I’m with you on this one Jason. Randall Stross’ article (it’s really an editorial, but not marked as such) rips into Tesla as “not much more than a functioning concept car” and suggests it would be foolish of the government to grant it a loan under a 2007 Federal loan program designed specifically to encourage development of vehicles that conserve fuel.
Stross’ argument is that Tesla only makes cars for the rich (their first model is $109,000), and the technology is unproven. But Tesla has announced two new vehicles, both at much lower prices (and one targeted at $30,000). Stross’ facts are wrong, and his opinions are misguided. If Tesla succeeds, it will be because it was able to sell cars to the mass market.
I’m against government meddling in the markets. But I would far prefer to see Tesla get any part of that money, if it must be distributed, than any of the big three automakers. As I wrote this weekend, the best thing for them, and for our country, is to just let them die. They are incapable of innovating given their current financial and logistical structure. Tesla, on the other hand, is actually doing something interesting.
See all
Post
Michael, I agree with you that if government money should go anywhere it should be towards supporting innovation and entrepreneurship with the aim of building a new auto industry. I would however, perhaps go further, in addition to Tesla perhaps we can support a knowledge and innovation cluster to develop which would result in a place for all some of the best talent from the dying auto industry to migrate towards and start working for/engineering/building the car companies of tomorrow.
What Stross fails to understand is that all new technologies are expensive at beginning and falls in price as soon as it is mass produced. Just look at how computers started out (as each weighing over a ton and filling up an entire room). Then IBM chairmen said they will only have demands for max 5 computers. Give Tesla some time to keep innovating, for which they need loans.
–
New Site For College Students: http://www.inkampus.com
I agree with most of what you wrote, but we should keep the government out of funding anything past basic research.
How many business plans in how many industries are in limbo because of the mere threat of regulation or the mere passing promise of subsidies?
The government’s potential actions trump many aspects of a normal market - competition, market conditions, etc.
If a certain percentage (and I don’t know what it is) of thinking has to be devoted to “what will Washington do”, then whatever market is being discussed will not function as a market and lobbying, etc. will drive things.
We need to educate people that the government is more of a problem rather than being part of a solution.
TESLA FORM A UNION…then you’ll get a bailout.
I agree that the the “big three” needs some innovation and could definitely use some restructuring, however, to just let them die could be a bad thing unless we can find someone else to build our armed services vehicles. I am spot on with the theory that every company should fend for themselves and hate the idea of government stepping in and/or bailing out companies but to avert a potential national security crisis, these auto-makers need to rethink the way they are doing things or have the government impose regulations that will get them on a profitable margin again.
As for Tesla - awesome. I would seriously consider buying one if they could get a really nice sporty model for under $50k.
One of the only Calacanis e-mails i actually read through. And “i’m with you on this one” Early adopters spend money spur and fund innovation. Give them the loan…
Let them die? The externalities of such a decision are so profound that your statement indicates you wouldn’t be able to comprehend them.
The problem is that every Big 3 vehicle that rolls off the line is saddled with some $3,000-5,000 in legacy costs. That puts them at a significant disadvantage against Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.
That is the fundamental problem the Big 3 carmakers face. They are forced to produce a comparable car at effectively $5,000 cheaper than the competitition and not surprisingly, it can’t be done.
for some reason, you seem to think that the government can do more than postpone the inevitable. They’re already out of business.
Exactly, Michael. You said it. Concisely. Accurately.
This sounds like more Silicon Valley Snobbery. GM invented the electric car, if you’ll recall. They want to make tens of thousands of Chevy Volts (and other iterations). Tesla is talking about hundreds of electric cars. The Big 3, for all of their drawbacks, contain the ingenuity and intellectual capital needed to really execute really aggressive cars. You don’t believe me - Chrysler has done in 3 years what it took Tesla 7 (yes, they were stealth for many years before their 2006 ‘launch). I should hope you wouldn’t overlook those accomplishments. You may also note that Fisker is opening a tech center outside Detroit (near where GM is opening their engine tech center) and Tesla just closed its tech center in Rochester Hills - filled with former Big 3 engineers. It doesn’t appear that Tesla or Fisker would agree with your comments about the Big 3.
