A

Project

On

Study On Tesla

SUBMITTED BY

Shabbir Ali

Sayed

Roll No. : 130

T.Y.B.M.S. SEMESTER – V

PROJECT GUIDE

Mr./Ms.Manisha Shinde

SUBMITTED TO

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

M.V.M. EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS

M.V.M’s Degree College of Commerce & Science

Affiliated to University of Mumbai

Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West)

Mumbai – 400058.

A.Y. 2017 – 2018

 M.V.M. EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS

M.V.M’s Degree College of Commerce & Science

Affiliated to University of Mumbai

Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri

(West) Mumbai – 400058.

A.Y. 2017 – 2018

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. /Ms. Shabbir Ali Sayed, Roll no: of Third Year B.M.S.,
Semester V has successfully completed the project on “Study On Tesla” under the
guidance of Mr./ Ms.Manisha Shinde in the Academic Year 2017-2018.

Internal Guide: External Examiner:

Date: 4/04/2021 Date:

College Seal Principal

 DECLARATION
I, Shabbir Ali Sayed, a student of M.V.M’s Degree College of Commerce & Science,
T.Y.B.M.S. SEMESTER – V hereby declare that I have completed my project on “Study
On Tesla” in the Academic Year 2016 – 2017.This information is true and original to the
best of my knowledge.

Date: 04/04/21 Signature of Student

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Lots of exploration and efforts were

taken to create this project. With utmost
compassion and appreciation towards my
friends and colleagues who helped me
with their skilled insights and knowledge
towards the my project, the project would’ve
been incompetent. Thank you to all them who have

supported me.

Signature of Student
 Index

Sr. No. Topic Page Number

 Executive Summary

1. Introduction to the Topic

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Objectives of the study

2.2 Scope

2.3 Literature review

2.4 Data Collection Method

2.5 Sampling Design

2.6 Limitations of the study

3. Main text of the project report

4. Data Analysis and Interpretation

 Survey results

5. Findings, Suggestions and Conclusions

6. Case Study/ Articles

 Appendix

 Bibliography
 1. Study on Tesla
1.1 introduction to the topic

Knowing how automobiles are made, how they operate, and how they are used and knowing about
traffic laws and urban transportation policies does little to help us understand how automobiles
affect the texture of modern life. In such cases a strictly instrumental/functional understanding
fails us badly.” Langdon Winner: The Whale and The Reactor, A search for Limits in an Age of
High Technology.

The cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs that are on the roads today are a result of careful design and
transition over long periods of time reminiscent of Darwinian evolution. Functionality, speed,
efficiency, and design are all elements in automobiles that have developed over time and changed
in accordance to what human life and cultures have demanded. Historically speaking, automobile
shortcomings in safety, affordability, and efficiency are normally corrected by the automobile
industry in order to keep people on the road. However, the use of fossil fuels and correlating
environmental degradation have remained key tenants throughout the age of automobile-centric
transportation.

At the end of the 19th century electric vehicles with rechargeable batteries were the preferred type
of automobile for personal and professional use. These lead-acid battery powered machines were
promptly left to rust when fossil fuels for internal combustion engines (ICEs) became easily
accessible, which ensured that ICE-run vehicles were the economically responsible choice for
everyday consumers (Pistoia, 2010). Only in recent decades have electricpowered vehicles have
made a social and manufacturing comeback linked with the modern environmental movement.
1.2 Advantages and disadvantage of EV
As with any other purchase you make, there are both advantages and disadvantages to choosing an
electric car. What’s important is that you are aware of the pros and cons and consider how they
would apply to your life. We’ll share a few things to consider so you can determine whether an
electric vehicle is right for you.

•The Many Advantages of Electric Cars

If you are considering an electric car, the reality is that there are many positives. The first is how
great these cars are for the environment when compared to a gasoline-powered vehicle. But before
you decide to purchase a new car, let’s take a quick look at what you can expect.

1. Better for the Environment:

There are a ton of people who choose to purchase an electric vehicle solely because these vehicles
are better for the environment than the alternatives. These cars do not contain an exhaust system at
all, which means they aren’t creating emissions like other cars. Vehicles that are powered by gas
are major contributors to the build up of greenhouse gases, which stay in the earth’s atmosphere.
As such, having an electric car helps keep air cleaner and the planet healthier.

2. Electricity is Less Expensive than Gas:

When you break everything down, the average American pays about 15 cents a mile to drive a
gas-powered vehicle. This might seem negligible but that changes when you look at the cost to
drive an electric car. Rather than 15 cents a mile, many electric cars run on five cents a mile due to
the fact that electricity is largely less expensive than gasoline. Most people will also be charging
their cars in the garage, which means installing a few solar panels can cut that price even further
while offering savings on powering your entire home.

3. Less Maintenance at a Lower Cost:

With a gasoline-powered car, there’s a ton of maintenance. It starts with oil changes and only goes
on from there. Electric cars don’t have oil and don’t require that maintenance task or others
associated with a gas engine. Anything related to the combustion engine in a traditional car isn’t
needed with an electric car. In addition, the brakes on electric vehicles tend to last longer. That
only adds to the cost savings of choosing an electric car rather than one that uses gasoline. It all
starts to add up when you begin to think about it.

4. Electric Cars Tend to Be Quiet:

Everyone who lives in an area with a busy street can attest to how loud cars can be during rush
hour. Even smaller engines can make a racket. Electric vehicles, on the other hand, are nearly
silent in nature. In fact, these cars can be so quiet that some United States legislators have
suggested that these cars have noise-making devices installed to ensure that pedestrians know that
a car is near them.
5. Potential for Tax Credits:
If you are thinking about purchasing a new electric vehicle, in many cases you will enjoy a tax
credit for doing so. These credits are available because you are cutting down on your impact to the
environment by choosing to buy a car that creates zero emissions. The credit varies based on the
make and model of the car, but it can reach up to $7,500. You can speak with a tax specialist to
learn more about any tax credits that might be available to you on the state or federal level.

•Disadvantages of Electric Cars

As you can see, there are tons of reasons to consider purchasing an electric vehicle. However, it’s
important to be aware that there are also drawbacks to choosing an electric car. Make sure you
read about and understand the cons before you choose to sign a contract and get insurance for your
new car. Here are some things to know before you choose an electric car.

1. Some EVs Have Short Ranges for Driving:

The range you can get with an electric vehicle is something that is constantly improving, but it is
still something that needs to be considered and may not be appropriate for those with longer
commutes. It’s also one of the major issues that consumers have to think about when deciding
between a conventional and electric car. Once your car is fully charged, many electric models can
drive only 60 to 100 miles. However, some models offer somewhere between 200 and 300 miles
after a full charge.

2. Charging Can Take a Lot of Time:

When you pull into a gas station and fill up the tank, it takes only a few minutes before you pay
and drive off on your next adventure. An electric vehicle takes much longer to recharge, and the
time investment and necessary planning does put some people off. Many electric cars can be full
in around four hours, but some can take nearly a day to fully recharge. The good news is that there
are some kits that can cut the charging time down. However, that is going to be an additional
investment so consider that, too.

3. The Initial Investment is Steep:

If you haven’t spent any time shopping for EVs, you may be surprised when you take a look at the
sticker price. There is a range of pricing for electric cars, but even the more affordable brands can
be around $30,000 to $40,000. If you’re looking for a luxury option, you may be paying $80,000
or even more. Technology is always advancing and the price to produce electric cars continues to
drop, but you may end up paying $10,000 to $50,000 more for an EV than for a gas-powered car.

4 Charging Stations Aren’t Available Everywhere:

If you happen to live in a large city where many people use electric vehicles, you may find that
there are charging stations all over the place. However, when you take off on a road trip or decide
to visit family in a rural or suburban area, it may be harder to find a charging station. Thankfully,
this problem is slowly being phased out as electric cars become more popular. However, it’s still
worth considering until charging stations are more widespread. Be sure to take a look at charging
station maps where you live and where you frequently go so you can make sure that you’ll be able
to charge your new EV when you need to.
5 Lower Amount of Choices:
The market today has way more electric cars than it ever has before, with no signs of slowing
down. However, the truth of the matter is that there are fewer ways to customize and choose the
aesthetics of your EV. This is especially true when you consider the huge amount of
customization available with traditional cars. This is likely to change as time goes on but for many
people, it is going to be a disadvantage.

