
Tesla: a little bit Apple, a little bit Google, and about to be huge - eplanit
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/05/tesla_model_s_the_electric_car_company_is_a_little_bit_apple_a_little_bit.html?google_editors_picks=true
======
aresant
One of the most interesting long-term plays here is when Tesla builds a truck.

The #1 and #2 best selling "cars" by volume are trucks and trucks represent ~4
of the top 10 best selling cars overall. (1)

Musk has said that he has "this idea for a really advanced electric truck that
has the performance of a sports car but actually more towing power and more
carrying capacity than a gasoline or diesel truck of comparable size," Musk
said.(2)

While this is probably several years out, as it would likely result in an all
new wheel-base, etc I think that would be a hugely compelling product line if
it can compete on the same stats w/towing / carrying capacity

(1) [http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/02/top-10-best-
selli...](http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/02/top-10-best-selling-cars-
january-2013.html)

(2)
[http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130410/...](http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130410/RETAIL07/130419986/musk-
tesla-could-build-second-plant-in-texas#axzz2QAX527DZ)

~~~
stcredzero
For independent repairmen in the US, this could be a big win. You could have
something in a pickup truck form factor, but with potentially much lower
operating and maintenance costs. In the US, lots of people are operating a lot
more truck than they actually need just to keep up appearances.

If such trucks were available for good leasing terms, this could be a
goldmine.

~~~
ams6110
Independent repairmen drive from job to job all day long. They could easily
exhaust the range unless there's a breakthrough there. Ditto delivery drivers,
etc.

~~~
redthrowaway
A buddy of mine in Vancouver is a plumber who does service calls, and he'll
easily burn through a tank of gas in two days in his van. They'd have to be
able to go 300-400 miles without recharging in order for it to make sense. I
could easily see his company ditching gas for electric if they got that
though, and the far lower operating costs would justify a fairly step increase
in lease costs. At around $200/week in gas, they could spend an extra
$500/month on the lease and still come out way ahead.

~~~
steveax
300-400 miles in an urban environment? Surely that's 8 hours of driving right
there - how does he find any time to work?

~~~
redthrowaway
They service the entire GVRD, so it can easily be an hour of highway driving
between jobs. Also, 16 hour days aren't unheard of. Bear in mind, too, that he
might have an 1600lb boiler in the back of the truck, which isn't friendly
from a fuel efficiency standpoint.

The 300-400 mile range isn't to cover the average case, but rather the worst
case. The vehicle needs to be able to handle the hardest days that'll get
thrown at it without recharging. An algo that's O(log n) in the average case
but O(2^n) in the worst won't likely find traction.

~~~
stcredzero
_> An algo that's O(log n) in the average case but O(2^n) in the worst won't
likely find traction._

Yes, that's the case for _an algorithm_. In the case of a business model,
there's a lot of inefficiency that could be turned into profit. (Zipcar)

How about O(n log n) average but O(n^2) worst case?

------
codex
The author should do more research rather than just blindly copying Tesla ad
copy: Tesla's batteries are not the most efficient in the industry. The LEAF
is rated at 140 wh/kg [1]. Nissan makes their own batteries. The mid-grade
Model S battery is only 120 wh/kg.

[1]
[http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_spe...](http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_specs#cite_note-
LEAF_spec_final-4)

~~~
larrys
"The author should do more research"

Add: Fawning. This is an article whose intent is to polarize the community of
haters and likers by comparing it to Apple.

There is really no comparison. The Tesla isn't a better "car" in the sense of
how it gets you between a and b than the existing vehicles out there which are
mature products that have been improved over time in the features and benefits
that people care about. With Tesla you have to worry about distance,
batteries, the high cost - I mean who cares if it accelerates as quickly as it
does and who cares that there is no noise?

The potential market for products in the price category that computers are in
is much different from cars. Most people don't buy multiple cars and replacing
one is a big decision to make. It's not like adding an ipod and an ipad.

Bottom line is what do I get by buying an Electric car exactly even assuming
it is the same price as the gas vehicle? How important is the gas savings when
you weigh that over the lack of utility in other areas?

I mean get real. Stuff like this will be a non-starter to most people:

"which will give you 150 miles of power in a 30-minute charge"

How many people are going to want to deal with that?

People buy cars on emotion not rationality. It's the same reason someone wants
4 wheel drive even though they might only need it a few days per year.

