• Samos avatar Samos Posted: 4/9/2013 3:58am PDT

    Tesla could try what some companies have done here in Australia, and setup on federal land, which is in Texas, but technically outside of Texan jurasdiction, like an international airport, or a seaport (at least, that can work here, don't know about the US/texas laws...)

  • habitatgreen avatar habitatgreen Posted: 4/13/2013 11:17pm PDT

    I like where Tesla is heading over all as the first auto maker to succeed from a place other than Detroit! But not sure why they want to fight the status quo that is established here in Texas. If they grease enough state politicians I'm sure that something will be done to allow them to move forward. Their best chance is to build momentum in the citizens to complain to the legislation to get this done the quickest route. Not sure a state judge would rule in their favor and if so it might take a few years. My advise is work with the citizens to make things move forward. There are a lot of green companies and green tech organizations that can be of help to Tesla understand the unique Texas environment in Austin.

  • fordguy avatar fordguy Posted: 4/8/2013 11:53am PDT

    Seriously, why can't Tesla & Fisker become one company?? They both make the same product & both products cost about the same, so in my honest opinion, both companies should become one company because only rich people & celebrities can afford them, anyways.

  • fb_154200117 avatar Casey Posted: 4/8/2013 12:46pm PDT

    Tesla and Fisker aren't remotely the same. Fisker's car isn't all-electric, nor is it a feasible family sedan. Tesla's are much morre well made and well reviewed.

    Fisker is also bankrupt.

    Tesla is planning on making an affordable electric in the future.

    But that is how emerging technologies work, they always start as a luxury good. Electric vehicles aren't cost effective for the mainstream consumer. yet.

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 4/8/2013 12:48pm PDT

    I think both companies would argue that they produce very distinct products. Tesla makes fully electric vehicles, while Fisker makes (or made) extended-range cars, not unlike the Chevrolet Volt. It's true that those vehicles are expensive, but that's one of the few things the companies have in common. IMHO, arguing for their merger is a little like arguing that Lexus and Audi are indistinguishable from each another and ought to become one.

  • fb_100004762713391 avatar fb_100004762713391 Posted: 4/9/2013 4:47pm PDT

    @joe, you are misinformed. The Model S is 100% electric, unlike the Fisker, which is a hybrid gas/electric. Fisker is financially insolvent and no longer manufacturing their vehicle. Additionally, the Fisker has been plagued with quality problems that have resulted in long warranty repair waits, and a founder that jumped ship. He should have stayed at Tesla. Tesla is a financially solid and now (presumed) profitable, publicly traded company. Fisker will unfortunately die an ugly death to the chagrin of the early adopting owners of the Karma.

  • fb_645833690 avatar Martin Posted: 4/14/2013 7:52am PDT

    Elon Musk wants to establish a second launch site for his Space X program (he's the ceo) in Texas. It will employ lots of Texans and bring in lots of Federal dollars. The Governor of Texas is obviously in favor of this. He is also in favor Tesla selling his cars directly. Let us all put two and two together.