Tesla Burns Through Record Cash To Bring the Model 3 To Market (bloomberg.com) 220
Dana Hull, reporting for Bloomberg: Tesla's Elon Musk keeps getting the green light to do what it takes to bring electric cars to the masses, regardless of how much it's going to cost. The company burned through $1.16 billion in cash in the second quarter by spending on capacity for its cheapest model yet and boosting battery output. Investors fixated instead on what Musk said is coming next: Hundreds of thousands of Model 3 sedan deliveries, installations of solar roofs and an all-new semi truck to add to the lineup. "This is the best I've ever felt about Tesla's future," Musk said on a conference call. The stock surged as much as 7.4 percent to $349.94 as of 9:45 a.m. Thursday in New York, the biggest intraday gain in four months. The chief executive officer has built a fanatical following of Tesla shareholders who continue to throw their support behind his clean-energy vision. It helps that consumers keep opening their wallets: The Model 3, which starts at $35,000, has racked up almost half a million reservations and is drawing more deposits by the day. The record negative free cash flow Tesla reported for the three months ended in June was almost double the $622 million it went through in the first quarter. With a little more than $3 billion in cash on hand, Musk told analysts the company is thinking about raising money through a debt offering.
it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Informative)
it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference
burning cash would be spending it on things that don't do anything for the company, such as distributing dividends and cash executive bonuses...
Considering the terminology for how much they spend each month is their "burn rate" I don't see how burning cash is that inaccurate of a description. Probably evokes some misleading connotations but these are the terms the industry is using.
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: it's not "burning cash" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Very few people have actually bought a M3 yet. The deposits are fully refundable and a few negative reports on the M3's reliability, function, or value could cause a rash of cancellations. I wish Tesla the best of luck, but at this point their venture is quite speculative - esp. given that Musk seems to be intent on dividing his attention as many ways as possible across unrelated fields.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the cashflow is negative, for sure, but it's a long term investment strategy. Headlines are getting more clickbait-reinforced by the day.
The difference is that cash flow is real, and long-term investment is hope. There are lots of companies that spend cash to "invest in the future" and that cash is gone when the hoped-for sales don't occur. Tesla has a leg-up on them, given it has deposits for future sales, but not all of those future sales will happen.
Priorities (Score:2)
it shows "the financial sector" has it's priorities reversed if they seem to think "investing in production machines" is "burning cash"
Actually, their priorities are fine, it's just not the priorities that people think they have.
About a month ago a huge percentage of Tesla's stock was held short(*), and everyone was screaming about how the stock was going to tank any day now.
Except that they knew the Model 3 would be announced around the turn of the month, so people started getting out of the short position. That caused the stock to dip, and more people exited the short strategy, and the stock went from $383 at the end of June to $319 a co
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not following the logic here. A short position is exited by buying the stock, and that causes the stock price to rise, not fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Now maybe we will see some legitimate news and analysis about the health of the company.
Burning $1.16B, having $3B cash on-hand, and considering a debt offering is legitimate news about the health of the company.
Tesla does carry very real financial risk: they need to ramp up production higher than ever before, and they're running out of money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
It shows you don't work in the financial sector if you don't use their jargon.
Re: (Score:2)
it shows "the financial sector" has it's priorities reversed if they seem to think "investing in production machines" is "burning cash"
It's an idiomatic use, like "He got his paycheck yesterday and already the cash is burning a hole in his pocket." indicating how willing the company is to use their cash reserve as opposed to sitting on it. They don't think anyone is going to set it on fire, literally or proverbially.
Burn Rate (Score:3)
The main problem with Tesla is that, as it sells more cars, the expenditure per car sold rises linearly. That means they aren't getting economies of scale. The more they build, the more they have to spend to support existing vehicles on the road. It isn't clear if it's a quality issue or management issue or support issue or whatever, as they aren't entirely transparent on these types of expenditures, but it's worrying.
https://seekingalpha.com/artic... [seekingalpha.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but it is worrying to investors non-the-less.. Tesla remains high risk, even after all these years.
The questions here are will Tesla make money, eventually, or will they have to burn all their cash on this infrastructure building from now until bankruptcy comes? If the answer is they will survive, then investors are asking HOW LONG will it take to turn a profit?
