So that article from last months Fortune we have previously discussed: Tesla's wild ride - Jul. 9, 2008 Makes me think that Tesla loses money on every 2008 Roadster. Tesla probably will be only breaking even if not also losing money on all the U.S. 2009s. At some point in time, the company needs to start making money to pay for the significant R&D as well as day-to-day overhead they incur. They are a long way from seeing any money from a Model S. It will require a significant investment to get to selling any sedans. They have not finished the design, therefore they haven't started the crash testing. We all know crash testing is one of the most expensive (and time consuming) parts of bringing a new car to market in the U.S. *mayyybe* they will start seeing some revenue by 2011... but that is a long way away. Since the Roadster has already incurred those crash test costs, are there ways to take the current Roadster design and make money off of it? One way seems to be: jack up the price which they have done slightly for U.S. 2009 and more significantly for Europe. They could continue down this path, but they end up reducing their potential market significantly. Another way is the rumored even-more-high-end track car, and try to make a profit off of that. I assume the market for that is fairly limited. A third way seems to be to let all the Roadster owners smash their cars and charge a fortune to repair them. This is a silly idea. What about the idea of a low-cost Roadster? Replace the carbon with fiberglass or some other less expensive material, halve the battery capacity (and weight!), limit the torque and top end to hang onto range and sell it as a low-end model for, say, $80k starting in 2010 Model Year along-side its carbon fiber big-brother still at $110k. Assuming this made money for the company, would this be a reasonable idea? Would such a car require more crash testing before it was sellable? Would such a car dilute the high-end brand image of Tesla and the Roadster to a net negative effect? Would anyone here by a car that looks like a Roadster, sells for $79,999 has a range of, say 150 miles and a top end of 110? Would anyone here planning to buy a current Roadster be unhappy that a cheaper cousin existed?