Tesla's continuing viability as a company thread.

[TEG]

As others have said, they don't expect CHAdeMO adapters to come.

If they supported it, then Tesla's customers would get a rapid charge network by default, as in the UK Nissan is expected to deploy a minimum of 65 CHAdeMO chargers in public locations for all EVs to use. I believe it is the same across Europe.

How would people feel if they provided a way for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, but no way for cars like LEAF to charge from a Tesla Supercharger?
There could be a perception of iniquity if reciprocity wasn't provided....

 

[Todd Burch]

I guess the 40kWh base mode will lack the software that communicates with the super charger to establish the DC charging protocol and it will lack the wiring capable to deliver +200A to the pack.

I disagree. How is the car going to support battery swap then? I think the internals, as far as DC charging is concerned, are going to be the same on all cars.

 

[markwj]

How would people feel if they provided a way for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, but no way for cars like LEAF to charge from a Tesla Supercharger?
There could be a perception of iniquity if reciprocity wasn't provided....

Surely, Tesla would be responsible for providing the ability for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, and Nissan would be responsible for providing the ability for Leaf to charge from Tesla Supercharger? Reciprocity.

 

[dsm363]

Surely, Tesla would be responsible for providing the ability for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, and Nissan would be responsible for providing the ability for Leaf to charge from Tesla Supercharger? Reciprocity.

If Tesla links the ability to charge to owning a Model S though, Leaf owners would be locked out. I hope Tesla opens the charger to all at some point but at the start, I think restricting it to Tesla owners makes sense until the infrastructure is there.

 

[shark2k]

Lloyd mentioned this in the Model S Specs Page:

I may be able to shed some light on the Supercharging for the different battery sizes. In my conversations with Tesla it has been my understanding that Tesla intends to pay for the electricity charges for for the supercharger, Thus, Included means that you may charge for free when needed. Optional for the 240 mile battery means that you may charge, but there may be a fee associated with it's use. We will have to confirm this with Telsa as more information comes out, but this is my take combining what I learned from conversations with the release.

Now, this might not be correct, as Lloyd clearly states it is his understanding from his conversations with Tesla. But, if this is the case (even though I believe it was QWK that replies saying that it was a bad idea) you guys could be blowing that out of proportion. Now I will say looking at the pricing and options page, I could see how what I quoted is doesn't fit with the wording they used, but it is still a slight possibility. I would say to see if this gets clarified before 100% condemning Tesla for not including QC for the 40 kWh battery.

Just my $0.02.

Edit: I just noticed in the Pricing/Option Aftermath: Still buying? thread, that smorgasbord mentioned in post #35 that he stopped at a Tesla store and they gave a reason for why QC was not available for the 40 kWh battery, so this post could more or less be annoyed.

-Shark2k

 

[jimbakker666]

There is not much betweeen Baker and Las Vegas! With the 60 kw battery you can 1. QC 2. make the trip with three charges 2 enroute and one in vegas vs 5. In this part I believe that your expectations were not in line with distance driving with this car.

I beleive that anything other than a local commuter needs a 60 kw battery + in order to be viable. You would likely suffer from personal weight gain from all the fast food that you would be eating while waiting for your multiple charges!

Thanks Lloyd, after reading this I agree with you that the 40kW wouldn't be able to make it Vegas, QC or not.

Fast food, bleh. I'd rather starve!

 

[dpeilow]

How would people feel if they provided a way for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, but no way for cars like LEAF to charge from a Tesla Supercharger?
There could be a perception of iniquity if reciprocity wasn't provided....

I'm sure they won't care if they are taking cash from the car driver, which is ultimately what these site owners will be allowed to do.

Besides, Tesla just guaranteed that finding a supercharger will be as rare as hens teeth as no site owner is going to install a charger for the top few percent of a rare car. They won't even dedicate a parking space to it.

 

[brianman]

Besides, Tesla just guaranteed that finding a supercharger will be as rare as hens teeth as no site owner is going to install a charger for the top few percent of a rare car. They won't even dedicate a parking space to it.

I wouldn't bank on that just yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see the base model Bluestar support super-charging (advances in battery pricing and/or capacity).

 

[dpeilow]

I wouldn't bank on that just yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see the base model Bluestar support super-charging (advances in battery pricing and/or capacity).

Which is a few years out and an act of faith.

We are finding resistance from high traffic sites now, for CHAdeMO installations that would be provided free of charge. They don't want to lose the parking space. Justifying the same for a supercharger is going to be much more difficult.


Anyone else thinking that the 160 mile version was just a DOE loan play?

 

[Norbert]

In doing a little trip planning the 40 kw battery from So. California to Las Vegas would be problematic even with quick charging. It's 153 miles from downtown Los Angeles to Baker which would be the likely spot for a quick charge, and about 300 miles one way. I believe there is and HPC in Baker. You would be going over several mountain ranges and likely not make Baker with the 40 kw battery. You would need to make two charge stops to get to Vegas, then charge in Vegas and then two charge stops for the return trip. There is not much betweeen Baker and Las Vegas! With the 60 kw battery you can 1. QC 2. make the trip with three charges 2 enroute and one in vegas vs 5. In this part I believe that your expectations were not in line with distance driving with this car.