They should get government money in-so-far as the government is giving it. They’re developing a good platform and it should be supported.
Michael, I appreciate your insights on technology start-ups, but you’re behind the curve on the auto industry. Make a visit to Detroit and talk to some insiders - the same as you do in the Valley. Then make some decisions.
There are some major holes in what you just said, Doug.
1. GM didn’t “invent” the electric car. Electric vehicles have been built for decades, there just hasn’t been one built into a final consumer product. There were even electric cars in the Ford Model T era, though batter technology was lacking, which lead to the widespread use of gasoline vehicles.
2. GM’s Volt didn’t take three years. Let me introduce you to the EV1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1 It was introduced in 1996 by GM and leased to hundreds of people. The thing could beat the pants off the lame Volt, which is little more than a crippled EV1 hybrid, rather than a full electric car. They could drive up to 75 miles per charge with the original ‘96 model, and the Gen 2 could do up to 150. Acceleration was 0-50 in 6.3 seconds. In 2003, GM canceled the program, rounded up all of the leased cars, and destroyed them, to the great annoyance of the leasers, and the engineers who worked on it. An amazing car, ahead of it’s time, and there’s nothing like it today. In short, GM/Chevy’s Volt is less than what they had twelve years ago, a mere improvement on the Prius.
Sorry the comment on the bottom was meant for you:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008.....nt-2551642
I agree with Doug here. Michael, you’re thinking about technology when you should be thinking about economics (or are you claiming to be high on the curve of economics too?).
I agree the big 3 CEOs are idiots with their lack of preparation for their hearing, and with flying 3 private jets to DC, but the economy really needs some kind of life support right now.
At least Paul Krugman thinks the bailout should happen, and he’s got the econ cred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Tesla making a car in 7 years if pretty damn impressive. Remember they started with 2 guys in a rented office. They built a company, sourced suppliers, designed all new battery technology, have several motor patents, and designed an amazing car. They are also delivering. The Volt is still a year away. With all the resources and electric car history of a mega-company like GM it’s pretty sad really.
Not trying to be pedantic, I hardly think GM designed the first electric car. The following is from about.com:
I might add my daughter’s boy friend is a parts designer at Tesla.
Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage. A small-scale electric car was designed by Professor Stratingh of Groningen, Holland, and built by his assistant Christopher Becker in 1835. Practical and more successful electric road vehicles were invented by both American Thomas Davenport and Scotsmen Robert Davidson around 1842. Both inventors were the first to use non-rechargeable electric cells. Frenchmen Gaston Plante invented a better storage battery in 1865 and his fellow countrymen Camille Faure improved the storage battery in 1881. This improved-capacity storage battery paved the way for electric vehicles to flourish.
Big 3 don’t need to make anymore armed svcs vehicles that are easily shredded. A company in South Carolina is making superior vehicles.
1 of the Big 3 should be courting Tesla to do a licensing deal. B3 has the distribution and support network already set up. B3 spends $1B plus to design new (old) models that finally nobody really cares about today. B3 could pay Tesla $200-300M per model plus royalties. B3 would save $700-800M per model and there overpaid workers could build something to be proud of tomorrow (UAW folks work hard however build against a design that is quite dated).
Congress, PLEASE don’t fund GM to roll out the Volt for $40k that can only go 40 miles on a charge. That still won’t come for a few years and the Asians will again lap the B3 by that time frame and thus B3 dies in 2010 after mowing thru $50-100B of our tax dollars.
You’re all so keen on the Tesla Roadster, which, while a good piece of engineering, is still range limited and can’t recharge in the time it takes to fill up a with a tank of gas. Batteries are the limiting factor and until that constraint is removed, hybrids are the the near future. Hence the Volt and Prius.
Also, for those of you who are not as knowledgeable about the auto industry, it’s so capital intensive that few can just jump in. A new vehicle takes billions to tool up from scratch and that does NOT include what the thousands of suppliers need to invest to tool up their subcomponents. And, given the very incestuous nature of the industry, if the Big Three go down, so will many of the suppliers leaving startups like Tesla without a place to go for their parts.
Bottom line - Tesla is technology constrained and doesn’t have a short term bridge to make anything that’s viable for the general public, plus they’re capital constrained and, if the Big Three fail, will be parts constrained as well.
Hybrids are NOT the near future. Diesels can do all hybrids can and cost a fraction to make. Go to Europe and you’ll find a number of small family cars doing 70mpg with < 120g/km CO2 emissions. Not an expensive battery in sight. They render hybrids pointless.
It’s marketing considerations getting hybrids built, not environmental ones.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Although I do agree diesel fueled cars (at the moment) seem to have the advantage over battery powered cars, but lets face it diesel technology is well over 100 yrs old. And it took the better part of that period to get it right.
Modern batteries NiCad, Li-Ion, ect are no where that old. Also the some of the best battery technology patents are owned by Chevron and for obvious reasons will not let them be used sold in this country for development of electric cars. But, thankfully time is running out on the patent (2010). Hopefully that will make a difference in electric development.
I also might mention the Tesla can and does get 200 miles to a charge without any CO2 emissions.
If the government is going to be giving money to auto makers (which I’m firmly against since there is not authority in the constitution that allows them to do so) I would much rather see it given to Tesla then any of the big 3, the problem is that they have been sitting on their but when it comes to making and selling energy efficient cars, so why should we give money to a company that has a bad business model?
It’s better to support a car that is actually relevant and attempting to bring us into the no-petrol age.
Detroit is irrelevant and obsolete, and the sooner everyone accepts the fact that the loved American icons are over the sooner we’ll make progress in alternative vehicles.
At this point we’re already fucked with the recession/depression, we may as well kick our detroit habit now.
I’ve had a similar opinion for a long time. The Big 3 have sat around doing nothing but redesigning the bodies of their existing cars for years, while a few upstarts like Tesla use their limited resources to actually try for something new and better.
I’d like to see some of that money go to Tesla to get them started, and any money that goes to the Big Three come with some strings attached. More regulations, a timeline for electric vehicles, etc.
@Doug
At least you are agreeing that if Tesla qualifies for the program they should get the money. Right now Stross doesn’t even feel they deserve it given their first car is in the higher price price bracket, though the loan is supposed to go to their $60k 2nd car & their parts division (which can supply EV parts to other automakers as well as themselves).
I agree there are some consequences to letting the Detroit 3 just die, but the bailout doesn’t look very likely; I guess we’ll see.
About the Chrysler EVs, not very convinced about them. It looks like they contracted people to do most of the work. The motor under the hood was by uqm, the bulk of the work on the Dodge EV was done by Lotus Engineering (thus why the Europa was used).
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2.....-dodge-ev/
I just find it funny they wait until there was already talk about the $25 billion bailout to show these EVs.
And they aren’t anywhere near where Tesla is, which is already in production. They are at the stage where Tesla had their first Elise-bodied mule in late 2004 (so actually 2 years to 2006 launch and 4 years to production, there wasn’t any planning for the company until 2003, so 5 years max, where did you get 7 year number?).
“They are incapable of innovating given their current financial and logistical structure. Tesla, on the other hand, is actually doing something interesting.”
Look… if the Big Three are incapable without a bailout then so is Tesla and everyone else with their hand out. Also, if its so damn interesting then why isn’t the market more interested? Because its not that interesting to most buyers and its out of range.
None of these guys deserve a bailout and the feds shouldn’t be handing out cash based on what you or anyone else finds “interesting”.
Lets be a little more judicious when writing checks with taxpayer funds.
to be clear, the loan program wasn’t a bailout when it was passed. It has become on since then. You also may note that my position is the government should stay out of markets.
“But I would far prefer to see Tesla get any part of that money, if it must be distributed, than any of the big three automakers.”
