Larry
Member
Lets also remember the obvious- Tesla is a public company that is in existence to make money and satisfy its shareholders. I personally think altruism is on the agenda but farther down the list then many want to believe.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Open letter to the Haters
- Thread starter epley
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Krugerrand
Meow
I disagree. Tesla does not exist to make money and satisfy shareholders. Tesla exists to accelerate worldwide adoption of BEVs. To reach that goal requires that it make money to sustain itself and grow as quick as possible. Tesla became public to help it grow quicker than it otherwise could have. Shareholders being awarded is part of what happens when a company can sustain itself, grow as quickly as possible, meet/exceed guidance and expectations, etc...
Tesla was created from an altruistic vision. The guy, who's vision it is, just happens to also be smart enough to know that money makes the world go 'round and that money and shareholder support is needed to see the vision to fruition. But the ultimate goal is not and never was to make money and satisfy shareholders. There are a lot of easier ways to make money in this world than to start an EV car company.
The laughing was not at the BMW. The questioner asked about the BMW and Elon gave a politically correct answer. Something like "I am glad to see another manufacture making an electric car that will help get us off oil" (or similar) It was the the guy who asked the question that started laughing at Elon's carefully worded response since he knew Elon was just playing nice. All in the room knew it and also started laughing, then Elon did. It was giggling about Elon's attempt at saying something nice when someone was comparing two VERY different cars, which is the not at all laughing at the I3.
Bonaire what is wrong with charging at the airport? Yes the airport should have several hundred 110V plugs. Is that a Tesla problem?
Tesla's first car was built before there was a J1772 charging standard but helped set up the electronic signal protocol that was ultimately used.
The Roadster has a big metal twist lock system, that is on the verge of unwieldy for women. Tesla then was disappointed with the "government designed" camel of a plug called the J1772. They went and designed a hand friendly plug that could hide in a small port and handle 5 times the amount of energy of the government system. Both the styling and the increased charge speeds are vital to adoption for those not already sold on EVs like we are. Why fault a better product? They can dumb down with a plug adapter to a J1772 but are you saying they should spend their own money building Superchargers for all cars? Anyone here remember when the Leaf was announced that Nissan said they would build 1000 public charges in San Diego. That would be a drop in the bucket for that kind of corporation who buys 30 seconds of TV ads for 1.2 million dollars.. At least tiny Tesla is really doing it.
Bonaire what is wrong with charging at the airport? Yes the airport should have several hundred 110V plugs. Is that a Tesla problem?
Tesla's first car was built before there was a J1772 charging standard but helped set up the electronic signal protocol that was ultimately used.
The Roadster has a big metal twist lock system, that is on the verge of unwieldy for women. Tesla then was disappointed with the "government designed" camel of a plug called the J1772. They went and designed a hand friendly plug that could hide in a small port and handle 5 times the amount of energy of the government system. Both the styling and the increased charge speeds are vital to adoption for those not already sold on EVs like we are. Why fault a better product? They can dumb down with a plug adapter to a J1772 but are you saying they should spend their own money building Superchargers for all cars? Anyone here remember when the Leaf was announced that Nissan said they would build 1000 public charges in San Diego. That would be a drop in the bucket for that kind of corporation who buys 30 seconds of TV ads for 1.2 million dollars.. At least tiny Tesla is really doing it.
Larry
Member
I disagree. In the real world you have to sustain the bottom line and make your shareholders believe you are a viable company otherwise you will be replaced, even if you are EM. Changing the world comes next unless you are a private company. Ill agree to disagree.
Krugerrand
Meow
You think he said to himself, "Self, I want to start a second near impossible task (because SpaceX came first and we all know it's his first passion) that no one has been able to achieve in many decades and create an automobile commpany with the first and primary purpose to make money and make a bunch of other people (shareholders) happy."
If that's why you think he started Tesla, why he risked both Tesla AND SpaceX, why he spent every cent he had, why he fired long time acquaintances and took over, then there are several video interviews on the Internet that clearly say otherwise that you might want to watch. Money and shareholders are the means to the end, not the reason or the goal for Tesla to exist.
You can have both. Elon is well aware that he won't be changing the world if the business is not successful. He is also aware and has said that if you create a compelling product people will buy it. So, for Tesla, he didn't just create an electric car, he built a compelling and competitive electric car.
Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.
