Tesla Founders Blog

Martin,
I work for a vehicle builder in the valley that soon will field a hybrid electric vehicle. I could use people with these skills on my team. I would be interested in looking at the resumes of anyone that might be interested.

Jim Bulis: I tried to leave a comment on the maistrada site but only hung. I think it is very ill conceived and impratical with tiny wheels that could not handle a speed bump or a rough road, etc. But look to http://www.aptera.com for a far more refined and pratical approach to this idea.

I agree with Roy, actually. Aptera is great.

For anyone who might be interested –

We are currently hiring mechanical and electronics (power and control) for our diesel-electric yacht system development.

Martin sez:

I am going out on a limb here and naming your company. I hope I read your intentions correctly.
The company is Glacier Bay.

I am working on a similar project on a much smaller budget. Does anyone know the names and phone nubers of the people who were terminated? I’m needing several technical people immediately!

Hi Martin

On a side note, you got my curiosity going

Would you mind to tell us why Ian Wright “decided” to leave Tesla. According to http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/04/autos/electric_wright.fortune/

“Wright, 51, an electrical engineer, was the first person hired at Tesla Motors. (The company’s $98,000 electric sports car, based on a Lotus and considerably slower than Wright’s X1 with a 0 to 60 of about four seconds, is due next spring.) For a year he oversaw engineering and vehicle development, but ultimately his vision of an electric performance car and Tesla’s were too different”

And on another side note: I sense “bitterness” re Elon Musk. Perhaps best to try to “forgive” as bitterness can cause illness e.g. cancer, a disease nobody wants. Easier said than done, I know.

Peace to you.

Martin sez:

Ian and I have significantly different outlooks on life. He’s a smart guy, but we just can’t work together.

[Cabbage] indeed. Once again the dollar rules the day. I’m glad I got the chance to read the original posting before it went away.

Yes it was interesting to read, but if you don’t want lawsuit, then its better to take it down

Martin,

The whole Tesla direction is changing quite fast it seems. I’m shocked that such a shake-up has occurred.

I posted on the Tesla blog fairly regularly, and used to push for Tesla to offer an option or second generation car as a REEV, similar to the Chevy Volt. Despite this differing from your Tesla Motors business plan of all-electric, I think we share quite similar views: All-electric is the way to go, but a REEV is a practical step towards that until the technology improves to the point of eliminating any limitation.

In any case, thanks for setting up another blog to share your views and perspectives!

- Eric

Martin,
Before you do that I think you should do at least 50% to 75% of that list first. Ya.

Martin,

For one thing the agreement that you signed has nothing to do with being fired. The disclosure of any information, which there wasn’t from all that I have read, has nothing to do with this clause. The problem is they are scared and do no want the negative repercussions against them, which I am sorry to say will happen even faster that they think. Once they fired you the clause ceases to exist because they broke the contract clause, not you. The future will hold what will be seen. Especially things they don’t want and refuse to see.

Anyway, enough of my banter.

I haven’t seen any of the responses since I was last on this blog some days ago.

I own two companies which are direct competition with Tesla and ahead of them. Never have I seen this “I’m scared you’ll say somethng” behavior like this from corporate exec’s.

Sorry Martin, I am going to take a walk and come back and type again. A little perturbed at this childish behavior from them.

Would appreciate any insights into future battery affordability (aka achilles heel). Like you said elsewhere, dang things need to get several times as dense and an order of magnitude cheaper. What is SionPower doing (esp w/ recent agreement with PolyPlus)? Is A123 or EnerDel cheaper? The nanowire report is interesting, but of course that one needs similar improvements to the cathode, and it doesn’t sound cheap….

As for cabbage, well, truth will out. We all want someone to succeed bringing an electric car to market, just as I’d like to see cheaper access to space, but the car isn’t out, and the rocket has yet to reach orbit. Time will prove success or failure.

