even pre-dated the introduction of gasoline and diesel engines. The slow to adapt technology has always been the energy storage media.
If you are trying to compare the Tesla Roadster to other high-end automobiles, I'd have to agree that it doesn't really quite compare very well. For those who demand top performance and want to kick some behind on the German Autobahn, the Roadster isn't likely going to be giving you all of the performance you want or demand (even though I've read some blogs from German Roadster owners who have had fun on the Autobahn). It is a bit of a waltzing bear right now so far as it is amazing it works at all and even more amazing that it can even go onto the Autobahn without getting a ticket for being too slow.
When the Roadster is compared to other electric automobiles, however, it blows away the competition. Nearly all other electric car manufacturers simply can't compete, including the hybrids. In fact, I just saw a movie trailer that made fun of the fact that a guy doing a drag race with a Prius had the police officer questioning the sanity of the person driving the car.... wondering just why anybody would think it would have any chance of winning at all. The Roadster shattered the myth that an all-electric car can only have the performance of a golf cart. That guys like you are trying to complain and suggest that at least it is approaching the performance of high-end automobiles.
BTW, I'd like to know just who is a regular Roadster driver and "regularly" drives at 100+ mph? It sure ain't California, where many of these things are sold. The CHP would love to pull a Roadster over just for the fun of teasing the driver, much less writing out a speeding ticket.
What does amaze me is that the "editors" at Slashdot didn't bother reviewing what this guy wrote. I've had some (admittedly minor) factual details get corrected when I've had stuff posted for the front page for a/. story. In this case, the headline and the body of the text is so misleading and misses the point of the "news" that it does put the OP into a whole new class of misinformation.
The "news" of having the Roadster production discontinue was legitimate news, and this is certainly "News for geeks" and everything that applies to Slashdot. In that sense, I'm glad that this story ran as it was useful information and a reason I go to Slashdot in the first place. Beyond that little piece of information, however, the libel being written here by this guy is nearly enough that perhaps Tesla needs to put out a formal statement to refute the guy.... other than hopefully some other news agency that is alerted to this concept through Slashdot might just do a little bit more research than this guy.
I'd like to go through the firehose to see if anybody submitted something a little closer to the truth. Sadly, they can't stuff this particular genie back into the bottle.
At least thank you for trying to raise the bar here and know there are others who agree with you.
The original posting is flat-out full of disinformation to the point that if he were any better known would be grounds for libel because of how mis-leading it is. Hopefully some people reading this will go down into the comments to see some of the real facts and learn a little bit more about the company.
Tesla isn't a perfect place and there are problems with the Roadster including a very colorful development history. I'm not really all that happy with how they've essentially shut down their "fan community" on their website (I used to be a regular reader), but then again the company culture changed a bit when Elon Musk kicked Martin Eberhard out. Likely it was for the better as Tesla has been able to grow where previously it was a shipwreck headed to the bottom of the ocean.
Still, when I see people slander Elon Musk and his companies with blatant lies and deliberate misinformation, it does get my dander up and I push back. If you want to attack the guy, attack him for things that are true as you don't need to destroy a guy with lies as he is so arrogant that he made Ironman (as portrayed by Robert Downy Jr.) seem human, on film no less. He is a modern incarnation of D. Delos Harriman, warts and all. I admire the guy after a fashion, but I'm not really sure I'd like my kids to grow up to be like him.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit without government subsidies.
{{Citation needed}}
Seriously, what government subsidies? Are you talking about the loan program Tesla qualified for and is using for developing the Model S? Perhaps you are referring to tax breaks they got for developing the NUMMI plant? (which is a state and local issue, not even related to the federal government). Perhaps you are talking about "low-emission vehicle credits" that apply to all electric vehicles and are not unique to Tesla?
If you are going to quote something like this, at least know what the hell you are talking about in the first place rather than regurgitating something you've heard somewhere else that likely isn't true. Tesla is not, I repeat not getting subsidies, at least in the manner you are talking about. It is also something not unique to Tesla and something even you, yes you could have qualified for assuming you owned an automotive manufacturing plant (and were American.... I guess that is a bit of an assumption here that isn't always valid).
This often repeated lie needs to be exposed for what it is, even if some "mainstream" reporters continue to screw up on the issue as well.
As far as I know, Tesla has yet to turn a profit. The Roadster was a car that stood out and that sold to people who could afford to buy a car just for that. The Model S is nothing special, at its price point, and not particularly distinct looking.
Before Tesla started to dive big into the Model S, they did turn a profit and that in fact was one of the major selling point for the company when they did the IPO. Fortunately, they didn't want to stay a boutique automotive company and had bigger ambitions.
Sadly, the process of bringing a new production vehicle out is a rather expensive and painful process, particular to demonstrate to the various government agencies that your vehicle is "safe for the general public" and to engineer not just the raw design of the vehicle but to also engineer the production facilities to make the vehicle as well. The reason Tesla is posting losses right now is not due to the lack of profit coming from the Roadster, but the fact that they are on a serious expansion phase of their company and tooling up for something much larger.