Then to be clear, you would prefer no “loans” or bailouts… for anyone. Instead of a preference of one over the other. Its a bit contradictory to say you prefer nothing and the follow up with which one you’d prefer to receive taxpayer backed loans.
He’d prefer nothing; but, since he can’t stop it he’d rather see Telsa get it.
I am for supporting alternative car companies, but Tesla has had far too many problems and shakups in my opinion for anyone to invest in that company at this point. Kisker Automotive seems to have their act together.
Every time you put an electron into a battery it costs about $1/kwh to get it back out. Compare this between a nickle and a dime per kwh from the wall socket. $1/kwh is wicket expensive.
Even if the electricity fairy gave you the electron for free, you are driving at about an equivalent of $6 - $10/gal due to the battery.
It is a depressing realization that electric cars, plug in hybrids, or even hybrids are not viable until they improve the battery technology by about an order of magnitude. Not say that will not happen one day, or even soon, it just isn’t now.
The math (being generous here):
Cost of battery = $1000/kwh*
Number of cycles = 1000 cycles**
Thus…
Cost of 1 kwh charge and discharge cycle = $1/kwh
1kwh will drive a plug in hybrid about 4 miles. Comparing this to a gas driven vehicle that get 24mpg, it would take about 6kwh to drive the same 24 miles, or $6 to drive 24 miles in all electric mode.
If you compare that to a gas driven vehicle that gets 40mpg, then the cost of the battery is about $10/gal equivalent.
*Batteries for your laptop are about $2150/kwh. Just checked at the Apple store where they are selling a rechargeable battery for 15-inch MacBook Pro, whic is a 60-watt-hour (0.060 kwh) lithium polymer battery for $129.- The only reason you can affort to run your laptop with battery at $2/kwh+ is because the power consumption is very small.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA348LL/A
**Quote from Apple regarding battery lifespan:
“A properly maintained Apple notebook battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 300 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.”
Quoting Apple with regards to operating and storage temperature:
“Notebook Temperate Zone. Your Apple notebook works best from 50° to 95°F. You should store them in places with temperatures of -13° to 113°. That’s 10° to 35°C and -25° to 45°, for the metrically inclined. Keeping your Mac as near room temperature as possible (22°C) is ideal.”
It get sucky fast.
I’m floored at how many people keep comparing electric to gas based on cost, and then coming to the conclusion that electric is more expensive and therefore worse. Two points here: 1, oil prices while currently quite low for now, will rise again, and more steeply than before. Peak oil is real and it’s simply a matter of time. There are no increasingly cheap ways to get it, however we’re just beginning to realize how to generate cheap electricity. 2, it’s not really about saving money anyway - it’s about saving the world. Moving to zero-emission vehicles is moral imperative at this point, so even if it costs more in the short term, we’ve got to acknowledge it’s money well spent.
Thank you, Simon. Couldn’t agree more.
And it’s not simply higher per barrel oil prices which needs to be factored in - - even if they were somehow stagnate or even go lower, there will very likely be additional fees/penalties for dirty vehicles as a result of new emissions legislation. As we see tougher emissions standards and goals continue spreading nationwide (e.g., like other states already following California’s AB32 lead, and such), the ground under the auto and energy industries will shift dramatically over the next decade and end up who knows where.
So, yes, speaking of the viability of alternative fuel vehicles simply in terms of today’s economic and regulatory playing field is shortsighted and somewhat irresponsible.
Craig and Simon,
We are in agreement that electricity wins over gas hands down since electricity is becoming cheaper, can be produced from domestic renewables, etc.
However, in my post I did not compare the cost of the electricity to the cost of gas, I was pointing out the problem of storing the electricity.
In order find solutions we need to understand the problem of today’s battery technology for use in transportation is a non-starter due to the aforementioned reasons.
Because this leaves us with no alternatives to gas powered vehicles today, an argument can be made that improving (>10x) battery technology is the most important goal to our national, or dare say, global interest.
But if we don’t recognize the problem, as it appears the both of you don’t, then how are we going to solve it?
