backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Feb 22 at 1:08 AM


Tesla Model X electric SUV crossover vehicle
It was also the third most searched term on Google

Just last week, Tesla Motors revealed the all-electric Model X crossover, which is the follow-up to its Model S. It has been less than a week since the EV's introduction, and it has already achieved star status with car lovers everywhere.

According to The Detroit News, Tesla received $40 million in pre-sales of the all-electric Model X just one day after unveiling the car. It was also the third most searched term on Google.

"On Thursday evening, the night of the reveal, traffic to teslamotors.com increased 2,800 percent," said Tesla. "Two-thirds of all visitors were new to the website."

The all-electric Model X was introduced for the first time on February 9. The new EV features dual motor all wheel drive, the choice between a 60 or 85 kWh battery, and falcon doors. The Model X can sprint from 0 to 60 in about 4.4 seconds, and offers a rear-mounted 300 HP motor and an optional 150 HP front-mounted motor. The driving range is between 214 and 267 miles.

Price hasn't been announced for the Model X yet, but Tesla said it will be competitively priced with other premium SUVs.

While the Model X has been receiving plenty of attention, it's not the only one. The Model S, which is Tesla's full-sized battery electric sedan that is expected to be delivered in mid 2012, had a 30 percent boost in reservations last week after the Model X was revealed.

Tesla initially entered the electric vehicle arena with the Roadster, which is a $100,000 two-seater that launched in 2008. The Model S is Tesla's second electric vehicle, which features a 40 kWh lithium-ion battery pack (or 85 kWh battery pack in the top-end model), 160-mile range (300 miles on the top-end model), and a $57,400 to $87,400 price tag.

Model X production will begin at the end of 2013, with market launch scheduled for 2014. It is expected to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit, and Tesla hopes to produce 10,000 to 15,000 units annually.

Sources: SlashGear, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

interesting
By kattanna on 2/15/2012 11:10:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Tesla received $40 million in pre-sales of the all-electric Model X


from their website

quote:
Requires $40,000 USD Reservation Payment


so they have 1,000 units at a minimum on pre-order.

now.. tell me again why we need to be giving people who can afford to put down $40,000 in advance to somewhere down the road get a car get a $7,500 rebate.. being paid for by people in general who can not afford such a thing?




RE: interesting
By ksherman on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By ebakke on 2/15/2012 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 4
And this is why our nation is just f'ed.


RE: interesting
By espaghetti on 2/15/2012 8:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Smack yourself


RE: interesting
By Flunk on 2/15/2012 11:15:17 AM , Rating: 3
I agree, that inducement should be limited to economy vehicles only. Set the price limit at 30k-40k.


RE: interesting
By eagle470 on 2/15/2012 11:26:58 AM , Rating: 3
Kinda pisses me off that that's the price of an economy vehicle these days....


RE: interesting
By dorisfrench on 2/15/2012 11:51:35 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah it's expensive but I bet you can still afford this: http://amzn.to/wnLcXn Top of the line bike. And get fit while you use it! No burning oil! Saving the environment!


RE: interesting
By JediJeb on 2/16/2012 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
$650 for a bicycle, that is as outrageous as the price of a Volt!

And I could just see myself trying to outrun a coal truck on my way to work on that thing.


RE: interesting
By WLee40 on 2/16/2012 12:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
My nieces fiancee spent $4500 on his mountain bike. That was almost 3 months pay to him!! He is only a recreational bike rider to boot! Now that is outrageous. I spent 3 months pay on my car though. That's a 2011 Audi S4, not outrageous since it is my main mode of transportation.


RE: interesting
By WLee40 on 2/16/2012 12:46:46 PM , Rating: 1
Forgot to mention that I plan on getting the Tesla S car once its out for about a year.


RE: interesting
By TheDoc9 on 2/17/2012 2:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to say this man but, it sounds like your pay range is definitely not representative of 99% of the U.S. - of the world in fact.

I'm just curious, knowing that you don't need any tax assistance because you must be a multimillionaire, - and I know your taxes must be high - But do you plan on taking any tax breaks for your new ev?

I assume so, which is fine. Just don't compare buying a bike to an Audi.


RE: interesting
By MozeeToby on 2/15/2012 12:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's a luxury performance SUV, not a econobox. Spec and trim wise it's in line with a BMW X3 or an Audi Q5, both of which regularly go for ~$40,000.


