Nope.... foolish or silly is how we use it.... we use the word "mad" to mean mentally incapacitated.
Which direction should Tesla go as a company?
- Thread starter dsm363
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Doug_G
Lead Moderator
Those Brits... think they own the English language or something... makes me mad.
:tongue:
not half as mad* as some kid I met the other day made me feel... my Roadster was "dope" apparently... damn american destroying the English language
*Note: in this context "mad" means angry not mentally incapacitated
Now we're OT but the subject of English language and where it is spoken has much more to it than England, Canada, and U.S.:
http://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10
- ducking -
http://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10
- ducking -
My point was that the Model S platform wasn't built assuming the same level of battery tech as today. When building from ground up they conservatively went with a certain level of battery tech that has since been exceeded. Therefore we get a frunk where there was battery space before. Pulling that forward to the Lotus chassis, or something similar, you may see the battery tech today but was the tech there when planning began? And their mule was going to go away while the battery tech was still catching up.
The weight savings afforded by Carbon Fibre body work allows less batteries. Therefore the car you are proposing with the 300 mile range is assuming certain types of technology that aren't well suited to mass market. Going all aluminum makes the resulting cars weigh a bit more, but the equipment is usable on more platforms/cars. Carbon fiber is more of a hand-build tech, isn't it? So the relevance is directly towards the type of chassis they must start with in order to produce the 300-mile roadster for your items #1 and #2.
I equate race team with large marketing budget, I could be wrong. Not sure about super cars because Audi seems to be the racing arm of VW and does quite well. Bugatti being the supercar segment of VW as well. That could've worked but I think requires a larger company these days. For instance, what is Exagon getting from their supercar launch? They are a specialty supplier of racing parts and aftermarket custom gear? Concentrating on supercar plus racing seems like a very good marketing strategy for that type of business. Items #3 & 4 are particularly difficult without being tied to a manufacturer interested in funding such things. Very hard on a go-it-alone basis, imho.
Items #5 & 6 (tech xfer and mule) are related to supplying a larger car company as well.
The mainstream car on existing mule an interesting part of your entire wishlist/argument -- it could've gone well, but the skateboard design is better imho. I don't see a mainstream mule that could've done as well as the skateboard, so I believe they made the correct choice.
Tesla's current path looks like a go big path -- certainly not an easy task. The path you described seems like a supplier path; smaller but could've been profitable. Or your path could've been a 'get bought by VW or Toyota' type of thing.
We have been discussing 300 mile Roadsters for several years here on TMC and I will look out some links when I get a moment. As I said previously, 300 mile batteries in the same form factor are possible today (I have a team looking at a 'next gen roadster' for me).
I never said this was the mass market car... simply an easy win for Tesla while they developed a Super Car and mainstream car using a mule.
I don't think so because the Roadster owners would do a lot of the work for you (as they do today). Many Tesla people have argued for performance and race capable cars, especially those on this side of the pond who see it as important.
To do that they must survive and make money.... we know Tesla can build great batteries and electric drive trains... what we don't know is whether they can build a premium car from scratch that people will pay top dollar for. Remember the Model S is still a serious amount of cash.
I believe we are in agreement. Tesla decided to take the riskier path. And I think the riskier path was the right decision for the time they made that decision. 2009-2011 was a great time to buy a bunch of equipment at yard sale prices and the current path wouldn't have been possible, imho, with the 2005-2008 prices.
We may be in disagreement with the prospective payoff -- I think the riskier path is a big payoff if they pull it off (and, no, I am not invested in Tesla at all except for the car deposit). The other path could've been good and a relatively quick payoff. Either way I think Tesla is definitely a company to watch and admire.
We may be in disagreement with the prospective payoff -- I think the riskier path is a big payoff if they pull it off (and, no, I am not invested in Tesla at all except for the car deposit). The other path could've been good and a relatively quick payoff. Either way I think Tesla is definitely a company to watch and admire.
Sure... and if you have a world view then take a look at Renault who have three EV's in full production, a forth by the end of the year, and two more next year. They don't make Tesla competitors but do make much lower cost products that people will buy in the millions (including 15,000 vans for the french postal service) :smile:
WhiteKnight
_____ P85 #549 _____ Sig Red / Sig White
Back in the early days of Tesla a car expert said that Tesla would not sell more than 200 Roadsters a year. Some here said h0w wrong he would be.
As we know now at end of production Tesla had sold a total of 2,500 cars in 4 years. I don't think incremental improvement would sell that many more cars. Let alone restarting the Roadster line here in the US. (Elon is fanatical about in-house manufacturing)
From what I'm gathering Tesla's next sports car (in my words) will be a McClaren beater. Elon's own supercar bested.
