Tesla Motors confirms open source philosophy


Tesla Motors (TSLA +0.2%) confirms it will go open source with its electric vehicle technology in an effort to disrupt the gasoline car industry.

In a corporate blog post, CEO Elon Musk says he will hold Tesla attorneys at bay toward competitors who use the EV automaker's technology in good faith.

From other sites
Comments (80)
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    "in an effort to disrupt the gasoline car industry."

     

    Put ICE down like a dog.

     

    Good boy, Elon. Good Good.
    12 Jun 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    Elon has a software background, and he thinks open-source means, just a copy command will reproduce the whole product line. But in manufacturing, this is way different.

     

    Every car maker has EV technology, which is 40 years old btw. They just don't make it as market is miniscule. It's the investment that matters here.

     

    There is a huge number of compelling EVs coming to US this year, at affordable prices. Doesn't look like anyone wants Tesla's technology.

     

    http://bit.ly/1xPkqwv
    12 Jun 2014, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4381) | Send Message
     
    This is likely to have a greater impact in China than here. Maybe Nissan will want to copy Tesla designs, but the Detroit three probably aren't interested. BYD and Kandi are the most likely to copycat Tesla.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    @ yogibaba.

     

    The Model S is run by a computer. It is the patents for supercharging that he wants to make open source.

     

    By the way Elon Musk has a Bachelors degree in Physics and Economics. No software training at the university level. Your comment was really a put down of Elon.

     

    Yes Elon Musk founded Zip2 and Paypal, both companies that use software to function. Paypal was necessary for payment processing over the internet and Elon filled not just a niche, but a key component to do business online.

     

    Yes every car maker has EV technology, but they are not committed to using it to replace ICE technology. If anything, they see EV technology as a compliance issue. And that is a huge mistake.

     

    Kind of like the US leaving Vietnam and now out of Iraq. What happened to Vietnam and what is happening to Iraq right now?

     

    Electricity is an average price of 11cents Kwh. Gasoline is $3.56/gallon. Unless gas drops to $1.25/gallon and your vehicle gets 40mpg city, then electricity is cheaper. And as the price of batteries go down, at a certain point nobody will buy a gasoline/diesel powered vehicle.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • Captain Pike
    , contributor
    Comments (890) | Send Message
     
    @ Yogi -- There is no car on that link that is anything new or improved. And what do you keep babbling about powertarins for.
    The alcoa/phinnergy tech looks interesting for other applications, but 100 mile limits are no good.
    12 Jun 2014, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    @surfer,
    Sure, Elon is a great guy. But he seems to take things lightly. From patent to product is a long way in this case.

     

    @Captain Pike,
    Check the guarantee provided by e-golf : if you get stranded, they offer you free taxi and/or towing.
    Also, the phinergy can be extremely useful as a secondary battery, that acts as range extender. For the occasional long distance trip, just plug in an extra Aluminium battery to travel 1000 miles! Then, if you run out of Aluminium, swap in new Aluminium plates/battery at a swap station after 1000 miles, and go another 1000 miles.
    12 Jun 2014, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Captain Pike
    , contributor
    Comments (890) | Send Message
     
    That VW guarantee is a gimmick, limited practicality and should not have to be thought about.

     

    The Phinergy swap in a new battery scheme is light years away from the 30 second Tesla battery swap that all here have seen video of. Tesla could have or could still go that route, having battery swapping stations instead of quick chargers and kick butt on Phinergy.

     

    Bottom line - Tesla is still king in BEV's and will be for the forseeable future. Also BEV's are the future for general transportation purposes and it's a good thing. I am neither long nor short any of these stocks, sold my TSLA long ago.
    13 Jun 2014, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    You see the rest of the auto industry has no intention of going electric. And by doing this, Elon is going to prove to everyone else that is the case.

