backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by mars2k.. on Mar 10 at 8:03 AM

Tesla wants potential EV customers to stop worrying about electric range when it comes to the Model S

Tesla Motors recently made a coast-to-coast road trip possible in the U.S. with its all-electric Model S sedan, and the automaker wants travelers in Europe to have the same experience.

According to Tesla, there are big plans for an expansion of Supercharger stations throughout Europe in 2014. These stations rapidly charge Tesla's Model S for free, where a full charge takes around 75 minutes. New stores and service centers will be making their way to select European countries as well.

Currently, Tesla has 14 Superchargers throughout Norway, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. But the automaker is looking to place more within those countries and expand to the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden by the end of the year. It's not clear how many will be placed total.

 
Tesla will also open 30 new service centers and stores around Europe. Service centers will be placed in Sweden, Italy, and France for the first time, and stores will open in Birmingham and Manchester in the UK, Lyon and Bordeaux in France, Gothenburg in Sweden, and many more. 

Tesla wants potential EV customers to stop worrying about electric range when it comes to getting from point A to point B, and placing more Superchargers between major cities and frequented destinations is the way to do it. 

The automaker recently placed more Supercharger stations between Los Angeles and New York City in the U.S. as a way of relieving range anxiety for its American users. 

Tesla is making its way into China as well, where CEO Elon Musk recently said that the country might match the U.S. in volume "as early as next year" regarding the Model S. 

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 6:39:55 PM , Rating: -1
I'm glad the US taxpayer has helped make you what you are today, so you can go play around in Europe before we even have a true nation-wide Supercharger network here.

/spit




RE: Nice.
By gookpwr on 3/6/2014 7:49:39 PM , Rating: 4
Well Reclaimer77, I gotta say I like what you have to say most of the time, and I'm not disagreeing with you that the tax payer is creating subsidies to go against true capitalism. That shit sucks for sure. Corn ethanol pisses me off 10x more than this hide and seek of energy. As if energy comes from magic and not coal just because you're plugging your car into a box instead of a gas pump. Both burn fossil fuel to create energy just one is in your face and one isn't.

Consider this though...Tesla expanding into many nations to gain profits isn't a bad thing. This could make it far less likely that the US tax payer is going to lose out on all our tax dollars completely by auto industry/Gov't actually creating an affordable EV and battery tech that one day surpasses ICE's in efficiency for less money, with better performance, while one day also using renewable/nuclear energy to power the charging stations...I know it's not gonna happen tomorrow but...it could happen eventually.

Now also consider that if other nations are helping to fund Tesla's bottom line then its not the US tax payer footing the bill to do so. If Tesla continues its current model of putting superchargers in the US then hopefully to an extent its coming from foreign profits and not US subsidies. Which I can stomach until the above becomes true.

So in this circumstance I'm more hopeful than angered by what is going on.

Now my Grandpa used to say you can have hope in one hand and shit in the other, and which one is actually full? But so far Musk in general seems to be doing his best to do things right for the most part and I think given some time this could potentially be one of the subsidies that actually pays off, and benefits the US tax payer.


RE: Nice.
By titanmiller on 3/6/2014 8:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously? It's called exporting and it is a huge part of the economy.


RE: Nice.
By bigi on 3/6/14, Rating: -1
RE: Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2014 12:35:28 AM , Rating: 1
That's funny.

Europe is a joke. They allow manufacturers to blatantly cheat testing and claim ludicrous mileage owners can never get. Your crash test ratings are a joke compared to ours. And your emissions standards aren't even up to ours.

Yet you come on the Internet and spew bullshit about our "V8's" and act like we're slobs compared to you. Please, discounting our trucks, you probably have more large-engined production cars than we do!

Hey if you're so forward thinking, where is YOUR goddamn mass production electric vehicle on par with Tesla's?


RE: Nice.
By HolgerDK on 3/7/2014 3:08:38 AM , Rating: 1
How about you link some sources to support your claims?

Or is that to unamerican in your point of view?


RE: Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2014 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 1
Most of it is common knowledge. Like the new CAFE standards, no question America is on the forefront of mandated economy. Europe isn't even close.

Then there's: http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/14/carmakers-tak...

Europe lets car makers outright cheat, blatantly, on economy tests. I mean just look at the stuff they can get away with!

Not to say our testing always reflects real world driving, but at least you CAN achieve the posted mileage. In Europe this isn't the case.

So let me see, what else can I back up...Oh yeah! Emissions standards, easy to back up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emissio...