RE: interesting
By Just Tom on 2/15/2012 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
If it can compete with specs and trim the tax credit is hardly necessary.


RE: interesting
By wordsworm on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 11:21:35 AM , Rating: 5
Right because an EV car for rich playboys has way more upside than something like SpaceX, which is advancing human space flight.

Really a brilliant comparison there...


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: interesting
By kattanna on 2/15/2012 11:34:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Talk about something that I'll NEVER see the benefits of. Human spaceflight, really?


the level of ignorance in that statement is astounding, WOW.. just WOW


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/2012 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
Well the all knowing Reclaimer has spoken so it HAS been said. Congratulations on STILL not being able to understand the difference between an opinion ans fact
. Acting like an arrogant while proclaiming your own superiority doesn't actually make you or your opinion superior. You are a trip.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyone support EV subsides or is convinced they're the solution, is coming from nothing BUT ignorance.


Why do you always have to go too far?

Stick to the political rhetoric.

Stay away from the economic and engineering analysis. We all know you do not have the capacity to perform the analysis or the ability to find enough supporting data for your point of view.

Just some advice.


RE: interesting
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
Kettle, meet Pot.


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry tayb, your nearly as bad. (Though you rarely resort to name calling)

You often utter completely bizare statement without even some rationale. Take the "No benefit from Human Space flight"

Considering the dozens of inventions that are in part or in whole dervived past from efforts in human spaceflight, its just not believable that you would recieve "no" as in zero benefit from future efforts.

Now, could I agree that in principle Human Space flight at for the forseeable future provides less benefit for the same cost as robotic exploration... sure. Could I agree that you do not vew the few benefits in your life due past human space flight as worth the billions used to produce them... well... thats an arguable point, but at least its an opinion based in reality that we could both provide examples and data in support of either position.


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/2012 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time or would have been found regardless replacing humans with robots. Advances in plastics, scratch proof glasses, memory foam, thermometers, communications, and battery tech (ironic) just to name a few would have most likely been discovered in their own right. This doesn't include "global prowess" that most people claim as a benefit as well.

I could definitely do a much better job qualifying my statements but they are rarely without rationale. The idea that advancing EV technology is a waste but human spaceflight is not is silly.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:42:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time


Okay I'll play that game. Why can't EV's eventually hit the market in their own right, in due time, without the subsidies and CAFE pressure?

Also you're flat out wrong on space flight and advancements that came out of it. I know you live with your mother still, hasn't she ever told you "necessity is the mother of invention"?

There would be no reason for those technologies to advance at the rate they did if they did not HAVE to be invented. End of discussion.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time or would have been found regardless replacing humans with robots. Advances in plastics, scratch proof glasses, memory foam, thermometers, communications, and battery tech (ironic) just to name a few would have most likely been discovered in their own right


Maybe, maybe not. I think thats a really tough position to take... that inventions sought specifically for a goal would have occured -at nearly the same time- without the goal. I'd like to see some evidence that research teams, independant of the space program, were make similiar progress. I am not aware of any such data.

quote:
The idea that advancing EV technology is a waste but human spaceflight is not is silly.


You took Reclaimer out of context. He didn't say EV technology was more wasteful than spaceflight (although its a reasonable guess he feels that way), he said funding Tesla EVs is more wasteful than funding SpaceX. Which I think is pretty true. Providing a 10% or less discount on future garage queens does seem less useful than funding research and testing into launch capacities (for both human and robotic missions) to space. Now, if Tesla was producing a mass market sedan in the 30,000-40,000 price range that was going to be driven 10,000-15,000 miles a year, the equation might become different. But thats not the case. Tesla's customers are benefiting from an unneeded 7,500 at a time when our Federal Government is overspending and people have difficulty finding work. Nor does Tesla seem intent on producing that mass market sedan (apparently the Model X is more important).


RE: interesting
By The Raven on 2/16/2012 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think this whole string of replies illustrates exactly why the gov't shouldn't be involved at all in either space flight (of course unless there is a credible defense issue), EVs or much anything else.

It would be nice to jump in Doc Brown's Delorean, go back in time and rip this idea of gov't subsidies from the national consciousness and then watch all of these comments (hateful and otherwise) disappear.

The conversation would continue as how we progress on each front, but only where people are open to the ideas instead of having them shoved down their throats (i.e. funded out of their pockets).


