Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Logged $713 Million In Revenue In Q1 and Built 7,535 Cars

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the numbers-are-in dept.

The Almighty Buck 131

cartechboy (2660665) writes "Tesla just announced its first-quarter earnings and the numbers are interesting. It logged revenue of $713 million on deliveries of 6,457 Model S electric cars. It's worth noting that's basically the number of vehicles it said it would sell in the quarter, but that number is slightly down from the prior quarter. It built a total of 7,535 Model S cars in the quarter as it built inventory as shipments began to China where sales just started last month. Net orders in North America grew 10 percent, and production for the second quarter is expected to increase to 8,500-9,000 Model S cars. Tesla expects to deliver 35,000 cars during the 2014 calendar year. Musk told analysts that China's enthusiastic and that government support is crucial. The Model X is delayed until spring of 2015 with production-design prototypes being ready in the fourth quarter. Tesla hopes to possibly break ground as early as next month on its gigafactory, though the location has yet to be announced. Of course, the stock market is already reacting to these numbers and is currently down nearly 3 percent in after hours trading."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Down 3%?! (5, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 3 months ago | (#46947453)

Well thank goodness the stock market is such an accurate gauge of a company's fiscal health and true value (right Facebook?) It's all rational investors making carefully considered trades in an open and transparent marketplace.

Re:Down 3%?! (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#46947487)

it's all about what the expected report was vs. what the report really was. because the market prior to the report was at the level of the expectation.

supposedly anyways. some people just forget they own something until the report hits their inboxes..

Re:Down 3%?! (2)

89cents (589228) | about 3 months ago | (#46947495)

Look at the pre-market line. The 3% was for Wednesday. Down around 9% now.

Re:Down 3%?! (4, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#46947643)

Fine. What I see is a goddam good time to invest.

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947665)

When you see thousands of people fleeing a burning skyscraper, do you start scoping out a parking spot?
Be fearless when there is blood in the streets. Unless it is your blood.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#46948155)

Why yes i do

Re:Down 3%?! (3, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#46948243)

Damn phone sent my reply too soon.

People who invest in things like Tesla doesn't always do it for hand over fist profit. They sometimes do it because they support the objectives of the company or that is aided by the company's operations. There is an entire industry related to investing based on your social concious. They don't typically earn as much money as other investments bur they know that going in.

So yes, yes i would grab a parking spot when people are fleeing a burning skyscraper. Its because my mind set might be to put the fire out or help injured people comming down instead of being safe and secure far away. I kniw that analigy sucks but a burnibg skyscraper and investing is hard to tie together when the reasoning isn't exactly obvious.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 3 months ago | (#46948721)

People who invest in things like Tesla doesn't always do it for hand over fist profit. They sometimes do it because they support the objectives of the company or that is aided by the company's operations.

What's the point of that? After the IPO, the company reaps little to no benefits from you buying their stock. At that point, it's a casino chip with a corporate logo. If you like a company and want to support them, then buy their products (although I realize that is difficult with an $80,000 car). But the only reason to buy a stock is if you believe that someone will buy that stock from you in the future for more than you paid for it.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#46948835)

Every public offering makes them money, not just the Initial ... thats what its only the 'initial' public offering.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

schnell (163007) | about 3 months ago | (#46950151)

Every public offering makes them money

Yes, but they are not doing another offering. If you buy Tesla stock today, you are not buying it from the company. You are buying it from a third party who holds it today. Tesla does not see a dime of the exchange of their previously issued shares between you and someone else. Additionally, secondary offers of new shares are very uncommon.

Long story short: when you buy a stock, you are not giving any money to the company you invested in. Your purchase can help them indirectly - pushing up their stock price improves their ability to borrow, attract new employees with stock incentives, etc. - but if you want to help them directly, buy a car. Or go to one of their concerts.

Huh, what? Oh, sorry. Wrong Tesla [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 months ago | (#46949835)

In addition to public offerings, stock price can affect their ability to borrow money and entice talent through stock options. It also keeps stockholders happy, who might otherwise demand profits.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

plopez (54068) | about 3 months ago | (#46948557)

But the skyscraper is not burning. China is a huge market they are moving into. This company has potential.