Do you know the answers? Tesla doesn't know, Musk is making no promises so nobody knows... That makes them high risk. If you like the
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? That only matters to investors. What matters to the clients if if they can deliver the product and how good it is. AMD seldom turns a profit as well but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the PC segment who thinks they don't serve a purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
It *should* matter to buyers too. Where are you going to get that Tesla serviced if Tesla goes bust? How about getting parts? Do you have any idea how much it costs to maintain a DeLorean? Even WITH being able to time travel, it's expensive...
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla needs to hit a critical mass for their business model to really work and generate positive cash flow. That is clearly more than the ~2-300k cars they have on the roads today, and is likely closer to 1MM cars. They also need to have learned lessons from previous models for the mass-market strategy to actually work.
From what little I see of the Model 3, my guess is they have worked hard to address complexity issues and design a vehicle that can be manufactured with reasonable complexity, and that is h
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few spots where Tesla still has strategic advantages compared to the other US manufacturers; the interesting spot will be what the German manufacturers do over the next 3-5 years.
Toyota likely could have killed them if they weren't obsessed with fuel cells.
Re: Burn Rate (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
" the more they have to spend to support existing vehicles on the road"
Uhhh, nope. Plenty of places like fast food joints and gas stations are putting in electrical charging stations for EVs, on their own dime.
The McDonald's down the street from me has a PV covered parking structure, with four EV chargers. Hell, the entire building is almost entirely solar-powered, the only thing that isn't are the gas-based deep fryers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Insightful)
it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference
Absolutely. This post should be modded up 1000.
What this also represents is a near perfect case study as to why most Republicans are sheer nonsense when it comes to the economic of taxation. They will try to convince you that if rich people and rich corporations accumulate enough cash they will start to "create jobs." So we need tax cuts or else nobody will create jobs.
Pure BS. There is one reason and one reason only that a (well run) corporation will spend money to create jobs. It is because they are following a business plan to get customers to buy their service or product. Because they see a market they can win at. Anything else and they will turtle up and hoard cash and lay people off if necessary to stop bleeding.
In this case Tesla has a $1B backlog. They know the customers are there and they are using a lot of its available cash to employ people. Either directly or by buying stuff from their vendors. Tesla has nowhere near the amount of cash on hand than many companies that are looking for a tax cut.
So this is why they are not "burning cash." They are generating revenue. Profitable revenue which they will likely spend, not burn, creating the next generation product to expand their market space.
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Funny)
That would be burning mod points.
Re:it's not "burning cash" (Score:5, Interesting)
$1B backlog? There's nearly half a million reservations on a $35k-base vehicle (average expected sale value after options (luxury, performance, extended range, etc) = $43k). The Model S has a profit margin of about 25% per sale and they expect similar on the 3. You're looking at nearly $20B in sales and $5B in profit just from the already accumulated waiting list, which is increasing by about 1800 new reservations net every day.
If Tesla manages the "production hell" ramp-up without any serious glitches that cause excessive delay / QA problems / expense, they've got it made.
Re: (Score:3)
If Tesla manages the "production hell" ramp-up without any serious glitches that cause excessive delay / QA problems / expense, they've got it made.
I'm betting they will. Literally. I've been buying a little more TSLA every month for some time now. Lots of analysts have been rating it as overvalued on the fundamentals, but I think most of those analysts have one serious deficiency in their understanding: They don't know what driving an electric vehicle is like. Unless the traditional automakers can make the transition much, much faster than I think they can possibly do, Tesla is going to vault from being a niche player to a major automaker, and its val
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree with you. I think the car business is great, but I think the real money is in the power business -- solar panels, home batteries, and I'd venture at some point power production from other means.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Tesla needs to transition from a niche player to a production automaker, meanwhile they are trying to finance themselves like a software company. Cars don't scale like software:
One serious design flaw that starts surfacing three years from now could kill them (and they're already betting the farm here - they think their tooling is production ready and are budgeting accordingly, normal automakers would still be using lower cost, beta quality machinery while they work the kinks out.)
They h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really such a big factor?
Yes.
There's an extremely common point of view among car-buyers, where it simply doesn't matter how awesome it is; $35k is way too much money for a car.
$35K is the average price for a new sedan. It may be above your price point, but it's not above the price point of most buyers of sedans.
Re: (Score:2)
$1B backlog? There's nearly half a million reservations on a $35k-base vehicle (average expected sale value after options (luxury, performance, extended range, etc) = $43k). The Model S has a profit margin of about 25% per sale and they expect similar on the 3. You're looking at nearly $20B in sales and $5B in profit just from the already accumulated waiting list, which is increasing by about 1800 new reservations net every day.