RE: interesting
By Raraniel on 2/15/2012 4:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Once again I feel xkcd has a quote which appropriately sums up the ultimate benefit of manned spaceflight.

"the universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space -- each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Stay away from the economic and engineering analysis. We all know you do not have the capacity to perform the analysis or the ability to find enough supporting data for your point of view.


This is a cheap shot and completely uncalled for. If I was for EV's you never would have said this. That's all this is about.

quote:
Just some advice.


Keeir you're nobody's father here. I watch you stick it to everyone here regardless of position or opinion. Even on things you support. That makes you a troll. Probably the best one I've seen in years, but still a troll.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 4
That's inconsistant Reclaimer.

quote:
If I was for EV's you never would have said this. That's all this is about.


quote:
I watch you stick it to everyone here regardless of position or opinion. Even on things you support.


Which is it? I am confused how these statements are not directly contrary to each other.

quote:
Anyone support EV subsides or is convinced they're the solution, is coming from nothing BUT ignorance.


I think this was pretty uncalled for as well. Mostly since you can't back up either side of the statement. Though the broad and unfocused ad hominum attach on anyone who might disagree with you is also not really satisfying.

quote:
That makes you a troll. Probably the best one I've seen in years, but still a troll.


I find this really curious. The most I do is ask that people use facts and constant logic... on a Technology and Science blog site. Yet somehow this is considered trolling from someone who essentially using rhetoric, hyperbole, and ad hominum to surpress any fact based discussion which might be percieved as against their ideology.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
My my, you really are an anal retentive bugger aren't you? That's not good for your health.

quote:
The most I do is ask that people use facts and constant logic


And who are you to ask?

Facts can be twisted, so can numbers. I prefer to focus on the pure, righteous, and self evident truths to which I hold dear.

So you see, just relax. When I speak, it's golden.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 4:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Facts can be twisted, so can numbers. I prefer to focus on the pure, righteous, and self evident truths to which I hold dear.


So, you prefer to argue from blind belief? And this is supposed to be "good" when discussing technology and science how again? Again, I am confused. You accuse others of ignorance, while professing a deep pride in your own.

As I've said in the past, there are plenty of fields and places where blind belief is tolerated and maybe even encouraged (politics is one that leaps to mind), but Science and to a less extent Technology revolve around the constant questioning of assumptions through data gathering.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.

And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.

When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.

I think there are many fine websites and forums where your strict adherence to science, facts, and math would be most welcome. Frankly, you're wasting your time on Daily Tech.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 5:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.


Usually because someone logically challenged trys to use ideology to pass a technical judgement.

For example only

Government should not pick winners and losers. (Ideology)
Current Government selects PHEV, and EVs. (Fact)
...
Therefore PHEV and EVs will not work. (Unsupported Opinion)

QED, there can be no other option!

quote:
And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.


Isn't inability to admit the possibility one is wrong considered on the symptoms of blind belief?

quote:
When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.


Hmmm... EVs roam the planet right now. I saw 3 on my way to work today. Oh, and 1 PHEV. And do you count Electric motorcyles as EVs? Saw two of those. Guess I can say your wrong then?


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Again, way too anal retentive. Do the Internet a favor and stick to the topics, not browbeating others for not expressing their opinion to your satisfaction.

aka, trolling.

quote:
Government should not pick winners and losers. (Ideology)


That's an absolute FACT. Please show me where the Constitution grants this power to the Government. Where?

quote:
Isn't inability to admit the possibility one is wrong considered on the symptoms of blind belief?


Okay maybe I'm only 90% right all the time. That's good enough for government work, as they say :)

quote:
Hmmm... EVs roam the planet right now. I saw 3 on my way to work today. Oh, and 1 PHEV. And do you count Electric motorcyles as EVs? Saw two of those. Guess I can say your wrong then?


Is this your idea of being cute? You know full well what that phrase means.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 6:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's an absolute FACT. Please show me where the Constitution grants this power to the Government. Where?


Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution. The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology. Nor is it truely sound to say actions outside the Constitution in reality are prohibited. The US government has a storied history of acting outside the Constitution that started pretty much before the ink was dry.

quote:
Is this your idea of being cute? You know full well what that phrase means.


I am not a mind reader. I can only guess at your intentions.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution.