     

    This will also prevent the DOJ from going after Tesla Motors in 12 years when the rest of the industry will be collapsing and nobody will buy an ICE powered vehicle.
    12 Jun 2014, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Luciilius
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    Until now stock price was justified by the ownership of patented technology, now is justified by giving it away. When reality is too painful humans tend to distort it until is bearable...
    12 Jun 2014, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (1233) | Send Message
     
    You made a classic straw man argument. The patents alone are not enough to replicate what Tesla has done. You still need to operational expertise, the capital, and the willingness. Tesla is banking on the fact that they have more commitment, expertise, and capital put forth on BEVs than anyone else. The advantage of the patents now is that Tesla still has them defensively. Most of these kinds of companies look at a patent portfolio defensively anyways and compete based on new developments. Therefore, their portfolio still serves their primary purpose for Tesla.
    12 Jun 2014, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • rotorite86
    , contributor
    Comments (345) | Send Message
     
    IP is a huge part of their valuation, and now they aren't even going to enforce it and tell attorneys to lay low? Must be nice to have a $26 billion dollar company and play "teach them a lesson" with shareholders money. I am NOT a fan of this -- tisk tisk Musk.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    I don't see how anyone can now argue that the "vast Tesla IP portfolio" is a reason to buy the stock. The IP is now free, no one is being prevented from using it, and no royalties are needed to use it.

     

    For example. Lets say Nissan wants to improve their battery management controller. The engineers saw something in the Tesla patent they could use. In the past, the idea would be off limits. Now, it can be used for free.

     

    MAYBE that vast portfolio just wasn't of interest to Nissan and others?

     

    Anyway, the IP advantage is off the table. BTW, expertise can be hired. Start with those named on the patent you want and make them an offer!
    12 Jun 2014, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (3476) | Send Message
     
    @Luciilius
    Tesla has demonstrated that they have a combination of electric car, battery, battery heating/cooling, fast charging, charging station load leveling technology. The greatest return on this technology for Tesla investors will come from getting other manufacturers to "attach" their long-range electric cars to Tesla's SuperCharger stations. Tesla can, in fact make more money giving energy away to other manufacturers' cars at SuperCharger stations than they can building cars. And, they can do it with MUCH less capital investment, in much less time.

     

    Analysis here: http://seekingalpha.co...
    12 Jun 2014, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    Yeah Randy but Elon also demonstrated that he is serious about spreading his knowledge and technology across the board so these cars companies can build what they told him, they would build, i.e. Electric Cars and no BS.
    12 Jun 2014, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (3476) | Send Message
     
    The financial "magic" for Tesla shareholders of sharing SuperChargers with other manufacturers kicks in when the other manufacturers' cars significantly out number the Teslas. If we reach the economic tipping point where, because batteries become lighter (cheaper helps, but what really matters in increasing Wh/kg to ~500 from the current 265 or so (cell level)), and it becomes LESS COSTLY to build an electric car than a comparable ICE one, then the industry will be forced (economically) to convert and the EV population will grow much more rapidly than Tesla could ever hone to build-out manufacturing capacity. If Mr. Musk can get those cars into the SuperCharger business - i.e. pay a per-vehicle charge up front for free, lifetime recharging - then Tesla will have a great, very large cash-cow business that requires very little additional capital and returns, over time much more profit than Tesla's car business is likely to do, even with optimistic production numbers.

     

    If all Tesla "gets" for "giving away" their IP is that the resulting cars from other manufacturers are "SuperCharger cars", then the shareholders will make out like bandits and Mr. Musk will have pulled off a rather fantastic business deal.
    12 Jun 2014, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Raster
    , contributor
    Comments (824) | Send Message
     
    Let it be remembered that the world changed on June 12th, 2014 at 10:00 AM Pacific.

     

    As an owner and investor, I don't know if this is good or bad for me. But I think it's going to lead to something wonderful...
    12 Jun 2014, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    @Raster,
    No worries. This is again one of the useless marketing stints from Tesla, and is immaterial for any practical effect. No body wants it, but they will put it out there. Tesla doesn't have any killer technology. The battery tech belongs to Panasonic. Look at Chinese automakers. They are churning out thousand kinds of EVs. This is the simplest technology for cars.

     

    As an example, check this Simate car below in China. You get 82 mile range for $3000!

     

    http://onforb.es/1irltsz
    12 Jun 2014, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    I understand they have pedals built inside in case you run out of power.
    12 Jun 2014, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Luciilius
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    Cult follower sometimes prefer to die than admit that they were wrong.
    12 Jun 2014, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (1889) | Send Message
     
    Lol! But I was told the cool-aid will prepare my body for the rigors of hyperloop travel.
    12 Jun 2014, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    No Luciilius, what you mean is anyone shorting tsla would rather die than admit they were wrong.
    I have been watching these lies by people shorting tsla ever since I bought tsla when it crossed 34.00, so my question to you is are you shorting tsla? I think you are, because your reaction to my post is understandable.
    15 Jun 2014, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    As an investor, in the short run it is not good to give away your patents.

     

    As a visionary, in the long run this is epic.

     

    It will be proven that the rest of the auto industry has no intention of going electric, because they will not utilize the technology.
    12 Jun 2014, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    Is this the technology that requires drivetrain replacement every 10K miles?

     

    No thanks!
    12 Jun 2014, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • keefwotspeaksthetroof
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget the tyres that only last 3000Km, the battery that has no warranty against fading. The brakes that only work some of the time.
    The saltwater corrosion that is not covered by warranty. The 12 Volt battery problem that leaves you stuck on the road with all the windows locked down and the wheels locked up.
    Tesla...just say NOooooooo :)
    12 Jun 2014, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (1889) | Send Message
     
    "Don't forget..."

     

    Glad you reminded me. I had forgotten all about those problems that happened to a handful of early Model S's.
    12 Jun 2014, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • Luciilius
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    And in the afterlife...
    12 Jun 2014, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    @Luciilius, you are a good comedian.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    No he's a tsla shorter.
    15 Jun 2014, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    I am now convinced that SA is not neutral in the debate over Electric vs. ICE. There are ads for Dodge Ram 1500 and Nissan Altima. Both companies make electric vehicles solely for compliance purposes.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    I'm seeing Honda Accord plug-in. 115 mpge. What you see depends on your browsing history also. Have you been checking out those gas guzzlers to replace your EV now?
    12 Jun 2014, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • rotorite86
    , contributor
    Comments (345) | Send Message
     
    This is entirely based on YOUR internet activity, not SA.

     

    Mine shows an add for Cars.com for the 370Z and X5, both of which I looked up last week.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    I now see an ad for blu electronic cigarettes. I don't smoke.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    yogi,
    Yeah, the ads are based on your browser history. I'm getting CNC controlled engravers.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • rotorite86
    , contributor
    Comments (345) | Send Message
     
    Any change you looked into that stock/market lately? I now have a Fidelity add...I logged into my brokerage account about 20 mins ago.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    We'll see would laughs last as the price of gas goes up and up.
    15 Jun 2014, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    And there we go.

     

    For those who doubted Musk's intentions, this should seal it. Opening up Tesla's Patent is generally viewed as bad for its shareholders.

     

    This very act directly refutes the accusations that Musk is only interested in promoting the stock. He has always maintained that Tesla's objective is the electrification of the automobile. Opening the patents directly supports it, at great [opportunity] cost to Tesla.

     

    There are those who think Tesla's a sell now, but until a competitor announces/releases a direct competitor, I don't see sales (ergo revenue) slowing down anytime soon. And the potential of gen3 is still there.

     

    Let's see what the competition does with these patents by the end of 2014.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Fan,
    Lets change the date to 2017 or whenever the Gen3 comes out.

     

    "Tesla had the idea, Nissan (or ?) built the car"
    12 Jun 2014, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    tom,

     

    So will they be nissan batteries or gigafactory?

     

    Tesla's battery management software works with Tesla's battery pack. And since 1/3 of Panasonic's entire production capacity is building batteries for Tesla's model S, where will Panasonic get the extra capacity to build 50KWh packs for Nissan?

     

    I don't doubt Nissan's manufacturing muscle. But Nissan announcing Leaf 2 that would work with Tesla's superchargers will immediately reduce the demand of every ICE model out there. An affordable EV with no range anxiety is what we're waiting for.

