# Tesla roadster finally turning a profit... well not really



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

While its not great news, it is an improvement (if its true). At least they are turning a profit now (if its true).

Makes me wonder what kind of car I could have built for $140000 build budget.

So this doesn't include prototyping, safety certification and other initial start up legacy costs?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> While its not great news, it is an improvement (if its true). At least they are turning a profit now (if its true).
> 
> Makes me wonder what kind of car I could have built for $140000 build budget.
> 
> So this doesn't include prototyping, safety certification and other initial start up legacy costs?


It doesn't include OVERHEAD... meaning no taxes, insurance for the factories, benefits to employees, building expenses, property leasing, etc  Definitely definitely not including R&D, government certifications, etc

Zero... besides material costs... (This is pretty much exactly what they're saying)

What that means to me... is the Tesla Roadster was costing at least $200k by accounting book standards before... and at least $100k now (probably 120-130k)

To give you a scale... the lowest line Hyundai is about a $2500 material cost last I heard (sells for $9000-11,000). Assume Tesla needs at least half of that percentage increase in order to hope for a profit once it's actually out of the door. (I'm sure most people realize that the material cost is a almost no part of the cost of an average car... it's almost all labor/benefits/regulations, etc)

Tesla's press releases are very vague... but profitability means that they won't be losing money on every car. And this might ACTUALLY mean based upon what their reps said, they will be making money on ONLY the "sport" edition starting next month which is $128,000.

I have a suspicion that is the truth (that it's only on the sport edition).

"Overhead expenses are all costs on the income statement except for direct labor and direct materials. Overhead expenses include accounting fees, advertising, depreciation, insurance, interest, legal fees, rent, repairs, supplies, taxes, telephone bills, travel and utilities costs"

Especially with Tesla's constant legal battles from co-founders and all of the people Munk has fired (numerous huge lawsuits), you can expect a huge overhead cost.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Thats what I get for just skimming through your very first line.

Yeah if material costs were all there was to making a car, then I would be building them by the dozen already.

Theres no way they are profitable with those numbers. Reminds me a little of that Utube video you posted about Obama looking to cut $100 000 000 from the budget.

Show some numbers and hope they buy it.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Thats what I get for just skimming through your very first line.
> 
> Yeah if material costs were all there was to making a car, then I would be building them by the dozen already.


You and me both.

I really dislike Munk (no secret).

The old raw material costs of $140k is way worse than anything I imagined for Tesla. 

It's a huge catastrophe of a business currently without a single sign of a positive future.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

How much of their parts are made in house? Are they just outsourcing everything? Low volume and prototyping fees might explain some of the gap, but $140k per car? That just blows my mind.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> How much of their parts are made in house? Are they just outsourcing everything? Low volume and prototyping fees might explain some of the gap, but $140k per car? That just blows my mind.


Everything is outsourced still (unless there's a couple inhouse things like windshields etc).

ACP motors/controllers
Lotus bodies/frames (can't imagine those are anywhere near as cheap as if they did it in house)
All of the batteries are domestic so very overpriced (and there's 7000 cells... which I'm sure causes large reliability issues yet to be discovered)

I think you're still missing it David... $140k/car is not including anything with overhead either. This isn't what they invested before... this is what it costs Tesla right this second to make a single Roadster... if they had all of the connections by magic and a factory etc. and there was no such thing as overhead costs (which generally make up at least double the price of labor/materials in basically every car ever made)

That is ONLY the car's materials and the direct labor... (just the per hour rate... not including benefits, recruiting, insurances, etc etc).

I really don't have any way of knowing after you include R&D (which was about 50-70 million self reported) what the price should be to break even... since 500 cars at $140k per car in about 35,000,000 is raw costs... probably like $160-180k to break even on each car... $360-380k/car to make back the R&D budget after 500 cars.

This is why I said they need to make/sell at least 9000 probably to break even with the profitability figures they have now (though I think $9000/car is generous... Tesla doesn't like to be specific)

All of this is speculation, but that non-overhead figure of $140k/car without ANYTHING but labor/materials made my eyes bug out.

With the large net loss they've operated under thus far and the current recall on their parts, they're beyond lucky our government stepped in for mooching purposes. They won't be making 20-30 roadsters/week for very long once they exhaust their deposit list. Expect the Roadster to be a zero sum game (or worse) in the future.

Of course this isn't including continuous operations once they are forced to scale back production once sales dry up (fire all of the skilled laborers they are using now?).


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Oh I get it alright. But since I am technically self employed, my overhead operating costs are very small and tend to think more in terms of raw material costs than labor, or commercial rate shope leasing (much to my father's aggravation). I am well aware that overhead costs go proportionally higher relative to their product the bigger the company is. So I guess I should be fantasizing about blowing closer to $160-200k on my prototype? heehee ok, you win

Sure would be nice to know what the real price per car would be though. Wonder what the press reliese will read like in another month or two. Better yet, what will it be like in the spring of 2010......I sure won't be investing my money but still have that morbid curiosity.

Reminds me a little of canada's ZENN motors. At least the tesla drives like a real car though.


----------



## Grant_NZ (May 28, 2008)

Interesting... I don't how it works in the US but over here in New Zealand, I claim all my losses occurred through my business and get a weekly tax refund in the form off lower tax rate on my pay packet...  very nice


----------



## lottos (Jun 22, 2008)

Why worry about profit and single out Tesla?

GM etc. haven't for years and look where that got them... straight back into business thanks to the taxpayers. It's a win win for them no matter what they do.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

lottos said:


> Why worry about profit and single out Tesla?


Because any company operating without a profit margin (and Tesla is operating at a 50%+ loss per car) is doomed to fail... even with government bailouts all day



> GM etc. haven't for years and look where that got them... straight back into business thanks to the taxpayers. It's a win win for them no matter what they do.