That's a meaningless statement with no bearing on anything.

quote:
The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology


???

It's the high water mark for THIS countries government structure. If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now. Because I have nothing to say to you. Following the rule of law is NOT "ideology".

So your position is that I'm wrong because the Constitution doesn't count? Well I guess you ARE a flaming Liberal then.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 8:00:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now.


If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are automatically wrong? Slipping back into the symptoms of blind belief...

Sorry, there are many good things in the Constitution. Many many good things. Doesn't mean the document is perfect.

Since your into the Constitution so firmly,

Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?

We can go round and round, but simply put,

The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years. This has been true regardless of the political affiliation of the White House, Congress, or the people on the Supreme Court. To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement about an IDEAL world. Thus IDEOLOGY since in practice, this has not been a reality for a very long time.

But whether you view this as "fact" or "ideology" is not entirely material.

It has little bearing on the technical or economic feasibility of a technology. Which is my point. People too often take unrelated ideology/facts into their statements as if they constitute proof.

Here's another your well familiar with

Burning Oil Pollutes the Environment (Fact)
Protecting the Environment is worth any cost (Ideology)
...
Therefore everyone should us EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)
or even worse
Therefore the government should steal money from people and give it to others to support EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
*yawn*

You aren't even credible anymore. I never said the Constitution is perfect. Guess what? It doesn't have to be. If you need to change it, make an Amendment.

Now please show me the Amendment that grants them that power?

quote:
Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?


No Lincoln was a tyrant who smashed the Constitution, suspended our most sacred rights, and declared war on his own people without even trying to sue for peace.

In his mind I understand he was only doing what he thought he had to. So I guess that made him a noble tyrant.

The end result of Lincolns decisions was a larger more infringing federal government and the weakening of states rights. But alas, hindsight is 20/20.

quote:
To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement


That's your opinion.

You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.

quote:
The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years.


First off, that's wrong. Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.

Secondly, if today is evidence of what happens when we stray from the document for so long, that's a pretty good indication of where we went wrong.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 8:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.


I never said they were. I said that ideological "facts" are not good basis for evaluating technology, even if true.

quote:
Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.


Really? How about Alexander Hamilton's National Bank? Didn't that get established in 1791? I am fairly sure Hamilton supported a wide range of actions that were fairly loosely based on Constitution. Unless I have trouble counting, 2012-1791=221 years. Hundreds.

Isn't the whole argument about "implied" powers almost directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment? How could we claim that the US was strictly Constitutional when before Ratification was even completely people were using "implied" powers arguments to justify actions. The Federal Government could not even stay inside the STATED powers for the ratification period!

Sorry, I can't agree that the US was ever strictly Constitutional. But even if it was at some date in the past, it is no longer. Should we return to a more strict form? Sure. But that's ideology at this point. Clearly there is no real world mechanism that has acted to force the US government to stay strictly adhered to the Constitution.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:13:51 PM , Rating: 1
If forced to choose between ideology and your apathy, I'll pick ideology.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 1:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If forced to choose between ideology and your apathy, I'll pick ideology.


I am not sure how acknowledging reality is "apathy"


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 12:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously tayb, that was just a dumb statement.


RE: interesting
By JediJeb on 2/16/2012 12:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
I guess you never used any Velcro ever. Teflon coatings, certain high performance ceramics, and many other things we take for granted today came either directly or indirectly from the early manned spaceflight days at NASA.


RE: interesting
By overlandpark4me on 2/15/2012 11:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
I know a little about the SpaceX program, but aside from NASA and the Air Force contracts how much money is the Gov pumping in?


RE: interesting
By wordsworm on 2/22/2012 1:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
NASA and the air force are both funded by the government. Money coming from them is money coming from the government. EV technology will trickle down to other industries. I'm not against the subsidies on either side. But it is a kind of welfare system for the elite, scientists, engineers, and the wealthy.


RE: interesting
By Iketh on 2/15/2012 11:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
Because it gets the ball rolling on adapting electric vehicles, which everyone will benefit from, especially our children. If people are buying the techonology, the techonology will advance exponentially.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
We're leaving our children a wrecked economy, a massive Government which is addicted to debt and subsidies, and social entitlements that will dwarf every penny they earn and pay taxes to.

EV's are your silver lining I guess. What a benefit!