     

    Since no such product, other than Tesla's gen3 is pending, there's no impact to Tesla at all. But if it is announced, short any ICE manufacturer that hasn't committed to EV's yet.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Fan,
    Don't follow. Why can't Nissan use all of Tesla IP and come up with their own SuperCharger? Then the 2017 Leaf and Infiniti EV would get all the benefits of Tesla's IP with none of the cash going to Tesla.

     

    Now, Tesla was selling royalties to use its IP, that would be different. But its not.
    13 Jun 2014, 02:29 AM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (3476) | Send Message
     
    I believe there is a Tesla caveat with respect to users of their IP that conditions access only for cars that are SuperCharger compatible AND for which the manufacturer contributes an up-front amount to the SuperCharger network (i.e. gives Tesla money for each car made that is SuperCharger compatible)

     

    This business model can make Tesla more money (with less net CAPEX) than a huge expansion of their electric car business in direct competition with the major manufacturers. I did a fairly detailed analysis of how this model works a while back. It is here:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    This is the way Tesla makes a killing when batteries get lighter and cheaper, disrupting the 80+ million cars a year auto industry. Essentially, this is Tesla's strategy not to kill GM, Ford, VW or Toyota, but to kill Exxon instead...
    13 Jun 2014, 03:10 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (5704) | Send Message
     
    "to kill Exxon instead"

     

    And bury fuel-cell cars, which are stillborn.
    13 Jun 2014, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    tom,

     

    If Nissan did that, they'd also have to build-out and operate their charging infrastructure. Have you seen anything in the past 4 years to indicate that they have any interest in doing such a thing?

     

    No. Gaining Tesla's IP, means building something that's compatible with Tesla's SC. And it would be much more cost effective for Nissan (and anyone else for that matter) to pay Tesla for the use of that supercharger network, than to build out their own. It's like those free gas for a year programs that Chevy sometimes releases.
    13 Jun 2014, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Actually, Nissan does sell their own version of a SuperCharger - its installed in Nissan facilities. They also sell home chargers. Since Nissan now has access to all of Tesla patents, they can go around picking and pulling pieces that help to make their next generation of fast chargers even better.
    13 Jun 2014, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Randy,

     

    From what I've read, Tesla seems to be offering their entire IP portfolio for free. I don't see any mention of royalties or fees for use.
    13 Jun 2014, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    Tom,

     

    Nissan doesn't seen any home chargers, they've partnered with aerovironment for those.

     

    And their chargers @ the dealerships don't belong to Nissan, they belong to the dealership. So no, no proof yet of Nissan wanting to develop their own charging network. Without such a desire, it's still in Nissan's interest to use Tesla's superchargers versus building their own.
    15 Jun 2014, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    fan,
    Sure, Nissan partners with others. Tesla partners with Panasonic to build the key component of its cars -- the battery!

     

    The point is that Nissan (and others) doesn't have to pay money to Tesla for use of the best parts of Tesla's IP portfolio.

     

    We're talking money here. The only reason for Nissan to partner with Tesla is if its cheaper than working with partners. And that doesn't seem to be the case any more.
    15 Jun 2014, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    tom,

     

    Nothing you've said supports your original point of Nissan building their own supercharger network. Since Nissan partners with others for their charging needs, then partnering with Tesla for the supercharger network is just common sense. All other partners are too expensive.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:31 AM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Fan,
    Nissan partners for chargers in the US, but builds it own in Japan. Nissan is also one of the companies behind the ChaDeMo standard. I see no reason why they can't bring their charger to the US or develop a network in conjunction with ChaDeMo companies.

     

    To use the Tesla network, I presume they would pay $2k per car or on a per charge basis. I think we all agree the $2k price is a rip-off of the consumer - even pro Tesla folks argue its a huge money maker. So competitors have a invitation to cut margins and keep their users for themselves.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:58 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    tom,

     

    There's only one reason that matters: chademo is limited to 50KWh. Regardless of the fact that Nissan supported chademo originally, that theoretical limit is why chademo isn't as desirable as supercharging. So if Nissan needs a new charging standard, why develop and build its own when it can just use Tesla's?
    16 Jun 2014, 03:05 AM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (3476) | Send Message
     
    It is important to understand the degree to which a road-trip charging system is a "natural monopoly". This isn't like the gas station business. There are far fewer electric cars than ICE cars now, and this will be the situation for quite a few years EVEN IF THE INDUSTRY DISRUPTS and production rapidly changes to EV's, it will take many years to "flush" ICEs from the fleet. And, road-trip charging will never be but a small fraction of the total EV charging problem. Most of the electric energy used by EVs will be charged in the garage at home.