It's a lose lose for consumers... which will never see an affordable EV and yet waste billions on Tesla in the hopes Munk can at least get material costs below the price of the car. (of course any 25 yr old engineer from MIT could get that cost below $20,000... but let's pretend Munk has something to offer the world that it's not already overflowing with, and yet being ignored)

It also is assured that it will be at least 5-10 years before we even see a $50-60k EV that goes 100 miles.

I single out Tesla because I accused Munk way back before they even shipped a car of just wanting government money, and never would be anything but a drain on resources. Hate being right but, it sure seems like that's the case and will continue to be the case. I think it'd be great if Munk lost that co-founder law suit.


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Everything is outsourced still (unless there's a couple inhouse things like windshields etc).
> 
> ACP motors/controllers
> Lotus bodies/frames (can't imagine those are anywhere near as cheap as if they did it in house)
> ...


Everything is not outsourced. For example, the motors and controllers are not from ACP but are of their own design and making.

The batteries aren't domestic, they're from Japan. (6800 per) And there hasn't been any fires or other disasters the haters foretold.

They can't do the frames "in house" because they don't yet have the space or machinery to do it. 

Also, the money they received wasn't a bailout but rather, a loan and came from monies approved by Congress last year for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.

Furthermore, you've never seen their books and can't say how much they pay per Roadster. It should be noted that much of the money spent by the company is not simply for the Roadster but for establishing the company which will benefit future models.

Go on and be a bitter hater if you get off on that but at least get your facts straight.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

r


drivin98 said:


> Everything is not outsourced. For example, the motors and controllers are not from ACP but are of their own design and making.


Since when?



> The batteries aren't domestic, they're from Japan. (6800 per) And there hasn't been any fires or other disasters the haters foretold.


 Japan prices still mean I was probably right about what they're paying. Who said there would be fires? I certainly didn't. I simply question their lifespan being Lithium-ion type and being SO many cells (ie. serious issues even with the most dynamic BMS from stopping a runaway failure of the pack). Of course, this won't come out for 1-2 years if it exists. I have a feeling we'll see such a battery issue though. Monitoring 7000 cells of a Lithium ion pack is out of the question... and lithium ions themselves only usually last 1-3 years in any kind of heat environment.

I suspect the pack is at least 2 times higher in price than using LiFePO4's from China.... possibly much much more than that once you include assembling 7000 cells instead of just a few dozen prismatics.



> They can't do the frames "in house" because they don't yet have the space or machinery to do it.


I suppose outsourcing that to a chinese company instead of lotus (ie. cloning the Lotus frame but with Chinese hands) would be out of the question



> Also, the money they received wasn't a bailout but rather, a loan and came from monies approved by Congress last year for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.


You can call it whatever you want... they will be using it just to stay alive for the next couple years.



> Furthermore, you've never seen their books and can't say how much they pay per Roadster. It should be noted that much of the money spent by the company is not simply for the Roadster but for establishing the company which will benefit future models.


I don't need to see their books to know that the $140k figure they TOLD people is not including overhead... and that overhead is VERY expensive. Hell even if the $140k/car figure was all included the company is still a cesspool.

Your above statement makes me think it was a lot more than $140k/per roadster they quoted for just labor/materials. You said "much of the money" is used for that purpose. $60-70k more per roadster? Sounds very possible to me.

Assuming Tesla manages $9000/roadster out of the 800 roadsters they have left to build... it still won't make up the $40-100k/roadster they LOST on the first 500... not even close. This isn't even including R&D, certifications and other things that supposedly ran the company about $40-60 million years ago.



> Go on and be a bitter hater if you get off on that but at least get your facts straight.


I don't think I'd work for Munk if he offered me all of the money he got from the Feds. I don't think that's being a hater, just a realist. 
I'd absolutely hate working on these atrocities he's creating. Especially when he can't even seem to keep costs under sale price for a grossly overpriced car like the Roadster.
Do you really forsee that sedan of his being under the $50k list price he's pushing? reaaaallly? How do you think he'll manage that outsourcing everything again?

Just the continuing operations after Tesla delivers the 1300 cars with a deposit will probably make any tiny profitability he manages per/car moot. Once they stop making 20-30 cars/week (which will happen in about 6months-1 year)... how are they even going to make a dime sitting on the labor/facility to make 20-30 cars a week (a small small number) when they're only making 1-2 roadsters a week?

They better hurry up and get that Sedan out... even if they're blowing through government funds left and right to do it. Otherwise the company will collapse completely before one even rolls off the line.
Especially if battery packs on the cars die after 2-3 years (which the lifespan numbers of Lithium ion could CERTAINLY make that a possibility). If that happens, they have to beat the lawsuit to the floor.
If they don't, a lawyer like myself will be dumping a $50+ million class action on his lap to compensate for the use of the batteries he chose (of course this is speculation, but based upon general engineering knowledge)


----------



## lottos (Jun 22, 2008)

Technologic said:


> I don't think I'd work for Munk if he offered me all of the money he got from the Feds. I don't think that's being a hater, just a realist.


 oh puhlease... you would.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

lottos said:


> oh puhlease... you would.


lol if by working you mean STEALING... then yes... yes I would 

Would I give him my best ideas to shit all over? no.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I still can't get over that silly door sill spat. What a waste of time that was.

By the way, Happy Birthday Nikola Tesla!


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

Technologic said:


> r
> Since when?


Since always. The only thing Tesla has from ACP is licensing of their reductive charging patent.



