backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by EdSav.. on Jul 21 at 6:46 PM

The company hopes to reach the goal of building 800 Model S' per week by late 2014

Tesla Motors set a goal to build 400 Model S sedans per week, but in Tesla-like fashion, the automaker has already blown past that number. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk reported that Tesla is now producing over 400 Tesla Model S' a week without giving an exact number. He added that Tesla's Fremont, Calif. factory has 3,000 employees, which consists of about 2,000 assembly workers.

"We're above 400 a week at the current manpower, and not trivially above it," said Musk.

Musk estimates that his company will sell between 20,000 and 21,000 Model S' this year. He also mentioned that he hopes to reach the goal of building 800 Model S' per week by late 2014. 

It seems like there's nothing Tesla can't do. In May, Tesla repaid its $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nine years earlier than expected from the original 2022 due date. 


Just last month, the automaker won a huge victory in the battle against auto dealers when a North Carolina House committee denied a bill that would block Tesla from being able to sell its vehicles directly to the public. 

Tesla was also successful in other states, such as New York, where a pair of bills (referred to as A07844 in the Assembly and S05725) tried to make it illegal to license -- or even renew licenses -- for all Tesla Stores within New York state borders. The bills were killed off last month as well. 

For Q1 2013, Tesla reported a net income of $11.2 million (a huge increase from an $89.9 million loss in the year-ago quarter). Excluding certain items, Tesla's profit came in at 12 cents a share, which was a boost from a loss of 76 cents a share in Q1 2012. Analysts expected a profit of about 4 cents a share. Revenue also saw a huge year-over-year boost, totaling $562 million (up from $30.2 million in the year-ago quarter). 

Tesla hasn't mentioned when it will release second-quarter results.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


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

Hahaha
By flyingpants1 on 7/11/2013 10:58:02 PM , Rating: 1
Where did all the naysayers go? Hahaha. It's fun to go back to last year on DT and look at all the fools promising that Tesla would never repay their DOE loan.. Ahahahaha..

Electric cars are finally here. Elon says it's possible to build the BlueStar with CURRENTLY EXISTING TECHNOLOGY . It will cost ~$35k, the same as a 3-series, but the 8 year cost of ownership will be $16,000 cheaper due to not having to buy 4000 gallons of gas, saying nothing of powertrain maintenance. Wow!




RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hahaha
By Shig on 7/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/13, Rating: 0
RE: Hahaha
By darthmaule2 on 7/12/2013 5:26:30 AM , Rating: 4
The idea was never to "pick winners and losers" but to advance technology. The government has always been one of the main three pillars of research (universities and corporations being the other two).

Anyway, Tesla is a shinning example of what happens when you loan bright young engineers money. Here is a list of their patents so far:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/tesla-motors-...

Also, "toys for playboys" was not the end goal of Tesla, it has always been: affordable cars, free from dependence on oil.
http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_CH/blog/secret-tesla...


RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2013 8:17:48 AM , Rating: 4
No it hasn't. Only for the past 70 years it has. The nation existed for 140 years before that. Henry Ford didn't start building cars on an assembly line because the government gave him money to.

As far as Tesla's patents, they shouldn't be allowed to own them if it was government money that was used to facilitate the research and development that resulted in them.

"Free from dependence on oil"

Yes instead dependent on lithium and other rare minerals that we will rely on from China. Nevermind we have the ability to grow diesel fuel in a manner that doesn't use food. Only water and the sun. Water is the most abundant resource on the planet. We just need cheap energy to desalinate it affordably which we can get from nuclear power. Funny how all these things would result in lots of high paying jobs in America instead of overseas. But lets not look at that at all...

<sarcasm>ELECTRIC CARS! WOOO!!!</sarcasm>


RE: Hahaha
By Flunk on 7/12/2013 9:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of rare earth elements in the USA. All they need to do is go back to mining them. The only reason China controls that industry is that they rolled over everyone else with cheap prices.

All they need to do is raise prices too much and they'll lose control.


RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2013 10:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Except that its hard to mine them in the US with all the environmental regulations that abound. Yes they're looking at reopening mines. But that doesn't change the fact that those resources are even more rare than oil.


RE: Hahaha
By Mint on 7/12/2013 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 3
Stop recycling this debunked rare earth metal FUD. They're needed in NiMH batteries and permanent magnet motors.

Tesla uses lithium-ion batteries and induction motors. There's no more rare earths in a Model S than there is in a gas car.


RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2013 6:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop recycling this debunked rare earth metal FUD.


Sure as soon as you stop using the peak oil myth that's been trotted out for 40+ years and hasn't been proven once yet.

Deal?


RE: Hahaha
By 3DoubleD on 7/12/2013 9:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
The entire concept of patents is that these technological innovations are now in the public domain. The government grants you a period of exclusivity for sharing your idea with the public.