If Tesla manages the "production hell" ramp-up without any serious glitches that cause excessive delay / QA problems / expense, they've got it made.
That's really a big "if".
It's a ramp-up like Apple does for the iPhone - but really Foxconn is doing it.
I doubt, though, that they can pull it off. They've got enough problems in their factories pushing out the current number of cars.
Still waiting for the Tesla-Minivan or Station-Wagon anyway ;-)
Though, they'll come last. SUV-buyers have more money...
re: economics of taxation (Score:4, Interesting)
As an Independent (yet a fiscal conservative who is repelled more by most Democratic tax plans than Republican ones), I'd question your assertion that "most Republicans" believe in the theory that rich people and corporations will start to "create jobs" only when they accumulate enough cash.
That's another way of talking about the "trickle down economics" which were out of the 1980's Reagan era, and were really just based on an untested economic theory at the time. Reagan's cabinet members succeeded in selling him on and supporting, so they could try it. It didn't work, primarily because they underestimated how many successful companies have little or no interest in more growth. (Even giants like Apple exhibit this tendency today. No matter how much money they make? They still cling to a business model that says it's perfectly acceptable to build computers that only cater to a relative niche in the marketplace. Apple doesn't even try to build Enterprise gear for server rooms anymore, leaving that whole sector to other companies. It doesn't even attempt to make its own mail server -- opting instead to build its Mail and Calendar clients around Microsoft's Exchange solution. Sometimes, adding too many new employees and expanding into too many areas just dilutes the formula that makes you successful. So profits aren't sensible to dump back into business expansion.)
I have no problem with Tesla's business model right now. I think Elon Musk is a very intelligent guy and a pretty decent leader, who really believes in the technologies he's trying to develop and market. That said though? He's definitely operating a company that greatly benefits from government loans, perks, subsidies and initiatives. In a more libertarian society, I'd like to see much less of that happening. But today, it is what it is. We voted for a bigger government than I personally like, and it's one that likes to take a lot of our tax dollars and spend them, directed at specific things it thinks are "best for all of us". So many subsidies have gone to fossil fuel based companies, it makes it really difficult to single out Tesla as the "bad guy" for receiving some now.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one reason and one reason only that a (well run) corporation will spend money to create jobs. It is because they are following a business plan to get customers to buy their service or product. Because they see a market they can win at. Anything else and they will turtle up and hoard cash and lay people off if necessary to stop bleeding.
You should read a book on basic economics.
Capital seeks returns. Always. It never "turtles up". Oh, a company will absolutely lay people off if they are not generating income. This frees up the capital to flow to other ventures where it can generate income... which it will do by buying capital equipment, hiring people, etc. to produce products that people want to buy.
This is a Good Thing. Employing people and dedicating resources to produce stuff that no one wants to buy is bad for everyone. Oh, it appe
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to understand this from the perspective of an employee, not a business owner. Rich people and rich corporations don't "create jobs" in some cause and effect manner. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is interesting. I think that your description of the profit cycle is being undermined by automation, however. It seems predicated on the idea that labor is the source of capital/wealth.
But to a business owner, the best way to increase your take-home pay (profit) is not by taking home the money saved due to a tax cut. It's from reinvesting that saved money into the business so your business can grow.
Or you're Jeff Bezos. At some point the concept of take-home pay gets hazy. Perhaps you can extrapolate a bit.
If you don't mind, I would also appreciate your position on capital gains/investment taxes and/or estate/death taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of businesses operate in the red for years starting at inception, and then get into the black. Tesla is doing literally no differently than most other successful companies.
Re: it's not "burning cash" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Ford Taurus, in 1980s dollars, cost ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Which is roughly TWO POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS today.
"Development for the first-generation Taurus started in the early 1980s to replace the Ford LTD,[2] at the cost of billions of dollars, with a team led by vice president in charge of car development Lewis Veraldi dubbed "Team Taurus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus_(first_generation)
Ford spent more money bringing the Taurus to market than it cost to research, develop, and deliver the
Re: (Score:2)
You're right -- it's not "burning cash." Both the headline and summary clearly say "burning through cash," which is a well-known [idiomeanings.com] idiom [cambridge.org] for spending lots of money quickly.
Your straw man has certainly generated a vigorous discussion, though. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a balancing act between buying production stuff or materials, and selling the product
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. "Burning cash" is not necessarily a bad thing. If done right, it'll be getting you to a place where you're making cash. But if you can't stop burning cash, that's bad.
