Tesla moving HQ, building powertrain plant in Palo Alto
Tesla has announced that it's moving from its current digs in San Carlos, CA a few miles down the road to Palo Alto. The EV start-up will take over a three-building complex in the Stanford Research Park formerly occupied by Silicon Valley pioneers Hewlett-Packard and its spin-off Agilent Technologies. The buildings will be renovated to house Tesla's offices, engineering and research staff along with a new powertrain manufacturing facility. At first, the facility will have 350 employees but that may eventually grow to 650.
This is the second time that Tesla has planned to move from its original offices. A year ago a similar plan to move to San Jose was canceled as the worldwide financial crisis took hold and funding became impossible. Now that Tesla has access to low-cost loans from the Department of Energy ATVM program, the new plan can move forward.
Tesla is still negotiating on another site somewhere in California that will house the assembly facility for the Model S.
Gallery: First Drive: Tesla Roadster
[Source: Tesla]
PRESS RELEASE:
August 18, 2009
Tesla to open power train facility in Palo Alto, California
Leading electric vehicle maker will also move corporate headquarters to Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto
PALO ALTO, Calif. – The City of Palo Alto and Tesla Motors announced today that Tesla will develop and manufacture electric vehicle components in a renovated building in the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto.
Tesla, the only automaker that is already producing and selling highway-capable electric vehicles, will lease a 369,000-square-foot facility on a 23-acre parcel at 3500 Deer Creek Road. The facility will supply all-electric powertrain solutions to Tesla Motors vehicles and other automakers, greatly accelerating the availability of mass-market EVs.
The world's premier EV manufacturer will also move its corporate headquarters from San Carlos to this site. Roughly 350 employees will work in Palo Alto initially, with space for up to 650 people.
Tesla's lease of this three-building complex is a creative, adaptive reuse and modernization of a manufacturing facility formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies. The historic area is minutes away from Stanford's main campus and from the garage in Palo Alto where Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard built their original audio oscillator.
"Silicon Valley and the Stanford Research Park are synonymous with innovation and entrepreneurship," said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. "It's an ideal place for a new car company trying to rethink many aspects of the traditional automotive business."
"Our city is a leader in promoting sustainability and has a strong commitment to green technology. Therefore we're extremely pleased to welcome Tesla to Palo Alto," said James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager. "Stanford, its Research Park, and Palo Alto have always been at the forefront of new technological discoveries and inventions, as well as fostering practices and ideas that increase environmental sustainability. Tesla's move is another indicator that Palo Alto is the place to be for the green tech and alternative energy companies that will help solve the daunting global environmental challenges of the 21st century."
Tesla sells power train components to other automakers so they can get affordable EVs to customers faster. Tesla is already producing EV components for Germany's Daimler, maker of Mercedes. The company will build the highly anticipated electric version of the Smart city car using Tesla battery packs and chargers.
Tesla, which achieved overall corporate profitability in July thanks to the popularity of the Roadster sports car, expects to announce other powertrain deals in the upcoming months. Tesla has already delivered nearly 700 Roadsters to customers.
"Tesla is rapidly recruiting new employees, and this fabulous working environment and proximity to Stanford University will give us excellent access to top engineering talent," said JB Straubel, Tesla's Chief Technology Officer and leader of the powertrain group. Straubel received a bachelor's degree in energy systems engineering and a master's in energy engineering, both from Stanford.
Tesla is in site negotiations for an assembly plant for the all-electric Model S. The sedan will be produced at a separate assembly plant in California -- not at the Palo Alto site.
Tesla will renovate the Deer Creek Road facility to the highest environmental standards, incorporating sustainable building practices certified by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. Construction is expected to begin in early fall. Tesla is planning to relocate employees from its offices in San Carlos in several phases over the upcoming months.
Financing will come in part from loans from the U.S. Department of Energy. In June, Tesla received approval for about $465 million in low-interest loans to accelerate the production of affordable, fuel-efficient electric vehicles.
