Fairly negative article about Tesla applying for part of the $25 billion dollar loan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Not to mention a fairly weird article as well. Why does he spend about half his article based on Moores law which clearly has nothing to do with anything related to Tesla, Roadster or Model S?
To quote "The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive." Immature ? You mean so immature you can make a viable business out of selling it? Expensive? He must imply cheap like a high-end porsche or low end Ferrari, or wait...
He also makes a point that giving Tesla a small piece of the pie when they apparently can make a complete car for less than $140 mill is a worse decision than giving GM a lot more. Especially considering that they CAN'T make a viable electric car for $1000 mill, according to GM. I suppose if you are splitting the cost of 8 private jets for your executives out over all budgets then a new car must cost $1000 mill.
And it goes on: "Tesla pitches all-electric cars as the greenest form of personal transportation, eliminating vehicle emissions and helping to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. The cars reduce air pollution indirectly, to whatever degree the power generation on the grid uses energy sources other than coal. And for households that install their own power-generating solar panels, electric cars can rightfully claim to attain truly zero emissions today."
He makes a big point out of the long tailpipe argument, which is not really valid as we know. But he mentions independence of foreign oil and fails to mention that again when he goes on his long tailpipe argument.
He mentions the BMW E-mini which is a good showcase for how far ahead Tesla is technically compared to BMW. They are making cars which are less capable than the Roadster, barely has more space and considering the $850/month lease cost probably cost at least as much as the Roadster.
And the article goes on and on...
I wish people writing technical articles would actually have a technical clue. I don't ask my Materials Science professor from university about good business decisions, so why should I assume a business professor should have enough technical insight to see the difference between an E-REV and a EV?
Cobos
To quote "The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive." Immature ? You mean so immature you can make a viable business out of selling it? Expensive? He must imply cheap like a high-end porsche or low end Ferrari, or wait...
He also makes a point that giving Tesla a small piece of the pie when they apparently can make a complete car for less than $140 mill is a worse decision than giving GM a lot more. Especially considering that they CAN'T make a viable electric car for $1000 mill, according to GM. I suppose if you are splitting the cost of 8 private jets for your executives out over all budgets then a new car must cost $1000 mill.
And it goes on: "Tesla pitches all-electric cars as the greenest form of personal transportation, eliminating vehicle emissions and helping to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. The cars reduce air pollution indirectly, to whatever degree the power generation on the grid uses energy sources other than coal. And for households that install their own power-generating solar panels, electric cars can rightfully claim to attain truly zero emissions today."
He makes a big point out of the long tailpipe argument, which is not really valid as we know. But he mentions independence of foreign oil and fails to mention that again when he goes on his long tailpipe argument.
He mentions the BMW E-mini which is a good showcase for how far ahead Tesla is technically compared to BMW. They are making cars which are less capable than the Roadster, barely has more space and considering the $850/month lease cost probably cost at least as much as the Roadster.
And the article goes on and on...
I wish people writing technical articles would actually have a technical clue. I don't ask my Materials Science professor from university about good business decisions, so why should I assume a business professor should have enough technical insight to see the difference between an E-REV and a EV?
Cobos
I love the irony of a headline deriding Tesla for only making cars for the rich and then later pointing out that the money is to produce a less expensive sedan.
The article contains 10,000 facts, but the author goes out of its way to weave them together with a negative conclusion against logic. I wonder if he was inspired by Daniel Lyons?
The article contains 10,000 facts, but the author goes out of its way to weave them together with a negative conclusion against logic. I wonder if he was inspired by Daniel Lyons?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Calacanis takes this article apart piece by piece. I think he did a good job.
Jason McCabe Calacanis: On Bailouts and Sports Cars
This NYT editorial is starting to spread and more people are referring to the loan as a "bailout" for Tesla. Don't know who started it, but it's a bad trend not to mention incorrect. I wonder if Tesla will do an official press statement to clarify (I know they did the blog piece but that's a little different).
Will Detroit run out of road? | GreenTech Pastures | ZDNet.com
Jason McCabe Calacanis: On Bailouts and Sports Cars
This NYT editorial is starting to spread and more people are referring to the loan as a "bailout" for Tesla. Don't know who started it, but it's a bad trend not to mention incorrect. I wonder if Tesla will do an official press statement to clarify (I know they did the blog piece but that's a little different).
Will Detroit run out of road? | GreenTech Pastures | ZDNet.com
...from the article...
Um, well, I hope the plan is to increase fuel efficiency standards...
At least it looks like some of the articles on the NYT story are a bit skeptical of it. But I fear this story will get a lot of coverage... more than the Newsweek one.
I suddenly remembered this morning why Randall Stross name was familiar. He wrote that awful Steve Jobs bio in the '90s, where he spent 1/4 of the book describing Sun Microsystems (where Steve didn't work) and then tying it back to him saying Steve's business was bad because it wasn't more like Sun.
I suddenly remembered this morning why Randall Stross name was familiar. He wrote that awful Steve Jobs bio in the '90s, where he spent 1/4 of the book describing Sun Microsystems (where Steve didn't work) and then tying it back to him saying Steve's business was bad because it wasn't more like Sun.
Look's like you are right already...
Should the US taxpayer support green cars for rich people? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist
Should the US taxpayer support green cars for rich people? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist
And with CNET, where they cover the spectrum:
Somewhat balanced, where they quote both Stross as well as Diarmuid O'Connell: Eyes turn to auto start-ups' funding, aid requests | Green Tech - CNET News
As well as (In the Calacanis article words) "Kill the rich": Ta ta, Tesla | Green Tech - CNET News
Somewhat balanced, where they quote both Stross as well as Diarmuid O'Connell: Eyes turn to auto start-ups' funding, aid requests | Green Tech - CNET News
As well as (In the Calacanis article words) "Kill the rich": Ta ta, Tesla | Green Tech - CNET News
And of course, The Truth About Cars weigh in on both Stross and Calacanis:
Tesla Death Watch 39: Li-Ion Rules! Or, Well, You Know… | The Truth About Cars
Tesla Death Watch 39: Li-Ion Rules! Or, Well, You Know… | The Truth About Cars
Kardax
Member
If Model S is finished enough to show, now might be a good time to pull back the veil and put it on the home page...
Tesla has a reputation as an exotic sports car manufacturer; they need to become more accessible if they want to earn broader support.
-Ryan
Tesla has a reputation as an exotic sports car manufacturer; they need to become more accessible if they want to earn broader support.
-Ryan
^ I think they missed a trick by not launching at the LA show.
Why Tesla should get a $400 million bailout
Why Obama should treat the car industry like the internet | Technology | guardian.co.uk
Why Tesla should get a $400 million bailout
Why Obama should treat the car industry like the internet | Technology | guardian.co.uk
I agree completely, especially since they seem to be catching a lot of flak(sp?) for only making cars for superrich. If they reveal their Model S and at the same time make more of an announcement about the Bluestar they might get a more positive response. The Model S is after all for the simple rich and the Bluestar is almost for the common man
They could always show it as a concept vehicle which gives them plenty of opportunity for tweaking the design and technical aspects. Just don't take regular orders before they've got the specs locked down.
Cobos
PS: Full disclosure, I really really want to see the Model S
In response to letters to the editor (thanks tomsax!), the NYT prints a correction. Damage done, though, I think.
Yes, thanks tomsax!
I wrote a letter as well, but I think this was better than mine. I agree with doug, though. Damage done.
Similar threads