What on God's earth are you talking about? Tesla has offered help to others, and Elon is trying to promote the EV industry as a whole by demonstrating it can be done... a sticking point that prevented everyone else from doing it. Elon has shown a normal looking car made of metal and safe to drive can be electric. Now BMW, GM (who killed their last EV) and others are jumping on board.
That said, Elon does have a duty to his shareholders, including yours truly. But there is no war, civil or otherwise. Im sure some would like that, to that everyone on the EV side died, but it's not going to happen.
BTW, Tesla isn't building the best, safest, electric car... They are building the safest CAR ... period. Don't knock them for doing it... pretty soon someone else will truly compete with Tesla and that is ultimately good for everyone.
Elon has an altruistic vision to change the world to sustainable electric transport AND he knows that will not happen unless Tesla is a very profitable company that sells mass market EVs with margins that make shareholders happy. If Tesla is profitable other car companies will have no choice but to build good EVs that people want to buy and Elon wants to see that happen also. He knows that real competition is good for Tesla and good for consumers.
Ultimately I think he would like Tesla to be extremely profitable so that his stock is worth billions and he can invest big time in establishing a permanent human colony on Mars. And I would love to see that happen!
Ultimately I think he would like Tesla to be extremely profitable so that his stock is worth billions and he can invest big time in establishing a permanent human colony on Mars. And I would love to see that happen!
Larry
Member
Its a chicken or the egg argument as I dont know what goes inside his head and you probably dont either. Either way we have an incredible automobile. Everything thats in the public eye is there for a reason. Maybe Im just a cynic and EM is all you say he is-I hope he is, I just don't believe everything I see in the media or PR presentations. All I know is the car is all I hoped it would be and it seems many others agree. I just want the company to thrive. Changing the world would be a huge bonus.
Botbldr45
Member
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Did you complain like this when the VHS beat the Beta Max, or the Blu Ray beat the HD DVD? There has to be one standard to follow, and the process to get there is a cut throat game. Sometimes the "open" concept wins, sometimes the "closed" concept wins, and very few times they can both co-exist. Micrososft/IBM had the open concept sharing their architecture and Apple had and still has the closed concept of not letting anybody create copies.
I'm not saying that Tesla should change their supercharger infrastructure to allow other EVs to charge, but until there is a standard high output charging solution, what choice does Tesla have? You are either the leader or follower and Elon has made clear that he wants Tesla to be the leader. If he is wrong, then Tesla might disappear like the BetaMax, LaserDisc, etc, but a lot of people don't think he will be wrong.
Tesla will always be "the" electric car company until someone makes a car like theirs. Nobody is making an EV over 100 miles with fast charging and that looks nice. It's ok to have a company that wants only the best. Making others come to their level of EVs for charging is a win-win for everyone.
The letter starting this thread has a very marked "us vs them" tone, at least that's how I read it. I don't think the car industry is a giant monolithic block neglecting EVs on purpose.
The industry is in the business to sell more cars, not a particular propulsion system.
There are car companies who warmed up to the concept of EVs. Take for example Nissan-Renault and more recently BMW. Others like Mitsubishi and VW just announced important strategic changes to produce more hybrid models.
While Renault-Nissan will miss its own goal to sell 1.5 million EVs by 2016, it will hit it by around 2020 and remain the likely EV unit global sales leader. So far, the company sold 120k EVs.
While you might argue TSLA is the only company at the moment doing "real" (long-range capable) ICE alternatives I doubt it's safe to say there aren't alternatives or issues with battery supply and pricing that have yet to be solved.
The car and battery industries would have to invest in gigantic battery factories and corner the global market for raw materials to put a few million long-range EVs on the road soon. Let's put the gigantic numbers in perspective:
- There are about 85 million cars built a year (about 60-65 of them passenger cars), the demand will likely increase further because of new first-time buyers in SE Asia and Africa in the future.
- Now imagine the demand for battery raw materials and battery plants if 40-50 million (about 50%) of them would have to be built as pure, long-range EVs until 2025.
I think it would be next to impossible to achieve this goal without exteme price spikes and shortages. Therefore, this revolution must be very gradual imho - not because the car companies are "evil", but because the shift takes much longer on the battery side of things.
We also have to ask ourselves if more personal transport makes sense in the future - regardless of EVs vs ICE or fuel cells.
The real revolution to save resources on this planet transport-wise is imho to plateau the current personal transportation in cars:
- Shifting to faster and more efficient public/mass transport, such as high-speed trains between cities, subways in cities and future concepts like the Hyperloop (less long-range travel by car or planes). Many US cities lag badly in public transport compared to other developed regions. Once this infrastructure is built out, less people have a need for cars - or at least use their cars less frequently.
- Reducing the ownership ratio of cars, i.e. more car rentals on demand and less cars owned/bought. Each additional car takes a lot of road infrastructure, needs a lot of parking spaces but "sits around" idle most of the time. In use, its usually occupied by a little more than one person on average (or just one person, especially when commuting).
- Cutting down on peak rush hours, allowing more telework over distance and more flexible work hours.
PS: I know these things are not popular to say, especially in a car forum, but that's my honest opinion. When you look at cities like Los Angeles or Shanghai during rush hour, you see that the current "personal mobility and commuting freedom in large urban areas" mantra is near its collapse. EVs may help with local pollution, but they don't do away with the general problems in personal mobility.
The industry is in the business to sell more cars, not a particular propulsion system.
There are car companies who warmed up to the concept of EVs. Take for example Nissan-Renault and more recently BMW. Others like Mitsubishi and VW just announced important strategic changes to produce more hybrid models.
While Renault-Nissan will miss its own goal to sell 1.5 million EVs by 2016, it will hit it by around 2020 and remain the likely EV unit global sales leader. So far, the company sold 120k EVs.
While you might argue TSLA is the only company at the moment doing "real" (long-range capable) ICE alternatives I doubt it's safe to say there aren't alternatives or issues with battery supply and pricing that have yet to be solved.
The car and battery industries would have to invest in gigantic battery factories and corner the global market for raw materials to put a few million long-range EVs on the road soon. Let's put the gigantic numbers in perspective:
- There are about 85 million cars built a year (about 60-65 of them passenger cars), the demand will likely increase further because of new first-time buyers in SE Asia and Africa in the future.
- Now imagine the demand for battery raw materials and battery plants if 40-50 million (about 50%) of them would have to be built as pure, long-range EVs until 2025.
I think it would be next to impossible to achieve this goal without exteme price spikes and shortages. Therefore, this revolution must be very gradual imho - not because the car companies are "evil", but because the shift takes much longer on the battery side of things.
We also have to ask ourselves if more personal transport makes sense in the future - regardless of EVs vs ICE or fuel cells.
The real revolution to save resources on this planet transport-wise is imho to plateau the current personal transportation in cars:
- Shifting to faster and more efficient public/mass transport, such as high-speed trains between cities, subways in cities and future concepts like the Hyperloop (less long-range travel by car or planes). Many US cities lag badly in public transport compared to other developed regions. Once this infrastructure is built out, less people have a need for cars - or at least use their cars less frequently.
- Reducing the ownership ratio of cars, i.e. more car rentals on demand and less cars owned/bought. Each additional car takes a lot of road infrastructure, needs a lot of parking spaces but "sits around" idle most of the time. In use, its usually occupied by a little more than one person on average (or just one person, especially when commuting).
- Cutting down on peak rush hours, allowing more telework over distance and more flexible work hours.
PS: I know these things are not popular to say, especially in a car forum, but that's my honest opinion. When you look at cities like Los Angeles or Shanghai during rush hour, you see that the current "personal mobility and commuting freedom in large urban areas" mantra is near its collapse. EVs may help with local pollution, but they don't do away with the general problems in personal mobility.
Last edited:
I recall my son mentioning reading an interview with Elon in maybe 2007, years ago anyway. The thing that really turned me around to Tesla was the interviewer's question about what happens when Tesla gets some competition and another company produces a better vehicle than Tesla. Elon's response was along the lines of "Good! Then the goal of sustainable transport will be closer!"
That's my memory of it anyway. So bonaire I can't agree with your post - I believe Elon has always had a laudable end goal, and has never deviated from it, and has continued to be honest about it, including hoping other companies would follow suit. Now, perhaps laughing at BMW doesn't come across all that well, but I can tell you I'm frustrated with all the ridiculous quasi-reporting and repetitive fact misrepresentation, and I'm not under nearly the billion pounds of pressure that Elon is under. Except, of course, the pressure to somehow find the income to purchase a Model S to go along with my Tesla hat.:wink:
Similar threads