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948117)

Fine. What I see is a goddam good time to invest.

Only if you are comfortable with high risk and are willing to gamble. Investing in individual companies is usually a much more risky proposition than index funds or similar.

TSLA too expensive (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46948253)

What I see is a goddam good time to invest.

I think Tesla is an interesting company but I wouldn't touch their stock with a barge pole at the current price. The market cap of the company is 12X annual revenue. A reasonable revenue multiple is between 1X and 3X annual revenue. Tesla might be a great company but that doesn't make it a great investment at the current price.

Re:Down 3%?! (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 months ago | (#46947505)

Well thank goodness the stock market is such an accurate gauge of a company's fiscal health and true value

Of course it is. We have high-frequency traders ensuring this, at millisecond precision!

Milliseconds ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46950199)

nanoseconds my dear boy, nanoseconds. Get with the times.

Re:Milliseconds ? (2)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#46950603)

The very very small times.

Re: Down 3%?! (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46947545)

What was the total revenue and profit growth?

Probably meh

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947559)

Your right but to clarify that, Tesla relies heavily on its stocks to make money, actually that's also a lie they rely on it to at least break even, and hopefully make a profit. I can't provide a citation to this, but it was either /. or NPR, WSJ, or some indie journalist that reported Tesla loses money, a combo of the customer price, and the overall cost to build the vehicle. And thus they rely on their stock shares rising in order to make some small profit.

And now Tesla is drying up the lithium supply by building its own battery manufacture plant. And Yes I am going to rant about those that think their saving the planet by driving a EV, when you have oil/gas companies, with all their carbon polluting machinery sucking the country dry, and of course the coal industry which isn't going anywhere, anytime in the foreseeable future. [there is some sarcasm in that statement, not meant to be literal]

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46947641)

How does a rising stock price affect Tesla's profit? If Tesla sold more of it's own stock that would generate cash flow, not profit. Any other explanations?

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947693)

well, in theory Tesla as a company owns a rather large number of the total shares. If the price is high, they can minimize the number of shares they have to sell to stay afloat if they're truly losing money every quarter.

Re:Down 3%?! (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46947769)

Right - If Tesla sells it's own stocks those funds are treated as cash flow. If Tesla issues bonds that would be treated as cash flow. Both of these end up on the balance sheet as either equity or a liability. In neither case does it show up on the income statement as profit or revenue.

As a side note, Tesla can only dilute it's own stock by issuing new stock as long as investors have a long term positive view on it's profitability. The more shares you issue the more you dilute any future profit that a single share has claim to, reducing the price of that stock.

Effect of rising stock price (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46948301)

How does a rising stock price affect Tesla's profit?

It doesn't directly. What it affects is Tesla's ability to raise investment funds in the future. More specifically their cost of capital [wikipedia.org] . If the stock price goes up, Tesla can raise more money for the same amount of dilution to existing shareholders. A rising stock price generally means a falling cost of capital. It's more complicated than that obviously but the relationship holds as a general principle.

The stock price also tends to correlate strongly with the happiness of the shareholders who are the owners of the company. Rising stock price = happy investors = continued employment for management team.

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948555)

I suspect there's some link between you not understanding the difference between your and you're*, and not understanding even the very basics of stocks. You are just not much of a thinker.





*also they're and their

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46947565)

If you have absolutely no idea how the stock market works, don't post about the stock market.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 3 months ago | (#46948193)

If you have absolutely no idea how the stock market works, don't post about the stock market.

If Wall Street followed your advice 95% of analysts would be out of a job.

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46948333)

Every analyst knows how and why stocks drop 3% after good news. You don't.

Re:Down 3%?! (2)

korbulon (2792438) | about 3 months ago | (#46948613)

Every analyst knows how and why stocks drop 3% after good news. You don't.

"Papa Smurf always says..."

