backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by Philippine Man.. on Apr 1 at 6:52 PM

The company is also adding new Tesla Stores and Superchargers around the U.S.

Tesla Motors is greeting the new spring season with plenty of Model S-related news, including its achievement of more than 500 deliveries per week

"Over the past few months it’s been fun to watch the company achieve new milestones," said George Blankenship, VP of Worldwide Sales and Ownership Experience at Tesla. "First it was the factory ramping up to full production in December. During the past three weeks we have averaged more than 500 Model S deliveries per week, and it looks like we’ll be setting another record this week.

"With all these new cars on the road, it’s fun to watch as Model S racks up the miles. Model S drivers have traveled more than 12 million miles since deliveries first began. That’s a lot of CO2 emissions saved! And how are things going in California? Well, today we registered our 3,000th Model S in the Golden State. That pretty much says it all!"


 
Blankenship's post on Tesla's blog also mentioned a few other tidbits, such as the opening of new Tesla Stores in the Los Angeles area and Miami (as well as more service centers across North America and Europe throughout 2013); the addition of more Superchargers around the U.S. in places like the Pacific Northwest, Illinois, Texas, Florida, the Northeast and California, and the fact that the Model S is now officially a World Car.

Tesla has had some rough patches lately, such as issues with a journalist from The New York Times, who took a test drive this winter and reported a horrific venture. More specifically, he said that the Model S didn't have the range Tesla said it did, and ended up on a flatbed truck at the end of the trip. Musk and the NYT journalist (John Broder) ended up feuding over the matter.

But Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk is turning that luck around with predictions of being profitable in the first quarter and by vowing to pay off its $465 million government loan within five years. 

However, one recent hiccup is a delay to production of the Model X
Tesla had hoped to begin production of the vehicle this year, but those plans have been put off until late 2014 (meaning deliveries will likely be pushed to 2015). 

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Now do it for cheaper
By toyotabedzrock on 3/22/2013 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
If all the little nice features like the door handles and massive touch screen and leather and nice stereo get stripped could he get the price down to 40-50k.




RE: Now do it for cheaper
By lennylim on 3/22/2013 6:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that approach is that many people will balk at paying, say, $45k for an electric car with no bells and whistle. Make it a luxury car, on the other hand, and you're no longer talking about value for money.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Reclaimer77 on 3/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Now do it for cheaper
By captainBOB on 3/22/2013 8:36:48 PM , Rating: 5
Tesla's strategy is to first cater to the high income because they are far more willing to pay for new tech than average joe would.

Tesla does have plans to release a car for the masses later on. Right now going straight into low margin car sales would kill them.

Also the LEAF is doing terribly, far from kicking the Model S in the rear, considering the leaf has a range of ~76 miles to the Model S's 250+ miles.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Reclaimer77 on 3/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Now do it for cheaper
By 1prophet on 3/23/2013 8:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yet the same type of mentality of "I don't want to pay for it" somehow rationalizes the subsidies of other industries like oil, agriculture, big bankers etc.,

while calling Americans overpaid and using cheap Chinese goods to eliminate their jobs, from a country that subsidizes its industry openly.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Now do it for cheaper
By captainBOB on 3/24/2013 11:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
Even in sales as well, its being outsold by the Chevy Volt and Prius plug-in.

http://wot.motortrend.com/dethroned-chevrolet-volt...

They may be selling more units per year than Tesla, but the margins are much, much lower.

Here's a useful guide in your journey to -100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Nutzo on 3/25/2013 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, up to 250 miles on a charge. While that would cover most my driving, you still have the long charging time (unless you install an expensive 240 volt charger at you house)

I'd rather buy a hybrid like the Camry with a 620+ mile range for 1/2 the price. With the price savings I'd have enough money to by gas for over 250K miles.


By Philippine Mango on 4/1/2013 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
This car is obviously not about being the most economical. If you want the most economical, a Prius is where it's at...


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Mint on 3/23/2013 2:06:29 PM , Rating: 1
Cars last for 15+ years and go through 3+ owners. I bought a BMW for $9k as a student because a well off guy paid $45k for it new.

Same thing with the Model S. One day some family will buy a $20k used Model S and be saving another $2k/year in fuel costs over a comparable vehicle. If nobody bought EVs 5 years earlier, they wouldn't have that option.

When the gov't can borrow money near zero interest and save society costs down the road much greater than that, it would be stupid not to do so.