     

    All this means that the EV road-trip charging network will ALWAYS be much "thinner" than the network of gas stations, and that achieving utilization of the network - to make the economics work - while putting up enough stations to cover the service area will be the controlling problem. It follows that whoever gets there first, effectively gets the monopoly.

     

    Tesla (and Tesla's long-range EV technology) has a profound advantage BECAUSE with a long range EV, the areas to be served (North America, Europe, Asia) can be "covered" with relatively few SuperCharger stations. Tesla is getting there first with the high-end (long range) product and SuperCharging network. If they can attract even modest partner participation they will reach both economic viability and effective coverage with SuperChargers. Once this happens, the remaining market will be left to lower cost providers servicing shorter range, lower cost EVs. This "low-end" market looks to simultaneously have a high build-out CapEx requirement (many more stations needed for coverage due to shorter vehicle range) and poorer margins because it services the fundamentally more cost conscious, lower margin segment of the market.

     

    The CHAdeMO approach aims to serve both long and short range EVs and is a strategy that depends on building a lot of stations that are irrelevant to the long-range road-trip problem. It is hard to see how this system can be build-out to deliver coverage competitive to SuperChargers without comparatively enormous CapEx, and even then is probably going to be stuck (saddled) with a lot of low-end, short-range EV users that require more resources per vehicle (because short range vehicles spend more time on the charger per mile driven) and are less able than long-range, high-end vehicles to support an up-front price increment and thus the build-out CapEx for the network.

     

    If SuperChargers are the "best" long-range EV road-trip solution, and available for $2,000 per car (end user price), then what high-end, long-range EV maker is going to shackle their premium EV to some second rate recharging solution? Right now, CAHdeMO chargers have NO long-range vehicles to service, only short-range EVs. Nobody is talking about the latest road trip across America or Europe completed by CAHdeMO charged cars in record time.

     

    It will be very interesting to watch the degree to which Tesla can attract other manufacturers' high-end, long range EVs to their SuperCharger network.
    16 Jun 2014, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Randy,

     

    Re: "Right now, CAHdeMO chargers have NO long-range vehicles to service, only short-range EVs."

     

    Right, but what about 2017? Assuming Nissan's Andy Palmer is right, there will be other long range EVs on the market in 2017 aside from the Gen3 from Tesla. This would be the next Gen Leaf and the Infiniti EV, plus possibly other manufacturers.

     

    Given that Nissan partnered before to create the ChaDeMo standard and has built its own version of a SuperCharger for Japanese customers, I'm saying they very well could decide to build their network.

     

    It all depends on the business side. Especially now that the IP portfolio from Tesla is wide open. $2000 per car is not cheap, it provides a huge margin of profit. I'm saying competitors can undercut it and still make lots of money for themselves.

     

    My arguments do depend on a couple of assumptions:
    1. Tesla won't charge royalties or fees for using parts of its IP. I basing this on Musk's word they won't.
    2. Andy Palmer of Nissan is right about Nissan pursuing long range EVs.
    3. BEVs actually do become a viable market segment, as big as hybrids, for example.
    16 Jun 2014, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (3476) | Send Message
     
    Tom,

     

    It boils down to the relation between coverage and utilization. Yes, Nissan, or any number of companies can stand-up high power charging networks, but if they cannot attract a lot of LONG RANGE EVs to use their network, they will be unable to achieve both good coverage and good profitability.

     

    The analysis I did earlier found that Tesla does end up making a ton of money on SuperChargers in the North American market. This analysis depends however on very large volumes of long range EVs - 5 million/year in just the N.A. market - or ~30% of total vehicle sales (and even with deliberate over-building of chargers in relation to utilization it sees only 4k - 5k chargers in N.A. by 2024)! There is NO WAY any single manufacturer is going to push out those kinds of long range EV numbers in N.A. in the next 10 years. Total N.A. long range EV sales may go this high, but not from any single manufacturer.