Re:Down 3%?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947759)

Limit orders, mate.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

fche (36607) | about 3 months ago | (#46947787)

If you look at GAAP numbers, as opposed to non-GAAP fiction, it starts to make more sense.

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 3 months ago | (#46947927)

Today's /. fortune is particularly appropriate: "There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)"

Re:Down 3%?! (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 3 months ago | (#46949957)

Investors will spec buy into a company before they release good news in case it's something like, "Tesla Motors creates electric hover car that never needs charged!" Or something equally absurd. So when the news comes out that "Oh, so we're just doing business, made some good sales." Those spec buy investors cash out and are like aw man.

I really think like a lot of investors are freakishly skittish. It's hilarious.

Odd numbers (3, Interesting)

geogob (569250) | about 3 months ago | (#46947469)

There is a lot I don't understand at financial reports, but these numbers really strike me as odd.
How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise? Said otherwise, for each car produced in Q1, they have a revenue of about 100 k$. I know the Tesla is not a cheep car, but that seems excessive. Or did I miss something here?

Re:Odd numbers (4, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46947657)

Service for current vehicles.
Powertrains for Toyota's RAV4.
They sell fuel credits to other companies that make polluting vehicles.
etc.

Lots of this and that.

Re:Odd numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947735)

Yes. Revenu is not the same as profits. In this case revenu was high, but expenses were higher, so the profit was negative.

Nothing odd at all (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46947801)

How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise?

Because Tesla doesn't just make money selling cars. Read their financial statements and they'll detail their sources of revenue. Nothing particularly surprising there. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see Tesla end up making a big portion of their revenue manufacturing battery packs and power trains for other auto makers.

Re:Nothing odd at all (3, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46948321)

For the battery packs, I would be surprised. The Gigafactory that Tesla is building will be majority owned by Panasonic. i.e., it is a Panasonic factory, building Panasonic batteries, but it is being built for Tesla, with Tesla money. It is “Tesla” factory because they will be getting the output.

I know that Tesla is looking for better battery solutions but I have not heard that they have come up with anything.

Who owns the IP? (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46948401)

The Gigafactory that Tesla is building will be majority owned by Panasonic.

That doesn't necessarily mean much. The important question is who owns the IP that is going into the products produced. Coke and Coke Bottling are/were separate companies. Guess which one makes the bigger profits? Apple outsources their actual manufacturing but they own the product produced. Who actually owns the manufacturing is important but it's often not the most important bit.

Re:Who owns the IP? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46948807)

It will be producing Panasonic batteries so I assume that the majority IP would be Panasonic. Besides, it is not just the IP (knowledge) but also “total factor productivity” (ability to apply that knowledge.) I assume the ability to (hopefully) efficiently run the factor would mostly accrue to Panasonic. (and yes, I am making a lot of assumptions here. I would love to hear from anybody who knows more.)

Re:Who owns the IP? (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46949889)

It will be producing Panasonic batteries so I assume that the majority IP would be Panasonic.

I run a wire harness assembly company and we supply to battery harness makers. Ownership of the battery technology doesn't mean a thing as far as the assemblies that they go into are concerned. You may be right that Panasonic owns the IP on the batteries and their production but if Tesla doesn't own a lot or most of the assembly IP, I cannot really see any business angle that makes sense for Tesla. Tesla would have to own the rights to the product designs and probably some of the controls. I'd guess that Panasonic is really acting as a value-added contract manufacturer in this case.

Re:Who owns the IP? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#46950101)

The value add for Tesla, if I understand correctly, is that Tesla get a reliable source of battery packs. Panasonic was unwilling to invest in a new plant because of the risk – why build a expensive plant that will be gathering dust in 10 years because Tesla has moved on – either by going bankrupt or moving to a new battery technology.

It is not uncommon for a company to co-invest with a supplier to ensure their supply chain. Apple invested in new Samsung LCD foundries to ensure they would have a ready and exclusive supply of retina displays, but I don’t think Apple got hold of any of Samsung’s IP.