Not even close! And you guys are driving around in diesels by the ton, which are in no way as clean as our vehicles. Do you even have something like PZEV's?

So you know, I think I've made my case pretty completely and backed up everything I've stated.

When it comes to vehicle efficiency and clean emissions, Europe severely lags behind America. Fact.


RE: Nice.
By Murloc on 3/8/2014 8:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
actually it's only some countries who see widespread use of diesels because of historical different taxation on petrol and diesel. That's Italy.
Countries where this difference does not exist or is reveresed mostly use petrol for normal cars and diesel for trucks.


RE: Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2014 8:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
/shrug. Okay, granted.

However I think I backed my "claims" up as he requested. Everything I've stated was an absolute documented fact, and the voters here just hate it because it goes against their preconceived notions of America.


RE: Nice.
By freaqie on 3/9/2014 12:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
the point is this though:
Europe has tons of potential customers..
that equals money for Tesla.
which is good for you in the end...

so I don't see what the problem is.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 11:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
not V8/V10/V64 engines that americanos helped bringing to the world.


V64 Eh? I believe those are made in Finland which last time I checked was a part of Europe....

http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/medium-speed-en...


RE: Nice.
By cruisin3style on 3/7/2014 12:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
didn't they repay the loan?

maybe the government should intervene and stop companies from doing what they need to do in other countries to expand their presence. I'm sure that fits right in with your political views.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 1
Repaid maybe... Paid off, I don't think so.

It just means that they were able to convince somebody else to loan them the money (or proceeds for equity sales) to pay the DOE loan.


RE: Nice.
By Rukkian on 3/7/2014 12:15:05 PM , Rating: 3
So now you have a problem with stockholders paying money to pay off the government? That is where the money came from. Why does it even matter where the money came from (from a taxpayer perspective) as long as the loan got paid off with non-government funds?


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 12:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Never meant to imply I had a problem which them paying off the loan, or even that the loan was made in the first place.

I just want to point out that the fact that this loan was repaid has been noted before usually in the context to show that the Telsa company has been successful, and in that context someone could easily read that paying off the DOE loan meant that Tesla has been financially successful enough to that their earnings allowed them to pay down this debt. Their balance sheet seems to tell a different story with 1.1 billion in negative retained earnings which seems to suggest that their ability to pay off this debt had more to due with equity investment rather than the 878 million in net income the company lost in the last 4 years.

In short, I guess they are better off than Solyndra or Fisker in being able to find alternative financing but that's still pretty far from solid financial footing. In fact, the following editorial suggests a more cynical reason (the second part is behind a paywall but you get the idea from the first few paragraphs)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1668242-why-tesla-...


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 1:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla is financially successful, they are a growth company that reinvests all their profit into rapid growth(like amazon). So their finances are fairly solid. but yes they paid off the loan with stock options.

Also, I would not use seeking alpha as a credible source. Anyone can publish an article on SA. The author gets paid 1 cent for every view they get so the more controversial the topic the more they make. Especially an article from Peterson (The guy has been writing negative Tesla articles for years and has been wrong every time. He holds major investments in Lead Acid batteries and is not too thrilled in Lithium Ion taking over).


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
You have to have profits to be able to re-invest them, but if you think losing 900 million in the last four years is financially successful then I have a few shares in bank called Mt.Gox to sell you.


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 4:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and Tesla has profit. Their gross profit margins are at 25% and growing. They then take that money an reinvest it into the business, hence the low net profit.

Reporting net profit on a growing business is like throwing money away. (Because then you pay corporate taxes on it, if you reinvest the money automatically, it is deductible)

And that is not to say Tesla did not lose money prior, but that was part of investment costs. And I am pretty sure anyone who invested in those years to fund those costs are quite happy with their investments today.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Their gross margin can be 90%, but if EBITDA is negative you still lost money.


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 6:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Again, EBITDA does not account for investment spending. The obsession with useless metric that is net income is one of the reasons why our economy is doing so bad. Because it incentivizes not investing the money and instead holding it to report net profits.

The only use for net income is building up cash on hand. Otherwise it is useless for the company.

Amazon is a perfect example of how a company can rapidly grow and sustainable so without reporting any significant net profit.


RE: Nice.
By hpglow on 3/7/2014 2:09:10 AM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer you mom just called. She wants you to shove your head back into her vagina so she can get an abortion.