If once the Model S goes into production and they still can't turn a profit, your remark would be much more justified. As it stands, it is just like a division of one of the major automobile manufacturers who is operating at a theoretical loss while they tool up for their next model. That doesn't come cheap.
So restricting one of the most inefficient and wasteful uses of electricity isn't a bad thing, it saves money and resources and decreases pollution.
I don't know how much pollution it may actually save, and if it really was so wasteful wouldn't you think that you should just let consumers make up their minds on their own rather than trying to have a nanny state make up your mind for you?
People pay for electricity and expect a certain amount of light in order to read and do whatever else it is that they do at home and in the office. If they can find a way to save money by using something more efficient, don't you think they would go that route?
As a matter of fact, I did buy compact florescent lights before the law making them mandatory came out, because they were cheaper and typically lasted longer. More to the point, I think those outlawing the conventional Thomas Edison-style incandescent bulbs were premature on what was an eventuality anyway and should have simply let the process happen on its own. Besides, there are situations and environments where the new fangled bulbs simply don't work.
On top of that, I'm not sure that the trade-off of reduced carbon for increased levels of Mercury in landfills is necessarily a good thing. That has been documented many times here on/. as well as other places, so I don't need to go into more details other than to say the argument about reduced levels of pollution may be overrated. LED lightbulbs show a bit more promise than the compact florescent bulbs, and hopefully other options may become available. Legislating morality didn't have to happen for reduced energy consumption to happen for a given lumen of light.
I'm still curious how patents fit into that, or how Thomas Newcomen or James Watt somehow became wealthy due to patent protection. It was an interesting video and article, and I'd agree that the steam engine was one of the major discoveries of mankind ranking with gunpowder and movable type as major disruptions from what happened in the past.
Are you trying to say that without patent laws such inventions would never have been made or that nobody would have tried to refine those inventions to be more efficient without patents? Is that something advocated in the book, or am I missing something from the article and video clip? I haven't read that book, but it sounds like an interesting read and I do thank you for the link.
It also saved Tesla some money so far as they didn't have to do nearly as extensive of an environmental impact study on the site, and the "cleanup costs" could be done as an ongoing thing rather than having to do it all at once before the next company can use the site. Since Tesla is doing automotive production at the site, it didn't even need to be rezoned, and they were somebody the community is gladly embracing in terms of getting jobs back in that part of the world.
Tesla was looking at building a plant in Los Angeles County (I think, at least So. California) and had even signed a "memorandum of agreement" before the NUMMI plant became available. For Tesla, it became a huge win for them as well even if that other poor town got screwed over in the process. Tesla also broke ground for another production plant in New Mexico that didn't work out ultimately, so in this case it really seemed to work out just right to be working with Toyota.
I dunno about that. They received quite a bit of government bailout money - otherwise they'd have probably been out of business already. I hope they do well, and I think they have a decent chance, but they're certainly not "a long way" from going out of business.
They didn't get any of the "government bailout money" at all. There was a loan program cobbled together during the "W" Bush administration and pushed through by the major auto companies that had very low interest rates for electric vehicle production. THAT is the money Tesla Motors got, since they are based in America, using American labor, and selling the vehicles in America they couldn't be disqualified from the program.
It sure wasn't a subsidy and the money does have to be paid back. Furthermore, the money wasn't even targeted at Tesla, but they qualified for it anyway. To me, it is more of a face slap to the other auto makers because they couldn't get vehicles that qualified for the money.
If you have ever received a student loan, you have likely received money from the government under similar terms. Is that a "bailout"?
Paul Allen at least has made a small difference with his money, from the same source that Bill Gates got most of his money from.
While the action or inaction of Bill Gates on the philanthropic level may be questioned (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation not withstanding) there are other people who also have money who have made a difference in this world.
Besides, Elon Musk got his initial seed money from computer software as well (Paypal) and as a matter of fact is investing into Tesla. In fact he was the original major investor into the project.
A new start-up that is selling its CAFE credits to Toyota as a part of the partnership to get things built. It doesn't exist in a vacuum and this start-up is headed by somebody who is getting pretty familiar with Washington DC and its political process.
Tesla may be fine and thriving in that environment, but it still is incredibly hostile to a new start-up company that doesn't have all of those political and business connections.
One nice side-effect of an electric vehicle is that the number of moving parts that are subject to mechanical failure is significantly reduced, and with considerable improvement in terms of reliability and longevity. There is the armature that can have bearings fail and the transmission system, but that is about it. Sealed bearings generally don't need to be re-lubricated except on a very long cycle and then there is the maintenance of the tires themselves. No need to change the oil, and the battery replacement is the only other major expense.
In terms of the expense of buying an electric vehicle, you have to essentially pay for the expenses up front rather than trying to nickle and dime those expenses throughout the lifetime of your vehicle unless you are the type who buys an extended vehicle warranty for every new vehicle purchase, where you sell the vehicle before the coverage runs out.
I don't know how that works for people who may or may not afford the $75k vehicle, but there are other factors to consider than just the raw sticker price on the showroom floor.
I don't think it ever really got put together, and part of that is Tesla's fault, but there was discussion on the Tesla forums about after-market "trailers" that you could buy to be recharging your vehicle's battery with an electric motor while you were driving it. Essentially, it would allow you to stop at a gasoline station and refuel your vehicle with petroleum products (or bio-diesel if you want to be "Earth-friendly") and take those longer trips, but be able to use the same vehicle for the short daily commuter trips and avoid the petroleum altogether.
I sure hope that the Model-S gets a trailer ball plus some sort of plug on the back that can be an electric input device. It would be relatively simple to incorporate yet be able to make those long trips possible that you are talking about. You could even leave such a trailer at a hotel or friend's house if you were traveling for the small commuter-type trips once you arrive at your ultimate destination, or use it for a back-up power supply if you can't find a recharging station.
Essentially this turns the all-electric vehicle into a more conventional hybrid, but with the electric motor doing most of the real work and the gasoline engine is the back-up. The Volt and some of the other hybrid vehicles have some fancy transmission work to switch between the electric and gasoline motors more directly... something that isn't strictly needed.
For some reason the Roadster that Top Gear was driving wasn't charged up before it was being used. You can blame either the Tesla PR guys or Top Gear for that excuse and it unfortunately tainted the whole piece too. Driving a vehicle with an empty tank that uses exotic fuels and then complaining that you don't have the fuel to recharge the thing would have produced similar results.
In terms of "short distances", I'm curious what you consider to be a short distance? It is true that you can't drive the Roadster from New York to Los Angeles on a single charge, but then again you can't drive a car that distance on a single tank of gasoline either. A typical electric automobile only goes about 25-50 miles, and the Roadster got more like about 300.... with ordinary driving. They were targeting about 500 miles and somewhat missed the mark, but that still is by itself a remarkable achievement.
I will agree that the battery recharging issue is a legitimate one, and something that isn't easily solved either. In theory you could recharge a battery for something like the Roadster in about 15 minutes, but you would also need some high voltage connectors that I wouldn't personally want to be close to at the time if you did and you would need a nearly direct connection to a nuclear power plant in order to be able to receive that much power. That is physics, and those who blow smoke claiming some new technology is in the works to make a fast recharge possible don't know what they are talking about. Spreading the recharging times out to several hours makes using a 220 v or 110 v power connector possible, and something a mere mortal can cope with.
In terms of electric vehicles, I'd call the Roadster the first all-electric vehicle that proves the concept is at least practical if you want to build a real production vehicle using that sort of technology. Previous incarnations before Tesla basically were golf carts with incredibly short driving ranges that would have the car die before you were done buying groceries.
Tesla's Roadsters are built on a Lotus chassis. Since Lotus is discontinuing that model, Tesla won't be able to make more Roadsters. It really is that simple.
The Lotus chassis you are referring to was a completely redesigned and rebuilt chassis anyway. Lotus built it, but the design was completely by Tesla and from what I understand owned by Tesla as well in terms of its design. There might have been some agreements that Lotus could only build it, but discontinuing the model by Lotus was not even remotely a factor in this equation. Lotus signed on to help Tesla because they had some surplus manufacturing capacity and wanted to keep their plant busy at off-times in the Elise production facility. There was some retooling that had to happen when switching between the Roadster and the Elise, but that was something Lotus worked on and could cope with.
The Roadster does not use the Elise chassis at all, and if somebody tells you otherwise they are smoking something and greatly confused. The only common elements are that it was made in the same manufacturing plant and that the two chassis were about the same size (roughly).
Slashdot Mirror
Roadster production is being done with a whole plethora of 3rd party sub-contractors and a very complex supply chain, not the least of which is the fact that the main chassis and a good number of the components are being produced through Lotus and their parts suppliers. In addition, a fairly substantial part of the Roadster was also outsources as well.
The Model S represents an attempt by Tesla to bring much of that production "in house" where the base chassis and other critical parts are going to be manufactured at the NUMMI plant in California. That takes time simply to set up the production lines, much less be able to design, build prototypes, and be able to pass all of the Department of Transportation requirements necessary to be legal to have the vehicle on the road in the first place. Since Tesla is also going to aim for higher production numbers, the standards they have to meet are also a little bit higher than it was for the Roadster. The DOT is a little more forgiving for "untested" parts and designs when they are in low production numbers or for custom-built cars, but production cars have different expectations.
Lotus was retooling their production line anyway at the production plant where the Roadster was being made, which was going to require some significant engineering and essentially a whole new vehicle by the time they were done. Simply put, it was easier for Tesla to discontinue the Roadster rather than trying to redevelop the whole thing.
