Babbage

Unlike Mr. Musk success with his space-side business, I think Tesla will find itself being passed when it comes to battery technology by sticking with the old-style cylindrical shaped batteries. There are several huge issues against them with their battery approach: 1) complexity - the prismatic wafer type deployed by Nissan is much simpler to maintain produce, and package, while providing the ability to adapt easily to different space form factors than Tesla's cylindrical battery approach; 2) thermal stability - the prismatic wafer batteries are thermally more stable than cylindrical battery cells and their thermal management requirements are less; 3) lifetime - this is not yet proven until we get some consumer years on the Leaf's battery pack, but given the track record of Tesla's battery packs and their excessive cost (36k vs. claimed 9.6k by Nissan). It's true Tesla's packs have more capacity but their production costs are way higher than Nissan's.

I will give Tesla its due for being the first to get more than a few hundred EVs out there, but now that Nissan has started its mass production of their Leaf with several more EV models due out within a couple of years, Tesla will be relegated to the niche marketplace.

I am reminded of the Tucker, also a hybrid of old and newish technology. While unlike Tucker, Tesla may have some big auto stockholders, this is very small beer to them. Steamrollering Tesla won't cause much financial trouble if it becomes convenient.

Car making is one tough industry as Delorean and Bricklin showed. Neither were particularly innovative, yet were being easily crushed before they self destructed.

I like their cars. However, even ignoring the possibility of a bad technology bet, if history is prologue things don't look good. I'm unlikely to buy one on that basis alone.

I hope to be proved wrong. So, good luck Tesla. You will need it.

You paint quite a rosy picture. And you fail to mention the $465 million in loans that Tesla received from the Department of Energy to help create cars intended for a market segment that can afford to pay $50,000 for a car.

This article from Inc. tells more of the tale:
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2009/06/tesla.html

Who knows? Perhaps we'll give Tesla's buyers a tax credit to help them and Tesla some more. Very, very sad.

Liked the article; and do like seeing a Tesla cruising about every once in a while, either in the Bay Area or even the backcountry of the metropolitan area.

I suspect though that most of this represents just a big pilot/research program of sorts, where innovations emerge, but actual broad, practical application/mass production/critical mass is successfully achieved a bit down the road, by another entity or new owner.

"the car's 24kWh battery pack" and "a 65kWh battery pack"
Please explain the "h" which to this scientific primitive refers to hours and therefore depends on the time for which a power source is used.

I think Elon is somewhat of a charlatan and will impoverish his investors. He's great at spending money and making headlines, but not so good at generating profits.

As to the question about kWh: this is a unit of work, like Joules or calories. A Watt-second is the same as a Joule. If a battery could generate 12kW for two hours, it has a capacity of 24kWh.

KPATOS: The "h" in kWh indeed refers to hours. KWh are a measure of the amount of energy that the batteries can store: a 65-kWh battery, for instance, can provide 65 kW of power (about 100 horse powers) for one hour, or 6.5 kW of power (10 hp) for 10 hours.

Intriguingly, December 28 was a Tuesday here in California.

KN and MH thanks for answering what must have indeed seemed a primitive question. I think what put me off the obvious answer was that the difference between 65 watts for one hour and 6.5 watts for 10 hours seems important. I daresay, however, that the apparent problem is not different from wondering how one's domestic electricity supply can light up both 25 watt and 150 watt lights equally well.

Now here's a puzzle that may be completely misguided but challenges a higher level of physics: what reason is there to suppose that there was or was not other stuff available to be condensed into the concentrated dense mass which gave us our Big Bang but which didn't make it to the starting point before the mass and density were sufficient for the currently most interesting version of Creation? Could collision with inrushing stuff have caused some of the irregularities in the expansion of the v. early universe? What evidence would one look for? Sorry if it is right off topic but it interests me!

The biggest problem that Tesla face isn't which battery technology to choose; it is that all other established carmakers currently sitting on the sideline will pounce on the eletric bandwagon when the time is ripe. With their vastly superior automotive technological know-hows, brands, dealer networks, and deep pockets, Tesla will the first to get thrown off the wagon.

The only way Tesla can survive for a long time to come is through licensing its powertrain IP. Unfortunately for them, other car manufactuers don't seem to be interested. So as it stands, Tesla's long term viability of Tesla is near zero. The backers all know this.

I think the project is doomed to failure as it is totally based on a theory of "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" and there is no basis for that theory, let alone any proof of validity. So sad to see so much money and brain power devoted to theory that is not proven valid.

Diesel is the future of automotive power, not batteries. Small efficient diesel engines with low smog and pollution emissions are the way to go.

While hikeandski may well be right to imply that the current enthusiasm for countering AGW may well fade quite rapidly whether because it can't be countered or because it isn't worth it or because there is going to be very little of it anyway. However, there are other good reasons for favouring electric vehicles, such as even further reduction in pollution and avoiding the ever higher cost of liquid hydrocarbons.

Any country with huge cheap coal supplies, like Australia most notably, would be mad to continue on the course of replacing the use of coal to produce cheap electricity (e.g. as at present encouraging expensive inefficient wind and solar generation) when it could go a long way with electric vehicles to reducing dependence on Middle Eastern countries and other good friends like Venezuela, Russia and Nigeria. Batteries cease to be the big problem when battery changing stations emulate the early development of petrol stations a hundred years ago so that a quick change of battery will give another 200 miles with no more delay than is required for refilling fuel tanks. Better Place is already established in Israel and in the Australian Capital Territory to my knowledge. It is the company which is at the leading edge of the change-batteries-instead-of-fill-tanks paradigm though China is likely to proceed down the same path.

