Tesla just a Tease?

[fitfan]

so yeah i re-read that proven not proven comment - i "read" into it a bit as "not yet proven (like) evo/bb. i guess it could be taken a few way - i will admitto have taken it that way

anyways - i believe tesla's hangups are the reality of going from prototype to production - its a million little gremlins, or as enzo famously said "any one can build a show car"

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

So what is the issue with getting these cars produced? Still the transmission? Is Tesla installing the transmissions as mentioned above?

The latest I've heard is that they are starting about 4 cars per week on the production line. They are deliberately keeping it slow until the v1.5 transmission is ready. They don't want to have to swap out more than about 40 transmissions at most, due to the expense.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by fitfan

so yeah i re-read that proven not proven comment - i "read" into it a bit as "not yet proven (like) evo/bb. i guess it could be taken a few way - i will admitto have taken it that way

anyways - i believe tesla's hangups are the reality of going from prototype to production - its a million little gremlins, or as enzo famously said "any one can build a show car"

agreed.. the article says it all.. eberhard wanted to build an electric elise; a car that would have saved them millions and sold cars. and thats exactly what they should have done: started with an elise that is basically electric outfittedand then move to something more like the current tesla design in increments. All the while they would have been selling cars. The case is easily proven by looking at the way people like us have bought our cars form lotus. We all know that every year lotus is going to make the car better, add more features, etc. Yet that didnt stop me from getting my elise back in 05 and it didnt stop most of us.

Thats the beauty of exotic cars, there are always buyers... but you actually have to build them to sell them.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

The latest I've heard is that they are starting about 4 cars per week on the production line. They are deliberately keeping it slow until the v1.5 transmission is ready. They don't want to have to swap out more than about 40 transmissions at most, due to the expense.

man thats bad.. at 4 cars/week they are done. All I am waiting for is the FBI to bust musk with a suitcase full of cocaine.

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

man thats bad.. at 4 cars/week they are done. All I am waiting for is the FBI to bust musk with a suitcase full of cocaine.

OK, I fail to see how you got from what I wrote to your conclusion.

Are you saying they are lying, that their explanation is bogus? That they really are trying to make more than four cars a week, but for some reason they aren't able to? If so, I'd like to know your source.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

OK, I fail to see how you got from what I wrote to your conclusion.

Are you saying they are lying, that their explanation is bogus? That they really are trying to make more than four cars a week, but for some reason they aren't able to? If so, I'd like to know your source.

I have heard certain things that at least the supplier I talked to was told (assuming that its true since this is all coming secondhand) and while I cant relate exactly what I was told the general feeling is that what the public is being told vs. what the suppliers are hearing are two different things.

But forget that... let go with what we know... They are producing 4 cars/week so thats $400K/week in gross income. Thats expected to continue until Mid-sept (which really means october if we are lucky) so that means that by october they will have delivered 40 cars for a total of $4,000,000. After that they are planning to ramp from 4/week to 25/week (100/month) in a span of 2 months. The only problem is that even the big automakers arent able to do this. supply chain and personell issues usually allow production to increase by 100% per month. but maybe tesla can move faster because they are smaller and can react more quickly so again lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can somehow ramp up 400% in october and 400% again in november. that puts their numbers at about 50 cars for october and 80 for november and then 100 every month afterwards. so by the end of 2008 they will have delivered 270 cars and by april 1st 2009 they will have deilvered 570 cars. Of course they havent even made a dollar yet because they have already pre-sold 600 cars.

So basically no new money is going to be coming in until april of 2009. After that every car they sell brings in $100K.... of course thats gross income.. We know at least that they are confident that they can sell the tesla now for a profit but notice how nobody is talking about what that profit is... Thats because they are probably just breaking even on the car.. maybe making a few thousand dollars on each car.

Thats the real point here.. You work the numbers and they just dont add up; Its like the dot com boom all over again. And this is assuming that everything goes right for them and the transmission works and they can line up everything and meet their goals, which honestly is not something that tesla has been very good at. I like the car and I like the idea of a company that makes a really cool electric car, but the business end of it just doesnt make sense.

[rob13572468]

Some of the figures that I talked about came from the latest update on the blog here:

Tesla Motors - think

Again, perhaps I should clarify: I believe they will get the cars delivered to everyone who paid.. There will likely be issues with the vehicle but thats ok: its a totally new type of car and there will be some things that will inevitably need to be changed or fixed.