•Wrapping Up
There are many factors to take into account when choosing whether to purchase an electric
vehicle. However, it doesn’t have to be an overwhelming decision. Consider your needs, the
availability of charging stations near you, and do some research on the different models and
makes of electric cars out there today. This will push you toward making the right decision for
yourself and your family.
1.3 History of Tesla
Tesla’s Beginnings “Tesla was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers who wanted to prove that
people didn’t need to compromise to drive electric – that electric vehicles can be better, quicker
and more fun to drive than gasoline cars” (Tesla, 2017a). This statement, found on the Tesla
website about tab may seem strange to those that have only a surface level knowledge of the
company. As an electric car maker, it is easy to make the assumption that Tesla was founded on
environmental and sustainability principles, but in reality, it was really the challenge of
engineering a desirable electric vehicle that brought the “group of engineers” together. It was in
fact 2002 when Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning drafted business plan and specs for a car
and company that would become Tesla, but what today’s Tesla Inc. will not tell visitors to its site
is that the original Tesla Roadster that “started it all” was itself inspired by the work of an
engineering firm in Los Angeles called AC Propulsion. AC Propulsion specialized in alternating
current power generation and electrical controllers, they combined these two crafts in order to
develop a two-seat hobby car driven by their newly developed modern AC drive train and lead-
acid batteries called the tzero. The tzero boasted a 0 to 60mph time of just 4.2 seconds and a
driving range of around 70 to 80 miles on a 42 charge. AC Propulsion was a part of a unique niche
of “boutique electric-car makers” in California at the time that grew by exploiting the need of
electric drive consulting for the Big Three due to California’s zero-emissions mandates. While the
tzero was revolutionary in the early 2000’s, Eberhard saw more to be done. Eberhard, a modest
Silicon Valley entrepreneur with a love for cars, made his fortune selling his e-book reader
company, NuvoMedia and bore witness first hand to the quick rise of billion-dollar laptop and cell
phone markets. He saw that his colleagues throughout the valley investing heavily in research and
development for lithium-ion batteries and pondered, why couldn’t that technology be transferred
to cars (Shnayerson, 2007)? Eberhard became close with AC Propulsion president Tom Gage, and
founder Alan Cocconi by investing in the company, and entered talks about the possibility of
converting their engineering project to a full-scale automotive startup. The operators at AC
Propulsion, however, were content with their current work and had no interest in putting in the
effort to mass market and manufacture electric cars. Eberhard was discouraged but did convince
AC Propulsion to help him build a prototype tzero with a lithium-ion battery system. Eberhard
took that vehicle home and quickly partnered up with Marc Tarpenning, a fellow entrepreneur
with whom he had founded NuvoMedia and had become close friends with. Together the two
studied the vehicle and the automotive industry to develop a business plan in order to form what
would become Tesla Motors named after the father of the AC electricity supply system, Nikola
Tesla. Eberhard and Tarpenning “had no experience making cars, and we had a lot to learn”
according to Eberhard. While the pair took part in painstaking research to make up for their lack
of experience, they came to a stunning realization that the “automotive ecosystem had quietly
made itself inviting to startups. In an interview with business journalist Drake 43 Baer,
Tarpenning is quoted “We discovered that in the preceding 20 or 30 years, the car industry had
completely refactored itself, it turned out that no car company made windshields anymore. They
always bought them from the windshield makers, and the rear-view mirrors were purchased from
the rear-view-mirror makers." The most important detail of this discovery to Eberhard and
Tarpenning at the time was that the Big Three had even been outsourcing their systems and
onboard electronics as these elements were not a part of an auto maker’s normal expertise. Lucky
for the Tesla pair this was their specialty, and they were prepared to track down the
correct manufacturing partners in order to wrap their digital technologies in an elegant metal
package. The two entrepreneurs inadvertently discovered the cluster economics
work of Michael Porter in a real-time incidence and were ready to exploit the auto industries built
up "rigidities" for all they were worth. Tarpenning bought the internet domain Teslamotors.com in
April of 2003, and the company was officially incorporated on July 1st of the same year. August
of 2003 saw Eberhard and Tarpenning opening the first Tesla office in Menlo Park California, and
set out on perfecting their pitches to new investors. They started with pitches to people that would
never invest in such a company, these executives were mostly friends from the partner’s
NuvoMedia years, as a way of practicing and workshopping how to market such a product. The
original executive summary drafted by Eberhard and Tarpenning offered seven bulleted points
about the would-be Tesla Roadster, including its impressive acceleration of 0 to 60mph in 3.9
seconds and bold prediction of a 300mile range. The preliminary round of pitches that the
partnership endured helped them to iron out details that they had not previously considered due to
simple ignorance of the auto industries’ inner workings. Such details included the
franchise/dealership sales model, which the pair decided not to follow in order to avoid the
opportunity to receive direct feedback from 44 consumers. Eberhard and Tarpenning also
discovered the impossibility of building an entire car from scratch, even if they followed the
rigidity influenced methods of the Big Three by getting many parts from external manufacturers
the costs would simply be too high. The solution, building in and around existing chassis. The
team settled on the Lotus Elise frame as its small size and lightweight could accommodate Tesla
technologies. Eberhard and Tarpenning struck the deal with Lotus at the 2003 Los Angeles Auto
show, and later signed a contract with AC Propulsion for further development of the Tesla Motor
within the newly decided upon frame. With the plans finalized, for the time being, the two set off
in search of a true investor in Tesla.
Building the First Tesla After meticulously crafting the designing details through both personal
consultations and finally a design contest, the early Tesla team was able to piece together their
first prototype vehicle in 2005. This early Roadster was considered a development mule by the
team, a vehicle built for testing using prototype parts and built quickly so that testing for large-
scale issues could 47 be addressed immediately. This particular car was built upon a Tesla-
modified Lotus Elise chassis, powered by a Tesla engineered battery pack, and using a drivetrain
developed by AC Propulsion. By now Tesla had grown to 140 employees and had taken on a new
Chief Technology Officer in JB Straubel who is considered one of the founders of the company
today. Straubel’s reputation in the world of automotive tech precedes him, as he had worked on
electric vehicle projects before, but none like this. His colleagues, including Eberhard, allowed
him the honor of the first ride in a Tesla, as they believed it was his skill that was responsible for
the amazing power they projected the car to have. When Straubel stepped on the pedal their
testing was proven right and the car held together just fine by prototype standards. Growing Pains
In February 2005, Tesla Motors raised $13 million in funding during the Series B investment
rounds. Leading contributors included Valor Equity Partners and Elon Musk. By spring 2006,
launched a publicity plan to respond to the growing suspense and rumors floating around Silicon
Valley. Tesla felt the pressure from the outside and put together a debut plan culminating in a PR
event in July of that year. The event attracted wealthy investors, business people, and Hollywood
names all of whom were given the opportunity to sign a preorder agreement for Tesla’s “Signature
One Hundred – 100 cars sold at $100,000 each with a signature of the company’s principles
written on a plaque inside”. The event featured test drives and speeches, and both went extremely
well according to Tesla’s leadership. Martin Eberhard was quoted by Baer, in his in-depth piece,
saying that “anybody who got into one of those cars had their opinion of electric cars instantly
changed.” Speakers at the event included Eberhard and Musk, and according to Tesla’s VP of
customer 48 service and support, Mike Harrigan, Eberhard was clearly the better speaker. He was
accessible but confident, and he was also unintimidating. A friend of Eberhard, when asked about
Elon Musk’s presentation, was quoted by Baer to have said “Elon’s ability to speak in public and
convey the sense of the company was not nearly as good as what Martin had done. . . He just
didn’t seem to be nearly as effective in making people excited and believe in this trend”. At this
time Eberhard was “the Tesla guy,” a role that Musk has filled in recent years making his name
simply inseparable from the brand. Within a month after the event, Tesla had “sold” 127 vehicles
via pre-order, that Tesla projected delivery dates for during the summer of 2007. A successful
media strategy coordinated by Harrigan led to Tesla making headlines in Motor Trend, Wired,
CNET, and The New York Times to name just a few. The media attention boosted Tesla out of
obscurity and made Eberhard an entrepreneurial figure to be held. Musk, who was used to being at
the forefront of his companies, was feeling overlooked by both his Tesla colleagues and the
media. He wrote an email to Harrington, which has now become public, stating the following: The
way that my role as been portrayed to date, where I am referred to merely as 'an early investor' is
outrageous. That would be like Martin [Eberhard] being called an 'early employee. Apart from me
leading the Series A & B and co-leading the Series C, my influence on the car itself runs from the
headlights to the styling to the door sill to the trunk, and my strong interest in electric transport
predates Tesla by a decade. Martin should certainly be the front and center guy, but the portrayal
of my role to date has been incredibly insulting. I'm not blaming you or others at Tesla — the
media is difficult to control. However, we need to make a serious effort to correct this perception.
A few weeks past after this message was sent and received, and more articles about Tesla were
published in media such as the New York Times that in no way featured Musk’s prominence.
Eberhard recalls the situation becoming the first time that the two “bumped heads” was due to this
unequal or inadequate press coverage. He stated that their technical disagreements about the
vehicles they were building were always resolved and remained civil, but this instance was the
first time Eberhard marked an emotional disagreement with Musk. While his motives remain
unclear, it is quite possible that Musk desired more attention in order to promote himself and his
other businesses. Musk was still running SpaceX privately and had a large role in Solar City, his
solar energy enterprise founded by his cousins, on July fourth of 2006. The first Tesla Roadster
was delivered to Tesla headquarters in February of 2008, two years after Eberhard had predicted.
Back in 2006, Musk was worried about a crisis of confidence with Tesla’s customers. He wrote in
an email in October 2006, “(We could either) sacrifice a six-month first-mover advantage in a
market that is like the Internet circa 1992 (but slower moving) or focus every bit of energy on
getting our product right.” The two worried that pushing back expected delivery dates would
worry consumers, and waiver their confidence that Tesla would provide them with a quality
product. Tesla encountered manufacturing issued 50 hand over fist throughout 2006 and 2007,
pertaining to the system they expected to work in which most parts of the vehicle were sourced to
Lotus in England and arrived at the Tesla garage pieced together only leaving a few detail to be
bolted on and fabricated by the team to make it truly a Tesla car. Design changes, and higher than
expected volume of orders made Tesla responsible for several cars at a time rather than the one at
a time speed at which they could realistically work. Eberhard was in a panic and was quoted
stating “I had never run a company that was getting that big, it was time for us to bring in some
professional management capability”. Musk and Eberhard then presented to a board meeting in
which they presented their plan to bring in a new CEO to relieve Eberhard so that he could move
onto a different role developing the next Tesla car, the Model S. Eberhard was ready to step down
and mentioned how similar practices had taken place in companies like Google stating: "It was a
completely friendly discussion, with a couple of speeches from board members about how it was
very much the normal course of a startup for the entrepreneur-founder to move into a different
role as the company grew. Someone on the board cited Google as an example." What followed
were