~~~
voodoomagicman
I think you answer your own question here:

"Bottom line is what do I get by buying an Electric car exactly even assuming
it is the same price as the gas vehicle? How important is the gas savings when
you weigh that over the lack of utility in other areas?"

...

"People buy cars on emotion not rationality. It's the same reason someone
wants 4 wheel drive even though they might only need it a few days per year."

~~~
joonix
People who pay $90k for a car to commute back and forth from work every day
don't care about saving money on gas. It's just a status symbol like any other
luxury car. But I hope it takes off, because it will finance the expansion of
Tesla into cheaper cars.

------
breakyerself
I think these supercharging stations are sad. I get annoyed at the 5 - 10
minutes that it takes to fill up my gas tank. 30 minutes to fill up would be
excruciating. I remember seeing videos a few years ago where they wanted to
have a standard for robotic drive throughs that automatically swapped out a
cars low battery for a fully charged one. You could have a fresh battery in
less than 5 minutes without getting out of the car. Your old batter would get
charged and end up in someone else's car later. Why is that not obviously the
best solution here?

~~~
rayiner
The problem is that you're thinking of a supercharger station like a gas
station. You get annoyed at the 5-10 minutes it takes to fill up your gas tank
because you have to do it every week, because the gasoline fumes make them
very unpleasant places to be, and because you almost invariably have to fill
up at frustrating times (e.g. in the afternoon so you have gas to get to work
the next day).

But a supercharger station isn't like a gas station. In an electric car, your
routine charging is handled at home, overnight. The supercharger station is
for emergencies and long trips. It's not a place you go to after a long day at
work so you you can get back to work the next day, it's something you can work
into your road trip, something you can combine with bathroom breaks and
getting a cup of coffee.

The robotic drive throughs are a lot more expensive for a questionable amount
of value-add. The vast majority of people spend most of their time in a usage
mode (commuting to work), where in-home charging is sufficient. But they also
go on the occasional long-drive. That's the use-case supercharger stations
fill. After that, what's left? Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a
frequent basis that a 30 minute charge in the middle (that can be easily
combined with a rest-stop break) is a major inconvenience?

~~~
glenra
> Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a frequent basis that a 30
> minute charge in the middle (that can be easily combined with a rest-stop
> break) is a major inconvenience?

Um, lots of people do that. I used to drive from San Francisco to San Diego on
a long weekend, a distance that would likely require _two_ charging stops. Or
drive to Lake Tahoe for skiing, which would require at least one. (And don't
get me started on real long-distance driving trips of the visit-the-grand-
canyon variety.)

If charging stations always just _happened_ to be perfectly located to
simultaneously coincide with (a) where you needed them, and (b) places you
wanted to stop for 30 minutes, that'd be one thing. But it seems unlikely that
would be the case. Instead it'd be exactly what you just said gas stations
were in your first paragraph - a place you invariably have to fill up at
frustrating times. I guess the good news is it might force you to get some
reading done?

A Tesla seems like a fine _second_ car for people who have a lot of money and
want to use it to show off their Green credentials. It's not a fine _primary_
car for people who actually like to drive and live in an area suited for doing
so.

~~~
ajross
> _people who actually like to drive and live in an area suited for doing so_

So... that's what, about 15-20% of the US population? With all respect, your
point seems isomorphic to "this car isn't perfect for everybody". Well, duh.

The point you're replying to is that (given a reasonable infrastructure) the
Tesla works very acceptably as a long distance vehicle. I don't see anything
in your post to refute that.

~~~
glenra
> So... that's what, about 15-20% of the US population?

Um, I actually would have assumed a much larger number. Parent post asked
_"Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a frequent basis... <that
charging would be inconvenient>?"_. My answer: I do (Or did, when I lived in
California), and I know lots of other people who do too. I'm curious where
that guy lives (and where you lived) that you think it isn't normal for a
person who owns a car to often take 200+ mile car trips?

I think the Tesla might "work acceptably as a long distance vehicle" if you
live someplace where actual long-distance travel is unusual and inconvenient.
A lot of the east coast might qualify. But probably not California. Or Nevada
or Wyoming or Texas or just about any of the larger states.

> your point seems isomorphic to "this car isn't perfect for everybody"

That it "isn't perfect" is a foregone conclusion. But this guy specifically
claimed having to take a HALF-HOUR STOP to recharge _isn't inconvenient_ on
long trips. It quite obviously IS going to be inconvenient. You can reasonably
claim the car is worth getting DESPITE that inconvenience factor. But you
can't claim it's NOT INCONVENIENT. That's just nuts. That's drinking the Kool-
Aid.