"A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention" -wikipedia

So if Tesla indeed patented anything with government money, it was consistent with the goals of the patent system to begin with, that is, to supply improved technologies into the public domain.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with anything else you've said. The government providing funding to a company of Tesla's size is certainly a grey area in my mind. I strongly believe in programs to help start-ups get off the ground such that they can develop their technology to the point of attracting investors, this greatly enhances innovation. On the other hand massive loans to scale up manufacturing is another thing; however, in the end, Tesla used the money to bridge a period of uncertainty and gain multitudes of investors - striking many similarities with my start-up example.

While there is risk in the dollars invested by the government in start-ups or larger companies like Tesla, there is also an opportunity for massive gains to the public domain (patents, jobs, ect.), but there are those who view any risk an unacceptable use of their tax dollars. There is no right answer, everyone will have their own opinions as surely as everyone manages their own budget differently.


RE: Hahaha
By Dr of crap on 7/12/2013 12:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
So all patents that where developed while the company these people worked for had loans from Banks and other entities should not own said patents BECAUSE they owed money ay the time of the patent??? GREAT LOGIC!


RE: Hahaha
By darthmaule2 on 7/12/2013 6:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
So, you are saying that because the government loaned them money, they shouldn't be allowed to own the patents they developed?

What if a bank loaned them the money?

Do you realize that most companies borrow money from someone?

Anyway, we have massive lithium reserves and it would be beneficial to at least reduce our oil consumption. And, Tesla is advancing the state of the art of a wide range of technologies. They are advancing science and engineering in ways that will benefit us all. And, that is the type of thing the government should be investing in.


RE: Hahaha
By Dorkyman on 7/12/2013 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but what if a VC loaned them money?

It all depends on the terms of the loan. Some want a piece of the company, some just want interest, usually everyone wants collateral.

And no, I don't think it's the job of "government" to invest directly. Assist with infrastructure, sure.


RE: Hahaha
By testerguy on 7/13/2013 11:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why does it matter if a VC loaned them the money?

It wouldn't change anything, regardless of who loaned the money.

The government didn't 'invest', and nor would a VC or any other loan be an 'investment'. An investment isn't a loan you demand repayment of - it's an investment you make with the aim of increasing your money many times over with the success of the company.


RE: Hahaha
By tremelai1153 on 7/13/2013 3:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
"As far as Tesla's patents, they shouldn't be allowed to own them"

So by your standard, if a person or a corporation takes out a federally backed loan for a house or office and pays off that loan, they should not be allowed to own the building they paid for because why?

Tesla business plan was strong enough to garnish a $465 million dollar loan, which they paid back with interest and they are a villain and socialist?

Ford Motor Company enters into the same DOE loan program and takes out a $5.9 Billion dollar loan, which they have yet to pay off, and they are Capitalist Captains of Industry?

https://lpo.energy.gov/projects/ford-motor-company...


RE: Hahaha
By flyingpants1 on 7/12/2013 5:33:46 AM , Rating: 3
Wasn't it you who said the loans would not be paid back?

With regards to whether the government should be "picking winners" by handing out funds to private companies, I essentially agree with you. Fisker is one of the reasons why. The government essentially got lucky with Tesla, they accidentally funded a great company. Just because you didn't die playing Russian roulette does not mean it was a good idea to play.

But should the government fund industry in general? Yes, of course it should. Some examples of American government-funded technology are the internet, computers, modern air travel and *gasp* space travel. The people who don't think the government should get involved in private enterprise are living in a dream world. Every country does it. Germany does. Japan does. China sure as hell does, they just put 40 billion into solar.

Since you took the time to insult me personally, allow me do you one better and point out something about you for the reader: Reclaimer77 knows perfectly well that the Tesla strategy is not to make "toys for rich playboys". He's heard the refutation a thousand times over by now. Nevertheless he continues to purposefully repeat that very same talking point in every Tesla article, over and over, just to confuse the discussion. That's known as trolling..


RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2013 8:20:03 AM , Rating: 1
Point me to the clause in the constitution where the government is given the power to spend the people's money as a venture capitalist.

I won't hold my breath until you get back to me. The government surely has the authority to have industry develop technology it needs for things like defense. But that is not a blanket authority to invest in whatever it feels like is a good idea.


RE: Hahaha
By Breathless on 7/12/2013 9:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
DING DING DING!


RE: Hahaha
By Reflex on 7/12/2013 5:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Show me the one that prevents them from doing so. Also, explain all the discretionary spending the US government spent under Washington, Adams, and Jefferson while you are at it, I dare you to look it up. Funding private enterprise in this country is as old as the Constitution itself.


RE: Hahaha
By darthmaule2 on 7/12/2013 6:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is a good discussion of the constitutionality of government research. It's not as clear cut as you seem to think it (and everything) is:
http://americasuncommonsense.com/blog/2010/09/01/s...


RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2013 6:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's known as trolling..


Hey asshole, how are you going to pull the trolling card when your OP openly mocked those who have a different opinion than yours, insulted them, and even title it "Hahahaha"???

I rather be accused of being a troll than be a hypocrite, which is what you certainly are.

quote:
But should the government fund industry in general? Yes, of course it should.


No, of course it shouldn't. Why even HAVE a private sector then? Let's just nationalize the economy 100%!

