2023 Tesla Model 3 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bosch, Daimler say Tesla's Supercharger strategy a disservice to EVs

Here's a classic pot-kettle-black story. Daimler, which has a partnership with Tesla, is calling the EV automaker out for its Supercharger stations that - at this point - only work with Tesla vehicles. Daimler, along with supplier Bosch, is saying that there should be compatible standards in the EV industry. Tesla has big plans to install Supercharger throughout Germany (and Europe), but Daimler isn't singing praises. Daimler's research and design chief, Thomas Weber told Automobilwoche that, "The future [of an electric charging infrastructure] lies in standardization. As with gas stations, we need a charging system for all manufacturers, not least because it reduces the cost of the infrastructure, but it is also more convenient for customers." That's true as far as it goes. The irony here, of course, is that Daimler and its partners chose to develop a new DC fast charging system, the SAE Combo system, despite the fact that another standard (CHAdeMO) was already widely available. The SAE Combo team said when the technology was unveiled that it, "will optimize customer ease of use and will accelerate more affordable deployment of electrified vehicles and charging infrastructure," even though there are thousands of CHAdeMO stations in operation today and only a handful of SAE units.

Tesla curbs forecast due to Model S issues, losses total $864.9M

It ain't easy creating a brand-new automaker from scratch. The fact that Elon Musk and Tesla have actually been able to bring not one, but two cars to market is in itself quite impressive. That said, the road has not been without its bumps, and Tesla is feeling some of the setbacks that come with being a fledgling automaker.
To that end, Tesla has revealed that it expects $400 million to $440 million in full-year revenue, or roughly $160 million less than its prior 2012 revenue forecasts. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday, the electric carmaker said "We have methodically increased our Model S production at a slower rate than we had earlier anticipated," leading to the company figuring they'll fall short of the $560 million to $600 million they originally forecasted. Tesla also revealed a net cumulative loss of $864.9 million through June 30 of this year - Tesla has yet to break even as an automaking entity, but it remains something of a startup, so the fact that it has lost money to this point shouldn't be a major surprise - building cars is expensive, and learning how to do so is even more expensive. Following the disclosure, Tesla shares fell about 8.5 percent this morning in trading.
Tesla cites delays in suppliers for its Model S production shortcomings. The California automaker says it is working with suppliers to speed up deliveries and internally, it is adding shifts and automation to its manufacturing processes. With little more than half of the 5,000-vehicle target expected to be built by year's end, Tesla says it is four to five weeks behind its delivery goals.

NHTSA denies Tesla asked for Model S fire probe

The Tesla Model S is being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after three of the models caught fire; two of the electric cars impacted debris on the road, and one was involved in a single-car accident. This much we know for sure. Just exactly how the investigation came to be, though, is up for debate.
According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the California-based automaker requested that the government safety agency open the investigation, saying in a blog post, "We have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents. While we think it is highly unlikely, if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars."
Not so fast, counters NHTSA head David Strickland. Speaking to The Detroit News, Strickland had this to say: "Investigations are independent... We have never ... actually had an automaker ask for a formal investigation, but it causes a couple of implications: If a manufacturer asks me or asks the agency for a formal investigation, you've already made a determination that you may have a defect that imposes an unreasonable risk to safety. ... I don't think that would ever happen."