RE: interesting
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 12:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because it gets the ball rolling on adapting electric vehicles, which everyone will benefit from, especially our children.
Please state exactly how this will happen.


RE: interesting
By acer905 on 2/15/2012 12:52:30 PM , Rating: 1
Well... In theory at least spurring the development of EV tech will either give viable alternatives for a world where the oil supply is cut off for some random reason, or help Doc Brown create a new DeLorean time machine that can have both the time circuits and the drive-train powered by Mr Fusion.


RE: interesting
By titanmiller on 2/15/2012 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
We need rich people to buy EVs so that a nationwide network of charging stations can be built. Once the basic charging infrastructure is in place it will make sense for normal people to buy electric vehicles, which by the way, will get cheaper due to the R&D money spent on the high end cars.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
That makes NO sense and isn't how things get adopted. Rich people have several cars. When using an EV isn't convenient, they will just use another. So they have no reason to care about chargers being everywhere. Rich people can also afford the best chargers for their own personal use.

Unless there's no benefit for the majority, rich people using EV's are NEVER going to be anything more than a niche status statement.


RE: interesting
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 11:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need rich people to buy EVs so that a nationwide network of charging stations can be built.
This wouldn't happen even if EV sales matched those of sports cars. The really wealthy (the people buying Tesla's), typically don't keep their cars very long (ever check the mileage on a Ferrari?) cause they don't have to. Even their "beater" cars are niche. Niche cars don't get fueling stations, dealerships, cell phone antenna's along the side of the freeway or even the freeways themselves built. It's the millions of Corolla's that accomplish that task. The only thing that will be done is the lightening of our wallets to pay for these people to drive EV's. Nothing else will come of it. Once the wealthy tire of this latest fad (and they will), they'll move on and Tesla will be out of business.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 11:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
LOL yeah by EV proponents logic, we should all be driving Ferrari's by now. After all, they've had decades of early adopters paying premiums so one day we can enjoy those toys too! Dammit, where's my Enzo!!??

quote:
Once the wealthy tire of this latest fad (and they will), they'll move on and Tesla will be out of business.


Exactly. Once the Leonardo DeCaprio's of the world get their pre-order, then what?


RE: interesting
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 12:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL yeah by EV proponents logic, we should all be driving Ferrari's by now.
It just sounds retarded, doesn't it? Where's that V10 Civic I've been waiting for? LOL!

quote:
Exactly. Once the Leonardo DeCaprio's of the world get their pre-order, then what?
I'll be surprised if they even fulfill all of their orders. But, nevermind that for a second. I'm still stuck on these people believing that there's going to be a $20k EV (2010 dollars) showing up in the next 5 years.


RE: interesting
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/16/2012 8:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
Now I want a V10 Civic SI damn it! :o


RE: interesting
By Just Tom on 2/15/2012 12:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If people are buying the techonology, the techonology will advance exponentially.


I think exponentially might be a bit of a stretch.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well..

Think a second. While that might be a good goal (not saying it is or is not), I think you need to question the effectiveness of the tax credit on Tesla models in acchieving this end.

1.
The very lowest price Tesla is 57,500 dollars. The average Tesla model is in excess of 75,000 MSRP. Therefore, it doesn't seem a stretch to say the effect on pricing of a Tesla is less than 10% typically. This is a very minor effect on the sales of the model. Thus, the credit level doesn't really do much for Tesla. Tesla would sell nearly as many without the credit.

2.
Consider the price of the Tesla models, it is unlikely "average" people who use their car everyday are principly buying Teslas. A signficant fraction are going to private car collectors or image concious people who will rarely if ever drive the car. In this way, a tax credit on those cars, is extremely wasteful. Little to no "social benefit" is being created...

Overall, I'd say a tax credit on models over 50,000 is fairly useless. Since its fairly useless, its pretty much a waste, no matter how you come down on the "rightness" of concept.

Waste is bad, m'kay

(A side note, if you're a jerk who buys a Tesla to keep in a garage, consider buying 4 Priuses and giving them away to people driving old cars instead. Over the long term, you've done a lot more to help the enviroment.)


RE: interesting
By web2dot0 on 2/15/2012 3:17:52 PM , Rating: 1
The tax credit is not specifically designed for Tesla vehicles. It's for ALL Zero Emission vehicles. Why single out Tesla?