> Japan prices still mean I was probably right about what they're paying. Who said there would be fires? I certainly didn't. I simply question their lifespan being Lithium-ion type and being SO many cells (ie. serious issues even with the most dynamic BMS from stopping a runaway failure of the pack). Of course, this won't come out for 1-2 years if it exists. I have a feeling we'll see such a battery issue though. Monitoring 7000 cells of a Lithium ion pack is out of the question... and lithium ions themselves only usually last 1-3 years in any kind of heat environment.
> 
> I suspect the pack is at least 2 times higher in price than using LiFePO4's from China.... possibly much much more than that once you include assembling 7000 cells instead of just a few dozen prismatics.


Perhaps you didn't predict fires but other naysayers certainly have. Monitoring close to 7000 cells is indeed a challenge (akin to building rockets even. Oh wait.) but so far, it seems to be working. I used to think they should have gone with the LiFePO4 but I realize the solution they have come up with is adequate for now. Yes, the LiFePO4 is twice as cheap but battery Tesla uses is twice as energy dense. A Roadster with half the range would not be nearly as desirable. I suspect they will last at least 5 years as predicted and owners do have the option of reserving a new pack now for a decent price. If you can afford a Roadster to begin with that shouldn't be much of an issue.



> I suppose outsourcing that to a chinese company instead of lotus (ie. cloning the Lotus frame but with Chinese hands) would be out of the question


Yes, it's out of the question. You're suggesting they should have stolen ip from Lotus and reproduced the frame in China which would raise quality questions. Totally out of the question.



> You can call it whatever you want... they will be using it just to stay alive for the next couple years.


I wasn't calling it what I want, I was calling it what it factually is and the terms of the agreement dictate its usage, which means it mostly goes to getting the S into production.



> I don't need to see their books to know that the $140k figure they TOLD people is not including overhead... and that overhead is VERY expensive. Hell even if the $140k/car figure was all included the company is still a cesspool.
> 
> Your above statement makes me think it was a lot more than $140k/per roadster they quoted for just labor/materials. You said "much of the money" is used for that purpose. $60-70k more per roadster? Sounds very possible to me.
> 
> Assuming Tesla manages $9000/roadster out of the 800 roadsters they have left to build... it still won't make up the $40-100k/roadster they LOST on the first 500... not even close. This isn't even including R&D, certifications and other things that supposedly ran the company about $40-60 million years ago.


I haven't seen their books either so I can hardly speculate what their costs and margins are though I suspect they are much better than your guesses.



> I don't think I'd work for Munk if he offered me all of the money he got from the Feds. I don't think that's being a hater, just a realist.
> I'd absolutely hate working on these atrocities he's creating. Especially when he can't even seem to keep costs under sale price for a grossly overpriced car like the Roadster.


I don't know if I'd work for him either but calling the Roadster an atrocity or overpriced isn't exactly realistic, hence the hater tag. Perhaps you think laying out cash for a ....oh, wait a sec, there is no comparable electric car on the market. (I imagine you don't consider an $80,000 ACP 2007 Scion conversion comparable.)



> Do you really forsee that sedan of his being under the $50k list price he's pushing? reaaaallly? How do you think he'll manage that outsourcing everything again?


$57,500 pre-rebate and I can imagine that price creeping upwards.



> Just the continuing operations after Tesla delivers the 1300 cars with a deposit will probably make any tiny profitability he manages per/car moot. Once they stop making 20-30 cars/week (which will happen in about 6months-1 year)... how are they even going to make a dime sitting on the labor/facility to make 20-30 cars a week (a small small number) when they're only making 1-2 roadsters a week?


They need and will likely get more sales as the dealerships open around America and Europe. 



> They better hurry up and get that Sedan out... even if they're blowing through government funds left and right to do it. Otherwise the company will collapse completely before one even rolls off the line.
> Especially if battery packs on the cars die after 2-3 years (which the lifespan numbers of Lithium ion could CERTAINLY make that a possibility). If that happens, they have to beat the lawsuit to the floor.
> 
> If they don't, a lawyer like myself will be dumping a $50+ million class action on his lap to compensate for the use of the batteries he chose (of course this is speculation, but based upon general engineering knowledge)


I guess we'll have to wait and see how long the batteries last although it should be said that most, based upon general engineering knowledge, expect the batteries around 5 years. Good luck with that lawsuit though.

I really don't mean to call your EV lovin' credentials into question with all this. I simply think your judgment about Tesla is clouded by your Musk-hating emotions. I hope you buy or build yourself an EV someday soon and get on with the grinning.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

drivin98 said:


> Since always. The only thing Tesla has from ACP is licensing of their reductive charging patent.


This is the first I think anyone here has heard of them not using the ACP system. Do you have any sources?



> Perhaps you didn't predict fires but other naysayers certainly have. Monitoring close to 7000 cells is indeed a challenge (akin to building rockets even. Oh wait.) but so far, it seems to be working. I used to think they should have gone with the LiFePO4 but I realize the solution they have come up with is adequate for now. Yes, the LiFePO4 is twice as cheap but battery Tesla uses is twice as energy dense.


twice as energy dense is certainly not the case, especially once you include all of the additional things they need such as large complex BMSs to even hope for it to work + the cases on 7000 cells. 
Lithium ion at best is only about 15% lighter than LiFePO4.



> Yes, it's out of the question. You're suggesting they should have stolen ip from Lotus and reproduced the frame in China which would raise quality questions. Totally out of the question.


You realize almost every single car you drive basically had every single thing in it manufactured there? That often includes the engine.
Ford doesn't seem to have issues with Chinese frame quality. Hell I suggested it simply because they could stop dealing with Lotus (which I'm sure is raping them).



> I wasn't calling it what I want, I was calling it what it factually is and the terms of the agreement dictate its usage, which means it mostly goes to getting the S into production.


Much like how the government bailout money was "dictated" for certain usage .



> I haven't seen their books either so I can hardly speculate what their costs and margins are though I suspect they are much better than your guesses.