The loans are part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Program, which provides incentives to new and established automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. Created in 2007, the $25 billion ATVM aims to reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil and create "green collar" jobs. The program is entirely unrelated to the stimulus package or the so-called "bailout" funds that General Motors and Chrysler have received.
About Tesla
Tesla Motors is the only automaker that is already manufacturing and selling highway-capable electric vehicles. Tesla, which achieved overall corporate profitability last month, has delivered nearly 700 Roadsters to customers so far. The company's goal is to produce increasingly affordable cars to mainstream buyers – relentlessly driving down the cost of EV technology. Tesla also sells patented powertrain components to other automakers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Nick P. 12:11PM (8/18/2009)
Wow! Beside HP, Palo Alto is known as the home of Xerox PARC, where the graphical user interface and the notebook were invented and the modern mouse was perfected.
As electric cars become more and more like computers, having access to top Stanford graduates will be a great advantage.
Hope they make history in this new building.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:21PM (8/18/2009)
Electric cars will never be any more like computers than they are today. They already are controlled by computer, and you won't be seeing electric motors or suspension components made from silicon wafers any time soon.
why not the LS2LS7? 12:37PM (8/18/2009)
I take it back, over time they probably will get more and more like computers in one way. They'll probably all be made in China.
Nick P. 12:39PM (8/18/2009)
Lithium batteries, electric motors, upgradable firmware, on-board GPS and WiFi/Bluetooth connectivity, programmable power train optimized for longer battery life, sales model based on Apple's retail stores, direct purchase and reservation on the Web, programmable integrated "glass cockpit" instrument panels, etc....
Tesla cars *are* moving computers.
Tesla is out to prove that tech people can do what the traditional auto industry has said was impossible. So far, they are beating the odds and they have the backing of most people in the tech industry.
Dave 4:03PM (8/18/2009)
"Tesla is out to prove that tech people can do what the traditional auto industry has said was impossible."
So far, Tesla has proven them right. Tesla has shown that even a tiny two seater with no storage and a paltry 200 mile range is prohibitively expensive.
Tesla has not built an affordable EV; they have built a toy for the rich.
I have no problem with companies that build toys for the rich - I think thats great. But lets not pretend that Tesla is building a sensible alternative.
JayHmmy 9:11PM (8/18/2009)
It's comments like Dave's that I would love to frame if I could. Forget the fact that Tesla has done something extraordinary in building a 200 mile range pure electric car that is a pleasure to drive. No one ever doubted for one second that it could be done, right? Forget the plans that are out there for a four door sedan that would be closer to mainstream (but NOT cheap enough and therefore invalidated, as some would say.) I'm willing to bet against Dave because, so far, Tesla done 92/% of what they said they were going to do. And with a government investing in green technology, I have no reason to doubt them.
Dave 10:48PM (8/18/2009)
"Forget the fact that Tesla has done something extraordinary in building a 200 mile range pure electric car that is a pleasure to drive."
They didn't build the car. Lotus did. Tesla built / assembled the drivetrain and auxiliary systems.
"No one ever doubted for one second that it could be done, right? "
Almost no one. GM built a similar EV with a 200 mile range over a decade ago. They scrapped the program because it was too expensive. Battery technology has advanced considerably in the ensuing years, so it is no surprise that GM's accomplishment could be equalled. But it remains expensive.
"Forget the plans that are out there for a four door sedan that would be closer to mainstream (but NOT cheap enough and therefore invalidated, as some would say.)"
Invalidated? Your comment is meaningless.
"I'm willing to bet against Dave because, so far, Tesla done 92/% of what they said they were going to do. And with a government investing in green technology, I have no reason to doubt them."
Bet against what? It is no surprise to me that Tesla has done most of what they said they would - see above.
The Tesla Roadster continues to be a toy for the rich. It is still not a viable mainstream alternative.
And nothing you have said shows otherwise.
If GM had built the Tesla Roadster and sold it for $100,000+, they would have gotten nothing but grief for it.
Tesla is doing a fine job of selling expensive toys. And their greenwashed marketing scheme is ingenious. I commend them for it.
Evan 12:14PM (8/18/2009)
A manufacturing plant in an area known for it's exorbitant cost of living?
