Yes, and of course TTAC picked up the Huffington post article:
Tesla Death Watch 31: HuffPost Pronounces T.O.D. | The Truth About Cars
But I am not sure I understand the logic behind the Huffington Post article:
Quote:
That's why last week's news that the startup carmaker would lay off half its work force and delay the already delayed delivery of more than a thousand pre-ordered Roadsters was, at one level, depressing. Even as youthful Chairman Elon Musk slipped in to the CEO's chair, the flashiest name in electric vehicles was beginning to looks as if it was going under.
But even though the downfall of Tesla seems like a disaster for boosters of all-electric vehicles, it should be a welcome development for the green-transportation movement. Tesla symbolized a science-fiction view of our future: it seemed like an instant cure for the problems of oil consumption and greenhouse emissions. In reality, it was a well-marketed distraction from a strategy that would yield more immediate results.
|
First off, "lay off half its work force" is quite overstated. delay delivery of the Roadster is incorrect (nice fact checking there...). But the logic for the rest of it seems to be: Tesla gave us too good an electric vehicle. Somehow the existence of a usable electric prevents us from *really* getting off oil.
Does anyone else understand this logic?
Linear Mode