turbulent times for the young company both internally with personnel and externally with their
product. A trip to the Lotus plant in England taught Elon Musk that the Roadster was behind
schedule by two months, and further setbacks came in California due to Musk’s particular sense of
style and functionality. Musk-caused setbacks were the bane of Tesla employees’ jobs, and the
stress of finding a new CEO with Eberhard had made his actions all the more frantic. The search
for the next CEO of Tesla Motors began in February 2007 and the media became wise to the
company’s actions by June. Musk was earnest in his attempt to help care for Eberhard’s public
image, as the story leaking out of Tesla at the moment was that he was being fired. This was not
the case at all, and Elon promised in an email to Eberhard that “I would be happy to correct the
perception that you are being fired.” This comradery was quickly subsided when Eberhard
received a phone call from Musk in August 2007 on which he was told the board had found his
replacement in Michael Marks, an early investor. Eberhard was irate, not that a replacement had
been found, but that the decision had been made without him. With the help of a lawyer, Eberhard
determined that the meeting was in direct violation of the companies agreed upon code of conduct,
and therefore must be rescheduled and held with Eberhard present. Martin Eberhard stepped down
and took a role as president of technology but was shut out of just about every daily operation of
Tesla Motors. Mike Harrigan has said of Musk since this occurrence: “Once he determined that
Martin couldn't be the CEO of Tesla any longer, that was it. He was fired." The departure of
Eberhard from Tesla became evermore tiresome as time went on as the co-founder filed a civil
complaint against Tesla and Elon Musk seeking damages for the standing that the company failed
to fulfill its severance obligations and inaccurately portraying Musk as a founder. Michael Marks
filled space at Tesla, but the overwhelming sense was that his position would be only temporary.
When asked about Eberhard, he was quoted: Martin is a very good technical guy, and he had a
vision, but he wasn't a particularly good CEO," Marks said. "But that's not the least bit unusual.
Martin is an engineering visionary, not the guy to The court files that came out of this case are
the source from which many of the direct quotes and email exchanges from Tesla’s principle
actors came to be featured in this chapter. If he was, he would have done the things I did. He came
up with a lot of the technical aspects of the car. Most guys who can do what Martin could do aren't
very good at running businesses. Maybe they should have made that move earlier. The company
wasn't getting the best use out of him, he was spending a lot of time running the business where he
wasn't well equipped. Ze’ev Drori took over Marks’s CEO position in November of 2007. He kept
production on schedule and saw the beginning of regular production, final assembly and
preparations for customer delivery, begin on March 18, 2008.
(Financial history)

Going Public In October 2008, there were Tesla’s being driven on public roads by the people who
bought them many months prior. It was then that Ze’ev Drori stepped down into a vice chairman
position, leaving the CEO position open for Elon Musk. Musk, through Tesla, made some major
announcements. The first was that there would be a companywide lay-off mostly due to the
closing of a satellite office outside of Detroit, the second was that production of the Model S
would be pushed back until 2011 while the company builds a new headquarters and
manufacturing plant in San Jose. Thirdly Musk announced that Tesla’s goal for equity financing
was to reach $100 million, as it was currently awaiting the clearing of a loan granted by the United
States Department of Energy that could only be used after an environmental review of the San
Jose building (Miller, 2008). Musk led what was left of Tesla after Eberhard through a proverbial
sea of recalls, customer complaints, financial troubles, and technological tweaking to make the
Roadster a success on the scale that the founders intended it to be selling more than 1,000 of the
two-seater model. To his credit, Musk was able to secure an initial public offering 53 (IPO) for
Tesla of 13.3 million shares. Interestingly the report that was created by Musk and his

team to apply for the IPO reveals that Tesla makes the most significant amount of its revenue by
selling emissions credits to other automakers. Entrance into the stock market gave Tesla $226.1
million to develop its Model S sedan, which it intended to make more marketable beyond the
richest one percenters. The public offering also had historic prevalence, as Tesla Motors became
the first American car company to go public since Ford did fifty-four years prior. This moment in
time solidified Tesla as a true “car company,” and Elon Musk was responsible. Since its IPO,
Tesla has released the Model X and unveiled the Model 3. Model X is Tesla’s answer to SUVs, it
offered 295 miles on a single charge and has a 0 to 60mph time of 2.9 seconds. Tesla claims that it
is the “safest, quickest, and most capable sport utility vehicle in history” (Tesla, 2017c). The
Model 3 is meant to be Tesla’s fulfillment of their own prophecy that through an economy of scale
production model and with the funds raised from Roadster and Model S sales, they would be able
to produce a mass-marketable electric vehicle that was truly Tesla. This goal has been “met” but
the vehicles have not yet hit the road. The Model 3 can achieve a 220-mile range and starts at
$35,000 before federal incentives for electric vehicles (Tesla, 2017b). These numbers keep the
vehicle competitive with other EVs in its class, but its branding may see it topple them. Company
Identities This new identity of Tesla provokes an interesting economics case study that can be
rooted back to Michael Porter’s economic clusters. In his paper, Porter says that “Silicon Valley
and Hollywood may be the world’s best-known clusters” (Porter, 1998). Silicon Valley, in
particular, is one of few clusters, in fact, that seem to suffer less from the pains of rigidities than
54 others due to the nature of their businesses and products. Computer companies based here are
normally “plugged into customer needs and trends with a speed difficult to match by companies
located elsewhere,” says Porter. He goes on to say that “The ongoing relationships with other
entities within the cluster also help companies to learn early about evolving technology,
component and machinery availability, service and marketing concepts, and so on.” Martin
Eberhard saw this first hand when working in the Valley through the lens of lithium Ion battery
technology being developed for mobile electronics which he evolved into a working start-up.
Tesla itself is unique in that it began as a technology company with the challenge of building
hardware not yet mastered by Silicon Valley engineers, including those at Tesla. This allowed
Tesla the freedom to stretch in

Northern California free of local competition but with all the tech support it could possibly need.
Tesla even boasted investment from Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin
(Kolakowski, 2009). As the tech start-up evolved into a full-fledged automaker marked
symbolically by its IPO in 2010, Tesla Motors came of age in a cluster that adored it and out of
the reach of the one it was competitive with both geographically and technologically. The Role of
Competition While the Big Three had the potential contend with Tesla technologically, it simply
has not done on a large enough scale to bring down Tesla. It can be argued that this is because of
complacency building profitable SUVs and trucks, and the ingrained flow of repetitive production
techniques further sponsored by the theory of rigidities within clusters. The Big Three viewed
Tesla as a boutique carmaker building only hobbyist vehicles, but when the Model S was
introduced after the moderate success of the roadster they began to recognize Tesla as a
formidable threat, but only in the future. Doing only the bare minimum of work towards EV 55
programs in order to meet federal fleet emissions standards, when the major auto companies do
produce electric cars they are lazy in design and “The automakers do almost no advertising for
them, and most (not all) of their dealers do their utmost to steer customers away from them.
Meanwhile, the companies continue to lobby to have fuel economy and emissions standards
watered down”. Against the odds, Tesla defeated the cluster system by innovating its way in the
style of one cluster into the business of another, but it may have also opened the gates to
competitors yet to be seen following their lead. This narrative, however, is not yet written but it
will be important to keep an eye on the names Faraday Future, Lucid Motors, and Fisker in the
near future. There is the also an oversees influence on Tesla’s marketability. As I have attempted
to keep this writing within the borders of the United States to the best of my ability, I would not be
able to do the topic due justice without at least mentioning the influences of foreign autos in
America. In 2016 both Toyota and Nissan have produced over 50% of their American sold
vehicles in the United States. According to American University, Tesla is the only prominent
automaker to build 100% of its vehicles in the United States (Johnson, 2017). Toyota has been at
the forefront of hybrid automobiles for decades but does not “market fully electric passenger cars
at the moment” (Reuters, 2017). Nissan was making headway with its Leaf, introduced in 2010
becoming one of the first major automakers in the world to debut a fully electric car without direct
influence of government fleet mandates. The Leaf has recently fallen to the fourth bestselling
plug-in electric vehicle behind Chevrolet’s Bolt, Tesla’s Model S, and its Model X SUV which
debuted in 2015. The BYD e6, a Chinese built EV is predicted to have the best year financially
over Tesla, and they are not alone atop of Tesla on the sales forecast “leaderboard.” Tesla was
beaten by General Motors in the race of building a modern, affordable, long-range 56 capable
electric vehicle. GM’s Bolt is on the road today and predicted to just edge Tesla’s Model 3 in
2017 sales. For GM, however, the Bolt is only a “sign of its ability to innovate, and a tiny fraction
of its total output” (Stewart, 2017). The two vehicles, and in reality, most vehicles compared to
Tesla’s cars, serve entirely different purposes, and should major automakers move entirely to EVs
in the near future, as GM announced its plans to, then Tesla will continue to be a worthy and
increasingly competitive adversary.
1.4 Introduction to Tesla