Auto manufactures, Intel, WalMart, and Boeing are a few of the other companies that I can think off – sometimes they reach deep into the supplier, other times not.

So at this point I am saying I don’t know but I think not – still looking for evidence.

Re:Odd numbers (2)

dj245 (732906) | about 3 months ago | (#46949581)

There is a lot I don't understand at financial reports, but these numbers really strike me as odd. How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise? Said otherwise, for each car produced in Q1, they have a revenue of about 100 k$. I know the Tesla is not a cheep car, but that seems excessive. Or did I miss something here?

Companies make money in lost of ways. If you can't understand the financial statement or how the company makes their money, don't invest in the company! No matter what!

I adopted this policy a short time ago and it has been a much better strategy than others I have tried. If you are want to start looking at simple financial reports, the easiest example I can think of is RICK's Caberet (RICK). Another simple business (aquire ships, lease them out) is Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. (NM), although I have marine experience so I understand this business better than many people might. Fly Leasing Ltd (FLY) is a reasonably simple business (aquire airplanes, lease them out) also. Keep looking at smaller companies with easy to understand business models, they generally have much simpler financial reports. It isn't reasonable for a person just learning this stuff to be able to understand a large and complicated business.

I don't take a stand on either buying or selling any of the companies I have listed, they are provided only as examples of reasonably simple financial reports.

At a loss (3, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about 3 months ago | (#46947493)

Not mentioned in the post for some reason was the loss of $49.8 million for the quarter compared to an $11.3 million profit in the same quarter last year. Accumulated losses since 2009 are on the order of $800 million.
http://files.shareholder.com/d... [shareholder.com]

Making cars is hard. Making a profit doing it is harder still.

Re:At a loss (5, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46947807)

They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!

Re:At a loss (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#46947885)

they _were_ planning on that.. but altered the plan in previous years already.

anyways, I'd be more worried about the 5 billion dollar bet the company is making on the GIGASUPERMEGADUPER plant.

Re:At a loss (1)

Hodr (219920) | about 3 months ago | (#46947965)

Just reminds me of the late '90s / early 00's when Amazon was losing so much money each quarter for years on end. I thought there was no way they would ever dig themselves out of debt.

Re:At a loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948029)

Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!
 
Regardless of what you may have seen in the movie Wall Street, any CEO who is more than two hops away from the guy who sweeps the floors looks past the next quarter's results.
 
I'm amazed by the number of people around here who think everyone else is a fool and just bumbling around in the dark. But, of course, the average poster here thinks they have more insight into a problem than those actually putting the effort into it. And it doesn't matter what the discipline is... be it politics, business, technology or science we are graced by scores of pizza delivery boys who are so on the ball they still have time to post at least a dozen times a day telling us how everyone else is doing it wrong.
 
Amazing people.

Re:At a loss (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46948335)

yeah, people should buy stock in a company that keeps on promising to make money one day when the CEO is off designing rocket ships and hyper tubes

Downsides to that strategy. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#46948797)

They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy.

Given their debt and cumulative losses, it's a risky strategy. There's possibility that they'll run out of people who will loan them money, and then.... they're shut down and out of business. There's also a chance that they'll start making a profit, but insufficient to both pay off the accumulated debt and to attract further investment, stunting future growth. Etc... etc...
 

Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!

There's lots of CEO's that look beyond the next quarter - but none of them own a fully operational crystal ball.

Re:At a loss (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 months ago | (#46949183)

They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!

This is far more common than the financial experts here on /. appear to believe. There are many examples of companies successfully executing long-term growth strategies.

Sponsor? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 3 months ago | (#46947521)

Just wondering if Tesla sponsor this site in some way, they get a huge amount of stories here.

Re:Sponsor? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947547)

Looking at the big picture I think any Elon Musk story is kind of interesting. He is an uber geek trying to shift the world to sustainable energy and colonize Mars. Fast Cars and Rocket Ships are every kids dream as they said on 60 minutes.

Re: Sponsor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46950685)

I don't know that Musk is a geek. He's a guy spending his PayPal fortune in interesting ways. Maybe if you also consider Paul Allen a geek....