Re: (Score:2)
well, they can if they allow you to build more of the stuff you're selling faster... allows more money to flow in
it's a balancing act between buying production stuff or materials, and selling the product
Yeah, and anyone who has even just watched Shark Tank knows that it's not an uncommon problem to require outside investment (or in this case to burn through already-accumulated cash) just to be able to ramp up inventory creation to meet the demand for the product that already exists.
Just get me my car (Score:2)
Borrow whatever you have to do but I want my Tesla 3. I'll do my part by spending an unnecessary amount of money on a supposedly entry level car, just make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal amount (Score:3)
It's not unusual for a car company to spend this kind of money developing a new car and getting ready for production. The first time I can remember a company publicizing a figure of over $1B was Volvo for the first generation 850, so about 20-25 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Volvo sold 2.8m units of its predecessor model.
It's a little different to be sinking a few billion into tooling and initial production, with little history, few sales (only tens of thousands of Tesla actually SOLD already), and lots of other things on the go (the summary even mentions batteries, trucks, etc.).
Again, let's throw money at the problem. We don't have money left? Great, let's throw debts at the problem. To end up with a car that has few paying customers (reservations don't mean
Re: (Score:2)
For perspective... (Score:2)
Aerospace companies like Airbus and Boeing invest in their products and expect payback to take decades. The difference with Tesla is it doesn't have as long a history of churning out products, but that doesn't mean that there will be no payback.
I have confidence in his strategy (Score:2)
No other manufacturer has a sensible alternative. Indeed everything else on the market at the moment is a conventional car with added battery.
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
you have electric plugs just about anywhere. also, the included GPS shows you where the superchargers are located and guide you there
Re: (Score:2)
so, that means, at least 3 days, of 10 hours driving straight, with 1 hour pause for filling up (when you can have lunch), and filling up at night
it does seem sensible...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From your article:
That will happen if you leave your car set to maintain cabin temperature when you're not in it. Or you could be like a normal person and just let your car get cold like everyone else. And honestly, that's a fast loss even for leaving the car preheated 24/7.
Most owners will tell you that Teslas are excellent cold-weather vehicles [chrisumiastowski.com], partic
Re: (Score:2)
AC apparently thinks that the only chargers that exist in the US show up on the supercharger map.
So you might have had to stop at a CHAdeMO to top up a bit. Waaah.
AC apparently thinks that Tesla superchargers are single-stall locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't know the meaning of "top up".
Right, because if you perceive a problem in your car, you wouldn't spend $500 to fix it? Most people perceive there to be no problem and thus don't buy a CHAdeMO adapter. You apparently perceive a problem. So enjoy the obvious solution.
Yes, we all drive cars wi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I prefer the safe way of powering a car: carrying around a highly flammable liquid to power explosive combustion.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what happens when you try to burn [electrek.co] one of Tesla's batteries. What, you really didn't think that fire was given a second thought? Fire propagation is controlled by physical isolation, active (pumping) quench, passive quench (coolant thermal inertia), controlled venting, and many other means; they have over a hundred patents and have spent a huge amount on pack engineering to reach this point.
There have been fires in Tesla vehicles, but they've been at a significantly lower rate than in gasoline vehicl
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:4, Interesting)
Has been out for awhile and nobody is buying it. What's better about the Model 3?
I can't speak for everyone, but the two reasons I am buying a Tesla Model 3 is the better performance and the over the air updates. Most car models have all their features on day one and any new updates are only for future year models. This is not the case with Tesla. I'll give my money to Tesla for almost no other reason than to support a company which does this.
Re:Now that's an OTA update (Score:5, Informative)
>> Tesla Model 3 is the better performance and the over the air updates.
Yeah, OTA Updates, so cool. or is it ? Now that's an OTA update : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
While Chrysler/Jeep does a poor job of engineering its in-car computer systems (as shown by the film!) that has nothing to do with Tesla. Proper engineering makes ota updates safe from hackers (witness MacOS, Linux, and part of the time, Windows). Just be careful whose stuff you buy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for everyone, but the one reason I am buying a Tesla Model 3 is I'm a moron.
Fixed that for you.
Proper grammar helps when you are calling someone a moron.
Chevy vs Tesla (Score:2)
I don't love the look of either vehicle but I think the differences are pretty significant.