I suspect they're much much worse than the little they have released about it. They said back in 2007 they spent about $50 million just getting the Roadster authorized etc. Seems very possible based upon what I know.

I could see books at about -$100 million right now at Tesla very easily considering how much they were losing on Roadsters.



> there is no comparable electric car on the market. (I imagine you don't consider an $80,000 ACP 2007 Scion conversion comparable.)


I don't think I'd want anything "comparable".... I think many/all people just want something cheaper



> I guess we'll have to wait and see how long the batteries last although it should be said that most, based upon general engineering knowledge, expect the batteries around 5 years. Good luck with that lawsuit though.


I doubt I'd bother suing them, but if it's obvious someone would (Tesla has been mired in lawsuits since day one anyway) Your suspicion of 5 years seems a tad hopeful.

Assuming the car is kept fully charged, lithium ion batteries at 40C age about 20%/year (2 years = 60% nominal capacity). That's just normal outside summer temperatures. Since it's a sports car it likely will be stored for long periods. I hope Tesla included a refrigerator area for the battery pack.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

drivin98:


> Since always. The only thing Tesla has from ACP is licensing of their reductive charging patent.


This was true for first 500 roadsters. The 2010 models that they have just started delivering don't use the motor as inductor any more. Hence no ACP knowledge or patents in Tesla Roadster any more. Actual components were never from ACP, except maybe for the first mule, not even EP.

Technologic:


> This is the first I think anyone here has heard of them not using the ACP system. Do you have any sources?


This only means you know shit about Tesla Motors and Tesla Roadster.
Yes, I hate Musk also, but at least I know his name and some facts.
Go read Tesla Motors Club and stop spreading bullsh*t.



> I think many/all people just want something cheaper


Go make a factory and start building them and then sell that cheaper car to me as a proof it can be done. You can't? So it just more bullsh*t ah? People want to live forever, that doesn't mean selling eternal-life pills is honorable business.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

WarpedOne said:


> This only means you know shit about Tesla Motors and Tesla Roadster.
> Yes, I hate Musk also, but at least I know his name and some facts.
> Go read Tesla Motors Club and stop spreading bullsh*t.


It's fairly widespread that Telsa used the ACP motor... in fact, everyone says so on this forum and others.

Good to know they weren't buying that overpriced thing.
I still think the company is riding the waves of the toilet though.

I'd be interested in them once they finally recoup their initial expenditures (not sure that will ever happen).


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

Technologic said:


> It's fairly widespread that Telsa used the ACP motor... in fact, everyone says so on this forum and others.


Maybe fairly widespread bullshit. That doesn't make it true. Since the very first day, Tesla Motors had had a public web site, they also have a FAQ:



> *What is your relationship with AC Propulsion?*
> 
> Tesla licensed AC Propulsion's Reductive Charging(tm) patent, which integrates the charging electronics into the inverter in a way that reduces mass and complexity. *Tesla has designed and builds its own power electronics, motor, and other drivetrain components that incorporate this licensed technology from AC Propulsion.*


As I said, 2010 Roadsters (everything that is being delivered as of July this year) don't use this licensed technology any more.

Is it really that hard to get info from the source?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

WarpedOne said:


> Maybe fairly widespread bullshit. That doesn't make it true.


Of course it doesn't, but this is the first I've heard of it (likely many others have as well) and last time I will mention it


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

That went south pretty quick.

For the record, there was some info on ACP's website where they took credit for some of the technology that went into the tesla. If I remember right, they were not very specific about what exactly it was. In practice, I've found that "made in USA" or (in my case) "made in canada" can be a fairly loose definition, and you can't always take a company's word at face value.

Offering some up to date referrences would have been better than getting personal and calling some one a hater. I ask you all to consider that if you find yourself in a similar discussion later on.


----------



## ruttmeister (Mar 23, 2009)

Technologic said:


> You realize almost every single car you drive basically had every single thing in it manufactured there? That often includes the engine.
> Ford doesn't seem to have issues with Chinese frame quality. Hell I suggested it simply because they could stop dealing with Lotus (which I'm sure is raping them).


I really have to take issue with this... 

Aside from the minor detail of Lotus Enginering working with the majority of car makers in some way or another (it makes as much money as Lotus Cars) so ripping them off would probably in the process mean p*ssing off the majority of the industry...

Given that China has an almost legendary problem with quality controls and counterfitting... you think its a good idea to try getting them to start building a cutting edge bonded alloy chassis? You know it needs assembling in a clean enviroment?

I'm sure your chassis de-laminating at 70+ mph would be fun... but probably not very safe 

Oh, and on the battery issue... do you really think Tesla haven't put some very clear disclamers in all their paperwork to protect them from issues in the future?

Although, to be fair and ballanced... Lotus are probably screwing them for as much as they can, they were one of the larger nails in the delorian after all 

I wish I understood why people hate Tesla so much 
They might not be perfect, but theres nobody doing a better job yet!


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ruttmeister said:


> I really have to take issue with this...
> 
> Aside from the minor detail of Lotus Enginering working with the majority of car makers in some way or another (it makes as much money as Lotus Cars) so ripping them off would probably in the process mean p*ssing off the majority of the industry...
> 
> Given that China has an almost legendary problem with quality controls and counterfitting... you think its a good idea to try getting them to start building a cutting edge bonded alloy chassis? You know it needs assembling in a clean enviroment?


The problem is, neither you or I can tell where most of our car parts come from. However, one of the most reliable brands sources about 70% of their parts prefabbed off Chinese container ships, Hyundai. I don't think they have any delaminating problems etc. 

China actually manufactures and ships all of Asia's Ford cars... is that good enough? 
I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a single car that didn't source much of its moving parts directly from china (from transmissions to prefabbed engines).

China's "infamous quality problems" are actually only with new CHINESE car companies (with Chinese CEOs/engineers)... not the American brands shipping their engineering overseas.

