Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#91

Post by rdl »

_ea1k wrote: post #85
rdl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends a lot on speed, the shape of the car, and other factors, but on the order of 10-30 HP for something like the Model S at 70mph I think. I still really want a hybrid truck, running diesel, with the ability to seat 2 people, secure cargo space (like a custom bed with lockboxes), 4wd, and the ability to run the engine for a week or two in place as a generator (e.g. at a remote comms site). Run the engine during t…

VIA Motors is the closest thing to this that I know of: http://www.viamotors.com/

Sadly gasoline/petrol vs. diesel. I really want diesel so I can store/transport reasonable amounts of fuel; I avoid messing with gas.

I wonder how it would deal with towing. That I6 would be inadequate for peak towing, so it would depend how often a truck going up grades, offroad, etc. and towing would need battery augmentation.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#92

Post by stcredzero »

People bellyache about taking 20 minutes for a half charge, completely trapped in their old thought patterns around cars and ignoring the actual use case:

"Do you really want to know how long it takes to charge a Tesla Motors Model S most days? 20 seconds. That's how long it takes to plug the car in when you get home. The car is ready in the morning. It's just like your cell phone."

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/tesla-lost-38m-in-th...

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#93

Post by cylinder »

cs702 wrote: post #31

Tesla's stock price at present reflects and is driven primarily by the exuberant optimism of its shareholders, not by mundane financial details like how many millions the company lost or how many cars were sold last quarter. Consider that despite today's drop, the stock price has gone up 4.6x this year (from $33.87 at year-end 2012 to around $155 right now), but over the same period the company's quarterly revenues h…

I hope it continues to decline so I can get in. I have been shocked by how prevalent the Model S already is on American roads. And when I look at the drivers, they are by no means the stereotypical "early adopter" of tech. This signals to me that electric is not at all a barrier to the average vehicle consumer. Tesla has a focus on quality and details that other carmakers can't achieve. As soon as they are able to finance their expansion into other classes of vehicles, they will overtake the incumbents rather easily. There will be many bumps in the road as they expand, but if you are on a 20-year timeline they don't matter.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#94

Post by hackula1 »

foobarqux wrote: post #48
hackula1 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you pay differently for a lottery ticket that had a payout of 1MM if you had the chances of A) 1/2 B) 1/5 C) 1/50 D) 1/5000? The potential payout is unchanged, but the value of the ticket changes as it gets more likely to pay out.

All I'm saying, which should be self-evident, is that a successful business can be a bad investment if the price is too high and a failing business can be a good investment if the price is low.

Agreed.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#95

Post by bsdetector »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #69
bsdetector wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota is supposedly coming out in 2015 with production cars with fuel cells costing a bit more than what a Tesla battery does, but the more they produce the less costly they are. In contrast, the more batteries Tesla produces the more the cost of lithium increases. It seems like an incredible proposition that Tesla will expand fast enough to shut out fuel cells before they get established.

> In contrast, the more batteries Tesla produces the more the cost of lithium increases. This is true, but misleading. The cost of lithium is a vanishingly small component of the price of the battery, a typical quote is between 1% and 0.1% of the production cost. Lithium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, and is plentiful enough in seawater that it cannot run out -- before it's cost is high enou…

Lithium is everywhere, but the cost to extract from seawater and such is enormous since it is very low concentration. Efficient production is limited to naturally occurring concentrations. What I've read is lithium being closer to 2-3% of the total cost of the battery. With increased demand and limited production this could increase.

Batteries are not falling in cost as predicted: "Though the projected prices are lower than current prices, they fall substantially short of the expectations which were perpetuated, notably, by Tesla CEO Elon Musk."

Tesla is buying 75% of all cylindrical li-ion batteries and to reach even 1% of global marketshare they'll need 30x more. "Cell supply is crippling Tesla’s ambitious effort to expand its global reach."

“One of the bigger challenges for us is going to be lithium-ion cell production,” Mr. Musk said at Teslive. “We need a lot of batteries.”

Whatever the merits of fuel cells, there's no way batteries won't be a limiting growth factor for battery powered vehicles.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#96

Post by bsdetector »

r00fus wrote: post #68
bsdetector wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota is supposedly coming out in 2015 with production cars with fuel cells costing a bit more than what a Tesla battery does, but the more they produce the less costly they are. In contrast, the more batteries Tesla produces the more the cost of lithium increases. It seems like an incredible proposition that Tesla will expand fast enough to shut out fuel cells before they get established.

Toyota (and others) have been touting fuel cells for well over a decade. I'm not holding my breath - fuel cells are as sustainable and non-oil as flex-fuel (read: vaporware). Musk makes some very unrefutable points here deriding fuel cells, and Ive had that opinion long before people were listening to Musk: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/25/elon-musk-munchen-fuel-c...

> Toyota (and others) have been touting fuel cells for well over a decade.

The cost of fuel cells has decreased to 5% of what it was then, and at least three manufacturers are coming out with limited production fuel cells cars. Just because it took 50 years to get ready doesn't mean it isn't ready.

Musk's point is basically that the energy density of fuel cells is worse than batteries. That's true, but they can be refueled instead of mechanically swapped. He says the current total cost of the system is higher than batteries. That's true, but Toyota is halving the cost every 5 years as they ramp up production, where battery cost is falling maybe 10% in that time.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#97

Post by marvin »

codex wrote: post #89
marvin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk specifically covered this in the earnings call. They are production constrained and had to hold back deliveries in the US to ensure that people who made reservations in Europe two years ago would get their car.

Something doesn't add up then: if Tesla can produce 7150 cars per quarter, why is next quarter guidance only for 5K cars sold? Another new market with long lead times?

Tesla can't produce 7150 cars per quarter as of today, the production capacity as of Q3 end was probably on the order of 6200 cars/quarter. The reason guidance is lower than this, is that the company is expanding to many foreign markets and hence many cars are in transit.

This was also covered on the earnings call. Tesla is currently shipping to Europe and will if I remember correctly start shipping to China during Q4. Remember, shipping cars takes time since they need to go on freight ships.

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#98

Post by marvin »

eru wrote: post #70
rodgerd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the market remains irrational longer than you can stay solvent, the market is no longer irrational.

Why? Why should the time my money lasts have any bearing on whether we judge markets rational or not?

...aaaaaaand we are now in the realm of philosophy. This discussion is over ;) "What does the word 'rational' mean?"

Re: Tesla lost $38M in third quarter, stock tumbles over 12 percent

#99

Post by Tarang »

dingaling wrote: post #82
Tarang wrote: post #71

If you think about it, the largest typical object people would buy in terms of value is a car. A house can last a last time but less so a car. I think the reason for investor's optimism in Tesla is their vision is to get everyone a car. If you look at the design of the Model S it can allow for a very cheap & safe car (The Tata Nano had issues with safety at first). I would say this is still a baby as a company even n…

> I think the reason for investor's optimism in Tesla is their vision is to get everyone a car. I suppose that's a vision, but not one that I see fitting-in with the general social and governmental direction for transportation, globally. Why would everyone want a car, even if the infrastructure could sustain that? We don't all have our own aeroplanes or boats, we lease time on them when we need to use those methods o…

Electric motors can make cars smaller. Infrastructure would have a rough time with petrol cars.

A new car maker wouldn't make a difference to what would happen but if its electric I'd suppose there is a better chance.

I'd imagine governments would end up pushing it particularly in more debt laden countries. Imagine two cars on sale, one electric and one fossil fuel powered, if you needed tax revenues where would you get tax revenue from next?

Post reply on HN