Marc, JB and the two Malcolms have been on the team page as far back as I can remember, so at least some of the senior staff is still consistent.

Many of the employment page job postings have been listed for a long time. It doesn’t appear like they are in a big hurry to fill those positions.

Interestingly 100% of the job postings right now are in San Carlos. Are there open positions for the other offices (e.g.: Michigan, New Mexico, UK, etc) listed somewhere else?

I wonder if Elon got his car yet. I was expecting VIN#1 customer car to be delivered soon, but now I am hearing about more VPs coming in.

Joseph wrote:
What? Where did you hear that more VPs are coming?

It seems VP11 was announced on the customer forums

wow, Tesla has really turned into a suppressor of truth. I never sign NDAs. I wont be party to secrets because secrecy is evil although most of you are not aware there is such a thing.
I like your appetite for truth Martin and I hope you will take this opportunity to make that more pronounced in your life. A powerful ally it is.

I sensed Elon wasn’t similarly liberated, no intelligent man goes into rocketry thinking it’s an honest competition if his eyes are open, but these events seem to have darkened his mind. The dark side I sense in him

I hope this oppression has made you disappointed Martin and that you will take this opportunity to fight back by calling Bob Lutz to urge him to free the remaining EV1s.

THIS…. IS…. SPARTA!

>> Two out of the four aforementioned executives are no longer with Tesla Motors as of last Friday.

They are already gone from Team Page.
How long until only Ze’ev and Siry are there?

Martin, unless my memory is failing me, I believe that a single speed transmission was your original plan, but had to be abandoned in order to satisfy both the acceleration AND top speed requirements for the roadster. Can you comment on whether you feel the challenges that originally caused the abandonment of this idea can now somehow be overcome?

Martin sez:

I really can’t comment on what Tesla is now doing.

Martin–

how about building your next company in Oakland? Contact Van Jones at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights about creating “green collar jobs”

Martin,
Will there be other “Tesla Founders” joining you on this blog? I am eager to read their blog entries !! Looking forward to more…..
Sideliner

Charles, if you had even half an idea of how companies, sometimes even companies that become great companies, got started you wouldn’t be nearly as demanding of perfection as you are. Colin Chapman, who started Lotus as I assume you know, never had much money in the early days and was a bit of a hustler by all accounts. Had he not died of a heart attack he would probably have gone to prison for his later involvement with the John DeLorean scam. His financial director did spend some time at her Majesty’s pleasure, as we say. I don’t know what Chapman promised to people back then but I do know that he wasn’t able to pay my father any wages for several months and gave him a car in lieu of payment. He actually just gave him the materials, but dad had to build it! My point is that it isn’t always easy getting started, especially when you want to go into the car business. I’m curious to know if you’ve ever started a company yourself or if you just enjoy playing Monday morning quarterback for people like Martin. I have started a company. It was a long time ago but I do remember this; it was a lot harder than just drawing a pay cheque every month. Incidentally Charles, when you look at all those other projects like the Miastrada, the Aptera and whatever else you were referring to above, does it not for a second occur to you that the whole Tesla project is just way above everything else out there? First, it looks like a real car and a real sexy car too. Second it has been approved for sale in the US of A and has passed the crash tests and all the other boring stuff you have to pass to get that approval. Third it has a range that is way above any other electric car that is even close to getting to market. Fourth it has performance that is way above any other project that is anywhere near. So, it’s late and it doesn’t exactly meet the spec that was originally aimed for. Most of the actual buyers, as opposed to the people like you who just enjoy carping about it, are fairly content with the car as it now is and will be when they finally get it into production. If they’re happy, why aren’t you? Nobody is forcing you to buy one.

Wow, are so many of you so harsh! After owing two Lotuses, one – the first twin cam Europa for the US and then a Series 1 Esprit, be glad that Tesla is offering the “upgrade” down the road. Colin Chapman was never able or maybe willing to do this. He sold his cars with a myriad of problems which the cars were known for. And year after year.