I don't profess to have the technical knowledge to answer hikeandski's advocacy of efficient diesel engines.

To me, the pure sense of recognizing the limited life--and the negative utility-- of petroleum fuel (as we know it) is a no-brainer... thus, the Tesla is obviously a vehicle to be excited about.

It is a good idea to have longer range batteries since it is the main issue of worry for people considering elecric cars. People cannot be assured that after a period of time, we can have enough recharging station just like the gasoline filling station nowadays. I think it is the time now to start shifting the focus toward other sources of energy. Wind enery or solar energy all of them will need electric cars for their utilisation. More funds should be alloted in this field for the benefit of fellow humans and it also offers a great opportunity for earning money through appropriate form of entrepreneurship.

This is where professional business media like Fortune is strong, no Tesla may not fail on technology, as this article discusses in depth.

Tesla's problem is that its management has been on shaky ground for a long time, original engineers are mostly gone, and it has near death experience multiple times because of funding problems and product milestone delays.

And now insiders may be selling this early?

It has all the bad blood of a badly managed company written all over it.

In short,they don't have their own battery technology. They just take consumer battery for toys to put inside their cars. This company is doom

Dear oh dear! Can Tesla survive?

Let me get this straight . . .

Tesla has already successfully launched & sold thousands of a very expensive hand-built roadster worldwide. It now has years of practical experience of the technologies involved.

Tesla has also taken thousands of deposits worldwide (at several thousand dollars/pounds/euro each) for its mainstream saloon, the Model S, & already equipped a factory to build it.

Mercedes Benz & Toyota (arguably the world's two most competent car manufacturers) have taken stakes in Tesla and commissioned Tesla to work on an early launch of real vehicles for them.

Panasonic - one of the world's pre-eminent electronics giants - has also taken a stake in Tesla.

Apart from Tesla, no other company in the world has any experience of performance electric vehicles in daily use. The US manufacturers have few plans - being loath to upset Big Oil, Big Oil, Big Oil & their (soon to be redundant) component manufacturers (filters, sparkplugs, exhausts, brake linings, oil, etc etc) & mechanics by "going electric". A reasonable stance, given most of car firms' profits currently come from selling replacement parts & servicing that electric vehicles just won't need.

Every proposed new electric vehicle (outside the US) already has an order book many times the planned annual production.
This is because consumers will jump at such electric vehicles - a car as easy to own as a hoover; with no daily expenditure for mileage (remember it's only months later that the head of the household gets the bigger electric bill, with no direct link to his family's travel costs).

Yet these other manufacturers seem likely to impose "strings" or "overheads" on the cost of their cars. Tesla does not - and the model S is one of the prettiest cars on the planet, rather than a mere family runabout.

In my opinion (as a Tesla customer) no-one who has experienced the electrifying performance & easy of ownership of a pure electric car would dream of going back to the inferior performance and complications of an oil/gas burning engine & drivetrain.

Range is NOT an issue in most countries of the world: we don't have the distances, the prejudices or the "lifestyle" of the US.
Of course electric cars will only ever be suitable for a proportion of the world's drivers - I guess maybe 80%. That may well exclude much of the US.

For these reasons alone, commenters predictions of Tesla's demise seem premature!

Something keeps whispering to me that Tesla is onroute to abrupt short-circuiting. The salivating "Big Guns" of the auto industry, have 'other' agendas on their selfish, self-serving & insatiably greedy minds..

Poor Tesla!

@ PSH I confused - are you trying to be optimistic?

Yes, yes Delorean had a real funky car with gull wing doors but sadly its only claim to fame was its role in the movie "Back to the future". But why stop at Delorean? Why not mention famous brands that have come and gone and some how re-appeared such as: Rover, MG, Triumph, Austin, Morris, Bugatti, Asuna (a GM company), LaSalle.... the list goes on. In fact if it weren't for government support GM and Chrysler would be a thing of the past.

Here is a bit of useless info.. Ferrari is heavily supported and subsidised by FIAT. Without FIAT, that famous brand Ferrari would probably not exist. On the other hand a little known tractor builder called Lamborghini has successfully built sports cars in a viable business and in the same market niche as Ferrari.

Yet two motor bike builders in Japan decided to make the leap into motor cars and are now very successful motor manufacturers - Honda and Suzuki.

My point is that we live in a time where the stead fast rules of running a successful motor manufacturer are changing dramatically. Small companies with no motor vehicle experience can successfully become serious manufacturers - turn the clock back a mere 10 years and think Daewoo and Hyundai. Where on the other hand big well established motor manufacturers have become overly confident of the business formulas and have failed in the most spectacular way.... I'm obviously thinking GM here... and I fear that GM has still not changed their model.

Yet a man that has been the first to successfully launch a rocket into full orbit as a pure commercial venture has put his brain power into the electric car - not as as a experiment to see if it can be done but as a full viable business venture.

Given his track record, I think I'd rather invest into his ideas than GM. Could this be the dawn of a new age in motor vehicles? It appears that Toyota wants to hedge their bets as the world's biggest motor manufacturer knows there is something special going on here.

@ Nirvana-bound - my you have little knowledge of the history of rejuvenation of capitalism. The same was said for Ford who wanted to build a car that his factory workers could afford, all the big name motor companies wanted vehicle to be exclusive to the rich (by the way Factory workers at Ford can still afford to buy the cars they produce).

Hmmm the same was said when Elon Musk tendered on supplying Rockets to the US government ... "the boys at Boeing would squish any small company that messed with their profits". Did you notice that NASA paid Elon to launch one of his rockets?

If Elon can jump through all the hurdles and viably launch rockets to the confidence of the big decision makers.... I think he can negotiate his way in the motor industry.