Founding (2003–2004)
Founded as Tesla Motors, Tesla was incorporated on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc
Tarpenning.Eberhard and Tarpenning served as CEO and CFO, respectively.Elon Musk stated that
the AC Propulsion tzero also inspired the company's first vehicle, the Roadster. Eberhard said he
wanted to build "a car manufacturer that is also a technology company", with its core technologies
as "the battery, the computer software, and the proprietary motor".
Ian Wright was Tesla's third employee, joining a few months later.The three raised US$7.5
million in series A funding in February 2004 from various investors, including Elon Musk, who
contributed the vast majority at $6.5 million.Following the investment, Musk joined the company
and became chairman of the board of directors.J. B. Straubel joined Tesla in May 2004.A lawsuit
settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard,
Tarpenning, Wright, Musk and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders.

Technology
Tesla develops many components in-house, such as batteries, motors, and software.[100]
Vehicle batteries

Tesla vehicle chassis used in Model S and X, with the battery visible
Tesla was the first automaker to use batteries containing thousands of small, cylindrical, lithium-
ion commodity cells like those used in consumer electronics.Tesla uses a version of these cells
that is designed to be cheaper to manufacture and lighter than standard cells by removing some
safety features; according to Tesla, these features are redundant because of the advanced thermal
management system and an intumescent chemical in the battery to prevent fires.
The batteries are placed under the vehicle floor. This saves interior and trunk (boot) space but
increases the risk of battery damage by debris or impact (see #Crashes and fires). After two
vehicle fires in 2013 due to road debris, the Model S was retrofitted with a multi-part aluminum
and titanium protection system to reduce the possibility of damage.
In 2016, former Tesla CTO J.B. Straubel expected batteries to last 10–15 years and discounted
using electric cars to charge the grid with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) because the related battery wear
outweighs economic benefit. He also preferred recycling over re-use for grid once they reach the
end of their useful life for vehicles. Tesla launched its battery recycling operation at Giga
Nevada in 2019.
Panasonic is Tesla's supplier of the cells in the United States, and cooperates with Tesla in
producing 2170 batteries at Giga Nevada. As of January 2021, Panasonic has the capacity to
produce 39GWh per year of the 2170 batteries at Giga Nevada.Tesla's battery cells in China are
supplied by Panasonic and CATL, and are the more traditional prismatic cells used by other
automakers.
Cairn Energy Research Advisors, a consulting company that specialize in electric vehicle battery
research, believes that Tesla's battery costs in 2019 were $158 per kWh, versus an average of $200
for other vehicle battery manufacturers, due to Tesla's advanced engineering and scale of the Giga
Nevada battery manufacturing.
Battery research
Tesla is involved in lithium-ion battery research. Starting in 2016, the company established a 5-
year battery research and development partnership at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia,
Canada, featuring lead researcher Jeff Dahn.Tesla also acquired two battery companies in 2019:
Hibar Systems and Maxwell Technologies.
During Tesla's Battery Day event on September 22, 2020, Tesla announced the next generation of
their batteries, featuring a tabless battery design that will increase the range and decrease the price
of Tesla vehicles.The new battery is named the "4680" in reference to its dimensions: 46 mm
(1.8 in) wide by 80 mm (3.1 in) tall.Musk announced plans to manufacture the 4680 batteries in
the Tesla Fremont Factory.Tesla expects to produce 10 GWh of the 4680 batteries per year "in
about a year", 100 GWh by 2023, and 3,000 GWh by 2030.
Tesla expects the new batteries will be 56% cheaper and allow the cars to have a 54% longer
range.The company explained that this would be achieved by a more efficient production process,
new battery design, cheaper resources for the anode and cathode, and better integration into the
vehicle. Business analysis company BloombergNEF estimates Tesla's battery pack (not cell) price
in 2019 at $128 per kWh.This is already close to $100 per kWh, the cost at which the US
Department of Energy estimate electric cars would be cheaper than comparable gasoline-powered
cars.
Motors
Tesla makes two kinds of electric motors. Their oldest currently-produced design is a three-
phase four-pole AC induction motor with a copper rotor (which inspired the Tesla logo), which is
used as the rear motor in the Model S and Model X. Newer, higher-efficiency permanent magnet
motors are used in the Model 3, Model Y, the front motor of 2019-onward versions of the Model
S and X, and is expected to be used in the Tesla Semi Class 8 semi-truck. The permanent magnet
motors increase efficiency, especially in stop-start driving.

Autopilot
Main article: Tesla Autopilot
Tesla Autopilot in operation
Autopilot is an advanced driver-assistance system developed by Tesla. The system requires active
driver supervision at all times.
Starting in September 2014, all Tesla cars are shipped with sensors and software to support
Autopilot (initially hardware version 1 or "HW1").Tesla upgraded its sensors and software in
October 2016 ("HW2") to support full self-driving in the future. HW2 includes eight cameras,
twelve ultrasonic sensors, and forward-facing radar. HW2.5 was released in mid-2017, and it
upgraded HW2 with a second graphics processing unit (GPU) and, for the Model 3 only, a driver-
facing camera. HW3 was released in early 2019 with an updated and more powerful computer,
employing a custom Tesla-designed system on a chip.
In April 2019, Tesla announced that all of its cars will include Autopilot software (defined as
just Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer (Beta)) as a standard feature moving
forward.Full self-driving software (Autopark, Navigate on Autopilot (Beta), Auto Lane Change
(Beta), Summon (Beta), Smart Summon (Beta) and future abilities) is an extra cost option.
On April 24, 2020, Tesla released a software update to Autopilot. With this update, cars recognize
and automatically stop at stop signs. The cars also automatically slow down and eventually stop at
traffic lights (even if they are green), and the driver indicates that it is safe to proceed through the
traffic light.
Full self-driving
Main article: Tesla Autopilot § Full self-driving
Full self-driving (FSD) is an optional upcoming extension of Autopilot to enable
fully autonomous driving. At the end of 2016, Tesla expected to demonstrate full autonomy by the
end of 2017. The first beta version of the software was released on October 22, 2020 to a small
group of testers. The release of beta FSD has renewed concern regarding whether the technology
is ready for testing on public roads. The NTSB has called for "tougher requirements" for any
testing of Autopilot on public roads.
Tesla's approach to achieve full autonomy is different from that of other
companies. Whereas Waymo, Cruise, and other companies are relying on highly detailed
(centimeter-scale) three-dimensional maps, lidar, and cameras, as well as radar and ultrasonic
sensors in their autonomous vehicles, Tesla's approach is to use coarse-grained two-dimensional
maps and cameras (no lidar) as well as radar and ultrasonic sensors. Tesla claims that although its
approach is much more difficult, it will ultimately be more useful, because its vehicles will be able
to self-drive without geofencing concerns. Tesla's self-driving software is being trained on over 20
billion miles driven by Tesla vehicles as of January 2021.] In terms of computing hardware, Tesla
designed a self-driving computer chip that has been installed in its cars since March 2019.
Most experts believe that Tesla's approach of trying to achieve full self-driving by eschewing lidar
and high-definition maps is not feasible. In a March 2020 study by Navigant Research, Tesla was
ranked last for both strategy and execution in the autonomous driving sector. In March 2021,
according to a letter that Tesla sent to the California DMV about FSD’s capability, acquired
by PlainSite via a public records request, Tesla stated that FSD is not capable of autonomous
driving and is SAE Level 2 automation.
Glass
In November 2016, the company announced the Tesla glass technology group. The group
produced the roof glass for the Tesla Model 3. It also produces the glass used in the Tesla Solar
Roof solar shingles.

Business strategy

Robotic manufacturing of the Model S at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, California

At the time of Tesla's founding, electric vehicles were very expensive. Tesla's strategy was to first
produce high-price, low volume vehicles, such as sports cars, for which customers are less
sensitive to price. This would allow them to progressively bring down the cost of batteries, which
in turn would allow them to offer cheaper and higher volume cars. Tesla's first vehicle, the
Roadster, was low-volume (less than 2,500 were produced) and priced at over $100,000. The next
models, the Model S and Model X, are more affordable but still luxury vehicles. The most recent
models, the Model 3 and the Model Y, are priced still lower, and aimed at a higher volume
market, selling over 100,000 vehicles each quarter. Tesla continuously updates the hardware of its
cars rather than waiting for a new model year, as opposed to nearly every other car manufacturer.
Tesla does not pay for direct advertisement. The company aims to educate customers through its
showrooms situated in malls and other high-traffic areas, and sells its vehicles online rather than
through a conventional dealer network. The company is the first automaker in the United States to
sell cars directly to consumers.

