Jump to content

Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sevrandy (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 9 February 2014 (→Business Strategy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Classification EV or EVM?

Would tesla be classified as an EV or EMV? The manufacturing process divulges the fact that they have specialized electro-magnetic motors and equipment. I think maybe its an Electro-magnetic hybrid vehicle. If it were an electric vehicle it wouldn't have a magnetized motor that recharges or spins via magnetic links. The motor would just have magnetic senses for alignment like any ordinary electric motor. Murriemir 24 January 2012

Every electric vehicle must use an electric motors. Every electric motor uses electro-magnetic fields. This includes even the exotic, impractical drives such as linear motors, mass drivers and ion thrusters. There is no distinction between EV and EMV.  Stepho  talk  00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is fundamental physics, not some sekrit device they have created. Greglocock (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chargers

The article says they 'build electric cars and electric vehicle powertrain components', but don't they also build their own chargers. Or does some other company provide them? The Super Chargers seem to be Level 3 chargers, and are supposed to be free for Tesla owners, but did they build and design them themselves? (Floppydog66 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Merger proposal

The BlueStar article is too short and there are not enough details for this concept vehicle yet. It does not even have an official name (except for the code name), it is only a concept vehicle that is not even finished and shown to the public yet. BlueStar should not have its own page until it has an official name and more details (I would assume it would be in 2015). Currently, the article is only one paragraph and cannot really be expanded, but the details could be merged into this article. Most of the known details seem to already be in this article, so it is also kind of redundant. It would be updated more frequently on this page anyway. When the car is actually named and details are given, a new article could be created for it. Sevrandy (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Tesla Motors page, BlueStar can be under "Future models" or under its on heading, in that area. Sevrandy (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to OPPOSE the proposed merger. Rationale: the Tesla BlueStar article is sourced with over a dozen sources, which seem to show both notability and verifiability as a proposed electric automobile. Wikipedia standards being what they are, that is more than sufficient for an independent and separate article in the WP article space. Heck, we have articles on garage bands with nary a source, and they are very hard to successfully AfD if they have even two sources from a local newspaper; so Tesla BlueStar makes the WP cut. Moreover, the existing article contains too much material to merge into the Tesla Motors article without undue emphasis in that broader article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the merge too. Yes, there are shorter articles in wikipedia about garage bands. The difference here is, that this relates to full fledged article that's mentioning BlueStar project as part of their future portfolio. This separate article is just few lines richer. As Gg53000 said, when the project will near it's production there will be more information available and the the article could be worth of a separate article. Aasami 09:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Products section

Under products, I do not think that Model X should not be listed, as it is not in production yet. The company does have reservations for it though. It will be almost a year for deliveries to begin. Should Model X be removed?

Well, it is certainly not a current product as far as manufacturing goes. But it is, apparently (per sources) an existing product as far as product orders go. So it is fair to cover it in the article, as long as sources are provided to support all claims. But we should not indicate that it is (yet) in production; only that orders are being taken for a model that has been disclosed at auto show events, is late in design, and is early in production line fit out, etc. in the factory. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model E

A model e section should be added as there are rumors for this car to be for "everyone" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.194.202.66 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need solid, reliable references, not rumours.  Stepho  talk  05:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk calls it the Model E at 8.18 in the youtube video https://plus.google.com/117039636053462680924/posts
Oops, wrong url. it should have been http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1HEA_2erc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.236.231 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not review the youtube link given; but I do recall sometime in the past year or two where Musk joked about a model E, and did so in the context of the auto industry folks potentially putting the various Tesla model designators together, as if the letters were an anagram. So it is possible that is merely a joke, for some publicity, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why past tense?

Especially in the Supercharger section, so much of the text is written in the past tense, giving the impression that the plans discussed were abandoned or heavily revised. Suggest change of instances of 'were' to 'is planned'.

Number of employees

We have references giving different numbers of employees:

  1. 2,000+ http://www.teslamotors.com/about 'Employees: 2,000+'
  2. 2,964 http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9144882-11733-102700&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-13-096241 'As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately 2,964 full-time employees'
  3. 6000 http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/2895786596x0x720221/5647bed2-1c27-4b40-abd3-dd11f8bc474e/Investor%20Presentation%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf page 5 'Employees: ≈6,000'

Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be cleaned up. And it is a great illustration of why bare URLs are so bad when used a references instead of {{full}} citations, leading to {{linkrot}}. Assuming the various numbers were correct at the time these various sources were referenced in the article, it is also a great illustration of why encylopedic prose should often have a {{when}} question answered in the prose. The second of the two examples does this; so assuming the citation is made to be a full citation, then that employee count might be a useful addition to the History section of the article, showing growth over time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third link is to a presentation which says January 2014 on page 1. But I find it hard to see a jump from 3000 employees to 6000 empoylees in one year. Not impossible during a time of great expansion but would still a mighty jump. And it does gel with the first link to the official webiste which says 2000+. Possibly the official website hasn't been updated for a while. Possibly one is counting full-time factory staff only and the other is counting part-time staff and dealer staff as well.  Stepho  talk  00:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your thought makes some sense. Certainly Tesla has found it necessary to rather significantly increase their marketing and sales force to open all the company-owned Tesla stores, and folks to support the raplidly growing Supercharger network. But in any case, we just need to find good reliable sources and get the article written consistently with those sources, both for the historical claims, and for the current company employment. N2e (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate battery supply in the battery production market

Should this sort of information possibly be reflected in the article Tesla Considers Building The World's Biggest Lithium-Ion Battery Factory? Seems that it is adversely affecting 4Q2013 production of Tesla's. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business Strategy

I haven't really made major edits before, I actually never cited a source before (hope I did it right, is the "ref name" required?). I plan to add some more to the Business Strategy section and fix it up tomorrow (going to bed now). I will try to make it more "Wikipedia proper." What are your recommendations? Please tell me what you think about how to improve the section so I can try to find my mistakes, how to improve it more, and what your ideas are.

Some things I think I need to do: include more sources, make it flow better, split it into two or more paragraphs, and add more details. I am very familiar with Tesla Motors and EVs, so I need to make sure I cite sources where needed, even though I know much of this without looking it up. I was wondering, would the Tesla Motors locations page be a good source to cite for the number of states with store/gallery locations? Or would I even need to cite that? That is what I checked for the current store locations number.

Please let me know of any thoughts you have on the section, thanks Sevrandy (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&oldid=594614980"