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:20PM (8/18/2009)
They should have just relocated it to Midtown Manhattan instead. Why pussy-foot around?
Reply
Mike Z 12:48PM (8/18/2009)
I think that despite the innovative nature of Tesla, their myopic desire to operate out of CA; the failure home of there founders and investors. After all if you're barely profitable what is the advantage of operating out of a area with massive cost of living, high taxes, and a silicon valley culture that embraces vaperware and rushing underdeveloped product to market? A car is not a new computer, for most a car is there first or second most expensive possession.
After all, dispute the technology involved the engineering culture required for a car (a highly capital intensive, low margin product with long life) is vastly different that the that of the area's other companies.
Honestly, this reminds me of reading about United Airlines moving there HQ into the Sears Tower. It seems a poor move for a company when the finances are great.
Seriously, what's wrong with other high-tech areas, such as Austin?
Reply
Nick P. 12:59PM (8/18/2009)
Silicon Valley has a concentration of tech talent that is yet to be matched in the world. This is fueled by the presence of the top tech/biotech/greentech venture capitalists (Kleiner/Perkins, etc.). The mix of talent & money has made Google, Apple, HP and countless others.
Others have tried to artificially recreate Silicon Valley elsewhere (Canada, France, England, etc) using government money and top-notch universities. Most have failed. Those who have succeeded have targeted niche sectors like games (Vancouver B.C, Austin, etc.) and biotech.
Silicon Valley is like Hollywood: to make it at the highest level, you need to move there. Quality of life matters too. Tokyo is *extremely* expensive, yet it doesn't keep companies from relocating their HQ there either.
Mike Z 1:09PM (8/18/2009)
Name one product you purchased from a silicone valley based company that you still use after more than five years of owning it?
Nick P. 1:42PM (8/18/2009)
Mike, you're talking to the wrong guy ;)
1) I still have my 2002 Apple PowerPC tower with OS-X. Still running strong with 10.4 after 7 years of service. None of my PCs have lasted that long.
2) I still have my 2004 iPod 3G *iPod* (with monochrome display). Still love it and use it everyday.
3) I use a 2001 Avid/Digidesign Digi001 audio/midi interface. Runs fantastic, build like a tank. Even with a newer 003 unit, I still use that one for additional tracking.
-------
I'll spare you the rest, but even when I buy newer gear I keep using things until they can run no more. I have friends with 20-year old HP calculators. Fashions aside, Silicon Valley doesn't automatically means 12-months life cycle.
If Tesla builds cars like Apple builds Macs (specially the all metal towers and Unibody laptops) and Avid/Digidesign builds audio interface, my future Model S should last me a good 8-10 years.
polo 1:27PM (8/18/2009)
"Name one product you purchased from a silicone valley based company that you still use after more than five years of owning it?"
Hitech gear advances by leaps and bounds, and most move on to the next generation not because their old device broke down, but because they want the expanded features of the new version. So you replace all you tech gear every 5 years...what does that say about Silicone Valley's innovation that you feel compelled to?
Imagine what that innovative talent will do for a company like Tesla.
When they roll out a 400mile range Model T Sedan for $22,000 what will you say then? "SHAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAP!!!!!!"?
Reply
Knuckles 1:41PM (8/18/2009)
"When they roll out a 400mile range Model T Sedan for $22,000 what will you say then?"
I'll say the US economy has imploded and the average yearly income is $3,200.
Reply
Larzen 8:35PM (8/18/2009)
Stanford is the home of the scientists who developed the Lithion nanowire battery.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
Duh....
Reply
Stan Peterson 5:20PM (8/18/2009)
Dave,
Right On!
The facility they are moving into is an office complex. Tesla doesn't an isn't capable of building anything,except great PR. Lotus builds the Tesla for them. Tesla proved incapable of designing even a simple reduction gear that they called a "transmission".