BTW, I would have to agree with you that I find it highly unlikely Tesla is going to give up the "sportscar" market in favor of the more mid-sized luxury automobiles market that the Model S is targeting. Given the nature of Elon Musk and many of the existing customers who have been buying the Roadster, I would expect a really kick-ass model coming out or at least announced a little bit after the Model S is put into formal production. It may end up costing even more than the Roadster does right now for the really high-end customers who don't care about the $100k price tag because that is easily affordable for them. In fact, I'd dare say Tesla may go for perhaps something more like $300k or higher but with a performance curve that really screams. That, of course, is going to take some time to develop.
The other issue is that Tesla has now become a "public" company, due to the IPO they had somewhat recently. That also changes the nature of the company in some subtle but interesting ways because they can't really be acting like a small entrepreneurial start-up company any more. Wall Street simply won't let them. Still, the telling thing is that with this announcement to discontinue the Roadster, the stock price of the company went up. Shouldn't that say something about what the shareholders think of how Elon Musk is running the company?
The trick with the Volt, and while I haven't crawled under and see it myself I've seen it reported in trade journals, is that the Volt as well as most of the other hybrids decide to "solve" this issue by having a transmission that can directly take power from the internal combustion engine and apply it directly to the wheels. That was a design consideration on the part of GM. They may have made some changes since I originally read the articles about the engine, so take that with a grain of salt and that was at least the early design concept being used when the internal diagrams for the Volt engine started to be made public.
Just think of the Rube Goldberg type contraption it takes to get that to happen. It takes what could be a simple motor that can last for years without maintenance (like the motor of your refrigerator) and adds in all of the complications that come with internal combustion engines along with all of the maintenance that goes with it. The nice thing about the trailer is that it doesn't have to be "certified" as strongly like a production automobile engine requires, it could be built by "after-market" companies very easily so there would be some competition driving the cost down further (also meaning that the Tesla or electric car manufacturers don't even have to spend engineering resources to worry about it), and if it fails you can still operate your vehicle safely... at least long enough to find a safe place to park or even to physically get to a repair shop instead of being stranded on the middle of a stretch of rural highway.
There have been Diesel generators for "electric trains" for decades now. In fact they are called "Diesel-Electric" locomotives so far as they simply have an electric power plant on board the vehicle that also is essentially an electric locomotive. For something like a locomotive the scale of operation and the efficiencies that come with power generation for that much electricity are sufficient that it is a very effective solution. Essentially it is just like the trailer idea I mention, but the trailer is simply incorporated into the vehicle itself. For those areas where the traffic is heavier and the rationale for off-loading the generating facilities can be made, overhead wires or a "3rd rail" is implemented that can provide the power generation in the first place but the Diesel-Electrics can operate in more rural areas where it isn't economical to string those power lines. This isn't a particularly novel idea in other words or even something that at least other other transportation systems have ignored, but it is a bit new for automobiles because the scaling factors to make a smaller engine are harder.
BTW, "3rd rail" electrical systems for automobiles have also been suggested and even developed on an experimental basis. Unfortunately the infrastructure costs and the fact that it would be a disruptive technology offering little short-term benefit (even if the long-term benefits might be huge) are reasons why it hasn't been done yet and possibly ever. It also doesn't solve the problem for rural areas as something like that could only be done in a large city or on something like an Interstate Highway and also be prone to failures.
It is a completely different chassis. I did read between the lines and see that the Roadster and the Elise are using the same airbag components, so that would require a redesign on the part of Tesla to get into conformance.... something that Lotus isn't even bothering to deal with because they are jettisoning that particular line and are doing something different with their production facility.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other considerations, but please don't perpetuate the myth that the Roadster is using the same platform as the Elise. That is a patently false lie altogether. Lotus helped Tesla in terms of its production and it happened to be using the same production facility and at least part of the same supply chain, but it isn't identical and the vehicles are quite different on a basic level with some fairly important differences between the two vehicles. Simply put, the Roadster isn't just an Elise with an electric motor installed.
It looks like the largest problem facing Tesla, and the reason why they are shutting down the Roadster, has to do with the fact that Lotus has essentially shut down the entire production facility for retooling and a new product line of their own. Simply put, the contract with Tesla isn't sufficient to justify keeping the production line going where common parts and molds used to produce the Roadster (it was put into the Elise production facility) require re-engineering anyway for the new line. It is a manufacturing engineering issue and something where there is considerable cost and time required before more Roadsters can be built again because of the changeover. That they may be using the excuse of the airbag issue to cover their behinds, that is hardly the only thing that is causing this model to be discontinued.
Besides, I'm betting that Elon Musk wants to bring this vehicle "in-house" after they get their Model "S" into production, so a convenient excuse like this is all that more of a reason to essentially terminate their contract with Lotus. They have to essentially engineer a whole new vehicle anyway, so why not do it right and really target hard the high end market with a vehicle that has real muscle and make the Roadster look like a toy. I really have a hard time believing that Tesla is going to give up that particular market segment.