~~~
ajross
Given my frequency of long distance trips, assuming the existence of charging
stations along them, and knowing my other requirements for a vehicle[1] and
balancing these issues against each other, _I would happily buy the Tesla_
intending to take it on said long distance trips. Pass that Kool-Aid, I guess.

Just take a deep breath. I know, I know -- someone is _wrong_ on the internet.
But you don't have to fix that, nor tell other people what kind of car they
should decide to buy or what sorts of feature in that vehicle they should
value over others. Relax and have fun in your low rider pickup truck or
whatever floats your boat.

[1] Which, sadly, don't include the need for an new vehicle right now. So no
Tesla for me.

~~~
glenra
> _"Given my frequency of long distance trips, assuming the existence of
> charging stations along them"_

Where are those trips? That "assuming" is actually kind of a big deal given
that there are currently only _9_ supercharger stations in the entire US so
far.

I grant that I might be a bit of an edge case - the last time I rented a car
for an extended period it was to drive from New York City to Jackson, Wyoming
and back. There are currently no supercharger stations at all along either
route I took. Without the superchargers it would take about 20 days to drive
that distance roundtrip in a Tesla - more than twice what it took me in a
gasoline car.

The good news is that they actually _did_ anticipate my driving pattern from
back when I lived near SF. They appear to have a charger for driving to Lake
Tahoe/Reno and several for going down the LA/San Diego. So at least it's
_possible_ to do those trips now, which it wouldn't be at all without the
superchargers - driving to San Diego would take three days instead of one if
you had to use wall-power based chargers.

(I currently live near Manhattan and don't own a car. Had a 1999 New Beetle
the last time I did.)

------
DanielBMarkham
Musk seems to be this generation's Howard Hughes, and out of the complete
pantheon of internet-famous technical folk, he's the one guy I could consider
a hero.

Having said all of that, I sincerely hope we keep some sort of sense of
detachment about all of this. Having Tesla play the role of Apple while
fanboys and an fawing press cover each move does not help the rest of the
startup community.

We have a million other problems to solve, not just electric cars and cheaper
access to space. It's important to see past the fluff pieces to the underlying
business decisions in order to harvest tactics than can be used by all.

tl;dr: big Musk fan, but let's be careful with the hype. It can obscure
important lessons.

~~~
enraged_camel
I think the interesting thing about electric cars is that they can contribute
to the solution of several other issues. They are much cleaner technology, so
they would help reduce air pollution as well as slow down global warming. The
former also means fewer pollution-related problems like lung cancer and
asthma.

I know this sounds like grasping at straws, but I'm speaking in the long run
(~50 years). I think the effects will be noticeable then.

~~~
ams6110
I think you're jumping ahead a least a few decades. Most electricity in the
USA is generated from coal, though increasingly, natural gas. And we simply do
not have the residential electrical infrastructure in place to support
significant numbers of households charging one or two cars at night.

~~~
kiba
Coals and natural gas power plants are still a more efficient source of energy
than gasoline.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yeah, Musk talked about this in several interviews. Basically, the average
efficiency for energy generation at the power plant is 60%, because the power
plant is able to capture a lot of waste and reuse it. Whereas the efficiency
of energy generation in an internal combustion engine is about 20%. Therefore,
if all cars switched to electric, we would be looking at a 200% increase in
efficiency in car transportation.

~~~
jnw2
The 60% was specifically about a good, big GE combined cycle natural gas
plant. I was under the impression that for a purely steam powered generator,
such as you have in a coal or nuclear plant, significantly less than 60% of
the heat turns into electricity.

I thought he was also saying that an internal combustion engine burning
natural gas is about 20% efficient, with the implication that if you are
absolutely determined to power a vehicle with natural gas, burning the gas in
a big turbine and using it to charge batteries is going to be significantly
more energy efficient than burning the natural gas directly in the vehicle.

------
dhughes
I can't help thinking that Tesla as successful as it is for a young company
would be more successful in European countries where short driving distances
and high fuel prices are common.

Canada and the US are lumped into one vehicle market but distances tend to be
so much greater compared to Europe and fuel is a bit cheaper. That was
mentioned in the article but there's more to it than that.

Weather is another problem Europe tends to have milder weather compared to the
northern half of the continental US and all Canada. Half the year where I am
it's below 0C , snow and snow tires (more aggressive grip) really affects
milage my vehicle get practically half the milage I do in summer.

Tesla needs to build a vehicle with good ground clearance, a range of at least
400km, rapid charging and cost around $30,000. If not there's no way I would
even think of buying one.

------
habosa
Tesla is an incredibly innovative company and I'd bet a lot that they'll be
hugely successful in the long run. However I have to warn people on HN against
interpreting the recent stock rises (from ~30 to 80) of TSLA as public faith
in the company. What happened was a "short squeeze". At one point ~45% of TSLA
stock was short, and as the price rose the investors with short positions were
forced to buy long in order to cover. The buying drove the price even further
up and caused an even bigger "squeeze" on those with short positions. This
pattern leads to the astronomical rise you saw. Of course there was a real
boost from the good earnings report which caused a 15+ point gain but a lot of
the intermediate gain was due to the short squeeze.

~~~
jnw2
Also, Consumer Reports has recently had some very positive things to say about
the car.

------
perlpimp
drove Tesla, it is very nice and nifty. I also liked very much NeXT cube. IMO
this is going to be a stepping stone to next wave of car designs from other
Car Companies.

What bugs me is still unresolved issue of battery disposal dismal performance
of the car in cold weather. I think this is a very nice leg up to turning car
industry and making it innovate perhaps looking for a better all around
technology. I hope that what tesla will do instead of providing a nice "copy"
for everyone to parrot.

my 2c

~~~
ChuckMcM
Can you say more about 'battery disposal' ? As far as I can tell the batteries
in the Tesla are largely recyclable (for example most, if not all of the
material in that batteries can be recovered out of 'dead' batteries).

~~~
jnw2
I thought the typical landfill in the US is willing to accept lithium
batteries, but putting a Tesla battery pack in a landfill is economically dumb
compared to selling the used pack to someone interested in recycling the raw
materials in the pack.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I should check but I believe that Tesla buys back the old batteries for just
that purpose (to recycle them). Not unlike going to the auto parts store with
your old alternator and getting a rebuilt one to replace it. No doubt there
will be 'rebuilt' battery packs for folks on a budget.

~~~
jnw2
Elon commented, I think in the Foundations 20 video on Youtube, that the raw
metals that go into a battery pack cost about $80/kwh.

That means that putting the battery pack from an 85 kwh Model S in a landfill
is equivalent to putting a stack of over 300 $20 bills in a landfill.

(He was actually trying to make a point about how cheap battery packs might be
to buy new in the future, with more efficient techniques for turning the raw
materials into battery packs.)

------
robot
"So how can Tesla persuade car giants to all work together to improve the
world’s electric vehicle infrastructure? By licensing its tech to its
competitors, in the same way that Google gives Android away to every phone-
maker in the world."

Wrong comparison. Google gives away android only to increase its ad spaces and
make more money. I don't think licensing technology enables such a platform
for Tesla.

~~~
cromwellian
Google gives away Android as a competitive moat to both a) increase the amount
of time spent on Google Services and b) decrease the threat of a mobile
monopoly changing the default search engine (Imagine the threat of an Apple
with 80% of the market and the negotiating power they'd have for the setting
of default mobile search)

A fragmented, federated mobile ecosystem with more players results in more
people using Google services even if competitors can take Android and strip
out the Google-installed services (e.g. Amazon).

For Tesla, making electric cars in general a success will increase demand for
electric infrastructure investment, and in turn, a robust electric
infrastructure, along with cultural normality of electric cars, means
increased demand for their own products.