Re: Sponsor? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947587)

This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

Re: Sponsor? (5, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 3 months ago | (#46947599)

This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

  1. Hot grits
  2. Natalie Portman naked and petrified
  3. Beowulf clusters

Re: Sponsor? (1)

Hodr (219920) | about 3 months ago | (#46947969)

I wonder if the Natalie Portman thing will still be mentioned when she is 40. Of course presuming /. will still be around.

Re: Sponsor? (1)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | about 3 months ago | (#46948389)

7 years? Yeah, it'll be around. It may not be the same /. as it is today, but this is hardly the same place it was 7 years ago either. That's not necessarily a bad thing; evolve or die.

It's also interesting to me since I IMDB'd her birthday that she's one day older than my girlfriend :)

Re: Sponsor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948071)

Did someone say "Beowulf clusters?"

Re: Sponsor? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 3 months ago | (#46948535)

This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

Oh, almost forgot: Edison.

Re: Sponsor? (3, Interesting)

impossiblefork (978205) | about 3 months ago | (#46947897)

Computer holography, Path-tracing, the fast-multiple methods for radiosity-- and if it has to be automotive related: alternative thermodynamic cycles for engines, field modulated magnetic couplings (like the ones magnomatics are making as gearboxes/electric drive systems for cars) or mass-production of parts from fibre reinforced plastic.

All of these are nerdier, but perhaps not as easily digested.

Re:Sponsor? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 months ago | (#46947593)

All we need is for Tesla to start accepting Bitcoins and Slashdot will implode. Or gain sentience. Or something.

Re:Sponsor? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947781)

Elon installed golden showers at Dice, so Slashdot "editors" could bathe in His glory. Such baptizims are said to wash away the sin of poverty, and transcend one from a dirty hater into duly respectful fanboy. (Not everyone can afford to book a rosebud rimming* upon Elon; He's a busy Man, showcasing His winner personality in off-the-cuff gospels to the press, and shitting pure Nikola Tesla-inspired innovation into the salivating mouths of well-heeled, well-behaved consumers.)

To all the jealous haters, you lie... Elon's beautiful rosebud doesn't taste like muskrat; it tastes like the best melon. Too bad most of you will never have the pleasure of finding out for yourselves. Anyway, you'd probably do it wrong and anger Him, like most of the people did who paid for the privilege of performing St. Steve rimJobs.

God bless Elon Musk. May the height of His pedestal be proportional to His wealth; may His tax-rate remain lower than mine; may His jealous haters die in fossil fuel fires, or bathe in His golden nectar and be redeemed; may his corporate interests be showered with no-bid contracts and government subsidies!

Re:Sponsor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948081)

Amazing, isn't it? And don't you even dare say that another EV makes more sense for your situation because, boy oh boy, the fanboys will come out in a fine fashion to prove you wrong. All you need to know is Tesla. There is no other EV out there that isn't a "toy." And there is no ICE that is faster, more powerful or more luxurious than the mighty Model S!
 
You'd swear that with the way these people worship the Tesla that they'd all be Apple fanboys for the same reason: Expensive but fantastic hardware. Shinny but forward thinking. Heck, Tesla even has their own proprietary chargers! Sounds a lot like Apple to me.
 
Now we just need all the Nissan Leaf unwashed masses to come along so we can flog them with Tesla goodness.
 
It's really not unlike being surrounded by zealots in some kind of heathen cult.

Re:Sponsor? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#46948929)

I'm probably going to get modded as flamebait or troll for saying this, but all EV's are "toys"... including Tesla.

The problem is that although a Tesla's range on a charge is going to be good enough for probably more than 90% of a person's driving, especially if they live in an urban area, unless a person wants to own an extra vehicle that they only very rarely use, an automobile really needs to be just as practical for extended trips as it is for commuting... One could rent a vehicle for those longer tips, but this is still going to be less convenient than owning one. Considering most people in cities own cars in the first place because of the convenience factor over alternatives, I don't think that this is something that can continue to be ignored indefinitely by EV manufacturers.

