More Spin

[Doug_G]

"As Losses Mount, Tesla’s Model S is Make or Break"... or how to spin Tesla's business model as negatively as possible.

As Losses Mount, Teslas Model S is Make or Break | BNET

He does say he thinks Tesla is "hitting the right marks" with the Model S, but then hints that they'll never reach 20,000 cars a year because they haven't even sold 2,000 Roadsters yet. Uh, right.

It does have a nice video of Elon Musk taking someone for a spin in the Model S prototype.

 

[Norbert]

"As Losses Mount, Tesla’s Model S is Make or Break"... or how to spin Tesla's business model as negatively as possible.

Such articles make me (almost) forget that Tesla is a profitable company, except for the investments in Model S (which are covered by the 10-year DOE loan Tesla has received exactly for the purpose of building Model S).

 

[dsm363]

This guy must be friends with Paul Eisenstein at The Detriot Beureau. They love to use language like 'a real stretch'...etc
He's even questioning wether Tesla will be able to make a 230 mile range Model S, let alone 300 mile pack.

Oh, and it better meet the 230-mile range goal, too. (The 300-mile version, a real stretch, comes later.)

Was the Roadster ever supposed to be a 2,000 car a year model? They've said for at least a year now that they were only looking to sell 2,500 total I thought.

The Roadster was supposed to be a 2,000-car-per-year model, and it still hasn’t reached total sales of 2,000 after more than two years on the market.

According to his bio on the site, he's:

author of Forward Drive: The Race to Build Clean Cars for the Future, among other books.

 

[benji4]

Interesting how Elon cranks the stereo during the test drive in the video. Was that to hide some kind of sound or potential sound from the car, or was it to avoid the need to strike up meaningless conversation? (or just because he wanted to hear some music maybe....)

 

[dpeilow]

Actually I read a lot of this guy's stuff and he is in no way anti-EV. A realist, maybe, but that's it.

 

[doug]

Was the Roadster ever supposed to be a 2,000 car a year model? They've said for at least a year now that they were only looking to sell 2,500 total I thought.

I believe an early goal was to be around 2000 Roadsters a year, but demand turned out to be lower than that.

 

[domenick]

Actually I read a lot of this guy's stuff and he is in no way anti-EV. A realist, maybe, but that's it.

I would completely agree. However, this piece is a pretty shallow take on the Tesla financials. Not to be overly critical because I'm aware of time constraints in publishing (balanced against the possibly paltry amount paid for said piece) but it would have been nice if he could have spent some quality time with Tesla's controller.

 

[dsm363]

I guess I should have given him the benefit of the doubt. Hadn't read his stuff before.

Can someone explain the math on why the 300 mile pack works assuming a 95 kWh pack? How does 8,000 cells at 3.1 Ah each equal something in kWh units? I'm trying to Google it so I can respond to his e-mail. Thanks.

Ok, think I found it. The 3.1 Ah cells are 3.6V so 3.1 Ah x 3.6V= 11.16 Wh, 11.16 Wh/1000=0.01116 kWh. Assuming 95 kWh/0.0116 kWh equals 8512 cells needed. Did I do that right?

 

[dsm363]

I was going to send the author this: Does the math work out?

Thanks for the reply. Tesla hasn't announced the exact size of the battery pack but given that the Roadster has a 53 kWh pack I believe is using much older 2.2 Ah cells. For example, putting these new 3.1 Ah cells into a Roadster today would give you a 76 kWh pack and probably go well over 300 miles (give that's over 40% increase in pack size) and the Roadster is rated at 244 by the EPA.

The Model S is supposed to have around 8,000 cells so with the 3.6V 3.1Ah cells from Panasonic, that should be possible. If I'm doing the math correctly, that would be 8512 cells needed assuming the 95 kWh pack you stated.
Panasonic Set to Make Batteries for Teslas Model S : Greentech Media

They said in the article around 8,000 so maybe they're going to use the new 3.4 Ah cells coming out or have figured out how to get more efficiency out of a slightly smaller battery pack (around 90 kWh).
Anyway, I definitely don't think the 230 mile pack is a stretch and from current technology, don't think the 300 mile pack is out of the question given that it won't come out for another 18 months.

If you assume the 300 Wh/mile that is often given as an average on the last question of the Model S FAQ and divide 300 miles by that, you get 90Kwh so closer to the 8,000 cells.

 

[PopSmith]

Actually I read a lot of this guy's stuff and he is in no way anti-EV. A realist, maybe, but that's it.

