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

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!


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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