I agree that it is far better to support an innovative company that develops and markets environmentally sensible AND attractive vehicles instead of bailing out businesses that have proven over decades that they aren’t able to exist without a helping hand and that they can’t innovate for their own life. Two problems: 1) What about the myth that most of Detroit’s car dinosaur’s assets are secured by the very banks that just got bailed out from the real estate debacle - I guess this would be round two? 2) At least in the short term we have to acknowledge that the domino effect of directly and indirectly lost jobs etc. will lead to the possibility that no-one can buy Tesla’s innovative vehicles. I guess this one is hard to win whatever route you take.
Tesla deserves all the support we can give it.
This is an innovative car manufacturer aiming to change the face of motoring. If that means they start with an expensive sports car before they make affordable models, then so be it. The important things is that cars become more environmental friendly. Left to the likes of GM and Ford, this would take centuries.
Good luck Tesla.
1) Jason doesn’t know anything about cars. (heh, he drove a corvette.)
2) Jason apparently doesn’t know anything about tesla (they don’t in) novate, and have no core technology.
The fact is, the Tesla is a rebranded, stretched Lotus. That’s why the car “works”. Tesla couldn’t even get the transmission sorted by year 3 of the development cycle. That’s why they’re the laughingstock of the auto world.
Tesla has brought no innovation. They don’t make batteries. They don’t make motors. There are no breakthoughs in their controllers. What then is their innovation?
Packaging? Nope.
Ah yes, it’s putting together a $100K electric runabout. There’s nothing preventing any real car company from doing this. Except that there’s no market beyond the few hundred curious.
And to say it’s all about the “next” car? Ha. Tesla has no engineering or production chops to do it. And no innovation in the wings to pull it off.
It’s just a toy.
Jason, Jason. You’re in way over your head.
The fact is, the Tesla is a rebranded, stretched Lotus. That’s why the car “works”. Tesla’s contribution was not getting the transmission sorted by year 3 of the development cycle. That’s why they’re the laughingstock of the auto world. They’re just making a toy.
Tesla has brought no innovation.
They don’t make motors. They don’t make batteries. There are no breakthroughs in their controllers. What then is their innovation?
Packaging? Nothing new there.
Ah yes, it’s putting together a $100K electric funbox. There’s nothing preventing any real car company from doing this. Except that there’s no market beyond the few hundred curious.
And to say tesla’s future is all about the “next” car? Ha. Tesla has no engineering or production chops to do it.
And zero innovation waiting in the wings. It’s harder to make a car than tesla knows.
They’ve just made a toy.
Tesla’s announcements of cheaper cars are just that. And given their problems at producing 100 cars, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that is not a safe bet to see them hit scale.
Wish Tesla the best of luck, but why not just do it with the $200MM already raised? Isn’t that what Jason C. would say in one of his email missives?
Keeping the big 3 alive in such a manner, against market reality is the death of capitalism.
Funding proven R&D to actually get to market is a bolstering support of innovation which is probably the only/main strength of the US economy left in the world.
Automotive is not an industry thats always been great and just hit a slump. Its historically (last 20yrs) problematic and the only reason they are around is the large amount of employment they create. Its like in China where 10 ppl do what one person can normally do.
Yes its a socialist approach in a country that is not socialist. Let them be, protect and insulate ONLY employee retirement funds. If they fly good, if they dont someone else will take their place IF there REALLY IS such a market and not created (hint: among other things through sub-prime mortage).
Tesla had already showed that electric car is a way of the future. Their Roadster is far beyond what’s available on the market. By example of Tesla, European car companies rushed to get their own EV on the roads and now everyone has a EV project. Car manufacturers have high advantage over Tesla - production lines. So, as long as it’s perfect to outsource Roadster production, it will not be that easy to do it with a small, cheap car. Maybe Tesla could focus on the R&D and simply sell it?
isn’t this just a lotus with an electric engine? if so then lotus should get involved and see if its brand can help with raising the money.