BTW, the Model S starts at $53k after credit. It's not just the 1% who are buying them.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Dorkyman on 3/23/2013 2:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
I see your points but you need to take off the blinders. Objective studies have shown that the NET environmental costs are about the same; it's just that they are front-loaded in the manufacture of the car battery and in the creation of the electricity at the remote power plant.

But then, hey, most Californians (and I was once one) buy stuff mostly on cool factor, not on any rigorously-reasoned rationale. And right now Tesla is cool.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Mint on 3/23/2013 7:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
There's no such thing as an objective study with environmental cost, because you're forced to compare apples to oranges. Gasoline is 2-3x worse from a CO2 perspective, maybe 100x worse regarding urban pollution.

Some studies will assume new electricity generation to charge EVs will have the same mix as current power, others will rightfully consider that the marginally increased consumption will come entirely from wind and natural gas.

On top of that, you have energy security and trade deficit considerations, where EVs are a huge win in today's demand limited global market.

Cool factor only takes you so far. There are limits to how high BMW and Mercedes can jack up prices for the badge, for example.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2013 7:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
It's a lot harder to clean contaminated soil than C02 air pollution. Nature has a way of dealing, quite effectively, with C02. It's this new thing called trees and plants....

As far as I know there's no plants that can magically un-fu#k toxic waste in the soil and drinking water.

quote:
On top of that, you have energy security and trade deficit considerations, where EVs are a huge win in today's demand limited global market.


They aren't a "win" for ANYONE until they actually become practical enough to replace ICE vehicles. How many times do I need to beat this fact into your skull?


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Mint on 3/24/2013 2:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a lot harder to clean contaminated soil than C02 air pollution.
If you paid attention, you'd see that I was implying CO2 is the least meaningful way of measuring pollution. Urban air pollution consists of particulates, NOx, organics/hydrocarbons, etc.

And where is the contaminated soil coming from? That's the same BS argument that nuclear opponents use. It infinitely easier to contain solid waste - whether nuclear or industrial - than air pollution. Lithium ion batteries can be almost entirely recycled, too. These aren't lead-acid batteries.

quote:
They aren't a "win" for ANYONE until they actually become practical enough to replace ICE vehicles.
Not for ANYONE? Then why is Tesla selling 500 per week?

And what's wrong with PHEV? Once the cost premium over a regular hybrid hits expected values (as with the Ford C-Max), payback becomes only a few years. Ford is projecting that 30% of their electrified vehicle sales will be plugins.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By M'n'M on 3/23/2013 3:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cars last for 15+ years and go through 3+ owners. I bought a BMW for $9k as a student because a well off guy paid $45k for it new

The used car marketplace will be a bit different for pure EVs. At some point in it's lifetime the owner will be looking at a new battery and the cost for that won't be cheap. Until that cost and timing are better known (not just predicted) I suspect most people are going to be pretty cautious and so the residual value of a 10 year old Tesla is going to be low. The 3'rd buyer may get one cheap but may face that cost. I wonder if that will cause more S owners to hang onto their cars for longer, getting rid of them only when the battery shows degradation ?

Any secondary owner will be living with reduced range. How reduced is an open question and will depend on the charging and driving habits of the prior owners. It'll be interesting to see if Tesla will make battery state info known to prospective secondhand buyers. Battery degradation in a hybrid, like a Prius, isn't as big a deal. A 20-30% loss may not even be noticable. A 20-30% loss in range for a pure EV may make a marginally acceptable car become unacceptable.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Mint on 3/23/2013 6:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think a new battery will be needed for a long time with the Model S. 15% loss after 5000 cycles can be achieved today:
http://info.a123systems.com/blog/bid/151833/Cycle-...
Even if Tesla's batteries only go 2000 cycles before 20% degradation, we're talking about 250,000-500,000 miles, which is beyond the average lifetime of an average gas vehicle.

The other thing about EVs is that once you replace the battery, its lifetime goes beyond a gas car because electric motors are extremely reliable.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By M'n'M on 3/23/2013 10:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the Tesla forums, Tesla is saying a 30% loss in 10 years although they hope it's only 15% in that same time. If you want to pony up 12K$ (for the big battery) when you purchase the car, they'll replace that battery when it's time. I don't know if that deal transfers with the car.


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By Mint on 3/24/2013 3:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, there's a lot of uncertainty about real world battery cycle life, which is why it takes time for consumers to trust the technology and lab tests. That's also why government assistance can shave years off the time to get over this chicken and egg hurdle.