This is a tax incentive. Not a hand out. Your taxable income is your income - $7500. At least according from what I know.

So to say that the gov't is handing out money to Tesla owners is just not true. It's an incentive, not a free for all.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why single out Tesla?


Look at the title of this blog post? Maybe discussing specifically discussing Tesla models on a Tesla blog post is somehow nonsensical?

quote:
This is a tax incentive. Not a hand out. Your taxable income is your income - $7500. At least according from what I know.


Then you need to read.

Its

You Tax Owned - 7,500. Yes it requires that you own at least 7,500 dollars in income taxes total within ~3 year period (carryover). Its not a deduction, its a credit.

quote:
So to say that the gov't is handing out money to Tesla owners is just not true. It's an incentive, not a free for all.


You need to think a little bit more.

Anyone who purchases a qualifying car, regardless of income, is able to receive a tax credit of 7,500 that they can carry over to the prior year or the future year. Qualifying cars used to be any car that had a battery over a certain size, allowing even golf carts to qualify. Thankfully, this loophole has been removed. Since a Tesla owner can afford a 75,000+ car, its not really a huge leap to think that over 3 years they could take advantage of 7,500 reduction in their taxes.

So how is this not a "free for all"?


RE: interesting
By The Raven on 2/16/2012 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean how VHS advanced the technology of video recordings? I'm sure Sony would have something to say about that. Maybe you also would want to subsidize laserdiscs while we are at it. Hell let's just subsidize anything that anyone finds beneficial in order to further the development of these technologies. How about let's put boner pills on the top of the gov't's list!!


RE: interesting
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 11:39:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
a $7,500 rebate.. being paid for by people in general who can not afford such a thing?


I guess they figure if you're paying a few hundred grand in federal income taxes & capital gains, the least the government can do is throw in a sweet deal on a fancy new electric car.


RE: interesting
By NellyFromMA on 2/15/2012 1:42:55 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, punish the people who are doing moderately well.... Those who can afford a 40K car may have saved up big on their down payment. The super rich do not buy 40K cars really.

So, you're hating on middle to upper middle class?

No offense, but sounds more like hating than a well thought out comment.


RE: interesting
By callmeroy on 2/15/2012 2:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who has $40k cash just lying around to drop on a reservation payment for a car is not middle class. Not by a long shot.

I think the point is valid the $7500 tax credit shouldn't be valid on "luxury" cars (and don't get stupid with a comment like I didn't know a SUV was a luxury car...you darn well know to the average joe anything about $35k is considered an expensive vehicle and that's the low-end for many luxury type cars ...I'm thinking BMWs, Lexus, Inifinit, etc.)...


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/2012 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
The car is "luxurious" but it's oversimplifying to call this a "luxury car incentive." It's an incentive to buy a technology that is overpriced that people might not normally pay. It's no different than funding most types of research but people get angry because it's "helping the rich buy cool cars." I'm hoping the richfund this technology and drive the price down. Two years ago this car was $100k. The base cost is already down to $57k.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two years ago this car was $100k. The base cost is already down to $57k.


So wrong.

Two years ago, Tesla produced the Roadster for more than 110k. The Roadster had a 220 mile range, and sub 4 second 0-60 time.

Today, Tesla makes the Model S. With a 160 miles range and sub 6 second 0-60 time with a projected cost of 57,499 without delievery charge MSRP. Its not actually possible to order the car yet, so its probably going to be more like 60,000 base. The "Roadster" like 220 mile variat is more like 70,000. But its not for order yet either. The only model S that is really available for order is the 89,000 300 mile variant.

Don't distort things. Tesla is really only succeeded in slightly lowering the price


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The super rich do not buy 40K cars really


Teslas are not 40k cars though. Most Tesla's are 75,000+ and its unlikely the Model X will be significantly less than 80,000.


RE: interesting
By CharonPDX on 2/15/2012 7:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
So tax breaks are really being paid for by other people who can't afford it? So how about those massive tax breaks to oil companies?


RE: interesting
By CharonPDX on 2/15/2012 8:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Only the premium super deluxe model requires a $40K deposit. The regular model requires "only" a $5K deposit.

The deposits are refundable, and do go toward the purchase.

Hell, if I thought I could afford it when it comes out, I would have put $5K down. As it is, I have put in my $100 deposit on an Arcimoto SRK: http://www.arcimoto.com/products


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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