Glad to see this debated here as well. I’m tired of seeing Tesla being bashed around… Newsweek also had an article, written by a well known blogger…
http://tweat.wordpress.com/200.....ctric-car/
The real purpose of the bailout is probably to shift the timing of Big Three failures so the impact on the economy (hopefully) won’t be as great.
If you want to push EVs or PHEVs - there are better ways than to give the Big Three bailouts … or give grants to Tesla…
Government funding of even basic research is questionable to me. If government does a lousy job of picking winners and losers in markets and in technologies, why would it be wiser about picking what science to explore?
As with many things government, it isn’t the facts of reality that determine what it does, but what the groupthink of the day is or how many lobbyists are swarming over a thing.
True innovation does not result from groupthink or wet dreams of lobbyists. It comes from individuals that risk their own resources.
Now if government would stop taking their resources, maybe that would result in more innovation and more wealth creation.
So, my vote for the best use of government funds in the auto market? No use at all.
Detroit cannot be allowed to fail with 1 in 10 American jobs on the line. Here’s a direct quote from CNN:
“One of the officials noted that about one in ten jobs in America are tied to the auto industry, and if one of the companies goes bankrupt it could have a massive spillover effect into the credit industry and other sectors.
Detroit DOES matter and their plans for the future matter even more. The time for innovation has been spread over the last 30 years…but we’ve all been duped into thinking that cheap fuel would last forever. Now the that we’re nearing the end of one paradigm, a new one has taken it’s place…
Thus, innovation better come fast and furious and hopefully the U.S. auto-industry will be responsible for ushering in what’s next. We’ve put our collective ‘egg’s in one basket for far too long. The carbon tax is coming…the countdown has already begun. In twenty years we need to have 80% of our cars running completely w/o gasoline. (But that’s just the backdrop)…
We need to promote everyone (i.e. in leadership) who saw this coming! Obviously their vision of the future is far superior than ours.
I agree that Tesla should receive government support. Anyone who knows the marketing life cycle understands that early adopters typically pay a premium to be first to use new products and technologies. Those high prices pay for and extend for research and development, which makes it possible to improve the technology and bring cheaper products to the mass market. Tesla has a plan that follows the product life cycle. That’s smart business and it should be applauded.
As for tossing away the Big 3 with the bathwater, I agree these companies need serious change. So does the United States and, instead of shuttering our country, we elected a new government committed to serious reform. These companies must find leadership that can meet the difficult challenge of creating radical change while upholding commitments made in the past to employees and retirees who fulfilled their part of their agreements and earned their pensions and benefits.
This seems pretty straightforward to me. Tesla has brought a car to market for approximately 1/10th of what it typically costs Detroit to launch a new vehicle.
They are a US automaker. They are affected by the credit crunch. Not giving them a proportional participation in any industry package is just biased.
Arguing over the relative merits of Silicon Valley vs. Detroit or Electric vs. Gas is a distraction.
Yes The B3 nights learn some things from Tesla but they came to market at a lower cost by leveraging existing prduct from existing car companies. Lotus was a big part of it as were other car model’s parts bins (from which many of those small widgets that make up a car were taken, including the B3’s models. Basically Tesla was smart in how they sources their car’s parts. But…if the B3 left the world, Tesla would not have had them to inditectly foot the capital bill. So no you cannot say that they did it purely at 1/10th of the cost of the B3. You’re either fooling yourself or misinformed.
michael. i really want to send that tesla post around but its almost illegibly in grey. can you pls. tell him to change it to black? thanks.
Obama will give me free gas, pay my mortgage and give me a free Tesla.
That’s why I didn’t voted against him.
And for those High School drop-outs, ask GM to bring back the Trans-Am.
if you’re against prop 8, keep driving your Miata, or your Subaru.
I think there is a middle ground to this.
I too would prefer to see Tesla get a bailout over any of the Big 3, but at the same time, as a taxpayer, I don’t want to subsidize a low-interest loan just to see a VC get a 10x on their investment. If Tesla wants some protection on the downside, they need to share what happens if things go up.