Not a big chinese fan, but they sure as hell aren't competitive right now so (and won't be with that $60k sedan either)



> I wish I understood why people hate Tesla so much
> They might not be perfect, but theres nobody doing a better job yet!


Simply put, Musk is an idiot and it's obvious. He didn't grab up some genius engineer and get down to business... instead he went to Lotus (one of the most mediocrely heavy sports cars on the planet) and shoved 56kwh into a $109k car and somehow lost money.

56kwh in a lot of areas to go 200miles isn't THAT much less expensive than gas, with all of the associated problems with battery life... what, honestly, is the point of the car? * 56kwh = 12 cents-15 cents/kwh = $8.40 to "fill up"... almost IDENTICAL to what it costs me to fill my car to go 200 miles with gas* and my car is a pile of crap engineering wise (I can go about 200 miles $10 at the moment). 60mpg equivalency in an electric car? BLECH!

And this is of course all assuming 100% efficiency in charging the car *laughs profusely*

I just don't get it... you could buy two corvettes for the price of the Roadster (or 3 Lotuses)

The Aptera, though lacking 4 wheels, seems to be a smarter strategy (and their deposit size proves it... just in California they have 5 times as many orders already as Tesla nationwide)

10kwh in the aptera and it goes 120miles on a charge... just a TINY bit better than the $20,000-30,000 pack Tesla uses (considering it costs 5-10 times less and is bound to last longer being LiFePO4).

If Tesla had that strategy, we wouldn't be talking about them. They'd be on the fast track to the largest domestic car manufacturer... and trying to catch up with orders 2 years ahead of time.

So what you get for $109,000... you get the same cost as a 50mpg car to drive... you get a $20,000-30,000 battery replacement bill every 2-4 years... ...... and you probably don't even save any CO2 emissions from all the damn electricity you use.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

GM has been building many of their engines in mainland china for a few years now. This is nothing new and if anyone wants to bash the chinese for putting out low quality then the can, but the reality is most of the domestic automakers are already having huge amounts of parts made over there already.

The chinese should not be underestimated in capability and that includes their quality potential. Not all are superb, but they certainly can do it when called for.

The tesla was never intended to be a practical car and probably shouldn't be thought of in that light. Its about image, nothing more. Driving a Ferrari isn't politically correct anymore. But the tesla is zero emission and can still be fun to drive. While I commend them for jumping in with the Lion cells that they used as a gutsy move, it might not have been the best choice. 

Cycle and calender life do not come close to that of LiFePO4 cells (made in china), so as an investment the car will never pay of and was never intended to. The amount of trouble that tesla went through to make them safe is also astonishing. I don't think safety is a problem even with these little "fire cracker" cells, but the cost and time that went into it combined with the short life make me wonder if the car has any future.

Personally, given the initial success of the first release of the tesla I would argue that it was indeed too cheap. A price of $150 000 might have been better for the sake of the company. Would I have paid that even if I was a zillion heir? hell no, but its all about getting as much out of the customer as possible and judging by how quickly they sold out, there was lots of room to go higher in price.

The venturi fetish on the other hand was far too high. Of course its easy for me to second guess them having watched it all unfold from the side lines.

The aptera is a better car IMO, but still not something that I would consider driving.......maybe.....

I do like their approach in terms of efficiency first. The reality is by getting rid of weight and streamlining the car as much as possible, the "seat of the pants" performance has a way of taking care of itself. The tesla is a step forward, but I would call it evolutionary, not revolutionary.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> The tesla was never intended to be a practical car and probably shouldn't be thought of in that light. Its about image, nothing more. Driving a Ferrari isn't politically correct anymore. But the tesla is zero emission and can still be fun to drive. While I commend them for jumping in with the Lion cells that they used as a gutsy move, it might not have been the best choice.


Gutsy means risky (high probability of failure).

Likewise I'd suggest that Tesla has exhausted almost their ENTIRE customer base for the roadster already... orders will trickle in... but 20-30 cars a week isn't a flood (and that's the "flood" for Tesla).

I give them a 15% chance of long term survival... even with multiple bailouts



> Cycle and calender life do not come close to that of LiFePO4 cells (made in china), so as an investment the car will never pay of and was never intended to. The amount of trouble that tesla went through to make them safe is also astonishing. I don't think safety is a problem even with these little "fire cracker" cells, but the cost and time that went into it combined with the short life make me wonder if the car has any future.


No future... but at least Musk will feel better about his providing the stupid and rich with a "toy"



> The aptera is a better car IMO, but still not something that I would consider driving.......maybe.....
> 
> I do like their approach in terms of efficiency first. The reality is by getting rid of weight and streamlining the car as much as possible, the "seat of the pants" performance has a way of taking care of itself. The tesla is a step forward, but I would call it evolutionary, not revolutionary.


I have a feeling Aptera has even less of a chance to survive... maybe 5% chance to make it 2 more years with the current market.

Neither car is special... though the Aptera did have the right idea (the problem is regulations got in their way about 4 wheels)

On a much more important note, my hyper efficient 2 seater is about to break ground into welding this weekend... I'm so anxious it's insane.
She will be 4 wheels and my Fluid analysis is giving me hope of something in the 0.15 Cd range. I'll be updating the general forum


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Gutsy means risky (high probability of failure).


LMFAO!!!

I originally typed it with the word "risky" in there

You get the idea though lol.

So its a she is it? You better keep us up to date. I have some updates to deal with too..... (toys are here)


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

The Lotus Elise, at under 2000 lbs wet, is one of the lightest sports cars on the planet. The extruded aluminum chassis weighs 150 of those pounds. Name something modern that's lighter.

You're talking about a manufacturer whose credo is "Simplify and add lightness" and is legendarily known for its lightweight, high performance, sports cars.




Technologic said:


> ... instead he went to Lotus *(one of the most mediocrely heavy sports cars on the planet)* and shoved 56kwh into a $109k car and somehow lost money.


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Technologic said:


> Simply put, Musk is an idiot and it's obvious. He didn't grab up some genius engineer and get down to business... instead he went to Lotus (one of the most mediocrely heavy sports cars on the planet) and shoved 56kwh into a $109k car and somehow lost money.
> 
> 56kwh in a lot of areas to go 200miles isn't THAT much less expensive than gas, with all of the associated problems with battery life... what, honestly, is the point of the car? * 56kwh = 12 cents-15 cents/kwh = $8.40 to "fill up"... almost IDENTICAL to what it costs me to fill my car to go 200 miles with gas* and my car is a pile of crap engineering wise (I can go about 200 miles $10 at the moment). 60mpg equivalency in an electric car? BLECH!


I don't know where you're getting those numbers from, but you should really find some accurate information before trying to do these comparisons. The Roadster actually has a 53 kWh pack. Under the new EPA cycle, it gets 220 miles using 80% depth of discharge (244 miles using other tests). In my area the cost of electricity is less than 10 cents per kWh.
53*.8*.10= $4.24 for 220 miles (or $6.36 using your highest rate)
Currently, 87 octane sells for $2.44 where I am, giving an equivalent gas mileage (based on cost) of 126.6 mpg. Or 84.4 using your higher electricity rate.

All of this is kind of moot, since the Roadster is a *sports car, not an economy car*. It is not designed to compete with an economy car. It is designed to compete with other sports cars, which it does very well.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Usher said:


> I don't know where you're getting those numbers from, but you should really find some accurate information before trying to do these comparisons. The Roadster actually has a 53 kWh pack. Under the new EPA cycle, it gets 220 miles using 80% depth of discharge (244 miles using other tests). In my area the cost of electricity is less than 10 cents per kWh.
> 53*.8*.10= $4.24 for 220 miles (or $6.36 using your highest rate)
> Currently, 87 octane sells for $2.44 where I am, giving an equivalent gas mileage (based on cost) of 126.6 mpg. Or 84.4 using your higher electricity rate.


You live in a very cheap electricity area. Large parts of California and other places have much higher than 15 cents/kwh (even my nuclear power around here is 12 cents/kwh)

You act as if my numbers were VASTLY incorrect (which I'm sure the car never manages the EPA numbers anyway). Let's assume for a second that the car charged at 90% efficiency (good numbers)... meaning you'd need 58KWH to charge the thing. You'd start to realize really fast the point I was making and how accurate it was.

Not only is the Tesla roadster inefficient, but way more costly than your everyday Lotus to both buy and maintain (especially considering the $20-30k battery pack every few years). The gas costs aren't going to be saved either... even with a 60mpg equivalent car, the smaller lotuses get somewhere in the mid 30mpg range. Although we can sit here and "pray" it really is 2 times more efficient than any 4 cylinder sports car, just to make it "seem" worthwhile. But let's just do a tad bit more of math here

Let's assume you got electricity for 10cents/kwh = $5.80 to "fill up" including the best level of inefficiency. Let's even assume you could go 220 miles off of that. Let's even assume you drove the car 15,000 miles per year (maximizing the calendar life of the batteries). 68 fill ups x $5.80 = $400 in electricity to go 15,000 miles (seems obnoxiously small/a lie, but let's keep going). Same thing at 35mpg = 428 gallons of gas at 2.40/gallon = $1020 ... well you did save $600...
Let's now include one pesky problem. Lithium ion batteries have a cycle life anywhere from 500-1000 charging cycles. The problem is, the car being kept at full charge will age the battery system 20%/year in most outdoor temps during the spring/summer/fall... other places might only age the pack 10%/year (if it's less than 70F year round). Either way... in 1-2 years you will without a doubt begin to see a decay of 20% of the pack (best case 2 years worst case 8 months after recharging is included). Let's assume every 2 years you lose 20% (good numbers for li-ion)... After 4 years you saved $2400 on gas... but your range has been reduced to 132 miles... around that of the Aptera's 10kwh LiFePO4 pack. 

Once you realize this you decide to buy another pack... at a meager cost of $20,000 (cheapest I can imagine Tesla selling it for). So you've effectively lost $17,600 just on gas/energy. 
You're right... it's a "sports car" but it's a screaming pile of shit sports car in comparison to an equal Lotus for $35,000, in both cost savings, lifetime, speed, efficiency and general intelligence.



> All of this is kind of moot, since the Roadster is a *sports car, not an economy car*. It is not designed to compete with an economy car. It is designed to compete with other sports cars, which it does very well.


What is it designed for exactly? It's not for the environment, or cheaper maintenance costs/day to day costs to drive, or better performance than a $35,000 sports car, or reliability.

What DOES it do better?

[


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Overlander23 said:


> The Lotus Elise, at under 2000 lbs wet, is one of the lightest sports cars on the planet. The extruded aluminum chassis weighs 150 of those pounds. Name something modern that's lighter.
> 
> You're talking about a manufacturer whose credo is "Simplify and add lightness" and is legendarily known for its lightweight, high performance, sports cars.


2000lbs isn't that light... I don't really feel like naming EVERY car less weight... but the old Miatas were within 100lbs of the Lotus's weight, and had more luxury than completely blank interiors.

The Aptera 1 weighed something like 900lbs.


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Technologic said:


> You act as if my numbers were VASTLY incorrect (which I'm sure the car never manages the EPA numbers anyway).


The numbers you used made the calculation off by at least 45%. Granted some of that would be offset by charging efficiency, but at 90% efficiency you're still off by 40%. I would call that vastly incorrect.



Technologic said:


> Not only is the Tesla roadster inefficient, but way more costly than your everyday Lotus to both buy and maintain (especially considering the $20-30k battery pack every few years). The gas costs aren't going to be saved either... even with a 60mpg equivalent car, the smaller lotuses get somewhere in the mid 30mpg range.


Like I said, this is a sports car. People don't buy sports cars to save money. They either buy them because they enjoy buying them, they intend to race it, or they just want the image. The whole "cost to own" argument is pretty much irrelevant here.



Technologic said:


> What is it designed for exactly? It's not for the environment, or cheaper maintenance costs/day to day costs to drive, or better performance than a $35,000 sports car, or reliability.
> 
> What DOES it do better?


In the Top Gear review, it was as fast around the track as a Porsche 911 GT3, which also costs around $110,000. Even at a relatively heavy weight, I think the Roadster would do very well in autocross, and it would be a ton of fun on track days. If I owned one, I would probably even rallycross it from time to time. With all that low-end torque and not having to shift, I think it could be very fast there.


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Technologic said:


> 2000lbs isn't that light... I don't really feel like naming EVERY car less weight... but the old Miatas were within 100lbs of the Lotus's weight, and had more luxury than completely blank interiors.
> 
> The Aptera 1 weighed something like 900lbs.


The old Miatas have a curb weight of around 2,100 pounds, while an Elise of the same age was around 1,650. That's a pretty significant difference. The new versions of both cars are around 350 pounds heavier than the older versions, due to the increased safety standards.

The weight of the Aptera 1 is irrelevant, since you can't buy one.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Usher said:


> In the Top Gear review, it was as fast around the track as a Porsche 911 GT3, which also costs around $110,000. Even at a relatively heavy weight, I think the Roadster would do very well in autocross, and it would be a ton of fun on track days. If I owned one, I would probably even rallycross it from time to time. With all that low-end torque and not having to shift, I think it could be very fast there.


So Tesla is betting their entire company, and $100 million of debt, on a car that requires someone to not only be wealthy, stupid and with a huge self-esteem issue... but also one that finds time after a 60hr/week job to race?

I'm sure tons of people...even 6th year associates at firms like Cravath or Watchell, wouldn't buy the Tesla under any circumstances...

I'm left with the realization that very few people bothered to learn the math/efficiency I quoted above before buying the car... and simply bought it for stupidity... unfortunately that won't last long for Musk's company


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Technologic said:


> So Tesla is betting their entire company, and $100 million of debt, on a car that requires someone to not only be wealthy, stupid and with a huge self-esteem issue... but also one that finds time after a 60hr/week job to race?


I really don't see what's stupid or a self esteem issue with enjoying racing cars. I have plenty of time and money to race cars working my 40 hour per week job. This year I've averaged close to one autocross, rallycross, ice race, road rally, or track day per week. Everybody has some sort of hobby, mine just happens to be auto racing.

Like I said, most people who would be buying a Tesla Roadster *are not doing it to save money.*


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I think the tesla was thought of as a next step evolution in automotive technology toward a natural movement to electric power. The performance of the car is decent, but the cost makes it prohibitive.

I think of it as the opposite end of the scale of NEVs in terms of cost and performance(I detest NEVs). Something practical in the middle would be nice. Plenty of folks bought SUVs like the suburban or ford excursion even though they never really take them to the limit off road or towing (or both).

Truth is there are plenty of people out there that are ready to put their money down for a car like this. The battery life span and replacement cost might be a news story in another couple of years but I'm not much to predict the future.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Thanks for backing that up, Usher. Increased safety and power. Mostly the power in the form of the Toyota engine (which was chosen for its compliance in the US)

I really don't get the argument here, Technologic. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I can appreciate that... but your initial claim was that Lotus is known for making *"one of the most mediocrely heavy sports cars on the planet*"... Seems like one of the lightest is more accurate. Guess what? The Miata is a light sports car!

Once you get regulations into place, car weights go up. Put another way... the "real world" or the world that will actually purchase cars en mass won't buy a 1000 lb car. It will be, too small, unsafe, too rough, too loud. You name it.

But you don't seem to want to concede any points... I understand.



Usher said:


> The old Miatas have a curb weight of around 2,100 pounds, while an Elise of the same age was around 1,650. That's a pretty significant difference. The new versions of both cars are around 350 pounds heavier than the older versions, due to the increased safety standards.
> 
> The weight of the Aptera 1 is irrelevant, since you can't buy one.


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

While the batteries might be pricey to replace, (hopefully they replacements will offer better performance and even more range in 5 years) one might also consider what it cost to make certain repairs on a gas-powered sportscar. A clutch for instance can easily go over $10,000 on some brands. I know it's over $20,000 to have it done on a late-model Ferrari.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Overlander23 said:


> Once you get regulations into place, car weights go up. Put another way... the "real world" or the world that will actually purchase cars en mass won't buy a 1000 lb car. It will be, too small, unsafe, too rough, too loud. You name it.
> 
> But you don't seem to want to concede any points... I understand.


Not that I don't see this... however saying it will be too small and unsafe, rough/loud is a bit crazy just because it's light.

extruded aluminum foam frames is an example of a "future" car that could easily have sound dampening properties similar to the best mercedes without any additional deadening materials outside of the frame... not to mention it would be 4-5 times stiffer (torsional strength) than any normal aluminum frame.

Of course i could go on and on and on about how lighter doesn't mean less safe.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

drivin98 said:


> While the batteries might be pricey to replace, (hopefully they replacements will offer better performance and even more range in 5 years) one might also consider what it cost to make certain repairs on a gas-powered sportscar. A clutch for instance can easily go over $10,000 on some brands. I know it's over $20,000 to have it done on a late-model Ferrari.


Clutches usually last 150k+ miles... I thought the telsa had a triptronic transmission?


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Technologic said:


> Clutches usually last 150k+ miles... I thought the telsa had a triptronic transmission?


There were never any plans for the Tesla Roadster to have a Tiptronic transmission. The v1.0 drivetrain had a two speed, computer controlled manual gearbox. The v1.5 drivetrain has a single speed gearbox.


----------



## Wirecutter (Jul 26, 2007)

Does anyone else find it ironic, in a thread that highlights so many of the shortcomings of the Tesla Roadster and Tesla motors, that one of the sponsored links is beseeching us to "buy Tesla stock?"  

I have to admit that, if *I* was a bazillionaire, I'd probably buy a Tesla. Not because it's cheap or efficient. (Remember - _bazillionaire_) I like it just because it looks cool, it's decently fast, and it's quiet. Hell, it could very likely end up a collectable.

_"Gee Grampa, that sure is a neat old car"

"Well, Timmy, that's the way they made cars like this around the turn of the century. The ones we have now are a _lot_ better, of course. But back then, they still could still get oil and petroleum products, so there wasn't as much pressure to develop cars like we have now."_

You get the idea. I'd agree that the Tesla is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and I'd sure like to see someone come up with something better. For better or worse, making cars is a little like making firearms, at least here in the US. There's some latitude in what you're allowed to make for yourself, but when you start to sell them to other folks, you enter into a world of regulation, prohibitions, and safety standards. I don't want to argue about whether this is good or bad, it just *is*.

-M


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Usher said:


> There were never any plans for the Tesla Roadster to have a Tiptronic transmission. The v1.0 drivetrain had a two speed, computer controlled manual gearbox. The v1.5 drivetrain has a single speed gearbox.


So it will still need transmission maintenance... either way.


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

My understanding is that the single-speed gearbox is combined with the differential as a single unit. Therefore, there is no transmission maintenance; it would be taken care of under the differential maintenance schedule. For most cars, the differential maintenance schedule is: inspect differential oil every 30,000 and replace as necessary.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I thought tesla had plans to retrofit 2 speed boxes into the cars that are sold with single speed trannys? The story I heard was the original 2 speed transmission wasn't reliable and they were forced to use a single speed gear box with a ratio somewhere in between the 2st and 2nd ratio of the original transmission.

The original car with a 2 speed was supposed to manage 0-60 in 4 seconds and have a top speed of 135 MPH.

The single speed version can't accelerate as fast and the top speed is closer to 100 MPH.

This is what I read a while ago at least. If anyone would like to add or correct, I'm interested in learning more.


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

The first batch of cars that shipped with the 2-speed transmission had the transmission locked in second gear, and therefore could not keep the 0-60 time under 4 seconds. The single-speed cars have an improved motor and controller to keep the acceleration to 60mph under 4 seconds and have a 125mph top speed.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yup, and likely no more transmission "maintenance" than a single speed rear end, which is usually good for the life of the vehicle. Unlike clutches in high performance exotics which tend to wear out quickly and cost an insane amount to replace. As for pack replacement, you can "reserve" a pack now for $12k, however I would not go that route.
I see Tech is still playing fast and loose with his numbers while still missing the point of the Roadster. The Roadster has blown the NEV image of EV's out of the water, sold out it's production run in advance, and continues to improve and catch media attention. If driven conservatively it can be a pretty efficient vehicle, and if you want performance you've got it. No one who's driven one has failed to be blown away by the product, other the Jeremy Clarkson, and even he was impressed by the acceleration. I'm no fan of Musk's, I think he made some major mistakes along the way, but there is a good chance that he and the company will be successful.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Are there any plans to update the 1st gen cars to regain the acceleration performance? I thought I heard something like that.

Oh and Jeremy Clarkson....is an entertainer, nothing more. I wouldn't trust a nickel's worth of advice based on what he says. He is funny as hell most of the time though. Still not quite sure how he got away with that tesla stunt (then the CFX clarity right after, LOL!!!).


----------



## Usher (Feb 4, 2009)

Tesla will update those cars free of charge. I don't know if they have already updated them to the v1.5 powertrain or if they are waiting for v2.


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

I think they have all, or mostly all, been updated.

Just to touch back on the clutches, 150,000 and more is possible with some cars but often it isn't. A lot depends on the driver. Performance cars don't typically come close to that.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

drivin98 said:


> I think they have all, or mostly all, been updated.
> 
> Just to touch back on the clutches, 150,000 and more is possible with some cars but often it isn't. A lot depends on the driver. Performance cars don't typically come close to that.


The other thing to remember is EVs don't have to feather the clutch. Thats usually where most of the wear and tear happens. Once you are running, you don't even have to use the clutch if you don't want to. Everything is syncro these days.


Another point to consider about tesla's profit is how much money they are making off of their stock. As long as that stays high, they don't have to make much per vehicle.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Another point to consider about tesla's profit is how much money they are making off of their stock. As long as that stays high, they don't have to make much per vehicle.


lol I don't think that's how stock works david... 

However, are they actively trading on the NYSE? didn't realize.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Private company, now 10% held by Daimler, who just sold 40% of that to an Arab investment firm I believe.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> lol I don't think that's how stock works david...
> 
> However, are they actively trading on the NYSE? didn't realize.


My point being, they could at least buy more time. There were plenty of companies that got by simply by milking their stock value (enron to name one).

I'm not saying thats what tesla is doing, but it is at least a short term source of funds.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> My point being, they could at least buy more time. There were plenty of companies that got by simply by milking their stock value (enron to name one).
> 
> I'm not saying thats what tesla is doing, but it is at least a short term source of funds.


If Telsa begins to make any money per car... once you include continuing operations, insurance, building costs, workers comp, blahblah then I think you're right...

big *if* though..


----------

