Tesla Motors and Government Money - Page 6

dpeilow · 12-10-2008, 02:40 AM

Can't They Make Cars Cheap, Efficient And Sporty? : NPR

Electric Car Maker Tesla Needs Government Aid to Build Sedan

Tesla, Maker of $109,000 Electric Car, Seeks U.S. Aid for Sedan

$350m? http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013356654

graham · 12-10-2008, 07:25 AM

From the article:

Quote:

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!"

Quote:

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?

graham · 12-10-2008, 08:29 AM

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

Quote:

“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?

dpeilow · 12-10-2008, 05:18 PM

I don't like the TTAC language but Tesla are playing a very high stakes game with their current line.

doug · 12-10-2008, 05:31 PM

Funding For All! Tesla Asks Congress For $350 Million To Keep Model S Alive | Automotive News Blog - Wide Open Throttle

stopcrazypp · 12-10-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpeilow

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).

graham · 12-10-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stopcrazypp

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.

stopcrazypp · 12-10-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham

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.

My bad, totally forgot about those. It makes more sense now. I guess they couldn't avoid it, since they weren't the ones to start it.

dpeilow · 12-11-2008, 12:12 AM

Big Three automaker bailout could delay Tesla plant in San Jose

BBC NEWS | Business | US House backs car industry plan

My concern is that by saying "we can only viably build a more mass market car with a government cash injection of around 3 times what the company has raised to date", the powers that be might just decide it isn't worth funding, even if that is 2% of what is on the table. (Yes it is a loan, but it isn't coming across as that as we have seen in the media.)

dpeilow · 12-11-2008, 12:49 AM

A balanced editorial from the Detroit News (yeah, right...)

Editorial: Should auto loans subsidize California jet set? | The Detroit News | detnews.com

Quote:

Now some powerful Washington politicians want those soccer moms' tax dollars to subsidize the gentry's cars. This should receive as much congressional scrutiny as any of the errors committed by the Detroit Three's chief executives.