Which company has more cache? If I wanted something cool, where would I go? Mom, America & Apple Pie or the company run by the guy going to Mars?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I consider things like this [autocar.co.uk] to be a train wreck. Which one is the machine that goes "Ping!"?
If Audi, BMW and Mercedes designed smartphones they wouldn't even fit in your pocket due to all of the knobs, levers and buttons on the outside.
We don't use different peripherals for each program, we use multifunction screens and multifunction controls. It's about time the auto industry caught up (the controls in the latter case being steering wheel controls and voice commands for things you need to control
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that miniature screen far away from the driver? [ebayimg.com] Yeah, totally the same thing.
And I'm sure you're typing this message from your special web browser keyboard and using your special web browser mouse, which is different from the one you use for word processing, which is different from the ones you use for each different video game... because of course it makes total sense to have different controls for each task rather than multifunction.
If you can't hit a button this big [teslarati.com] on a 15" touchscreen that's
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, for Model 3, it looks like they're an always present [invisionapp.com] icon at the bottom. (That's just a mockup based on videos people took during the unveiling, but it gives a general sense). So zero levels deep.
It's also worth noting that Tesla has various climate autoconfiguration options for drivers and passengers.
Re:Chevy vs Tesla (Score:5, Funny)
Which company has more cache?
caché.
So this height-challenged Czechoslovakian resistance fighter is trying to escape the Gestapo, who are chasing him. He sees a small farm house, runs to the door, and knocks rapidly. The farmer opens the door and the resistance fighter immediately asks him:
"Excuse me, but could you cache a small czech?"
I'll be here all week.
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Model 3 has the Bolt beat in t
Re: (Score:2)
"Quick" is a relative term. Most CCS1 and CHAdeMOs are 50kW or less. Tesla's supercharger stalls are 120kW per vehicle. And the fact that there's so few chargers at most non-Tesla sites, and they're so poorly monitored, makes visiting one a risky proposition. Which is the reason why Tesla puts so many at each site - so that you can rely on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:5, Informative)
Lol, okay, let's go down the list. Bolt vs. Model 3. Just the base models (Model 3 is much more upgradeable)
MSRP: $37500 vs $35000
0-60: 6,5s vs. 5,6s
Top speed: 90mph vs. 130mph
Handling: Read for yourself [motortrend.com] (start at "What's blanching...")
EPA range: 238mi vs. 220mi
Max charge speed: 90mph vs. 260mph
Fast charge network: Poor (single stall, poorly monitored, big holes) vs. excellent (4-8+ stalls, widespread distribution on almost all major interstates)
Dealership experience: Famously hard sell and uneducated about EVs, vs. almost humorously soft-sell [electrek.co], behaving instead like museum curators who just want to talk about their exhibit
Automatic crash avoidance: Optional extra vs. standard
Climate control: Single vs. dual zone
Track record for safety: less-than-stellar vs. outright-insulted-if-they-score-less-than-perfect-in-any-test. And this [youtube.com].
Standard warranty: 3yrs / 36k mi vs. 4yrs / 50k mi (both have the same battery warranty, 8 yrs / 100k mi)
Company dedication: Makes EVs as a side project to their main business vs. fully invested in EVs.
Efficiency: heavier & higher drag vs. lighter and lower drag
Styling: Come on, is there any contest? Even remotely? Bolt [google.is] vs. Model 3 [google.is]. The interior difference is even worse, with the Bolt being your typical econobox interior (yet at a nearly $40k price point).
Depreciation of past models: Terrible vs. Low [electrek.co]
I could keep going. I mean, there's just no contest. Unless you're seriously in a rush, or you think Musk is the devil, I can't imagine why anyone would pick the Bolt over the Model 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dealership experience: Famously hard sell and uneducated about EVs, vs. almost humorously soft-sell
I actually tried to buy a Bolt. Couldn't do it. You can't get one. Of course, you can't get a Model 3 right now either, but I'm not convinced that I'd be able to get a Bolt much before I can get a Model 3.
Company dedication: Makes EVs as a side project to their main business vs. fully invested in EVs.
And I'm pretty sure this is the reason I can't get a Bolt.
0-60: 6,5s vs. 5,6s should be 60 - 0 - breaking! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's buyback program was a horrible deal for customers. You could always get a much better deal on the open market.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market prices didn't even approach the buyback prices. Tesla would offer you $35k for a car that you could sell for $55k on Ebay.
Re: (Score:2)
What's better about the Model 3?