Thanks for directing me to those forums. I came upon this paper:
http://ma.ecsdl.org/content/MA2011-02/17/1282.full...
That suggests 15% degradation after 3000 cycles for the same Panasonic batteries that Tesla is using even under unfavorable conditions.

That 12k figure suggests that Tesla believes that there's a lot of utility left in a 10 year old battery and prices will drop quite substantially by then as well.


By 2ndGreenRevolution.com on 3/27/2013 11:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla's mission has always been to ramp up production and pass (some) cost savings to customers to broaden the appeal. Ultimately, I believe the company is shooting for a pricepoint of mid $30k to compete with compact luxury cars (3 series, A4, C class, etc)


RE: Now do it for cheaper
By highlander2107 on 3/23/2013 5:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
You stupid if you think a touch screen and fancy door handles are worth 30k


Ignorant statement
By Ammohunt on 3/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Ignorant statement
By othercents on 3/22/2013 12:52:36 PM , Rating: 1
However, California doesn't produce much electricity from Coal or other high CO2 emitting plants. Most of their plants are either natural gas, thermal, solar, wind, etc. The big issue will be if you can keep the car charged when there are rolling blackouts due to not having enough electricity.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Spuke on 3/22/2013 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 1
The big generators in CA are Natural Gas (45%), Nuclear, and Hydro. Next up on a MUCH lesser scale is Geothermal, Wind and Biomass. Generation from Coal is actually less than Wind here.


RE: Ignorant statement
By DockScience on 3/22/2013 2:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
California IMPORTS a great deal of coal fired electricity, making it the 4th largest source after nuclear.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Spuke on 3/22/2013 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
Total for Coal is just over 8% while nuclear is over 15%. Hydro, Nat Gas and Nuclear are still the top dogs.


RE: Ignorant statement
By lagomorpha on 3/23/2013 9:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
With all that nuclear it's a good thing California isn't known for earthquakes.

Too soon?


RE: Ignorant statement
By daboom06 on 3/22/2013 2:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
there's a reason power plants dont run on ICE engines. by simply having their power produced in centralized and optimized facilities means less CO_{2} produced per mile driven.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Rukkian on 3/22/2013 2:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
You can't facts get in the way of an old minded argument.


RE: Ignorant statement
By lagomorpha on 3/23/2013 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be pedantic, there ARE power plants that use reciprocating ICE engines (some with poppet valves the diameter of the pistons in a train engine :O) but they aren't responsible for a huge portion of power generation.


RE: Ignorant statement
By bsd228 on 3/22/2013 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
> last time i checked power plants emit CO2!

Sure, but that sort of simplistic argument has two failings:

1) the power plant is a far more efficient at producing energy from the same fossil fuel. A car engine is only 25-30% efficient, though the diesel motor could get as high as 50%. But a power plant can get as high as 80%.

2) the electric car doesn't need to idle, and unlike gas engines, is fully effective at 0 rpm, whereas the gas engine becomes most efficient at normal load. Particularly in urban driving, this is a considerable waste factor that isn't present for the power plant.

The charging of power at night also is beneficial in allowing utilities to continue running their plants at full power where they are most efficient. The classic peak in day and lull at night every day requires spin up/downs. Smart charging systems that can talk to the utilities and charge the car when most efficient will be a good win.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Philippine Mango on 4/1/2013 6:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
What powerplant has an efficiency of 80%???? The highest I've seen is for CCGT is like 58%... I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.


RE: Ignorant statement
By toyotabedzrock on 3/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: Ignorant statement
By Dorkyman on 3/23/2013 2:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
...and then factor in losses in transmission.

And on top of that factor in environmental costs in making the battery.

There are studies that show a rough parity in environmental costs overall (for the life of the car). So buy the car for other reasons but not for environmental ones.


RE: Ignorant statement
By flyingpants1 on 3/26/2013 1:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Did you factor in the environmental costs of building an internal combustion engine and drivetrain?


RE: Ignorant statement
By Mint on 3/28/2013 7:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are studies that show a rough parity in environmental costs overall (for the life of the car). So buy the car for other reasons but not for environmental ones.
Here are some studies on the production of Li-ion batteries:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/855.PDF
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/626.PDF

Even when ignoring recycling, according to the paper, the production energy of a 76kg battery amortizes to under 90 BTU per mile in a car that lasts 160,000 miles. For the biggest Model S battery pack (7000 Li-NCA cells weighing 45 grams), that'll be ~60 million BTU in battery production energy. That's the energy equivalent of only 500 gallons of gasoline. Even if you considered a 50 MPG car is an alternative to the luxury Model S, it only takes ~50k miles to make up that difference.