Either the battery range on an EV needs to be at least thousand miles or so, and you recharge it overnight, or else it needs to get just as many miles as a full tank of gas on a charge, and can be charged up from practically depleted to fully charged in about the same amount of time as it takes to gas up an automobile at locations that are about equally ubiquitous as gas stations.

Until that happens, the EV will only remain an expensive toy.... no matter how much people scream how practical it allegedly is or how suitable it should be for such a high percentage of driving. Convenience matters to people... and until the EV does something to address that, it's just not going to be anything much more than a novelty to most people.

Of course, none of this is suggesting that' there's anything necessarily wrong with toys or liking things that most people don't., and I'd dare say that the people who will probably be most offended by what I've said above are people who expect or need approval from others for their own choices If it works for you, that's just great.... but can you really just not go on living if you are unable to convince a majority of other people that it should be just as practical for them as it is for you?

Re:Sponsor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46949199)

but can you really just not go on living if you are unable to convince a majority of other people that it should be just as practical for them as it is for you?
 
Funny. You just kind of did the same thing... what does that make you?

Re:Sponsor? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#46949477)

I have no problem if other people want to drive a tesla...

What I do have a problem with is when people ignore facts that are actually relevant to considering a vehicle purchase such as convenience just because such facts may not be based on objectively measurable data like fuel economy.

but if you want objective, I will own a car for as long as about ten years, and probably spend about a thousand dollars a year on gas. The tesla model S, whitch is the only ev I've ever seen that didn't look like a piece of crap is priced at about $40k more than what I'd normally want to spend on a car... So I'm spending more money than even what I'd be spending on a regular car plus gas, and losing the convenience if bing able to use it for long trips

Re:Sponsor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46950645)

Again, you just did the same thing. You're making a case why your choices are practical for you. No one is saying you can't but you make a big deal out of it. So what's your excuse as to why you're allowed to ramble on about why it makes sense for you to not buy an EV? Who do you need approval from? If you don't feel the need to have approval from anyone you should have just kept moving along. Something compelled you to enlighten us to your woe.
 
What gives, dude? Family problems? Insecurities? ICE anxiety?

Re:Sponsor? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 3 months ago | (#46949579)

So it's a toy because you think it is. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up - someone should tell Elon and he can wind down his toy company and ask you what to do next.

Re:Sponsor? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#46950297)

To be perfectly honest, if he were to ask me, I'd tell him to either give up on the idea that EV's are ever going to be suitable for most people based solely on allegedly practical advantages when they cost so much more, or else do something to actually address range anxiety. It doesn't just magically go away just because people who don't care about it that much think it's unimportant. The fact is that most people will make purchases based on emotion instead of logic... and anyone who fails to accommodate that fact will not succeed in the long run.

Addressing range anxiety can be accomplished one of two ways.... one is by having an EV that can get over a thousand miles on a charge, and you can recharge it overnight. This is comparable to how much distance you could put on an automobile in a day if you were making a long trip.... sure you'd have to stop for gas throughout the day, but those stops would only take a few minute each, which brings me to the second way that range anxiety could be alleviated, which is to have rapid recharge stations for EV's, as ubiquitous as gas stations, and which take no longer to fully charge an electric vehicle than it would to fill up a conventional automobile with gasoline.

Re:Sponsor? (1)

Carnivore (103106) | about 3 months ago | (#46949845)

That argument is as fallacious as claiming that you need to own the biggest SUV there is because once every couple of years you want to tow a boat. It can be extended to any extreme: "Oh, your new pack is 500 miles of range? Well, I want to do a 1500 mile trip without charging, so EVs are impratical!"

Re:Sponsor? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#46950157)

That argument is as fallacious as claiming that you need to own the biggest SUV there is because once every couple of years you want to tow a boat

Only if you consider the convenience factor of owning vs renting to be "fallacious"

Well, I want to do a 1500 mile trip without charging, so EVs are impratical!"

I don't care if I have to charge a car during a 1500 mile trip... I have to stop and fill up with gas every so often in a regular car. But I *do* expect to be able to finish said trip in about the same amount of time as I would if I were driving a gasoline automobile, which would necessitate extremely rapid charging... from practically empty to full in a matter of minutes.

Re:Sponsor? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 3 months ago | (#46948903)

As an investor in Tesla, this story suits me okay. I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised to see posting of financial results on Slashdot though. That's how captivating Tesla must be to the public, to post something as usually dull and mundane as quarterly results!

SHORT AT WILL. -- SHORT THIS POS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947539)

Oh, sorry, I thought I was on Yahoo! It's hard to tell these days.

going off-grid (2)

quenda (644621) | about 3 months ago | (#46947589)

Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)

Figuring that in the Tesla does not look quite so expensive. And as a bonus I can look down on all those carbon-polluting Prius drivers.
So the question: will they allow me to use the Tesla battery while parked, or will that kill the battery as surely as my 8-year warranty?

Re:going off-grid (3, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#46947673)

A 60 kWh battery, assuming you don't mind cycling it to 100% discharge, which is extremely severe treatment, represents about 3-4 days of electricity for a house with very light electricity use based on my electric meter, and those of people I know. OTOH, where I am, sunlight is not uncommonly extremely poor for periods longer than that. Unless your photovoltaics are over proportioned by 10-20 times, or you've got at least twice the battery, it ain't gonna cut it.

It would be nice to be able to tap the battery with an inverter during power outages though. In my area when you lose power, you lose water supply (and heat of course). Not very good for sanitation. There's nothing to make you appreciate flush toilets more than 2-3 days without well water.

Re:going off-grid (1)

someoneOtherThanMe (1387847) | about 3 months ago | (#46947821)

Keeping a backup of 50 l of water might be a bit cheaper...

Re:going off-grid (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#46948085)

That's what water heaters are for.

Re:going off-grid (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46947867)

Your house is very inefficient, but not untypical of some parts of the world.

Nissan has been offering this service for a few years in Japan. You use your Leaf as a UPS in the event of power failure. They say you can run your essential appliances (fridge/freezer, lighting) for a few days. You can also use it for a bit of solar PV smoothing. It isn't really designed to let you go off-grid though.

Re:going off-grid (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#46948897)

Guess you like living without climate control. Good luck with that winter with no heat ... which is the only way you're going to run off a Leaf pack for 'a few days'

Re:going off-grid (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 3 months ago | (#46949609)

I live in a very comfortable climate in Europe, in an old, stone house with good insulation. The temperature doesn't fluctuate that much inside, and is very rarely uncomfortable.

Re:going off-grid (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46950519)

Most Japanese homes use gas for heating. Not everywhere is like the US. Incredible, I know.

Re:going off-grid (1)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#46951121)

Most Japanese homes use gas for heating. Not everywhere is like the US. Incredible, I know.

Most US homes in cold climates use natural gas for heating.

Re:going off-grid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46949425)

I don't think light electricity use means what you think it does,

I used 684kwh last year (granted I'm single and the heating is gas), so those 60 kwh would last me about a month

price and ROI of solar panels (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948033)

Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)

Have you checked the prices of solar panels lately? The cost is certainly going down, but they're not cheap.

It's a matter of paying (a lot) now, or paying later (in smaller increments). Most folks don't have many thousands of dollars lying around for the upfront costs, and most folks also don't have the patience to wait out the many, many years it would take for the ROI for them.

At 26c/kWHr though, you'd probably recoup the costs a lot quicker than most. In North American the price is usually less than 15c/kWHr, and so it takes a long time.

Re:price and ROI of solar panels (1)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | about 3 months ago | (#46948413)

I agree there unfortunately. I did the math a few years ago, during which time the electric price hasn't really risen substantially in the midwest. I basically figured that the cost of installing the PV panels would be recouped at about the same time that the panels reached about 30% of their original capacity... in other words by that point you'd be so close to replacement time that it was almost a wash. It just didn't make sense to me because when I also included costs of routine maintenance (you have to clean PV shingles or panels frequently to ensure maximum efficiency) it really was a net negative.