I bought the Europa at the factory and over the years got a good feeling about how, as the locals said “Lotus throws together their cars”.

A new business is tough enought to start, a car business even tougher…and then to create an electric car that nobody has done yet.

Cheer them on guys! Start ups are brutal for everyone!

Martin sez:

As a former Europa owner, I especially appreciate your words

Martin, I came across this by chance just googling ‘water-cooled electric motors’ (can’t think why )and I wondered if you’d seen it. Is this really a novel technology? Do you know anything about it?

http://www.evworld.com/archives/reports/lynxmotion.html

Martin sez:

Hub motors might yet be the subject of a future blog. I’d like to go through the logic and the math in gory detail to expose the tradeoffs fully.

That would be a really interesting blog. I look forward to it. PML seem to be the leading lights with hub motors on this side of the Atlantic but I’m sure there’s somebody doing similar work over there.

I just received an email announcement of the first Tesla roadster delivery to EM. Smile here.

Aside from all the cyber-thoughts in the past couple months, this is monumental!!

Martin, you have been so instrumental in this event in history.
I say congrats to YOU – for your critical part in creating a historical milestone! Without your passion this would have not occured – at this time or product.

Nicola, would have been amazed. But he also gave to the world some thing greater than he created.
So we may all.

Cheers,
Jp

martin sez:

Thanks, Jp. I will be even happier when they deliver the second car!

I hope Tesla and its owners will be big enough to recognize Martin’s contribution with some kind of delivery ceremony. Reconciliation is always a better bet than rancour and recrimination. A little hatchet-burying would make us all feel better I think. Easy for me to say!

It is amazing the extent Tesla has gone to kill this story. The ironic thing is that I never would have heard about this Blog but for a story about Tesla’s forcing the censorship of a Blog entry.

StillHasAJob suggested comparing present day Tesla Team to previous versions and noted how many people have left Tesla. I discovered that the cache of the Tesla Team page has been updated in Google, Yahoo and MSN. And all previous copies of the Tesla Team have been removed from the Wayback Machine. This is an incredible feat because it is next to impossible to get cache’s removed from the Wayback Machine.

For those intent finding the list, Tesla has yet to get rid of the cache for the Tesla Team from the search engine GigaBlast.com. If you Google “Tesla Bloodbath” and include a name that used to be on the team but is no longer you will find the list quoted in any of a number of articles.

Tesla should really know better than this. Deadlines were missed and it is a startup company. Sometimes harsh measures must be taken. When you go out and waste corporate resources censoring Blogs, erasing the cache from search engines and from the WayBack Machine you imply guilt because you have something to hide. It just lacks class, and Tesla is marketing to people in my income bracket. It does not impress.

EDSON writes the TESLA story…

Martin sez:

Sigh.

I was surprised by the way the whole global warming debate plays into the Tesla story. Some Tesla customers who (apparently) love the car for styling, performance, and other such reasons, appear to think that global warming is just a political hoax.

Many companies are jumping on the “go green” soapbox, and are tempted to say you are “saving the planet” by buying an EV. Over on the tmclub forum some Tesla customers posted some articles claiming renowned scientists now say global warming isn’t real. I felt compelled to show that things are more factionalized and politically driven, and you can find groups claiming data to show either position. I have my own hunches and opinions, but it is difficult if someone says “prove your point of view is right”. The data about what might happen isn’t provable until it is too late. There will always be holdouts who believe we can never damage our planet no matter what we do, so it can be a sticky place to be.

I tend to think there are plenty of very good reasons to pursue EVs even if you don’t try to pull in the global warming argument.

By the way, some of the loudest voices claiming that global warming isn’t real are part of the New Zealand Climate “Science” Coalition. (Ian is originally from New Zealand as well)

I try to be open minded and not push one viewpoint hard on anyone, but then being “in the middle”, both sides tend to think I am just “wishy washy” or indecisive. That ends up being a “no win” situation, so you end up feeling pressure to “pick a side”. Then you end up isolating yourself from those with a different viewpoint. So… I hope to keep the global warming debate separate from EV justification conversations. There are already a bunch of more provable reasons why EVs and MPGe improvements are very beneficial.

Martin sez:

I can’t imagine what motivates the guy. But when you look into is claims, the proof that he is wrong lies right in the source material he himself quotes! Check out, for example, his astonishing claim that there is no deforestation on the earth, but instead, forest cover continues to increase on the planet! Then read this bogosity debunked at lomborg-errors. In case you don’t believe the debunking, do what I did: go to the library and pull out his own source material and read it yourself…

##TEG said.
##Some Tesla customers who (apparently) love the car for styling, performance, and other such reasons, appear to think that global warming is just a political hoax.

TEG, I may be one of the people you’re thinking of. I’m not a customer for the car but I do think it’s great step forward. I admit I’m on the fence when it comes to Global Warming. I don’t think it’s just a political hoax but I do think it’s being blown out of proportion by people who often have no more understanding of it than I do. I’ve read books both ways and I’m not smart enough to know which scientists are right but I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know enough to want to spend trillions of dollars – removed from other worthwhile programmes – to correct something which may or may not be caused by us anyway and which we are unlikely to have any means of correcting. I’m old enough to remember reading the scares about a ‘new ice-age’ that were spread by well-meaning journalists in the 70s. That was all based on the best science available at the time. Just as Global Warming is supposedly based on the best science available today. Should we worry about GW? Yes. Should we do anything about it? Yes, but not anything that involves spending trillions of dollars of other people’s money on ineffective schemes. So we should do only what can be sensibly accommodated within the world’s existing economic and political framework. It simply isn’t realistic, fair or humane to tell Chinese people or Indians or Brazilians that they can’t have cars, for example, or electricity. So we have to find ways of giving them clean cars and buses, trucks etc. And ways of giving them clean electricity. Does this make me a denier? I don’t know. I hate that term as it has all those awful connotations related to idiot holocaust-deniers like David Irving. I’m happy to debate with anybody who thinks differently from me provided that they will be as courteous to me as I will be to them. If the argument descends into trading insults then I’m going to quickly lose interest and back out. Nobody is going to learn anything that way. I see EVs and REEVs in particular as being a small part of the answer if GW really is the problem. They can’t fix the world but if they are quickly adopted, and REEVs will find acceptance much more quickly, then they can reduce emissions from vehicles enormously and simultaneously even out our daily electricity consumption. That’s got to be a win-win situation.

So, I agree with you TEG that we should keep our arguments in favour of EVs and REEVs separate from the GW debate. There are plenty of good reasons to go this route that have nothing to do with GW. Freedom from middle-east oil is high up there for me as is simply the cash and convenience saving from having a relatively maintenance-free vehicle with very low running costs that still has decent performance. To me it’s a no-brainer and the quicker we can get from REEVs to full EVs the better.

David, my argument against spending the trillions of dollars is that this is not a consequence-free action. If we spend this money in this way it inevitably means we won’t spend that same money in another way…say preventing aids or malaria or whatever or building roads or hospitals or schools. So somebody has to die today in order for us to save people from a possible death through GW tomorrow. If the threat really is big enough you might still be tempted to make that selfless choice but I know which way I would want the money spent if I was the guy who was going to have to die today or be poor today to (possibly) save somebody tomorrow. Living in the States or Europe it’s tempting to believe that we can do all of these things and not choose between them but if you look at China or Brazil, where I lived for 8 years, or India, some of these choices do actually have life or death implications. I’m not sugesting we should do nothing, just that we should only do that which doesn’t involve sacrificing today’s generation to save tomorrow’s.

I’m with you on that David. Anything that looks like a ‘win-win’ is good by me. EVs and REEVs look to me like one relatively quick way of partially solving the problem….if there is a problem …. so I’m absolutely in favour of them and solar power stations (solar power generally too) and geo-thermal and anything else that benfits mankind today as well as helping to avoid wars and pollution in future. I just don’t want to divert resources from worthwhile and essential projects today based on computer projections of possible problems with CO2 tomorrow. Plus we need serious analysis of the arguments against anthropogenic causation rather than just blanket assertions that the science is now irrefutable. That to me is like a red rag to a bull. It’s clear that there are serious arguments on both sides and a little more respect all around would make for a healthier debate. Scientists are not gods and their arguments should never be beyond questioning by reasonable people. It simply isn’t good enough to just expect us to be believers, as if it were a religion. I never bought into that either.

David Kosowsky wrote:
If someone feels that another is wishy-washy because they have not dedicated themselves to one side of the controversy, then that is the “someone’s” problem.

This is the quote (from here) that still has me perturbed:
————————————————–
“” I just love all the “reasonable” people who think that a position half way between a wild-eyed politically-calculated false assertion and a large body of contravening observable facts is an intellectually sound compromise. “”
————————————————–

“” I just love all the “reasonable” people who think that a position half way between a wild-eyed politically-calculated false assertion and a large body of contravening observable facts is an intellectually sound compromise. “”

That’s a lot of fancy sylables. Sounds like Jesse Jackson speak. GW is a scientific issue not an ideological or political one. Can’t imagine anybody is for it. How or if it gets addressed is political in today’s reality but it shouldn’t be. Some scientific issues can be addressed solely by a free market economy and some can’t. I don’t see how a free market can solely adress GW, rather it can only adress it coincidentally with other issues such as EV’s. So, if GW is real threat then governments are best suited to address it. Luckily, many of the ways to do so also can have significant side benefits. Science advisers (hopefully good ones) should be determining the GW risks for those in power and then the political leaders should determine what, if any, actions should be taken.

I am very curious. Does anyone have any idea when production 2 roadster is supposed to roll out?

Hey Anonymous, sorry for being so ’short-sighted’. Believe it or not I am capable of sufficiently sophisticated thought processes to realise that there is a trade-off here between immediate benefits and longer term ones. Just like you I’m in favour of having a cleaner world for our kids to grow up in but I am entitled to have a different opinion about how we get there and what we sacrifice in order to achieve it. As I pointed out in an earlier post it’s much easier to decide that spending on the future is okay if you’re not the one who is going to make the sacrifices in the present to pay for it. Whichever way you slice it carbon sequestration and the like is very expensive and must divert resources from other areas.

That said, I’m all in favour of greater efficiency in every area and I believe, like you, that some green measures can offer win-win solutions….battery driven cars being one example, once battery prices drop and performance improves. Right now they’re too expensive to have much impact. I’m very much with you on the huge benefits of solar energy both on the local level and longer-term as a substitute for present power stations, but all of this has to take place within our existing economic and political framework. It just isn’t realistic to expect today’s taxpayers to shell out trillions in an altruistic way. They’ve never done this before and I can’t think why you would expect them to do it now. You may think that’s stupid and short-sighted but politicians know that people vote with their pocket books and you have to carry them with you, not try to force them to ‘do the right thing.’

Martin, I can’t believe the number of suitors for you on this blog. How will you choose your next business system or will you make another one?

We are both on the same side of the debate on product vs business system.

But what about the deeper entrepreneurial debate about team vs idea vs capital?

Where do you stand?

Almost EVERYBODY believes in team over everything else, but I’m beginning to think that system has to play in there somewhere.

For example, the HP way was more of a personal philosophy than the team Hewlett and Packard…

Anyway, the garage days are gone… five years before your first sale, you’re a damn celebrity and probably feel a sense of failure in the system, as your fans scream for more!!!

So I would say, TRY TO IGNORE ALL THE SHINY CARROTS BEING DANGLED and ask about the business system first, then the team, then show me your technology.

Personally, I wouldn’t get involved in any automaker startup unless it had several entities including a racing R&D entity to make mistakes in exchange for advertising AND as you said before, a system of suppliers, in other words relationships in place for the details, you know, like the plastic and rubber.

I wouldn’t get involved unless I had a network of suppliers from Asia that could supply some high quality non-essentials at global lowest costs BUT I would measure the R&D racing team with number of patents over quality of patents and pit teams against each other to race technologies.

SO MUCH FOR KEEPING MY BUSINESS PLAN SECRETS…

Concerning GW:
I had been much persuaded by the warming graphs and arguments, especially the risk/payoff analyses in favor of acting now, but recently have had my views moderated by some data points. To wit:
1. Water vapor has the same absorption/reflection profile as CO2, but is orders of magnitude more abundant in the atmosphere. Its effects would utterly swamp any CO2 changes.
2. Geological history says that peaks of CO2 FOLLOWED temperature rises by ~800 years. If any one can tell me how, if A precedes B, B can be the cause of A, I’m all ears.
3. Solar cycles are powerful players, and it happens that this year’s sunspot minimum corresponds to an average global temperature DROP which totally reverses the last ~12 years’ increases.

I am forcibly reminded of a caution written by Bertrand Russell, along the lines of, “If the experts are all agreed, it is intellectually unsafe to be certain of the contrary opinion. If the experts are in disagreement, it is intellectually unsafe to be certain of any opinion.”

Martin sez:

Why do so many so-called conservatives not get this?

Steve S.,

Years ago, in studying power line magnetic fields, Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University used the term “prudent avoidance” as a reasonable action to take against potential power line effects on people. I think the same term applies again here against global warming.

Jim, the power line example doesn’t have much resonance with me. The analogy of tobacco smoking seems much closer to the mark. Someone could stop smoking because he thinks that leading scientists and the scientific evidence are pretty much split down the middle about a link between smoking and cancer, but he wants to play it safe. That would be an excellent result, as far as I’m concerned, but one barely overcoming inadequate knowledge and disinformation.

The tobacco companies ran disinformation campaigns for decades to try to refute and ridicule the idea of a link between smoking and cancer, perhaps because they were doing billions of dollars of business within the status quo. Oil companies have the prospect of doing hundreds of billions of dollars of business in the years ahead, so it’s reasonable to suppose that they might have been tempted to indulge in a little disinformation to try to preserve the status quo.

Regardless of whether they did or didn’t, I think the scientific evidence is compelling that links increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and global climate change. People far brighter and more knowledgeable than I have written persuasively about it, and I encourage anyone interested to search around and learn more. It’s an important subject, if only because it’s already making big increases in the incidence, range, and severity of big storms. They kill a lot of people and destroy vast amounts of property. Along with the steady sea level rise, they could eventually cause several of our major coastal cities to be abandoned if nothing is done.

Global climate change isn’t my favorite subject. It’s just one factor in the case for reducing gasoline consumption, although it might eventually prove to be the most important one. Others are dependence on foreign oil, sending huge amounts of money to parts of the world full of people who want to do us harm, peak oil, skyrocketing gas prices and the resultant economic misery, major health problems caused by photochemical smog and particulate air pollution, five years and counting of war (for those of us who suspect it might have something to do with oil), and on and on.

My favorite part of all this is that modern electric cars are fun to drive, fast, quiet, very cheap to run, and low-maintenance. When they are available again they will also help to solve the pesky problems in the previous paragraph, as icing on the cake.

Martin sez:

We can bicker about which is the icing and which is the cake, but you captured what I was trying to express quite well. And I think your tobacco analogy is quite good, though the scale of the downside is so much greater with Global warming: the damage will not be just to ourselves, it will be to everyone else, and to our children.

Look again at how GM sees electricity as an “energy carrier” so that we can “shift more energy to transportation” and cut down on the use of oil. Notice that in the GM view, the energy source will be anything but oil.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf

Then look to see if you can find any mention of efficiency in their discussion.

So I conclude with the expectation that there will be a future of cars looking about like they do now, only they will use electricity to “carry” some of the energy to them.

For those that are concerned about CO2, there should be some alarms going off.

Martin sez:

Um.. How is it that electricity is not an energy carrier?

Hi Martin

I hope that one day you will find a good reason that you are in the position that you now find yourself. Keep the faith.

I wish that I had a better way to do this…

I have been working for nearly 3 years on a method to make hydrogen for less than the cost of coal. It is a zero-emission process. The whole idea is so audacious that I am having a bit of trouble getting people to take it seriously. It doesn’t involve quantum mechanics, radio waves, crystals, catalysts, solar-electrolysis, or any such concepts. Rather, it is just plain old chemistry and a “clean-sheet” approach to the process, which began with CO2 capture and sequestration, and then worked backwards. In fact, the more that I work on it, the simpler it gets.

I am not advocating hydrogen so that we might have fuel cell vehicles, which have been “5 years away” for as long as I can remember. Rather, this low-cost hydrogen is intended to do two things on an industrial scale: first, to assist in the clean-up process of both heavy and sour crudes, a $30B market that is growing at 15% per year; and two, to make zero-emission electricity at very low cost. Not “renewable” power, but at least very “sustainable”.

Such electricity would help to bring a downward pressure, eventually, on electricity prices, particularly in overnight off-peak periods; hence helping electric vehicles (and everything else electric), by using our existing infrastructure. We’re talking $30 to $40 per MW-Hr, again “all-in”; with no NOx, SOx, mercury, CO2, nothing. Actually, no “smokestack” at all.

This hydrogen would cost, all-in, approximately $2.50 per mmBTU ($0.90 per GGE). The hydrogen would burn cleanly in virtually any existing gas turbine or boiler, with very minor mods. This is a plug-in substitute for natural gas, which is trading recently (Mar-Apr 08) for approx $10 per mmBTU, in what is considered a “shoulder period” (low demand between winter heating loads and summer electrical-derived demand).

I am an engineer / MBA with 25 years experience in power and energy. I’ve had to make a real living in real businesses. But I am seeking a way to make a huge change in the world; not unlike your vision. In fact, with humility, this one may have an even bigger impact.

I hope that you might have a look at my site (which is unfortunately vague, for obvious reasons), and contact me.

Thanks
Tom
ttillmanattexyndotcom

Here’s the Blog comment he was replying to: Andrew Kelsey wrote on April 14th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Darryl, whichever way you slice it a higher price equals lower sales. If I were your marketing or sales department I would pay a lot of attention to the Norwegian guy writing above who was very interested at the US price but isn’t going to be a customer at the ’special edition’ price. I guess you’re just using the ’special edition’ to test the water and you’ll set the real price according to the reaction you get. At current production rates you might as well price them at half a milion!

Talking of which, is there any news of the Founder’s Edition car P2 that is due to be delivered to your founder?

Andrew – you have to look at volume relative to your production capacity and your gross margins. In the US we could probably sell 10,000 roadsters at $50,000 but we can’t make that many and we would lose a bundle on every one. So the ultimate goal is not simply unit sales. As a startup you also have to look hard at fixed cost absorption since your overhead is very large relative to your sales at the early stages of growth. We are setting prices to build a healthy and successful business balancing all of these considerations. If you read my previous post, a fully loaded 2009 car in the US will be about $120,000. I don’t think there will be a very large incentive for gray market imports. Regarding Martin’s car, we’ll let him now as soon as it’s ready for delivery and he can let you know if he wants. We are taking great car with the early cars to ensure quality. – Darryl

Martin sez:

No word from Tesla yet.

Come to the LayoffCafe.com and express yourself.

I recently viewed this artcle and 30 different electric car companies (http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/)

First I was suprised at the total number of 30 and some wierd, suprising, practical and impractical designs.

The two key issues that would concern me regarding purchasing an EV would be
1)Life and degredation of range over life of the batteries.

2) The predicted reliability of brand new designs in brand new factories.

I would really like to understand if I can expect a new electric car to last 100K miles.

Any comments? Anyone?

What am I missing?

Assuming I buy a future EV that has say, a 150 mile range and I need to travel further on a particular day. Why not just pop a gas generator (for example a Honda 3000iS) or similar into the trunk and power the batteries using this – it would be a custom install and maybe a dedicated rather than a commercial unit – but a 3kW genny that uses a gallon of gas an hour under load would extend the vehicle range surely. And when I returned home and no longer needed it, I’d pull it out and put it back in the garage.

Seems that there are many novel solutions to a problem if you think outside of the box.

Martin sez:

Making the genset removable by the driver is difficult to impossible when you take into account the requirements of safety and smog. The genset will be relatively heavy, so it will be a significant component of the crash mass of the vehicle, and the gas tank absolutely must be protected.

Ahh, you see this is where a hobbyist type of solution works. For the manufacturer to have to cover all the bases with this type of solution requires all the testing that you refer to. However, if the manufacturer simply supplied the charging circuit and did not supply the generator, then the hobbyist can supply that and not be required to meet all of the expensive and stringent testing required. The current Do It Yourself modifications for the Toyota Prius for example involve the hobbyist building LiPo packs, and updating the Toyota software etc to create a Prius that can drive 40 miles at 34mph on electric and plug in to charge.

It’s the hobbyist and small ‘after market’ manufacturer who will change the face of EV – not the likes of GM who are hamstrung with legal and liability issues. What GM produces has to appeal to 5 million people, a small manufacturer is able to survive on 1000 customers.

I drive an RV with a built in 8kW diesel generator, not well protecte and not sure about it’s smog requirements because it’s never smogged. I have a 3kW backup Honda generator that weighs 68lbs – I can lift it in and out of the storage bay. Using a standard permanently installed gas tank with a no-drip quick-fit fitting would be simple and safe. Unless the generator is used for traction I don’t think it needs smog – it’s a battery charger, not a traction motor.

You are right, of course, Joe Public would be a major concern with such a solution

Whilst the big car companies will be crucial, I’m still not convinced that they take the concept seriously enough at Board level. We will have to see $8 a gallon before they will wake up and I think the reason is that they perceive that the market will demand an EV that recharges in 2 minutes (like a gas car does), drives 400 miles (like a gas car does) and does 80+mph and 0-60 in less than 10 seconds (like a gas car does).

I think they underestimate Joe Publics acceptance of compromise in todays fuel price conscious world.

The hobbyist and aftermarket converters will have to demonstrate that a 50 mile range, 40mph vehicle does have a place in the city – after all some of us bought Smart Cars and no-one estimated the demand for those ‘weird’ cars did they? Overpriced, uncomfortable, perceived as dangerous and as ‘toys’ – yet they sell at a premium price and with an 18 month wait list – go figure!

Interesting times.

Martin, how did you feel about the re-writing of history on “60 Minutes” last night? Not a word about you as the founder, visionary, driving force for what Tesla is, or should have become, and its relation to what the rest of the automotive world is now pursuing.

Martin sez:

Considering that 60 Minutes is supposed to give a little more depth and research, this is all the more disappointing.

Hi Martin,

could you possibly elaborate?

ATB,

Chris.

Martin sez:

The company’s new CEO is “holding people accountable at all levels, and that starts at the top.” -Darryl Siry, Venture Beat, 11 January 2008

Elon Musk is now Tesla CEO and he is laying off those who are not in the “special forces.” http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=65