@John: The "more than 4,750" sales figure was issued by Tesla on Apr 1, referring to Q1 sales. It was updated in the SEC Q1 financial report to 4,900 deliveries.

The fact that whoever wrote the Audi release didn't know the first figure had been superseded indicates how little the company seems to know about Tesla. Which I find interesting.

At least one German high-end brand got a Model S onto their test track and spent a whole day wringing it out. Reportedly they were so astounded at the smoothness + power of all-electric drive that they're considering a direct Model S competitor--because they realized they have nothing that delivers the same experience.

That brand was not Audi.

@John: Fair point. I'll tweak the wording to explain that it's not a post-purchase rebate but an at-the-time-of-purchase tax exemption.

@Chris: The one additional note I'd add here is that in Q1, Tesla was not profitable at making and selling cars. The profitability came from a variety of other things: ZEV credit sales, powertrain manufacturing & sales, and an accounting entry.

The execs are clearly aware that they will have to make that happen, and discussed further efforts to reduce parts costs and worker hours per car that will occur during Q2 and Q3.

But at least some of the cash they bring in, assuming the offering goes as planned, may end up subsidizing that carmaking until the company reaches the point that it can make and sell Model Ses a profit by itself.

For the record.

@Robok, @Chris: Arguably the Tesla Roadster was the first modern (lithium-ion) car in mass production. (The Venturi Fetish predated it by a few years in tiny numbers.)

I think there's an implied "accessible to the mass market" piece I didn't spell out. The Roadster was $109,000, which automatically takes it out of the range of most buyers. Granted, the Fisker Karma was $106,000 ... but I'm not sure it would really have counted either.

All that said, I hear your point.

Perhaps [chuckle] I didn't include the Roadster because I said previously it shouldn't be viewed that way here:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1083047_on-picking-data-car-and-drivers-deceptive-electric-car-sales-

@Rich: When you locate that U.S. politician who's willing to take that stand, do please let me know.

@Scott: By whom? Certainly not by the owner. And there are no swap stations at the moment.

Also worth noting that Wyoming is the least populous state in the country, with fewer people than Rhode Island. It has 576,000 residents as of the 2012 census. Within a few years, their actions will likely be outweighed by a great number of Californians owning plug-in cars.

@Pete: While there will be localized issues, the amount of grid electricity that will be used to power plug-in vehicles (most of which will be charged overnight) will be FAR less disruptive than the arrival of cheap home air conditioners during the 1960s and 1970s throughout the hot, humid parts of the country.

The EPRI-NRDC study of 2007 projected that even if two-thirds of ALL vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. today were suddenly to be powered from the grid, it would add only 8 percent to total demand--and we won't reach that level for decades, if ever.

@Vincent: Well, not quite. The 85-kWh version of the Tesla Model S is rated at 265 miles by the EPA:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1077122_2012-tesla-model-s-epa-range-of-265-miles-89-mpge-efficiency

Owners may get more or less depending on speed, temperature, and of course their driving style.

@Rich: The four-door sedan version of the VW Golf is known as the Volkswagen Jetta.

And, I think you're going to find it very, very challenging to get elected officials signing onto an agenda of removing safety requirements. The headline would read: "Politician Wants To Make Cars More Dangerous."

Also, the insurance industry is driving much of the push for safer vehicles and added safety featuers, to reduce its costs for human injuries in accidents.