Just to set the record straight with the good folks in the blogosphere:

The silly headline of the NY Times pontification says Tesla shouldn’t get a low-interest loan from the Department of Energy because “only the rich can afford it.” Afford what? The loan would NOT fund anything having to do with the $109,000 Roadster but with future generations of more affordable sedans and a powertrain facility to make battery packs and other components for other automakers, who will also use them for affordable sedans.

The columnist says Tesla’s technology “remains woefully immature” and the Roadster is “not much more than a functioning concept car.” Absolutely untrue, as anyone who has test-driven or owned one attests — it’s a viable production vehicle that competes on fit and finish, performance and handling with vastly more expensive cars. We have delivered nearly 100 to customers already and are increasing production starts to 30 per week in 2009.

Most worrisome: Stross pontificates about Silicon Valley all the time for what is arguably world’s most influential newspaper, yet he doesn’t grok something that will ring true with the most rudimentary students of technology: R&D and early-adopter technology is relatively expensive. Whether it’s a cell phone (even the iPhone from Stross’ beloved Apple) or photovoltaic panels, the first owners pay the most. But the technology inevitably becomes affordable within several product cycles, whether on the timeframe of Moore’s law or (in the case of battery capacity) at the fair clip of 8 percent per year. Given the Model S (base price expected at $57,500) and the Bluestar project (all-electric, zero-emission subcompact for $30,000), why did his rant focus on the Roadster, which isn’t part of the loan application proposal? Makes no sense.

Finally, the columnist does readers a gross disservice by utterly failing to grasp the difference between the Detroit Three’s “bailout” and what was originally a progressive and well intentioned program to encourage fuel-efficient vehicles. In fact, the columnist calls Tesla’s loan application the “Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act” — again, catchy but dead wrong. The loan wouldn’t be used for the Roadster or ongoing operations. Our blog clarifying the distinction (published before the article and sent to Stross, who apparently didn’t read it):

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=66

One of the most thorough (and hilarious) refutations of the article if you need further clarification:

http://calacanis.com/2008/12/01/on-bailouts-and-sports-car/

Thanks for listening. FWIW, I’m all for spirited debate about public policy, but it should be based on facts, not catchy buzz words and misinformation. Blog on!

Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors, Inc.

Tesla is asking for a loan to help develop and put their technology into higher volume, lower cost vehicles.

Even at today’s prices, LiIon is cost effective from a total cost of ownership basis. If you take the cost of a LiIon battery pack over the expected total mileage of the car, add that to the cost of electricity for those miles, you still end up paying less to drive that car, and replace the battery pack, than you would paying for engine wear and gasoline.

http://blog.vanno.com/index.php/2008/11/23/tesla-gm-and-a-national-cto/