Here's some more life cycle results:
https://www2.unece.org/wiki/download/attachments/4...
EVs and PHEVs are far better in total environmental impact.

The idea that the battery needs so much energy to make that it negates the savings is not even close to true.


RE: Ignorant statement
By web2dot0 on 3/23/13, Rating: 0
That is actually not good.
By jmarchel on 3/25/2013 11:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla does not have any mass market product to cover develolment costs for the niche car. 500 cars a week even if sustainable for entire year is only 25,000 cars a year which makes it a niche product. This is not enough to fund development and tooling for the next car. They will need taxpayer help forever with this kind of sales. No automaker that makes less than 1,000,000 cars a year will survive alone for a long time. The industry is that competitive and it has so many fixed costs that are associated with developing new cars. With cars that have so much unproven technology it is even higher. Even Rolls Royce with cars that were sold at much higher price point could not survive alone with similar production runs.

JAM




RE: That is actually not good.
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/25/2013 2:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Does Lambo and Ferrari make a million a year? They survive just fine.


RE: That is actually not good.
By Nutzo on 3/25/2013 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
And how much does a Ferrari cost?

Not exactly priced for the mass market.


RE: That is actually not good.
By snhoj on 3/27/2013 10:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Lamborghini was bought out by the Volkswagen group and Ferrari by Fiat so they haven't survived as independent producers. I don't know for sure but I think Lamborghini's have some mechanical components in comon with some Porche and Audi maybe even platforms.


RE: That is actually not good.
By snhoj on 3/27/2013 10:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Lamborghini Gallardo and Audi R8 share a common platform. Ferrari 458 Italia shares it's motor with a Maserati and its gearbox with a Mercedes SLS AMG. Development costs are spread around.


RE: That is actually not good.
By flyingpants1 on 3/26/2013 1:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
You are making stuff up. Tesla's original target was 20,000 cars per year, now they are doing 26,000+ cars per year and demand is still rising, this is with practically no marketing strategy. Assuming the average car sold is $70,000, that's over $1.8 billion in revenue.

Elon Musk has stated he expects to see a 25% gross margin on those cars, so $17,500 per car on average ($455 million).

Maybe it actually won't be that much, but they will start turning a profit year after year. And they already have the technology for the next cars (Model X, Model E), they're just not being produced yet.


Elon
By Rage187 on 3/22/2013 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
Elon, is the Da Vinci of our time.




RE: Elon
By lennylim on 3/22/2013 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 3
The National Geographic documentary on Tesla sure makes him look that way.

I don't know anything about the guy and I'm sure he has his dark side. But being the founder of Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX... damn!


It's much more complicated
By Isidore on 3/22/2013 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where the efficiency 80 % for a thermal power plant came from, perhaps fairyland? The best thermal plants have an overall efficiency of around 60'% and that is allowing for the use of waste heat for things like district heating. Not of great relevance in California! Large marine diesels can reach efficiencies of about 55 % which is close to this. You cannot compare the efficiency of power generation with the efficiency of the car being driven by hydrocarbons or electricity. You have to include the losses in power transmission from the power station to your charging point and the losses in actually charging the vehicle batteries. These are surprisingly large. The end result is that an electric car charged by electricity produced by a power station driven by any fuel other than nuclear, is little if any more carbon neutral than a modern high efficiency diesel. You want to do better? A diesel electric hybrid then. If you have solar, wind, hydro,tidal energy of course you do better. If your electricity comes from an old coal powered station then we're talking of efficiencies of below 33% and that is before transmission losses and charging losses- you might as well be driving an old v8. (Well probably not quite but you can see the point). To get a real number you need to take into account the whole energy cost of digging up/ processing the fuel, making the power station, the vehicle etc . You very soon find that if you want to preserve personal mobility and reduce emissions the best way forward is small, light , simple high efficiency vehicles, not some 2 tons of metal and plastic to carry one person one mile to the Mall.




I like this best
By bug77 on 3/24/2013 7:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk is turning that luck around with predictions of being profitable in the first quarter and by vowing to pay off its $465 million government loan within five years.


You can be both profitable and in debt at the same time. Gotta love accounting.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki