Tesla gets government loan assistantance to the tune of $465 million.

[mopho]

Originally Posted by SweetDaddyD

Agreed.

Hopefully Fisker can make it on their own. They do have the better product.

I wouldn't count on it, from what I hear from industry people the Fisker is an even bigger piece of "vaporware" than the Model S Tesla

[Cthulhu]

I was just thinking... the government SHOULD pump a load of money into Tesla. The more it goes noticed, the greater the competition. Even if you think electric is a terrible way to go (it may be), the other alternative for zero emissions is hydrogen. Pour money into zero emission car companies and watch them duke it out and make amazing advances.

Diesel/Bio-diesel/Natural gas is a cop-out, still outputting CO2 when we should be sequestering it, from a geologist's point of view. Although, until things get more asymptotic, there really isn't much to see on a human timescale. And geologists like rocks better than baby polar bears... oh well.

Oh, and I have zero emission Fisker Scissors in my desk drawer, they're pretty good except I expect a recall. I reached in there and almost cut my fingertip off! They're too sharp!

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Lotus Fury

I agree that R&D needs to be done. The sticky wicket is that I would prefer that the money go to a company that I would trust to do the work. To me, Telsa appears more marketing than manufacturing. This loan doesn't make sense. Let's say give a long time battery company half the loan to develop better batteries. Or a long time electric motor company money to develop better electric motors. It's better investment. Why? Because all Tesla's going to do is go to the other companies and give them the cash to do the work and charge "management fees" to us taxpayers.

This.

[DarkLotus]

So many acerbic responses in this thread.

I am surprised no one has tried to correlate the year of the Model S rollout with the Mayan Calendar long cycle end year.

[Overlander23]

Originally Posted by SweetDaddyD

It's supposed to be a sports car. They advertise it as a sports car always followed by what the 0-60 times are. The 60 mile range came from top gears test on the track when driven like the sports car it is advertised as.

The Ford GT did 4mpg on Top Gear's test track. It has a fuel capacity of 17.5 US gallons giving it a theoretical range under such conditions of... 70 miles.... Oh, and it costs more than $100,000.

My point, though, is that this is example is pretty much irrelevant.

If 500 people want to buy something like the Tesla Roadster... so be it. If those 500 people want a similar vehicle not sold by Tesla who do they go with? Hmmm...

The Tesla Roadster has the capability of delivering close to 250 miles per charge which would be an equivalent (in today's economy) of 100+ mpg. The Ford GT will never be able to deliver that, driven like a Granny or otherwise. A $10,000-25,000 economy car can't even do that.

But even that's irrelevant. Don't buy a sports car if you're concerned about high MPG figures. And don't by a vehicle that gets high MPG if you're concerned about sportiness.

The Roadster seems to get attacked from all sides. It's not sporty enough. It's too expensive. It's not frugal enough. It's not a magic car! It's not a magic bullet. It doesn't do it all! I don't care what the marketing people say. If you damn a product because of its marketing, so be it. But the product shouldn't be a reflection of its marketing.

There are plenty of $100,000+ sports cars from boutique manufacturers out there that aren't "worth the money". But that's not why they are sold and why people buy them.

Comparing the "worth" of the Roadster against a Lotus doesn't even make much sense considering the Elise/Exige are price/performance bargains... until you consider a modified EVO or Miata or something. It's all relative.

If people don't like what Tesla does, they're welcome to start their own high performance EV company. Good luck with that... I'm not going to damn a company because it's mouthed by a d!ckh3@d. There are plenty of major, and good, companies that fall under that category.

It remains to be seen how Tesla does... or what it does... for the industry in general. I hear people lamenting the dot.com era even though some really good ideas came out of it. Cuz certainly it makes sense to build a car company like everyone else in the world.

Wasn't it Gordon Murray who wanted to design and offer engineering advice to build cars, but sub the work out to other companies? What does he know? I mean that facetiously and seriously. He may be on to something, but I don't know. After all, he hasn't done it yet.

If Tesla fails to repay the loans, complain away. Until then, if the gov't is so eager to print money and give it away... why aren't we lot taking advantage?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Overlander23

If Tesla fails to repay the loans, complain away. Until then, if the gov't is so eager to print money and give it away... why aren't we lot taking advantage?

[Overlander23]

Originally Posted by apk919

What happened to capitalism, the free market, and competition?

Nothing... It's alive... apparently not doing as well as it was. There are these entities called banks. And they thought that doing business with a bunch of dumb-asses was a good idea... which pretty much makes them dumb-asses. And then, what happened... I'll let you know when its over.

Any unbalanced system will drive itself into a wall over and over. I'm not for a complete lack of gov't intervention... or even the opposite. I think a healthy balance can exist. I'm all for lessening the blows.