The Tesla Patent Wall at its headquarters was removed after the company announced its patents
are part of the open source movement.
Tesla has a high degree of vertical integration, reaching 80% in 2016.The company produces
vehicle components as well as building proprietary stations where customers can charge their
vehicles. Vertical integration is rare in the automotive industry, where companies typically
outsource 80% of components to suppliers and focus on engine manufacturing and final assembly.
Tesla generally allows its competitors to license its technology, stating that the purpose of the
company is to accelerate sustainable energy. Licensing agreements include provisions whereby
the recipient agrees not to file patent suits against Tesla, or to copy its designs directly. Tesla
retains control of its other intellectual property, such as trademarks and trade secrets to prevent
direct copying of its technology.
 Partners

Tesla's major partner is Panasonic, which is the main developer of battery cells for the company.
Tesla also has a range of minor partnerships, for instance working with Airbnb and hotel chains to
install destination chargers at selected locations.
Panasonic

Panasonic Energy Company President Naoto Noguchi presented Tesla CTO JB Straubel with the
first lithium-ion cells from Panasonic's facility in Suminoe-ku, Osaka, Japan.
On January 7, 2010, Tesla and battery cell maker Panasonic announced that they would together
develop nickel-based lithium-ion battery cells for electric vehicles. The partnership was part of
Panasonic's $1 billion investment over three years in facilities for lithium-ion cell research,
development and production.
Beginning in 2010, Panasonic invested $30 million for a multi-year collaboration on new battery
cells designed specifically for electric vehicles.In July 2014, Panasonic reached a basic agreement
with Tesla to participate in battery production at Giga Nevada. Tesla and Panasonic also
collaborate on the manufacturing and production of photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules at Giga
New York in Buffalo, New York.
In March 2021, the outgoing CEO of Panasonic stated that the company plans to reduce reliance
on Tesla as their battery partnership evolves.
Former partners
Daimler AG
Daimler AG and Tesla began working together in late 2007. On May 19, 2009, Daimler bought a
stake of less than 10% in Tesla for a reported $50 million. As part of the collaboration, Herbert
Kohler, Vice-President of E-Drive and Future Mobility at Daimler, took a Tesla board seat. On
July 13, 2009, Daimler AG sold 40% of its acquisition to Aabar. Aabar is an investment company
controlled by the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), which is owned by the
government of Abu Dhabi. In October 2014, Daimler sold its remaining holdings for a reported
$780 million.]

The Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive uses a battery pack developed by Tesla.
Tesla supplied battery packs for Freightliner Trucks' Custom Chassis electric van in 2010. The
company also built electric-powertrain components for the Mercedes-Benz A-Class E-Cell, with
500 cars planned to be built for trial in Europe beginning in September 2011.
Tesla produced and co-developed the Mercedes-Benz B250e's powertrain, which ended
production in 2017.[342] The electric motor was rated 134 hp (100 kW) and 230 pound force-feet
(310 N⋅m), with a 36 kWh (130 MJ) battery. The vehicle had a driving range of 200 km (124 mi)
with a top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph).[343] Smart electric drive cars also had a 14-kilowatt-hour
(50 MJ) lithium-ion battery and a powertrain from Tesla.[344]
Mobileye
Main article: Tesla Autopilot
Initial versions of Autopilot were developed in partnership with Mobileye beginning in 2014.
[345]
Mobileye ended the partnership on July 26, 2016, citing "disagreements about how the
technology was deployed."[346]
Toyota
On May 20, 2010, Tesla and Toyota announced a partnership to work on electric vehicle
development, which included Toyota's $50 million future conditional investment in Tesla and
Tesla's $42 million purchase of a portion of the former NUMMI factory.[29]
In July 2010, the companies announced an agreement to develop a second generation
compact Toyota RAV4 EV.[347] A demonstrator vehicle was unveiled at the October 2010 Los
Angeles Auto Show. Toyota built 35 of these converted RAV4s (Phase Zero vehicles) for a
demonstration and evaluation program that ran through 2011. Tesla supplied the lithium metal-
oxide battery and other powertrain components[348][349] based on components from the Roadster.[10]
[350]
In August 2012, the production version was unveiled, with some battery pack, electronics and
powertrain components being those used in the Tesla Model S sedan (also launched in 2012),
[351]
The RAV4 EV had a limited production run which resulted in just under 3,000 vehicles being
produced.[352] The RAV4 EV left the market in 2014 and there are no known plans to revive the
model.[353]
According to Bloomberg News, the partnership between Tesla and Toyota was "marred by clashes
between engineers".[354] Toyota engineers rejected designs that Tesla had proposed for an
enclosure to protect the RAV4 EV's battery pack; Tesla used a similar design in its Model S
sedan, which led to cars catching fire due to punctured battery packs.[354] On June 5, 2017, Toyota
announced that it had sold all of its shares in Tesla and halted co-operation, as Toyota had created
their own electric car division.

Perhaps these utterances about the origins of Tesla are true and the founders had an underlying
desire to help mitigate the effects of climate change through the promotion of electric vehicles.
The alternative to this is that Tesla made the goal to make “cool” electric cars, and now that it has
succeeded Musk had to find a new way to promote his company. The latter is not as likely, but not
sinister enough to be out of the scope of possibility. Musk’s commitment to human wellbeing
through renewable energy and sustainable transportation is enough to rule out that he is trying to
profit off of planetary disasters. Tesla is having overwhelmingly positive effect on the auto
industry, and some may say that Musk has done “too good of a job” promoting electric vehicles as
his competition has become more open to the idea, like GM who has planned 20 new electric
vehicles for the next six years and Renault-Nissan who plan on 12 by 2022. This development of
major automaker EVs is also predicted to put an end to Tesla’s profiting from the sale of zero-
emission vehicle credit sales.Musk has made the companies patents available for use by anyone
and everyone. In a statement published on his Tesla blog, Musk writes:Yesterday, there was a wall
of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have
been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle
technology.Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear
a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines
behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate
patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.In an interview
with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, when asked about the publicizing of patents for electric
drive systems that have been crucial to the company’s success Musk responded with the
following: “If we’re all on a ship together, and there’s holes in the ship and were bailing water
out, and we have a great design for a bucket; we should probably share the bucket design because
we’re all going to sink”. Even though the Big Three and traditional automakers from oversees will
continue to develop and market internal combustion engine vehicles, for the time being, a recent
push in EVs from these companies sparked by Tesla is still a positive push towards a sustainable

transportation future that should not go underappreciated. Because Tesla is so far ahead of the
renewable race, they must upkeep their innovative capacity in order to secure a place at the table
when the other firms catch up.
 2. Research Methodology

I tried to make a detailed report on

 What is a EV
 Characteristics of EV
 Tesla's business empire
 History in detail of Tesla
 It's investors and especially it's face Elon Musk

For this I researched websites and found some sources which mention the study on Tesla as well
as Elon Musk through case studies. The methods I used were :-

Observation:
I observed the current status of the automobile market and pre-planned all my study with it, I got
a basic idea about what I have to do to make a good overall report and what are the areas I should
focus my study on. This study has helped me to understand the electric vehicles importance and
Tesla's initiative towards making electric cars stylish and want worthy. I also observed the
consumer behaviour of different people of india and it peaked my interest to see variation in the
opinions of various class of consumers.

Slicing and Dicing:

Due to the method mentioned above I was able to eliminate the things that were irrelevant to the
study and reduce my research time. The facts in a position make it look attractive. This method I
used is called slicing and dicing which led me to efficient and accurate results.
 Objectives of the study

1. To figure out the current scenario of electric vehicles in India.

2. To figure out the current scenario of EV on global scale.

3. New technology and future of EV.

4. Changing nature or motive of Tesla.

5. Difficulty related to Tesla's production in india.

6. Studying indepth about Tesla's history and it's motive.

7. Finding out the facts on Tesla and conduct research over them.

8. Undertaking study about Elon Musk.

9. Measuring the dept effort level of Tesla to make a change.

10. Advantages and disadvantages of EV.

11. To figure out is EV really the next biggest thing for future.

12. Trying to resolve the misconceptions about EV and Tesla.

 Scope of the study

1. Explaining the concept of EV and motive of tesla and solving all the misconceptions related
to it.

2. Studying about Tesla and conducting a full fledged research on it which would be helpful for
others researchers.

3. Considering globle as a market for research purpose.

4. Study on Tesla's initiative in india.

5. Help in understanding indian market status for EV.

6. Will help future researchers for reference purposes on EV market.

7. Reference for businesses to conduct consumer study buy the use of servey results which took
place in inda.

8. Future projects based on the current study could examine the following topics:

• An economic analysis based on Tesla Motors’ business plan.

• Investigation of further partnerships.

• A comparison with other relative case studies.

• Impact of Tesla Motors strategy on the current/future EV market.