Jason Calacanis’ suggestion for 2% warrant coverage is a start, but that is saying that if this were an equity investment, Tesla would have a $20bn valuation. How about us taxpayers give them a guaranteed loan, make it a tiered milestone-based release, and get warrant coverage as if this were an equity investment at 5x their last valuation (so at least the govt is getting some real albeit expensive equity).
I also worry about the argument that this fosters innovation. It may do so among the well-established and connected, but it seems like it may deter rookie startups in the space because now there is an elephant in the room with $400m in the bank. How can they compete?
I’m not in favor of these bailouts in principal and I’m not an economist so I just have to go along with the idea that our economy is unfortunately tied in too tightly with the big three to let them die.
But a bailout of an entire industry MUST be tied to some sort of rules of how the company is going to spend the money so that we are not simply post poning the inevitable. Unfortunately I’m not sure the politicians will have the balls to do this.
But since this is really an industry bailout (if it was just one of the big three having a problem would we really be doing this again???) then why not give Tesla a loan? If there are other auto companies with as much of a business plan and product as Tesla I’d be willing to support them as well.
Perhaps helping out Tesla will help convince these companies that there is a better way to run a business and help them change their ways.
It might be nice if they got some leverage with the company, e.g., ejecting mrX and plenty of equity. Frankly, I love the car and the audacity. I am concerned that mrX, who was ejected from PayPal, and whose role there was not altogether constructive, is just giving a repeat performance, but with no strong management team to threaten a walkout.
Sorry guys, but I dont think the tax payers should give Tesla a dime. I’ve been to Tesla, have been inside their cars, and believe they have been overhyped tenfold, while the real challenges they face have been mostly swept under the rug by those wishing for a viable alternative. It is not the govts job to pick winners and losers - Tesla, unlike the Big 3, has not demonstrated an ability to make it on their own -ever. Look at the turnover in management and the fact they are several years behind in delivering cars to the general public (first 80 have gone to investors, etc). They have so many shortcomings, I cant even begin to mention them all - just one for starters, they dont even know how they would manage to repair a car that broke down outside of its key Calif markets. Secondly, their cars cost about twice of what they sell them for. Tesla could have sold their technology or partnered with a large auto maker, which would have made much more sense then thinking they can better manufacture a car then the Big 3 or others. I would invest in batter technology in grant form, but would not give bailouts to companies who have a really slim chance of surviving. R&D investment is one thing, Investing in poorly managed companies is another. Tesla to date hasn’t proven anything to anyone, they’ve only showed how one can take $200k to produce a car that sells for $100k. Then again, this might just be up Uncle Sam’s alley?
Tesla made a car for the pre-recession world. If soccer moms were still flipping houses I bet Tesla could raise that $100M no problem. If Jason C believes that Tesla would be able to pay back loans “with interest” then why don’t other rich guys believe that?
Tesla is a new company and has NEVER been profitable. The big 3 have. I’d trust that track record over Tesla’s, even though they haven’t had a hit in years.
Seems like the guy who owns Tesla is buddies with all these silicon valley folks and their opinions are biased.
What about the electric car company that I just wrote a business plan and blueprint for on the back of a napkin?! I’m a US Automaker!!! @Reuben Steiger.
Mike, why not start an online petition requesting companies like Tesla get funding…worthwhile endeavor.
…govt funding that is
Jason Calacanis owns a Tesla, so his remarks must be taken with a grain of salt. The argument that Tesla should get a handout because it is doing something interesting is idiotic! I’m doing something interesting, but where’s MY handout? The US government should not give money to any private companies. Period. It should give money back to the US taxpayers, from whom it was ripped off.
Tesla is great car. I advise you to look movie — Zeitgeist: Addendum. There is much about development of new technologies and a position of the governments about them
I love Tesla Roadster, I always wanted to get myself one, never had money for it
I think Tesla is the future of world’s car industry. If anything in car industry should get loans, it’s the electric cars and especially Tesla.
I can only hope things will work out fine…
calcanis loves tesla
Nice car.