Tesla just a Tease?

[goldengatehornet]

Tesla is going to get California taxpayers' money for the production of it's next car. And they're planning to go public and sell stock in less than 6 months. But, they've only delivered FOUR cars to date, and someone else (Lotus) builds it for them. These guys have never manufactured a car in their lives. Would you buy stock from these guys?

[JLSELISE]

Although they know little about making cars, they seem to have demonstrated the ability to generate $$ .

[Tracktimeplz]

I dunno, but if I could afford the $2200 dollar payment id get the Tesla Roadster myself.

Instant torque?

Yes plz

[Jon J]

Originally Posted by goldengatehornet

These guys have never manufactured a car in their lives. Would you buy stock from these guys?

Would you buy stock in Nike? They don't actually make anything themselves. Like Tesla, they only invovled with design and marketing of their products.

[SuperVixen]

Delegating can sometimes be the best way to be successful. If somebody else can do it better than you, then why not hire them to do so?

[Gizmo3000]

Originally Posted by goldengatehornet

But, they've only delivered FOUR cars to date,

I'm not sure how many are in actual customers hands

But I've driven by their dealership on Santa Monica Blvd a few times, and seen at least two or three of them.
- and that's just here in LA, not in the Bay Area where I'm pretty sure there's more.

with gas prices climbing I'm sure there'll be more and more of a market for electric vehicles.
But I think I'd rather give them my money than GM - who have no interest in making electric cars it seems!

[apk919]

You've stumbled upon Al Gore's "How To Scare The Public For Fun And Profit" techniques for financial success!

Step 1: Make a scary movie about how we're all going to suffer/starve/die as a result of "Global Warming" in the next xx years...

Step 2: Convince Washington that they absolutely must subsidize alternative energy...

Step 3: Create (or join) a hedge fund that buys "alternative energy" startups that qualify for government subsidies...

Step 4: IPO as many of the startups for huge profit to credulous green investors...

[smoseley]

apk, do you contend that resultant corruption makes the initial claim invalid?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by smoseley

apk, do you contend that resultant corruption makes the initial claim invalid?

No, global temperatures have been increasing until very recently. The last few years have not followed the previous trend. The anthropogenic contribution to global warming is still a theory, not properly documented as in the manner of evolution, or the big bang. Possible, but not yet proven.

I'm just pointing out the opportunism and hypocrisy.

[flav1]

Originally Posted by SuperVixen

Delegating can sometimes be the best way to be successful. If somebody else can do it better than you, then why not hire them to do so?

Prior to buying my Lotus from Sorinne I visited the Tesla factory and was not impressed.
15 months waiting time is excessive to ultimately receive a product with a monsterous battery pack and a clumsy recharging apparatus requiring an electrician to install in your garage.
Tesla's competition will come up with something more streamline leaving original Tesla owners wishing they had thought twice before making the commitment.
flav1

[FLuXeXigeS]

well its like gambling ... if you buy stocks when they go public, it will be relatively cheap, BUT if you wait til they prove themselves to be strong then stocks will sky rocket, OR if they dont last like edsel, studebaker and tucker ... then you fail

id rather invest in raw land, longer term lesser risk

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by goldengatehornet

Tesla is going to get California taxpayers' money for the production of it's next car. And they're planning to go public and sell stock in less than 6 months. But, they've only delivered FOUR cars to date, and someone else (Lotus) builds it for them. These guys have never manufactured a car in their lives. Would you buy stock from these guys?

This is all part of that 'hype' aspect that lets people conveniently ignore the blaring facts, particularly when those facts point to a company that is heading for a delorean repeat.

I had heard essentially that they are still only producing one car a week (remember the 1 car/week and ramping up to 40/week thing from back in january). That means that to date they should have produced TEN cars. If they only have 4 out there then its far worse than what i have heard. The problem comes when youy just start adding the numbers.. At 1 car/week the company with its reported size and employees is hemmoraging money and I believe the purported number is 10/week just to break even at this point. In the mean time they are simply eating away the venture capital.


I talked to someone who supplies parts to tesla and what I heard does not sound very good for the company. Lets just say I would be very interested to hear of anyone who has a tesla and what sort of issues the car has had.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by SuperVixen

Delegating can sometimes be the best way to be successful. If somebody else can do it better than you, then why not hire them to do so?

Thats true.. I am far more confident knowing that Lotus is building the majority of the vehicle. Lotus has proven that they can build a vehicle reliabily and even on time so there is no reason to think badly of Tesla for subcontracting out that portion.

On the other hand, perhaps is would have been better for Tesla to have Lotus build/install the drivetrain as well since I hear they are *still* having issues...

[gjsmith66]

Kinda reminds you of Tucker. It is going to be a real shame if they can't actually get some cars into production. The car certainly had a lot of promise, but seems to be snake-bit...

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by apk919

No, global temperatures have been increasing until very recently. The last few years have not followed the previous trend. The anthropogenic contribution to global warming is still a theory, not properly documented as in the manner of evolution, or the big bang. Possible, but not yet proven.

I'm just pointing out the opportunism and hypocrisy.

uumm.... since when was evolution (macro) or the big bang proven?!?? thoose are pretty thin popular theories currently subscribed to.... there iszero proof - just an compilation of convienent demonstrations that support the theory - but neither can with stand crticism... so they are theories - not proven.

[Bavarian Motorist]

There was one spotted here in Greenwich, CT with CA plates Supposedly driven by Jamie Pressly..

[Overlander23]

I, for one, would buy an electric car regardless of global warming or environmental issues. I think the technology and the potential driving dynamics, packaging considerations, etc... are all fascinating and interesting. It's the motive force of the future, IMO... regardless of where the electricity comes from.

I'm a little disappointed whenever a pseudo-political environmental issue argument is used to prop up or knock down a technology that, at it's heart, has nothing to do with it. I realize that the politicians have held up electric cars and alternative fuels as primarily environmental issues, but come on... Who doesn't want an electric car option on the basis of "cool new gadget"?

Regardless, the issue of global warming is only one part of the energy debate... Depending on what your priorities are, the future of worldwide energy consumption going up because of emerging markets demanding more fuel in turn causing oil to become very expensive is actually more immediately and tangibly worrying. The environment has nothing to do with expensive energy.

So cry all you like about oil this, oil that. It's affecting the environment! No it's not, it's all non-proven, theoretical poppycock! Whatever... Neither viewpoint stops our energy future, on oil, being extremely expensive.

I'm all for alternative technologies taking the place of oil for environmental reasons. But, more than anything else it will alleviate our dependence on a very expensive future.

If "oil companies" were smart, they'd be taking all their windfall profits and use the money to develop alternative energy technologies so that their own future is insured as "energy companies".

To the issue at hand... California taxpayer's money to fund the next Tesla car? I'm not specifically thrilled with that idea. But I'm not thrilled with a lot of things the gov't chooses to spend money on. I'm going to cry over that specific puddle of spilt milk. If there was a referendum on it, I would probably not vote for it. But to be fair, I have no idea what the actual gov't funding plan is for this venture.

Originally Posted by apk919

No, global temperatures have been increasing until very recently. The last few years have not followed the previous trend. The anthropogenic contribution to global warming is still a theory, not properly documented as in the manner of evolution, or the big bang. Possible, but not yet proven.

I'm just pointing out the opportunism and hypocrisy.

[ZAMMY1]

fitfan, re-read #9 post.
he says it wasn't proven...
sam

[thruxton]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

There was one spotted here in Greenwich, CT with CA plates Supposedly driven by Jamie Pressly..

[Elisium]

According to this Fortune magazine article, seven Teslas are on the road.

All belong to investors or employees. No movie stars.

Link: Tesla's wild ride - Jul. 9, 2008

Interesting reading, but I would not be in any hurry to invest.