Not quite. You can have liability that goes beyond the value of your shares if you are a member of the board of directors or are one of the major officers of the company.
BTW, that is why they get the big bucks too, as they do take that personal risk when running a company. If any criminal conduct was happening while you were running the company, that can even compound the situation even further, and shareholder lawsuits can really ruin your day if you aren't careful, where your personal assets can be at risk when you are in such a leadership position.
That is also why it is a stupid idea to set up a "personal" corporation just to cover your behind as you are still just as much at risk. At best all it provides is a speed bump for somebody trying to go after you if for some reason you have some financial liability. It is also part of the fiduciary responsibility of a company CEO to make sure that kind of liability never happens to a "real" corporation.
If all you have done is invest in the company and others are making the decisions, you are covered much more. But the size of your ownership in a company and more importantly your role in the governance of that company can increase your liability considerably if that company does some stuff that can cause liability. Just ask Bernie Madoff. I'm sure he would have loved to have been in a position where his liability was only limited to just the value of the shares he invested into his companies.
Actually no, you can't start your own corporation. I mean, you can, but it won't protect your personal assets if the person suing you can show that the corporation exists only to serve as a firewall. If the corporation is a real company that employs real people, that's a different story, but if it's just a shell, it's of very limited value.
Even being a real company isn't going to protect you if you are a principle shareholder and member of the board of directors/VP or CEO. You can personally be sued for damages if that is the case. As a middle manager or mere peon, yes it can protect you. As a minority shareholder you are likely going to be protected as well (particularly if you weren't involved in any decision making that led to patent infringement).
But if you actually own the company, forget it. Your assets are as good as gone if you lose the legal challenge. Your only benefit by being a part of a corporation is the access to resources where potentially your business partners might have a reason to defend you and that you may be able to pay for a lawyer to represent you in court. That gives little comfort. Potentially if you lose you could also be the target of a shareholder lawsuit to really make life lovely, particularly if you violated the company charter in some way (subject to interpretation by a judge and jury).
The limited liability mainly applies to minority shareholders. Those from large corporations can often get away with murder (or at least seem to) but that is mainly because they also have politicians in their pocket to write the laws to keep them from jail or have enough competent lawyers to warn them well before they get close to danger. Money talks real well, which is where the legal system is truly different for a corporation than a private individual... because a corporation has access to more wealth alone.
Exactly, the Elise/Exige losses the DOT waiver for the old standard airbags later this year, hence the stoppage of sales of the Elise/Exige and Tesla Roadster.
Please tell me how the loss of the "DOT waiver" for the Elise has anything to do with the Roadster? They aren't the same car, not even the same chassis. The only similarity is that both has the chassis manufactured in the same physical facility. Is that where you get the mistaken notion that somehow they are one and the same car, where the Roadster is merely an electric version of the Elise?
I think many commentators on Slashdot don't know of anything prior to Windows XP or OSX. Those who even realized there were 32-bit interfaces for Windows 3.1 are certainly few and far between.
Some of us olde tymers are still around though. I wrote some software on Hollerith punch cards back when it was still state of the art and even learned how to read the cards by sight without the crutch of the fancy lettering on the top of the card. A drawer of punched tape rolls was also something I fondly remember, trying to figure out where that cool Star Trek was at, giving a whole new definition of "folder" for "mass storage".
That said, I too am disgusted by this story and the misleading nature of the headline + story intro on the OP. It is a new low for Slashdot, where likely the editors really don't care either.
Oh....... this is so damn good. I wish I had some mod points for this one!
You are correct, it is absolutely true and factual. It should be the next story about Tesla to get posted on Slashdot!
I would rather trust a million people to "do the right thing" eventually than to trust a bureaucrat to tell me what that right thing to do is.
My point is that economics alone could have been a sufficient driver in the market place, and that rather than outlawing the bulbs simply placing a tax upon them might have been a better way to deal with the situation. Or perhaps a dozen other strategies. Unfortunately, it is the process of flat out making them illegal that is the most concerning to me and something that is to me even offensive.
My point is also that adoption was happening even without these coercive laws, and that it froze in place technologies instead of trying to encourage inventors and others who might have come up with something better in the marketplace of ideas. Now we'll never know, which to me is the real tragedy.
If mercury in CFL's is a concern it may be heartening for you to know that using a CFL actually causes less mercury to be released into the environment over the lifetime of the bulb.
I'm curious about how that works, unless there is a nuclear process going on within CF lights that I'm not aware of. Mercury is an element, and as such does not changes its nature or character through normal chemical means or merely being bombarded by electrons. Perhaps the electron excitation creates some more "exotic" Mercury compounds that are more tolerable to living creatures?
Is it instead that by using the lightbulbs that the Mercury simply seeps out slowly through the glass and into your house as you are using it? That is a bit more concerning to me by itself and a pollution source that concerns me even more than having the metal get into landfills.