• Examination of how sensitive Tesla Motors and its partners are in economic

cycles.
 Literature review

There is an abundance of literature on EV and Tesla but research over there marketing
aspects is very thin. Five generalizations can be made from the existing literature.
Firstly,there is no study that gives a concrete measure on the criteria that determines the
Tesla's internal operations.

Secondly, most of the studies talk about Tesla and EVs from the America's point of viewand
how it effects there governance but not with respect to other countries.

Thirdly, studies have been conducted about tecnological and financial aspects but not about the
management about it.

Fourthly, not many reviews or compelling articles are available by the employee's or ex-
employees about the work environment.

Fifthly, most studies have common aspects and focuses on Elon Musk more but there were others
who have fueled the corporation.

Having studied numerous articles and Wikipedia pages put me to the conclusion that the amount
of literature available is enough but not enough for a quality product/research on Tesla. Maybe
there will be in future.
 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The present study will be helpful to all the concerned. The limitations of the study detected in this
research are particularly the data analysis, time, geographical area and limited size of the sample

This study has an important limitation due to the fact that information on cutting-edge technology
is requested. Even though the concept is called “open innovation”, the companies involved in the
development of such technologies might not be eager to share the entire technological status.
Thus, the unavailability of some information reduces the depth of the research. Apart from that
some theoretical parts are not described in full detail due to the predefined size of the report. For
the same reason a single case study is investigated instead of two or more that constituted the
initial plan

1. Research's point of view:

The present study would be from the perspective of a third party but give confidence to the readers
dur to facts and reliable resources but it also contains writers personal thoughts due to the method
used of observation. As this study may be used in progressive manner it is important that the
report should be easily readable by general public hence it was kept in that way but because of
that technicalities could not be explained properly.

2. The lack of available literature:

The lack of available literature on the area of the study was the major limitation. There are very
few accessible studies done in the area of EV as a whole subject particularly in India. Most of the
studies carried out in India were kept for limited people as it my affect the people's opinions of the
representatives rather than focusing on creating awareness among consumer related to EV.

3. The sampling process and sample size:

Determining the sample process and sample size was one major issue for the study as the study is
dynamic in nature. In India the people are not well aware of EVs and Tesla and if they are most
of the time they are half informed that is why it was hectic to conduct a survey. Sample size was a
problem as everyone has different standard of living and literacy. Thus, Sampling proved to be an
unreliable method.

4. Timing:

As the fact states EV and tesla and it's failure are a vast study in every aspect, making a full blown
brief report is time consuming. Thus, covering every detail was a challenge due to limited time.
There where so many aspects of it which was either not covered or left deliberately.

5. New age data:

As we all are aware for any kind of data nowadays we refer internet, my problem was as the
Internet culture is growing and people are becoming a part of the community they have various
opinions on the topic some of them may be right and some may not and also the reliable source
have become non-trustworthy as today they can be tempered easily
Data Analysis and Interpretation
 Conclusion

As Tesla became a popular living room discussion subject, expanding outward from its
technological bubble of Silicon Valley, it brought with it excitement and cautious optimism for
people from many different perspectives, or problems they wanted to be solved. Environmentalists
saw an aesthetically pleasing electric vehicle capable of correcting or curbing public perception of
electric vehicles. Economists and political theorists might have seen a lucrative opportunity for a
firm to break the cluster-based motor vehicle industry model cemented in Detroit. Car buffs saw a
potentially disruptive vehicle for automotive history that would be both fast and capable enough to
compete in the market with the likes of any luxury sports car. The oil and auto industries saw
something they long fought to suppress internally, something to be wary about. Truthfully, I
cannot recall the first time I heard about Tesla or it cars. I set out to research for this project I had
expectations and opinions on the matters I would be discussing, that were not necessarily biased
or uninformed, but rather passive and without depth. Electric vehicles have always interested me
but not as an environmentalist, or as an academic subject worth investing countless hours of time
studying. However, I wanted to know whether people’s love for the car could be successfully
transferred into electric vehicles, and if the Tesla narrative was one that was repeatable. In short,
the answers to these questions are yes, and no respectively but these answers were not my two
biggest takeaways from this project.

On April 1, 2018, Elon Musk sent out a tweet that started with the simple phrase "Tesla Goes
Bankrupt…" Elon's April fool's prank garnered an interesting collection of responses ranging from
the displeased who chose to comment on Tesla's numerous recent shortcomings, fans of Musk
applauding the joke, and some who seemingly took to the web to verbally joust with other users.
After studying Tesla and Musk for the better part I found the tweet amusing, and a bit smug at the
same time. But the part I found most interesting of the exchanges that were linked to Musk’s ruse
was between twitter users Francisco Quintero and Ryan Walkinshaw.

Walkinshaw, a verified account holder “replied” to musk to saying:I like Tesla, but after 20 years
it has failed to make any profit and looks very ominous for their future. Not to mention their USP,
electrification, is being adopted by most auto manufacturers who seem a lot more capable of
dealing with supply chain and production, than Tesla is.

To which Quintero replied: man, the whole point of Tesla is having others doing electric cars,
reducing oil dependency for cars. See the big picture. Elon is changing the world.

Is the whole “point of Tesla” to create a pressure-based political war with American automakers?
Maybe not, but certainly Tesla generates awareness, perhaps even fear, about where the evolution
of energy and sustainability in business and society is leading the automotive industry. In the
discussion about the publicizing of Tesla patents by Elon Musk and his current team. While this
internet interaction is hardly a scholarly source, quips like these have helped, to some degree, to
shape the public perception and industry reputation of Tesla, Inc simply because of its creation
and development in the age of the internet. What we now consider digital forms of communication
give anybody with the economic means to get online a voice in a very crowded room. This state of
digital communication and connection gives the public agency in the decision of where
automobility goes next. Until now, like I teased out in chapter one, the automotive industry and
personal vehicles themselves have more or less ‘naturally’ evolved in a survival of the fittest
(companies and cars themselves) model according to new industry standards and advancements in
technology. Much like how humans have gained the ability to alter life in genetic labs and set new
courses for long-term evolution through gene-drive technology and similar advancements, our
digital present allows for the direct interface between industry and consumer which ultimately can
lead the products they build in new directions. I have learned from this project firstly that the
automobile is far more than a technology or a physical possession and that since the first
automobiles were operated on streets they became ingrained in our cultural DNA. In so many
ways the automobile has defined how we identify within given communities and with ourselves in
our ‘sovereign self-hood.’ Our cities, homes, offices, schools, and “third places” are connected
and designed around the automobile. It is a regret of mine that this project did not afford me the
time or space to include an entire chapter on the highway system and the limits of automobile
travel. Further, it would take a complete restoration of modern society to rid the country of the
automobile as the premier mode of travel for individuals. This is why I see a future with fewer,
but never an absence of cars on the road. As an environmentalist, I agree with the idea that there
should be considerable efforts taken to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation in
applicable circumstances. Increased bicycle and public transport infrastructure cannot be
considered a bad choice; however, it cannot be the only choice. What Tesla has done as of 2018
has shown that the previously inept business model of boutique automakers can work well in
today’s digital age when digital infrastructure and analog technologies find a nexus. At the same
time, however, its relative success has lead to significant efforts by the existing oligopoly to chart
a new course into building more sustainable vehicles in the style of hybrids and electric vehicles.
This leads me to my second takeaway: The transition of society (at least in the United States) to
all-electric vehicles may never happen in a way that one could predict.By the time Ford was
practicing mass manufacturing, and Taylor re-designed American factories, people had just begun
to define what a car was. What followed was a new development self-identity and understanding
of the car was that became cemented into society as a permanent tenant. Over the decades that
followed America witnessed the automobile’s technological momentum as defined by Thomas P.
Hughes in the late 1960’s. Hughes’ concept of the phenomena was a combination and synthesis of
the theories of technological and social determinism. Hughes argues that young technologies
begin in a state of social determinism where society determines the proper use and extent of it. If it
ages well and matures, like technologies like the automobile, it enters a phase of technological
determinism where society succumbs to the use of the tech and readily adapts other new
technologies and societal trends to it. Once a technology enters the technological determinism
phase it is said to be self-perpetuating and unavoidable.

The automobile is very clearly beyond a point of social determinism and is already often used as a
perfect example of technological determinism in history of technology texts. We continue then to
use knowingly harmful and unsustainable internal combustion engines for the exact reasons than
that we will continue using cars. The technology within the technologically deterministic
automobile was defined by society during its socially deterministic years to be a part of the
definition of what a car is.Consider two cars driving side by side, an original Tesla Roadster and a
Lotus Elise. If painted the same red hue, and supplied with matching components like tires, rims,
windows etc., the cars would look exactly the same and have the same fundamental purpose and
function. Under one hood a petroleum-powered internal combustion engine, and under the other
an electric motor powered by a battery (charged of course by predominately non-renewable power
generation). Both are defined as automobiles but are vastly different. The difference between the
two like the difference between analog and digital explored. They exist at the same time, can be
used by two people simultaneously, but hold many different qualities. Now, imagine two people
writing a letter. One types on a typewriter, the other a MacBook. The font is exactly the same, the
ink in the printer and the ink on the ribbon can be produced using the same chemicals, and of
course, the letter can have the same content. The machines themselves are the fundamental
difference here, one highly mechanical with several internal moving parts, the other more modern,
sleek and capable of more. The MacBook is a product of a digital age, further, it is connected to a
wider world via the internet and internal programming. Years ago, computers were simply not as
capable as they are today even though they were early machines of an impending digital
revolution. There was a point in time where both of these machines existed, yet when tasked with
writing a letter a person would have chosen the typewriter as the more capable machine. Looking
back at the two red coupes, it appears as though we are still at the stage of analog to digital
transition where we would still, as a society, choose the type-writer of the pair. When electric
vehicles were first triumphed over by internal combustion engines in the early 1900’s there were
very few who imagined them coming back. Erica Shoenberger writes in Nature, Choice and Social
Power “The history of gasoline-powered automobile in the US – andtherefore the world – hinges
on choices made that could have gone in other directions combined with unlucky timing. These
choices were made permanent and essentially universal by the power of the market”
(Schoenberger, 2014). It would appear as though the technological momentum of automobiles has
reached a significant rift as electric drivetrains become increasingly more powerful and desired.
The misconception being that the momentum has died, this is not the case. It is, of course, true, as
Schoenberger points out, that the internal combustion engine car won out during its original stage
of social determinism, however, and that it is now entered a stage of technological determinism.
But as I stated previously the car is not itself alone “just a technology,” and if the societal
definition of what a car is continues to evolve there can come aday in which one of the
subconscious elements of that definition is an all-electric drivetrain.

8. Case study/Articles
• EV (electronic vehicle)in india
THE INDIAN CONTEXT

While many countries have included EVs as an element of transportation policy, their responses
have varied according to their stage of economic development, energy resource endowments,
technological capabilities, and political prioritization of responses to climate change. In India, a
particular set of circumstances which are conducive to a sustainable mobility paradigm have
created an opportunity for accelerated adoption of EVs over ICE vehicles. These are:
1. A relative abundance of exploitable renewable energy resources.

2. High availability of skilled manpower and technology in manufacturing and IT software.

3. An infrastructure and consumer transition that affords opportunities to apply technologies to

leapfrog stages of development.
4. A universal culture that accepts and promotes sharing of assets and resources for the overall
common good.
These circumstances position India to pursue an EV policy which systematically ensures that
India’s EV program keeps pace with the global scale since large economies seem to take
significant steps towards electrification of vehicles. India’s growth prospects create potential for
developing leadership in EV in certain segments. In that sense, the policy will encourage a path
which starts with India-specific characteristics and initiatives for its auto sector, building towards
global relevance and applications. The key objectives of the EV policy are:
1. Reduce primary oil consumption in transportation.
2. Facilitate customer adoption of electric and clean energy vehicles.

3. Encourage cutting edge technology in India through adoption, adaptation, and research and
development.

4. Improve transportation used by the common man for personal and goods transportation.
5. Reduce pollution in cities.

6. Create EV manufacturing capacity that is of global scale and competitiveness.

7. Facilitate employment growth in a sun-rise sector.

CUSTOMIZING INDIA’S EV POLICY TO THE

INDIAN AUTO-INDUSTRY TODAY

While India is operating in the same global context as other countries who have adopted an EV
policy, it has a unique mobility pattern which other countries do not share. An EV policy for India
must be tailor made to India’s particular needs. While vehicle growth in India is rapid, ownership
per 1000 population has increased from 53 in 2001 to 167 in 2015,[1] a key difference between
India and other countries and the types of vehicles being used. India uses a large variety of
motorized transport on roads and its auto-segments are quite different from that of most of the
world. Based on the last six years of sales data, the vehicles on
Indian roads are estimated to consist of:

1. Two-wheelers: 79% of the total number of vehicles.

2. Three-wheelers (passenger and goods), including tempos: 4% of the total number of vehicles.

3. Buses and large goods vehicles like trucks: 3% of the total number of vehicles.

4. Economy four-wheelers (cars costing less than ₹1 million): 12% of the total number of
vehicles.

5. Premium four-wheelers (cars costing higher than ₹1 million): 2% of the total number of
vehicles.
In India, premium four wheelers (cars) are only 2% of the total sales. However, most advanced
technologies are available in this category in global markets. In the near term, India should foster
early adoption of vehicles by premium customers which will pave the way for consumer comfort
with electrification, raise aspirations for indigenous products and make advanced technology
available in the market. The presence of world-class technology will help India build a world-class
ecosystem for high-quality component and subsystems usable for all kinds of vehicles.

In the longer term, India should establish technological and manufacturing leadership in the
economy segment of the market. The prevalence in India of small vehicles such as two-wheelers,
three-wheelers, economy four-wheelers and small goods vehicles is unique among large countries.
These small vehicles require a unique set of technological and industrial capabilities. Here, India
has an opportunity to take a leadership role in the electrification of small vehicles. India’s
potential volumes for these vehicles as the nation grows, lays the foundation for transformational
manufacturing and industrial policy. That focusses on the development of technological expertise
and industrial capabilities in the production of small electric vehicles which can not only meet
domestic demand but can also place India in a position of global leadership. As other countries
begin to look at smaller vehicles with appropriate specifications, India can establish a position of
leadership based on domestic demand.
Beyond significant domestic demand for smaller vehicles, another aspect of the Indian mobility
market is supportive of electrification: its high level of sharing. Shared mobility in India has
exploded, changing the way India travels. Taxi aggregators such as Ola and Uber increases from
130 million rides in 2015 to 500 million rides in 2016[2], leading radio taxis to account for 72% of
the overall market. This high penetration of shared mobility in India increases both vehicle
utilisation, which plays to the economic advantages of EVs, and also creates natural and large-
scale purchases of EVs.

MAKING EVS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE

The limiting factor of batteries on driving range may be addressed by developing an ecosystem of
fast-charging or swapping of batteries. This can be achieved by creating requisite infrastructure,
possibly even every kilometer, in dense areas. As a result an important question arises as to what
kind of strategy can make EVs, especially small vehicles, economically viable. The general
strategy should address two key variables affecting the costs of EVs: battery costs and any fiscal
policies that either increase the costs of an ICE vehicle or decrease the costs of an EV. Broadly
speaking, approaches exist to reduce battery costs – reducing the number of batteries that an
electric vehicle needs and making batteries cheaper on a per kilowatt-hour basis. For the first
approach, reducing the batteries needed for a given EV, there are two key pathways:
1. Providing charging infrastructure: The limiting factor of batteries on driving range may be
addressed by developing an ecosystem of fast-charging or swapping of batteries, by creating an
infrastructure, maybe even every kilometre, in dense areas. A smaller battery will lower costs by
reducing the total weight of the vehicle, resulting in higher energy-efficiency and improved ability
to upgrade as the technology evolves. Charging infrastructure can be rolled out on a city by city
basis with select cities and regions leading the transition. This would be consistent with global
experience where 33 percent of all EV sales take place in only 14 cities where charging
infrastructure is widespread and convenient to use. Approaches for creating effective charging
infrastructure are outlined below.

2. Increasing efficiency of vehicles: Incentivising developments to increase vehicleefficiency,

thereby reducing energy consumption, can enable to a vehicle to travel the same distance on a
smaller battery pack. Energy efficiency can be enhanced by using more efficient electric motors]
using better tyres, enhancing the aero dynamics of the vehicles and reducing its weight. This
would reduce battery size needed for a certain range.

For the second approach, reducing the unit costs of each battery, India can explore several
pathways:
a. Selecting appropriate battery chemistries [See Appendix I]: As batteries dominate costs of
electric vehicles, the strategy would be to use battery chemistry with optimized cost and
performance at Indian temperatures. India should encourage manufacturing of such battery cells in
India. India is already making battery packs (cell to pack).
b. Exploring new battery chemistries: Focussing on materials like lithium, manganese, nickle,
cobalt and graphite that are used in batteries and determine its costs. While it is important to
secure mines which produce these materials, India must also obtain these battery materials
through recycling of used batteries and should aim to become the capital of “urban mining” of
used batteries.
Beyond reducing battery costs, India can explore potential avenues of fiscal support for EVs to
accelerate adoption. The standard approach in other countries to providing fiscal support to EVs
has been direct subsidization. For example, EVs in USA, Europe and China have up to 40% “all-
in” subsidies. Those subsidies include direct federal or state subsidy to buyers, mandates to
manufacturers, utility subsidies or subsidy in the form of fee bates where vehicles are taxed based
on their CO2 emissions, whereas EV receives support. As costs decline and the share of EVs in
total vehicles increases, most nations plan to taper off such subsidies.

For India, however, those paths are not viable; the elimination of direct subsidy will be the policy
basis. Therefore India has to be creative to make electric vehicles and its infrastructure
economically viable from the very beginning. Its policy and strategy have to be fundamentally set
up to enable EVs to make business sense. Direct financial demand-incentives / subsidies could be
replaced by Tradable Auto-Emission Coupons or credits based on CO2 emissions per km as well
as on a sliding scale for vehicle efficiency. This will encourage the market to build efficient
vehicles with lower emissions per km. Thus, while vehicle manufacturers exceeding CO2
emissions targets would have to purchase coupons or credits, the manufacturers meeting the
targets would be rewarded with coupons. Market will decide the prices of these coupons. This will
incentivize EVs and low-emission vehicles as well as energy-efficient vehicles at the expense of
the vehicles with high emissions and lower-efficiency.