Musk didn't even NEED the loans. Are we forgetting the guy was a billionaire already?

quote:
American government-funded technology are the internet


When we say the "Internet" today, we really mean the World Wide Web. Yes, the Government funded DARPANET. But to say we have an "Internet" today because of the Government is fallacious. Who wrote the software that made is usable? Who makes the operating systems? Who runs the servers and backbones? Who designed and built the hardware to carry all the information?

The Government absolutely could not have delivered to us the Internet as we know it today. 100% fact, end of story. Without the private sector there would be NO Internet.

The same goes for every single example on your list.


RE: Hahaha
By flyingpants1 on 7/13/2013 7:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't mock those with a different opinion than me, just specifically those that were proven wrong. Mostly jokingly. Call it trolling if you like, but it's qualitatively different than intentionally and repeatedly misleading others.

quote:
No, of course it shouldn't. Why even HAVE a private sector then? Let's just nationalize the economy 100%!


Nobody said we should nationalize the economy 100%, so that is a straw-man argument. OTOH, you just advocated the exact opposite by saying the government shouldn't fund industry at all.

quote:
Musk didn't even NEED the loans. Are we forgetting the guy was a billionaire already?

This is factually incorrect. Tesla almost went under, even after Musk invested his entire personal fortune.

quote:
When we say the "Internet" today, we really mean the World Wide Web. Yes, the Government funded DARPANET. But to say we have an "Internet" today because of the Government is fallacious. The Government absolutely could not have delivered to us the Internet as we know it today. 100% fact, end of story. Without the private sector there would be NO Internet.

The same goes for every single example on your list.


Again, nobody is claiming the government delivered the internet or any of those things as a finished product, so that is another straw-man argument - you are not very good at this.


RE: Hahaha
By testerguy on 7/13/2013 11:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Musk didn't even NEED the loans. Are we forgetting the guy was a billionaire already?


I really dislike comments like this (even if it were true).

Lets assume Musk did have enough to fund Tesla (which based on the reply to your comment already made is not the case) - why does that mean he shouldn't be able to get a loan to fund the business? It's a very common, widely carried out practise to not risk your entire fortune on every single project. By securing investment, you are protecting yourself from complete personal financial meltdown. By contrast, the people who are investing will generally do so from a much larger pot and would not be affected to anywhere near the same degree by failure.

It doesn't mean you don't believe in the project, it just means that the consequences of failure (however small you believe the chance is) mean it's not worth risking for you personally, whereas it may make sense for a third party.


RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2013 12:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why does that mean he shouldn't be able to get a loan to fund the business?


He absolutely should...

...from the private sector, NOT public money!


RE: Hahaha
By Reflex on 7/12/2013 5:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you are free to believe whatever you wish about the role of the US government, but at the end of the day we have two plus centuries of the government getting heavily involved in starting up technologies seen as beneficial over the long run, including directly funding startups in those fields.

Transcontinental Railroad is one of the big ones that springs to mind from last century, but there are hundreds of other examples. The feds have *always* been involved in these things, either directly or indirectly(grants to educational institutes for research, NASA, etc). There really is no mythical time where the feds had nothing to do with investments in the future.


RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2013 8:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
If it was so good and profitable, why does the government need to get involved and help?

No one here that disliked that Tesla got money from taxpayers did so because we are opposed to businesses starting up. Quite the contrary. We applaud business startups. But it should be done on the backs of private investors who know the risk and can take steps to avert that risk. Not the taxpayers who have no recourse when their money is wasted. Taxpayers who want investment in a corporation should do it with their own money. Not expect the government to take everyone's money and give it to said companies.


RE: Hahaha
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/12/2013 9:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like the government auto "loans" one bit, it was crony capitalism at its best (worst?). However I can't fault Tesla for playing the game by the rules that were set for them.

I think had the government loans not occurred. One or more of the big 3 would have dissolved and Tesla would have been able to buy parts, factories, resources, for pennies on the dollar. They would have succeeded that way.

In my opinion Tesla is successful because they saw an emerging market, attacked it correctly (upscale cars first), and had great engineering and overall execution and vision. The cream always rises to the top, government interference or not.


RE: Hahaha
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2013 10:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Agree completely. I don't fault Tesla for applying and getting the loan. I fault the government for giving it to them.

And yes all three US automakers shouldn't have been bailed out either. I was screaming against it as all the liberals were screaming for it because it protected their union base.


RE: Hahaha
By darthmaule2 on 7/12/2013 6:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
GWB is a liberal now?


RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2013 6:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
GWB is certainly the best example to date of a Left-leaning Republican, hell yes. He was certainly no Conservative.


RE: Hahaha
By Dorkyman on 7/12/2013 7:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta differ with you on that one. I love W and while he promoted a couple of non-conservative ideas, in general he was a pretty solid conservative. Which is a Good Thing.

And a far more competent guy than the loon we now have.

Not much of a public speaker, though.


RE: Hahaha
By EdSav on 7/21/2013 6:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish it was called Edison instead of Tesla. I mean, the supercharger network is essentially a DC grid, right?


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














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