The local recycling center that I do use on a pretty regular basis doesn't do CFL recycling, although they do have a "hazardous materials" area that accepts unused paint and electronic devices. Sort of odd and perhaps that is a local issue, but it is something I've noticed.
The GM EV1 took care of the proof of concept years before the Tesla. It had the same range problems, but was clearly intended for short distance commuting, which the Tesla isn't. I stand by my statement that it's a really cool toy and technology demonstrator, but not much of a car unless you're only intending it as a commuter vehicle, and other options handle that better for far less money.
The huge difference between the GM EV1 and the Tesla Roadster is that the Roadster went to a Li-ion battery system and the EV1 used a conventional Lead-Acid battery for its energy storage system. The EV1 hardly had the "same range problems", as its driving range was considerably smaller, by a whole order of magnitude.
I admit that this driving rang issue is a big deal, and something that has plagued electric automobiles since they were first introduced. As a matter of fact, Thomas Edison tried to get electric automobiles working and couldn't, where they even pre-dated the introduction of gasoline and diesel engines. The slow to adapt technology has always been the energy storage media.
If you are trying to compare the Tesla Roadster to other high-end automobiles, I'd have to agree that it doesn't really quite compare very well. For those who demand top performance and want to kick some behind on the German Autobahn, the Roadster isn't likely going to be giving you all of the performance you want or demand (even though I've read some blogs from German Roadster owners who have had fun on the Autobahn). It is a bit of a waltzing bear right now so far as it is amazing it works at all and even more amazing that it can even go onto the Autobahn without getting a ticket for being too slow.
When the Roadster is compared to other electric automobiles, however, it blows away the competition. Nearly all other electric car manufacturers simply can't compete, including the hybrids. In fact, I just saw a movie trailer that made fun of the fact that a guy doing a drag race with a Prius had the police officer questioning the sanity of the person driving the car.... wondering just why anybody would think it would have any chance of winning at all. The Roadster shattered the myth that an all-electric car can only have the performance of a golf cart. That guys like you are trying to complain and suggest that at least it is approaching the performance of high-end automobiles.
BTW, I'd like to know just who is a regular Roadster driver and "regularly" drives at 100+ mph? It sure ain't California, where many of these things are sold. The CHP would love to pull a Roadster over just for the fun of teasing the driver, much less writing out a speeding ticket.
What does amaze me is that the "editors" at Slashdot didn't bother reviewing what this guy wrote. I've had some (admittedly minor) factual details get corrected when I've had stuff posted for the front page for a /. story. In this case, the headline and the body of the text is so misleading and misses the point of the "news" that it does put the OP into a whole new class of misinformation.
The "news" of having the Roadster production discontinue was legitimate news, and this is certainly "News for geeks" and everything that applies to Slashdot. In that sense, I'm glad that this story ran as it was useful information and a reason I go to Slashdot in the first place. Beyond that little piece of information, however, the libel being written here by this guy is nearly enough that perhaps Tesla needs to put out a formal statement to refute the guy.... other than hopefully some other news agency that is alerted to this concept through Slashdot might just do a little bit more research than this guy.
I'd like to go through the firehose to see if anybody submitted something a little closer to the truth. Sadly, they can't stuff this particular genie back into the bottle.
At least thank you for trying to raise the bar here and know there are others who agree with you.
The original posting is flat-out full of disinformation to the point that if he were any better known would be grounds for libel because of how mis-leading it is. Hopefully some people reading this will go down into the comments to see some of the real facts and learn a little bit more about the company.
Tesla isn't a perfect place and there are problems with the Roadster including a very colorful development history. I'm not really all that happy with how they've essentially shut down their "fan community" on their website (I used to be a regular reader), but then again the company culture changed a bit when Elon Musk kicked Martin Eberhard out. Likely it was for the better as Tesla has been able to grow where previously it was a shipwreck headed to the bottom of the ocean.
Still, when I see people slander Elon Musk and his companies with blatant lies and deliberate misinformation, it does get my dander up and I push back. If you want to attack the guy, attack him for things that are true as you don't need to destroy a guy with lies as he is so arrogant that he made Ironman (as portrayed by Robert Downy Jr.) seem human, on film no less. He is a modern incarnation of D. Delos Harriman, warts and all. I admire the guy after a fashion, but I'm not really sure I'd like my kids to grow up to be like him.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit without government subsidies.
{{Citation needed}}
Seriously, what government subsidies? Are you talking about the loan program Tesla qualified for and is using for developing the Model S? Perhaps you are referring to tax breaks they got for developing the NUMMI plant? (which is a state and local issue, not even related to the federal government). Perhaps you are talking about "low-emission vehicle credits" that apply to all electric vehicles and are not unique to Tesla?
