Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Motors and Government Money

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
From the article:

While Tesla Roadster concept car is not yet widely available, with a retail price of $109,000, it is hardly surprising. A top speed of 125 miles and a driving range of 244 miles achieving 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, the Roadster does offer a real sporting pedigree and offers a glimmer of hope that electric cars could get over their major hangover of their limited driving range. Their other issue of their price tag may make it harder to secure investment.

Yes, the Roadster is expensive, but considering they have already sold over 10 times the cars that they have delivered, I don't think the high price tag is the main reason it is not yet widely available. If they cost twice as much, or half as much I am sure there would be the same amount on the road today.
 
Amazingly, no one bitched and groaned over the price of a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, a Mclaren, or any number of other high-end "sports" cars when they hit the market, they just accepted them for what they were/are, i.e., high performance, technological marvels.

Albeit, it is a long accepted, commonly established business practice in the auto industry for any emerging, fledgling automaker to etch a name for itself in the annals of automotive history by introducing itself to the World with a sports car, which is exactly what the Tesla is.

As this is the case, I would have to conclude that a majority of the animosity being directed at Tesla over it's sticker price is attributable to the petroleum-based auto industry...haters!
 
TheHill.com - Party ties are strain on auto bailout

Feinstein’s letter also noted that her own state is home to one such start-up company competing for a chunk of the $25 billion in EISA money: Tesla Motors of San Carlos, which has applied for $400 million. Feinstein also takes issue with an amendment Levin has pushed to restrict the loans to manufacturers that have existed for at least 20 years, arguing to Reid that Levin’s amendment would rule out any help for foreign and new companies.

“This is unacceptable to me,” Feinstein wrote.

A Feinstein spokesman said the California senator is still considering her position on this week’s bill and is merely promoting the idea of fuel-efficient technology, regardless of where it is developed or manufactured.

“The point is simple: American automakers — whether based in Michigan or California — should pursue fuel-efficient, next-generation technologies like hybrid and electric,” the spokesman said.

Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s vice president for business development, says his Silicon Valley-area company needs the $400 million to manufacture electric batteries as well as a sedan. He takes pains to avoid any criticism of Detroit, but does echo Feinstein’s case that Tesla’s cars represent the next generation.

“We’ve never regarded this as an ‘us versus them’ situation, like ‘us against Detroit,’ ” O’Connell said. “We do think these [EISA] funds were set aside to inspire and incentivize the future.”
 
It sounds to me like Tesla got a pretty good chance if they are mentioned by name. After all if the Michigan senator should have any hope of getting this to pass, he needs support from both sides. That means a lot of concessions, and hence the whole bill will fail if he runs this kind of message too hard (i.e. the 20 year rule).
I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to US politics but this what sounds most likely to me?

Cobos
 
Not 100% sure which thread this belongs in -- but some good information in here:
Nummi plans 12-day shutdown over two months

Save our loan: That could be Tesla Motors' response to Detroit's Big Three looking to snag $15 billion from a federal pot designed for the San Carlos electric car company and other clean-tech outfits like it. "Its something of a travesty that a fund for alternative energy goes to bail out gas guzzlers," said Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Still, in light of the awful jobs report last week, he said, "I probably would have done something similar," referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who supported a bailout deal she had initially sworn to oppose. "It's regrettable, but if they stay true to their word, to replenish the fund quickly, it should be all right."

For Tesla, "all right" hinges on getting a $400 million loan from the government's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program Tesla applied to last month. The money, administered by the Department of Energy, will help fund Tesla's $60,000 "Model S" sedan.

The prototype of the car will be unveiled in February, with cars on the road expected by 2011, assuming circumstances remain all right. Last week, Musk told me, Tesla closed on $40 million in new private investment. Today, Tesla unmasks its 100th paying customer, name withheld at press time. No, we are assured, it's not another Hollywood celebrity like Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney or Matt Damon, all proud owners of the $109,000 Tesla Roadster.

And, no, it's not San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. His was delivered Thanksgiving weekend.

Point of order: Contrary to a New York Times column, which I cited last week, Tesla insists that none of the $400 million, taxpayer-funded loan it's seeking will be going toward any operating expenses connected to its premium-priced sports car or existing power train supply business. It will go, instead, toward its more affordable sedan.

So Model S officially in Feb. And officially 100 deliveries of the Roadster.
 
From the article:
While other people might have drooled over actor Daniel Craig in the latest Bond flick, Quantum of Solace, I couldn't tear my eyes away from the Aston Martin DBS he drove during the opening scene car chase. At one point I turned to my husband and whispered, "I WANT THAT CAR!"
At some point more of the Tesla roadsters will hit the road, but if the manufacturer sticks to the $110,000 per car pricing plan, I won't be driving it. And some of the other options coming to the market — the Venturi Fetish, Lightning GT and the Fisker Karma — are also priced for people who likely have more disposable cash than the average two-income family. Sigh.

I know the author intends this article to be tongue-in-cheek. But it does seem a prevalent theme: Tesla is too expensive (at $100k) Why can't it be cheaper?! And like the DBS?! (at $250k???)

Why is it that electric cars are supposed to be cheap and for the masses, but the media in general give a pass to high end sports cars which look and act like a Tesla are generally much higher priced?
 
Wasn't sure if this belonged in the loan thread, or the Model S thread... (Or should probably be ignored altogether...)

TheTruthAboutCars weighs in on Tesla's request for low cost loans with their own special flavor of vitriol:

Tesla Death Watch 40: Or Should That Be Suicide Watch? | The Truth About Cars
“We can’t move forward with that without a major amount of capital,” Musk told Bloomies. “If we don’t get any government funding then what we need to do is we need to wait until the capital markets recover, which could be a year or two years from now.” Or, in Tesla’s case, never. Hang on; $350m? Wasn’t that $400m the last time we looked?

“In addition to the $350 million loan application for the new sedan, Musk said Tesla is seeking $100 million to expand its drive train business in which it sells parts to other automakers and $200 million for a battery-cell production factory.”

So I make that $650m in taxpayer funds for a Silicon Valley start-up that’s sold– by its own count– 100 cars. Where do I sign?
 
I don't like the TTAC language but Tesla are playing a very high stakes game with their current line.

I agree, continually raising the requested amount will only make the public more against the loan for Tesla. And it's only going to make people say the same line about funding a sports car no one can afford (though it's supposed to go to the sedan, so tired of repeating this, but all the commenters always only mention the Roadster).

Maybe it's time for Tesla to tone it down and not try to talk so much about this with the media. After all it's a DOE loan and really not up to the public to decide. Right now pretty much the public perception of any loan to an automaker is very negative and it seems, as expected, Tesla is getting a lot more negative response than a positive one from the public (judging from the internet crowd).
 
Maybe it's time for Tesla to tone it down and not try to talk so much about this with the media. After all it's a DOE loan and really not up to the public to decide. Right now pretty much the public perception of any loan to an automaker is very negative and it seems, as expected, Tesla is getting a lot more negative response than a positive one from the public (judging from the internet crowd).

I think that was Tesla's original plan (being low-key about it all). I think the latest media blitz is in reaction to the NYT, WSJ, Newsweek articles. Those articles were driven by the big 3 automakers wanting appropriate the loan money Tesla had already applied for, with the intention of saying to the public (and through them their congressman) "That money over there shouldn't go to *that* person -- see how they are undeserving. Please give it to me instead, I deserve it more".

I think Tesla is just now trying to fight back against the negative press it has been getting due to mis-information. This was not something it wanted to publicize, but now feels it needs to or it will a) lose public support based on a lie, and then b) lose the money based on congress following the public support.
 
Last edited: