Tesla Motors plans to debut cheaper car in early 2015 (2013)

It hit the front page on reddit and now it's naturally flowing down into the HN karma grab. I personally didn't know it was planned for this early until now.

This was announced shortly after BMW provided price information (about $40k) on their i3 all electric cars (plus the version with a range extender) - both of them available today and not in 2016/17.

Not sure, but according to a more recent article, it'll be about 2017, not 2015: http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/14/autos/musk-tesla-cheaper/

Isn't it more efficient to have fewer large power plants rather than lots of little power plants (i.e. car engines)? Maybe not with the transmission loss and factoring in the batteries...

I had the understanding that it could be more efficient to be able to use fewer power plants that can be operated efficiently or replaced individually rather than millions of independent ICEs. But I'm far from an expert on this.

Supporting Tesla supports lowering the cost structure for batteries. Widespread use of solar will follow.

The combined efficiency of an electric motor + fossil fuel power plant is still much greater than in a conventional internal combustion engine and therefore the environmental impact from the car is much reduced regardless of the fuel source.

A secondary factor - driving a car like a Tesla communicates an image of environmental responsibility. Even if the government and energy companies aren't supporting renewable fuels, you are. When there is a wind turbine on every corner, and a solar panel on every roof, you will be ready with your Tesla. You're a good citizen, and a forward-thinker...

The environmental stuff is actually just the icing on the cake - EVs have a number of advantages over internal combustion and the disadvantages keep getting smaller.

-awesome acceleration due to instant torque and no gearbox

-amazing handling due to low centre of gravity (heavy batteries at the bottom)

-quieter

-minimal servicing / repair costs due to much simpler drive train with fewer moving parts and no fluid

-more internal space (no crank shaft etc - especially in the back row this makes the middle seat so much more comfortable without a big bulge between your feet)

-more external space (e.g the Tesla S has a front trunk (frunk) where the engine normally is)

-safety factor - extra crumple space with the frunk and no engine to go into your legs in front on collision

-cheaper to run especially in high gas cost areas like Europe

-some areas have perks like using the HOV or bus lane

-convenience factor of 'filling up' at home

The environmental stuff is all goodness (and other responses have illustrated how this still holds even in coal dominated areas) but for many is not the driving factor.

Obviously EVs are not for everyone. My analogy is that they are like SSDs - better in every way except size (range) and cost, and therefore not viable for some...but that will rapidly change as the technology moves on.

You are correct that today, in the US, on average, electric vehicles do not provide a significant improvement in emissions over hybrids like the Prius. [1] However, something to consider is that an electric vehicle effectively decouples transportation from the emissions source, forever. Power generation is projected to continue to get cleaner over time [2], and as power generation improves, the emissions of electric vehicles improve with it, even without any additional improvement of electric vehicles themselves. While US power generation may never be as free as fossil fuels as that of France, it is only getting better, and electric vehicles can ride that wave. If instead, we continue to drive gasoline vehicles (even hybrids), we will never stop pumping out CO2 with our cars.

The only renewable resource that can power a car directly, without transitioning through electricity, is solar, and there just isn't enough power in the solar radiation that strikes the roof area of a car to be practical.

Natural gas vehicles are actually a good stepping stone to reducing CO2 emissions, since methane (CH4) has roughly half the carbon per unit of energy. There is renewed interest these days in developing natural gas vehicles, but I personally think electric vehicles will win the race.

[1] http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php [2] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm

>The main sources of energy in the United States are still oil, coal, and natural gases.

This is a problem that cries out for math.

On average, the CO2 intensity of US electricity is 690 g/kWh. This makes the Model S the CO2 equivalent of a car getting 37 mpg. This is a lot higher than comparable cars.

Of course CO2 isn't the only pollutant. It would also emit 0.43 g/mi of NOx (blowing the limit by nine times), 0.011 g/mi of NMOG (1/7th the limit), 0.015 g/mi of PM10 (the limit is 0.01 g/mi), and 0.13 g/mi of CO (a miniscule 1/27th of the limit). So it's a mixed bag.

Caveat: I used the average US energy mix, but electricity production is highly regional. Here's a map Tesla made regarding pollution from electricity: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity Some states also let you choose where your power comes from, and of course rooftop solar is currently available (unlike rooftop oil wells).

Sources: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/38617.pdf

Personally, I never want to give another dime, directly, to any Gas company, ever.

Their business practices are cancerous. Sadly, we don't have a choice in requiring energy - and while Enron is a perfect example of absolute corruption in the energy industry, if I can cut out at least vehicle gas requirements from my wallet, I'd be a happy man.

I live in Texas and pay a half-cent premium to get 100% wind-power at around 9.6c per kWh to charge my Nissan Leaf.

Since I use a 7kw charger at home almost exclusively then actually running the car (not including it's production) is actually extremely "green".

The owner friendly side of the deal is that I never visit gas stations, never change oil or other fluids, don't have to do anything much to it outside of tire rotation. Maintenance is both very cheap and very convenient (since there isn't much of it).

The BMW i3 is available now (at least here in Europe, don't know about the US) and is getting excellent reviews and delivers a lot of technology (most of it is carbon-fiber reinforced plastic) for a fairly low price - starting under £30K here in the UK.

I think so. The 30s is the upper end of cars typical middle class families buy, in my experience.

Especially if this is the base price. I'm prepared to be massively disappointed when 40k is the cost of the smallest battery model and the largest is 50-60k. I don't care about most optional car upgrades but vehicle range is so important that I hope they don't choose to bundle a larger battery with cosmetic options.

depends, how much gas does it cost to drive a car daily for 5 years ?

A person can go over 30k just buying a 4-cylinder Chevy Malibu, so the expectations surrounding 40k aren't what they once were.

On the other hand I'm sure Tesla hopes that people factor in lower maintenance costs and fuel costs when pricing out their vehicle.

Last time I checked, which was a year ago, there's a federal $7500 tax credit and a California $2500 tax credit for electric cars. I don't know if these still exist or if they will when Tesla's new car is available. But if they still exist, it would have a significant impact on sales.

Yes. My parents would never consider purchasing a car over $30k, much less one that costs $40k. I really want a Tesla because it's the environmentally responsible thing to do (provided that you must drive a car). If it ever became affordable, I would buy it in a heartbeat and so would a lot of people who aren't rich (like my parents).

Ferrari sells under 8000 cars a year.

Lamborghini sells under 2500 a year.

Chalk this article up to careless punditry, i.e. what you get from an ad-driven internet news model.

Edit: just for kicks, I looked up Rolls Royce, which is kind of the canonical "luxury car". Under 4000 cars a year.

According to Wikipedia [1] in 2011 Bentley made €1.1 billion in revenue and €8 million in profit on sales of 7500 vehicles (but lost €245 million the year before).

The FT says McLaren[2] expected to break even in 2013 on sales of 1,500 vehicles (but lost £10.9 million the year before).

Of course, making profit one year having made a loss the last doesn't exactly prove long term profitability.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley [2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6074856-2776-11e3-ae16-00144feab7...

No, it's not true. There are many luxury car makers who are plenty profitable. If you make a huge profit on each vehicle and you can cover your fixed/development costs then you're golden, regardless of volume. At low volume that typically means higher profit margins, but that's nothing new. Companies like Maserati, Aston Martin, and Lambourghini have sales volumes in the 1-2k per year range. Companies like Bugatti are lucky if they break 100 car sales a year.

Obviously Tesla isn't quite in the same market as those companies but that still demonstrates the point.

If you have a sub-$100k car then you generally do want higher sales volume in a fleet. If you look at, for example, Audi they have a mix of cars at a variety of price-points, which enables them to amortize development costs of shared components. That effectively raises the profit margin on their luxury margins (since the development of stuff like the frame, most of the engine, etc. is payed for by sales of the down market models).

I was surprised that Porsche makes as much profit on 150k cars as VW on 4.7m cars (2.6-2.9b euros).

It's certainly something we could figure out. Work out the rough gross margins required to operate on that low volume, given their opex.

Pagani "has made about 130 cars in the past 10 years", and has been profitable since day one. It is absolutely possible to thrive in the highest of the high end niche and sell only a few cars a year.

A lot of comment answer that. However, they miss the point. Tesla cannot survive with 30K car. The reason is that they are betting big on infrastructure: supercharger network, new superfactory.

Those kind of investments both enable and require Tesla to sell a much more mainstream cars than the Porsche of electric cars.