As someone who is actively looking to buy a Leaf, I'd say one thing that's better is simply not having to deal with car dealerships. Trying to actually get to a price is tedious, and their processes seem backwards. For example, I went in for a test drive. They photocopied my license and entered all my information painstakingly into their computer. When I then wanted to test drive a different model, they did the whole thing over again. Even to the point of making a new photocopy **while the first photocopy w
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:4, Interesting)
DO NOT BUY A LEAF. The Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt, Zero S, and Tesla Model S/X/3 all have high-quality battery management systems with thermal management. The Leaf's lack of a TMS causes their battery to degrade rapidly, losing as much as 40% of its capacity in 2-3 years; whereas the Tesla, Volt, and Zero have shown little to no loss of capacity over half a decade and hundreds of thousands of miles.
Get a used Volt. They're ass-cheap. Just don't buy a Leaf, holy shit dude.
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:4, Informative)
The Leaf's lack of a TMS causes their battery to degrade rapidly, losing as much as 40% of its capacity in 2-3 years
This depends on where you live. My 2012 LEAF has 50K miles on it and has lost only about 4% of its battery capacity. (I'd go check it right now with my OBDII interface and LeafSpy Pro, but my wife has it.)
Get a used Volt. They're ass-cheap. Just don't buy a Leaf
Used LEAFs are much cheaper. You can get one about like mine (note: I'm not selling mine; I like it) for around $6K. Assuming you don't need more than 60 or so miles of daily range, and don't live in an area with a very hot climate (which causes rapid battery degradation), for $6K you can get an EV that will be a great commuter and around-town vehicle for several years, and will cost less than a nickel per mile to operate, including electricity and maintenance.
Unless you live in Arizona,or the like, they're great little cars, and very, very cheap right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually drive that much daily, but I do go 125 miles (relatively level, with a quick charge station about halfway) a couple of times a month and 100 miles (over mountains, again with an easy quick charge) once a month or so. So 60 miles of range would be inconvenient, but 100 or so is fine given the chargers around me.
I'm willing to deal with having to understand the limitations of the battery pack for the price I can get the Leaf for, and while I had considered the Volt I really prefer to go all e
Re: (Score:3)
Leaf degradation is terrible. And everyone who saw the pack design knew it would be. Passive air cooling? Geez, if you're going to cool your car battery pack like a smartphone battery, expect it to last about as long as a smartphone battery.
This [wp.com] is what a proper EV pack looks like inside. This [ytimg.com] is not.
Re: (Score:2)
The Leaf is being heavily discounted right now, which is why I'm even considering one.
If you're not getting the 2018 LEAF with its bigger battery, I suggest looking for a used car. 2012-2014 LEAFs are crazy cheap right now. The main thing to watch out for is the battery capacity. Ideally, you want one that still has 12 bars on the capacity display. If you can do with less capacity, fine, but the price should drop accordingly.
I recommend getting a Bluetooth OBDII adapter and the LeafSpy Pro app on your phone. Plug in the adapter and the app will show you the total battery capacity with a hi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the used ones are tempting, but I can use the extra range of the 30kwh battery in the 2016 & 2017, and with the incentives available I should be able to get a new one for $13k or so when it's all done. Used 2016s around here seem to go for $11k, so not a huge premium to go new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To bad you posted as AC, comment is worthy of +1 informative.... To see that Tesla paid off early to save 300 million or more in stock.
While that page does talk about how its a raw deal for the government which means the tax payer it misses the reason the government is doing the action. It's not investing to get more money, but investing in better technologies. If electric cars become a reality because of it, then its well invested.
Re:Chevy Bolt (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tesla isn't built by a company that swallowed a bunch of taxpayer money in a big government shell game to survive...
Oh wait...
Every company takes advantage of government programs to exist. Public roads, public education, intellectual property protection, military protection of sea lanes, etc. Tesla probably owes its existence more to our universities for producing its engineers than it does to tax incentives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. It's the Nth car from a given manufacturer. So buyers of popular EVs from popular manufacturers - people making EVs that people want - will cease getting the benefit. But people will get subsidized to buy unpopular EVs from manufacturers making a half-arsed attempt at them for years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate valuations are based on what investors think your companies are going to be earning, amortized and with respect to the risk. Someone's corporate assets being valuable means that investors think that their companies are really onto something and want a piece of it.
It's not hard to see why Tesla's value is high. Their profit margin on their current models is a solid 25%, similar figures are expected for the Model 3, and they have customers lining up years in advance for a car they can't even test dr