RE: Nice.
By amanojaku on 3/7/2014 3:01:52 AM , Rating: 5
Reclaimer, I'm not a fan of government subsidies or loans, either. However, you either refuse to acknowledge all of the details. I'm not sure if you're directing your anger and/or disgust at Musk or Tesla (or both), but here's what I know:

Musk was a millionaire long before he was associated with Tesla. He had at least $22M in 1999 from the sale of Zip2. He then purchased PayPal, and later sold it to eBay and received $165M in stock in 2002. Much of that was invested into SpaceX ($100M) and Tesla ($74M). Considering his $1 salary at Tesla, nearly all of his wealth comes from his stock (SpaceX is private, so I'm unaware of any salary info).

Tesla was initially funded by private investors, and raised $278M over six financing rounds. After its IPO, it raised another $30M in private funding.

Government funding came in the form of loans from California ($10M) and the federal government ($465M). I think you live in NC, so you probably don't care how California spends its money. The federal loans were part of the Bush-era Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program approved by Congress. Tesla paid all of it back, including $26M in interest. At the time the loan was granted, Tesla was making a profit. Consider, too, that the loan was far less than what was granted to Ford and Nissan, who have yet to repay their loans. Tesla has not had a government loan since.

As far as the supercharging stations are concerned, Tesla started building them in October 2012. There are 65 in the US already, 14 in Europe, and they cost $39.5M to build ($500K each). I don't see how Tesla's building stations in Europe negatively affects its progress here in the US. From what I can see, Musk is delivering what he promised. I'm also at a loss as to why you care. You've made it clear that you like your ICE, so how does Tesla affect you?


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 1:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla paid all of it back, including $26M in interest. At the time the loan was granted, Tesla was making a profit. Consider, too, that the loan was far less than what was granted to Ford and Nissan, who have yet to repay their loans. Tesla has not had a government loan since.


As I've said above, Telsa paying these loans back is not exactly a sign of financial health. To the contrary, why would Telsa want to payoff a loan with an interest rate of 1.6%?
A quick google search reveals the Ford and Nissan interest rate is 5% which, although 3 times Telsa's rate, right now is a pretty good cost of capital and you don't see those companies paying off early.

Now 2009 wasn't exactly a favorable year to obtain capital through equity offering, and things changed a lot in 3 years, but I company that ditches amazing low cost loans for equity isn't exactly confidence inspiring....


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
I got curious and found another article that goes into further detail...

quote:
He explained in his Seeking Alpha article that the Leverage Ratio terms prohibited Tesla’s consolidated debt from exceeding 6.5 times Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) for the 4th quarter of 2012, and 4.5 times EBITDA for each quarter in 2013. Because the company could not meet those standards, DOE lend-o-crats awarded a waiver in Feb. 2012 that delayed the effective dates of those ratios, but also required Tesla to set aside its loan payments ahead of time in a segregated account. A second waiver that delayed the Leverage Ratio requirement was granted on March 1, 2013, but the requirements to accelerate repayment of its loan became even more onerous as a result. “Both waivers were presented to the market as triumphs of financial engineering,” Petersen wrote, “but they were basically an up-market equivalent of a credit card issuer increasing minimum payments for a troubled cardholder.” Because, according to Petersen’s analysis, Tesla had no chance of raising 2013 earnings (EBITDA) high enough (an estimated $220 million, which Tesla would fall far short of) to cover the Leverage Ratio requirements for the year, the company would need to either renegotiate or repay the loan by the end of the year. Those facts were not disclosed in its SEC filings, nor was Musk forthcoming about the situation on a May 7 1st quarter conference call, after he was asked by a participant about the need to raise more capital. “We don’t have any plans right now to raise funding,” Musk responded. “Potentially we expect to be – we were positive cash flow in Q1 and we expect to be there relatively sort of neutral on cash flow in Q2. But if it was possible, we could be optimistic about raising a round, but we have spent no time on that at all.” But only eight days later Tesla announced a $1 billion public offering backed by heavy hitters Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley, which enabled the payback of the $465 million DOE loan and “shore(d) up a dismally feeble balance sheet that had $124.7 million of equity and a $14.2 million working capital deficit on December 31, 2012,” Petersen wrote.


http://blog.heartland.org/2013/09/tesla-had-to-rep...

So, it appears that at best Musk in withholding information and at worst possibly committing investment fraud.

According to Yahoo finance TSLA market cap is 30.55 billion while Ford's market cap is 61.54. Ford's operating income for 2013 is 5.4 billion. Telsa's is negative 61 million.

Anybody else see a disconnect? I'd short TSLA stock right now, but I bet it's hard to find brokers who can borrow the shares...not to mention by its very nature, it can be hard to predict when financial lunacy will come back to reality.


RE: Nice.
By amanojaku on 3/7/2014 1:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
No one said Tesla is financially healthy TODAY. It doesn't sell enough cars to be self-sufficient and everyone knows this.

Reclaimer's argument is that Tesla exists due to government funding. That's not entirely true, and I pointed this out in my post. Tesla has done what all large companies have done: ask for outside funding to build and expand its business. This is an age-old practice. Reclaimer wouldn't care if Tesla got ALL of its funding from private companies. However, since the government loans were available it was a no-brainer to seek them. Considering the amount, and the positive press, it is likely that Tesla could have raised this privately, but loans don't come with investor strings attached (board seats, a desire to interfere with the business, etc...)

The fact that Tesla had to pay the government loan back by a certain date is immaterial. It DID pay back the loan, because it COULD, and this was accounted for in its loan terms. Ford and Nissan haven't paid them back yet because they CAN'T, and this was accounted for in their loan terms. You're arguing an entirely different point from the OP.

As a follow up to your second reply, and other posts, your sources are biased. They're conservative groups, and Heartland in particular is critical of government spending, so I wouldn't expect objective analysis from either.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer's argument is that Tesla exists due to government funding. That's not entirely true, and I pointed this out in my post.
I agree with you on it's continued existance, yet it's hard not to think that the DOE loan was offered for political reasons rather than one that made financial sense.

The main thing I want to make clear is that there is a lot of Pro-Telsa talk that uses the loan being paid back early as evidence that Tesla is successful as company. That sound good on it's face, yet when you look deeper at the circumstances of the loan it actually shows financial weakness rather than strength.

The sources I linked to may generally be biased, yet enough facts are laid out such as why on earth would Tesla pay off a 1.6 percent loan, unless there are other terms that would require it. The article states that certain financial health ratio criteria (which are common on large project loans) were likely to put Tesla in default, and since it was a DOE loan, making modifications to the terms would not go unnoticed. Getting another loan of that size would be difficult and probably impossible at that rate, so Musk turned to the equity market which had improved dramatically since the loan originated. Problem is possibility of default was mentioned in any filings and, unless the article is lying, Musk even down played the possibility of other funding on a conference call only days before the equity offering announcement. Some might say that was shrewd, but it can also be called dishonest.

As for Ford and Nissan, I'm sure they could cover the loans if they had to, but probably not at the same rate... most of Fords bonds are trading over 5%, so it's cheap money for them. Compared that to Tesla, who if not for Goldman's equity placement ability, if they had to float a bond two years ago, what rating would S&P or Moody's likely assign to it?

Considering their cash performance, I'm guess it would something closer to junk status rather than Ford's investment grade BBB- status.

Anything I've said so far does not reflect on my opinion of the product they sell. I just wonder if the conviction some have about their product becomes misplaced onto to Tesla as a company.


RE: Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 4:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People ARE saying that...


Because Tesla is financially healthy.

quote:
Tesla is the company it is today because of the Government loan. The massive tax subsidies, and of course the California carbon credit scam designed to prop them up at the cost of other automakers.

Now I'm not saying Tesla wouldn't be around today without those things, but it's hard argue they've been essentially crutched by the American taxpayer every step of the way.


The loan helped but was not crucial, considering how fast they repaid the loan they could have taken the loan from anywhere. Obviously since the government offered the cheapest loan they took the most financially sound option.

The tax subsidies are completely irrelevant. Do you honestly think 6-10% in tax credits would effect a company who can't keep up with demand?

And what California carbon credits? If you are talking about ZEV credits. They do not govern carbon dioxide or any global warming. They govern local pollution like NOx(smog and acid rain), O3(lung damage) and etc. You could make an EV that gives off nothing but CO2 and still make ZEV credits. That said, as of Q4, Tesla made 0$ in ZEV credits.

quote:
They borrowed from Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes. Musk's bookkeeping is borderline criminal. His non-GAAP numbers nonsense. Tesla is a bubble waiting to burst.


There is nothing criminal about it. And there is nothing non-sensual about non-GAAP numbers. At issue is that Tesla introduced a new way of buying cars which is a financing with buyback component. GAAP has no way of accounting for it, so they are forced to file it under lease accounting which makes Tesla break up the earnings by month. So despite having 100% of the money on hand, Tesla has to file it in pieces. Kind of like some DMVs make you fill out a form stating how many gallons of gas your electric car has.(And 0 is not an option). In due time, GAAP will have to update their rules to account for this from of financing cars.


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 5:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why would Telsa want to payoff a loan with an interest rate of 1.6%?


Other then the fact the industry was willing to give Tesla a loan at 1.5%?

quote:
A quick google search reveals the Ford and Nissan interest rate is 5%


No, a quick google says their interest rate is around 2%. Since 1.6% is around 2% I am guessing their rate is very similar.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 5:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Other then the fact the industry was willing to give Tesla a loan at 1.5%?


That's not what happened. Musk stated they had enough liquidity on hand specifically mentioning the DOE loan, but shortly after that a large stock offering was announced. The offering pretty much financed the DOE payback. This is not unusual in corporate finance. However, 1.6% is VERY cheap money, and doing an offering to because the company is likely to default on the loan is remarkable... remarkable enough that it probably should have been disclosed. Since that time the stock has done O.K. so nobody is bitching, but had it not you can bet some shareholder suits would be in the mail. I think it's worth noting that a pretty big financing gamble had to be made to keep the company out of default.

Ford's DOE rate may be lower, what I read was general about it, however it's all the more reason Ford would not pay the loan back... because it's a good deal...and further proof TSLA was going to default on theirs.

As for Telsa making money... according to Dec 2013 filing,

EBITDA is negative 38.5 million. It's hard to invest negative profits. Considering the recent talk of plant investment, one can conclude more outside cash will be needed at some point....or maybe the DOE can give them another loan!


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's not what happened.


But that is what happened, Tesla along side the public offering did a bond offering at a rate of 1.5%.

quote:
However, 1.6% is VERY cheap money, and doing an offering to because the company is likely to default on the loan is remarkable


Let us look at it hypothetically if that was true. Even if that were the case, Tesla had more than enough money to make the monthly payments on the loan. Having Tesla default on the loan due to conditions set by the loan would have been a huge blow to the loan program. Just like the previous wavers, Tesla would have just gotten another waver. Simply because they had the money to make the payments. But again, that is if it is true. Anything mentioned by Peterson about Tesla should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no indications though that Tesla would not be compliant or default on the loan as they were already compliant with the terms in 2012.

quote:
As for Telsa making money... according to Dec 2013 filing,

EBITDA is negative 38.5 million. It's hard to invest negative profits. Considering the recent talk of plant investment, one can conclude more outside cash will be needed at some point....or maybe the DOE can give them another loan!


You can invest gross profit just fine actually. EBITDA is money AFTER investments. As for financing, they did another bond offering in the tune of 1.6 billion which will cover the factory at a rate of 1.5%.


RE: Nice.
By weaponzero on 3/7/2014 3:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
The superchargers are not paid by Tax payers but by customers. Every Tesla Model S contributes 2k to the supercharger fund. There is no reason to deny customers what they bought based on discriminating nationalities.

The limitation of the expansion of the supercharger network in both US and EU is not cost or man power related. It is mostly related to 2 things:

1) It is harder to build during winter when you have polar vortexes and the like.

2) Most of the delay is building superchargers is red tape. If you have seen the leaked images, it only takes 2-3 weeks to build a supercharger but 80% of the time is spent getting the paperwork approved.

Hence why building in parallel makes logical and financial sense.


RE: Nice.
By captainBOB on 3/7/2014 4:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla paid their dues, not just on time but early.

They are no longer beholden to your cocked up sense of ownership. They are a business, and limiting yourself to one United States of America is monumentally stupid and ignorant.

Kinda like your post. The ignorant part that is. No wait, scratch that, include the stupid part too.


RE: Nice.
By sorry dog on 3/7/2014 1:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Again...please see above. Tesla paying off their DOE loan early is not all rainbows and unicorns.

I'm not against Telsa or their cars. I hope they succeed and give consumers another viable choice... If I won the lottery and owned 10 cars, one would probably be a Tesla, yet I hate to see facts distorted to give a reader the opposite impression of what they otherwise might think.


RE: Nice.
By captainBOB on 3/9/2014 1:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your link is from the Heartland Institute, they're about as credible as source as Globe Magazine.

The first paragraph of the article.

quote:
When it comes to Tesla Motors, an irrational exuberance has overtaken Wall Street, theDepartment of Energy, electric car advocates, government interventionists, crony capitalists, techie nerds and Elon Musk fanboys everywhere.


You honestly expect me to believe your concern trolling when you put up this garbage? Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8


RE: Nice.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/9/2014 4:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
Paragraph looks dead on to me.

You don't see it that way because of YOUR bias.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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