When Dodge "builds" the Circuit, they will duplicate the Tesla effort with a better battery, and twice the car for half the price. Or more correctly Lotus will construct the Dodge-Lotus "Circuit" roadster just like it does for the Tesla-Lotus roadster save for the drive-train. They will ship those to Dodge, just like they do to Tesla. In a garage shop operation, both will bolt in the electric motor and battery pack.into their kit-cars. No different that hot rod kit car builders have been doing since time immemorial.
Tesla owners will likely ride off into the sunset with 3/4 of a Billion dollars of Taxpayer money from the green loonies that Clueless has put in charge. Leaving a few office desk and chairs and an auto garage with some hand tools but no factories. Not much for the bankruptcy courts to quibble over.
Reply
Chris M 6:24PM (8/18/2009)
It's a business park with small manufacturing and offices. Tesla isn't planning on building cars there, just certain components. All the auto makers have facilities that manufacture components only, so why should Tesla be any different.
As for the Dodge Circuit, it will be less expensive than the Roadster, but will also have less range and less acceleration. Some will like that tradeoff, some won't.
As for your final slanderous "'prediction" of Tesla stiffing the US government, I seriously doubt that. There are easier and safer ways to abscond with funds. Seriously, Stan, will you apologize publicly if Tesla is still in business and cranking out EVs 5 years from now? Or will you just pretend you didn't say that?
Ted 4:40PM (8/19/2009)
@Stan Peterson
Why would Diamler, former owner of Chrysler and thereby Dodge, ditch their own (Chrysler's) 'superior' battery technology in favor of Tesla's? Your argument doesn't make business sense.
Tesla never proclaims to be the best builders of cars. They are however, the best builder of battery systems today - a claim that is substantially supported through Diamler's investment.
Reply
JayHmmy 5:33PM (8/19/2009)
"They didn't build the car. Lotus did. Tesla built / assembled the drivetrain and auxiliary systems."
What are you talking about?? I'll let Tesla answer this one: "We recently counted how many parts the two cars shared and the total number was under 7% by parts count. If you were to analyze it by parts value, the number would be even smaller.
So you could say that the Tesla is similar to a Lotus Elise, except it has a totally different drivetrain , body panels, aluminum tub, rear sub-frame, brakes, ABS system, HVAC and rear suspension. The Tesla also neglects to carry over the gas tank, emissions equipment and exhaust. If you were to try to convert an Elise to a Tesla and started throwing away parts that aren’t carried over what you would basically be left with a windshield, dashboard (complete with airbags!), front wishbones and a removable soft top.
For comparison, Lamborghini cars share upwards of ten percent of their parts content with Audi cars. I can only guess what the number is between Ford cars and their high end Aston Martin and Jaguar brand."
In other words, a chassis isn't the what I would see as defining a "car". Tesla isn't selling an electric car for it's looks...so to say the differences under the hood negate the innovation that has taken place is completely disingenuous and a weak argument.
"Almost no one. GM built a similar EV with a 200 mile range over a decade ago. They scrapped the program because it was too expensive. Battery technology has advanced considerably in the ensuing years, so it is no surprise that GM's accomplishment could be equalled. But it remains expensive."
Yet under a decade later, GM was not in the forefront of pursuing battery tech vehicles, not trying to use it's weighty influence to drive down the cost of a clean technology, not trying to innovate or be a model for that technology. Save the "weighty influence", Tesla has taken those steps. Simple as that.
"Invalidated? Your comment is meaningless.
The Tesla Roadster continues to be a toy for the rich.
It is still not a viable mainstream alternative.
And nothing you have said shows otherwise.
If GM had built the Tesla Roadster and sold it for $100,000+, they would have gotten nothing but grief for it.
Tesla is doing a fine job of selling expensive toys. And their greenwashed marketing scheme is ingenious. I commend them for it."
I was referring to your obvious disdain for the fact that Tesla does not have a car that cannot be considered mainstream. Obviously, price is a major issue in car sales. To me, and most Tesla fans, the overall potential is greater than the downside of the current price that a Roadster commands. No, the roadster isn't mainstream. Yes, it's sales are spurring the development and production of cheaper cars, and the cycle will repeat itself. The point is, this is above and beyond what any other car company is doing right now. Period. And momentum is building, not subsiding.
Reply