I beleive that anything other than a local commuter needs a 60 kw battery + in order to be viable. You would likely suffer from personal weight gain from all the fast food that you would be eating while waiting for your multiple charges!

Good description, Lloyd!

 

[dsm363]

Which is a few years out and an act of faith.

We are finding resistance from high traffic sites now, for CHAdeMO installations that would be provided free of charge. They don't want to lose the parking space. Justifying the same for a supercharger is going to be much more difficult.

Anyone else thinking that the 160 mile version was just a DOE loan play?

It possible I guess. Parking along major highways here is typically much easier in the places you'd need a quick charger so that's less of an issue.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Anyone else thinking that the 160 mile version was just a DOE loan play?

I don't think it was for the DOE, I think it was so Tesla could do exactly what JB666 is so upset about, trumpet the $49,900 price.

I used to buy Hondas and they would have the DX model - did anyone buy this?

The difference between Tesla and Honda though is you can get every available option on the 40 kWh pack. No one at the Country Club will know if you're packing 40 kWh or 85 kWh. So if you accept the fact that the Model S today is not a good car for long road trips you should save the $10,000 or $20,000 get the 40 kWh for 90%+ of your needs and then buy plane tickets for the rest (that's my thinking).

 

[WhiteKnight]

Key to "Viability"

In order to be successful in the long-term, Tesla (IMO), must find a way to cut battery costs in half in 5-10 years.*

When they are selling cars with 320, 460 and 600 miles of range at $50K, $60K and $70K then they will take over the world.

Until they cut costs they will remain a niche player selling 20K to 40K vehicles per year.

*As an alternative they could slash supercharge times from 45 minutes to 4 minutes (in other words, switch to ultracapacitors) while maintaining the same ranges and prices today. I'm not sure which is more technologically daunting.

 

[vfx]

+1

Would not be surprised if Mercedes was the pricing model.

The slower acceleration on base is saddening though.

 

[Electric1]

Anyone see this on Autoblog:

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/11/analyst-says-tesla-is-low-on-cash-dangerously-so/?



Coupled with the NY Times blog from Tuesday (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/category/auto-shows/2013-detroit-auto-show/) which said, in part
"Tesla Motors threw out a lot of numbers at its news conference Tuesday at the Detroit auto show — about new Supercharger locations, about store and service center openings — but it did not directly address production or delivery numbers for the Model S sedan, and it wasn’t saying very much about reported cash-flow problems as production of the car ramps up."

It's got to one thinking that they have to ramp up DELIVERIES to improve cash flow.

 

[gregincal]

Interesting to read this very old thread from the point of view of somebody who only started paying attention after cars were on the road.

People were exactly right that Tesla didn't make the 40kWh car very attractive, and I wouldn't be surprised if they drop it. However, they have a hit on their hands with the 85kWh, and the 60kWh serves the role of the lower volume lead in. At this stage being a successful niche player selling 20K to 40K vehicles per year is fine. The big thing that people didn't expect is that absolutely none of the major players would show any signs of releasing a car that competes in any significant way with Tesla.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Anyone see this on Autoblog:

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/11/analyst-says-tesla-is-low-on-cash-dangerously-so/?

This analyst says:

"That leaves Tesla with less than six months' worth of cash, given that it burned through almost $200 million during the first nine months of 2012."

, but this is an apples to oranges comparison with 2013. Tesla didn't start delivering Model S to customers until 2012 was almost half over, and production ramp up was initially slow. A high production and delivery rate today means that they probably won't "burn cash" like they in the first half of last year. Also, didn't Tesla have to spend a lot of money on robots and setting up production lines?

I haven't read that analyst's complete report, but the segment posted doesn't make sense to me.

 

[jerry33]

I haven't read that analyst's complete report, but the segment posted doesn't make sense to me.

The authors of these kind of articles always have an axe to grind, and they're not too picky about the details. Also, traditional Wall Street analysis doesn't work well with companies like Tesla, Apple, or Amazon because Wall Street only thinks about this quarter while the mentioned companies think long term.

 

[Norbert]

That specific article is based on Q3 results, and ignores that in the beginning of Q4, Tesla already raised additional cash. And it also ignores that up to that point, Tesla was investing in Model S manufacturing, and didn't sell Model S yet (except 250 in Q3), whereas from Q4 on, Tesla started selling Model S in serious numbers.

We also discussed it (or the underlying MarketWatch article) in the investor's thread.

 

[Zzzz...]

Also, traditional Wall Street analysis doesn't work well with companies like Tesla, Apple, or Amazon because Wall Street only thinks about this quarter while the mentioned companies think long term.

I do not think this is true. J.P. Morgan in Dec 2012 set price target for TSLA for Jan 2013(now) of $40. Ok, we are not at $40, but they did looked at whole year ahead performance(remember at that point Model S was not even in production). Furthermore, their analyses was based and took into account TM's 2013 and 2014 revenue projections.

Goldman Sachs at same time in Jan 2012 was posting $35 price target for Tesla, a year ago.

I would say that J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs are as QUOTE:"traditional Wall Street" as you could possibly get.