     

    CHAdeMO is a "kludge" that tries to be all things to all EVs. This system (just look at their plug) aims to service both long-range EVs with high rate charging requirements and short range EVs with slow charging needs. This means that a lot of their charging infrastructure will be located in the "wrong places" to serve long range EV road trips and it will be clogged with a lot of short range EVs getting slow charged. The per-vehicle "cost/price" will necessarily have to be low to address low-end EVs, or they will be forced out of the one-time up-front business model. Either way, this approach is dead meat compared to SuperChargers IF Tesla can get other long range EV makers onboard.
    16 Jun 2014, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    I think this is just more PR. The idea that Tesla is the only company that knows how to make an EV belies the fact the the competition already is at least up to Tesla's technology.
    Nissan has built three battery factories and knows how to build their own cells. They also have an autonomous car running around Japan. Their Leaf has sold over 100,000 cars.
    BMW has developed two EV/ICE vehicles. The i3 designed as a city car for commuters and the i8, a sports car with S type performance. Both cars utilize carbon fiber structures for weight reduction.
    Toyota not only leads with 11 million Prius sales,but they are also developing Fuel Cells and a solid state battery design.
    Do you really think they can't wait to get Tesla's technology?
    12 Jun 2014, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4966) | Send Message
     
    So why are they still selling range limited econo boxes.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1986) | Send Message
     
    @doubleE,
    It's not practical to build long range EV-only cars. Mass market doesn't want drivetrain replacements every 10K miles and tire replacement every 15K miles. They prefer an affordable and reliable commute solution.

     

    There are some very compelling EV cars coming to US this year, like Kia Soul, Volkswagen e-golf (which captured Norway last month) etc. No one seems to need the 10 year stale patents that Tesla holds.

     

    http://bit.ly/1xPkqwv
    12 Jun 2014, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (852) | Send Message
     
    Frank,

     

    Wow! The more expensive 2-seat, 2-door sports car weighing 1/2 the weight of a model S, has performance that approaches the bigger, heavier, and cheaper model S!

     

    Last I checked that's a sign of being behind in the drivetrain tech. Something that BMW of all companies shouldn't be proud of.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    They are selling these "range limited econo boxes" because that is what the public wants. You can buy three Leafs or two i3s for the price of a MS.
    If your commute is less than 80 miles round trip why spend the extra money. If you need a car for a trip BMW will lend you one.
    12 Jun 2014, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    The design of an electric drive for the front wheels and an ICE driving the rear wheels. Something never done before. The carbon fiber design makes it lighter enabling it to match the S with a lighter battery.
    The reality is that BMW is not only committed to EV designs, they have turned out two different designs already. My BMW dealer just sent me an invitation to drive the new i3. So their production line is in full swing. What will the Gen III add.
    BMW 2 cars i3 and i8 Tesla 2 cars Roadster, MS.
    Will the MX beat the i5?
    12 Jun 2014, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (1304) | Send Message
     
    Frank,

     

    "range limited econo boxes" are NOT what the public wants. They are what Big Auto wants to sell as the only type of electric car that you can buy. They DON'T threaten the existing ICE cars because of the very limited range or performance, but they DO gain a useful number of zero emission credits or allow the manufacturer to comply with the current average emission regulations. Hence "compliance car".

     

    What the average Joe Public wants is a car that behaves just like any other car. A car that is equally at home doing the rounds of the city or visiting friends and relatives a few hundred miles away.

     

    In the realm of EVs only Tesla is currently offering that car.

     

    BMW's i3 and i8 are hybrids, NOT EVs. They still depend on gas for any long distance driving. In the case of the i3 you would need to stop for gas, not electricity, every 60 or 70 miles on a long journey. The i8 can travel farther (up to 300 miles at reasonable speeds, but certainly not at 155 MPH), but for any distance above a few miles it is essentially a gas car.

     

    The i3 is a hobbled EV and a hobbled gas car all in one. Do you really want to pull into a gas station once an hour on a long journey?