Android really hasn't increased ad space all that much. If people use mobile
more than desktop, the likely result is mobile is leading to decreased ad
spaces, just from the mere fact that the screens are smaller. So if anything,
it is a defense against a downward sloping trend.

------
graeme
Can someone explain the appeal of electric cars to me? (Hear me out)

Currently, we power our vehicle fleet using gasoline. The stated appeal of
electric cars, as I understand it, is less reliance on gasoline.

However, electric cars still require electricity. Currently, most of our
electricity is powered by coal and other fossil fuels. While solar and
renewables are increasing, they are not increasing very fast.

So it seems likely that any massive switch from gasoline to electric would
entail a major increase in baseline electricity consumption. This would be
powered either by more fossil fuels, or nuclear. Though the latter seems off
the table in the West.

Possible advantages for electric:

1\. Lower consumption of energy relative to gasoline (not sure if this is
true) 2\. More versatile, as electricity can come from multiple sources.

I'm not sure if #1 is true. #2 seems like a fairly small advantage, though it
would be useful if oil became scarcer relative to coal.

Tesla has generated a lot of positive press. Am I missing something?

My intuition is that the electric car simply moves our consumption of energy,
but does little to address our issue of mainly relying on non-renewables for
energy.

(I wouldn't put much stock in any answer that emphasizes renewables, at least
in the short term. They have not made a dent in our baseline power
consumption, so I fail to see how adding electric cars would change much. In
the long run, of course, electric cars offer the potential to power our
vehicle fleet via renewables, assuming we can actually deploy them at scale
[I'm skeptical on this point])

~~~
lobster_johnson
> ... _the electric car simply moves our consumption of energy_

That's right. The nice thing about shifting the burden of energy production
over to the electrical grid is that the energy becomes, in CS terms, an
implementation detail: You can upgrade the environment impact of all the cars
in an entire geographical area just by switching the underlying source of
energy from, say, coal to wind or water.

That is already happening in many places. Many countries are already energy-
sufficient based on renewables. Norway and Sweden get most of their power from
hydro, for example, Denmark gets a lot from wind. Many countries (including
Germany and Australia) are gearing up to become self-sufficient within 10-20
years. Germany was at 18% in 2010, planning to be at 66% in 2020.

As EVs increase in numbers and in mainstream acceptability, this will push
companies to focus on the grid and on new energy sources. Right now, if
everyone in the world switched to EVs, the grids would collapse.

Second point: The grid (or rather, its tributaries) is simply a better place
to convert raw materials into electricity. The internal combustion engine is
pretty efficient, but not particularly efficient compared to, say, a coal
plant.

Lastly: EVs eliminate local emissions. That's a good thing.

~~~
graeme
Interesting, thanks. So it sounds like it will be somewhat useful if we fail
to deploy renewable massively, and very useful if we do.

------
quackerhacker
Everyone knows in tech, the first to market is the defined impression, and if
Tesla keeps innovating they remain the titan of the industry. Example:
carriers laughed at Steve Jobs when he wanted to introduce a pocket pc highly
subsidized by the carrier, understandably the iphone was compared it to Palm
Pilots and Blackberry held the market. The iphone was dubbed a "smartphone,"
by comparison it reflected it's user and the others whom did not own one to
having... a "dumbphone." Even though I question Apple's future in a space they
initially dominated, it is because lack of innovation. But I have invested my
UI experience to iOS and money in apps and videos that will only play on iOS
(always remove the drm -.-)....because, like Steve Jobs said "it just works."
I don't believe Tesla will be like Google, unorganized and open sourced, but
definitely like Apple and their App Store in comparison to tech. Side Note: I
started with a Google G1 for Tmobile, tried the Evo4G, then because of coding
had to get an iPhone 4 (ohh no closed-source)...judging by my excerpt, I guess
I'm a fanboy now (just not big-headed or superior like the other ones :p).
-quacker

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, that's why MySpace continues to define social networking, and AltaVista
defines web search today.