We know it's years away to allow technology (batteries, AWD, Tesla chassis, CF) but the question is, what will people pay for it? McClaren money? Enzo money? Veyron money?
As we know now at end of production Tesla had sold a total of 2,500 cars in 4 years. I don't think incremental improvement would sell that many more cars. Let alone restarting the Roadster line here in the US. (Elon is fanatical about in-house manufacturing)
From what I'm gathering Tesla's next sports car (in my words) will be a McClaren beater. Elon's own supercar bested.
We know it's years away to allow technology (batteries, AWD, Tesla chassis, CF) but the question is, what will people pay for it? McClaren money? Enzo money? Veyron money?
Norbert
TSLA will win
Sounds good to me...
... in its time, that is.Also, according to JB, Tesla plans a Roadster battery upgrade at some point in time, just not very soon, but probably once battery tech has made another significant step forward.
The fact that the Model S top speed depends on the battery pack size, shows that current battery technology wouldn't make it easy to build a supercar that has both supercar-worthy top speed and a good range. However I think it would be nice to have a Roadster-like product, yet again it just isn't the right time to create such a product. Except for being a halo and research car to help design and sell more affordable products, by itself as the only product, I'd see it as a financial risk, not so much a possible bread & butter product, and not so much a basis for future growth. The Model S is the right product at the right time: for Tesla as a company, in relation to the current state of battery technology, in relation to the myths that need to get busted... in the public perception of electric cars, as well as in relation to the "birth" of the electric car industry.
A good flip would be if you made a significant profit. Tesla was losing money there for awhile until the trimmed some costs and raised the price.
How many do you think they'd sell at Veyron prices or even at $250,000 and above? I have a feeling a big majority of people here wouldn't be driving a Tesla at those prices. If all Tesla offered were a super car and a Mercedes A-class Tesla conversion, I almost certainly would not be driving an EV at this point. The Model S fits a segment not being addressed by anyone. If Audi or Mercedes came to Tesla 3 years ago and said 'we want to build a luxury A8 or E class with your powertrain', don't you think they would have stuck that deal for maybe 10,000 units a year for example? We might not have the Model S at this point but that didn't happen. Instead we have the Model S which will expose in the first half year double the number of people to a Tesla product than the 4 years before.
While the people at work think my Roadster is cool and some of them could afford to buy it as well, they all have no interest in a sports car. I get asked on a regular basis 'When is your Model S coming?'. They're actually considering it and the Model X. This wouldn't be happening if Tesla was only in the Roadster/Supercar territory and have a few powertrain sales in the Leaf category.
Who care's how many, it's a halo car.... Please see my first post, this was just one of a series of cars I suggested could have been produced.
That's pretty much my take on it. I have no interest in a sports car, and a halo car has no value to me either. What's important to me is the car that I might drive. That's the one that has to be right.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Yeah, I never felt any better about my Chevy Chevette because GM also made the Chevy Corvette :wink:
I want Tesla to have a halo car. I agree totally with Kevin that a Roadster 3.0 and a Super Roadster 3.0 would be great additions at some point. I guess we disagree on how Tesla should get there. I think Tesla is taking the correct path in terms of broadening the brand and the EV market with the Model S and X. Kids growing up aren't likely to have a poster of the Model S on their wall but maybe a Super-Roadster would make it. Then when they're grown up they realize they can't buy a $300k car and the settle for a Model S:smile:
Halo cars only have meaning to car nuts. I couldn't tell you what main stream company is associated with any of the super cars out there (e.g. Veyron). And, as JRP3 notes, the fact someone like Dodge made the Viper has no impact on my feeling about other cars by Dodge.
I don't think Tesla would even benefit from whatever halo effect exists since they don't have cheap cars that need it. Tesla only makes top notch cars already, the halo effect is brand-wide. The Model X is going to continue that brand-wide trend. Even with the eventual Bluestar, it's probably going to be high performance for it's class.
I don't think Tesla would even benefit from whatever halo effect exists since they don't have cheap cars that need it. Tesla only makes top notch cars already, the halo effect is brand-wide. The Model X is going to continue that brand-wide trend. Even with the eventual Bluestar, it's probably going to be high performance for it's class.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I agree. Tesla Super Car, awesome. Just not now. I think what some people are missing is that the Model S stands out enough on it's own because of it's performance and because it's electric, it IS the halo car and it's generating tons of buzz on it's own. Another car would detract from the Model S at this point.
I'm not saying they should spend significant resources on it but a halo car is the perfect test bed for current battery technology (the ones they don't want to try on their mass production cars) since people spending a few hundred thousand dollars on a car can absorb the cost of more expensive batteries. I agree that Tesla likely wouldn't greatly benefit from a halo car but I think it helps to inspire interest in company for the future. Wouldn't help current sales much I agree.
Similar threads
