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

Where are all the Tesla Haters?
By web2dot0 on 7/14/2013 1:51:47 AM , Rating: 1
I recalled not too long ago a large contingent of DT reader voiced Tesla's demise when they were in the dumps. Where are all you guys now? I thought Tesla is a terrible company and Musk is a moron?

This is precisely why the government should fund pioneering projects like EVs. It's not to pick "winners and losers", but to derisk them so entrepreneurs like Musk can weather the initial storm when no one believed them. Who else would loan them $500m when they are on the verge of bankrupcy? Who would fund cellular technologies in the early days other than the military? Who else would fund the folks who created DARPA when there were no commercial applications? Transistor anyone?

I'm sure all you Tesla haters and "small government" lovers will come in droves to point out why government shouldn't never get involved in projects like Tesla. For every Tesla, there's a Solindra right? That's your usual talking point right?

On the surface that may be true, but the reality is the government have been fund these types of projects since the founding of the constitution. Most, if not all truly innovative technologies have origins that have been funded by the government loans/grants. That's the bottom line and it's not disputable.

Also remember that we haven't done anything truly significant since 1960s. Alot of the research that was done during that time have been refined and improved, but where are the quantum leaps? There are none.

Computers got faster, but it's still using transistors.
Cars got faster, but it's still using gas.
Battery technologies have improved, but it's still a pipe dream to run your laptop for 24hrs without charge.
Flights still take relatively the same time as decades ago.
Energy shortage? Still ongoing.

We need to start thinking about game changers that can fundamentally change how we live, like what automobiles, computers, airplanes, telephones did for us for the past century. What's the next revolution?

We need to get back to the era where scientists are truly respected and a sense of urgency and priority is given to make that next leap. That requires tremendous amounts of man power and coordination, and there's no better way than the government creating that initial chain reaction. You know why? Because they are the only enterprise big enough to make it happen. Most of the time, these types of projects may not have immediate tangible commercial impact.

You know why we were able to fly to the moon? Because the government said "we can" and we are gonna make it happen. It's amazing that humanity can do when everyone is on the same page. What's came out of it? A shit load of technologies where, with further research and additional funding from private enterprise, created alot of the technologies we use today.

Peace out.

By 1prophet on 7/14/2013 7:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
I am all for private industry paying its own way, unfortunately we live in a global economy were countries like China don't think twice about subsidizing their businesses in order to make our private only businesses non competitive.
Government subsidies to produce technologically advanced products and undercut foreign manufacturers have buttressed China's trade prowess.

Since 2000, the value of Chinese exports more than quadrupled. In 2009, China surpassed Germany to become the world's largest exporter. In 2010, it overtook Japan to become the second-largest manufacturer, and its foreign-exchange reserves became the largest in the world.

Last year, China overtook the U.S. to become the biggest trading nation (as measured by the sum of goods exported and imported). In the Chinese industries we studied -- solar, steel, glass, paper, and auto parts -- labor was between 2% and 7% of production costs, and imported raw materials and energy accounted for most costs. Production mostly came from small companies that possessed no scale economies.

Yet, Chinese products routinely sold for 25% to 30% less than those from the U.S. or European Union. We found that Chinese companies could do this only because of subsidies they received from China's central and provincial governments. The subsidies took the form of free or low-cost loans; artificially cheap raw materials, components, energy, and land; and support for R&D and technology acquisitions.

Since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization, subsidies have annually financed over 20% of the expansion of the country's manufacturing capacity. The state has willingly paid the price of economic inefficiency to accomplish political, social, economic, and diplomatic goals.

Huge Chinese subsidies have led to massive excess global capacity, increased exports, and depressed worldwide prices, and have hollowed out other countries' industrial bases.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki