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

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
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
People ARE saying that...

Because Tesla is financially healthy.

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.

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.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

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