As far as I am able to witness, capitalism, the free market, and competition still exist.

Were you shocked by my comments because you don't think Tesla will pay back the loans? Or the bit about the gov't printing money we should all be taking advantage of? Pump it all back into the economy! Isn't that the point? Is the gov't even printing money?!? Or is that just what we like the say when we don't know where these "magical" loans come from?

[mopho]

Originally Posted by SweetDaddyD

It's supposed to be a sports car. They advertise it as a sports car always followed by what the 0-60 times are. The 60 mile range came from top gears test on the track when driven like the sports car it is advertised as. If I drove up to the mountains to drive the car like I do my Elise- I would not be making it home. If I drove it like Grandma on an EPA test cycle (I've personally driven EPA test cycles on chassis dynos- and it isn't like how you are going to drive your sports car) I still would not be making it home from the mountains (a 30-40 minute drive away- but spending some time in them even driving along at 45 mph to get any kind of range the hills are still gonna put a hurtin to the range)

I have personally driven a Tesla Roadster up into the canyon roads here with two people in it, and drove the wheels off it. We did an 80 mile trip in it and only used just over 1/3 of the charge.


Top Gear is an entertainment show and they exaggerate for the sake of entertainment, it's a bit foolish to take everything they say on that show as fact.

The car is not meant to be a track car, nor is it supposed to be as hardcore as an Elise, as a matter of fact, Tesla surveyed its potential clients in the beginning and discovered that they didn't want a car that is just an Electric Lotus (hence probably why they distance themselves from Lotus). The car is intentionally softer and less focused than the Lotus, so comparing it to the Elise is just silly. Just because it doesn't do well on a track or is hardcore like a Lotus, doesn't mean it is not a sports car.


Besides, most people are just using it as a sporty car to run about in, or to go to clubs and such, no different than most of the Porsche's Ferrari's and Lambo's I see driving around here

[ocelotspot]

Wow! You guys have been busy! Lots of great viewpoints. I too, wonder where our country will be heading? I am working on my version at this very moment.

If you don't already know... check this out: Better Place
The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

[smicker]

Originally Posted by mopho

I have personally driven a Tesla Roadster up into the canyon roads here with two people in it, and drove the wheels off it. We did an 80 mile trip in it and only used just over 1/3 of the charge.

Top Gear is an entertainment show and they exaggerate for the sake of entertainment, it's a bit foolish to take everything they say on that show as fact.

My experience as well. I drive the crap out of it, including uphill, and get 150 miles.

[jimmyhoffa]

Originally Posted by Illumiloti

A good looking $49,000 four door sedan (Which I drove in last week) is an "affordable alternative".

I hope you are joking.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Overlander23

If Tesla fails to repay the loans, complain away. Until then, if the gov't is so eager to print money and give it away... why aren't we lot taking advantage?

Economics 101.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Overlander23

If Tesla fails to repay the loans, complain away. Until then, if the gov't is so eager to print money and give it away... why aren't we lot taking advantage?

Originally Posted by apk919

Originally Posted by Overlander23

Nothing... It's alive... apparently not doing as well as it was...

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Economics 101.

Thanks for sparing me the trouble...

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by apk919

Thanks for sparing me the trouble...

I'm always here to help.

[Overlander23]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

I'm always here to help.

Indeed... Please help me understand what your position is, then. I understand you don't like/trust Tesla. Fair enough. But from a previous post I get the impression you don't have a problem with gov't loans to EV makers. So where is the Economics 101?

I'll admit that I don't like the concept of mandating MPG increases driving the tech... I'm much more in favor of a floating fuel tax that has the effect of stabilizing prices. If that has the effect of dissuading the public from buying gas hogs and increasing the likelihood of private investment in alternative fueling, all the better. But "tax" seems to be a bad word.

Originally Posted by Cardinal

I'm not lost at all; re-read the title of the thread. This thread is not about electric vehicles in general, but rather Tesla specifically. I cannot understand why the government would give $465M to any company with a scam artist like Elon Musk at the helm. The whole thing has been a house of cards form the start. There is plenty of information out there on the company.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Overlander23

Indeed... Please help me understand what your position is, then. I understand you don't like/trust Tesla. Fair enough. But from a previous post I get the impression you don't have a problem with gov't loans to EV makers. So where is the Economics 101?

I'll admit that I don't like the concept of mandating MPG increases driving the tech... I'm much more in favor of a floating fuel tax that has the effect of stabilizing prices. If that has the effect of dissuading the public from buying gas hogs and increasing the likelihood of private investment in alternative fueling, all the better. But "tax" seems to be a bad word.

Economics 101 concerns taking advantage of the gov't printing money. It doesn't do anyone any good. Look at pre-WW2 Germany.

I think that coming up with better sources of electricity would be a better use of $465m, if the alternative was giving it to Tesla. I'm not on the CO2 enviro-doom chicken little bandwagon, but rather I'm sick of relying on mideast oil. I believe we will live to see it run out.

[Overlander23]

Let's just take a second and be pedantic. The government is not currently actually printing money. It's not creating currency. It *is* creating debt. It's an important distinction because the two are different. As long as someone is buying the debt and thinks that the "investment" is sound, then there should be no problem. The long term ramifications of all this debt on the world market... that's another topic.

Arguably, the loan on topic, to Tesla, doesn't have anything to do with economic stimulus relating to our current predicament. In other words, these loans would have been available even if the economy was doing OK (if Tesla needed them.) This about policies relating to alternate fuels, call it "green", call it oil independence, call it the future... whatever.

I'm also in agreement with you that I would rather see the funds for such purposes go to a different sort of program. I illustrated that in my previous post. But my point in this post is to delineate the concepts of a gov't loan to Tesla vs the gov't printing money and giving it to Tesla. The two are very different.

My call to, take advantage of the free money being "printed by the gov't" was partially in jest for two reasons. One, they're not printing money... and two, the real point was, anyone in a position to take advantage of similar gov't programs would be doing so rather than complaining about it. Tesla seems to be in that position.

I still can't buy a similar vehicle to anything Tesla offers for any price. That's worth something to at least 500 people. If the figures are correct, and the Sedan comes in at an effective $35,000, it will certainly be attractive to a larger audience, and it will be pretty amazing. The average price of a new car these days is about $28,000. Do I think they can do it? I have a healthy skepticism. But I've heard of Tesla's destruction via implosion so often now. They have 500 Roadsters delivered when naysayers claimed it would never happen. That's not to say it implosion couldn't still happen, but at least they've got product on the floor.

The fact is, we need cars like this on the market to stimulate competition. The more there are, the cheaper it gets.

At the end of the day... oil prices will rise, consumers will flock to more fuel efficient offerings and the technology will either be there or it won't. I, for one, hope it will.

What would you say about a company like Aptera?

Now maybe I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that a loan means never having to pay it back given what's happened over the past couple of years... That's terribly sad...

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Economics 101 concerns taking advantage of the gov't printing money. It doesn't do anyone any good. Look at pre-WW2 Germany.

I think that coming up with better sources of electricity would be a better use of $465m, if the alternative was giving it to Tesla. I'm not on the CO2 enviro-doom chicken little bandwagon, but rather I'm sick of relying on mideast oil. I believe we will live to see it run out.

[Lotus Fury]

Originally Posted by Overlander23

Let's just take a second and be pedantic. The government is not currently actually printing money. It's not creating currency. It *is* creating debt. It's an important distinction because the two are different. As long as someone is buying the debt and thinks that the "investment" is sound, then there should be no problem. The long term ramifications of all this debt on the world market... that's another topic.

Excellent point, that's something people don't quite understand. If we were printing money without creating the debt then we would be directly diluting the value of our currency - aka inflation. The increased money money supply may cause asset bubbles - or inflation in select markets - but not significant general inflation.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Lotus Fury

Excellent point, that's something people don't quite understand. If we were printing money without creating the debt then we would be directly diluting the value of our currency - aka inflation. The increased money money supply may cause asset bubbles - or inflation in select markets - but not significant general inflation.

Yes, but if they're not printing money, that means they must increase taxes now to pay for the spending, or borrow money that must be paid back through increased taxes later. Either way, they're spending taxpayer's money.

BTW, when the Fed buys securities in the open market, it <b>is</b> printing money... it simply takes delivery of the securities and credits the seller's account, without debiting any government account. That <b>is</b> inflationary (since it simply increases the amount of dollars in the economy), and it has been done recently.

[lotusforsale]

Why grant this unsecured loan...which has a VERY long shot of being repaid at any level, to an unproven entity?

Why not treat this money as venture capital? Why not solicit proposals, large and small, from innovators to create practical technology for a fossil fuel-independent car?

Why does our government HAVE to rush this and just hand this money to an entity that has in no way demonstrated either the technological ability or business savvy to pull this off?

Didn't our government learn anything from past examples, such as Haliburton, in simply forking over ungodly sums of taxpayer money to an entity perceived to be the only game in town?

For crying out loud: HAD to have stimulus package RIGHT NOW. HAD to bail out the automakers RIGHT NOW. HAD to bail out banks RIGHT NOW. HAVE to get healthcare reform RIGHT NOW. Today, the breaking news is that the current administration is insisting on immigration reform RIGHT NOW.

We're going down a path that is new territory, and from which, if things collapse, there will be no return.

Current leadership will either be recognized in the future as a visionary, transformational leader OR the steward of the total collapse of our society and culture.