     

    The i8 is a sports car, admittedly with a higher top speed than any of Tesla's offerings, but that top speed can only be used legally on very few roads worldwide or on a race track. In every other respect the unnecessarily complicated i8 is inferior to Tesla's six year old Roadster. Even the first Roadsters had a zero to sixty time of 3.9 seconds, the later versions hit 3.7 seconds.

     

    BMW is committed to maintaining the status quo with their Big Oil buddies. Hybrids like these are not the way forward.
    13 Jun 2014, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    John, first of all there are a number of two car families, where one car commutes and the other goes shopping or on trips. The Leaf or i3 are perfect for that. No one is going to spend $100,000 to commute 60 miles a day.
    The i8 demonstrates the car that will satisfy the German sports car fan. Fast, beautiful, long range, EV pickup, and braking. Great compromise.
    The answer to long range is a large battery pack or an additional ICE to charge the battery or drive directly. The i8 chose the latter.
    BMW is committed to furthering EV car design. First to use carbon fiber body, increasing range. The dealer just sent me an email offering to demo the i3, your paranoid if you think BMW is buddies with big oil. You know very little about the Quandt family.
    14 Jun 2014, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Miro Kefurt
    , contributor
    Comments (886) | Send Message
     
    It only shows the true value of all those TESLA patents = "worthless" !!!
    12 Jun 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • wrynot
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    This is tacit admission that TSLA does not have the capital to burn for years to achieve the mass market critical mass they need to get bigger/sooner acceptance for EV. He is therefor inviting the rest of the industry to do that favor for him, in the hopes that they will carry him over the hump, and solve problems like getting giga factories built and having charging stations on every corner. He thinks if he can get them to do that, when the dust settles he will sell more cars, while giving up market share he never would have been able to achieve anyway because he doesn't have unlimited capital or the ability to displace an entire entrenched industry in the next 5 years.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    I am not and never was short Tesla stock. My total stock holdings are in Apple which, sort of like some Tesla longs, I originally bought at $16 in 1997 when Jobs returned. I am really just an observer with Tesla.
    However this story is really an interesting one to follow. My take is that Musk will be full time at Space X in four years, I don't think anyone knows where Tesla will be at that time.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    In 4 years the $35k model Gen III will be unveiled and selling like hotcakes.

     

    There will be several giga-factories in place and the US will be covered with supercharging stations.

     

    How much do you want to bet on that?
    12 Jun 2014, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Frank won't bet on TSLA stock but her sure loves to talk about it.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (3211) | Send Message
     
    I see this instead as a defensive measure to the hydrogen threat as evidenced by Hyundai and Toyota's strong statements that HFCs are the future.
    12 Jun 2014, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • MaxRen
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Another way to view this is to start to understand that Tesla is more in the battery business than the car manufacturing business. Give away the patents and you'll have more cars on the road comptabile with your Supercharger network and more car manufacturers in needs of new batteries to ramp up their limited production. (Other manufacturers will face the same problem as Tesla if they are successful with their EVs).
    Tesla clearly sees that nobody else (and especially no carmakers) will have the guts to invest and build Gigafactories. However yet these are hundreds of Gigafactories that will be needed and if industry is using the same open source technology Tesla Gigafactories will be better suited to serve them.
    Why do you think they break ground in 3 sites? Because way more than 3 Gigafactories are needed.

     

    Musk decided to build reusable rockets because this was the cheapest way to Mars. In the same way Gigafactories + Open source techno is the cheapest way to EV adoption. So Tesla will lead and specialize in what others can't achieve. In particular: cheap batteries.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5266) | Send Message
     
    @MaxRen.

