Tesla Founders Blog

First of all, I’ll borrow two quotes, “better late than never,” and “failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently.” This comment is a month too late, I’m sorry for your experience Martin, only time will heal, and as far as Ford, it’s not about what kind of product a Ford car or truck is, but about the man that invented the assembly line.

He also failed twice because shareholders wanted an expensive car, he just wanted to race and build another one for the masses. One of his failures became Cadillac, who’s focus was the highest profit margins.

Compare that to Toyota’s first entry, an ugly underpowered car, that couldn’t get on the freeway. Almost identical to the Prius released 50 years later that has gone on to sell one million units at $20,000,000,000 or more along with saving hundreds of thousand of gallons of gasoline.

So if Ford invented the assembly line and Mr. Toyoda studied it, were they engineers or management scientists? Well, one might argue, just as two Stanford professors do in Built to Last, that a company’s true value is it’s organization, grounded in permanent DNA that never goes away, but any innovative technology that goes through the system can be innovative. Building a clock vs. telling time.

The time is now for building the digital automobile and Toyota started with the Prius foreshadowed by decades of experience in processes grown from looms grounded in Kaizen.

I asked my Japanese wife to simply define this, and she has no automotive or engineering or business background.

She said, “just a moment…” then drew on a scratch piece of paper, some Kanji (Chinese characters imported by a Buddhist monk who achieved enlightenment by walking around Japan’s smallest island for months on a trek people still follow today called something like 88 temples) that she thinks reads…

“aratameru” for the first one and
and she wasn’t sure of the reading when standing alone but very clear on the meaning, “yoi.”

So what does Kai from China or aratemru in Japanese really mean? According to a quick internet search, “change, alter, improve, remodel.” I would think that change and alter are Eastern and improve and remodel are modern.

Basically, we’re talking about change, NOT make better, or run lean… Now take a look at every Toyota or Toyoda product from cars to houses to controllers. The Prius came from 1,000 engineers THROWING out 80 designs to get to 650 patents replaced by the 2nd generation that Hollywood bought to be made obsolete by plug-ins.

I’m not sure about better, but change is 100% correct.

So what about “zen” and not this is not the zen you are thinking about, remember, the Japanese language is the 2nd most difficult language in the world because of three alphabets and multiple meanings. My wife says that in the Kaizen combination, “zen” means yoi.

Well even I know this word. It’s good, but it’s a very rare way to say good. Normally, one would say, ii. For example, I’m good (full) or good job. Yoi is a different good.

It seems to carry more respect, as if something difficult or important was achieved, almost as if it’s more used in the past tense as opposed to have a good day, maybe, “Wow, that was a good effort” no matter what the result was.

There’s no question that you made a “yoi” effort at Tesla Martin, and the only constant in the world’s biggest business is change.

So putting the two together, I come up with “change good.”

NOTICE THAT THIS KAIZEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEAN or the Western definition, “continuous improvement” which was taught in my MBA coursework.

This has to do with a different perspective. Whereas the East looks at the process, the West looks at the result. Japanese doctor’s don’t tell patients that they have cancer and focus on the process of what got there and beyond. We want to cut it out, like firing someone who makes a mistake.

But what if mistakes are part of the “kaizen” process, or change to good as opposed to good change. What if Toyota stopped at the 2nd, 5th, 52nd or 79th G21 (Prius) failure?

We might not have a digital benchmark to beat today…

So as you build your next company, I encourage you to focus half of your early efforts on DNA that relates to the process, not the technology. DNA that make an organization, “lean” not matter what kind of transmission or controller goes through the assembly line. And maybe most important, DNA that applauds failure as another chance to start again more good!

My family has had many different Toyotas over the years including a Toyota Corona that went to 1,000,000 miles..Henry Ford Invented the Assembly line, but Toyota perfected it…Its a shame that the makers of the the entire industry as we know it, Ford, cannot compete or make profit nearly to the same degree as Toyota. And the expierment by buying Mazda to help them with quality and refinement proved fruitless, with examples going to the Five Hundred, Taurus. Someone needs to get more exects from Toyota…not just Jim Farley.

Malcolm Wilson,

Your philosophy of the team being more important than the product only produces a self-indulgent team that values itself above completing a product, which is why most SV start-ups are forced to shut down and / or sell out to another company that eventually earns money on their innovation.

While Kaizan is a valuable tool, improving efficiencies only takes you so far, before you require an innovation to advance further. Efficiency is doing things right, while effectiveness is doing the right things. For instance, Toyota was only incrementally improving the efficiency of their vehicles, encroaching on other aspects that Americans like (performance, comfort, etc.). GM has leapfrogged over Toyota with the E-REV or serial hybrid configuration, which will deliver at least twice the mileage of Toyota’s Prius.

While it is nice to have everyone’s involvement in trimming waste and improving quality, it is often the work of a singular genius who vaults an entire organization past their competitors.

Martin sez:

We shall see if GM does indeed leapfrog Toyota though. Today, the Volt (and the whole E-REV idea) are only concepts.

Martin,

Yes, innovation is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration – I hope your estimation of Lutz is correct. Their website states that A123’s battery pack delivery is imminent, and they expect to be driving a converted mule in a month or two.

Malcolm,

I read up on Pixar University, which sounds like a good way to help individuals cross-pollenize and grow beyond their current positions. Lemme give you a counter example of where this approach backfired. GM created the GM Institute – GMI, a trade school turned university to train engineers and other disciplines in the GM way. It eventually evolved into a frat house mentality, in which graduates colluded to advance each other’s career while undermining graduates of all other universities. GM stalled and stumbled badly as a result, as the essential innovators were held down or pushed out, because they weren’t part of the “GM way”.

As much as I desired to create the most fulfilling experience possible for all members of an organization, too much leeway breeds ugly group behaviours that are very destructive – Lord of the Flies style.

I’m impressed with how far Hyundai has come, car wise, in what seems like a short time (the last 3 cars my brother & his wife have bought are: Daewoo, Kia, Hyundai). Need to study Hyundai. I also wonder what percentage of higher-ups at Japanese & Korean companies are engineers/designers- as opposed to bean counters. I think a key item would be enthusiasm-and through the roof U.S. CEO pay ain’t good for company morale. Enthusiasm leads to continual refinement and trying different things for the fun of it-which is why Frank Gehry is an interesting architect, at least there’s enthusiasm in his buildings. BMW, in its Mini-Cooper S, has made a fun little car-I had a first year model and just traded it in on the new model-they made a whole bunch of very good improvements-a lot of nice little new design stuff in that car and, on their website, a ton of “fun options” available. They did a really good “Toyota-like” job of “continual evolving change” on that car-they didn’t have to do all this new stuff so fast either, yet they did. England has a history of making a whole pack of interesting cars-like mainly in the 40’s, 50’s & early 60’s- but I guess “the bean counters in the temple” led to the “non-evolution” of this exciting trend. Detroit can do some great stuff in spots too- the new Mustang is very good-best look since the ‘67 fastback (which was great at the time-still neat looking car, particularly in Yellow Ochre color-current one based on it)-but now Ford could evolve the Mustang into some zippier features, like the Mini. But here’s an example of the “non-lean, non-agile ” hidebound nature of Ford (/ Detroit). My brother has an old Durango. He needs a similar car/truck that can seat 8 or 9, but thinks new look of Durango is worse than old one-and MPG still bad. He likes the Ford Edge, but it only seats 6 (I believe it is)-yet the car is front wheel drive-which means: how hard would it be (anyway) to stretch the car in a version to seat 8 (or 9 with front bench seat option, which he loves) ? Limo companies stretch Hummers even, so what’s with Ford (anyway) ?-they could have a whole new market for the Edge by just stretching it. With enthusiasm this would happen: “hey, Bluto-look how easy it would be to add seats to this thing-then we can compete with the Durango too” -”dang, Joe, you’re right-wait’ll Chrysler CEO Dean Wormer gets a load of this- LET’S DO IT!” . Ford’s new Volvo C30 is an interesting car, but the front design keeps the “hidebound” Volve grille, while the back has a cool hatchback shape. Not only that, costs more than the Mini Cooper, without all the neat features, and they charge an extra $750 to order it like you want. So simple: make the front boldly go where no Volvo has gone before (or at least more like the Roger Moore/Simon Templar ’60’s Volvo car it’s based on-the wagon version of that car) , don’t have stupid extra fees designed to cabbage buyers off and give them the final reason not to buy , and price the car a little lower than the Mini, since you ain’t matching its bells & whistles.The above items are what any car enthusist could tell Ford right off the bat (particularly after wandering around the Detroit auto show and comparing cars) re. the Edge & Volvo-so what’s with their high-priced higher-up executives anyway !?

Martin sez:

And I agree about the new Mustang – what a great car! The guy behind that car, Hau Tai-Tang, is one of my heroes. He knows more about making cars than any two other people I have met – and on top of that, he’s an incredibly nice guy and superb manager. Ford packed him up and moved him from Dearborn to Brazil, where he is now running Ford’s South American operations. I hope this is a step toward a larger management role in Ford for him.

I’m surprised you didn’t also mention the word “muda”, which was Toyoda-san’s term for any kind of wasted effort or material — the stuff that was wrung out by kaizen. There’s an entire chapter of Natural Capitalism devoted to the discussion of muda, in relation to radical resource efficiency — which, in an age of constrained access to resources, is the key to competitive advantage.

Martin sez:

All these individual Lean concepts are just names tacked on by academics – naming processes and ideas that are a snapshot in the ongoing evolution of business practices at the heart of the Toyota phenomenon.

Andrew,

Yanq is right that Toyota is just not intuitive / instinctive about new car design. They succeed by copying their competitors and improving upon cost and quality. When the market takes a sharp turn, Toyota drives off the cliff.

Toyota will always be a player, and they may produce more / higher quality vehicles, but they will never lead in new car design. The Prius and RAV-4 EV are good examples of how they don’t really get it. Toyota either uses a non-viable tech, like NiMH, or some insignificant or half-hearted step like the Prius. Certainly, in defense of the Prius, they had to compete on cost with pure ICE vehicles, and didn’t have the market protection of the latest CAFE standards, as the Chevy Volt does, but other than goodwill from customers, what would be the point of “limping in” to the market with that offering?

Martin sez:

Um, which car did Toyota copy when they made the Prius?

Martin,

There’s a reason the Prius is unique in the auto industry – it just doesn’t make sense other than an image vehicle for the consumer and Toyota. It’s just not a good platform for further development of either efficiency or zero emissions at a cost or performance American buyers would want. This is seen in Toyota’s inability to create a plug-in variant of the Prius that does more than a dozen miles on electricity alone.

Doing something unique doesn’t demonstrate vision or instinct, and often, the opposite is proven when the unique object dead-ends, with no obvious progeny.

Andrew & Martin,

Yes, Toyota will eventually dump the Prius config (hybird optimized, PHEV failure) and take up the same or similar approaches of their competitors and overtake them in cost and quality, using Kaisan. I heard Isuzu is going away, and suspect a few more auto makers will retreat, merge or shut down as the new CAFE standards kick in.

Martin sez:

Not just the Internet – Gore invented Hybrids too

I just wish Toyota would hire new body designers. I really do not like the look of their current models. I dread the thought of my 2000 4Runner dying. What will I buy? I have driven a Toyota since 1986, and can not imagine myself buying one of their current models. In fact it was the look of the Toyotas that pushed us over to buy our Mazda in 2005. Is Barney Hatt busy?

Martin sez:

Wow! It would be interesting to see what Barney could do for Toyota. He’s one of my favorite car designers, and the guy responsible for the looks of the Tesla Roadster.

Well I’m kinda hoping Toyota will make another MR-2, it’s sure as heck, that there won’t be another Pontiac Fiero

Now one of those above cars as a REEV, or hybrid should be great. It would help the environment as well.

I also agree that Toyota will make the Prius exactly in it’s present configuration (maybe with the option of a station wagon, etc.) for quite a while longer, cause it’s a cashcow and image PR machine atm. Why fix it if it ain’t broken.

btw. Thanks Martin to see you blogging again.
We’re always exited to hear from you.

How are your projects on your house coming along?

Martin sez:

Speaking of which, we should all persuade David Vespremi to show us some pictures of his SERIOUSLY tricked-out MR2. Sweet!

Actually Pontiac did fix the Fiero’s suspension, but not until the final year of production. The double wishbone setup they used was often compared to Lotus’s contemporary designs. As a side note, some speculate that GM killed the Fiero because the new design was going to be quicker and cheaper than the Corvette.

Martin sez:

I also read that the original styling for the Fiero was first proposed as a new ‘Vette design.

I didn’t think I would post in this topic because I haven’t studied business practices, and don’t really know what makes car companies tick, but what the heck – here are some comments from “left field”:

The old saying “you are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain” I think applies here. I think Toyota does a better job of finding the weakest link(s) and fixing them. From what I can see, the whole Auto industry looks at each other, and for the most part, copies each other’s practices. Toyota and GM have the same type of bean counters, the same vendor problems, the same bureaucracy, the same politics, the same screw ups, and all that. Toyota is just a little bit better at a lot of little things. I think their workers tend to work a tad harder, and have a tad more pride in their products. The very minor advantages in a lot of small areas add of to a slow takeover in the marketplace. Personally I don’t think you can just pick a high level business practice and say that is why they are winning. You could apply the “lean process” and any number of Japanese catch phrases for process improvement to other companies and have them fail miserably because they don’t have the same level of attention to detail for all the little things.

I tend to prefer ergonomics in Japanese cars to the typical American car. I also appreciate the typical “compact” design of Japanese cars that are party in response to different regulations they have for their home market. I started out buying various Mazdas but then “defected” over to Toyota when I realized that they had slightly better quality in a lot of areas. I noticed little things like older Toyotas with less paint problems, and less pieces breaking and falling off. I still love Mazda for their styling and their commitment to the adventurous rotary engine, but when Consumer Reports, JD Power, and all those reviews keep putting Toyota quality over Mazda (and others) I had to take notice. Now that I have owned a few Toyota products I can appreciate the difference. It really starts with slightly better quality of materials. Sure, I see Toyota cutting corners and using “cheap” parts in places, but they seem to be a bit more intelligent about where to skimp and where to do things better.
If 99.9% of the buyers never look under the seat then it doesn’t matter if it looks like cabbage under there. If studies say that people fiddle with the shifter constantly while driving then you better make it damn durable and comfortable to hold. All the big car companies think about all these sorts of details. Toyota just seems a hair better at figuring out how to undercut their competitors without affecting their customers too much.

One example I noticed was that BMW likes to let you special order a car however you want it. Toyota/Lexus brands don’t see that as cost effective so they have more of a “what you can see on the lots is what we have for sale” approach. This may scare away some possible customers but it is worth it from a cost standpoint.

Oh well, enough rambling, just some random thoughts.

Martin sez:

I started off thinking along the lines in your second paragraph – “From what I can see, the whole Auto industry looks at each other, and for the most part, copies each other’s practices. Toyota and GM have the same type of bean counters, the same vendor problems, the same bureaucracy, the same politics, the same screw ups, and all that.” But I had the same experience over and over: in early discussions with an auto-industry supplier, the supplier began by sizing us up: did we plan to have supplier relations the US way, or the Japanese way? It was binary – one way or the other.

The difference between these two systems could not be more stark. The Japanese method has all the elements of a feedback control system with attention to loop gain and stability, for you electrical engineers…

There are some stills of the same event here for those who are interested:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/02/01/pics-of-the-first-production-tesla-roadster/

Martin, is it going to be standard practice to fit the batteries in the US, as with this first car, or will it normally be done in Hethel?

Martin sez:

I really can’t comment on what Tesla plans to do…

Yanq,

I think you stated the need for both approaches well. Since they are diametrically opposed, the result is usually an outside innovator developing an innovation to the point to where it is either handed off or copied by one or more evolutionary organizations, which bring it to market in high volume.

It would be difficult to house both mindsets within a single co-located organization.

Yanquetino wrote:
I’ve got a question for you engineers.
…Subaru G4e electric motor

Can you tell if this is an AC induction motor? …Subaru intends to use liquid cooling?

It is a liquid cooled permanent-magnet synchronous motor.
It is more like the motor in the Rav4EV or even Prius. (The Tesla, EV1, and RangerEV all use asynchronous AC induction motors without permanent magnets).

Make sure you read this if you haven’t yet

Rumors were swirling that the Whitestar would use a Ford Fusion type chassis, but then they were debunked

I saw some ramblings about the New Mexico plant maybe not doing exactly what was planned originally. Maybe they do have some sort of different idea now how to make the Whitestar now.

Martin sez:

What I could say about that…

By my friend Joe who lived in Japan for many years and wouldn’t take the time to post here:
” I think that the American car companies don’t understand that using kaizen is not only good for product quality, but it also makes for happier workers, because all workers are empowered to come up with ideas to improve the product. In the US model, workers are merely replaceable drones that are supposed to follow orders. They have no input in the car-making process.”

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. – Ecc. 1:9

“Lean?” Oh please. Go read Robert Hayes’s article in The Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug. 1981. It’s all there. American manufacturers learned nothing since then. Until they do, manufacturing will continue to migrate to countries whose managers pay attention to the basics.

The first mass-market electric car is going to come from Japan, China, or India. American managers no longer have the discipline, dedication, focus, or accountability to succeed at making things. But we do excel at writing articles about how other people make things.

Why did only about 3 of the bloggers above mention the topic out of the 39 responses?

Most of the responses are emotional comments about entrepreneurs, brands, companies and technologies.

Those are all very temporary things in our dying world, as opposed to systems and values that run organizations, such as kaizen.

Is blogging more about psychology than knowledge creation?

Would you rather build a company on values or a technology?

How many patents does the Tesla Roadster have compared to the Prius?

Acheson- emotional comments are fitting for the car world- Bob Lutz sez to him that’s what cars are about. I agree with other comments above -Toyota may be great, but I don’t see them standing out design-wise- the Prius is plain, so is the Camry-their new Land Cruiser retro truck, the FJ-that’s one shining exception, I considered buying one. Where I live (Las Vegas) you see them all over the place-a big hit alright. A little too expensive and bad mpg for me. Martin sez the main thing about Kaizen is encouraging evolution, which top-down management doesn’t do-unless maybe it’s great top-down management. Detroit invented (I heard) 4 wheel steering, headlights that turn and follow the road, the Cord was doing front wheel drive in the late ’20’s, the ‘49 Ford was the first car without outside fenders (so I read). Design-wise in the ’50’s and ’60’s Detroit was going bananas trying all sorts of stuff: tilt steering wheels, swiveling front seats, tonneau covers over back seats (’63 Thunderbird) , gas turbines, folding hardtop convertibles (’57 Ford), skylight roofs (’54 Ford), fastback hatchbacks (’67 Mustang for example), muscle cars, then later the mini-van concept & SUV trend-which the Japanese & Germans copied. All this and no Kaizen. So Kaizen may be good for continual production of the product, but it ain’t the whole picture. More recently, the whole retro car concept was kicked off by Chrysler with its PT Cruiser when it became a big hit-leading to the hit Mustang, Mini, and Toyota FJ.The first mainstream EV was the GM EV-1 (thanks to Calif.) , which I’m sure ultimately led to the Prius. These are all beautiful cars- man does not live by plain Camrys alone. Kaizen may be about evolution , which also means, to me, “pride in the product”. Who wouldn’t want to keep improving what you’re working on ? -who but a bean counter type guy, that is. Otherwise it’s boring-it’s human nature to want to refine, improve, tweek, etc. Whatever the exact groady particulars of Kaizen are (and the avg. Joe doesn’t know, not having spent time in the auto industry) it’s probably in the end all about common sense. But Kaizen alone may produce a great Camry, but who cares-I don’t like a non-zippy sedan that looks like most other sedans no matter how Kaizen based the product is.

Martin sez:

I am talking about evolution of business processes, not about boring tweaks of boring cars.

John Acheson wrote:
How many patents does the Tesla Roadster have compared to the Prius?
Why do you ask? They both have some. Here are some examples:

Tesla Roadster;
Method and apparatus for mounting, cooling, connecting and protecting batteries
System and method for an efficient rotor for an electric motor
System and method for fusibly linking batteries
System and method for inhibiting the propagation of an exothermic event

Toyota Prius;
Power output apparatus…
Charging control apparatus, …
…canceling memory effect in secondary battery
Power output apparatus…
(electronic braking control)
Vehicle braking system having frictional and regenerative braking devices
Braking torque control system (regen & friction)
Power output device (planetary gear)

By the way, Toyota had a little trouble with this pre-existing patent pre-dating the Prius:
Dual-input infinite-speed integral motor and transmission device

A lot of the Toyota patents cover the blend of regen and friction braking controlled via the brake pedal. I imagine that Tesla has had to navigate those patents.

Thanks, TEG, for pointing me to http://www.autobloggreen.com/ . The White Star gossip was timely, and a search led me to this about the Subaru R1e, a vehicle and a potentially world-changing class of vehicle that I’ve been aching to see in production: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/15/subaru-s-all-electric-r1e-wins-award-from-japanese-government/ .

Smart cars made a roadster-check it out: smart roadster -wikipedia. The rights to build the car have recently been bought by AC Cars. Hyundai now has their Mercedes/Lexus car; the Genesis (on Superbowl commercial). Car has a lot of stuff in it, according to wikipedia article on it. What will Hyundai do next ? Speaking of Superbowl: where was the “roll out the quarterback: plan B ” to prevent Brady from being rushed & sacked ? That option should have been a highly practiced one in the playbook

Martin sez:

Both cars done in by their own good looks

The AC project with the Smart Roadster is dead. It isn’t going to happen. It was planned and never got financed.

My Brabus Smart Roadster is far from under-powered! It has 101bhp, it’s all about power-to-weight ratio. OK so it isn’t the quickest 0-60, but give me 90 degree bends at ridiculous speeds and it’ll leave the car behind in the ditch wondering what happened! Seriously, I’ve turned into junctions in quiet lanes at 60mph, 90 degrees, passenger usually goes very quiet. My car weighs around 850KG, half the average car does, you’d need 200bhp in a normal car to match the Brabus Smart Roadster.

Youtube the smart roadster and you’ll find some great stunts performed in them.

Martin,

Thank you for this post!!! I’ve tried mentioning about the efficiency of Lean Production and people took a blind eye.

My biggest question has been if Tesla uses lean production or do they use the outdated mass production?

If people read the 1990 MIT book on Lean production they would understand but then again implementation is different.

The BIG 3 already know of it and studied it yet they cannot do what Toyota does because it requires a reassignment and organization of the managerial process and relations of the entire business and they like their position of power too much to let that happen.

BTW, I believe it is incorrect that Toyoda developed the lean production. It was Taiichi Ohno, the gifted engineer, that developed it and is accredited as the father of the TPS, toyota production systems aka Lean production. At least that is what the MIT research book said.

“Martin says We shall see if GM does indeed leapfrog Toyota though. Today, the Volt (and the whole E-REV idea) are only concepts.”

Martin I highly doubt that GM can leapfrog Toyota. As long as their mass production is the focal point of GM production it can NEVER outdo Toyota longer than a temperary handful of years(like the SUV of the 90s). The era for lean production has arrived and mass production is obsolete. You can sell a lot of cars with new tech but GM consistently loses because they don’t have a production line that maintain and upgrade it’s innovative tech in an efficient matter.

Toyota doesn’t shoot for short term but for long term relations with kaizen. They foster trust and cooperative competition as opposed to GM’s betrayal, opaque competition that is working against each other.

GM hasn’t gone bankrupt in my theory because the U.S. market has more flexibility so they can survive their insane up and down profits and debts. GM would never survive in the Japanese market.

I wonder if people know that GM has debt still and Toyota has no debt and has enough reserve money to start their own bank.

I just hope that Tesla uses lean production because it’ll be much harder once viable competitors arrive.

Yanquetino said:

That is intriguing that Subaru’s motor is like the one in the RAV4-EV, and yet it is also liquid cooled. Someone in another blog was telling me that those types of motors wouldn’t need cooling. Go figure.

Are you are referring to my response to your statements that liquid cooling was too complicated and heavy to be considered for the WhiteStar? You stated that since the RAV4-EV didn’t need liquid cooling then there was no reason for the WhiteStar to use it.

My response was in support of liquid cooling for the much more powerful AC Induction motor to be used in the WhiteStar. Upon your further insistence that liquid cooling was not required, I indicated that the cooling requirements of a PM DC motor are different than those of an AC Induction motor. I never indicated that there was no need for cooling of the PM DC motor.

Both types of motors need some means to cool the stator, it is just that the rotor of the PM motor does not require the extra cooling that the rotor of an AC Induction motor will, due to the heat generated by the current flow in this type of rotor. It is more of a challenge to cool the thermally isolated enclosed rotor than it is to cool the stator which conducts its heat directly to the fixed case of the motor.

It is obvious that Subaru felt that overly complex and heavy liquid cooling was more appropriate for their simpler 65KW DC motor, and yet you insisted that liquid cooling should not be required for Tesla’s 185 KW AC Induction motor.

TEG said:
Look at motorcycles… You have air cooled and water cooled varieties.

Yup, I have owned both. I definitely like my current water cooled one best.

I agree that pretty much any motor can be air cooled; if you make it large enough to contain adequate cooling fin area and you get enough airflow over said fins. Water cooling just allows for a more compact installation with better heat control in many cases.

TEG said:
You can still buy a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with air cooled engine, but people seem to like them noisy!

Not the machine I would want to own but I did have the pleasure of touring the coastline of Cozumel on one of those 1200cc beasts last year. It was a truly amazing experience. It did feel like I almost got a sunburn on the inside of my legs from the heat radiating from that huge engine though!

I like Andrew’s idea: buy AC, do the light Smart Roadster EV (tweeked for better drag CD). Remember that really small plastic Saab sports car of years ago ?- (was imported to U.S. too ,usually seen in red) -I liked that concept. Start at the lower end of the EV market, like Aptera trying to do. Could also sell ICE Smart Roadster, or hybrid-to make more cash. Good thing is, the Smart Roadter is already approved in Europe for road use-if you put elect. motor in it, does that void this approval-if so, would approval of EV version be just a technicality? GM used to own Lotus-dumb to let it go, now a company from Malaysia owns it. Owning AC -with something like the Smart Roadster as part of it- would be a dream for most car afficionados. Great brand name cache there.

The original AC with the Bristol engine was actually a nicer, more classic looking car than the later AC Cobra. In Albuquerque in 1961, when my brother and me were kids, he found one for sale at an imported car dealership that was going out of business (they also were selling a big ,grey-not gray- Bristol sedan I remember). The AC was white with a roll bar, had been raced-headlights had tape on them. It was for sale for $1500-my brother badgered our father, but he wouldn’t go for it-”no place to put it”. A couple of years later we found a ‘48 Packard woody that had just come into a junkyard-perfect shape, tires inflated, etc. We asked yard owner what was wrong with it-he said he thought nothing- a (proverbial) little old lady had it towed in-he thought it was just a dead battery-he’d sell it for $75 .Again, badgering to no avail “no place to put it”. We also had ‘49 &’50 Ford woodies (the former bought before I was born). My father sold them in early ’70’s just before they really started to go up in value. Wonder if old AC Bristol “body bucks” are still around-hammer out more of those alum. classics and put a Tesla type EV system on them. Make them as “kit” to get around safety requirements-but a big, dumb kit-as in: “drop body on chassis, bolt down 6 bolts, drive off”. Yeah, buy AC-do EV :” Cobras”,” AC Bristol Classics”, ” AC Smart-Er & Est model Roadsters” (the ICE or hybrid version being merely Smart)

So Volvo fired the P1800 designer and hired appliance designers? They were cruising down the right road, reached a fork in it and took the path less trodden (almost running over Robert Frost in the process)-bad move. Someone was in the sauna too long at the decision time in question. Who was the P1800 designer-what else did he do, what happened to him ? He boldly put fins outside where no swede had ever put them before (and some Finns with good taste inside no doubt too). The P1800 photos on google image search remind me why by rights I should be in Jay Leno’s league, with his kind of garage- with valet to keep the batteries charged and carbs clean.

TJ, I wasn’t really suggesting that Martin should buy AC cars. I don’t know if they’re for sale and anyway I’m not sure that would be a ‘smart’ move What I do think might be a good idea would be to have a good look at a Smart Roadster and see if it lends itself to ‘conversion’ or reengineering and redesign in the same way that the Elise was a suitable platform for the Tesla. I’m not an engineer and I don’t know if it’s at all suitable. It might be too small, but then batteries are going to get smaller. If it looks feasible and nobody else wants the car – it looks like an orphan at the moment – then I’d like to see an EV or even REEV design that could compete with other small sports cars in Europe, albeit at a small premium. Very low running costs should help to make up for an inevitably higher purchase price than the ic equivalent. All the tooling should be available for a song from AC or whoever owns the rights to it all as the car is effectively dead at the moment, as far as I know. Does this tempt you at all Martin or shall I just forget it? I must admit the most logical ‘home’ for this car would be alongside the Smart ForTwo EV and if they aren’t interested maybe it’s not such a good idea.

@ Jason Hendler

I didn’t contradict myself. I am talking about overall STABILITY of the business. The business that GM plays is a short term basis; Toyota with the long term. GM has a horrible reputation because they don’t think about the customers, workers, and the outlook of their business structure for the long-term.

For part of the 90s SUVs sold well because of the luck they had with the gas prices being so low and the Ads that made SUVs attractive while GM denounced their own beloved EV1. GM does a hit or miss thing by making a vehicle that THEY want to make while Toyota goes to their customers for feedback and make cars from their stand point, not the other way around.

Every good business focues on their specific niche market. You don’t go out and do everything at once. That is why Toyota didn’t hop into the SUV scene because they didn’t know much about it. It might have looked like draggin their feets to you but I think it was to be sure what they were getting themselves into. Just because it sells for other companies doesn’t mean that you should without considering how it’ll affect your long term business model.

If things are going well GM hires, if they’re not selling they lay off 20,000 workers and close multiple factories to make ends meet. And they do that EVERYTIME their sales are down or if they’re losing money. Toyota has never laid off workers since they started building their lean production in the 1950’s.

If GM did so well with the SUV era then why do they still have debt? That baffles me.

Your UAW argument falls short because they succeeded with NUMMI. It’s not culture but the mentality of the management that is the problem. GM doesn’t look out for their workers thus, UAW has to step in to make sure they don’t get ripped off since GM is notorious for laying off workers. Why do you NEED a UAW if you won’t get laid off? In fact some Toyota factories are starting to eclipse UAW workers overall payment packages.
You have to negotiate with the UAW to not interfere with the factory operations but make sure that you’re performace of the factory is superb then the UAW will back off because you’ll be able to keep a stable pay for your workers.

And I disagree that GM is more innovative. They both are. Toyota made the Prius, the first truly successful hybrid vehicle and is on the forefront. GM leapfrogs Toyota, now Toyota leapfrogs GM, and with the Volt GM might do it again to leapfrog Toyota.

But my point isn’t just the few years that they might be ahead. Toyota’s stock and profit margins didn’t grow as big and stockholders were frustrated but when they looked into the matter Toyota was investing heavily into R&D. Japan as a whole country invests the most in R&D tech in the entire world. Thus, I’d have to disagree that Asian cultures disrupt innovation. Have you seen Japan’s tech products? It’s like seeing the future of American tech because we’re 4-5 years behind.

Toyota is tackling one sector at a time. Toyota hadn’t touched much of the SUV and Trucking field since their focus was on selling sedans.While SUVs were becoming a hit Toyota had taken the number one sedan category with the Camry and Lexus for the luxury brand. And the Camry still is number one. Now that they have accomplished that sector they are extending their hands towards SUVs and Trucks. GM’s advantage on trucks was that toyota didn’t make them until recently. GM has very little stable markets that they can sell to.

GM is still competing because they are selling cars at places like India and China where there are new markets but they can’t turn out a consistent profit for the life of them in North America or older markets. That isn’t really competing but sidesteping the problem.

If you saw a GM chart of their revenues it would be erratic like a rollercoaster. Toyota had incremental increases of their revenues while never losing money and has more than 200 billion in reserves without any debt.

As evidence Toyota doesn’t have a limit on conquering America’s market, the domestic market for GM, yet GM can’t touch Japan’s market. If GM went LEAN then I am absolutely certain they can compete head on with Japan’s auto industry and every part of the word foot-by-foot.

Like Ford put out the craftsmen of making cars with mass production, Toyota is using the lean production that’ll eventually (it’ll take more than few years as mentioned above)surpass GM.

In conclusion, I’m saying leapfroging a handful of years won’t last and sooner or later when GM has no new market to conquer they’ll be out of business because they can’t change their management mentality to lean to compete.

Not to be confused I fully believe that regardless of culture or different people or countries the production model is the thing that’ll help Toyota triumph. GM can if they could change their production model.

Ok just one more post here to try to clarify what I previously posted here concerning some misrepresentations or misunderstandings of posts on another blog.

I stated in the previous post here and on the other blog that there were significant differences in the cooling requirements of the rotor of the AC induction motor versus the rotor of the Permanent Magnet DC motor (Brushless DC motor). That statement has been twisted into various things and basically misunderstood or dismissed as inaccurate so I felt I should site an excellent source of information regarding AC induction motors.

Tesla Motor Blog: Induction Versus DC Brushless Motors

This excerpt from Wally Rippel’s Post:

One of the main differences is that much less rotor heat is generated with the DC brushless drive. Rotor cooling is easier and peak point efficiency is generally higher for this drive. The DC brushless drive can also operate at unity power factor, whereas the best power factor for the induction drive is about 85 percent. This means that the peak point energy efficiency for a DC brushless drive will typically be a few percentage points higher than for an induction drive.

I highly recommend the reading of this blog to anyone interested in the differences between these two motor types.

Nah Andrew, I say buy AC-with a “consulting” tie-in with Shelby. Like Tesla, AC is an electric name brand . Do an AC/DC model, endorsed by the band. Hire the designer of the P1800 Volvo, Swedish guy Pelle Peterson (said to be “a young designer at the time”-so maybe he’s still alive). Yeah, it’ll be great: all EV AC Cobras and classic AC Aces & AC Smart Roadsters, with Pelle working on the larger next generation car: very hip & euro or retro-euro in design- with Shelby touting the pure acceleration of E power from the sidelines, of course. Yeah -just need to get someone(s) with a pile of cash on the horn. Do interiors inspired by Alvar Aalto, build them in Scandinavia using investment money from Norway, Finland & Sweden (the first two have some cash to spare lately). The Europeans will lap this up-the per capita income in Norway , Sweden, Finalnd , Ireland is quite high now, in the world top tier. Later certify cars for the U.S. market and build them here somewhere too.

Google image search on AC Ace shows what a better looking car it is compared to the later Cobra-particularly the google image picture in British Racing Green. Plenty of invesment money must be around in Norway Sweden, Ireland, etc. now. Th!nk car is being done in Norway now. I’m just guessing but I think investors in those countries would be reputable types. Combine this with some silicon valley investor money. Build one plant in Norway (or Finland-where Porsche makes cars) and one in Ireland, with govt. incentives to cut cost. I think these countries are very business friendly and up for new tech. type (as in EV) ventures. They have a good educated labor force around now . College is free in Ireland, most students are studying engineering, science or business.

@Jason M. Hendler

I think you are right on the mark when unions defend bad workers. They should be limited to defending only good and unjustly fired workers.

I agree that unions cause unnecessary problems but you accuse unions and govt interventions as the bigger problem. That’s what big 3 have said for years.

Who is running the company? The management or unions? You make it sound like unions and govt policies are the culprits of their crazy erratic business.A good manager/management/company solves problems between employees and other working organizations. When you blame EVERYONE and everything else as the cause of problems for your bad business and short-term sightedness is proof that you’re not managing. And that’s what the Big 3 does. They blame every other factor besides the main problem and people who can solve it, themselves.

I can’t help but see that you’re somehow hooked on that American automakers doesn’t produce quality cars compared to some asian automakers but they’re more innovative??

You downgrade the significance of the success of hybrids because Toyota won’t do more than they are required for the market and then you go on to applaud the REV volt. It’s an ogliopoly, what do you expect? GM is no less at fault than Toyota. ah.. to sight GM crushed their EV1. They could’ve marketed them and sold them but decided to do that with their beloved SUVs. The market was more profitable with the SUV than to make something truly beneficial and advanced for the environment, auto industry and to the consumer.

I stand as the 1990 published book The Machine that changed the World and 2006 book How Toyota became Number one, have shown that it is the management mentality and production model that makes the big 3 struggle and why companies like Toyota are taking over.

For evidence that management is the problem:

“Ford chief paid $28m as carmaker splutters to $12.7bn loss”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1620653.ece

So you can’t tell me that management isn’t the key reason for such bad business. Oh btw, Toyota’s average executive’s salary is 500,000 while the big 3 averages in the million even though they don’t turn out profits like Toyota.

The flaw of today’s global economics is if you have an ogliopoly you only NEED to be ahead by a little to make a profit, not what you are capable of making or doing. And both GM and Toyota have done just that. So please don’t tell me that GM is more innovative because they’re both innovative enough to be ahead of the market at hand.

In the end regardless of whether I or you think that a certain automaker is more innovative the likes of Toyota will continue to prosper as the big 3 struggle like a rollercoaster ride.

New EESTOR Patent revealed. Plenty of details. Here it is guys. Martin maybe you can pick this apart.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006026136&IA=WO2006026136&DISPLAY=DESC

Sorry the link stopped working. See TeslaMotorsClub.

Hey Martin,

Just wanted to check in with you after your transition. Its good to see you carry on the cause of BEVs here. Hope to hear from you soon.

Kindest Regards,

Ernest

what’s the matter Marty McFly, chicken!? : )

I don’t quite believe you when you say it’s not default secrecy. there are two ways you could tell me without risk, one stronger than the other. you can pick up the phone and ask if it is ok to tell what IGBT is used or two you could claim that it is (or take a picture of) a product in public domain. so it boils down to do you genuinely want to help the EV community or are you just a hound for attention.
same goes for picking up the phone to Lutz and freeing the EV1s.
don’t give me excuses. none are valid.

Martin sez:

Listen, 5 years ago, I was just another guy like you who thought maybe EVs might be a good idea. But I got off my butt and started an EV company to try and do something. Tesla Motors was my LIFE for the last 5 years. You have absolutely NO IDEA how hard I worked to revive the electric car. What did you do in the last 5 years to help the EV community, besides give a hard time to those of us who are actually doing something?

Jason Hendler,

I guess I agree to disagree. I fully believe your points are valid about the union troubles but I would still have to say they’re not the primary reason because unions don’t decide on which business and production model to run the company.

Those union troubles are amplified because it’s in a mass production model. It looks like you haven’t read into the details of the lean production. You mentioned in your number 2 paragraph that it takes 36 months for a new vehicle design. Toyota takes 18 months(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6346315.stm ). The problem worsens because the mass production model takes double the time to create a new design. It’s not the union that decides who builds it and how fast. Double the time, double the cost of labor, less profit, out-of-sync design for the market demand, and add all the other bad factors that are going on and you get GM’s woes.

One major reason why it takes so long, 3 years!, is because the design team are assembled on the side and those engineers and other workers’ primary responsibilities are still the job at their factories. So why invest all your time in a new vehicle design when your promotion is based on your factory performance? At Toyota all workers assembled for the new vehicle design are relieved of their duties and the new project becomes their primary job. After the design is complete they go back to their job or to another new project but either way it directly advances their career unlike in GM’s structure. It also gives employees a wider knowledge of the whole process and exposure to different parts of the company thus simultaneously educating them.

You are correct that unions want to maintain the jobs while the transition to lean from mass requires to cut jobs and drastically change job duties. So the major question is why doesn’t GM make a new division based on lean from scratch and a new factory with non-unionized workers to prove that without unions they can do it? They didn’t do that with their Saturn division when it was established. NUMMI was successful because Toyota negotiated with the union to promise not to interfere with their factory operations and the end result is history. The american factory with american workers using lean production performed just as well as any top japanese factory. It’s not the union that’s the problem it’s the model from top down that’s the problem.

You mentioned also that many workers took mondays and fridays off. Well in mass production you have extra workers waiting around for backup since the job is so tedious that people get easily bored of it and anyone can do it. But in Lean you have one person who has much more responsibility but it also challenges them thus keeping the job interesting. Each worker has the power to stop the assembly line but in GM’s factories only the senior engineer or factory manager is allowed to stop the assembly line. And at Toyota they give incentives to come to work everyday by rewarding them with a special event each year and giving away several new cars through a lottery(How toyota became number 1). And if you have consecutive years of perfect attendance you get extra tickets for the lottery. Does GM do anything similar to that? And if by chance workers are sick or absent even the factory manager fills their spot. The concept of teamwork is crucial for Lean’s success(I don’t mean just in the factory but from top to all the way to each supplier) and exactly the opposite with mass production(you compete rather than collaborate).
I think there’s a misunderstooding on why I mentioned the avg exec salary difference in Toyota and other companies. If you’re salary is 500,000 or 1 mil you’re still rich. It’s not foolishness either because it’s not LOW its just lower. I’d rather have half a mil than a mil for a salary if I know for sure that my job will not be laid off than to have a mil job and not have a job tomorrow. Also the point is that it’s excessive and that’s extra money taken away from improving the company’s longevity.

For example, where’s the logic in paying the Ford CEO(2006) a 28 million bonus when they had a 12 billion dollar loss??? And they have to lay off workers to make ends meet???? That’s ridiculous. I can bet he had a guarantee in his contract regardless of the profits. He’s not accountable. Hence management mentality has a problem and common sense.

If you know that you’re management team can do lean from top down then you can more or less guarantee that jobs will not be laid off after you switch into it. Therefore you can negotiate with the unions on a much stronger stance and you approach them to collaboratively work with you. For evidence, Nissan went through a major overhaul from near bankruptcy. They had to negotiate with unions which was one of many problems and today they are debt free and in fact hiring. Nissan management changed thus, their results changed. It was not because the unions somehow vanished or decided to let go since the previous management couldn’t change anything with the unions or the company’s woes.

I respect your stance on unions but I will maintain my views on the management issues. Thank you for the discussion.

p.s. The alternative fuel issue you mentioned might actually worsen the situation with the unions since it requires different personnel and expertise. Cars are becoming more like electronics and computers and less like gears, tailpipes, shifts etc.

T.J.,

I agree that the big 3 made bad product design decisions. I think their choices were limited by unions and government, but that doesn’t forgive the Chrysler K Car stategy – make one ugly car and share those ugly body parts over every platform. It’s OK to have commonality of parts and systems under the skin, but not for body parts. Chrysler redeemed themselves with some of the vehicles they were starting to deliver prior to their acquisition by Daimler, so at least they learned their lesson.

How is it that Hyundai is designing the best looking Asian vehicles? Who do they have chained up over there?

Yes, retro styling is working in Detroit, with the new Ford Mustang and Chevy Camaro. Even Fisker’s Karma harkens back to 1950’s sport sedans.

GM’s current flex drive strategy is a game winner, especially since no other auto maker is responding to this move, so let’s give management credit where credit is due.

John1,

Can you really call Toyota’s 18 month cycle a “new” vehicle cycle, when they are just tweaking the old design? Their approach is one of sustaining innovation, as opposed to a disruptive innovation in a truly “new” car design.

You are DEAD RIGHT about non-union employees from factories involved in new vehicle design. Their raises and promotions are based on their sustained duties at the factory, and NOT regarding their input on the new vehicle. Not sure how to remedy that off the top of my head, but it does have an impact downstream.

As for Saturn / NUMMI comparisons, I suppose the only thing the big 3 can do is try to change the UAW. I didn’t think that was possible, but with the latest contracts being achieved, I now have a little faith in the UAW. They really need to learn business policy in addition to political strategy.

As for the absentee rates I witnessed, it was nearly all drug / alcohol related, as the union refused to dismiss substance abusers from their ranks.

As for executive salary, of course its guarenteed, because in a big corporation, it is the decisions of the previous execs that determine what happens for several years out, so I would never accept a salary package subject to a previous management. The CEO was paid $28 million to handle that bad situation and mitigate losses. How do you know that CEO didn’t in fact save jobs that another exec would have laid off, in addition to those who lost their jobs? Sometimes, there is no good outcome to a bad situation, but there are bad and worse outcomes, so you need top talent to prevent from going bad to worse, and talent costs money.

No question that LEAN works, but if the big 3 and the UAW ever got their heads together, as they just did on these last contracts, Toyota would be under serious threat. Right now, there is great management at GM, and great cooperation from the UAW and the federal government, and guess what – Toyota is filling their shorts trying to cobble together a plug-in hybrid, after selling the Prius for several years. If this partnership remains strong, Toyota is going to fall.

Alternative fuel vehicles may be more complex to design, but (with the exception of flex-fuel, gasoline to 85% alcohol mix engines) they are simpler to build. Electric drive trains have substantially fewer parts, so they will be easier / faster to build. Yes, there will be retraining, but bolting in a motor should be easier than bolting in an ICE.

Love this blog. But, every discussion about the auto industry eventually devolves into ancient historical fueds and wildly personal biases, sadly.

Union vs. Management. Japan vs. US. Gas guzzlers vs. greenies, etc. Or, worse yet, hyper-personal, singular experiences meant to fit one’s predispositions and biases: “My aunt had an old Ford that broke down, therefore all American cars are crap and nothing good can happen in this country.”

The future demands that we set all this Old World rubbish aside. People like Martin (many others too) are attempting to transcend all of those expired notions. Wish more of us could follow that example.

History is important insofar as it provides learnings and can be very interesting. But guess what, sometimes otherwise good companies make mistakes (Tesla leadership, even?). And maybe even one’s least favorite groups can do something right or learn from their prior errors.

It’s particularly shocking to read and hear ardent enviros and EV enthusiasts announce that they are rejecting certain companies (or ideas) in advance. . .even if these awful companies (or nations, or people, or brands) produce a viable EV!

Martin’s recent Toyota and GM observations showcase the right sort of thinking nicely. Yes, history and cultural traditions can explain some things. But these are not absolutes. Each have their share of missteps, as well as triumphs. The way I see it, each could be capable of reaching the mainstream electrically-driven future of the automobile. Toyota can do it as they have vast resources, massive government support at home, and a fine record for long-term execution. GM can do it, as they are displaying evidence of some design excellence, have significant resources and know-how, along with the major hunger derived from true vulnerability.

However, each could blow it. Toyota has cast their initial lot into a possibly less-fruitful (but more accessible) technology. And they can be risk-averse. GM could blow it, for a variety of reasons the naysayers have already pointed out in glorious detail.

However it goes, I just wish minds were more open and less shackled by the decades-old skepticism and biases.

Martin sez:

Did any of you go read The Reckoning, by the way? It is the single best side-by-side comparison of the history of an American car company and a Japanese car company – Ford and Nissan in this case. Absolutely fascinating, and I still say required reading.

DJC- I don’t think it all devolves into historical feuds & personal bias. I think it devolves into who did (and is doing) what, where one company did/is doing good, where others did/doing bad-whatever. I like all car companies when they do neat cars-period, whoever they are.I like the Ford Mustang, Pontiac Soltice (and C-5 Corvette) Toyota FJ -and the list goes on through about everycar co. you can name. For example, I never was overly impressed with yuppie the BMW Co. per se , but their Mini-Cooper is a great car, for what it is- no need to throw out that baby with the BMW bathwater. I must admit that I don’t like the U.S. model of often overpaid corp. execs. and the corp. model that helped send Martin packing at Tesla (didn’t the board have to o.k. this as well as Elon ?). Guess I’ll go to the bookstore and see if “The Reckoning” is there-at least skim it. Is it still required reading if you don’t plan to start a car company, Martin ? (nudge, nudge-say no more !?)

Martin sez:

In short, yes. It is mind-expanding, consciousness-raising.

Joseph wrote:
Tesla Motors doesn’t blend regen and friction braking, so I don’t think they’ve had any problems with Toyota’s patents.
That sort of proves my point. They kept regen off the brake pedal perhaps because of the patents (and time to engineer such an integrated system). They may be thinking about brake pedal integrated regen for Whitestar & Bluestar and that is what I meant about “navigating the patents”… They took the easy way out with the Roadster, but may have sacrificed some efficiency, range and friction pad life. I wonder if they might try something more ambitious for future models.

Joseph wrote:
I got to drive an Ebox. The Ebox uses the same braking system as Tesla does.
When you say “the same” I think you are meaning no regen triggered by the brake pedal, but otherwise I think they are different systems. (e.g.: made by different companies).
So, when driving the car, the first time I slowed down, I was surprised because the regen slowed me down to a stop so quickly without me ever putting the foot on the brake!
Yes, I understand that the eBox has fairly agressive regen when you take your foot off of the accelerator pedal. Some people (used to auto trans cars) find this disconcerting. I think Tesla has had to contend with customers that don’t want that level of regen being invoked automatically. Tesla blog had a lengthy discussion about the desire for cars to “coast” when you take your foot off of the accelerator.
My wife’s highlander hybrid mostly “coasts” when you let off. Then when you step on the brake pedal a bit it turns on the regen in a big way. If you push the pedal even harder then it eventually starts using the friction brakes.

Joseph wrote:
However, the next time I slowed down, I knew to take my foot off the accelerator more slowly, so that regen happens more gently.

Yes, many who have driven EVs get used to the heavy off pedal regen and come to like it. I think I would prefer that on the Roadster, but I think Tesla may have had to “water it down” a bit because some many customers who tried out the car didn’t want such heavy regen. As a car maker you have a hurdle if people are already used to cars behaving a different way. Tesla is trying to offer a “familiar” driving experience, so they have to be careful they don’t scare anyone away by making it too much different from cars that don’t even have any regen. Various ideas (such a regen strength dial) have been suggested and Tesla is considering them. Also the old 2 speed tran would have different regen profiles for 1st vs 2nd gear. With only 1 speed planned now they likely won’t be able to offer the shift lever selectable regen anymore. I am still hoping that someday they offer driver adjustable regen profiles.

Joseph wrote:
There’s no need to worry about Tesla Motor’s braking system; I’m sure it’ll be perfect!
From an ability to stop the car, and from a pedal feel standpoint I bet it will be excellent. From an efficiency and pad life preservation standpoint it may be less than optimal, so it could possibly have some improvements done to it on future model year cars.

Forgot to touch on regeneration.

I’d not have put it into the accelerator pedal. Lift off and it should just coast. Not power being consumed, nor regenerated.

Change the brake pedal sensors and hardware rod to the MC.

Touch the pedal and it will go into regen mode. Press it farther and the amount of regen increases at some preset hysteresis till some distance of travel is reached. Then the MC piston is moved. Both MC piston travel and regen curve married at this point. Guess there would be some thermal attributes for the motor, especially if it is allowed to go over 100% duty. Wonder how ABS would be integrated with this??? (I’d think a much better over all controllability vs the hall effect/ring gear setup of today).

Use the defined function of each controller and/or their input device (pedals). Accelerator pedal is ‘go’. Brake pedal is ’stop’ or ’slow down’. Mixing them up will mix up the user.

Martin sez:

You obviously need to drive a Roadster (or one of AC Propulsion’s cars, or Ian’s Wrightspeed). It takes about 2 minutes to get the hang of throttle lift-off regen, and another 2 minutes to decide you really like it. Read the reviews of people who experience it. Several have posted over at Tesla’s blog.

Martin,

Since you are familiar with the methods of both domestic and foreign automakers, how would you compare the culture of Tesla Motors during your tenure to these methods? Do you feel it is possible to scale such a culture once production is ramped up?

I’ve been in start-ups that moved from bench to factory, and seen the culture clashes that result. Sometimes production wins, sometimes the original developers win, but I’ve never seen a transition of the original development culture into a financially successful production culture.

Martin sez:

Like I said in my post, my next company will be built with at least an appreciation of what Lean means from the very beginning.

“The Reckoning” book by David Halerstraum is out of print (came out in 1986)-must check out used bookstore near my office. However, I noted at bookstore the following books: “Toyota Culture”, “The Toyota Way Fieldbook”,”Toyota Talent”, “The Toyota Way” and “How Toyota Became #1″. You could be reading on Toyota for weeks. Got Iacocca’s book for the fun of it (”Where Have All the Leaders Gone”). Lee would make a nice addition to Eberhard Industries as resident /president (as in : Pre-SI-dent) guru of all things automotive.Yeah-get him on the horn, maybe he knows funding /staffing sources of a trustworty nature. I always liked him. Wonder what all the fired Tesla people are doing now to pay the proverbial rent. Some of the guys from my college frat days have expressed an interest in future employment at Eberhard Inc., namely: Eric Stratton, Don Schoenstein, Robt. Hoover, Daniel Day, Dwayne Storkman, Lawrence Kroger, Kent Dorfman and John Blutarsky-the last guy would be a good hire-he’s highly motivated, thinks outside the box and “has connections”. These guy’s main concern is: “will there be beer available on the premises ?

Martin sez:

The Reckoning is indeed out of print, and is also worthwhile hunting down a used copy. For those of you who aren’t nuts about old books the way I am check out these sites: used.addall.com, http://www.abe.com, http://www.bookfinder.com, and http://www.alibrius.com

TEG- the car you mention was just a rough prototype, the team was never allowed to explore it’s full potential. The vehicle pre-dated the Hummer by many years, and in final development form it would have outdid the Hummer in all respects, defining the class as it were, and breaking sales records for whatever company would have had the brewski-fueled nerve & vision to implement it- ’nuff said ! I’m reading Iacocca’s book -he lists 9 “C”’s of leadership. I would call it the 9 “C’s” of a company team/ makeup: curiosity, creativity,communication,character, courage, conviction,charisma, competence, common sense. I would also add an “E’ and “B”: Enthusiasm and Beer (code name for Fun, in process and product, where possible). Lee further sez: … “And make sure that the team includes top talent in design, engineering, and manufacturing, because that’s your ONLY priority-to build cars people want to buy. Hot styling still sells them, but quality keeps them sold”. My Mini-Cooper is a perfect example of this. I bought the first year’s model based on hot styling/concept (and price), recently I traded in for a 2007 and found, to my surprise, quality & design improvements all over the cabbagin’ car- at basically the same price ( the price went up about $2000, but then the Euro went to 1.5 to the dollar in that time- so it’s a wash – ? ). Any car maker can pull a rabbit out of a hat at any time by following Lee’s credo (to which he should add “and make the car at a good, fair price for what it is ” ). For example: the new Volvo C-30 is nice from the side and back, but the front is “rather boring Volvo as usual”. The inside also has some nice features-it’s very comfortable, nice ride-and the manual shifting is Incredibly smooth. It is in the same class as the Mini-Cooper, but I haven’t seen one on the road yet.Though it just recently came out, I bet I never see many on the road compared to the Mini. The reasons?-probably this: it costs more than the Mini, (though close-about $2000-$3000 more if I remember) it doesn’t go for the kill design-wise, inside and out (whereas the Mini does).They should have done a full-blown retro Volvo P1800, then they’d be talkin’ “curb appeal”. They have a nice free-floating, Nordic/Alvar Aalto-like interior center console element. They could have played up this “playful” Nordic design stuff to the hilt-including blond ” Norweign Wood” (option) and colored Scandinavian glass (or plastic) inside (like maybe LED glowing glass knobs?) or whatever. The car, inside and out, could have been as crisp, cool,new and fresh as a moonlit Swedish ski mountain after a blizzard- but noooo! Instead it’s more like a semi-happening understated baby Volvo for the yuppie crowd. As John Mclaughlin would say: ” WRONG!- what we need here is: ability to communicate “-with the crowd that digs a ride with personality, as opposed to understated yuppie-dum: as in Scion XB, Honda Element maybe, Toyota FJ Cruiser, in it’s way. You Volvo guys need a “hip-hop, break it down -check it out y’all” Volvo in your stable. You could tap into a whole new market in one P1800 inspired fowl swoop. But no….. again ! I say Martin should get together with Lee (he can only play so much golf) to hash out the details of Eberhard Industries, including the potential purchase of Volvo from Ford, and AC from the guy who owns it now, but that’s just me.

TEG said, (in reference to Ebox and Roadster’s regen)

“When you say “the same” I think you are meaning no regen triggered by the brake pedal, but otherwise I think they are different systems. (e.g.: made by different companies).”

Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’re different regen systems. On either Tesla’s corporate blog or on Martin’s blog here, they said that the only technology Tesla Motors borrows from AC Propulsion is their reductive charging system.

Martin sez:

That’s right – I meant regen that is controlled by throttle lift-off, rather than by brake pedal pressure.

Martin wrote:
…my Valentine-1 is sounding off

Might not be police radar… I think global warming sets it off as well!

I would think that as long as the brake lights came on with the brake pedal, FMVSS would be happy. I doubt that they would have a regulation dis-allowing deceleration based brake lights.

Martin sez:

You would be surprised what’s in the FMVSS…

I am not seeing your comment on the tesla motors blog Martin. is it in another entry or was it deleted?

I hadn’t noticed you replied to my McFly comment.

Actually I have been hounding GM press people for months but succes that way is not easy with people where their jobs depend on them not understanding. they associate the liberation of the remaining EV1s as an admission of guilt. however irrational that is the situation. Lutz seems to be a little less irrational but only a little, in that he just might say yes if someone like you make an emphatic plea. I’ve tried to reach others too but it’s slow work. you could claim I need to start a company for my point to be right which is less than accurate. you can easily reach him, I can’t.
If you’ve ever been frustrated by obtuseness, how can you deny this request now.. you could change the world with a phone call

I’d like to tour the Panoz auto plant and see how they do it. They’re a small upstart company , but have been going for years, and building race cars too (”American Le Mans Series” -as well as racing at French Le Mans) : an American co. building cars totally from scratch , expensive cars-but cars nonetheless. Quite a cabbagin’ feat, even for a rich kid founder with plenty of dough-I suppose the cars meet the fed. crash standards too, not being kit cars. The interior design of the car is nice, the exterior ain’t so hot, especially for the price. I’d like to see how Shelby makes his cars too-again, his design ain’t got much personality either. Sheepish style design: baaaad, baaaadd! I’d like to see how Superform USA builds the Panoz car bodies out of vacuum formed, superheated aluminum. Who are all the suppliers of all the Panoz car pieces? I know they use Ford engines and a Ford Mustang windshield (at least they used to -the old Mustang, I think). Also, I’d like to see how Aptera is making their cars. Guess you can get everything you want done by some outside supplier- it just all comes down to cost. Guess the trick would be to have an absolutely killer design, no doubt plug-in hybrid to keep price in normal range. JV with Panoz or Shelby (or copy their operation) for the first prototype cars -then get enough pre-orders to be able to make car at a price the avg., or slightly above avg., Joe can afford. If the required number of orders don’t come in, they get their money back-or, the option of buying the car at some higher price, if enough people still remained onboard. At the higher price, offer to paint & upholster the car totally custom, and whatever other custom deals might be possible. The Panoz frame/crash zone system must be really lightweight & good-wonder if you could drop a really neat alum. body design on that, and add plug-in hybrid engine? Wonder if Panoz would be up for that ? The car could be in the Porsche Cayman price range,or, with a great design and a ton of orders, cheaper than that perhaps: ultimate target price slightly more than the GM Volt. Of course Mr. Panoz (or Shelby?) would have to be hip to move into the 21st century, and be in sync with Martin’s M.O. : Panoz-Eberhard / Shelby-Eberhard Autowerks. Has a classic automotive ring to it, kind of like Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg if you ask me.

Of course another option is “Virgin-Eberhard Greenworld cars” : flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and EV’s, 90% made of soy-based plastics, paint, upholstery and other soy-based materials (concept pioneered by Henry Ford). Lotus and Panoz have glued alum. frames, wonder about glued plastics?

Great presentation on the fuel consumption of the various types of hybrid vehicles on normal driving, and GM’s future product plans (fuel-cell E-REV):

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

Martin sez:

But I am sure they can’t write off their fuel cell program so easily

In that same Lotus newsletter mentioned above there’s an article about their ‘Safe and Sound’ approach to the problem of pedestrian safety with silent electric operation of hybrids and EVs. Well worth a look and I’m surprised Tesla didn’t take advantage of it. Maybe it’s too expensive.

@DJC

I was merely pointing out parts of the lean prod. that is vastly more efficient and less costly than the mass prod., not that one company is intrinsically better.

In the end Toyota is in the black and GM is in the red. And Toyota has been doing that for the last 50 years so they must have something right.

Martin sez:

…which is exactly my point.

Agreed; the range issue is a non issue. I remember many years ago when everyone was waiting for the next computer processor release. Now my mother has a faster PC than I do. The PC performance problem for users is solved and the range issue will similarly be resolved and sooner than we expect. There is no need to build an expensive high current infrastructure because with adequate range no one will need to use it. Also, if you consider the problem from a fixed capital perspective, your money is better spent on giving everyone more range rather than giving some the ability to fast charge. Charging during travel is always less convenient than not charging. Claims of 10x improvements are in the labs, in 5-10 years such things will likely be in commercial use. I suppose the point of this post is to say by the time the general population (not geeks that post of EV blogs have an interest in pure EVs range will not be a problem they face. Regarding hydrogen, IMHO it is worse than ethanol and that is saying something! The science behind these “solutions” is so poor I wonder how anyone can argue for them with a straight face. The only long term solution is pure EV and for short term I think a clean gas or diesel REEV. I see no point in pursuing ethanol or hydrogen at any scale. Could you imagine if the resources / subsidies for these two DOA “solutions” were dedicated to BEVs? I suppose it is harder to buy votes with such programs vs corn farm subsidies.

The most interesting thing to a REEV is the psychology behind it. Even though most people drive very little and a EV could meet their range needs in their head they feel they are the exceptional case. The REV is really an EV in ICE clothing. The great part is that most people will never use the ICE. I think REEVs like the volt are a signficant improvement over a hybrid or even a plugin hybrid. I hope Toyota eventually goes this route as well.

TJ,

I would never prohibit ethanol, but I am not comfortable asking South American or Southeast Asian nations to chop down their rain forests just to grow fuel for my vehicle.

As for hydrogen, advancements like the one described in the article below will make it a viable option for many consumers.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/

Hydrogen will be in the future mix of ground transportation, and it is essential for zero emissions aircraft, as the specific energy of hydrogen is better than batteries.

We have had a bonanza of very interesting links posted today (GM/Lotus/Nanoptek)! Thanks bloggers!

Jason-according to Branson there is a world glut of sugar now. I looked up Haiti online-sez it used to produce sugar, but due to low price of sugar and it’s antiquated agriculture it hardly produces any now. Branson sez that if U.S. could import sugar at cheap “real world price” (unaffected by lobbyist-driven need to protect the U.S. sugar industry) for ethanol use , it would be a boon to caribbean countries and others that produce sugar already, they could up production on fallow non-forest land- with no need to chop down any further rainforests. Haiti long ago chopped down like figuratively speaking “every tree on the island” for firewood due to poverty. You can tell where the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is from the air-because there’s just grass endless and dirt all along the Haiti side and solid forest along the Dominican side. So cheap sugar for ethanol would help Haiti, to name one place-and could they use help. Article online said that the relatively new rage of high fructose corn syrup use actually led to decline in sugar production in places like Haiti. There’s also a herbal type sweetner from Brazil, mainly, called stevia (go to stevia.com). It is 10-15 times sweeter than sugar and has almost no calories. It is also grown now in Paraguay, Japan, China, Mexico and even Ontario , Calif. and England. So: ramp up stevia production for use in food & beverages in place of sugar and divert more sugar for ethanol use. Of course I much prefer the solar powered EV car-the ultimate- but “while we’re waiting” according to Branson big things could happen fast in terms of oil replacement via sugar. Branson said recently Brazil discovered a whole lot of oil. I don’t know if Brazil is chopping down a lot of rainforest for sugar production, as opposed to cattle & other crops, but with oil now maybe they could use some of it mixed with their ethanol if sugar is cutting into rainforests.

Yeah-it’s great for U.S. corporations to go to places like Ireland and eastern europe and hire college engin. & science grads, great for them and the grads. Meanwhile,”back at the U.S. ranch” the same grad paid a pile of money for his degree and now may have to worry about outsourcing. So the “real American Dream” is to be born rich and well-connected, as in Trump & son/daughter of Trump (and even Bill Gates III for that matter)-or be born into a family of college profs. and go to exclusive private prep schools like Brin and Page of Google. No wonder Richard Branson (”Sir” to us) is “da man” and looking at all sorts of things, like “one of us” would. Being born in England and at least away from the U.S. corp. thumb influence no doubt helped (and somehow he escaped the “english class influence”-that somehow being making his money, at first, in the entertainment field: his student mag. and mailorder co. and later his record company. The time-honored way to make a fortune without turning into a corp. thumb-pressing, networking team player : namely “entertain the other monkeys, and in volume” and therein make a fortune: music, movies,T.V., new media (”You Tube” anyone? Facebook? My space? yada, yada, yada-who cares?-plenty of next gen.monkeys, that’s who. ) -or sports, whatever.

TJ,

I am in no hurry to turn Haiti or any other Carribean nation into another Darfur/Sudan, Chad, etc., where existing corrupt governments suddenly get rich enough to buy the weapons needed to commit genocide upon political rivals. Renewable electrical energy – hydro, solar, thermal, wind – that are domestically sourced is the best solution.

TJ,

As far as the threat of outsourcing, a wise student would learn how to start his own business and create his own wealth, as opposed to earning a degree targeting a position in a Fortune 500 company – simple economic strategy. As for Branson, love his latest venture – virgin galactic:

http://www.virgingalactic.com

Martin,

Martin quote: “Jason – your are WAY off topic here!”

I apologize for always getting drawn into off-topic discussions by other posts. I hate letting certain statements stand without presenting a counter position.

Martin quote: “But just a note on your last paragraph: I have not observed a high correlation between CEO salary and CEO quality…”

… so were you overpaid, or are you the exception?

Martin sez:

I was paid PEANUTS compared to most CEOs, even CEOs in Silicon Valley. I was being paid almost twice as much when I was a Senior VP at Gemstar/TV Guide. People have this idea that I was some highly paid auto-industry CEO. I wasn’t. I also did not get some wonderful “golden parachute” when Elon booted me out.

Martin-good point about the energy required to make ethanol-wonder what the situation is regarding sugar ethanol-wikipedia has site on sugar ethanol production in Brazil-says it created 700,000 jobs there (!). Says sugar plants are one of most efficent in photosynthesis. Ethanol made from fermenting sugar with some heat-question is how much heat from what source, like you said. Is there significant more energy in the sugar ethanol than the “dirty” energy required to make it? On the subject of Branson, Haiti & sugar, foreign colleges and CEO pay, it’s amazing how many people in this country seem to assume the worst will happen from any change to “the system” ( I assume “the best may happen”) and back “the U.S. way” vs. the “foreign way” almost automatically.

Brazilian embassy info on ethanol and bio-diesel:

http://www.brasilemb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=108

Over the last eight years, the use of ethanol produced savings in oil imports of US$ 61 billion, which is currently the total amount of the Brazilian external public debt.

Kinda hard to argue that this could be bad in some way for the people of Brazil. And 80% of the ethanol is produced in Sao Paulo state, thousands of miles from the Amazon rainforest.

Maybe Andrew has some input re. the following, being from England (wasn’t it?): the U.S. college system , I’ve read, is great at the grad. school & Phd. levels. At the undergrad level foreign colleges ain’t no slouches-seems like “the kids in Russia and the old eastern bloc” are often good (whiz kids even) when it comes to math & science. Then there’s the case of Ireland-the best economy in Europe for like the past 10 years, due to: major U.S. advanced corporations (Microsoft, Google, drug companies like Elan) locating there-due to: the clever pro-business policies of the Irish govt., and made possible also by a whole lot of Irish tech./engin./science grads – that made possible by one of the youngest populations in Europe( along with Spain) and also made possible by the clever govt. policy of improving/expanding their college & tech. school system. From what I understand practically all of the Irish high tech. grads were educated in Ireland, at places like Trinity College (which is supposed to be historically great, with free tuition). Then there’s the case of China where, I’ve read in the news mags., the increasing trend is for high school grads to not come to U.S. colleges, but rather stay in China where the colleges are rapidly improving. The U.S. congress has just recently been harping on schools like Yale & Harvard (with huge “endowment” cash on hand) to lower tuition-which , if I remember right, they were going to agree to do. If Ireland ,and “coming soon: China”, are any indication, it looks like it’s perfectly possible to have great “higher education results” with no (or low) tuition.

Further memo to Branson: put together a non-profit sugar ethanol company (like your bio-aviation fuel deal) evolving into the use of solar thermal to make it. Would it be possible,being non-profit, to sell the company product (called ” Canego Greenfuel” , as opposed to Citgo) in the market and make it work economically ?

“Wired Science” article online said that a “Science” magazine study found that ethanol fuel in general would make for more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, taking into account harvesting & making ethanol. But a Nature Conservancy study said that ethanol made from farmland unsuited for food production and ethanol from agricultural waste could be “beneficial”. The question is: what about ethanol from existing sugar cropland areas made via solar energy-what would be the difference then between gasoline co2 and sugar cane ethanol co2? Also, how much co2 is emitted burning ethanol vs. equivalent amount of gasoline-does ethanol create less c02 when burned- it’s supposed to “burn cleaner” than gasoline, but also has less energy value.

TJ, I freely admit that I have no idea really whether ethanol from sugar cane is as good an idea as President Lula would have us believe. He could well be full of it. Brazil has always had the best politicians money can buy! But I think posting some of this stuff here will prompt others more knowledgeable than me to point out the flaws. I’d be interested to hear arguments against REEVs with ethanol generators because to me they superficially look like a very good idea. I know Martin has suggested that growing our fuel could lead in the long term to conflict between food and fuel production but the Brazilian experience doesn’t seem to bear this out. If REEVs become popular much less ethanol will be required in any case. I completely agree with Lula that the problem of hunger in Brazil has much more to do with having the money to buy food than with any actual shortage. The ethanol programme provides a lot of reasonably well-paid work (by Brazilian standards)for poor people and saves a lot of gasoline imports – $61 bn over 8 years Lula said. Hard for me to see that as a bad thing. Brazil also has masses of hydro electric power from Itaipu in particular, which was the biggest dam in the world until quite recently. So a lot of the processing that goes on for conversion of the sugar cane can probably be carried out without burning oil. Just guessing here but if anybody knows better please post.

Martin said:
I also did not get some wonderful “golden parachute” when Elon booted me out.

That’s a pity, if somehow not really surprising I hope you still have sufficient shares to mean that the whole thing will have been worthwhile for you when you eventually cash in your chips.

Dan,

You are a typical CA-type USER. You spot someone with wealth / power / access, and expect them to do what you would do with it. Well, guess what – there is a reason why someone like you doesn’t have wealth / power / access. It is the same reason as why you wouldn’t know what to do with it, which is why you should let those who have it, use it as they deem best.

Martin sez:

Though I am no Objectivist, you might read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged“. The word you want is “looter”, instead of “CA-type USER.”

I started reading Fountainhead, and it is difficult to wrap your mind around the author’s dystopian reality, but it is so common in writers of that era, especially in “social science fiction” – Wiki has a good write up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science_fiction

I got halfway through We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and could see the influence of his writing on so much of the literature, TV and movies depicting future dystopias. Again, I couldn’t hang with the dreadful realities portrayed, but figured it couldn’t be too much different from the realities experienced my many in Europe, especially Russia and its satellite states.

The Book of Isms may have mentioned her philosophy of objectivism, but it would have been a subset of another grouping, either as a contrast or a variation. I like the Book of Isms, because so many people misuse terms like communism, fascism, etc., and it clearly defines the terms beyond any connotation.

Dear Martin,

I would like to see you go back to Tesla Motors. You belong there. It was a mistake of them to let go of you, but if you play your cards right I’m sure you could go back. They need you and you belong there. Just look at your blog: the one and only image displayed is of you inside a, ahem, Tesla Motors.
Starting your own company, while a great idea, is a huge undertaking that would be wasteful considering how useful you were and could be at Tesla. I trust that time will show those in charge that they’ve put you not where you belong, and I hope that you will do whatever it takes to get yourself back where you belong!

The future of Tesla and the electric vehicle depends on people like you.

Martin sez:

Keep in mind that I did start my own electric car company once before. It was called Tesla Motors.

Martin- I’m not from S.F.-from L.V., but I went to U.C. Berkeley for 6 yrs. (architecture). A lot of people don’t know Fogerty’s story, but since I think he’s great- in his style- I do. I was born in Richmond when my father was going to U.C. (Fogerty was born in Berkeley- as opposed to on the bayou,- when his father was , I think if I remember right, working for the U.C. Press as a printer). Here’s an interesting story: how did he avoid the Vietnam draft?: He received in the mail his notice that he was drafted. But he knew a girl (I think a girlfriend of a friend of his) who worked in the local National Guard office. She said: “I’ll back date an enlistment form that you can fill out showing that you joined the Guard a couple of days before they drafted you “- Fogerty was stoked by this ploy and when he found out he was in the Guard instead of on his way to Vietnam, he went out in his back yard and wrote “Proud Mary” on the spot. Later was when he wrote the more appropriate song “Fortunate Son”-the precursor to Green Day’s similarly apropos and great “Holiday”. As for Jim Morrison of the Doors (son of a navy Admiral, and so hep to the military M.O.) all we know for sure is this: When he was drafted he told a member of the band to drop him off at the draft office and come back in an hour. The army rejected him- “I wonder why?” -not!- Morrison was a wild & crazy guy, pre Steve Martin. I first heard (literally) of CCR when I was walking down the long dorm hall on my first day at school looking for my assigned room. Way down at the end a door was open and “Suzie Q” was blasting out of it- from my roomate’s huge stereo (cranked to about 9) it turned out. On “another subject”: since it looks like sugar cane is one of the best crops (if not the best) for ethanol production, do you know what the deal is re. how much energy it takes to make it vs. energy in it and how much co2 it puts out vs. gas? Does it add up ? If so, Branson’s on top of it -again-and solar energy production of sugar eathaol would just make the scenario really good.

Martin sez:

I know for sure that the numbers for Brazil’s Ethanol miracle, at least as promoted by Vinod Khosla, are totally bogus. This was pretty thoroughly debunked at The Oil Drum, an excellent blog by an oil industry insider. I strongly recommend reading this entry. I could not have written it better myself.

Mr. T.J., not sure who you are but I don’t think you’re Martin.

What do you say that based on? Elon Musk has occurred to me as a man with a brilliant mind and deep ambitions. He definitely has some outstanding achievements and has managed to create enormous wealth for himself by means our society deems legal. Perhaps we shouldn’t be talking about him here. In any case, the fact he’s from South Africa does not mean anything. A person should not be judged by the place they come from. A person could very well be different from a culture where they grew up in. This I am sure of.
Anyway, humans are fallible and we all make mistakes. Sometimes things don’t go our way and it’s natural to want to find the cause of the problem and eliminate it. Often times we make a wrong conclusion – we all do. I am confident that the fate of Erhard at Tesla was a mistake, a mistake that will eventually be realized by the people in charge; and a mistake that can be corrected. We all make mistakes. I don’t see why Martin and Elon couldn’t work together again. Two heads think better than one. These two brilliant minds will accomplish SO much more if they work together rather than independently. We all will reap more benefits if they work together rather than independently.

Actually Martin, my words doesn’t hang me. I’m well aware of the dichotomy which is why I called you videorecordings. both you and Sexton have been key in the EV revolution. I say the revolution that has now been set in motion was achieved mainly by the trifecta WKTEC, An inconvenient truth and Tesla. other things mattered like the prius but these 3 strikes tipped the scale decisively and it is exactly because of your achievements that it is so puzzling that you can’t be reached with reason.
despite what you both have achieved neither of you can be bothered to make a call that might actually release the remaining EV1s so we have living legends, a thorn in the eye of the ignorant. these are simple facts even though you say they hang me.
one might speculate that you are both afraid to tell Lutz indirectly to his face that he is part of something not entirely kosher. I can relate to the discomfort but it’s still fascinating how even the ‘greats’ fall so short.

Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand? how about HC Andersen’s emperor’s new clothes.

Dan the Looter,

It is no surprise to me that you are quoting children’s fairy tales, while those with the power / wealth / access that you crave for your own agenda are talking Ayn Rand. As I stated before, there is a serious reason why others have and sustain power / wealth / access, and you don’t.

Article about the US not having any high speed trains:

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080012.html

It occurred to me that the US should create a mag-lev train design, in which the train moves in a tube that has been evacuated of atmosphere, to eliminate wind resistance. The train would still be propelled by electro-magnetism, but could move at speeds 2 to 4 times the fastest mag-lev trains today, without using more energy. Imagine going from LA to LV in 1/2 hour.

Ricardo-I agree with you-I just mentioned S. Africa as a “cheetah reference point”. Most of the remaining cheetahs live in Namibia. Yeah Elon made a mistake, to all of us- in his shoes I never would have done that-on the principle of the thing if nothing else. Too bad you can’t get him on the horn and slap him around. But now what would be “his reason” for Martin to come back, if Martin wanted too? You’re absolutely right though. I thought Elon was a great guy and all of that too- but then he fires the guy who started Tesla and who let him know about the whole deal in the first place !? I know it’s his money (mainly his money, I guess) but it’s also the google guy’s money and those VC guy’s money-they could have said “no way” on firing Martin. Another bad U.S. style board decision if you ask me . The only problem with Tesla was the transmission, right?-”big deal” in the overall kaizen style picture . Tesla shouldn’t operate like “a corporation as usual / par for the course” ” if you ask me. Now Tesla is kind of just like another GM to me. Somehow Mr. Honda & Toyoda got to stay with their companies like forever-the Japanese don’t like to “lay off people”, as a principle. Their companies have done pretty good, no? Guess Elon is a really ambitious guy and all of that and that’s the bottom line with him, no matter what. I know: Martin should bring in the “You Tube” guys on something new-they’ve just gotten “their vast money for nothing an’ their chicks for free-through T.V., though not MTV”. I saw them on T.V. once-they look like regular guys.

TJ,

I have been an executive in high tech start-ups, and there really is no going back. You leave with only the pride in your work, and hopefully your support system at home held up and is intact. Martin has a good, supportive wife, and many customers and coworkers who will bear witness on his behalf, which is far more than I ever had.

Martin needs to look forward, not backwards, and leverage his good standing to create another innovative tech, as opposed to a complete product. Start simple, take it easy and cash out on the tech early, passing it to a competent customer’s hands, who can take it to the next level. I am sure Tesla Motors was a lot of heavy lifting, so he should relax through this next enterprise.

IF oil production falls from it’s current plateau in 2009 – 2010, as per The Oil Drum, and declines at 3% per year afterwards. How long would it take to ramp up to say 20 million cars per year PHEV or BEV?

On a side issue I note Texas has taken over from CA as the largest kw/h wind energy producer in 2006.

Anatoly,

I believe that the core technologies for the Tesla Roadster were off-the-shelf:

1) Lotus Elise chassis with bonded aluminum extruded frame were in production
2) Li-Ion batteries are in mass production with high safety / quality
3) Regenerative braking has been around with variations on pedal control
4) Asynchronus magnetless motor may be new – I dunno

The thing that was seriously lacking was a comprehensive strategy to enter a market without regulations supporting it. By targeting premium customers with a Roadster configuration using Li-Ion batteries, regenerative braking and an asynchronous magnetless motor to provide both performance and range, Tesla succeeded in winning customers over from ICE competitors.

Yes, it was extremely hard work from extremely talented engineers to put it all together and optimize it for range / performance, but that wasn’t lacking – it was the business model to succeed against ICE vehicles without government regulations and funding that was lacking.

I’ve done rolling dynamometer work, trying to optimize for performance, efficiency/range and emissions (which Tesla didn’t have to worry about), and it is tedious at best, and impossible at worst, as performance and efficiency are generally mutually exclusive goals, forcing you to sacrifice one for the other, or create modes where the driver chooses which they prefer.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that ALL aspects of a company need to be world class or the product fails, so engineering, business and manufacturing all have to be expert and balanced to achieve market viability.

Wonder what Alan Cocconi of AC Propulsion is doing?- He’s kind of the guy who started it all. Start another EV co.-this time with him on board, and Al Gore somehow. Yeah-make the car incredibly green (and a small busniess van too)-like soy based. Governments & business should like these cars/vans as fleet vehicles, not that they’d be pitched just to them at all. I

Oh-and hire Anatoly too, no?-and what happened to Wally Rippel also?

Cooper Union in N.Y. is an example of the rare U.S. engineering school (among other subjects) that has free tuition.

Hi Martin and all,

I got curious. Kaizen?!!! Read your definition.

And hardly anyone here has said anything about it.

It is a state of mind; not a management slogan. Compare how Japanese people and Americans save their money. And there are books about it? All you need to do is to look at a tiny island with minimal resources that has existed for centuries. Kaizen is how they do it for most of the time. Occasionally they get frustrated and go on a rampage. In more recent times, Japanese industry realized that an easier rampage was to outshine Americans in productivity, and prosper by trade with Americans that had plenty of resources and money. Looking at American cars, this is obvious to anyone sensitive to waste. Cleverly, they discovered that there was a Kaizen streak in middle class America, and the kind of cars they understood could appeal to Americans having this trace of the Kaizen attitude.

I have lived through a long series of phony slogans. My observation is that they rarely succeeded in motivating the work force. We had ‘Zero Defects’, ‘Cost Improvement Proposals’(a quota system at GE), ‘Continuous Quality Improvement’, and ‘Six Sigma’. Stories were told at GE about engineers designing TV sets with extra screws, so that when badgered for CIP’s, they would take out a screw and claim to have made a great cost saving. I seriously question whether Jack Welch of GE had the slightest idea that six sigma was a term based on probability density functions. My impression is he thought it was how far people jumped when he kicked them. It is amazing how this term is used by people who plan programs, where they mouth words about ‘six sigma’ if program milestones are met on schedule and budget. The last thing wanted is uncertainty that comes from constructive change.

At Lockheed, large programs included an organization called ‘Program Controls’. Upper management and customers loved this because it helped them to pretend there was order in the development process. Tight controls looked good in trivial projects, but the real development programs were often made wasteful by such control. Control often meant work was done on problems that had been solved, while disasters in the making were denied funding. Not to ramble, but I have to tell about the time the Program Controls guy insisted on imposing a schedule from one program onto another. Some of the words sounded similar, but only about 2% of the problems were the same. Fortunately this program was canceled before anyone figured out why milestones just were not being met. Program Controls was regarded as the hero group. As you might guess, I was regarded less favorably.

This seems to be the American way. We have serious problems with global climate change and energy supplies. But the plans that get supported are ways to perpetuate waste. American car companies are clearly determined to play to popularity contests, fitting cute new outfits on the same old monsters. Congress passes an energy bill mandating and subsidizing various kinds of ethanol production. Fuel standards are set that are far short of the requirements needed to change things, and even these will almost certainly will be subject to deceit, say by classifying all cars as commercial transport trucks for example.

Yesterday I talked to a man who was pleased with having installed a $60,000 solar panel system that was selling back energy to PGE. This was paid for by $20,000 from PGE, and not mentioned were the tax credits. He didn’t know quite what to say when I told him that PGE was charging me $8 a month to pay for ‘public programs’. But we did agree that eventually this would go to nonsense when our governor’s plan for large numbers of such installations came about, and we would all be paying for each others rebates. I think that the Japanese would be reluctant to take money out of savings to pay for such expenditures, even though they get little interest on their money. It is easier to explain to for Americans that get about 5%, since this is then a clear time value of money. So there has to be a net gain of $3000 a year to break even on cash flow. Then you can begin to think about how it amortizes. So not much Kaizen here, is there?

I won’t go on about the fallacies regarding true efficiency of electric cars and plug-in variations. So how do emission trading credits fix this. I think they require a big slug of money from somewhere. So where is the Kaizen?

It is going to be tough having a Kaizen company in America, where the very idea of getting rid of the right front seat strikes horror in the hearts of men (and women).

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Martin sez:

Thank you for answer, Martin

Recently I was thinking about high cost of betteries per required for car amount of energy.
One reason for this would be lack of investment.
But I would say that quite a significant technological reason for such high cost is purity of chemical substances you need for batteries to avoid side reactions killing recharge cycle count. Similar concerns are even more severe in fuel cells because in contrst with rechargeable battery with seeled substances fuel cell relies on externally entering the cell substances.
This justifies belief in rechargeable bettery versus fuel cells. But this also makes it hard to believe that cost of betteries could become comparable with cars made with relatively not pure materials and using not very pure gasoline.

Energy storages based on electric fields (ultracapacitors), compressed air, elastic energy of rubber or springs, magnetic fields (superconductive coils), engine with liqud nitrogen, mechanical energy of rotating objects (flywheel) etc are all not practical because of too low enegry density for such storages.

So one option is that electric transportation for masses should go with short range EV with fairly small batteries hence low cost. In that case you need high power electric wiring along major freeways and some system of recharging in driving along them. This recharging could be low tech with making contact to wires. It could be also higher tech so that wires stay inside isolated cables and rechrage go by induction. Alternative approach would be to have rail based car pulling system or even trains for such short range EV.
Most extreme would be to build vacuum tonnels with magnetic trains suspension and manage supersonic speeds by trains making airplanes obsolete as mass trasportation. I am observing all sorts of attempts to go all these directions in terms of EV supporting infrastructure. But anything like this is large scale and hardly very technology development focused. So this is not my domain.

Another option exist which I never seen much discussed but I do not see why it cannot produce much cheaper zero pollution cars versus battery based EV. Sure some reasons exist preventing it but I do not know them. So it would be nice to see some opinions about it.

In brief it exist fairly developed technology in thermal solar power to accumulate solar heat as latent heat of melting LiF salt. It melts at fixed 845 C making Carno efficiensy versus room temperature of about 73%. In practice I believe about 50% of energy could be recovered to mechanical or electrical energy. This salt has approximately 1.05 MJ / kg heat of melting. With 50% efficiensy it corresponds to 145 Wh/kg energy versus 110 Wh/kg of current Tesla Motors ESS. Salt taken in quatity should not be extremely pure and is relatively cheap – much cheaper per mass than current Li-ion batteries for comparable capacity as outlined.
Sure right now it is developed for relatively large scale tanks with such salt which simplifies heat loss isolation. But I see nothing fundamental at these temperatures preventing better heat isolation suitable for car. Sure issues exist of fire hazard if such salt leaks out in car crash.

Now comes question I wonder. Is this fire hazard of high temperature melted salt the only single reason that such a system is not even worth discussion because it never could be made acceptable for cars ? Is it that nothing could be done about it by something creative ? Or is it just the inertia of thinking so far that nobody is trying this ?

Also if we take graphite (quite cheap) and look at its full heat capacity if heated from 800 C to practical limit of 3000 C the associated heat energy will be about 5 MJ/kg. With same 50% efficiensy of heat conversion to electricity it corresponds to ~700 Wh/kg of electric energy storage. Graphite is solid so hazard of leaking high temperature to the outside is much less critical. Also both with salt and with graphite heat cycling count could be quite big like many thousands or even million cycles because cracks etc are not critical for heat storage and in liquid nothing like this even matter.

So why nobody even discussed it at least once. Is it that obvious that such heat capacity based systems are absolutely out of question ?
They surely would be cheap, robust in lifetime, higher capacity per mass and volume than today’s best Li-ion batteries and zero pollution and oil free to use.
So what is so fundamental that nobody even thinks along these lines to produce mass scale ready energy storage for cars this way ?

Thank you for answers.

Martin sez:

My understanding is that the two biggest cost drivers for Li Ion cells are the cost of cobalt (a scarce element), and market demand outstripping supply. Manufacturers have already figured out how to minimize the cobalt required, and newer formulations replace cobalt with manganese, a cheap and plentiful element. The free market is doing its thing with supply – more and more fabrication capacity comes on every year.

Hi Martin and all,

My discussion of the Japanese state of mind, which I think is the essence of ‘Kaizen’, is very consistent with the solar photovoltaic facts you state. Such solar systems are very necessary for a country that is a very big importer of natural gas and oil. The Japanese inclination to install solar systems is also very consistent with the Japanese inclination to save their money. This saving inclination has been so strong that they have a far higher personal savings rate than Americans in spite of the fact that interests rates on savings are almost zero, which is a baffling contradiction to American economists.

And the fact that interest rates are about zero means that the cost of money that is spent on solar systems is almost zero; this is far different from the cost of money in the USA. This changes everything when the true cost of solar equipment is analyzed.

The Japanese economy has been described as stagnant for many years. This is said to be due to very conservative policy of their banks about investing money. It makes sense that there would be capital available for subsidizing solar equipment.

All of this makes me think that Japan could be a fantastic market for electric vehicles. And the next question is, why aren’t Honda and Toyota charging ahead on that opportunity? The fact that they are not, or so it seems, is a big contradiction.

When I stumble on such an obvious contradiction, I have to admit, I don’t get it.

As to blaming America for my inability to sell my ideas:

(1) You have heard the expression, “He could sell refrigerators to eskimos.” Well, that has never been said about me.

(2) I thought I was just comparing the Japanese to Americans, relative to the Kaizen concept.

(3) As for unfairly judging American attitudes based on my failures, maybe so, but you will have to admit, there are many, far more definite demonstrations of our energy wasting practices. In comparision, my very limited experience really does not mean that much. Look around for someone who grew up in a different country and ask them about this.

(4) Notwithstanding my personal defects of character, (here I am trying to sound like Doc on Deadwood) I think I have learned something about how difficult it is to change the way people think. Probably, I will have to wait until a really big crisis comes about before my strange looking concept will go anywhere. Hope springs eternal.

Thanks, Jim Bullis

Hi–I meant to put the following comment over here where it relates to the ‘failure to sell’ criticism.
It may have been a mistake to try to get people to look at:
http://www.miastrada.com/drawings_explain_articulating_action

Instead, maybe a better salesman would have said, “For people that understand that putting an engine in a wheeled vehicle was an obvious thing to do, the Miastrada is the first car invented in automotive history.

(The US Patent office has allowed that the articulated stabilizing/steering system is both unique and unobvious.)

Memo re. Iceland meeting: if you have an old acoustic guitar bring it. Blutarsky sez he made need a few to drive home some of the finer points during his presentation.

TJ,

Regarding renewable techs, it is not the government that is pushing / aiding these advances. Venture capital firms are recognizing the potential of various new techs, and funding them themselves, not waiting for government assistance. Wal-Mart just installed solar power to their facilities in Hawaii, because that state uses petroleum to generate electricity, so it is the private sector making the most significant contributions.

Nanowire battery…my physicists were going in that direction, but the problems were out of our box, plus we got laid off from SunLabs.

Carbon Foam (diamond & variants) was one discovery during the development of the solid state compressor I purchased for Sun. No moving parts but one $0.50 valve (one way so it will pump).

Purchased for the next gen processors, as the heat density was more than solid state heaters, so a denser media was my plan. Then why not refrigerate it. Beat out Intel, who was also bidding.

They produced a matrix structure a ‘few’ times and an oblique discussion on how this foam could be used to increase the performance and size of Lit-Ion batteries. I started the discussions with the Japanese, but the layoffs bit…

Anyway, philosophically speaking, how would your next company address the issue of ‘which’ new tech to base it’s product on. How deep would your funding be to go in all of those directions? Which areas (IP and processes) would you leverage (COTS)?

Wonderful discussion and thank you for this place.

Forgot to ask if anyone has more information on Power+Energy’s fuel-cell technology?

They seem to have an edge for now.

DARPA was one of my best leads, but they have too many hidden agendas for the resources available to us at that time.

Anatoly (and others),

How impossible would inductive charging be when driving at highway speeds? Copper cables just below the road surface, pick-up coils in each car, and off we go!

But seriously, once a large percentage of cars is EV’s (and assuming batteries don’t progress at the speed we want them to), at first glance this sounds like something to run through some calculations. What is the efficiency of inductive charging with a distance of 2-4 inch? What voltage to use, etc, etc.

Any takers?

Jason- Re. First Solar Company ,”the fat cat of the solar world” ( with its stock around 230) : according to online 2/14/08 Cnet News article: “… most of its sales have been in Germany, which provides sizable subsidies”. So govt. is playing a big role-it’s the reason Germany gets 25% of its power from solar, rapidly headed to 30%- also, most of Nanosolar’s shipments for 2008 (the co. is “sold out” for 2008) are supposedly going to Germany. In 2001 San Fran. voters passed a solar “H Bond” initiative, which later led to $1 billion funding approved by the voters for solar to be installed in S.F. The goal, if I remember right, is by 2012 for the City of S.F. to get around 50% if its power from green energy-double the state of Calif. mandate of something like 25% by 2025. This bond deal was put together by a company called “Local Power” of Oakland (Paul Fenn) . So this is govt. in action: grass roots activists with people plus voting process. Also, in 2003 ( according to old online article I found), 15 states had green energy mandated targets (more states now ?). This is forcing green energy plants to be built-solar,wind,geothermal- where none (or else “token projects”) would otherwise have been done. Still, the U.S. gets only about 7% of power from green sources (including hydroelect.) with solar being something like 1%. The German govt. should be given a big shiny medal for their actions / programs, the U.S govt. (and state govts.) should be given a clue by the German example.

The group “Vote Solar” , part of Solar Nation and founded in 2001 after S.F. solar bond initiative sez, in e-mail I just got re. govt. initiatives leading to solar developments: “Calif. committed $3 billion in incentives over a 10 year period and in return leveraged a lot more than that in private equity.Venture capitalists have put $625 million into Calif. solar companies in 2007 alone.” They also say: “New Mexico implemented an RPS with 20% solar carve-out…” RPS stands for ” renewable portfolio standard” (described on wikipedia search of the subject)…”and now Schott AG (of Germany) is investing $100 million in a 200,000 sq. ft. solar tech. production facility in Albuquerque employing 350 people”. Can find article on this by google searching “Schott solar to build in NM”. In article Schott chairman states: ” according to both industry analysts and our projections, the market for solar energy will double over the next 5 years”. Schott’s investment is expected to grow to $500 million as the building expands to 800,000 sq. ft. and the workforce to 1500. Vote Solar sez in e-mail that they (Vote Solar) are now working “on a secret project”.

TJ,

Further, Tesla, Fisker and GM proceeded with their designs without government mandates / subsidies / support.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining, I believe that the market should find solutions without mandates / subsidies / support, or you will create solutions that burden the consumer, either directly or indirectly. As stated previously, had the federal government acted 2-3 years ago when ethanol was all the rage, we would be forced into a “solution” that would have been bad for consumers of both cars and food.

Government should only provide consumers write-offs and rebates, so that consumers can choose which solution works best for them.

Jim,

Yes, you read it correctly, but it’s your understanding / interpretation that is lacking.

I infer from the presentation that GM would like the E-REV to be emissions tested in the pure BEV / ZEV mode, and thus, continues to refer to the E-REV as a ZEV from that point on.

As for the slide title: “We Need Practical Vehicles That Shift More Energy to Transportation”, you are correct that it literally means the opposite of everything else the presentation is trying to say, and must be a mistake. I can only guess from context that they desire a shift from oil to renewable energy vehicles, specifically electricity generated from renewable sources, but GM should clarify what they mean, and not me.

Jim Bullis wrote:”>>>>So I conclude that GM plans to gobble up more energy while pretending to be helping the environment with “zero emission” work. If so, it could rank with the tobacco industry goal of convincing the world that smoking is harmless<<<<”

My conclusion is similar, but weighted more towards a grab for infostructure content, as ‘they’ will have the lions share of the IP/Patents.

There is a complete infostructure for the production, storage, delivery and usage for petro. Regulatory agencies are in place with proven and mature specifications & processes.

There is next to nothing for H2 and even less for liquid H2. The only areas where there is anything is medical, research and silicone production.

A complete infostructure has to be designed and installed. Many, many inventions must be made, along with their adoption/adaption of the industry, government and public.

The company that has a head start and holding the most patents…wins the majority share of both the infostructure and consumer dollars.

Power+Energy’s gasoline/diesel/veggie oil/etc fuel cell has the most promise for now, but that is still mainly based on an oil well….veggie oil by today’s process used diesel/gasoline to farm and process it.

But there is no clear answer, but too many and it will be a blend of them, or like computing or any commodity driven product…the first to volume wins the lions share or the whole thing….

Jim Bullis,

Even energy from the grid is more efficient and less polluting than petroleum in ICE vehicles, so in effect, GM is providing more efficient / less polluting vehicles. The prospect looks brighter as the grid switches to renewable sources of energy.

As for efficiency, if the grid is 100% renewable, who cares how much electricity you use, as long as you can afford it? I am looking forward to seeing many different types of vehicle designs not driven by aerodynamics – one site that I posted above has recreated a modernized Duesenberg design.

Timo,

It is a Lotus Elise modified to run electrically and go underwater. I dig that it has an open cockpit with scuba gear installed for people to breathe. It looks like a lot of fun.

Timo,
It looks like Europeans can also be taken in by the ‘zero emission’ nonsense.

Jason,
I keep looking at solar, and it does sometimes seem encouraging. But I keep insisting that this is a cost problem, and it is confused by accounting that includes rebates and tax advantages that can not continue through a point of large scale implementation.
As far as the grid goes, the efficiency is not what I had expected and huge amount of coal, and it is expected to increase, makes the National grid worse than gasoline as far as co2 goes. It might come out about even for California.

I have a solid analysis of USA power generation efficiency at http://www.miastrada.com/analyses. I am trying to get a complete analysis of the co2 situation out soon.

bent1

I am afraid you are right about the power of big organizations. With my stubborn nature and at my age, I am prepared to go at it anyway.

One thing good about a strange looking approach is that it is truly patentable. So there is a little bit of IP for me to hang on to. Who knows about that.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

I knew many early adopters of EV tech would be gear heads, if you only showed them what low end torque would do for them:

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1408

Just as pornography led to early adoption of VCR’s and the internet, adrenaline will drive the rapid acceptance of EV Tech.

You will see that people will be going for speed, luxury, image and power (Hummer) that EV Tech brings. I disagree with Bob Lutz that vehicles will get smaller and more efficient in the future. EV Tech will allow people to pursue their lusts with a free conscience.

Martin,

My friend Kas pointed me to your site. She knew I was interested in Tesla and how it progressed.

It was curious finding the current topic. Here I am trying to figure out why the company I work at that was once so innovative and energetic has ground to (not a halt, but) a predictable rhythm.

A number of the comments by others come to it being about team – it is and you probably already knew that.

Someone sent me this list recently because they knew it would resonate with me. Maybe it is by comfirming that the members of the team value this list that “Lean” will occur somewhat naturally.

1. Come to work each day willing to be fired
2. Circumvent any orders aimed at stopping your dream
3. Do any job needed to make your project work, regardless of your job description
4. Find people to help you
5. Follow your intuition about the people you choose, and work only with the best
6. Work underground as long as you can – publicity triggers corporate immune mechanism
7. Never bet on a race unless you are running it.
8. Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
9. Be true to your goals, but be realistic about the ways to achieve them.
10. Honor your sponsors.

gg

Film of the sQuba in action:

http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=35519

Jim, I think you are referring to the ICE generator that generates electricity and the exhaust is captured to heat the home/building/etc. That has been around since my college reading/search/etc. Japan is a big adopter of this and have some nifty setups. The last time I read anything about that, they were near 98% efficient and since the ICE is tuneed for pure efficency and pollution, very little pollution as it runs as a set and very narrow RPM range. Ditto the generator, it is tuned to a very narrow RPM range, so much more efficient.

There too many methods/slogans/etc to list or discuss on this topic and would need a seperate to do justice to it. I’ve been a Program Manager running product teams that had little to none reporting to me….aka…did not have hire/fire power over them. Matrix management where the PM has to persuade team members (who were managers of departments from other groups/divisions/companies). Yes, I could have someone fired, but that took effort and dependent on the political landscape (go to their boss’s boss, or go up through my management tree, etc).

Plus this is *NOT* a ‘one size fits all’ management thing. Very much like the original topic of this thread, “lean”. It is just a component of the ‘culture’ and ‘we’ Americans do NOT GET IT, generally speaking. When “just in time” was finally known, American companies focused as if that was the ‘only’ metric that the Japanese employed to eat Detroit’s lunch. Not so, just a component of their ‘culture’, as is the slogans listed above. Did the ills of Detroit end when they adopted “Just in time”?

Ask most team members (whether design, release, production, sustaining, etc) who their customer is and they will tell you the ‘end’ customer as they have been trained to believe. Not close enough. Their ‘real customer’ is the the receiving team/person/etc of their work as spelled out in the pert/gant/etc chart…aka…who they are a dependency or prerequisite to.

Engineering doesn’t see Production as their customer…OBTW….there is really another customer between’m and it is the regulatory folks (aka…certification testing and verification folks, in addition to the outside agencies).

Production doesn’t see service as their customer. Service doesn’t see the next gen product as their customer. That cycles till that product line is killed off with no follow on or replacement product.

The reason these slogans don’t work in all cases is that most managers use them as a ‘one size fits all’ situations.

Engineering types are ‘new beginnings’ and have very messy desktops and work areas. Their customers are ‘closure’ types who have very neat desktops and work areas. That is the nature of production, as they must accept the product released and deal with getting it out the door.

Different types of mindset and their management must learn to ID them and apply them in the right places/times/etc. Partnering them is tough, as it is like oil and water, but it must be done.

Back on ‘lean’ or whatever thing/process/metric/etc is being viewed. That is part of why I think foreign firms do better in the long run. Their upper management has a different view of their company management metrics. I call it ‘bean counter’ and used to take pages to ‘try’ and get that across. My favorite auto mag editor is Angus MacKenzie of MotorTrend and this editorial is one of my favorites that describe this issue to a T…

“The Big Picture: Street Smarts
Who else should be blamed for the decline of America’s two remaining automakers?”

http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0611_the_big_picture

Jim,
The systems I read about were for the Japanese market, where their living quarters are tiny compared to what we expect here.

Their system was off grid most of the time, as this unit provided electricity and heat to the unit/house/condo/apartment/etc.

In our system, it could work. Modular for a home with the vehicle backed into it’s ’station’. When you leave, it unplugs itself to leave lesser capacity, but then you are not home so less power/heat needed.

That ’station’ would interface electrical (12VDC to 120VAC/60Hz) and heating while protecting from poisonous gases.

Get back home and back into the ’station’ and your home capacity increases.

If family still at home, then this system would have additional units or a master/larger unit.

All of this off grid for ‘most’ of the time. Supplemented with a Photovoltaic system.

When in the ’station’, natural gas or whatever. When out on the road, gasoline/propane/diesel/etc.

Nifty system, but the automotive makers would need to co-operate with the builders and city codes and ???

Air Car coming to US in 2009 / 2010 for $18K:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html

Martin sez:

Isn’t that the same magazine that told me when I was a kid about the flying cars coming soon?

Jason- obviously the best of both worlds iz: private initiative and smart govt. initiative, like, as you said, via incentives and rebates-and why not shoot for the best of both? The “power of govt.” could be used to help things advance more & faster , rather than being a dead weight. Govt. is already an 800 pound gorilla in the room-might as well not be a worthless dead gorilla. It looks like a lot of solar energy growth is being driven by govt. right now, not by spending a lot of govt. money, but by mandating green energy goals / targets. Of course the U.S. Govt. chews up and /or wastes a ton of our taxpayer money. There’s waste and money that goes missing in the defense dept. that’s so great every year that they ( including the General Accounting Office) have literally given up on trying to find it all, according to the now retired former govt. official in charge of this-which I posted about months ago on the Tesla website. So I sure as halibut/cabbage ain’t a big fan of govt. per se either-unless, dare I say it again, it was JFK style govt., but that didn’t last-not enough graft, squandering & especially war profiteering (as opposed to: non-lethal to humans & other animals “Moonshot profiteering” ) going on to suit the powers that be. It’s all rigged at the top.

It appears to me that major success factors in conversion to widespread electricity use for transportation and all energy needs are related to cost improvements of already well known technologies. For example PV or thermal solar principles to generate electricity from Sun energy are known for about half a century or more. But they are still too expensive. Similar thing goes with batteries. Battery EV as a concept are known for a century. For a while battery capacity was a problem. But today the problem is just high battery cost.
If it is a widespread belief that cost reduction is the only way to manage progress Eastern Asia culture would become a winner. They always outcompete so far U.S. and Europe in process of gradually perfecting mass scale technology so that products quality and cost are at the better point than what U.S. and Europe could deliver.

I think that comes from hard to overcome cultural traits of people grown up in Eastern Asia. I consider that gradual cost reduction and quality improvement critically contradict individualistic approach to all things. So it is about a team but the team in which people souls fuse so close that they have high cost at psychological level to even consider loosing connection to peers. Only this team could motivate its members to keep pushing extremely tedious and obviously bad from personal recognition point of view efforts to perfect some basic known technology. Motivation comes through warm feelings and psychological comfort that your aparently hopeless efforts persistently bringing no aparent result are still needed and welcome by the team community. It values honorarble persistence to due hard pushing and pushing what is considered your duty regardless of personal recognition, success etc. This is extremely Japanese (old fashion Japanese at least). This also fits well with Korean and Chinese people raised in homeland. It somewhat fits Taiwan or I guess Singapore too. But such a close souls connection for U.S. people would be the same a loss of personality and hence is typically unacceptable at personal level. I think this is key obstacle to overcome in U.S. to compete with Eastern Asia in areas of solar power or battery technology.

From that point of view I would think if Martin really want to go there he would finally would have to have whole engineering team in Eastern Asia. This still would keep the issue open how he himself would get connected to such a team so that they accept a need to die hard for his orders/directions as a business leader. I also do not personally know what advantages U.S. company could have over Eastern Asia business culture if all we need is gradual cost reduction and quality improvement.

It would be interesting if somebody could outline some unique U.S. business culture advantages versus Eastern Asia business so that playing solar power or battery EV on mass scale would make sense from U.S. company position.
Or may be somebody tryly believe that mentioned cultural traits are not important or could be overcome on U.S. soil. It would be nice to see some convincing arguments supporting this if so.

I am personally entirely sceptical that Kaisen would work with U.S. based start up or large corporation. Similarly I am sceptical that solar power or battery EV could be managed to mass scale by anyone except some business from Eastern Asia (most likely Toyota or Honda for battery EV case).
But I would like to see some arguments proving me wrong if somebody bother to present them.

Anatoly,

America’s advantage is to innovate, to create a solution that is a radical departure from what came before.

Nanosolar of Silicon Valley ignored silicon based photo voltaics, and even typical deposition methods for thin film solar panels, to create an extremely cheap solar ink that is printed on aluminum foil in giant, rapid roll to roll production methods.

Sol Focus reduced the silicon panel to a tiny silicon chip, which absorbs the reflector focused equivalent of 500 suns, to reduce costs of photo voltaics.

It is these types of leaps from standard configurations that tend to escape Asian manufacturers.

Yes, this is cultural and that goes to philosophy of life, or what is life…

Current business schooled management is into out sourcing, which is a great way to leverage, but it has gone too far, as usual with this type of myopic vision.

Japan has, from the last few discussions I’ve had, spent over $4 billion in studies about what is happening to their culture, and it is not what American’s would think. It has to do with ‘what have we done to our society’ and it started out as ‘how can our next generation engineers be as creative as Americans”. That initial study based on the fact the Japanese leading design studios were/are here in California.

That initial study found that as a culture, Asians/Japanese, are very much into conformity, or being part of the herd. American designers generally do not and are rebellious in nature….aka…outside of the box types.

After their first wave of change and those kids became adults….the government noticed something alarming. Their ‘Japanese’ CULTURE was eroding. A couple of decades later and after 2-3 more commissioned studies, they find that their middle class has a very large percentage of unmarried and childless (never want kids) singles. Many still living at home (okay in the old ways, but the difference is that these kids have little ambition and only/mainly look for good times).

The freight train that they see is that their society and info-structure is not ready for the old who ‘used’ to depend on their kids and grandkids to support and take care of them. Rest homes are not the norm, but having grand parents living with them, the norm.

So there is a huge argument of ‘at what cost’, this change in culture to proliferate the ‘rebel’, therefore out of the box thinking…aka…non-herd mentality.

Then over to India and the ‘caste’ system. Sure I thought I knew about it all from my studies, but my best friend at college was Indian and laughed when I said I knew about their caste system. It is no different than good old American racial prejudice and discrimination. Illegal, but accepted with a wink and nod, or ignore the offense.

Since the world has shrunk, these bleed and cross over political and geographic borders.

It is not absolute, but a blending of values and cultures.

Why just looking at “lean” is out of context. Just like “just in time” was out of context when Domestic companies thought that was the great Japanese secret to success.

Speaking of the power of govt., can’t forget the power of the power behind the power of govt., as in this from wikipedia article on David Rockefeller: “In his office he has a famous rolodex…it is described as a unique, massive 4′x5′ ferris wheel contraption, containing up to 150,000 entries of the most powerful people in the world”. On another subject, I heard a few years ago where someone said it was getting close to being possible to recreate past actors digitally so you they looked 100% real. Bogie could be employed again to act opposite Depp, Clooney & whoever-that would be interesting. Sequel to Casablanca there-with some comedy in it plus more action to suit modern tastes.

In response to my question,” How many patents does the Tesla Roadster have compared to the Prius?”

TEG wrote:
“Here are some examples:” and proceeded to list some important details that obviously costs his voluntary time!

FIRST OF ALL TEG, I would really like to say THANK YOU for going out of your way to do some research and answer my question. That is very kind of you!

You have taught some of the value of a blog (as I’m new to this system, although I’ve been scribbling for decades)…

Back to the question about patents related to the topic of kaizen.

COMPANY OR CAR???
As martin and I try to hit home over and over, it’s about the business system and much less about the product.

Kaizen is simply one example, and it DOES NOT mean that anything Toyota touches is golden. Anyway, that system had roots in Deming’s work, who had also worked with Ford. So, yes you need a team AND a system, but I argue, system first, most argue team first…

Martin said:

“A lot of you seem to miss my point. Kaizen applies to the way you run a factory, work with suppliers, negotiate contracts, structure the company, etc. The whole point is to encourage evolution so that your business gets better over time and learns from its mistakes.

I am talking about evolution of business processes.”

THIS IS PROFOUND AND PROVED IN BUILT TO LAST!!!

SO IF WE ARE COMPARING companies and technologies under the system approach, how do we keep score???

Traditionally, we measure sales, or consumer acceptance. That to me only measures the products, half the battle. After all, a company is a collection of resources working in a unique system.

What about measuring the system???

PATENT SCOREBOARD
I would argue that the patent trade war is a good place to start.

What is a patent anyway???

Well, is it not the result of several failures???

Trial and error inside of a business system.

If so, than the number of patents is a great metric for evaluating business systems (companies), especially startups that don’t have customers yet.

BACK TO TEG’s hard work on Tesla vs. Toyota patents. FIRST OF ALL, it’s unfair to compare these two business systems, Toyota is a collection of hundreds of businesses and thousands of suppliers and tens of thousands of employees, while Tesla is a startup.

BUT, I was very curious to see if anyone out there knew that the G21 project that failed through 80 car designs to accidentally land on the Prius and filed 650 PATENTS ALONG THE WAY!!!

The bottleneck for the most successful digital automobile every produced was the high voltage controller. Even Silicon Valley knows little (has far fewer patents on than lo voltages) about high voltage.

Toyota plowed $1 billion into a secret factory head up by an engineer that started his career scrubbing catalytic converters 30 years prior, churning through the system of Kaizen, where failure in R&D is acceptable. Up in Northern Nagoya, the guy built the brains that became the Hybrid Snergy Drive. The product WAS NOT the goal, it was a system to run the first Prius because no supplier could come up with enough high quality controllers.

AGAIN THAT WAS A POTENTIAL $1,000,000,000 FAILURE (IRONICALLY THE SAME PRICE AS THE EV-1) WITH MANY SMALL FAILURES ALONG THE WAY THAT BECAME PATENTS (IRONICALLY HOW MANY GM EV-1 PATENTS ARE ON THE SCOREBOARD?).

So the reason I keep bringing the Prius into the picture is that VERY FEW people understand how many failures occured and how the Toyota system worked through those with a rush deadline for the Kyoto Protocol. The managers and engineers hated each other on the project.

The other misunderstanding is that people calculate the $1 billion dollar factory into just the Prius and don’t realize it’s a system that will probably last until Toyota’s last day.

SO WHAT IS THE SCORE???

Toyota ($1 billion high voltage controller secret factory and 650 patents that became the Hybrid Synergy Drive) vs. GM’s how many patents on e-flex vs. Tesla’s how many patents on energy management vs. Mitsubishi’s how many patents on in-wheel electrics, etc. etc.

Where we can get a scoreboard of patents on the high voltage race to the digital automobile???

PS I’m not asking for patent search help, as this is not an engineering scoreboard, think ESPN that reports the score on each of the sports systems running. Just the area of patents and number by company.