Now, if electricity prices were higher like in Australia then I could definitely see it making a lot more sense.

Re:price and ROI of solar panels (1)

MrHops (712514) | about 3 months ago | (#46950521)

I agree there unfortunately. I did the math a few years ago, during which time the electric price hasn't really risen substantially in the midwest. I basically figured that the cost of installing the PV panels would be recouped at about the same time that the panels reached about 30% of their original capacity... in other words by that point you'd be so close to replacement time that it was almost a wash. It just didn't make sense to me because when I also included costs of routine maintenance (you have to clean PV shingles or panels frequently to ensure maximum efficiency) it really was a net negative.

Now, if electricity prices were higher like in Australia then I could definitely see it making a lot more sense.

Where did you get these data? I can't even find any timetable for solar panels degrading to 30% rated capacity. The typical warranty is no worse than 80% of rated capacity after 25 years.

Doing a little math: Normal degradation is around .7% per year, so getting to 30% would take ln(.3)/ln(.993) or 171 years. Even at 2% per year it's roughly 60 years. All I can say is electricity must be pretty cheap where you live, if it takes 170 years for panels to pay off.

Re:going off-grid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46950789)

Well, you might want to look at Solar City, run by Elon's cousin. Maybe they talk to each other over lattes about storing solar energy.

Slashdot Finance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947591)

Thanks, samzenpus, but I'm more interested in quarterlies for Honeywell, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Unilever, and Berkshire Hathaway. How about it, sam? Slashdot Finance is off to a weak start with one lousy NASDAQ start-up.

Re:Slashdot Finance (2)

Sique (173459) | about 3 months ago | (#46947883)

You got to the wrong site then. If the bakery next door doesn't sell you screws, it's you who screwed up by asking for screws in the bakery.

Re:Slashdot Finance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948013)

To be fair, the sign on the door said HARDWARE. I'm headed over to the Yahoo MB now to see if they've found the solution to this windows update problem.

we start making car payments when we're born? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46947773)

also buying WMDs on credit for the crown royal defense of us from us.. citizen subsidy of bankrupt spiritless million sellers must be better or we'd do something else? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=public+funded+corpirate+money+wmd+cabal

"Tesla hopes to possibly break ground" (1)

DamnRogue (731140) | about 3 months ago | (#46948005)

I think they can rest easy. Tesla will ABSOLUTELY break ground or not break ground on their new facility next month.

$100000 for a car - the new Gold Plated Turd ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46948465)

Awful lot for a car that in total has a bigger carbon footprint than a 60s gas guzzler (add up ALL the production energy use and the spare replacement batteries for its lifespan).

But then Eco-tards arent called that because they are smart.

Re:$100000 for a car - the new Gold Plated Turd ?? (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 3 months ago | (#46949069)

If you are going to make outrageous claims, at least provide a source for them. Otherwise you may not be believed.

valued almost $1M per car sold (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 3 months ago | (#46948801)

down from last years 1.3M

Sales to China ? (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about 3 months ago | (#46948991)

They will buy 1 and reverse engineer it.

How do Teslas US sales compare to.. (1)

swb (14022) | about 3 months ago | (#46949051)

..other cars of a similar price point?

In my mind, a Tesla is a luxury sedan more or less on par with BMW 7 series, Mercedes S550, Lexus LS460.

It'd be interesting to see how sales compare with those cars.

Re:How do Teslas US sales compare to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46949445)

Last I heard, Tesla was outselling the 7 series and S class.

Revenue? How about Profit/Loss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46949989)

How about the bigger number? The one that says far more than how many fools fit on the head of a pin?

Can you say "Pin Head"? Sure you can.

Yeah, but what was the P/L? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 3 months ago | (#46951019)

Revenue is important, and so are revenue trends, but where is the P/L?

The link that says "earnings statement" is anything but an earnings statement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>