The issue is that with their current production goals and revenue model it just doesnt look like they are going to make *any* money. I understand the goal was for the tesla to be the marquee car and the next one would be the money maker but the issue is that they have taken so long to get to delivery that they have lost their technological lead which was the one thing that they really had going for them.

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

After that they are planning to ramp from 4/week to 25/week (100/month) in a span of 2 months. The only problem is that even the big automakers arent able to do this. supply chain and personell issues usually allow production to increase by 100% per month. but maybe tesla can move faster because they are smaller

Remember also that Lotus is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Tesla just have to get the components together (all of the components, not 90% of them) for the gliders in England, and then get the power train together in California.

Originally Posted by rob13572468

so by the end of 2008 they will have delivered 270 cars and by april 1st 2009 they will have deilvered 570 cars. Of course they havent even made a dollar yet because they have already pre-sold 600 cars.

They haven't been paid for all those cars yet. They were pre-paid in full for the first 125 cars (25 founders series, plus 100 signature series). After that the deposit price was much lower.

Also, according to Tesla, they are holding the deposit money in an account which is not to be spent until the cars are delivered. Now, there's no way to prove this. . . It's not in escrow or anything. But I'm just saying, that's what they've told us.

When it comes to money, the more important thing to remember is this: Everything they've spent on the Roadster, and everything they stand to make from it in the near future, is peanuts compared with the dollar amounts involved in the Model S. It's going to be the car that makes or breaks Tesla.

The Roadster is not really a money-making car. It's a PR exercise, and it's an exercise in learning how to make a car, and it's a halo car for the models that will follow. It's not what their business is oriented around, in terms of revenue.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

Remember also that Lotus is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Tesla just have to get the components together (all of the components, not 90% of them) for the gliders in England, and then get the power train together in California..

Thats true... If anyone can help them to get a handle on fixing their production difficulties it would be lotus since they have had decades of experience in scheduling overruns.

Originally Posted by tonybelding

They haven't been paid for all those cars yet. They were pre-paid in full for the first 125 cars (25 founders series, plus 100 signature series). After that the deposit price was much lower.

Also, according to Tesla, they are holding the deposit money in an account which is not to be spent until the cars are delivered. Now, there's no way to prove this. . . It's not in escrow or anything. But I'm just saying, that's what they've told us.

I must have misread that. I was led to believe that all of the 600 cars were paid in full.. I went back and looked again, reading any articles i could find and the truth is that nonody seems to know exactly how much money they took (the amount of the deposits) and how they are holding it.

Originally Posted by tonybelding

When it comes to money, the more important thing to remember is this: Everything they've spent on the Roadster, and everything they stand to make from it in the near future, is peanuts compared with the dollar amounts involved in the Model S. It's going to be the car that makes or breaks Tesla.

The Roadster is not really a money-making car. It's a PR exercise, and it's an exercise in learning how to make a car, and it's a halo car for the models that will follow. It's not what their business is oriented around, in terms of revenue.

You make a good point.. The future of electric cars is going to be in the compact/subcompact everyday driver, not the roadster and I guess the roadster can serve as the starting point to get there than that alone may make it worthwhile. The only thing that worries me are the obvious mistakes (like setting unrealistic deadlines and then missing them.) and it doesnt help build confidence.

Just because they never built a roadster doesnt mean that they couldnt do a bill of materials early on to see if they would even break even. Keep in mind that the luxury car segment is supposed to be the highest profit area for an automaker. If tesla cant make money selling the roadster, how in the hell are they going to make money on the S, an economy car which is the low-profit segment? If you look at all the other automakers they all have electrics planned for production but none of them have committed to getting them to market anytime soon. There is a reason for that and the reason is that they all know that building an electric car that has to run every day and actually work and not break down and be reasonably priced on top of it is going to be a monumentally difficult task and even the big guys do not feel that they can pull it off successfully anytime soon. In the meantime tesla would have us beliveve that with their limited manufacturing, funding and experience that they can somehow do what the others cannot.

Lets hop e that they are up to it.

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

Just because they never built a roadster doesnt mean that they couldnt do a bill of materials early on to see if they would even break even.

My understanding is that Martin Eberhard did an estimate early on, and figured out if they only did the Roadster and if Tesla was only going to be a sports car maker, then they could become profitable very quickly.

There were two things that threw his calculations off. First, they got sidetracked doing stuff that wasn't related to getting the Roadster out the door. They were too quick to pour resources into the White Star/Model S. They also had the whole deal to sell battery packs to Th!nk Nordic. They had too much spending on stuff that wasn't Job One.

The second problem was the delays, particularly the transmission. They spent a lot of money on transmissions that didn't work. They got 80% of the components together to build cars, then couldn't build cars because they couldn't get together the remaining 20% (including a working transmission). They also had a contract with Lotus saying they would start production by a specified date -- so when that didn't happen, Lotus hit them with a $4,000,000 tab. And so it went.

What they've done is: cancelled the Th!nk battery deal, put White Star on hold for a while (it's back on track by now), fired a bunch of people, moved battery, motor and transmission production, and final assembly to California, and put the remaining engineers to work on cost-reducing the Roadster. They went over "every bracket" figuring out where to save a few dollars. Then they increased the sticker price. (If I recall right, the base price was $92,000 originally, and now is $108,000. But I haven't checked those numbers.) After doing all that, they believe they've got the Roadster project back in the black -- and hopefully a few good lessons learned.

Again I have to point out, it's better to learn those lessons on the Roadster than on the Model S, where the volumes and dollar amounts involved will be much higher.

[rob13572468]

looks like with the latest wired article they have had to scale their production estimates back to something a bit more realistic...

Two months ago when they last discussed production they were supposed to be ramping up right now to 25 cars/week but now it looks like they are only now going to be at 10/week. Also the article says they have delivered 27 cars so far which means that they havent even been able to hit the 4/week target so far. (some quick arithmatic puts it at more like 2-3/week).

So maybe they will break 100 cars by the end of 2008.

[SweetDaddyD]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

OK, I fail to see how you got from what I wrote to your conclusion.

Are you saying they are lying, that their explanation is bogus? That they really are trying to make more than four cars a week, but for some reason they aren't able to? If so, I'd like to know your source.

(it was a Delorean reference. you could also insert other name there- Tucker, etc. Politics.)


I for one really do hope they can make it in a very competitive (and sometimes corrupt) market where 540+ American automotive corporations have failed in the last 110 years. The defunct auto manufacturer picture thread...

Lets hope the computer start up non car guys know something (or somebody) that none of the other car guys do about making and selling cars. Perhaps they can apply their business savvy from their other field to this new market.

We certainly do need some new technology and it's great to see somebody trying to make it happen. Perhaps someday it will have a trickle down effect to where it most needed- to be attainable by the common person rather than toy a for rich people and celebrities to "show that they are green". (when they aren't flying in planes or driving their Range Rovers around) Even though at this point and time that probably is the most effective method to bring attention to them and show that electric cars can be a viable option in certain situations. (like how most people use cars 90% of the time- for short commutes).

In the meantime at least there are VW diesels. (and if you live in Europe the 63 MPG diesel Ford Festiva that they won't bring to this country because "they can't make a profit on it")

[SweetDaddyD]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

looks like with the latest wired article they have had to scale their production estimates back to something a bit more realistic...

Two months ago when they last discussed production they were supposed to be ramping up right now to 25 cars/week but now it looks like they are only now going to be at 10/week. Also the article says they have delivered 27 cars so far which means that they havent even been able to hit the 4/week target so far. (some quick arithmatic puts it at more like 2-3/week).

So maybe they will break 100 cars by the end of 2008.

From reading on turn of the century electric cars recently and skimming a few articles on Tesla it looked as if the original production estimates were 800 cars in 2008. Which would of been neat to hit the same number as Baker electric cars did in 1906 when they became the biggest seller of electric vehicles in the world (and in 1907 had 17 models!) and held the title until being overtaken in sales by Detroit Electric in 1913. (who is now being revived by a Chinese company)

I still hold much more faith in Tesla being a major electric car manufacturer than I do in GM keeping the Volt going IF it ever comes out and isn't just on some crappy lease program or in some other way self sabotaged. Remember the EV1? Remember who sold the battery patents to the Chevron/Texaco? Remember who ruined it for Toyota when they were making the electric RAV4 before the Prius do to Chevron/Texaco suing them for $30M for using the patents they had bought and shelved from GM? Yeah, that GM. F- the Volt. And kudos for Tesla for finally developing a product that gets around the oil companies battery patents. May they continue to carry on and innovate in the same manner.

[lotus4fun]

What about Fisker? The Karma

Same invester in the Telsa invested in Fisker Automotive: Environmentally friendly, premium cars featuring plug-in hybrid technology >> News

My friend put some money down.

This also takes gas and has a longer range.

Funny someone mentioned Al Gore and he works at the investors office to help with green tech.
The guy is really trying.

Eric

[SweetDaddyD]

I thought ZAP was putting out an Electric Elise next year? Or was that another one?

ZAP Electric Cars | Green Electric Car | Ride The Future

They don't have it on their site.

[AgentTripleX]

Originally Posted by lotus4fun

What about Fisker? The Karma

Same invester in the Telsa invested in Fisker Automotive: Environmentally friendly, premium cars featuring plug-in hybrid technology >> News

My friend put some money down.

This also takes gas and has a longer range.

Funny someone mentioned Al Gore and he works at the investors office to help with green tech.
The guy is really trying.

Eric

Ya... but the point of Tesla is to get away from oil dependency. If you're still using gas, you're still dependent. My understanding for the lag is a change in the drivetrain supplier. They went with a new one, Borg. Tesla Motors Offers 'Powertrain Upgrade' - News and Analysis by PC Magazine I've been driving one of the cars with 1.5 all weekend and it's quite impressive. Also, when you have parts coming from around the world, you work on other people's schedules.

With the sedan, they will be announcing shortly what location they have decided to set up shop, they will have a factory where all assembly takes place, versus flying gliders overseas. The sedan will also be fully electric and my understanding is have options for multiple ranges, ie. battery sizes. They are also doing all of the design in house and I hear it's pretty sharp looking.

Other manufacturers are also using Tesla's technology in their cars, but you will have to wait and see what's in store.

BTW - orange is growing on me. I just have to set the cruise control to not speed too fast.

[kverges]

I love the California oil dependency argument. Where do you think most electric power comes from? Oil, natural gas, coal I am pretty sure. Of course Cali government refuses to let those plants be built there and then squeals when interstate electric companies gouge them for their electric needs.

I am all for using less natural resources, but has anyone actually calculated the true carbon footprint of an eleactric car considering the fuel needed to produce the electricity, transmission, conversion and efficiency losses? I have to believe the Tesla is worse than the Elise.

And don'ttell me you are buying only "green" electricity to charrge your Tesla. Nice idea, but unless everyone can do it for their electric needs, you are only shifting to others the carbon-fired electricity usage.

Electric vehicles make all kinds of sense if there is a non-carbon infrastructure to charge them, and that to me seems at least equally if not more important than building an electric sports car. I do not feel sorry at all for those willing to fork over $100K for the promise of a car in the future. That may have been forward thinking, but it was incredibly risky and should have been undertaken only by those willing and able to risk the whoe thing.

[smicker]

Originally Posted by kverges

I am all for using less natural resources, but has anyone actually calculated the true carbon footprint of an eleactric car considering the fuel needed to produce the electricity, transmission, conversion and efficiency losses? I have to believe the Tesla is worse than the Elise.

Tesla Motors - well-to-wheel
Tesla Motors - environmental benefits

[knucklehead]

Just saw one at my local foosball bar. It was owned by an investor. When he left for the night the car took off like a bat out of hell, but without any noise. Very stealthy for zipping around town and not grabbing the attention of the PoPo.

[kverges]

The Tesla efficiency calculations actually are impressive - I take back what I said, but I do wonder how they got the 110 watt-hours per kilometer figure. It is slated as having a 200 kw motor, so if it can roll along at 100 km/hr and use just 10% of that capacity, then it would use 20 kw-hours of energy to travel 100 km, or 200 watt-hours per km. So the motor must be able to run at about 5% of rated capacity to get the quoted 110 watt-hours per km figure. I remain skeptical that in the real world a driver would, on average, call upon only 5% of the power. If you go to average of 10% power or more, I suspect the Tesla does not exceed gasoline power. I woudl love to see real world results.