If you are going to quote something like this, at least know what the hell you are talking about in the first place rather than regurgitating something you've heard somewhere else that likely isn't true. Tesla is not, I repeat not getting subsidies, at least in the manner you are talking about. It is also something not unique to Tesla and something even you, yes you could have qualified for assuming you owned an automotive manufacturing plant (and were American.... I guess that is a bit of an assumption here that isn't always valid).
This often repeated lie needs to be exposed for what it is, even if some "mainstream" reporters continue to screw up on the issue as well.
As far as I know, Tesla has yet to turn a profit. The Roadster was a car that stood out and that sold to people who could afford to buy a car just for that. The Model S is nothing special, at its price point, and not particularly distinct looking.
Before Tesla started to dive big into the Model S, they did turn a profit and that in fact was one of the major selling point for the company when they did the IPO. Fortunately, they didn't want to stay a boutique automotive company and had bigger ambitions.
Sadly, the process of bringing a new production vehicle out is a rather expensive and painful process, particular to demonstrate to the various government agencies that your vehicle is "safe for the general public" and to engineer not just the raw design of the vehicle but to also engineer the production facilities to make the vehicle as well. The reason Tesla is posting losses right now is not due to the lack of profit coming from the Roadster, but the fact that they are on a serious expansion phase of their company and tooling up for something much larger.
If once the Model S goes into production and they still can't turn a profit, your remark would be much more justified. As it stands, it is just like a division of one of the major automobile manufacturers who is operating at a theoretical loss while they tool up for their next model. That doesn't come cheap.
So restricting one of the most inefficient and wasteful uses of electricity isn't a bad thing, it saves money and resources and decreases pollution.
I don't know how much pollution it may actually save, and if it really was so wasteful wouldn't you think that you should just let consumers make up their minds on their own rather than trying to have a nanny state make up your mind for you?
People pay for electricity and expect a certain amount of light in order to read and do whatever else it is that they do at home and in the office. If they can find a way to save money by using something more efficient, don't you think they would go that route?
As a matter of fact, I did buy compact florescent lights before the law making them mandatory came out, because they were cheaper and typically lasted longer. More to the point, I think those outlawing the conventional Thomas Edison-style incandescent bulbs were premature on what was an eventuality anyway and should have simply let the process happen on its own. Besides, there are situations and environments where the new fangled bulbs simply don't work.
On top of that, I'm not sure that the trade-off of reduced carbon for increased levels of Mercury in landfills is necessarily a good thing. That has been documented many times here on /. as well as other places, so I don't need to go into more details other than to say the argument about reduced levels of pollution may be overrated. LED lightbulbs show a bit more promise than the compact florescent bulbs, and hopefully other options may become available. Legislating morality didn't have to happen for reduced energy consumption to happen for a given lumen of light.
I'm still curious how patents fit into that, or how Thomas Newcomen or James Watt somehow became wealthy due to patent protection. It was an interesting video and article, and I'd agree that the steam engine was one of the major discoveries of mankind ranking with gunpowder and movable type as major disruptions from what happened in the past.
Are you trying to say that without patent laws such inventions would never have been made or that nobody would have tried to refine those inventions to be more efficient without patents? Is that something advocated in the book, or am I missing something from the article and video clip? I haven't read that book, but it sounds like an interesting read and I do thank you for the link.
It also saved Tesla some money so far as they didn't have to do nearly as extensive of an environmental impact study on the site, and the "cleanup costs" could be done as an ongoing thing rather than having to do it all at once before the next company can use the site. Since Tesla is doing automotive production at the site, it didn't even need to be rezoned, and they were somebody the community is gladly embracing in terms of getting jobs back in that part of the world.
Tesla was looking at building a plant in Los Angeles County (I think, at least So. California) and had even signed a "memorandum of agreement" before the NUMMI plant became available. For Tesla, it became a huge win for them as well even if that other poor town got screwed over in the process. Tesla also broke ground for another production plant in New Mexico that didn't work out ultimately, so in this case it really seemed to work out just right to be working with Toyota.
Tesla is a long way from going out of business
I dunno about that. They received quite a bit of government bailout money - otherwise they'd have probably been out of business already. I hope they do well, and I think they have a decent chance, but they're certainly not "a long way" from going out of business.
They didn't get any of the "government bailout money" at all. There was a loan program cobbled together during the "W" Bush administration and pushed through by the major auto companies that had very low interest rates for electric vehicle production. THAT is the money Tesla Motors got, since they are based in America, using American labor, and selling the vehicles in America they couldn't be disqualified from the program.
It sure wasn't a subsidy and the money does have to be paid back. Furthermore, the money wasn't even targeted at Tesla, but they qualified for it anyway. To me, it is more of a face slap to the other auto makers because they couldn't get vehicles that qualified for the money.
If you have ever received a student loan, you have likely received money from the government under similar terms. Is that a "bailout"?
Paul Allen at least has made a small difference with his money, from the same source that Bill Gates got most of his money from.