He might be trying (hard) to be realistic but he's forgetting that (lots?) more people can afford to spend $50-80k on a car (Model S) than can afford to spend $110k+ on a car. I think he's also forgotten to take into account that Model S is much more usable than a two-seater sports car like the Roadster therefore even if it was the same price as the Roadster it would sell more due to usability.

Speaking of sales, Porsche's best-selling vehicle in 2010 was the Cayenne at almost 30,000 units. That's a SUV that ranges from $47,700 (Base (V6) model) to $106,000 ("Base" Twin Turbo V8 model) which is right in Model S pricing territory.
Porsche Cars North America - Press releases - About Porsche - Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

In other words, I don't see why he's trying to base Model S sales by comparing with the Roadster, it's Apples-to-Oranges.

 

[dpeilow]

Yes your math is correct.

 

[Jaff]

I think the artical is basically fair...he states both the good and the bad about TM's future.

He's not telling us anything we didn't already know (about the Model S being "make or break" financially), but unfortunately, his premise for this statement (not enough Roadsters sold) is rather amatuer hour...you don't have to be an auto industry analyst to know that the Roadster marketplace is predominantly different than the Model S marketplace.)

The negative spin in the piece's title ("As losses mount") is irritating and redundant...the basic scribbler's tenet of using negativity to grab the reader's eye.

 

[dsm363]

Yes your math is correct.

Thanks.

Jaff: I agree, he's right that the Model S has to succeed but it's obvious and expected for them to loose money every quarter while developing the Model S. It's him implying that the 230 mile pack and the 300 mile pack is somehow technologically 'a stretch' for them to achieve that I have the most issue with. Just because it's a bigger pack than anyone else has produced doesn't make it impossible to do.

 

[Jaff]

Well, we Roadster owners know this already, right? :wink:

Thanks.

Jaff: I agree, he's right that the Model S has to succeed but it's obvious and expected for them to loose money every quarter while developing the Model S. It's him implying that the 230 mile pack and the 300 mile pack is somehow technologically 'a stretch' for them to achieve that I have the most issue with. Just because it's a bigger pack than anyone else has produced doesn't make it impossible to do.

 

[dsm363]

I've responded to a couple of e-mails with the author. Seems very reasonable. He's just a little skeptical that they'll be able to deliver the bigger packs at an affordable price.

 

[tdelta1000]

Only one word describes what going on with that article....propaganda!!!!

I recently read an article that stated the Model S is on track and the development of the Model X will cost $100 million dollars which is 400 million dollars less than the Model S. Keep in mind that TM has not touched the IPO monies as of yet... Tesla Motors will have to put together a great marketing campaign to raise the Model S production numbers but if gas prices continues to go up TM will not have much to do.

It seems that some people want to kill capitalism for others.....

 

[benji4]

It seems that some people want to kill capitalism for others.....

Remember though that freedom of the press is a key element in modern capitalistic societies. Negative opinions in the press and by securities analysts won't stop Tesla from knocking the cover off the ball with the Model S, but if from time to time they help cause dips in Tesla's share price, that's the time when the real capitalists step in and make some money from it!

 

[Norbert]

His previous article was much more favorable: [EDIT: Actually not the same author, just the same website.]

By Refusing To Be a One-Car Company, Tesla Sets Itself Up for Big Success | BNET

Regarding the quarterly report, I found the info in the webcast much more "encouraging" than the press release which the article refers to. Perhaps the author didn't listen to the webcast, as his article contains such sentences as:

But Tesla will have to somehow make a profit with a miracle car — ...

Whereas the webcast (in the Q&A section) points out that instead of some "somehow", there are apparently detailed calculations which allow Elon Musk to be confident about achieving a "25% gross margin" for the Model S. The doubts about the batteries, expressed in the article, seem to express only the author's lack of information, and I don't think he had written that if he had listened to the webcast, which also contains some talk about the upcoming Model S batteries, giving a quite different impression about what to expect.

 

[vfx]

Jim, the author is one of the few consistently Pro EV guys out there and he writes a lot of progressive transportation articles for many webzines.

Realist does not equal hater.

 

[vfx]

Interesting how Elon cranks the stereo during the test drive in the video. Was that to hide some kind of sound or potential sound from the car, or was it to avoid the need to strike up meaningless conversation? (or just because he wanted to hear some music maybe....)

This video is ancient so any subterfuge is pointless to dwell on