Accelerating the availability of necessary electricity network infrastructure as well as domestically

produced technologically superior EVs, chargers and components will bring down costs and
increase the options available for transportation electrification in India. This could bring total cost
of ownership (TCO) of EVs to parity with ICEs by as early as 2025.

• Tesla in India

Tesla has plans to enter a new market: India. This story has unfolded only one way so far. Tesla
decides to enter a new market and quickly becomes the top-selling EV maker by leveraging its
powerful brand and class-leading technology at a competitive price: China, South Korea, the UK,
the Netherlands, and Norway, to name a few countries which have been conquered so far. But will
it be so easy in India?

The trouble is India currently does not have much of an appetite for electric cars, at least in the
current situation. In fact, this stretches to cars in general. While it is true that India has one of the
largest auto markets in the world – it is fifth behind China, the US, Europe & Japan – and peaked
at 3.3 million vehicle sales in 2018 (before the anticipation of new emissions regulation in 2020
sparked a short-term decline), taking a look at vehicles in-use per capita tells a different story.

The new IDTechEx report "Electric Vehicles in India 2021-2041" finds that roughly 26 cars are
in-use per 1000 people in India; this compares with 700–800 for the US and Europe and 200 for
China, the world's largest auto market. In contrast, looking at two-wheelers, India is the largest
motorcycle market in the world and has around 170 motorcycles per 1000 people: clearly,
motorcycles are the current mobility preference. The main reason behind this disparity is the price,
as popular motorcycles are typically sold between $700 - $2000 in India, compared to the average
car being north of $10,000.
As is well known, the largest barrier to the adoption of electric vehicles is the higher upfront price,
which is, therefore, an even higher barrier in India. The result is India's plug-in electric car market
has never truly taken off and is currently fluctuating between 2000 and 4000 sales yearly,
compared to 1 million sales from China in 2020. Looking at the models available on the Indian
market, low-priced offerings (under $20k) are still well above the average car price and have less
than 150 miles of range, for example, the Mahindra e-Verito or Tata Tigor, making them
unattractive as well as unaffordable. The other issue is charging infrastructure, where deployment
is also very low in the country. Market entry of Tesla in 2021, unfortunately, does not solve these
core problems, at least in the short term.

Moreover, the government's FAME-II policy does not subsidize private electric cars - only
commercial ones - reflecting how the focus of electrification in India is still very much in the
realm of micro-mobility (two and three wheelers), which are much easier to electrify and can use
standard electrical outlets to charge removable batteries.

To learn more about IDTechEx's long-term forecast for electric cars in India, the new report
"Electric Vehicles in India 2021–2041" (www.IDTechEx.com/IndiaEV) addresses and forecasts
electric two-wheelers, electric three-wheelers (e-rickshaws), electric cars and electric buses in the
country, revealing the massive potential and opportunity from one of the world's largest and
fastest-growing economies. The report further explores key technology trends unique to India,
such as the transition away from Lead-acid batteries, Li-ion chemistry choices for 45-degree
midday heat, the importance of local battery production and the country's reliance on permanent
magnet motors from China.

This research forms part of the broader electric vehicle and energy storage portfolio from
IDTechEx, who track the adoption of electric vehicles, battery trends, and demand across land, sea
and air, helping you navigate whatever may be ahead.

And there are possibility of Tesla Inc is exploring an arrangement with Indian conglomerate Tata
Sons' power generation unit, Tata Power, to set up charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in
the country.Shares of Tata Power rose 5.5% to their best closing level since June 9, 2014 after the
report, which comes as the Palo Alto-based electric-car maker gears up for an India launch later
this year with plans to import and sell its Model 3 electric sedan in India.

Tesla will set up an electric-car manufacturing unit in the southern Indian state of Karnataka,
according to a government document seen by ReutersThe talks between Tata Power and Tesla are
in the initial stages and no arrangements have been finalised yet, the report said.The two
companies were not immediately available for comment.

In January, the US electric-car maker incorporated Tesla Motors India and Energy Private Ltd
with its registered office in the southern city of Bengaluru, a hub for global technology
companies.Tata Motors Ltd, the carmaking unit of Tata Sons, last week denied any tie-up with
Tesla, after media reports suggested the two companies were discussing a partnership.

Tesla Inc. is closing in on an agreement to make electric vehicles in India for the first time,
opening up a new growth opportunity after founder Elon Musk set up production in the U.S. and
China.Tesla has picked Karnataka, a southern state whose capital is Bangalore, for its first plant,
the state’s chief minister said over the weekend. The automaker has been negotiating with local
officials for six months and is actively considering car assembly in the suburbs of Bangalore,
people familiar with the matter said.

Tesla didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment and did not confirm the minister’s
statement.

The company is conducting due diligence for office real estate in the region and plans to set up an
R&D facility, said the people, asking not to be named because the matter is private. Tesla has
focused on Bangalore because it’s shaping up to be a hub for electric vehicles and aerospace
manufacturing talent, they said. Tesla has incorporated its Indian unit and registered offices in
downtown Bangalore.

Musk all but confirmed Tesla would enter India in January after months of speculation. The
world’s richest man on Jan. 13 tweeted “as promised” in response to a report on a Tesla-focused
blog that the automaker was in talks with several Indian states to open an office, showrooms, a
research and development center -- and possibly a factory. The company is conducting due
diligence for office real estate in Karnataka and plans to set up an R&D facility. That revelation
sparked euphoria from locals, such as Nikhil Chaudhary, a 20-year-old student at the University of
Delhi who helped start India’s Tesla fan club in 2019.

Despite the hype, Tesla’s foray into India may well prove challenging. The country hasn’t yet
rolled out the welcome mat for EVs like neighbor China, where Tesla set up its first factory
outside of the U.S. and now dominates sales of premium EVs.EVs account for about 5 per cent of
China’s annual car sales, according to BloombergNEF, compared to less than 1 per cent in India.

According to the International Energy Agency, around 60 per cent of the world’s public slow- and
fast-charging spots are in China. As Chinese carmakers roll out competitive EV models and
develop a diverse ecosystem, the country is “heading toward disrupting the current global auto
industry landscape,” UBS Group AG analysts wrote in a report last month.India has been making
similar moves, but not yet on the same scale.

In 2015, it launched a Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and EV (FAME) plan, with a
9 billion rupee ($123 million) commitment to subsidies that cover everything from electric
tricycles to buses, according to the IEA. A second generation of the FAME program introduced in
2019 was larger, with 100 billion rupees to encourage EV purchases and build out charging
infrastructure.India also cut the goods and services tax on EVs to 5 per cent from 12 per cent,
effective August 2019, much lower than the levies of as much as 28 per cent slapped on other
motor vehicles, which have attracted criticism from companies like Toyota Motor Corp.

Bibliography
1. Amarakoon, S., Smith, J., & Segal, B. (2013). Application of Life- Cycle Assessment to
Nanoscale Technology:

2. Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from Washington D.C.:

3. Bhatti, A. R., Salam, Z., Aziz, M. J. B. A., & Yee, K. P. (2016). A critical review ofelectric
vehicle charging using solar photovoltaic. International Journal of Energy Research, 40(4), p439-
461. doi:10.1002/er.3472
4. BLS. (2017). Consumer Price Index Data. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifact8.htm
5. Booth, W., Colomb, G., & Williams, J. (1995). The Craft of Research. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
6. Burton, N. (2013). History of Electric Cars. Ramsbury, Marlborough Wiltshire SN8 2HR: The
Crowood Press Ltd.
7. Development, I. O. o. E. (2017). ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVS, HEVS, PHEVS). Retrieved
from http://www.in.gov/oed/2675.htm
8. Duoba, M., Ng, H., & Larsen, R. (2001). Characterization and comparison of two hybrid
electric vehicles (HEVs)-Honda Insight and Toyota Prius (0148-7191). Retrieved from
9. EAMA. (2017). overview of incentives for buying electric vehicles.
10. Editors, E. B. (2017). Alessaandro Volta. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alessandro-Volta

11. elbilforenig, N. (2017). Norweigian EV Policy.

12. Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, U.S. Congress
(1976).

13. Energy, D. o. (2017). State Laws and Incentives.

14. EPA. (2015). 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary

15. Fletcher, S. (2013). 40 Years Later: Electric Cars and the OPEC Oil Embargo. Retrieved from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/40-years-later-electric-cars-and-the-opec-oil-
embargo/
16. Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2013). What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users?
Transport Policy, 30, 56-62.

17. Wikipedia:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc

18. https://freedomgeneral.com/blog/10-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-electric-
cars/

19. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/india-electric-vehicle-ev-market-
report-2021-two-wheeler-segment-is-witnessing-the-emergence-of-a-number-of-
start-ups-which-is-driving-competition-and-advancements-in-technology-
301258817.html
20.https://indiaesa.info/products/industry-report/india-electric-vehicle-market-
overview-report-2019-2027