Tesla wasn't even first with an all-electric car, for that matter. First mover
advantage isn't nearly as strong in tech when you're looking forward. When
you're looking back to explain dominance, survivorship bias clouds many
people's analysis.

~~~
quackerhacker
By defined impression an example is, when facebook came about, what was it
compared to. MySpace failed to innovate other than for their bottom line. This
is what I mean by a company must continually innovate on their product. Even
Google does this through new products.

This may be too general of a statement, but Facebook fatigue, I believe, is
spreading. Yet Facebook continues to innovate and acquire new
products...Facebook would be better off creating a new method of social
networking (is that too strong of a statement?).

------
dreamdu5t
Could someone explain to me what the big deal is with Tesla cars? I saw one
yesterday parked by my office, and I peeked inside. It just seems like a
typical luxury car that's electric. Kind of like the Porsche version of the
Prius.

Why is it going to be huge?

~~~
pbreit
You can't think of any more reasons? First, that it is electric is at least
interesting. 2nd, it just got the highest rating EVER from Consumer Reports.
3rd, it got that rating on the VERY FIRST CAR it ever designed and
manufactured! 4th, the battery being built into the chassis lowering the
center of gravity makes it very performant. 5th, no gears. 6th, seats 7. 7th,
the entire area under the hood is empty for storage (again, because it is
electric). 8th, free "fill ups". 9th, software in the car. 10th, and on and
on.

It doesn't seem like you tried at all to understand the interest.

~~~
walkon
No gears? That seems incredible (and false).

~~~
klinquist
When you have electric motors that produce torque at any RPM, then as long as
you can manufacture a motor to spin fast enough, you don't need gears.

The Model S is direct drive... so no gears.

~~~
walkon
So we'll just ignore that one gear in the box and the several that make up the
open differential?

~~~
ams6110
You could have a direct drive motor at each wheel. I'm not sure if the Tesla
does this but it's one possibility.

------
danielodio
Like I said 3 months ago (when the stock was at $34): I'm betting on Elon!
<http://go.DanielOdio.com/elon>

~~~
gfodor
"Betting" is the operative word here. I think Elon is going to be successful,
but that doesn't mean I want to gamble on TSLA stock. In other words, TSLA is
not an "investment" if you realize you are essentially betting on some future
outcome that is far from certain. It's a gamble. It would be great if people
made this distinction (not saying you don't)

~~~
danielodio
Yeah agreed; in my blog post & comments I talk about how the stock could
definitely go to $0 if the company missteps. But then again, after driving a
Model S, I believe it's the best car out there, so as long as the company
executes well I'm very bullish on the stock, especial in the medium to long
term ( >1 year).

~~~
Luc
Tesla's market cap is currently one and a half times Fiat's. I know it's a
rough measure, but that seems a bit excessive.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Stock prices are generally based on the expected future profitability of a
company. Tesla's expectations are vastly higher than Fiat...

------
noonespecial
There is a Tesla store, in the mall right down the hall from the apple store
my brother works. It looks like an apple store but with really big ithings.

------
gusgordon
If Tesla becomes a car company of similar size to, say, Ford, what will its
stock price be?

~~~
vecter
Ford's market cap is 55B. TSLA's current market cap is ~9B at a stock price of
~$77. If TSLA's market cap were 55B (~6x greater), then, assuming no stock
splits, its stock price would be $462/share.

------
gtirloni
Lost me when said iPad was the cheapest tablet you could buy.

------
friendly_chap
Such a pointless title, a real rarity (especially on HN).

------
yoster
I can't wait until the day everyone drives an electric car. I can't believe
after 100 years, we still have these gas guzzling, pollution spewing
dinosaurs... These huge conglomerate oil companies are going to end up ruining
us all. The auto manufacturers need to look to the future before they become
obsolete. Tesla, I salute you!

~~~
zanny
> The auto manufacturers need to look to the future before they become
> obsolete.

No they don't, the economics of cars is doing exactly what it should. The old
dogs don't react fast enough so new tech and ideas like Tesla take over.

It is good to have corporate turnover of businesses before they can
concentrate power and influence in their niche sphere to capture markets. In
the US, the downsizing of Chrysler brings GM / Ford into a duopoly after
having bought dozens of brands over the last half century. They desperately
needed some competition.

------
ever_upwards
A cool tshirt of the original Tesla in New York: <http://teespring.com/tesla>