While the action or inaction of Bill Gates on the philanthropic level may be questioned (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation not withstanding) there are other people who also have money who have made a difference in this world.
Besides, Elon Musk got his initial seed money from computer software as well (Paypal) and as a matter of fact is investing into Tesla. In fact he was the original major investor into the project.
A new start-up that is selling its CAFE credits to Toyota as a part of the partnership to get things built. It doesn't exist in a vacuum and this start-up is headed by somebody who is getting pretty familiar with Washington DC and its political process.
Tesla may be fine and thriving in that environment, but it still is incredibly hostile to a new start-up company that doesn't have all of those political and business connections.
One nice side-effect of an electric vehicle is that the number of moving parts that are subject to mechanical failure is significantly reduced, and with considerable improvement in terms of reliability and longevity. There is the armature that can have bearings fail and the transmission system, but that is about it. Sealed bearings generally don't need to be re-lubricated except on a very long cycle and then there is the maintenance of the tires themselves. No need to change the oil, and the battery replacement is the only other major expense.
In terms of the expense of buying an electric vehicle, you have to essentially pay for the expenses up front rather than trying to nickle and dime those expenses throughout the lifetime of your vehicle unless you are the type who buys an extended vehicle warranty for every new vehicle purchase, where you sell the vehicle before the coverage runs out.
I don't know how that works for people who may or may not afford the $75k vehicle, but there are other factors to consider than just the raw sticker price on the showroom floor.
I don't think it ever really got put together, and part of that is Tesla's fault, but there was discussion on the Tesla forums about after-market "trailers" that you could buy to be recharging your vehicle's battery with an electric motor while you were driving it. Essentially, it would allow you to stop at a gasoline station and refuel your vehicle with petroleum products (or bio-diesel if you want to be "Earth-friendly") and take those longer trips, but be able to use the same vehicle for the short daily commuter trips and avoid the petroleum altogether.
I sure hope that the Model-S gets a trailer ball plus some sort of plug on the back that can be an electric input device. It would be relatively simple to incorporate yet be able to make those long trips possible that you are talking about. You could even leave such a trailer at a hotel or friend's house if you were traveling for the small commuter-type trips once you arrive at your ultimate destination, or use it for a back-up power supply if you can't find a recharging station.
Essentially this turns the all-electric vehicle into a more conventional hybrid, but with the electric motor doing most of the real work and the gasoline engine is the back-up. The Volt and some of the other hybrid vehicles have some fancy transmission work to switch between the electric and gasoline motors more directly... something that isn't strictly needed.
For some reason the Roadster that Top Gear was driving wasn't charged up before it was being used. You can blame either the Tesla PR guys or Top Gear for that excuse and it unfortunately tainted the whole piece too. Driving a vehicle with an empty tank that uses exotic fuels and then complaining that you don't have the fuel to recharge the thing would have produced similar results.
In terms of "short distances", I'm curious what you consider to be a short distance? It is true that you can't drive the Roadster from New York to Los Angeles on a single charge, but then again you can't drive a car that distance on a single tank of gasoline either. A typical electric automobile only goes about 25-50 miles, and the Roadster got more like about 300.... with ordinary driving. They were targeting about 500 miles and somewhat missed the mark, but that still is by itself a remarkable achievement.
I will agree that the battery recharging issue is a legitimate one, and something that isn't easily solved either. In theory you could recharge a battery for something like the Roadster in about 15 minutes, but you would also need some high voltage connectors that I wouldn't personally want to be close to at the time if you did and you would need a nearly direct connection to a nuclear power plant in order to be able to receive that much power. That is physics, and those who blow smoke claiming some new technology is in the works to make a fast recharge possible don't know what they are talking about. Spreading the recharging times out to several hours makes using a 220 v or 110 v power connector possible, and something a mere mortal can cope with.
In terms of electric vehicles, I'd call the Roadster the first all-electric vehicle that proves the concept is at least practical if you want to build a real production vehicle using that sort of technology. Previous incarnations before Tesla basically were golf carts with incredibly short driving ranges that would have the car die before you were done buying groceries.
Tesla's Roadsters are built on a Lotus chassis. Since Lotus is discontinuing that model, Tesla won't be able to make more Roadsters. It really is that simple.
The Lotus chassis you are referring to was a completely redesigned and rebuilt chassis anyway. Lotus built it, but the design was completely by Tesla and from what I understand owned by Tesla as well in terms of its design. There might have been some agreements that Lotus could only build it, but discontinuing the model by Lotus was not even remotely a factor in this equation. Lotus signed on to help Tesla because they had some surplus manufacturing capacity and wanted to keep their plant busy at off-times in the Elise production facility. There was some retooling that had to happen when switching between the Roadster and the Elise, but that was something Lotus worked on and could cope with.
The Roadster does not use the Elise chassis at all, and if somebody tells you otherwise they are smoking something and greatly confused. The only common elements are that it was made in the same manufacturing plant and that the two chassis were about the same size (roughly).