     

    Cheap batteries are the future. That is the only way the industry can move forward.
    12 Jun 2014, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Captain Pike
    , contributor
    Comments (890) | Send Message
     
    @ max, my thoughts exactly, he wants a market for his big investment. Gillette.
    12 Jun 2014, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Obviously you haven't test driven a Model S to see just how awesome it is.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    I guess Nissan doesn't call their three battery factories Giga.
    12 Jun 2014, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • out for now
    , contributor
    Comments (2941) | Send Message
     
    As someone who is currently long on Tesla I find the move very disturbing, and his reasons for the move - to combat global warming - almost pathetic. He has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and if his main reason for doing this is not related to his core business, let the-class action lawsuits begin. It's hard for me to see this action as legal, let alone wise.
    12 Jun 2014, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • tomfrompv
    , contributor
    Comments (7314) | Send Message
     
    Yep, I thought the same thing with the CO2 nonsense. Why Musk included it seems to be PT Barnum than engineer.
    13 Jun 2014, 02:32 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (5704) | Send Message
     
    "It's hard for me to see this action as legal, let alone wise."

     

    Notice the key phrase in Elon's blog: others can use Tesla's technology "in good faith."
    http://bit.ly/SFQbqU
    13 Jun 2014, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    The stock is up big today. Stop crying and sell your shares if you don't like it.

     

    Better yet, go short.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • out for now
    , contributor
    Comments (2941) | Send Message
     
    With some reluctance I sold all my tesla shares about 5 minutes ago. My main concern is if the stock goes down, the class-action law suits will start coming and that will drop the stock down further, etc. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. I'll buy back in later after all this plays out, when I think the threat of law suits is past.

     

    I still believe Tesla is going to be the market leader, I'm just averse to the short-term risk. I've loved Tesla for a long time, loved the business plan, love them having the best luxury car, soon to have the best SUV (which I think will sell even better), like the gigafactory, and of course if he can pull off the Gen3, that would be extraordinary.

     

    I just don't like the unnecessary injection of risk at this stage. If he wanted to be generous he could have announced he was offering the patents at bargain prices, it would have accomplished the same thing and added to Tesla's EPS. The fact that he's giving them away means he's defined them to be worthless - and I have to wonder how many analysts are going to be happy with that. If one big analyst downgrades and the price goes down then the law suits will surely come. We've all seen this a million times before. So in my view Musk says he is doing this to avoid lawsuits, and instead he has likely created a large risk (for no apparent benefit) out of thin air.

     

    If you want to stimulate a market, build a great product that is so compelling that customers line up to buy it as fast as you can make it. That is what Apple did. That's what I thought Tesla was doing. Now I'm not so sure just what Tesla is doing. So I'm out, for the time being. Good luck to all the longs who choose to stick it out, though.
    13 Jun 2014, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    You're not already aware that there is a waiting list to get the Model S and X?

     

    They built the product and the buyers are lined up. He's trying to get the market to change and move away from ICE or he's trying to show that the ICE players don't really want to go in the direction of EV. We're about to find out. Truthfully, I live right by GM and I don't believe for 2 seconds they want to stray away from ICE at all.
    16 Jun 2014, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (4562) | Send Message
     
    The patents are worthless. No one can name or describe one patent that other vendors can use. They all are about batteries and charging he 18650 Panasonic batteries.
    14 Jun 2014, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Luciilius
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    What justify the tesla market cap today:
    1) It is more battery business than cars.
    Well it doesn't produce any battery right now, Musk publicly admits he has no clue how to do it, but of course he will do it from scratch better than anyone. 20 B worth leap of faith.
    2) it is the the supercharger business more than car.
    Well it is not clear why this should be worth 20 B since all patent are for free, and anyone can build one.

     

    3) it is about execution
    he can better execute what? Manufacturing a car when today there are company like magna that can manufactures the car you want, Assembly batteries? Without any patent protection this will be done by company like foxcomm w/o any problems and much cheeper.

     

    4) it is more an internet than a car company.
    I got it now!

     

    14 Jun 2014, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (1072) | Send Message
     
    It seems with the sound of his post that Luciilius doesn't believe that Elon can pull it off when he speaks about the gigga factories he will build, but build them he will and I think he knows it, and he also knows that Elon will do it well.
    What gets me is that his post sounds very doubtful, but at the same time he says Elon will do a good job. What's missing in his post is a tone of believe-ability, and if were to read it you would say Luciilius is shorting the stock, so we can understand that disappointing tone in his post.
    15 Jun 2014, 10:42 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs