Smartie is at the Party

May 12, 2008, 9:26 pm
Filed under: General

This is a guest blog by Roberta Vespremi, a follow up to David’s blog.

Countdown

After paying $99 practically one year earlier and sitting in near silence since, I began to think it would never happen. Then, one morning I opened up my Hotmail and sitting there was an email from Dave Schembri, President of Smart USA, telling me that my Smart was in the United States and would soon arrive at the San Jose Smart Center. I was really looking forward to trading up to the Smart – the Land Rover, although my loyal companion for nearly 5 years, had become almost an embarrassment. With it only getting 10 miles/gallon and especially considering that the circumstances I often touted for having it – lugging around wood and bags of dirt, moving furniture to and fro, chauffeuring our two labbies and, of course, off-roading (and after driving around Namibia for two weeks in the African equivalent of a Nissan Sentra, I knew that 4-wheel drive was not an off-roading necessity) – occurred so seldomly that even I had stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.

Having not heard even a murmur from the Smart dealer for over a week after the arrival of the announcement email, we hopped on the Smart forum. Ahhh… the first Smarts had arrived in San Jose. That news created an insatiable thirst. We could not stop talking or thinking about Smartie coming home. I called the dealership, and was told that my Smart was not, in fact, there. The frustration grew. I called again a few days later, not knowing that David had also been calling, and received a curt response — yes, my Smart was there, but no I could not pick it up. Something to do with scanning the ECU codes. Not really knowing what that meant, I agreed to a pick-up appointment nearly a week later.

Much to my dismay, when I relayed the story to David, he just looked at me and said “Bullshit.” Nice, I thought – the rumors on the forum are true, the dealer is going to sell (or probably already sold) my Smart to someone else. Within seconds we were in the Land Rover barreling down 280 toward Stevens Creek Boulevard. We spotted a cluster of Smarts, but could not find anyone at the dealership. But, we did spot a bright blue Smart Cabrio with my name (literally) on it.

Once we found the lone salesperson, we were told that Smartie would not be released for at least another week – now it was something to do with a missing dealership sign (although the sign at the Smart Center that day was the exact same sign that was there when we finally did pick up Smartie) in addition to the ECU scanner. The dealer rejected David’s offer to pick up the SF Smart Center’s scanner (although they said they were waiting for someone to drive it down to San Jose) and said if David brought his own ECU scanner our warranty would be void. It was a very frustrating experience to say the least, especially because we knew we were being jerked around. We visited Smartie a few more times during that long week – taking various friends out to get a glimpse of (hopefully) the future of cars stateside, and of course making sure that she did not go to another home.

Deliverance

We had a quite distressing false start with San Jose Smart Center during our first scheduled pick up appointment where the saleswoman presented me with a lengthy credit application even though I was paying cash for the Smart. Not being able to get through to her that paying cash meant I wasn’t applying for credit, we rescheduled for another day so she would have a chance to “confirm” that a customer paying cash didn’t have to fill out a credit application.

On the day of our next pick-up appointment, David and Martin picked me up from work and we drove down to San Jose. The excitement mounted. Yet, I was quite nervous because I’d never driven a Smart. I hardly spoke on the way to San Jose, and instead idly listened to David and Martin’s banter.

As I watched the green hills and grazing cows pass by down 280, my thoughts drifted back to when I signed up on the Smart waiting list – so many months before. Knowing that my nearly 10-year-old Land Rover didn’t have much life in her (or at least life that I wanted to pay to extend), and not wanting a Prius or some car that a lawyer is “supposed” to drive, I scoured the internet for something different. Although I’m married to perhaps the posterchild for “car guys” (and am the daughter of one too – one of my first words was Porsche, well, and Elvis, but that’s another story), I confess to knowing very little other than the bits I’ve picked up listening to David, my Dad, David and my Dad, and various people I meet in our garage admiring the MR2 while I’m doing laundry.

But, I did know I didn’t want to pay a lot for something that’s going to depreciate, and I wanted something that was green but still looked cool and had all the luxuries I need (especially heated seats). This meant that most, if not all, of the hybrids and econo-cars like Toyota’s newfangled Tercel – the Yaris – were definitely out. So, when I saw my first Smart smiling back at me (really, look at the headlights and the front grille and you’ll see) from the website of a Seattle dealership that was converting cars from Canada to fit U.S. standards, I was in love. Unfortunately, the dealership wasn’t into negotiating with me, and I wasn’t into the $30K price tag. So, I forgot about the Smart amidst a job change and my move to the Bay Area.

Then, one day in early 2007, I saw a press release announcing the Smart’s anticipated release in the United States and a waiting list. I immediately went to the website expectedly a large monetary commitment to secure my spot. To my surprise, Smart USA only asked $99 (and refundable at that) to reserve my Smartie. With such little risk, I signed up without my thought – and configured my convertible Smart with leather, heated seats (of course) and an upgraded sound system – and all for well under $20K. And then proceeded to send a rendering of “my” car to all of my co-workers and friends. The genius of this marketing scheme was to make pre-owners feel like they were part of the next big thing for very little investment and absolutely no risk.

So, we finally pulled up to the dealership, and my Smart was there waiting for me – just inside the dealership doors. I went for a drive (with the top down) and it was fabulous – zooming around San Jose in a daze – and getting my first taste of the attention that a Smart brings with honks and waves at every turn. I couldn’t have been happier with Smartie.

We finished up the paperwork and David joined me for our inaugural ride back to Menlo Park, while Martin stuck around the dealership and chitchatted with the star-struck staff.

An Enlightened Experience

Transitioning from an eight-cylinder SUV to a three-cylinder Smart was no easy task.
For the first week or so, I felt incredibly nauseated every time I drove the car – not knowing if it was a sensitivity to the “new car” smell or because the shifting of the gears was so jolting. I seriously considered throwing it on eBay and pocketing $5K over what I paid. We experimented a little, and found that driving the car in manual mode using the paddle shifters made for a much smoother gear change. I still was a bit paranoid about whiplash, but eventually got used to a slightly bumpier ride.

I tried to hide Smartie in the parking lot at work because I wasn’t quite sure what the reaction would be – although it’s Silicon Valley, I still felt a little sheepish for some reason. Then, much to my terror, a visiting partner needed a ride to a panel we were speaking on the day after I picked up Smartie, and I couldn’t say no. I warned her before we walked out to the parking lot – “I have a new car. It’s small.” – and getting closer to Smartie – “There it is. Don’t worry, it’s safe.” She didn’t seem to care much or to sense my uneasiness. Much to my relief, she liked it and asked for the website. Phew.

Ok, so I stopped feeling shy about the Smart after a couple of days, and started to feel a little too proud about it. I would stare down a Denali on the way to work. I would purposely park next to the biggest SUV in the parking lot at work and take a few pictures with my camera phone and send around to co-workers with an “OMG.” I bragged about gas mileage and suddenly became an expert parallel parker and a know-it-all on the EPA’s new fuel rating method. Soon, that all leveled out.

Driving the Smart, you’d never know how small it really is – measuring at just over 100 inches long. It feels only a bit narrower than a “regular” car – that is until I look back and realize that the end of the car is mere inches away. Despite all of the naysayers, I feel entirely safe in the Smart. My father-in-law pleaded with me – “just get a 911 – cars will never see you in the Smart.” My mother thought it would just fly off the road at the slightest wind or curve in the road. Instead, the Smart is solid – even at above 80 mph on the freeway, and has received a favorable safety rating from both Euro NCAP and NHTSA. I find comfort in the fact that the Smart is nimble – and can scoot its way out of danger much better than your average-sized car.

And, the Smart is a pleasure to drive – even before its recent air intake and wheel/tire upgrades (I kept David away from it as long as possible). I have plenty of power in the Smart’s 3-cylinders, and don’t even miss the 8-cylinder Land Rover. And yes, we’ll see what the new exhaust and suspension mods do to it.

Everyone’s Staring at Me — Really

Being an early adopter has both its advantages and disadvantages. It never occurred to me that a Smart would be a magnet for such frequent, unwanted, and sometimes quite intrusive, attention. No matter the place or time, people stop me to talk about Smartie. Whether in the fast lane on 101, at the gas station or exiting the grocery store, people are curious, and aren’t afraid to ask questions from “aren’t you afraid you’re going to die?” to “what did you pay for that thing?” to “is it electric?” I never anticipated how owning a Smart would open me up to a never-ending barrage of stares, questions and transfixion.

Now, I can’t shake the feeling that someone is looking at me when I’m out in the Smart because undoubtedly if I turn my head not just one, but a whole lane of cars and many pedestrian stare at the Smart. Some do it surreptitiously, but most make no effort to conceal their amazement at the tiny car. I’ve had cameras flashing at me in traffic and people next to me at stop lights practically convulsing in an effort to get me to roll down the window to answer their questions. A serious fingerprint wipe down must occur after every parking garage stay. Thankfully, the gawkers on the freeway just give me a thumbs up and speed away. I hope that all this curiosity transforms into more people shifting their thinking and deciding that a small car can suit their everyday needs rather than the Smart just being an oddity.

The Great Perpendicular Parking Experiment

Knowing that Smarts were made to park nose or tail-in towards the curb, we embarked on an experiment of sorts much to the amusement of meter maids up and down the Peninsula – especially those who need to meet quotas.

The California Vehicle Code requires that a parallel-parked car’s right wheels are not more than eighteen inches from the curb – so perpendicular parking is technically always a violation in a parallel space under the CVC. But, you have to question whether the spirit of law is met when it comes to the Smart.

With so much congestion and a dearth of parking, especially in SF, why shouldn’t it be legal to park a Smart perpendicularly? The laws were drafted long before the Smarts made their way to our shores, so why not reconsider the CVC to meet the current landscape?

Well, with only one ticket in hand – and our appeal making its way through the Santa Clara County traffic court (our request for a hearing was just filed), we continue the experiment. And not without effort, we have not gotten a ticket in Palo Alto or in SF or in Menlo Park. We are met only with smiles and approving nods.

If Governor Swarzenegger really wants California to be a “green” leader, then why not do something simple like revising the CVC to accommodate a car like the Smart?

Reunited and it Feels so Good

As I’ve learned over and over again since the first day I met David, a car is not just a car, but a religion, and, man, there are a lot of disciples out there. Not long after I became a Smart wait-lister, we became members of the Smart Car USA forum.

The first Northern California Smart gathering occurred just a few weeks ago at Crissy Field in the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge. With only 15 Smarts on the RSVP list, we were expecting a mellow morning with the labbies frolicking in the Bay. We had talked (and mostly laughed) about fitting our two 80 lb+ labs in the back of the Smart. But, that morning we had the incentive to actually try it. The girls were confused about the whole thing – running over to the Land Rover and then reluctantly jumping into the Smart. It took a lot of cajoling to get them in the cargo area – but, amazingly, they fit! They absolutely loved the den-like feeling of the Smart (and I’m not anthropomorphizing here) – they were actually smiling while we drove up 101 with the top down (ok, maybe I am anthropomorphizing a little bit).

Once we arrived at Crissy Field, there were only a few Smarts there. The girls and I played on the beach with a pack of labs and then went back to the now large gathering of Smarts. At least 25 Smarts had converged for this gathering. All different color and option combinations and all sorts of folks were there showing off their Smarts. Some wait-listers even came out to get a taste of their soon-to-arrive cars.

After the meet and greet, the girls jumped onto our Smart’s lowered tailgate and sat quietly soaking in the atmosphere (and all of the attention) as they dried from their earlier swim. Everyone was amazed that the girls fit into the Smart – and comfortably at that. They were the hit of the day.

It was time to go and the Smarts organized into a conga line of sorts and wound their way up through the Presidio to Ocean Beach and eventually around Golden Gate Park – with shouts of encouragement along the way. We ended at up at The Beach Chalet, a restaurant near the beach (dog-friendly luckily), and talked about our Smart experiences over BBQ’d burgers, fries and micro-brew. All while our Smarts were perpendicularly parked nearby.

It’s Not the End

So, now going back to that email from Dave Schembri only a few months ago. Things have changed so much since then, and I have to wonder – what happens now? Do the brightly-colored pods change the way America thinks about driving? Will people finally see that bigger is and never will be better?

True not everyone can afford to own multiple cars, but if you look past the main reasons (excuses) people give for driving gargantuan vehicles – “I have kids,” “we ski,” “we go to Home Depot,” “I have big dogs” – one car is plenty. Most people only need a large vehicle a few times per year, which need could easily be taken care of through a rental or a ski rack. We have to remember that people had kids, hobbies and pets long before the SUV or mega-truck came around. I can fit everything I need to on an average day into the Smart – groceries, luggage, two big dogs. Plus, I used to spend about $75/week on gas for my Land Rover, compared with $25/week now – with a true savings of 14 gallons of gas per week or 728 gallons per year just for me. These days, the pump would shut off at $80 before I could even fill the tank on the Land Rover.

It’s always fascinating to me when I talk about our current house-building project. People inevitably ask – how many square feet and how many bedrooms? When I explain that we’re building a 3-bedroom, modest-sized house, I usually receive a confused stare in response. Americans have come to associate big with rich and big with desirable, while Europeans understand the importance of function over size. Marrying into a European family, I received a baptism-by-fire on this topic. When I met David, I had recently bought a 5-bedroom monstrosity in Southern California that at the time I thought was fabulous – I was in my mid-20s and my big house showed everyone that I had “made it” – whatever that means – even though I never went into three of the bedrooms during the time I owned the house. Our new house will fit our lifestyle currently and even after our family grows beyond two labs. We are not compromising and instead feel good about using less and getting more.

Relating this concept to the Smart, I’ve truly come to believe in what I call “scaled driving” – driving the car sized to your everyday needs. We’ll see if all of the “green talk” of late actually transforms people’s practices and the way they think rather than just become “nice ideas.” For now, I’ll drive Smartie with pride – knowing that the small amount I am doing will make a difference.

583 Comments

583 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Roberta said, “even at above 80 mph on the freeway…” On Saturday evening, my wife and I were driving from Palo Alto to San Francisco when we saw a blue Smart “blow” past us. We had no idea those things moved like that! You have verified that we really saw one moving that fast. Must be a great car!

Comment by Dave May 12, 2008 @ 10:19 pm

Roberta,

excellent post! Congratulations on your new car. I think that you made an excellent choice. I even like the colour scheme.

I have a few questions (I’ll try not to sound too “gawkish” ). How’s the acceleration? Without going to the Smart website and looking it up myself (what fun is that?), I would imagine that the 1.0L engine has got a reasonable amount of torque for a car of that size, but you’re the one with the empirical evidence here, so how goes it?

Have you been tempted to ask Martin to help you convert it to a BEV?

Martin, has the Smart done anything to change your mind about “punishment cars”?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 13, 2008 @ 5:39 am

hey Roberta — great post, thanks for sharing. I’ve been admiring the smart car for a bit down here in L.A. and thinking about buying in later this year. best, Eric

Comment by Eric Mueller - Themepark May 13, 2008 @ 8:21 am

Nice post Roberta. I recently met with Doug Gold who is the regional manager for Smart USA and he had a very lucid and valid explanation for the treatment you got at Smart San Jose. It seems that the dealership had not completed all the necessary steps for becoming a Smart dealer and the cars should not have been shipped to them until the process was complete. They were not allowed to deliver cars until everything was completed. I’ve visted both dealers and have to say that the SF dealer seems to have it a lot more together than the San Jose one even now. It’s a pretty cool car – David took me for a ride a few weeks ago plus I had a test drive with Dave Schembri back in October(?) at the press introduction in San Jose. I just wish it were electric

Mike Harrigan

Comment by Mike Harrigan May 13, 2008 @ 11:27 am

So the best part about the Smart and Mercedes is that Elon Musk has inserted his insanity to cabbage them up. BTW, if I wanted to buy a Tesla, could I pay for it via Paypal or is that not a trusted way to send money yet?

Comment by Jan May 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am

You know, my wife and I were talking about replacing her Xterra with a smart, but we were worried about having a car to take our chocolate lab (she’s about 80 lbs) with us. I drive a two-seater Honda Del Sol which is definitely not an option: your post makes me think we should take our Fiona down there and see if she fits.

Comment by Gabe May 13, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

News story: Smart fortwo micro car receives top crash scores

Comment by TEG May 13, 2008 @ 9:56 pm

Thanks for all of your supportive comments – this was my first stab at blogging .

To answer a few questions:

A stock Smart goes from 0 to 60 in about 12.4 seconds. We added an air intake system to the Smart and it’s doing much better now – probably about 25% or so better. The acceleration is no problem for freeway driving, etc., but I definitely wouldn’t call the Smart a performance car – although David did her out on the track at Infineon – no joke.

To Mike – thanks for the insight on the SJ Smart Center – it would’ve been a better experience if they would have been upfront about why they couldn’t release cars — it was very frustrating feeling like we were getting the run around. And, yes, David’s offered many rides in the Smart in the past few months – glad you enjoyed it!

Gabe – Fiona will definitely fit! An interesting blog that you might like: http://dogcars.com/blog

Comment by Roberta May 13, 2008 @ 10:50 pm

We are a family of four with two growing girls. we manage to life our life very comfortably with 130 sqrm of house (recently renovated), one ‘98 BMW 318TDS (diesel) station wagon that has recently been achieving 52MPG (4.3 l/100km), and one GDI motor bike of modest capacity for me to go to work.

We go on vacation into another country for 15 days with the car. We ski most weekends in winter. I use it for kite surfing. I don’t even have roof racks!!

Is it small? Sometimes you have to be creative to get everything in. Honestly it does everything I want it to do.

So what’s the point. You can downsize (house, car, meal size)?

Good job, you have helped us all slow, by one small step, the race to oblivion.

Mike.

PS would you do us all a favor and get those two slackers you mentioned in your post going on another EV project

Comment by Mike A May 13, 2008 @ 11:29 pm

An entrepreneur named Nicolas Hayek made a phone call to Mercedes in Christmas 1992. Volkswagens boss doesn’t like me at all, and he doesn’t understand what I want. But Mercedes needs also something like that! It was the idea of the legendary swiss entrepreneur who was developping a micro compact car since 1989. A car with fresh colours for two people and two boxes of beer, a “swatch mobil”. It was later named Smart: “S” for Swatch, “M” for Mercedes and “Art”. Hayek originally developped it with a hybrid drivetrain, which was later completely abandoned.

You see: The sex appeal of the smart is not derived of his small appearance or his technology, nor of the fabulous woman who’s driving it, but of his swiss genes.

Cheers

Felix, Switzerland

Comment by Felix Pius May 14, 2008 @ 12:32 am

Includes crash test video:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/14/smart-fortwo-aces-insurance-institute-crash-test/

Comment by Doug@Stanford May 14, 2008 @ 5:59 am

“I just wish it were electric”
Mike Harrigan

Actually Mike, it is.

http://www.batteryvehiclesociety.org.uk/wordpress/?p=294

Unfortunately they are using Zebras

Comment by Malcolm Wilson May 14, 2008 @ 8:43 am

Smartie holding her own at Infineon.

Comment by Roberta May 14, 2008 @ 10:07 am

Sorry – link didn’t come through:

http://davidv.smugmug.com/photos/278985823_CRdog-M.jpg

Comment by Roberta May 14, 2008 @ 10:08 am

I’m curious as to the gas mileage in the Smart. Do you find you are getting decent gas mileage or is is not much better than a Camry? I’ve heard the mileage is not what one would expect.

I used to own a Fiat 850 coupe, back in the 70s, that got over 50 mpg. It was small, definitely not crash-safe (though that was the time most cars weren’t), but it was fun to drive, very quick with a modest top speed (about 85-90) and had a tiny engine. I’m guessing it was a little bit larger than the Smart. So I’m wondering why something like a Smart can’t easily achieve 50mpg some 40 years after my 1968 Fiat 850 was built.

Comment by Tom Elliot May 14, 2008 @ 11:25 am

“I just wish it were electric”
Mike Harrigan

Actually Mike, it is. (But I can’t seem to get the relevant links to work)

The Smart ED is doing company trials in the UK. They’re using Zebra batteries so the performance and range isn’t stellar.

Comment by Malcolm Wilson May 14, 2008 @ 11:26 am

For its size the smart does not have the fuel economy I expected. I am not sure why this is (drag?). I think for most users the VW diesels provide a better mix of size and fuel economy and the 2009 models will meet CA standards.

Comment by Pete May 14, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

good post nice you droped suv

Comment by Johan May 14, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

Yes, the gas mileage is not as great as we had hoped. It’s getting between 35-40 mpg depending on conditions (meaning whether David or I are driving ). Its gas mileage improved after putting in the air intake system and also improved after the first month of driving. I’m still getting the same miles per tank that I got with the Land Rover though, with a gas tank 1/3 of the size — so I’m happy.

Comment by Roberta May 14, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Roberta,

You’re very last statement – about your happiness with the car – is more important than even an extra 25 mpg.

Martin has talked at length about “punishment cars” – cars that are all-electric or super-efficient but that no one could or would buy and drive.

A SMART is still addicted to oil, and as you point out, not even that “great” gas mileage. But if its a good car, not a punishment, then people will actually drive it (unlike say, the Honda Insight – which had a small niche market (including me) but was just too weird/unsightly/punishmenty for most people). The SMART is a start.

Comment by Gabe May 14, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

I find it ironic that it’s 2008 and a car as small as the smart only gets 35-40mpg. I’m currently driving a 1992 saturn sl2 (which I’ll be driving until I can buy and electric sedan:)) which consistently gets over 32mpg in mixed driving. the last time I did a road trip down to los angeles and back (I live in the bay area) I averaged just under 35mpg.

Martin sez:

Fair enough, but don’t confuse the observed mileage on your car and you driving with EPA test cycle mileage. The EPA test cycle was invented largely to give us a true apples-to-apples comparison for different vehicles. It may be that you would get 42 mpg were you driving a Smart.

Comment by flabby May 15, 2008 @ 11:01 am

i am excited to see Think’s proposed launch into the US. The City seems to be comparable to an electric smart and the Ox concept looks like a great main stream vehicle if they can keep the price tag down.

Comment by m cohen May 15, 2008 @ 11:03 am

I’m just here to wish Martin a happy birthday.

– DavidV

Comment by DavidV May 15, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

Jason- that info. on IBM PV cells on prior blog is something else. This time (2007/08) will historically go down as the beginning of the end for fossil fuels, basically. The next few decades will be something else to see.

Comment by T.J. May 15, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

Smiley face: you clipped my “08, dude !

Comment by T.J. May 15, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

Happy birthday Martin!

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 15, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

BBC news report: since 1970 between 25% and 30% of world wildlife has been lost, according to Zoological Society of London. Stupid human tricks, fill in the blanks.

Comment by T.J. May 15, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

T.J.

I agree with you. Humanity is slowly dismantling the web of life that supports us. It’s almost amusing to witness the mindlessness with which we rush headlong into our own destruction. I accepted, a long time ago, the inevitability of the extinction of our species. It’s really just a matter of time.

Have a nice day!

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 16, 2008 @ 6:33 am

LA is following Orange County’s lead of implementing waste water recycling to meet their growing demand for clean water:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jelq4yFFuj9ADd0WVzB8W65ma6VQD90MQ4080

OC’s Water Replenishment System was the camel’s nose in the tent. I expect to see other desert cities follow suit – Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 16, 2008 @ 8:09 am

Mr. Felix is Switzerland:

“An entrepreneur named Nicolas Hayek made a phone call to Mercedes in Christmas 1992. Volkswagens boss doesn’t like me at all, and he doesn’t understand what I want”

That phone call was made after the MCC program from Mercedes was finished. He came in after the entire footprint, drivetrain, even “fun” colors were tried, designed and built (running prototypes). He was very impressed with what they had done, and of course since VW had terminated there agreement, he was looking for another partner.

So, California had a huge role in the final form the smart (from it’s advanced design center).

Ironic isn’t it that after 16 years, the car is now on sale in it’s birth state!

Congratulations on your smart car Roberta.

Comment by J May 16, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

In 2001 Don Panoz developed a company called ” Emotion Mobility” that came out with an elect. Smart car-and was going to develop EV’s with Daimler Chrysler in S.E. Asia but it never happened. Emotion shut down too. In 1999 Panoz developed a hybrid Le Mans car on the original Ferdinand Porsche model of a gas generator powering an elect. motor to drive the rear wheels at certain times-but the car was too heavy. So Panoz was at one time in the vanguard-so now what’s keeping them from scooping the Tesla Sports Sedan with the help of the Former Teslans Gang of 30 ? Good question, that. Panoz & G30 should have the cash (former) and capability (latter) , and the ability to find the extra of both, as needed.

Comment by T.J. May 16, 2008 @ 5:30 pm

« It never occurred to me that a Smart would be a magnet for such frequent, unwanted, and sometimes quite intrusive, attention.»

Heh, I have that “issue” as well. But I’ve been getting around as much as possible on a small motorbike (DRZ400-SM). Seems like people at the gas stations always want to talk to the guy with the strange-looking motorcycle (think dirt bike with street wheels). Mileage in the 55-60mpg range *really* gets ‘em interested.

I’m a bit disappointed with the Smart’s reported gas mileage. I guess I’ll stick with my Civic, which gets around 40mpg.

Comment by FARfetched May 17, 2008 @ 7:20 am

Seems someone will turn anything into a ‘limo’:

http://autoworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/smart-stretched-limo.jpg

Comment by TEG May 17, 2008 @ 8:54 am

My Honda Civic hybrid gets overs 40mpg
consistently; its a full size car. So
what is so great about the Smart?

Comment by RPMC May 17, 2008 @ 11:52 am

OT;
About your dogs — it turns out the reason dogs like hanging out windows, and riding open top cars, is that their brains are about 50% scent processors, and high speed air into the nostrils is like a speed-scan of all the news in the neighborhood(s) you drive through. Lights up the neurons like a Xmas tree!

Comment by Brian H May 17, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

CNET news report today: Tesla said they will go public, with IPO by end of the year- “according to Tesla founder Elon Musk”. He may be “A founder” but he’s not “THE founder” (per Bill Murray-what the halibut, he’s more like the Flounder ? -wasn’t he in Animal House come to think of it ? ).
Earlier this week Tesla put a guy who specializes in IPOS, etc. on their board (named Sonsini)-said they expect to be making Sports Sedan in 2010. I still say that ex-U.S. Senator John Blutarsky should join the Panoz board and put their EV wheels in motion. Makes sense to me-especially since the company was into EV’s a few years ago-ahead of their time-now the time has, obviously, arrived.

Comment by T.J. May 17, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

T.J.

You are right to point out that Elon was not “THE founder”, in fact, I think that you could make a very good argument that he wasn’t a founder at all. I tend to think of Martin and Marc as THE founders, all the others were just investors (please, nobody make a big issue out of my use of the word “just”, let me merely point out that investors are a far more common commodity than visionaries…).

As for the IPO, I don’t know if you read my post on the TMC site from May 15th, comment #17. If not, here’s the link:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/off-topic/1139-campaign-reinstate-martin-2.html

It’s my belief that Elon will rush the IPO before additional problems with the company become obvious to everyone. If the company were healthy, it would really be in his best interest to hold off on the IPO for as long as possible. That way he would retain more control for a longer period of time. He would also make more money when the company eventually went public. So, ask yourself, why is he in such a rush? I believe that the answer is “because he needs the money”. Only time will tell for sure.

BTW, there is a common misconception out there (that Elon has done nothing to rectify) that EM is a billionaire. Elon is not a billionaire, nor has he ever been. It is true that he is a wealthy man, but his net worth is closer to $300 million than to $1 billion. Most, if not all, of that money is currently tied up in Spacex, TM, Solarcity, & various other investments and property. The cash levels appear to be running low.

One more thing. Just a few weeks ago EM was alluding to a $250 million IPO for Tesla, now he’s saying $100 million. Ask why! I don’t have an answer for this one (not yet at least…), but I suspect that it has something to do with Sonsini. When you are a public company it is always smarter to “under-promise” and “over-deliver” than vice-versa, that way you can claim to be very successful when things work out better than you projected. The optics of success are very important when dealing with the investment community. Anyway, that’s all for now.

Roberta: I apologize for going off topic. I really like your new car, but you did such a thorough job of covering the subject that I don’t know what I can add .

All the best,

Chris H.

Martin sez:

“I think that you could make a very good argument that he wasn’t a founder at all.”

How about this argument? Elon was not there when we founded the company. He never even heard of Tesla Motors. His name is not mentioned on any of the incorporation documents. He did not invest in the company until 9 months after Tesla Motors was incorporated, and he did not participate in Tesla’s original angel funding.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 18, 2008 @ 8:55 am

Chris,

We are in 100% agreement that investors vastly outnumber true visionaries, but I would caution you not to apply the term visionary to people who merely hold onto a single vision.

Martin had and has a vision of a BEV future. GM was visionary in realizing long before Martin that range extenders were the best way to reduce costs / prices and eliminate range anxiety, allowing the more rapid adoption of EV’s by a larger market. Even when shown the visionary range extender concept, Martin was late in acquiescing his BEV-only vision.

Martin is a fantastically brilliant man, and was essential in developing the Tesla Roadster, but it is a stretch to label him a visionary. You can also call him a compelling / motivational / inspiring leader, as evidenced by his loyal following, but not a visionary leader – just a leader with a vision.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

Jason,

I think that you are underestimating Martin, and his contributions to the future of transportation and overall approach to energy usage. It is easy to look back on a man’s life after he is dead and determine the impact that he had on the world around us. It is much more difficult to recognize, and appreciate, a visionary while he walks among us. I stand by my characterization of Martin as a visionary, and I hope that one day, after enough time and evidence has accumulated, that you will be able to join me in describing him as such.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 18, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Chris,

I don’t underestimate Martin’s pivotal role in the EV disruption of the automotive industry. The Tesla Roadster alone caused the entire auto industry to start announcing EV’s of their own – nothing else – even before the 2007 CAFE standards and before the skyrocketing fuel prices, GM, with Bob Lutz citing Martin Eberhard and the Tesla Roadster as the driving force, announced the development of the Volt, and others followed. Rightfully, Martin has been featured in a number of documentaries, so his place in history is well documented.

I’ve agreed with you that Martin Eberhard is a brilliant and inspirational leader with a vision that single handedly caused the EV disruption in the auto industry, so what more do you want?

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 18, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

Martin is a visionary, but let’s not forget Alan Cocconi of AC Propulsion-he of the Tesla forerunner/model “t-Zero” car that Martin borrowed for test driving and was sold on. It all started with the t-Zero. I don’t see Martin going back to Tesla unless “Elon & the Board” are gone-somehow- which appears to be fat chance. I keep coming back to “Panoz & the Former Teslans” ( yes, ” as a renegade group similar to Butch and Sundance’s Wild Bunch opposing the Dark Side establishment forces personified by Mr. E.H. Harriman of the Union Pacific Railroad” ) as a way to do an EV type sports sedan-and a very nice one- pretty fast and relatively cheap. No wonder Tesla wants an IPO- building one from scratch takes major scratch, no ? But of course does Panoz need/want the Former Teslans and vice-versa ? On paper it looks like a perfect combo-if Panoz wants to carpe diem and not miss the 21st century car boat: they’ve got their own factory already, as opposed to Tesla, with their own parts suppliers, etc. up and running. I think they could stretch their Esperante (or not for a small back seat 2+2 version) without much trouble, gear up their suppliers for the new sedan parts and come out with a car before Tesla, and for a lot less bucks up front. Wonder if Porsche, etc. are looking into EV’s too ?

Comment by T.J. May 18, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

Jason,

Nothing more. That’s fine. I do know what what you mean about Nikola though; what a brilliant mind!

T.J.,

You are right about Alan Cocconi. I did not mean to overlook his amazing contribution to the EV renaissance, but remember that the work of all great people is built on the groundwork laid by their predecessors. To wit:

“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” – Isaac Newton, 1676.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 18, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

T.J.,

One more thing, re:

“I don’t see Martin going back to Tesla unless “Elon & the Board” are gone-somehow- which appears to be fat chance.”

My response:

“Now there’s more things in Tennessee, than is dreamed of in your philosophy.” – The Cramps

Too cryptic? I’ve no doubt that you’ll figure it out.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 18, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

Ah yes, another clue for us all, H.(ercule)-besides “The Walrus Was Paul”. Something is rotten in the state of Teslamark, requiring the services of the ghost of Tesla past. The spent slings and arrows of outrageous fortune may yet be gathered up and hurled yon at the forces of the Rodent of Musky. Forsooth, that it may be so- verily, there may be a Jobs to do here, Horatio-but methinks still it be a long shot of the crossbow through the castletower window of the Musketeers (or, As You Like It, be they more of the apparition of Mouseketeers ?) .

Comment by T.J. May 18, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

I still think the Wizards of (Pan)Oz should join the fray with the Ghosts of Tesla past, H.(oratio). Telsa be not the only game in (London)town.

Comment by T.J. May 18, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

Panoz? really? is that the best your web research can come up with? Unreal. Despite your wordsmithing and pontificating (wordsmithing? is that a word?), Panoz is perhaps the last place you look to start something fresh for the EV of the (near) future. It is merely a(nother) cobbled together project. (see: rossion, et al).

No amount of photoshopping,re-engineering, supply chaining, can turn any Panoz into a viable product, save for the 4 or 5 people that might, big stretch, might buy it.

It is major trouble to “stretch” a 2 seater into something else. If you follow that path you end up with a big goo-goo-muck. (see Cramps, and all the crappy car start-ups currently out there).

Comment by s May 18, 2008 @ 8:56 pm

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, Act 1 scene 5

The Cramps, sometimes called “The Plagiarists”, also take credit for inventing the term “psychobilly”, which according to a credible source was first mentioned in a 1976 Johnny Cash song, “One Piece at a Time”.

Comment by Steve S. May 18, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

Considering that

1) Fisker Automotive, using tech from Quantum, and designs by the greater car designer ever
2) GM, using a flex fuel range extender and their design / manufacturing might
3) Aptera, using extreme aero design and its production managed by the guy who managed the production of the Saleen SR7

Why would anyone want to “take over” Tesla Motors, that currently only offers a two seater packed with 6,831 laptop batteries strung together? It seems to me that other automakers are making greater advancements in product offering than TM.

Martin sez:

It’s been a while since I felt the need to come to Tesla’s defense…

Tesla has a whole lot more technology than merely “stringing 6831 laptop batteries together”. Unlike Fisker, Aptera, Commuter Cars, Zap, Phoenix, Universal Ekectric Vehicals, and almost all the other independents, Tesla has designed and builds its own motors and inverters. Tesla has deep understanding and significant intellectual property in the design and efficient implementation of these components specifically for EVs. As far as I can tell, Tesla’s motor and inverter tech are vastly superior to all the others. Oh, and their battery tech is pretty advanced as well. What Tesla has learned about the 18650-based design applies to other form factors as well.

GM’s motor and controller technology is perhaps the only one that might be better than Tesla’s, as they learned a lot from the EV-1 program.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 19, 2008 @ 4:44 am

T.J.

I know I’ve said this before, but you are hilarious, and I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. You’re right, it is a long shot, and the Fortress of Musk is formidable, but is it a worthwhile goal? Methinks, “Yes”.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 19, 2008 @ 7:25 am

Steve,

It’s good to hear from you again. I was beginning to think that you had abandoned this blog in despair. Welcome back!

Thanks for the background on the quote. I used the Cramps version just because I think it’s funnier than old Billy S. (any relation?).

BTW, did you know that the Cramps formed in 1976?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 19, 2008 @ 7:39 am

Steve- I beg to differ, methinks, but only further design study would tell for sure. I was no fan of the Esperante but it does actually look really good from the side, and the back and front design features could be much improved, still using the same framework. Panoz’s frame is like Lotus and they said it was made to be “easily stretched”, if correct, this is good. The body is alum.-this is good, if it can be cheap enough for sports sedan use. Sketching over Esperante photos, the results actually looked good, from the side and back. I think some great design mavens could make it all work, with no hint of goo-goo muck, believe it or not. Just because a car is “cobbled together” doesn’t necessarily mean it ain’t going to work fine-usually would/could be so, in this case however I actually (surprising me) see potential. Of course designing from total scratch is preferred, but this leads to Tesla needing an IPO (no kidding) -it’s going to cost a halibutin’ fortune, no ? I’m just looking for a way for someone other than Tesla and the even fatter cats to get in the game. Panoz was looking into EV’S at one time a few years ago, ahead of the game, so they can’t be total pikers. Normally I would agree with you but I see possible potential in a cobbled together Panoz, with the right cobblers at work. However-I do wonder about using aluminum and still keeping cost down, as Tesla long ago said the Whitestar was going to be steel, if I remember right. If the Panoz could be a platform, Martin & Co. could provide the rest-and EV street cred. But, in a way you’re right in that unless the Panoz could be redsigned to be gangbusters all around, there would be an instant stigma “oh, it’s just an adapted Panoz”. It would really have to work all the way around. Long shot maybe, but I see potential to be further studied. Anyway, how else would Martin get back in the game ?-not that he maybe wants back in the game. No VC types are going to hand him the required giga-bunch of cash for a mainstream EV start-up, in the face of Tesla particularly. You need something at least started, that makes a very light car of a big enough size, like a Panoz. Guess Th!nk will get there later, like Tesla. If you’ve got to go the from scratch route, then the Muskcat will get fatter and fatter while the Martincat starves in the EV wilderness, like an evolutionary dead end . I hate to see the herd so culled so I am willing to at least entertain some straw grasping .

Comment by T.J. May 19, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

Steve-here are the four real questions re. the Panoz potential: 1). does Panoz give a halibut 2). does Martin give a halibut 3). can vacuum formed alum. work cost-wise in a sports sedan-does Superform want more work, can they sharpen their pencils-or what? Once these questions are covered: 4). Throw the project to the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena (known “the world over” for their transporation design program- and located right next to where Martin lives)-as a student/faculty “real world” design exercise. See what they can make of the deal, and tell’em it had better be good. Either it’ll be “Houston we have liftoff” , or what Tom Hanks said.

Comment by T.J. May 19, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

Excusse me- I meant ” s. May” I beg to differ (well, could be Steve too I guess)

Comment by T.J. May 19, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

I know-an Art Center College of Design competition: the winner and 2 runners up get prizes of a few thousand to turn a Panozpig into a silk purse EV, then the winning team and/or the school gets a regular fee for design development of the real car-inside and out. That should lead to some good results.

Comment by T.J. May 19, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

T.J.,

I think that the best incentive that they can offer the students is a job (a little prize money wouldn’t hurt either I suppose!)

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 19, 2008 @ 6:58 pm

An’ another thing, I just thought of: I think the basic main body shell/line of the Panoz is nice and can be saved-but the kicker iz: the interior would be an entirely blank slate- so half the car experience is totally open to full-blown, from scratch design potential. Put a big wow factor on this and you’ve won half the customer battle in the design category. Some motivated students and faculty in this subject should be up to the job.

Comment by T.J. May 19, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

T.J.,

who is Steve?

Anywho, a few thousand? a few thousand? do you really think it takes just that little bit?, even for a talented student to do the job the right way? That kind of thinking is exactly why most of these projects look like doo-key. Think about it.

Comment by S May 19, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

T.J.,
The interior a blank slate? really? That is the area that most of these companies take the road of “we can get that part from…”

Again, you end up with a cobbled together collection of Ford, GM, whatever parts and it never looks correct.

Take a look at Kit-cars vs. production. Never quite the same basic quality/look. Imagine that.

If you do it right from the get-go, you don’t need a student/faculty competition to fix something or turn a pigs ear into a purse of silk (POS…nice).

Comment by S May 19, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

I see that Tesla has finally changed the tool-tip on the Think blog, no longer reads “Views and Perspectives from CEO Martin Eberhard” but now says “Views and Perspectives from Tesla leadership”, I’m supprised it took them so long.

BTW Martin, it was interesting to read you explanation on why Elon is not a true Founder, but I wonder. Are any of the “Founder Series” cars going to anyone who came after Elon?

Martin sez:

The Founders Series was actually reserved for investors. I called it the Founders Series because I viewed those cars as somehow a presentation from the Founders (Marc and me) to the investors. And Investors Series just sounded bad.

By the way, I heard that Elon had the picture of Marc and me, with the title “Tesla’s Founders,” removed from the lobby. Hmm.

Comment by Roy May 21, 2008 @ 10:27 am

I just came across another solar manufacturer http://www.coolearthsolar.com/ They’ve been around for a few years, and I like their system, very low cost and geared to farm land where the land will still be useable underneath the collectors.

Zenn Motors has announced that they plan to make electric conversion kits, complete with EEStor ultracaps, available for cars. Hopefully this will be a low-cost option for many people.

Martin sez:

Shortly after Zenn starts shipping conversion kits with EEStor ultracaps, I will start shipping conversion kits with Mister Fusion power.

Comment by Roy May 21, 2008 @ 10:40 am

S- yep. I said a few thousand. Coming from the world of architecture I can tell you that thousands of people (really good designers too) enter competitions for nothing upfront (with a slim chance of winning) that involve a lot of work, hoping to win the prize to build it-or some thousands in runner up prize money.Of course with the bigger competitions the second and third place money would be in the tens or even (with the monster projects) hundreds of thousands-but this is for multi-million dollar buildings or new towns , not for a car design. The last big arch. competition of note (winner announced last month) was for a museum addition in Stockholm-there were over 1600 entrants (which set the record for arch. comps.) -many of these were not students-who have more free time-but arch. firms, big and small, that have to make a living while they’re putting this together “on the if-come”. The latest hot arch. designer, Zaha Hadid (do a google image search on her) never built a building till she was 44 (a firestation in Austria-her next building of any note,or maybe literally, not sure-was an art museum in Cincinnati when she was 48)- for all the years prior she was a univ. prof. at various big name schools, and had a small group of people (5 or less) working with her for years entering competitions left and right hoping to get a name/reputation-and it finally paid off. Now she has a firm of +280 people. Doing car design concepts takes less time than putting together arch. competition drawings. Chris is right-the incentive is also for the winners(s) to do the design development afterwards. Students have good incentive too cause this would look great, starting out, on a resume. Also-the interior IZ a blank slate-set only by the confines of the body shell-anything can be designed within that. The designers would not even be thinking of using stock parts from anywhere. I have huge faith “in the clever design world” to pull off neat things-even with a Panoz as a base starting point. The Panoz does seem to have the potential based on light weight/ “high tech. construction”, supposed ready expandability of frame (per what Panoz sez) and the fact that they have a factory/car operation up and running already, that could be used to make the new product-as opposed to building a plant from scracth in Albuquerque and finding the people to run it. Who knows what would come out of a design competition “to prove or disprove the concept”. Of course a totally from scratch car design is “normally preferred”-but the cost of then building the car would be thru the roof-per Musk needing an IPO, and $100 million more on top of that (I believe it was). If Panoz wanted to get with the new century and try to expand their company, I would be looking into what I’m talking about. But they probably don’t care- and Martin, I’m guessing, probably isn’t looking to get back into the car world either anyway. Que sera, sera. Also, the EV world is about to get crowed after 2010-I read where Nissan is working on coming out with an EV like Tesla’s in 2010, along with Peugeot-and who else is there hot on the trail ? I haven’t been keeping up.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

Another item re. a design competition: you could make it worldwide. There are plenty of people out there students/faculty and not, like Hadid, who “live to design/design to live”. She was a rich kid, so probably had both the “fall back wherewithal” and the accompanying mentality to not have to, or want to, enter the stupid world of having to make a living doing any old dumb buildng (which the vast majority are). She picked up the baton dropped by the “big name ghosts of architecture past”, and the batons being passed around by the “avant garde” current architects the world over, and ran with said batons. Doing cutting edge buildings is obviously a very rarified place to hang out-both because most “of the world” sez: “what the heck is that !?-give me something normal” and also because these buildings cost an arm and a leg-or even two of each. Bottom line iz: you’d get a bunch of great entries for a “what can you make of this Panoz” competition. High priced “name designers and design firms” don’t have a lock on the design realm, no matter what type of design.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

One more item re. design competitions: the usual deal is that you have to pay a small entry fee to cover them giving you the design info. So what happened re. the Stockholm comp. is that over 1600 people paid for the chance and got nothing-only the winner and the “short list” runners up got the payoff (usually no more than 5).Thrashing thru a building program and trying to figure out what would win, and then doing all the nice drawings to impress the jury ain’t no piece of cake-it’s beyond car design. I’m not impressed with the winning design (it’s on google image search of Stockholm museum competition, the one in the upper left-the translucent glowing box-the round building is the old existing library it had to tie into) – it follows what Frank Lloyd Wright said about competitions: “they throw out the best and the worst and pick something in the middle”. Usually this is because the jury is factoring in cost considerations-but with the kind of competitions Hadid likes to win this is mostly thrown out the window. She won the competition for the 2012 London Olympics Aquatic Center-but has since had to cheapen the design. I toyed with entering the Stockholm comp., but came to my senses seeing as how I didn’t have the time and remembering Frankie’s comment-and even if the jury (and who knows what they’re looking for) would go for something more radical, still-what’s the chance anyway? My initial idea was for a huge, oversized upside down Viking longship type shape, floating and raised up, within a clear glass rectangle, raised up on a plaza-and linked to the existing round building with a flying glass bridge. Under this floating longship-type form would smaller spaces up in the “hull” , below “the hull” would float on thin columns over a general open library space. The hull would be wood or maybe huge, oversized copper sheets (like shingles or fish scales). At night this shape would glow inside the clear glass box surrounding it, and the walls of the glass box at the plaza level could be totally opened (when the weather is good, which I’m guessing is like 2/3’s of the year), and the plaza would step down in levels to the street-so it could be an open-air public square/meeting area type deal for the town, as well as a library. The “prow” of the ship shape would point to the round existing building, and be cranked off perpendicular by like 20 or 30 degress, for the fun of it. Yeah- I much prefer this to the winning entry. Have a worldwide competition for a Panoz based EV and you’ll get some neat results- a lot of designers out there looking for something fun to keep them off the streets.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

“‘Scuse me while I…(per Cleavon Little)… hog the blog ” (just a little): left out a finer point: on the Stockholm “faux huge ship” form I would have propped up the prow (and so the whole upside down “ship shape”) way high off the plaza with a big angled bracing column-all the more dramatic to see when you enter the new wing via the glass bridge from the existing library: more inviting as the ship shape rises to meet you, angling down dramatically-and leading you into the new wing and/ or under the “boat”. So, the “boat” is cranked both sideways and up too, for the fun of it. Yeah- always more way than one to skin a design potato-which is why I believe a Panoz EV Sports Sedan competition would yield some neat results.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

Yup, Hadid and your fav Ghery.

There are hundreds of thousands of architects so of course the low price equation rules. There are not tens nor even several thousand qualified car designers and yes, there is a huge difference. Do you know how many practicing automobile designers there are in the world?

So, you offer 2k for the winner and you get a 2k solution. That is not the way to get EV’s into the mainstream. You start with a donor vehicle (your beloved P-nose) and the result only goes down from there.

Of course there is no lock on the design realm. Witness architects doing furniture, architects doing cars (there is a whole book), stark doing everything whilst hating design in general.

Sorry, you can’t put the architecture model, (a building is static) to the automotive world, (dynamic objects).

Oh, and I saw 2 SMARTS today, looking very small and sharp!

Comment by S May 21, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

Of course there is always an exception to the rule. Witness the Tesla roadster. They took a very good platform, and had a very good designer transform it into its own identity and look, all while avoiding the kit-car/hobbiest menage of most of these things. I bet he didn’t win a competition.

Well done Martin.

Comment by S May 21, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Great article on how the EV market is still wide open, as many major automakers stumble trying to determine what consumers will buy:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9945899-54.html?tag=blog.promos

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 21, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

S- actually it was a Tesla design competition, and Lotus won-then there was a further “in house competitiion” of various design development cars, as I remember, which the Tesla team then picked from- which was on Tesla website early on, I remember-and as Martin could tell you. Also, there are a bunch of schools turning out car designers in this big, wide world of sports and cars ( and I would also say industrial designers might apply to this task- this stuff ain’t rocket science) but I guess a bunch of them never get “quality work” because only so many cars are out there to deisgn at any given time . Yeah, there are plenty of car designers out there-look at all the car companies in the world-someone’s doing a lot of work, and a lot of it ain’t too good/exciting in terms of porduction cars, for one reason or another. Martin & co. had taste when they chose their design from the “litter”-all it takes is for the head honchos to have the taste, ’cause the designs WILL be out there for the litter picking. Also, you spelled Gehry wrong. I’ll never convince you, but who cares, negativty is all over modern society-count me out on that-not always, but in this case at least -”can’t do it. won’t work, don’t try, you’re wrong-yada, yada yada”. But like you said-there is always an exception to the rule-only it’s “exceptions”. I just saw a magazine ad on a new car-the BMW X6 which they call a “Sports Activity Coupe”-you can find it on BMW website-this car is doing exactly what I sketched on photos of the Panoz Esperante (which convinced me of the possibilities): a fastback hatchback coupe, with the hatchback going to about 4″ off the end of the rear deck. It also seems to have a pretty small wheelbase, similar to what the Panoz sports coupe would have. Also, from my sketch over the Panoz photo, the side view look of the Panoz hatchback sports coupe is superior to this car- or, at the least, depending on what you like, they’re dead equal. This is what I saw & see for the Panoz idea- BMW just did it, and so could Panoz based on the Esperante platform. But that’s just my opinion, and I’m sticking to it -along with the BMW design team.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

S- also, per your comment on architecture being static and cars being dynamic, the only thing dynamic about cars iz the wheels (and the motor/transmission)-ain’t nothing else moving (well. o.k.-maybe: if the speedometer/tach have needles they’re dynamic). There’s as much fluid curves going on in some of Hadid’s buildings, and others, as there is in a car. Also, there are far more architects than car designers ONLY for the obvious reason that buildings are tied into pieces of property, which people need to inhabit for living, work, play etc. (as tents will no longer) so there’s tons of demand. If cars were so “tied in” to that equation, leading to that kind of opportunity, you’d see a world swimming in car designers in equal quantity.

Comment by T.J. May 21, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

A building/house doesn’t drive by you, and dynamic doesn’t mean the actual moving parts but the activity of the object moving in the environment. So, I still say that architecture is essentially static. Yes, spell check on
Gehry.

The tesla competetion was between? designers and design firms, got it.

I am not disagreeing with you nor your research, only pointing out that that road usually gets you a weakend result. so “exceptions” are a wonderful thing.

“all it takes is for the head honchos to have the taste”. You think? And where does this head honcho automatic taste come from?

Almost 17 million vehicles sold last year in the US alone. How many houses/buildings were built? no swimming for car designers.

Ever see the SMART towers in Europe? A great combination of architecture and design, for both the vehicle and building. Too bad the SMART centers here aren’t quite as dramatic.

You might even like them.

Comment by S May 22, 2008 @ 5:30 am

T.J.,

I’m one of the many who enjoy your posts, especially about architecture. No comment on the Panoz (whatever that is) idea, but I did look at the BMW X6 site. Incidentally, I drove and loved a standard transmission BMW 633 CSi for years. A handsome car, I thought.

Benz has been making a four door sedan they call a coupe, and a friend bought a new one on a whim. He has about 20 cars. He’s not famous for his aesthetic sensibilities: his favorite car growing up was the huge ’47 Buick Roadtoaster convertible. Although now it would probably be called the Buick Roadtoaster Roadster, which has a nice ring to it.

So here’s my theory on the non-coupe coupes: Germans have a reputation for not having well-developed senses of humor. One of the standard illustrations of that is a stereotypical German complaining,

“Everyone calls him Curly, yet he has no hair at all! I don’t understand.”

But now the stereotypical Germans get the principle: blatant falsehood. Now they might say,

“We call it a coupe, but it’s really a big four door sedan. Hahahahahahahahaha!”

Comment by Steve S. May 22, 2008 @ 6:54 am

Hey Martin,

I would like to pre-order one of your Mister Fusion conversion kits! Perhaps you could throw in an anti-gravity shop hoist too! (just three easy payments of $19.95 plus S&H)

I wonder how long EEStor will manage to string this thing out? I feel a bit sorry for Ian Clifford in all of this because he does seem genuinely concerned about reducing our oil consumption, and about bringing an affordable EV to the mass market.

I would love to be proven wrong about EEStor but, unfortunately, wishing does not make it so. I guess only time will tell, but in the meantime I will not be investing in either company.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 22, 2008 @ 9:34 am

s- aha-here’s an answer, perhaps, to the great Panoz design debate: get the guy who did the Tesla design and throw it to him-hand him prints of Esperante photos and say, with a great sense of gravity and urgency, per Lloyd Bridges: “what can you make of this !?”. Re. the dynamics of car design, yes I was exagerating-however design of all types involves forms and shapes-check out google image search of “Zaha Hadid Budapest office building”-that thing looks like a piece of industrial design-like a speaker or a clock radio or something.Computer graphics ability to visualize curvy stuff like this is changing architecture-the kicker iz that the cad drawings can then go to robotic fabrication equip. to make the bldg. pieces/framing too. Hadid’s “Nordpark railway” stations-four of them (in Austria, do image search)were formed using up to 2500 plastic structural “ribs”, computer cut in slices, over which “thermoglass” panels were placed (whatever they are)-also no doubt computer made right off the cad files. With car design, and most design, at least it’s symetrical down the center, once you’ve got one half of the object, you’ve got the other side too. Of course per the Panoz question, I just got stoked about the possibilities when I sketched over some photos, in style of the BMW X6-which I hadn’t heard of-and found that it looked good, maybe real good with the right touches/eye- so I wonder what the guy who did the Tesla roadster design could come up with-the Tesla was actually based on the Lotus Elise as a starting point, similar in that way to the Panoz situation. Of course not that Martin or Panoz care-but it keeps me off the streets, as I gravitate towards “design thrill of the chase stuff anyway”.That Tesla design guy,whoever he is, knows where I’m coming from- yeah, get him on the horn I want to run the Panoz idea by him !

Comment by T.J. May 22, 2008 @ 9:51 am

They thing I don’t get about eestor is why Lockheed Martin are dealing with them if there is nothing to the product. I mean why would a large company like that open themselves up to ridicule if there was nothing there?

Comment by Pete May 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am

Pete Said:
“They thing I don’t get about eestor is why Lockheed Martin are dealing with them if there is nothing to the product. I mean why would a large company like that open themselves up to ridicule if there was nothing there?”

In an interview (posted here: http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/) with Lionel Liebman of Lockheed Martin, lionel made the following responses to two questions about the partnership between Eestor and Lockheed Martin:

Q:So its a collaborative effort to build the prototypes then?
A:That’s right.

Q:Do they have something that they’ve tested that you’ve seen which makes you want to work with them?
A: We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year.

The fact that Lockheed has never tested eestor’s prototypes is cause for concern. However, I don’t get why eestor would allow Lockheed Martin to help them build prototypes if they were a fraud.

Comment by flabby May 22, 2008 @ 11:22 am

flabby,

Depends on what LM means by prototype. EEstor might have shown them a proof of tech or proof of concept device, which LM is helping EEstor turn into a prototype product that LM would buy.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 22, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

BMW X6 has pretty high price- about $65,000- looks like pretty small car/wheelbase (”appropriate for EV use” type car)-and is 4 seater, not 5, per website photos). Price and size in range of future Tesla Sports Sedan target (?)-Tesla maybe a little bigger for 5 seats. If BMW getting this price for car of this type & size, looks like a potential Panoz/Martin Sports Sedan and the Tesla Sports Sedan are in the ballpark re. sales potential.

Comment by T.J. May 22, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

If the EEStor ultracapacitor were genuine, I would think that it would be relatively quick and easy to demonstrate its capabilities to a Lockheed Martin representative. So, why haven’t they?

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

Here’s a link to the new BMW X-6 SAV (Sports Activity Coupe): http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mwerks.com/artman/uploads/bmw_news/007__scaled_600_010.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/bmw_news/printer_1289.shtml&h=400&w=600&sz=64&hl=en&start=192&tbnid=G_EawQycPaoxBM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2B%2522bmw%2Bx6%2522%26start%3D180%26as_st%3Dy%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Comment by Steve S. May 22, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

While this site’s spam filter checks out my link to the BMW X-6 Sports Activity Coupe, here’s a link to a pic of the Benz CLS 550 Coupe: http://www.supercars.dk/images/products/mercedes-cls.jpg
Incidentally, it’s a chore to find a simple side view of either one of these “coupes” for some reason.

Comment by Steve S. May 22, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

Also, if eestor is a pump and dump scam why are they not allowing anyone to invest? There are plenty of people fighting to throw money at eestor yet they continue along in obscurity with only zenn pumping their own stock with useless non information based PRs. I mean zenn only owns 3.8 percent for a measily 2.5mm invested. If eestor is a scam then they are doing a really bad job at taking money from ignorant investors.

Personally, I invested in zenn to get to eestor way back and more than doubled, sold 1/2 to cover and will just wait it out with the profit. Worse case I loose nothing, best case this is a game changer.

Also waiting eagerly for a123 and nanosolar to go public! I suppose I should add tesla to that list, I think they still have a shot.

One thing I always wondered about the Martin et al ousting is how did Elon manage this. I would assume the board would have been put together with Martin and the board agreed. Why? I can see Elon wanting to get Martin out I just don’t understand why the board voted to agree with his position.

Comment by Pete May 22, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

T.J.,

Barney Hatt at Lotus’ design studio developed the styling with input from Tesla. –from a Wiki article on Tesla.

The BMW X-6 “sports activity coupe” seems to have been developed from a veru tall heavy four wheel drive SUV. Would that be appropriate for a range-extended electric high performance sports sedan?

Pete, a cursory look at the situation a while back revealed that Elon’s brother is on the board, and the very small number of others were no doubt chosen for their ability to be easily persuaded by him.

Comment by Steve S. May 22, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

Didn’t this capacitor BS come up a few months ago? Martin knows as much about automotive energy as anyone, and he’s expressed the view more than once that (my words) capacitor technology doesn’t seem at all appropriate or interesting for powering automobiles. Everyone I know with a strong background in technology, agrees.

Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest weapons manufacturer. The world spends around 800 billion dollars a year on weapons R & D and manufacturing. Remember reading about the military-industrial complex that president Eisenhower pointedly warned us about? If you don’t, he’s was a Republican who had considerable military experience.

You can probably imagine that a certain amount of waste, fraud and abuse (and much worse) are involved in the weapons industry. The money comes from people who have little say in how it’s spent. So, L-M’s involvement is no guarantee of fiscal responsibility. In fact, I could tell you stories that would make your hair curl, esp. if you pay taxes.

As a wild guess, if L-M has any interest in capacitor technology it’s probably for use in weapons systems.

Comment by Steve S. May 22, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

Great post! It was a delight to read.

I have just one question. I’ve heard (and experienced) the awful shifting the Smart’s transmission makes, but I’ve heard that after a few thousand miles it actually gets better. Kind of like a break-in period.

Has the shifting improved since you’ve first gotten it?

Comment by Joseph May 22, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

Hi Pete,

You said:

“One thing I always wondered about the Martin et al ousting is how did Elon manage this. I would assume the board would have been put together with Martin and the board agreed. Why? I can see Elon wanting to get Martin out I just don’t understand why the board voted to agree with his position.”

My understanding of the situation was that the Board consisted of 7 or 8 members. They included Elon (the Chairman), his brother Kimbal (I know, it sounds like a character from the Lion King…), and then 5 or 6 others who were mostly representatives of the VC firms who invested early in TM. To pass a motion they just needed a simple majority, so 4 or 5, depending on the exact total # on the Board. Some of the VC board members had been brought into TM by Elon, who had led funding rounds series B, C, & D. I guess because Elon was their initial, and main, contact at TM (plus they probably thought he had the “Midas touch”), they were willing to back his decisions. Of course, I don’t know exactly how the vote went down, but that would be my best guess.

It really is disturbing how easily Elon appears to have taken control of the company. Some people may think that he was justified in doing what he did because he invested $50M into TM, but I believe that there is no amount of money that justifies taking somebody else’s idea and trying to pass it off as your own. That’s just plain old fraud as far as I’m concerned. Anyway…

All the best,

Chris H.

Martin sez:

That’s the right idea, but the numbers are different. At the time I left the board, it comprised 8 members:

2 appointed by series A shareholders, where Elon was the majority owner, so they were Elon’s appointees.

1 was the Series B representative, again where Elon owned the majority of the stock

1 appointed by the Series C shareholders, where Vantage Point appointed Jim Marver

1 appointed by the Series D shareholders, where Elon managed to get a very good friend, Antonio Gracias, appointed.

3 appointed by the Common shareholders – one of these defined as the CEO. Marc & I collectively controlled the Common stock class.

In order to get me off the board, Elon converted enough of his Series A stock to Common stock so as to be able to out-vote Marc and me. (He had enough Series A left still to control Series A as well.) He thus controlled 7 out of 8 board seats at the time, while owning less than 40% of the company’s stock.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 22, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

Here is a vehicle, for half the price of the Tesla Roadster, with reasonable performance:

http://www.ampmotorworks.com/index.html

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 23, 2008 @ 8:45 am

Interesting. You have some good material for a book one day. The strange thing is that you and Marc must still own a lot of stock and they will eventually go public. It must be hard to care about a company you founded and be financially invested but not have any control over it.

As to Chris’ comment, yes, it is pretty offensive that Elon has stolen the founder title. Nearly every interviewer introduces him as the founder on the web, print, and TV and no mention is made of Martin or Marc.

Martin sez:

Offensives is the right word.

Marc and I do care very much about the success of Tesla. We still own a fair amount of stock, and we still believe in Tesla’s core mission. If I didn’t care at all, this website would not exist.

Comment by Pete May 23, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Martin,

Just so that I understand, doesn’t being a Series A investor / majority owner and Chairman make you a founder? Does the company even exist without Series A funding?

I don’t have a dog in this fight, just trying to understand your point of view.

Martin sez:

No, Marc and I sold the Series A stock to Elon and other investors about 9 months after the company was founded. (Here, I am defining “founded” as the day we incorporated the company, though Marc and I were working on Tesla for a while before that even.) As is traditional with startup companies, Marc and I funded the company initially by purchasing Common Stock. For these 9 months, Marc and I owned almost 100% of the company’s stock.

Also, “Chairman” is a title that passes on – I was the first Chairman of Tesla Motors; I gave that title to Elon when he invested. Note that Ze’ev is now CEO, but it would be a pretty big stretch to say that since he is CEO, he must somehow be a founder too.

Also note that Elon is not the “majority owner” of Tesla – he owns less than 50% of the stock in the company. For a while he did own more than 50%, but that does not make him a founder.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 23, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

Edwards was right, there are two Americas. How someone can spend such effort, time, wonderful words on a mediocre car; or car at all is stunning and an embarrassment.

Martin sez:

And yet you read all those words and felt compelled to comment on them…

Roberta’s words are well spent if they help even a few Americans consider driving a small, efficient car rather than the traditional gas-guzzling SUV. What do you drive, by the way?

Comment by Hans V May 24, 2008 @ 4:23 am

Martin,

Thanks so much for clearing that up. There is now no question in my mind that you and Marc are the “original founders” of TM.

Prior to Elon investing in Tesla Motors, how much had you and Marc invested relative to Elon’s Series A investment, and relative to Elon’s total investments? I am not necessarily looking for actual numbers, just relative amounts. If you and Marc invested X, how many times X did Elon invest in Series A and in total?

Prior to the Series A investment, did you have more than just a slide show presentation? Had you already formed relationships / partnerships with Lotus and any / all other vendors? Did you have any significant systems or subsystems designed, built and tested?

Martin sez:

Marc and I don’t have the kind of money that Elon (or for that matter, a VC) does – so our cash investments were relatively small. Again, in the tradition of startup companies, we also worked for no salary until the Series A round. (Ian Wright also worked at Tesla for no salary until then, and for that reason considers himself to be a “member of the founding team,” though not a “founder.”)

Marc and I had already architected the basic car and established our relationship with Lotus. We also had invested in AC Propulsion (to rescue them from bankruptcy) and jointly proved out the 18650 Lithium Ion concept with them, though lots more work was still needed. We also were deep into negotiations to license basic motor, controller, and especially “reductive charging” technology from them – an agreement that we consummated very shortly after Elon’s investment.

No doubt about it, there was lots and lots of work yet to do, and much of it could not start until Series A was closed – Series A investment enabled Tesla to get off the ground. But had Elon not invested, we would quite possibly have closed with other investors – we were already into due diligence with a very good VC when Elon agreed to invest.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 24, 2008 @ 6:02 am

Jason, I looked into you link to AMP Motor Works. I like there approach was was amazed that they have over 100 orders while providing almost no information on their modifications. This prompted me to send them a list of questions:
Is your electric motor induction or permenant magnetic?
Is the motor AC or brushless DC?
Are there multiple drive motors?
Who makes the electric motor?
Do you have a single speed transmission?
What happens with the original gas motor? Can you buy the new cars without the motor/transmission?
Front engine, rear wheel drive?
You state no power steering pump. Replaced with electric power steering?
What is the size, weight, and capacitiy of your battery pack?
How efficient is your motor controller?
Does the car contan an on-board charger?
How efficient is your on-board charger?
How long does a charge take with the on-board charger?
What voltages and amps can the on-board charger handle.
Do you market a higher power stationary charger? What are its specs, and price?
Does your charge plug conform to Tesla’s standard?
Is any storage space, ie trunk space, lost due to the conversion?
Is the weight distribution of the car unchanged from original?
Is the vehicle weight changed?
If there are changes in the vehicle weight or distribution, what changes do you make to the suspension?
Do these modifications void GM’s warranty on the body/suspension of the car?
What warranty do you provide for your work?
Do your modifications invalidate crash worthiness tests?
Are there any insurance concerns due to the modifications?
Has the 150 mile range been validated with the EPA cycle?

We’ll see what their response is.

Comment by Roy May 24, 2008 @ 7:46 am

Excellent and thorough response – it clears up alot.

I don’t doubt that you could have received Series A funding from anyone, and I don’t believe Elon’s money was/is more valuable than anyone else’s money.

I do have a hard time rejecting your first, constant and biggest funder as a founder, however you want to qualify the designation. I do see a difference between the contributions of the individuals prior to Series A funding, and those who followed, but the importance of those who provided the capital shouldn’t be dismissed.

If you prefer to call yourself an original founder and Elon some other type of founder, then that’s fine, but I wouldn’t deny Elon that designation, because the VC is so fundamental to a startup. I suppose including Elon’s vehicle among the “founder series” of vehicles is evidence of that, regardless of delivery sequence.

Martin sez

Think about Intel. The founders were Robert Noyce, Andy Grove, and Gordon Moore. Period. Nobody considers Arthur Rock to be a founder of Intel, even though it was his investment that made Intel happen. Arthur Rock played a critical role in the formation of Intel and is well recognized for that role. But he never passed himself off as a founder of Intel. And all the Intel founders had at the time of funding was a one-page business plan…

“Founder” means someone who “founded” the company. How can you be a founder if you were not there until 9 months after the company was founded anyway? Weird use of the word. This is not to say that Elon’s money was not critical to getting Tesla off the ground. But there is a difference between “Founder” and “Funder.”

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 24, 2008 @ 7:48 am

I know I have strayed off topic with my posts, especially the previous one. But I think this proves an important point. People are so desperate to buy electric cars that they are willing to put a deposit on one that provide only 5 pieces of information, all electric, 150 mile range (no proof), 90mph top speed, 150hp motor and lithium ironphosphate batteries. Kinda scarry isn’t it.

Comment by Roy May 24, 2008 @ 7:58 am

The other thing we want from AMP is a Prototype. Pictures of it being built, video of it running, and show us your coverage on the local news. How could they NOT have that? Every backwoods garage tinkerer who drives a french fry burner gets 7 minutes after sports and weather.

Comment by vfx May 24, 2008 @ 8:42 am

Martin,

Perhaps if Elon had been a completely silent partner, and not acted as Chairman … whatever.

This is all part of a disturbing trend in which industry, capitalists and venture capitalists are marginalized and demonized. Elon recognized the importance of getting the first units finished and out the door per the promised specifications and recognized the importance of offering an REEV option when the concept first shown to him.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 24, 2008 @ 9:54 am

AMP is interesting. Panoz must be even ligthter (I still say they’ll be missing the boat if they don’t go EV sports sedan). At this rate, by 2010 the EV/ serial hybrid boom will be on: Tesla, Nissan, Toyota, GM, Aptera, Th!nk, Fisker-and ?…and later literally everyone. This will dovetail very nicely with the solar boom-here that comes in a very big way, soon. If I were Martin and looking to do something else, and/or looking for investors, and advice, I’d go to Steve Jobs. I read, online, a graduation speech he gave at Stanford in 2005. I would say he’s the Anti-Musk. He’s ” been there and done (& been done in by, temporarily) that” and would no doubt be no fan of Musk & Co. I read where Drori, Tesla CEO, said that Tesla was in “Never-Neverland” …(before he was brought on board by Capt. E. H. -for Hook- Musk)… “trying to transition from a startup to a real company”.

Comment by T.J. May 24, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

Steve-if not Barney Hatt, since he works for Lotus, maybe Bill Moggridge of IDEO-who was a consultant on Tesla design-see what he could make of the design problem in question.

Comment by T.J. May 24, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

Further search into Barney Hatt shows that even he, of Tesla fame, made a bad design move: he originally had “the crease down the hood leading to a pointy prow front” look for the roadster. This is the look favored , forever, by GM-and which I hate. Martin showed him photos of the pointy-nosed Firebird before Barney saw the light. Beats me why he would have liked that look to start with. The “crease look” like cuts the car in half-reminds me of a cheap joint line on old metal or plastic toys. Guess when GM can’t get something to look really neat they say “when in doubt, throw in the crease line, that always works good enough for the avg. Joe”

Martin sez:

I think you’re a little harsh on Barney. Designing a car is something that takes time and takes experimentation. While I am the one who urged Barney to lose the ridge, I also don’t think Barney was off-base proposing such a feature. He was experimenting with several ideas and themes for the car; this was one.

The only legitimate experiment is one where failure is one of the possible outcomes…

I agree about GM’s crease lines though. I am not a big fan of the “pre-crashed” look that Bangle brought to BMW either.

Comment by T.J. May 24, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

Roy,

You may be a little off topic, but I think that you make a valid point when you say:

“People are so desperate to buy electric cars that they are willing to put a deposit on one that provide only 5 pieces of information, all electric, 150 mile range (no proof), 90mph top speed, 150hp motor and lithium ironphosphate batteries. Kinda scarry isn’t it.”

You’re right, it is kinda scary. I think that there are lots of individuals, and companies, out there that are willing to take advantage of good people who are trying to “do the right thing” (by buying an electric vehicle to reduce their oil consumption). The unfortunate result of these scams is to tarnish the reputation of the whole EV movement, even the legitimate companies with decent products. That is why it is important to expose these scams when they come to our attention. I hope that you post the reply from AMP when/if you receive it. I look forward to reading it. Maybe then we will have a better idea whether this conversion service is legitimate or not. Most of their specs sound reasonable, but the cost (of the conversion ($25,000)) seems on the low side when compared to AC Propulsion. I would think that the batteries alone would cost somewhere around $20,000 USD. Just one 110Ah/48V LiFePO4 battery pack costs over $8000 at PowerStream:

http://www.powerstream.com/

I guess they could be buying directly from China from somewhere like Guangzhou Markyn Battery:

http://www.gmbattery.com/English/ProductView.asp?ID=92&SortID=101

but I think that would require a pretty substantial purchase.

My wife and I were at the local Farmer’s Market today, and to my surprise there was a stall there selling electric bikes and scooters. Nothing special, lead acid & DC motors, but the vendor was asking $2500.00 for one of the scooters. I liked it (I took it for a test ride around the market), but I thought the price was a bit high. When we got home I went online and found the identical scooter for $1099.00 from a local dealer in Toronto. It just proves my point that there are a lot of people out there waiting to “cash-in” on the mad dash to buy electric. As always though, it is important to remember “Caveat emptor”.

Please let us all know if you get a response from AMP Roy.

BTW, they could be selling the Ecotec motor to TMI Autotech in Virginia for use in the US model of the Ariel Atom.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 24, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

Meanwhile some of us continue to drive our 8 year old production EVs… I tend to buy things I can have delivered when I pay for it.

Comment by TEG May 24, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

Wonder what Jobs thinks of EV’s ? -like the “Apple EV”-more industrial design than car, and full of tech. stuff. Some good things about Jobs: quotes- “I’m not a hostile takeover kind of guy” , “what can I say, I hired the wrong guy” (re. when he hired CEO Sculley who fired him). Salary at Apple: $1 per year (so he can get company health insurance). Responsible for the trademark Apple design sense-including the stores. Bought what became Pixar Studios from George Lucas for only $10 million, because Lucas supposedly needed a lot of money fast to pay for his divorce-good move on Jobs part (that studio now takes up a whole city block in Emeryville-which used to be “Mangytown of the East Bay”, remember Martin?-now it’s a happening joint). Likes Bob Dylan/dated Joan Baez. I liked Marianne Faithful.

Comment by T.J. May 24, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

Lucas’s divorced had little to do with it – Lucas was streamlining his production conglomerate and basically wanted to keep only what he would need to do the Star Wars prequels et al. A studio dedicated to fully CGI films wasn’t part of that – and yes, while the price was only 10m, Pixar required a lot more capital investment before they turned out Toy Story (and all the subsequent hits).

If Jobs was in charge of Tesla, he’d sell the crap out of the Roadster, but buyers would soon find out they could only use Tesla electricity. Then he would resell the exact same car with minor improvements every six months with an expectation that everyone who wants to be “cool” would upgrade their Roadster to the latest model – despite what a tremendous waste of money it is.

Oh and Tesla’s cars would be put together in sweat shops in Indonesia.

Oh and Jobs-Telsa would put pithy commercials making fun of the competition, even though his car suffers from many of the same problems – you know, stability, security – and cost twice as much.

Actually, this all seems to work rather well, as Apple is doing quite a tidy business. Maybe Elon should hire Jobs.

Comment by Gabe May 25, 2008 @ 6:09 am

As Jobs would say, “One more thing…”

Martin and Co.: If you worry about humanity’s chances of surviving the next thousand years, you might want to head over to , which lands today around 7:15 eastern. The lander will be looking for water on Mars, just one microstep on a path towards “backing up” the species: being a multi-planet civilization.

Comment by Gabe May 25, 2008 @ 6:16 am

Smart Rollerskates:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/25/some-very-smart-looking-rollerskates/

Comment by Doug@Stanford May 25, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

Martin- I never thought BMW was that great design-wise, however the X6 looks pretty good-except that the price is rather thru the roof (more than rather for my pocketbook) for what seems to be its rather small size. Then again, maybe the mileage is very good because of it. The best design BMW has done lately is the Mini-Cooper-especially considering the cheap price, for a BMW. I read an article in the May “Fortune” mag. about Ford coming back, where they said that Americans in general hate fastbacks, whereas Europeans like them O.K.-well I really like fastbacks, done right – so what’s with the X6 fastback here then ? The new Ford Fiesta in that article looks really halibutin’ good-particularly in cream color. The windshield on the car starts ahead of the back end of the front wheelwell, which is unusual, and is one thing that makes the car look good/a little different. Ford stock is pretty low, even with Kerkorian buying a bunch more- nowhere to go but up. New CEO is ex of Boeing, can’t be all bad- Ford will be back, maybe fairly fast too. Gabe-”l detect hostility”. At least Job’s products look pretty good, and the i-phone has that zippy touch screen stuff-and the stores are pretty zippy too-for what that’s worth. As for me, I don’t need any of it (except the Mac Mini with Apple keyboard & wireless mouse, that is. My cat chewed thru the wire of my former wired mouse-killed it,-but then she was just doin’ her job). Personally I don’t need i-pods, i-phones, blackberries, blueteeth, wi-fi or any of the rest of it all-cell phones even. However, I would love to have an EV. A lot of people knock Gates too. Then there’s Elon. Guess there’s a lot not great in the U.S. business world-stupid CEO pay being a big “not great”. Well, at least Jobs brought Apple back from the doldrums and clutches of Sculley, and turned Pixar into something nicer-and at least he and the Woz helped start something good to begin with-and at least he pays himself only 1 buck per year, and in doing all this he employs a bunch of people with some nice paychecks-so I’ll cut him some slack. Made in Indonesia, huh? What else is new there? Hope he doesn’t pay at the Nike level. A lot of semi-slaves in the world making our lives in the developed world “nicer”. Paul McCartney said the world is a mix of the good and the bad, he tries to focus on the good and lessen the bad (by not eating animals for one-of course he hasn’t yet given his fortune away to good causes) -however his former wife from Hell (the Lowest regions thereof) sure dragged him thru the mud of the dark side. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, per the above, for what that’s worth. But then people say “at least the semi-slaves are employed”. We need world-wide labor min. wage standards,set to each country in question, but try to get that thru. What we need is “planet management” all the way around, environment and everything else-wait another 50 years maybe for that concept. However I do see the start of a coming real green world (2007/08 kickoff) and better standard of living in the third world, of course-could be even better if we got a handle on population-long wait ahead for that, it’s hardly talked about anymore. In terms of U.S. companies, “Idealab” and CEO Bill Gross (of Aptera fame) seem good to me-too bad Martin hadn’t gotten in with these guys. I may be wrong, but I’d trust guys from Cal-Tech- like Gross and Alan Cocconi. When I was in school they had the aura- benevolent nerdy guys minding their own business doing good in the world for the thrill of the tech. chase, etc. But what do I know, for sure-just seems like dyed in the wool Cal-techies wouldn’t pull a Muskrat/Sculley, et al, move on anyone-they would probably think “most illogical, captain”.

Comment by T.J. May 25, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

Fascinating, Captain- I just checked out the Idealab Co. website ,management team area- Bill Gross is on Board of Trustees of the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena (known for their car design program), and there is a design type who is on the management team from there. From the photos of this team I don’t detect any weasel traits: as in “if it looks like, walks like, talks like, etc.” (as opposed to photos of guys like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld- & maybe Musk, perchance ? ). This looks like a team that could do an EV sports sedan, given the cash and/or another company already in existence that could be a useful start-like one in Georgia perhaps, or perhaps not. Be that as it may, this team looks like a Martin-like group if you ask me. Too bad he got in with the wrong crowd.

Comment by T.J. May 25, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

Yeah- Idealab HQ is in Pasadena, right next to the Martin abode in Sierra Madre. Too bad they couldn’t have been the Tesla partners.

Comment by T.J. May 25, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

u.s. marine corps song composer

Comment by T.J. May 25, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

FYI:

Fifth Gear – Smart ED vs Normal Smart Car Comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1p2FPRZRLI

Thanks,
F.

Comment by Fabian May 25, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

T.J., I finally looked up the Panoz and was impressed by that organization. They don’t just make race cars, like I thought. I meant to reply sooner, but preoccupation with employment and trying to work out three pretty good rants for this blog (you’ll probably like at least one of them) have distracted me. Writing about stuff I don’t know cold requires a lot of effort and considerable peace of mind to even begin.

Your particular styling project isn’t well suited for me because unfortunately I don’t have the four door appreciation gene. I’ve owned and liked one each from Benz and BMW, great cars, but I never fell in love with them. Collectors don’t seem to favor them either, except for huge luxo-boats.

Sports car styling exercises do appeal to me, and I have a couple of pet projects in mind. An old friend is one of the world’s greatest automotive metal body guys, with two huge self-constructed English wheels, a full-on paint booth and a class win at Pebble Beach with a Bugatti. If I come up with anything I like and his business and my work ever slow down….

If you look at the http://www.infinity.com site you’ll see three very similar designs to compare: a 2 + 2, a four door sedan, and a crossover. I could get very interested in a 2 + 2 design like the G37. In fact I came close to buying a G35. To my eye it’s one of the more handsome cars available. A good friend did buy one. The G37 has a much nicer interior. As you know, the 356 and 911 series Porsches with the engines hanging out the back also have “roughing it” seating for adults and room for stuff, which I found very useful.

I’m delighted to see more of Martin’s comments, esp. about the formative years at Tesla. Working out the body design and everything else for a new electric mid-engine sports car must have made for intensely exciting times.

Looking up the BMW X-6 and seeing what they were calling a coupe caused me to fly off the handle a bit. I hope you’ll forgive me for that one. It looks short only because it’s so tall. It’s based on the X-5 SUV platform. Here’s an excerpt from the Road and Track test:

“The BMW X6 xDrive50i is a behemoth, but in BMW fashion it tosses sport-ute convention out the window in favor of sports-sedan flair. It tips the scales at a whopping 5270 lb., has 8.3 in. of ground clearance, seats only four and has limited rear storage space due to its coupelike roofline.”

I used to have the highest respect and admiration for Benz and BMW, because they made lots of very well engineered, unpretentious, high quality cars. Only occasionally did they make an exceptionally handsome vehicle, but they were all pretty honest. Having customers who routinely drive long distances at top speed on the autobahn seemed to clear their minds.

That’s why their descent into repulsive styling conceits, superfluous gadgetry, complexity-driven unreliability, and now shameless lying, annoys me so much. I don’t drive their cars any longer so I can’t complain directly, but I have to listen to lots of stories about them. As we say in the engineering biz, “the cost of complexity is exponential”.

Comment by Steve S. May 26, 2008 @ 12:54 am

Sorry, the correct link is http://www.infiniti.com/

The three Infiniti models to compare are the G coupe, the G sedan, and the EX.

Comment by Steve S. May 26, 2008 @ 1:24 am

It’s not outright hostility – Jobs is an incredible salesman and a pretty good CEO. But he’s not a visionary leader – nor the God that many fanboys make him out to be.

I suppose it bothers me that Apple has convinced everyone (nearly?)that what they make is just astoundingly better than everything else – and that it always has been. Look into their history a little bit: I mean Windows Vista is a wretched OS, but OS7 and OS8 nearly sunk Apple they were so bad. All the graphic designer software makers used to be strictly Mac, but those two OS’s were so unstable that Adobe and most of the others switched to developing for Windows too. MS market share didn’t hurt anything either.

The lesson from Apple, for any company that wants profit maximization, is that marketing is more important than product. And that bothers me.

Comment by Gabe May 26, 2008 @ 8:17 am

Who Killed the Electric Car is back on Google Video, I just noticed: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=+%22electric+car%22+site%3Avideo.google.com&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&dur=&so=0&num=100#

Comment by Steve S. May 26, 2008 @ 9:12 am

>Ian Wright also worked at Tesla for no
>salary until then, and for that reason
>considers himself to be a “member of
>the founding team,” though not a “founder.”

I am surprised to see what Wrightspeed is still not funded. It seems we are in a bit of a green bubble now so if you you can’t get financing now for your electic car company I don’t know when you will be able to.

Also, I just don’t get why Ian left Tesla. I mean the roadster does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, is doing it in 3 flat that important? The public line is that the goal of tesla to do progressively more accessible and cheaper vehicles was what drove him away (he wanted to do even higher end EVs). But, in that case why not stay and work on new versions of the roadster?

Martin sez:

Ian left because of personal differences with me and with the rest of Tesla’s staff. His vision for where the company should go, why we need EVs at all, and how a company should be run were at odds with Tesla’s vision.

Comment by Pete May 26, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

“Martin sez: Ian left because of personal differences with me and with the rest of Tesla’s staff. His vision for where the company should go, why we need EVs at all, and how a company should be run were at odds with Tesla’s vision.”

Having been in three high-tech start-ups, it is stunning how differently people will view / respond to various situations, leading to “visionary differences” that are ultimately destructive to a company’s ability to achieve any goals, much less the stated goals. You can be so sure you “know” someone, thinking their goals are the same as yours, until the opportunities (distractions) start knocking, then it’s like herding cats – no, worse, like herding cougars with a .22 pistol – possible, but not advisible.

It’s easiest if you just choose the simplist target possible that is a viable product, then hope to branch out from there. You can keep people focused on the nearterm goal, while they believe their preference will come later. It’s only when later never comes that there are problems.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 26, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

Individual carbon rationing/credits may become a reality in the U.K.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7419724.stm

On May 3rd 2008, 7:54pm, on the “Doing Our Part” thread, I suggested this very idea.

I don’t think for one moment that this initiative in the UK was inspired by my comments. I’m sure that they were exploring the idea long before I said anything. I do believe that it is an approach that makes sense though, as long as it is properly, and fairly, implemented. The only part of their plan that I don’t agree with is the trading, or selling, of carbon credits. I believe that there should be absolute limits for all individuals, after all, it’s not about money, it’s about the steadily increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

We will discover one day, to our detriment, that we cannot cheat Nature.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 27, 2008 @ 6:45 am

Chris,

The “problem” with cap and trade, is that it ultimately races the prices of the commodity being sought, so consumption does goes down, only because the poor can no longer afford it, while the wealthy maintain their consumption habits.

Sometimes, due to the higher prices of the commodity, alternatives spring up, but only because the cost of the alternative is now in line with more expensive commodity, so the poor do not benefit from the alternative.

The right policy, is for the government to give tax write-offs to those who buy the alternative. This allows people to keep their own money for a “proper” use, while their consumption of the commodity goes down, which tends to lower the price of the commodity, so that the poor are not hurt.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 27, 2008 @ 11:02 am

Jason,

You said:

“The “problem” with cap and trade, is that it ultimately races[sic] the prices of the commodity being sought, so consumption does goes down, only because the poor can no longer afford it, while the wealthy maintain their consumption habits.”

I agree with this POV. That’s why I said that I don’t agree with the trading, or selling, of carbon credits. I think that there should be an absolute cap on individual carbon emissions, and each person has to learn to live within their CO2 emissions limits. You have highlighted some of the problems with trading schemes, including the big one, that some individuals will simply buy their way out of their obligation to the planet.

The scheme should be simple, transparent, and immune to manipulation. Another problem with cap and trade models is that everyone, and their brother, think that they should be an exception to the rule. If the government makes an exception for one group, then every other demographic starts petitioning to also become an exception to the rule. Before you know it, half the population, or more, has found some way to circumvent the legislation, and thus it becomes ineffective and expensive. I like the “keep it simple” approach in most situations, and this is no exception.

We have come to view the privilege of utilizing fossil fuels as a birthright, but this attitude has to change if we are to have any hope of survival as a species. We are poised to be the architects of our own destruction, and yet we quibble over petty privileges. The vast majority of North Americans haven’t got the slightest clue of the juggernaut of reality that is heading straight for them. The adjustments are going to be severe and painful for most of us.

The U.N. projects that the global human population will exceed 9 billion by 2050. I am more inclined to believe that it will be around 3 billion, but not as a result of any restraint on our behalf.

So, who’s going to be the first to call me “Chicken Little”?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 27, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

Chicken Little.

Comment by Gabe May 27, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

Comment by Chris Harvey May 27, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

Steve- BMW made a mistake making the X6 only 4 seats-with its size and cost, what’s up with that? I like the Infiniti coupes, but I think some nice designs are/can be done with the start of the windshield ahead of the back of the front wheelwell-I’ve been looking at cars on the road re. this- the Toyota Versa does this,and mini-vans often- and the new Ford Fiesta will. If it would be possible to make the Panoz into something re. a sports sedan, it would look good there probably too. Gabe-well at least Apple has done something in this country (as opposed to “Japan & Korea as usual”), and diversified no less-even as far as Pixar (till they sold it to Disney). I wonder if Idealab will ever go beyond the Aptera into a mainsream EV, with a radically nice design. At least that company doesn’t seem to be tainted by “powers that be” influence, like Tesla and even Th!nk Cars, with G.E. investing in them.

Comment by T.J. May 27, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

’scuse me the “windowshield forward” car I was thinking of is the Toyota Yaris. Also, another thing about Jobs is that he cares about design and the “design cachet” of the company- “good for marketing purposes”, back to the original various colored i-Macs. If you’re going to make something productwise it doesn’t cost any more (generally) to make it look good.

Comment by T.J. May 27, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

I hope Roberta is enjoying her SMART car. I am seeing at least one a day now.

T.J., Of course the X6 is bigger than the X5, it follows Germanic naming convention of automobiles. If it was the X4 then it would be smaller. Interesting you mention Korea, do a search for the SSanyong auto company and you will find they sell a smaller SUV with the same profile as the X6 (sloping coupe like roof profile), and it has been on the market for at the past 3 years there.

Comment by S May 27, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

Jobs/Apple does not so much care about the “design cachet” per se, he knows it is a result of the total approach to design, engineering and most important, function. This is from a quote I found just now on google (Steve jobs) “”Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But, of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really how it works. To design something really well, you have to ‘get it.’ You have to really grok what it’s all about.” (A geek’s word, to grok is a coinage of science-fiction writer R.A. Heinlein, meaning to understand something thoroughly by having empathy with it.)

Again, most of these EV startups either don’t get it, or think of it as styling and not part of proper process, that is why the overwhelming majority look like crap.

Tesla get’s it. Smart got it, and if you dig a little deeper, you will find aptera get’s it.

Comment by S May 27, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

S- yeah, I like the Aptera alot. Wasn’t SSanyong the company that Phoenix EV’s was using for their EV ? And now for another desperate attempt to see something else different in the car world (by me, though I’m sure auto designers have toyed with it-I just haven’t seen it): “stadium seating” rear seats-splitleveled up higher than the front seats, lookin down on/over them, with plenty of storage under back seats (storage area height maybe the thickness of two suitcases). The windshield would be huge-and just keep on sloping up to form most of the roof in fact-that way back seat passengers can look thru the windshield, as usual-except by looking over front seat passengers, they would have a clear road view. Car would have so a wedge type shape to some extent.Below the back doors would be a little automatic running board/step that would pop out for entry/exit. This would make for a fun car, especially for those in the back-and a not very long car (or, if preferred, a quite short car)- and a car with still a good amount of luggage room.

Comment by T.J. May 27, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Chris,

The use of fossil fuels will end eventually, as it is a finite resource. The only question is, will the government be visionary enough to create policies that will allow us to maintain our standard of living while seguing to renewable energy technologies?

I heard Obama talking about how Americans should no longer expect to maintain their homes at a comfortable 72 degrees, regardless of their climate. Excuse me? If I generate my own electricity from solar panels that I own, I can set my thermostat to any damn temp I want. He went on to talk about worldwide energy as a zero sum game – so if Americans suddenly conserved energy here, then the Sudanese would suddenly have more energy for themselves? – he made absolutely no sense.

Our government should be planning ways to maintain our standard of living through the proper development of renewable energy sources, and not concern ourselves with how Europeans, Asians and Africans are living. If they don’t want to get off their butts and provide better for themselves, that’s their business, but don’t make leave me wanting, especially since it doesn’t make anyone else’s life any better, other than the lazy governments who won’t work smart / hard to plan for the future.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

I do agree with carbon credits. It just doesn’t make sense that all people should have the same ablsolute limit. Some people’s livelyhood depend on a lot of travel, others require pratically none. It’s the total that counts, you can’t deny someone an airline ticket, if flying is part of their job.

Comment by Roy May 27, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

Roy,

A carbon credit system is NOT a method of rationing fuel / energy. It ends up being an additional cost (like a tax), preventing the poor from having fair access to the wealth creating benefits of fuel / energy. A carbon credit system does NOT make alternative energy sources cheaper, whereas a tax write-off would directly save the consumer money. A carbon credit puts money in corporate accounts (pray any part of that reaches the consumer in a price reduction), whereas a tax write-off would put money into individual’s accounts, as they make vendors compete for their business.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 27, 2008 @ 8:56 pm

The point Obama was making, and that you apparently missed, is that conservation is required. This is not a problem than can be solved on the production side alone. It appears you are not there yet to understand that point and many Americans are not; but, it does not change the fact the he is correct. The US has a lot to learn from the rest of the world and your comments come off as both ignorant and arrogant. Conservation is required and consuming resources at current levels is certainly not something to strive to maintain. You can be comfortable and not wasteful — remember this post in a few years.

Comment by Pete May 27, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

Pete sez: “The point Obama was making, and that you apparently missed, is that conservation is required. This is not a problem than can be solved on the production side alone.”

I absolutely did understand that statement, and vehemently disagree. If the government creates policies to produce renewable energy sources for industry, residential and transportation needs, then NO conservation is necessary. Conservation is the refuge of incompetent and lazy pols.

Pete sez: “It appears you are not there yet to understand that point and many Americans are not; but, it does not change the fact the he is correct.”

Americans are willing to work for the more comfortable lives they enjoy, and won’t accept any less from their pols.

Pete sez: “The US has a lot to learn from the rest of the world and your comments come off as both ignorant and arrogant.”

Considering that European nations are using nuclear, wind, solar, etc. to displace foreign imports of energy, then yes, the US should and is beginning to do just that. However, the US needn’t drop to the subsistent lifestyles of foreign nations.

Pete sez: “Conservation is required and consuming resources at current levels is certainly not something to strive to maintain.”

Again, absolutely wrong. As long as energy sources are renewable, we can consume at any rate we desire.

Pete sez: “You can be comfortable and not wasteful — remember this post in a few years.”

Wasteful is a matter of individual preference. Again, as long as the resource is renewable, and affordable to the consumer, the government should always make it available. For instance, now that Los Angeles is duplicatinig the water replenishment systems of Orange County, and will eventually forego the water sources from other states, their draconian conservation demands should be removed. If a population maintains a subsistent consumption of a critical resource, they remain high susceptible to any disruption of that resource. A disruption should be an inconvenience, not cause hardships.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 28, 2008 @ 6:44 am

Pete, I don’t think JMH was suggesting that “consuming” resources was what he wanted to maintain: merely the lifestyle those resources provide. I can’t remember where (maybe it was someone here) but I read a very well-put point that we aren’t addicted to oil: we’re addicted to the lifestyle.

That’s the whole point of EVs: same lifestyle (nearly) but using far less resources. It makes environmental sense, it makes economic sense. I don’t understand why the conservatives of the last 20 years have harped on it so badly. Mises, Hayek, Bastiat (classic liberals who today would probably be called Goldwater conservatives – liberalism did a 180 between 1900 and 1930)…they would love it. It likes being able to run a factory at half the cost. You don’t reduce your product, who just get smarter in how to make it.

As far as government intervention goes – I’m in principle I’m always against it. Government doesn’t succeed without society’s (by this I mean the free market of everything) agency, and society can do things without government help. Like with Civil Rights. LBJ’s law didn’t accomplish anything: it was the years of marches and protests and changing people’s hearts and minds. The law came at the end and just codified what was already happening.

If we use government (read: guys in suits who command guys with guns) to tell a “dirty” power company they have to pay extra to continue to operate dirty, there are three choices for the company:

1. Pass along the costs to the consumer (raise prices).

2. Find tremendous amounts of capital to reinvest into cleaner production. Then they have to recover that capital for their investors (raise prices).

3. Cut profits and eventually go out of business – people don’t stay in a losing game. If they can make more money elsewhere, they will. And every company that goes out of business will decrease the supply (and raise prices).

Now for someone who’s electricity bill constitutes 3% of their income(say 900 out of 30,000), an increase to 4% (after the increased prices) isn’t too bad. That’s a 33.3% increase of the original. Put off that new tv for a couple of extra months. Skip a dinner out every once in a while.

But if electricity is 9% of your income (900 out of 10,000), a 1/3 increase is another 3% of your yearly income. And if you’re only make ten grand a year, you don’t get a lot of choice about what kind of shitty apartment you live in. Whatever AC, refrigerator, crappy insulation you’ve got, you got. You’re stuck in it.

Government can do one thing to the market, and that is take money away (by intervening and raising prices or by taxation). They can do take away less or take away more. I vote less.

Comment by Gabe May 28, 2008 @ 7:23 am

There is circumstance where conservation should be required by law.

There are those who protest the inclusion of windmills into their skylines (Kennedy). When proposals for clean renewable energy like solar (panels or towers), wind (mills) geo (plants), wave (machines) etc. are protested by locals bent on preserving the ascetics of an area then they should be given a vote for choice. Mandated conservation or allowance of projects that bring in kinetic windmill installations.

Comment by vfx May 28, 2008 @ 7:34 am

vfx,

Installing renewable energy facilities is NOT conservations – it is wealth creation – which is good, even if slightly more expensive. Conservation is on the consumption side – the worst example of which is the notion that the government will control your thermistat, denying you the comfort you’ve earned.

If you want to positively impact the consumption side of the equation, then you only need to look at compact fluorescent lightbulbs, which not only reduce electricity use by up to 80%, but they pay for themselves several times over. Absolutely NO negative impact financially or functionally.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler May 28, 2008 @ 7:40 am

vfx,

I was not aware that anyone could own a skyline. The individual owners of the buildings or land should be the only arbiter of whether or not a windmill is built on their property.

Unless aesthetics are codified as part of an incorporated agreement in a neighborhood or town, then nobody gets a say except the owner.

Comment by Gabe May 28, 2008 @ 8:13 am

A cross section sketch of the “rear stadium seating” car design proves that the concept could be quite nice. It would be about the size of the Mini-Cooper, with the rear seat raised up high over a luggage space-about as high as the thickness of two average bags lying flat. It would make for a hip, “def” urban car (”Def” being the actual name). The back passengers would have a great view thru the huge windshield (for a change), that would slope up very high, turning, in effect, into a sunroof. With the high roof, the rear hatch, going down nearly vertical (like the Mini) would be huge and bold. The car would have a lot more storage than a Mini-and all of it would be of the “preferred hidden-from-view when the hatch is closed” kind. To get in and out of the back seats, a step/runnning board would deploy when the back door opens- a jaunty feature that the “yuppie” type demograhic would dig. There could be a small storage area behind the back seat, like the Mini-only here, with the huge hatch & high roof you could haul tall stuff-like an upright plant even.The car would be an EV or serial hybrid with all the batteries below the floor, to lower the center of gravity. Yes- a JV between Idealab and Martin FTG, as the next car after the Aptera (four wheels, of course). It would be hip as an urban type car in particular, with the back passengers getting the feeling of being in an suv, with a view (front, side and back) even better. It would make the upcoming “Th!nk” urban car look tame, and the Smartcar almost as tame.

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

Further re. “Def” car (code name: “Hammertime” -Can’t Touch This): would be wider than normal small car, to balance out height-but this is also good/different. Also, front seats would cantilever off center “T” support, like some show cars- making for easy storage of snowboards, skis, surfboards-and easy cleaning of car. Yes, even Moe could see that this would be a poifect urban (or elsewhere) car-suitably different to match the different EV tech. This suggests an alternate name: the “Nyuk” (with the midrange and supertricked out models being the Nyuk-Nyuk and the Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk). Then there would be an especially cool model, all in white of different shades,inside and out (from cream white to pearl white to arctic white ) – called the Nyuk Igloo, since Nyuk also sounds eskimo.

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

“The Nyuk: preferred by wise guys everywhere” , except those living in New Yoick & New Joisey-who prefer something bigger (and invariably in black). The rear bench seat (seating 3 due to extra width of car) is supported by a flying carbon fiber beam spanning the width of the car- an exposed beam, for the fun of it- this allows full-width storage inder the seat. The front seats have the “T” support-allowing for the snowboards, etc. This would also allow for camping: two people could sleep in this car with feet under the front seats.

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

The european Nyuks would be the Nyuk, Nyuk X2 and Nyuk X3-(why they’re 2 aqnd 3 times the Nyuk for the buck!) BMW got nothin’ on this.

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

Comparing the Nyuk to the Mini is misleading as to the shape : in section / side view it is just two large radius arcs: one is the arc of the big, gently sloping windshield which arcs in one sweep from the stubby nose of the car (which is the same arc line) , extending up high to just back of the rear seatback, where it stops . Then an even larger radius arc intersects this arc, forming the back/hatchback.The windshield glass itself starts at about the center of the front wheel. Two arcs forming a kind of wedgelike shape. The only solid roof area is right over the back seat.The front door would be an Aptera style upswinging type. The back side windows would be really big, extending down to the bottom of the rear seat -maybe even to the seat frame bottom. Unlike a lot of small cars, the window would go fully down: the big glass window area would be cut in half-the top half, when opened, would pop inward a little and slide past the fixed bottom glass part of the window. The roof support “fin” of the car would start at the front of the rear seat cushion-so all the window cranking mechanism could be hidden in this: basically the top part of the rear window, the part that goes down, would be supported, cantilever-like, from the vertical roof support fin. You get a huge glass rear side window, where half of it goes down like a regular car-except instead on going down into the car body, it bypasses the fixed glass comprising the bottom of the window area. The Nyuk-from the Stuuje division of Idealab/Martin FTG (european base: Amsterdam).

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

Hey TJ

Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk!

Comment by Jeff Holman May 28, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

Jeff- Here at Stuuje Motors we hear you, loud and clear : “Surely you can’t be serious !” -and we say to you (and you too Mr. McEnroe): ” we’ve never been more serious in our lives-and don’t call us Shirley”. If I had a scanner and knew how to post sketches, then you’d see ! (it’s a wonderful product)- and by way of further clarification, the arc of the huge hatchback comes down at between 5 to 10 degrees off vertical. The back “stadium seat” might possibly be raised up a little more than the thickness of 2 avg. suitcases laid flat. What we have here is (no, not “failure to communicate”, but rather): a small urban EV with the extra width to be a 5 seater and enough luggage space to be a “regular car” for long trips, and sporting excursions-you might even be able to put a mountain bike or two in the car. For those who don’t want such a large window at the back seat area, you will have the choices of: the lower glass fixed panel being any tint shade or color you want, or liquid crystal type glass-able to be clear or opaque silverized at the flip of a switch- or you can have a solid body panel inserted, like any other car (painted or unpainted carbon fiber). For the advertising campaigns, we must get Leslie Nielsen, Johnny Mac, and appropriate colorized Stooge snippets, via licensing agreement with the Stooge heirs (available at a very good price no doubt, compared to, say Elvis). Introducing: “The Nyuk- laugh it up, wiseguy !” ™.

Comment by T.J. May 28, 2008 @ 9:57 pm

T.J., maybe you can settle a bet between two of my friends. Do you often kick back with a couple of beerskis or something a little stronger while you type your posts?

Comment by Steve S. May 29, 2008 @ 1:34 am

Nah. I think TJ stands for Taking Jolt

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

Comment by Malcolm Wilson May 29, 2008 @ 4:38 am

Steve,

Apparently it’s “tea”…

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey May 29, 2008 @ 4:58 am

Steve- never (tea only, unspiked) I’m on a natural high (or low).But I do have a further explanation of the Nyuk motto. The Nyuk is smarter than other “Smart Cars”, and more fun too-hence you’re smart to want one, hence: “The Nyuk-laugh it up, wise guy !” ™-why it’s poifect!

Comment by T.J. May 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am

Steve & Chris- I showed the Nyuk sketch to a developer guy, orginally from So. Cal.- as such he was stoked way, wanted to look into further design development, coming in tomorrow-sez he wants to get Martin on the horn/blog to discuss further-well, “that’s his story and he’s sticking to it”. but, por supuesto, “if you want to see Nyuks, you’ll need the bucks”. Hopefully Nyuk isn’t a four letter word in eskimo or some nordic lingo.

Comment by T.J. May 29, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Looking at photos of Smart Car, Th!nk Car (bold glass hatchback there) & Aptera: Smart & Th!nk=too much car design, too little industrial design: however nice, still “cars as usual”. Aptera=no doubt too much industrial design for some people. Whereas Nyuk=the preferred combo mix.

Comment by T.J. May 29, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

T.J., do you have a blog that you regularly update? I would enjoy reading your stuff.
Most other blogs take themselves too seriously.

Comment by Sid May 30, 2008 @ 12:45 am

TJ,

As per Nyuk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyukozero_Lake

Comment by Gabe May 30, 2008 @ 6:33 am

Sid- “I’ve never been so serious…etc.” Have no blog, prefer to hijack Martin’s. It’s easier that way. But I’m just using a tiny nano- portion since actually anyone could blog to infinity, just keep typing-literally, huh ? -at least that’s what Bill Gates sez (?). The Nyuk ad camapign could launch on the shores of lake Nyuk-a Russian fishing from the shore sees one driving by and sez (english captions) “What the Nyuk ! ? !” Pan to Russian announcer next to him on shore saying to camera: “What ?-the Nyuk ! , comrade”. Smart Car-Nyet!, Nyuk-Da!. Actually it would be quite an unusal car, almost as wide as long maybe. Good urban car for sure-and student car-since young crowd more often joy rides around with friends, and with the large extra storage could pack a lot of stuff ( high back seats would fold like in Mini-so really could haul a lot)- the name Nyuk would actually also go over big with this crowd. Europeans would really go for this car (and Californians) if the design were maxed out, inside and out. With the major extra glass area on the car it would be great in Switzerland or elsewhere with great scenery, high and low. The only guy I know -make that “used to know” (we used to do plans for him, till he streamlined his operation and got his own in-house architecture dept.)- with the kind of cash for the Nyuk is Robert Bigelow ( per wikipedia). Seeing as how he’ll be waiting a long (long) time for the required space orbiter (even with the $ 50 million prize he’s offering) to take tourists to his orbiting hotel, he should take his engineers and ramp up the Nyuk protoype. Of course if I managed to get thru to him he’d no doubt say “I know you from somewhere, where ? !” . Once he dimly recalled the rather distant past and heard the pitch he would no doubt say ” What the !?! ” …etc. Actually he would probably like the idea a lot “just not for him”-seeing as how he’s definitely a Space General, hard bitten kinda guy .

Comment by T.J. May 30, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

Funding the Nyuk via the Paul Newman model: the world’s first – “for the environment” profit car company. Then you could get a nice (a lot nicer than Th!nk Car) EV/serial hybrid on road for a good cause. What’ll it take, $100 million ? : need 100 Paul Newman types giving $1 mill. ea. (or 200 @ 1/2 mill., 400, etc.)-get Oprah on the horn-and Di Caprio needs to replace his ugly Prius, and Clooney needs one to go with the Tesla. Then there would be a european plant, funded by Newman types over there-and if rich environ.-conscious Chinese , Indians, etc. want a Nyuk plant they can have one too. They’ll be more like race car shops than plants since the Nyuk will be designed to use the fewest parts possbile: minimal design style- but very nice minimal design. The car would be designed to make some kind of profit, but it would go to environ. causes-killing two environ. birds with one stone. When you buy a Nyuk you’re contributing to the environ. in two ways. Nyuking nuts?-well, beats relying on the likes of Musk and all the similar powers- that- be money purveyors. A New car building model: Newkaizenman.

Comment by T.J. May 30, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

Back when the Volt was news and serial hybrids were being discussed, I stayed out of it because I don’t like clumsy acronyms and because I didn’t want to say anything negative about the Volt. Remember, back then in the production electric car world Tesla was a lone voice in the wilderness and it seemed like either BS or a near miracle that a big company would back a project anything like that. Now, as Martin pointed out, every major car company in the world has a serious EV or hybrid project in the works. What a revolution! We’re settled in for a wait of about two years.

I apologize in advance for not giving this rant the effort it deserves, because of various distractions, e.g. employment. It’s written mostly from memory. Corrections and better numbers, e.g. for efficiency, are welcomed.

Martin correctly pointed out back then that parallel hybrids are more efficient for driving beyond the battery range, because of the combined generator and electric motor losses. Several people seemed to think that was a minimal inefficiency. One guess was 95%, and it was proposed that that small amount would anyway be made up by the efficiency gain of running the gas engine at a constant RPM.

That seemed wildly optimistic and wrong to me. The numbers I found with a cursory search were more like 70 to 80%, which in my mind is nearly a deal breaker for anything but an emergency backup system.

And there are a couple of problems with the constant rpm efficiency theory. For one, gas engines are already optimized for efficiency at a slow cruising rpm, except high performance and racing types. They can also make a lot more power when needed occasionally, at higher RPM, without compromising the design. The constant rpm idea probably comes from the well-known opportunity to increase power within a narrow rpm band by tuning the rpm-dependent intake and exhaust tract resonances, but that’s a result of being able to burn more fuel and air.

For another, consider the design of a serial hybrid gas engine. I’ll use some round made up numbers for illustration. After the batteries are depleted, it would be nice to be able to drive up a long highway grade at 70 mph, which would require say 75 hp. In a serial hybrid that would mean 100 hp from the gas engine. Since economy would like an rpm of about 2000, that would require a four or five liter engine. On the other hand, most cruising would require only about 20 hp, which wouldn’t be very inefficient with that size engine. Would you impale yourself on the sword of constant rpm, or would you use a two liter engine at 2000 rpm for cruising, and run it up to 4500 rpm for the occasional long highway grade? That sounds a lot like how gas engines are already designed. If anyone knows some details of the actual Volt engine operating strategy, I’d be happy to learn them.

Martin also pointed out that serial hybrids are more efficient under battery power because of the reduced mechanical losses in the drive train. Well, that’s barely true if at all for the Prius. I looked into the Prius drive train and discovered that it has two electric motors, one mostly to drive the car and the other mostly to co-ordinate the speed differences of the two drivelines. The main electric motor is in the final drive to the differential driving the wheels. Under battery power only, the second electric motor spins freely without electricity, and no power at all is transmitted by the planetary power-splitting differential.

Incidentally, in the EV and plug-in world the Prius seems to often be looked down on as somehow wrong-headed and obsolete, and not worthy of learning even the most basic of its design details. The truth is, it’s the automotive engineering marvel of the new millennium, the product of genius and billions of dollars of R & D. It’s supremely practical and wildly successful, and was changing the world before most of the people in the community became involved.

But I’ll be thrilled when I’m finally able to buy a factory plug-in version. Every year I take a handful of long trips, a marathon of about a thousand miles each way. The existing Prius would probably be very slightly better for that use, because of not dragging around a larger battery. The Volt would probably be much less efficient than a Camry, and a battery electric would not be an option. For all my other driving I’d much prefer a battery electric, so I wouldn’t have to drag a gas engine around. Hybrid garage. Wasn’t that Yanquetino’s phrase? I’d like mine to house one each of all the flavors.

Comment by Steve S. May 31, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

Steve S. Your argument makes a great deal of sense but I would still maintain that the serial hybrid is the best overall compromise for the average driver – whatever that is! Of course if you can have several cars for each person (the hybrid garage) then you can avoid compromises and always have the best car for each type of use. In most parts of the world this is not affordable and most drivers only have one vehicle that they have to use for all purposes. Regular long-distance drivers in the States probably wouldn’t get the best results with a serial hybrid but according to some research most drivers in the States only cover 30 to 40 miles per day. For this sort of use a Volt-style serial hybrid would be hard to beat. Even with occasional much longer trips annual efficiency overall would be pretty good wouldn’t it? In world resources terms having several cars for each driver is kinda hard to defend isn’t it? Of course you may be thinking of a ’shared’ hybrid garage where say three people in a family have three different types of vehicle and each of them uses the right vehicle for the kind of trip being taken. This looks like being the best compromise of all, but I’d still want to include a serial hybrid in that garage and I bet it would get used the most.

Comment by Andrew Kelsey June 1, 2008 @ 3:47 am

Steve S.,

However efficient the Prius may be in all electric mode, it’s current top speed in all electric mode is 25 mph (something like that).

We do need to compare apples to apples, when it comes to series vs. parallel hybrid vehicles. Talking generically about series hybrid performance, then speaking specifically about the Prius, with its Atkinson cycle engine, isn’t quite intellectually honest. A series hybrid, like the Volt, using Toyota’s Atkinson cycle engine might, in many circumstances, be better. Time will tell.

I like the new Freedom Motors compound rotary engine for constant speed power efficiency. I consider it similar to the Toyota Atkinson cycle engine in efficiency.

http://www.moller.com/rp.htm

Anyway, it is now a matter of feasibility – in an economic sense. 80% of a driver’s range would be powered from the grid, saving a lot of money for the driver – money that stays in the US (assuming their electricity isn’t generated from foreign natural gas).

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 1, 2008 @ 5:31 am

Andrew, I appreciate your comments on the hybrid garage. The point I was trying to make in the post is that a well-designed plug-in parallel hybrid (like the Toyota plug-in hybrid will be) is fundamentally superior, from an efficiency perspective, to a well-designed serial hybrid (like the Volt will be). The opposite view is very commonly stated. That’s the 900 pound gorilla in the room. A lot of irrelevant jive talk is expected on a blog from other sources, but hopefully they won’t ignore the gorilla.

A plug-in parallel hybrid like the factory plug-in Prius will be the most efficient all-around vehicle for a person with only one car, if trips too long for a battery electric are included. I mentioned the hybrid garage stuff for perspective, but it unfortunately may have caused confusion about my main point.

The standard Prius is of course not a plug-in vehicle. I referenced it to make the point that the drive train technology (which will be used on the plug-in version) is not inefficient in battery-only mode, contrary to the common view. Incidentally, the standard Prius will happily drive several miles at freeway speeds on batteries alone (as my friend discovered when he ran out of gas) but it’s not programmed to do so because the batteries would then have to be charged up by mostly the gas engine, which is an inefficient process compared to braking regen.

Comment by Steve S. June 1, 2008 @ 7:21 am

One thing to note about the volt, it is said to have a lower drag coefficient than the prius. Of course, if your point on efficiency is correct Toyota can always improve the aerodynamics of their body in the future. It seems your argument is focused on the drive train and I will point out that in terms of overall efficiency it appears your point is not very relevant.
Most drivers drive short distances at a variety of speeds; an usage case that is much more efficient in a REEV than a “traditional” hybrid. The case you point out as possibly more efficient – the long trip case outside of EV range is already acknowledged as an outlier case.
Can you explain your point in more detail because it seems to be that a traditional hybrid is more efficient after 40 miles to which I would ask , “who cares?” The ICE in a REEV is to cover the case of “what if you need it,” to make drivers feel comfortable with an EV. It is a psychological issue. On the Volt sites they are already talking about having to change their gas instead of changing their oil (gas has a fixed tank life even if not used). In addition, the volt will run without gas if you wish, it is just a 40-50+ mile EV in that case.

Comment by Pete June 1, 2008 @ 8:48 am

Amen, brother Pete!

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 1, 2008 @ 11:02 am

Hey,

Has anybody else noticed that Martin has been kinda quiet lately?

I’m wondering if he’s field testing a new set of wheels…

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 1, 2008 @ 11:34 am

Steve, I’m not technically competent to judge whether a series or parallel hybrid should be better in theory for most uses. For me the fundamental difference is that a series hybrid is an electric car all of the time, but it’s an affordable electric car because its battery doesn’t need to be as big as a Tesla battery, for example. It’s also an electric car with unlimited range, as long as you have fuel available. Those two factors alone will, I believe, convince most people to make the jump from IC cars to electric cars. As batteries get cheaper and more efficient so generators will shrink in size and eventually disappear altogether. Isn’t that where we all want to be heading? For all its technical brilliance the Prius still depends totally on gasoline and its incredibly complicated powertrain must be expensive to manufacture and eventually to maintain, as the cars get older. Plug-in versions will be a great improvement, of course, but I’d still back series hybrids for the long run.

Comment by Andrew Kelsey June 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am

Pete, is that with the Volt headed forward or backward in the wind tunnel? Just kidding.

Good point, that aerodynamics is an important factor in fuel efficiency, although the existing Prius is already quite good and the newer plug-in Prius will probably be even better. Also, there are many other important factors in choosing a car other than fuel efficiency.

The point I was trying to make in the post is that a well-designed plug-in parallel hybrid (like the Toyota plug-in hybrid will be) is fundamentally superior, from a drive line efficiency perspective, to a well-designed serial hybrid (like the Volt will be). They will be about the same in all-electric mode, but when driven by the gasoline engine the plug-in parallel hybrid will be much more efficient. That may not matter to you, and it’s not that big a deal for anyone who doesn’t intend to make long trips, but it’s a technical matter directly counter to conventional wisdom, and therefore of some interest in a blog devoted to electric cars and energy.

You guys may be missing the fact that a plug-in parallel hybrid, like the plug-in Prius will be, is just as much a range-extended electric vehicle as a serial hybrid like the Volt will be. They will both have an all-electric range of somewhere around forty miles, and will never need gasoline for most uses. They’re the same kind of vehicle, with the difference that a well-designed plug-in parallel hybrid will have much better driveline efficiency on long trips.

At the risk of adding confusion, I’ll mention as an aside that the all-electric vehicle was and will be more efficient in principle than either type of range-extended electric vehicle, because it doesn’t have to drag around the gas engine and all the associated paraphernalia. And, you would never need to change your oil or gasoline either! I personally won’t have a psychological problem with driving an EV, but I get your point.

Comment by Steve S. June 1, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

Steve S.,

I do understand your point, but it is not very applicable today when the Prius only offers pure EV mode at speeds below 25 mph (something like that).

If / when Toyota ever redesigns their Prius to store power from the electric grid and travel a significant distance in all electric mode at highway speeds, then we can compare apples to apples with the Chevy Volt. Until then, it’s like comparing the efficiency of a jet engine, and trying to apply it to automobile mileage.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

Pete, my jest about the Volt backwards in the wind tunnel of course refers to a comment by Bob Lutz about the wind tunnel failure of the Volt concept body. You seem knowledgeable about the Volt; have any photos of the all-new body been released? I hear it’s completely different, with even a Kamm-back.

Meanwhile, on the jive BS front, Toyota has been publicly testing fleets of plug-in Prius prototypes for about a year in Japan and even in the US.

Comment by Steve S. June 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

If every major car company in the world has a serious EV or hybrid project in the works, where does that leave Tesla Motors? A victim of its own success in promoting the obvious benefits and need for the automotive future to be electric?

The roadster is marvelous, but what happens when everyone who wants and can afford a $120,000 electric sports car already has one?

The planned progression to an expensive electric four door sedan (and later to an affordable commuter) has always seemed pretty iffy to me, and now much more so.

1. The “white star” market seems at a glance to consist primarily of people with families who want and can afford an expensive high performance automobile but can’t afford more than one car.
2. It’s hard to name a high performance four door sedan weighing under 4000 pounds that’s selling used for over 10 times its original selling price, but any number of roadsters, coupes, convertibles, and two door sedan muscle cars can make that claim.
3. All else being equal, a four door sedan will always have inferior performance and economy, and cost more to build, than the equivalent two door version. It has more stuff to drag around.
4. The supposed advantage of having learned from the roadster enough to drive the price down for the four door car doesn’t seem to apply very well for the first car actually built by a startup company in its own factory. Of course economies of scale would be realized by the four door car being produced and sold in large numbers.
5. The expensive sedan is probably the most difficult car to build, in terms of customer satisfaction. Large companies top heavy with engineering staff and R&D, and a few years to develop a new model, even then have trouble achieving the build and design quality expected by the customers.
6. Environmentally conscious people, the most likely customers, probably won’t covet the image projected by driving an expensive luxury sedan, esp. when affordable alternatives like the Volt and plug-in Prius become available.
7. Doesn’t a factory have to be built?
8. Wouldn’t a 2 + 2 coupe be a more reasonable (lighter, better looking, better performance) choice?

The highway capable electric commuter seemed like a worthwhile car to build to get a head start on the eventual competition, but going into that market with every major car company in the world having a head start would seem to have zero chance of success.

To engage in wild and unsupported speculation, if the probable best outcome of selling the company to a major automaker is delayed by the hubris and arrogance of leadership, the company will probably be left to twist in the wind for an extended period while its value diminishes.

Comment by Steve S. June 1, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

Steve S.,

I do agree that Tesla Motors’ window of opportunity is rapidly closing. If Fisker actually delivers the Karma by the end of 2009, as promised, then the Whitestar will have competition before it even goes on sale.

It is starting to look as if Tesla Motors best move is to keep using the Roadster as a technology showcase vehicle, improving it year after year, and licensing / selling their power and drivetrain tech / components to larger automotive OEM’s.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 1, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

Steve: Have you got figures that prove a parallel hybrid is more efficient than serial? Transmissions are a major contributer to inefficiency, and that is where the Volt is better, no transmission. Also no weight for transmission. I understand that the Pirus has a second electric motor to cooridinate the two drivelines, this is also extra cost and weight but this is probably about equivalent to the cost/weight of the generator on the Volt motor.

Comment by Roy June 2, 2008 @ 2:02 am

Roy,

Did you ever hear back from AMP?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 2, 2008 @ 5:09 am

Steve,

For all things Volt, see gm-volt.com. There are a few body mockups in camouflage in the wind tunnel and a couple teaser shots of the front end. They are running the full platform in mules based on a late model Chevy Malibu so most of the pictures you see having nothing to do with the final styling. They have validated the pack in these mules for 40+ miles all electric and the batteries are no longer considered a barrier. That is big news for the project given that the greatly reduced drag of the real body should boost this performance.

I am actually a big prius fan but right now don’t agree with your position. The fact is that the prius’ electric capability is very limited at the moment since it requires the ICE for any high speed or quick acceleration driving.

I don’t agree it is a simple matter of putting in a larger battery (A123 already offers this http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion but you are still tied to the ICE). Speaking of hymotion, they have a _very_ slick video that dissects the pack, check it out under view CAD animation).

Comment by Pete June 2, 2008 @ 8:40 am

Regarding the future of EVs with the large players getting involved in a big way I agree it is something to be concerned about. For a company like Tesla, that concern is greater because they are not trying to be the next Porche, they are trying to be the next ford. That is is tough when you are up against the real ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, even Mitsubishi is making a big play with the Miev. Some analysts are already predicting that GM will be able to sell 300,000 volts by 2014.

Comment by Pete June 2, 2008 @ 8:47 am

ZAP buys controlling interest in unnamed wheel motor company.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0402511.htm

Can anyone tell me who that wheel motor company is? I’ve searched, but can’t find it.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 2, 2008 @ 9:13 am

25 Who Ditched Infotech for Cleantech
http://earth2tech.com/2008/05/05/25-who-ditched-infotech-for-cleantech/15/

Comment by Doug@Stanford June 2, 2008 @ 9:16 am

There is a press release floating around the various news organizations that states ZAP has bought a controlling stake in a wheel motor company, but that wheel motor company is not named. Does anyone know in whom ZAP has invested for their wheel motors?

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 2, 2008 @ 9:57 am

Roy, the best figure I can come up, without a lot of research, for engine to generator to electric motor efficiency is 70 – 80 %. That’s far less than mechanical transmission efficiency in top gear. Someone who knows the efficiency numbers better or has more time on their hands could have written a more convincing post than I did.

Good point to consider the transmission weight, although it’s not a big percentage of total vehicle weight. And I’d guess that the second Prius motor, which isn’t a powerful one, would weigh far less than the Volt generator, which provides all the vehicle power after the batteries are depleted.

Have you ever seen a bicycle in which pedaling turns a generator, and an electric motor powers the rear wheel?

Comment by Steve S. June 2, 2008 @ 11:30 am

Steve S.,

An electric bicycle is not a good example of a parallel vs. series hybrid argument, because a person can only produce a sustained 0.1 hp to 0.25 hp (if you are Lance Armstrong), giving humans a terrible power to weight ratio which requires elaborate power transfer mechanisms to utilize it (pedals, 10 – 12 gears, etc.). The Optibike appears to use a parallel approach, probably more because it is intended to have the human pedalling all the time.

That’s really the point of a series hybrid, to eliminate the use of petroleum, except for the much more infrequent long trips or emergencies. A parallel hybrid is intended for applications where both power sources are intended to run simultaneously for efficiency with performance.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 2, 2008 @ 11:44 am

Zap is a bit of a pump and dump company that rides a cycle of fake release –> PR –> ramp –> insider sell. Take the ZapX for example, it is really easy to create a new car at zap, you just write the press release. I don’t know what tesla bothered to actually make and test a car when they could just do a nice press release. I can’t wait for Zap’s next generation car, I am sure the press release will be even better than the last press release they gave for a car that never was real and never will be real.

———

Speaking of the prius, appearently they are increasing the ICE size in the next release for better acceleration. I think it is a little strange to do this instead of focusing on improved milage.

Comment by Pete June 2, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Pete, thanks for the gm-volt link. It goes without saying that the Volt is a very exciting, landmark car, esp. for a major US company. Its importance goes much deeper than that, too, because it’s an inspiration and trendsetter and statement of purpose, and it gears up development by all the suppliers of electric drive components like batteries and motors. And when the cars start showing up in wrecking yards, a lot of great independent innovation will happen.

I didn’t say that a proper plug-in Prius was a simple matter of putting in a larger battery in a Prius; I agree with you that it definitely isn’t. In fact I wrote a post a few weeks ago criticizing Hymotion for not providing much information at all about their conversion, notably about all-electric speeds, and concluding that they almost certainly didn’t reprogram the software, which would be necessary to result in a well-designed plug-in Prius. Nevertheless, Google’s real world testing shows that the conversion does result in significantly better mileage, though nowhere near the 100 mpg they mention. An increase of about 45 to about 60 is what I recall.

As I’ve pointed out more than once, the standard Prius will happily drive several miles at freeway speeds on batteries alone (as my friend discovered when he ran out of gas) but it’s not programmed to do so because the batteries would then have to be charged up by mostly the gas engine, which is an inefficient process compared to braking regen. Of course with a well-designed plug-in version, all that goes out the window and new programming is necessary.

I like to use examples to go along with theory, and Toyota’s upcoming all-new plug-in Prius (not a regular Prius or the new 2009 version) was the only suitable one for a well-designed plug-in parallel hybrid. Again, I’m not talking about the standard Prius or a plug-in conversion. Toyota uses multipath development of new projects, which implies that there are probably 10 or so different versions of prototype plug-in hybrid fleets driving around (some of them for about a year, and some of them in the US). Different combinations of battery size, range, gasoline engines, etc. are all thoroughly tested and evaluated to aid the selection of the final product.

As far as agreeing with my position, I’m really only making a couple of claims. The main one is that a mechanical driveline is substantially more efficient than an engine driving a generator which powers an electric motor. That’s not even slightly controversial among people with engineering backgrounds. The bicycle example, in which efficiency is all-important, is a good down-to-earth illustration.

The other minor claim is that a well-designed plug-in hybrid driveline can be for all practical purposes as efficient under battery-only power as a well-designed serial one. I used the existing Prius driveline as an example, and I think it’s a very persuasive one.

Sorry I didn’t spend the time and effort to write a more understandable original post. The hurrier I go, the behinder I get.

I have to say I appreciate your very thoughtful and informative posts.

Comment by Steve S. June 2, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

Steve S.: I wish you would provide links for your research. However I did my own and came up with slightly better figures than yours. Tesla Motors claims http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php ” we designed our motor to have efficiencies of 85 to 95 percent” From http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/ “the PEM is already very efficient (95-98%)”
The motor efficiency is worst at lowest speed, and this is true of a generator. In a Series hybrid the motor/generator is designed to run only at the most optimal speed so we can safely conclude that the generator in the Volt would be at the high end of the 85-95% range. Total efficiency is therefore 95% (generator) * 95% (PEM) * 85% to 95% (motor) = 76% to 85%. You seem to be under the illusion that an automatic or CVT transmission is much better than this from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mhross/files/fueleff_physicsautossanders.pdf page 16 Standard transmission is about 90% efficient and automatics 80% to 90% highway driving.

I Will conceed that the transmission is about 5% better. But this is not a huge difference. Look at fuel economies quoted by GM and Toyota:

from http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt get?
A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 40 miles it will get infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator starts, the car will get an equivalent of 50 mpg thereafter. One can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive starting with a full battery: Total MPG = 50xM/(M-40)

from http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html
Mileage estimates (mpg city/highway/combined 48/45/46

I understand that you are comparing to the next generation of the Pirus, so I would expect these milage figures to improve. However I maintain that this is no 900 pound gorilla.

Regards the weight of the “extra” electric motor in the Pirus, to be fair you have to include the shaft and gears that go with it.

I did just recently come across a bicycle with the pedal driving a generator and the electric motor providing all the motive power, but I didn’t save the link.

No word from AMP.

Comment by Roy June 2, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

I just posted a major response to Steve and it disappeared! It has a lot of links, Martin can it be posted?

Martin sez:

Sorry Roy. If your post is too long or has too many links, this website flags it as spam and it sits until I get around to rumaging through the spam bin. Today I was busy installing a charging unit in my garage (with permits, of course) in anticipation of getting a Roadster. No time for the blog

Comment by Roy June 2, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

I want to know what Martin is going to do next. Retire early perhaps? There sure are going to be alot of EV /hybrid type cars starting in 2010. Every major car company will have their Volt in what, 5 years or less ? But where in the world will be Martin E. ?

Comment by T.J. June 2, 2008 @ 7:07 pm

Martin,

we are all keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best. If anybody deserves to be driving a Tesla Roadster, it’s you.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 2, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

Martin,

A charging unit? Whoo hoo, I think. Did the unit just show up at you house via UPS? Did someone from TM actually contact you? Maybe it was just one you’ve had laying around the junk drawer? It seems to me that having a unit to install means the Roadster is on it’s way.

Martin sez:

I stopped by and picked up the charging unit from Zak, and met with a few others while I was there. (Zak was great as usual – professional, helpful, knowledgeable.) I think it is possible that I will get my car in the next week or so, if things go well. When I do get my car, I will write about it on this blog.

Comment by Mark Tomlinson June 2, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

*at you house*

Great. I writing like a ten year old.

Comment by Mark Tomlinson June 2, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

Martin,
Usually talk to you personally, just wanted to comment that it made me almost sick to my stomach to watch the CNBC “High Net Worth” segment Friday on the Tesla roadster, only to see Elon Musk introduced as the “co-founder” of Tesla.
KJ

Comment by Kathy June 2, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

Roy,

First I want to commend you for having a good understanding of the issues involved and an analytical approach, and for actually reading what I wrote and adressing it.

Remember, in my original post on the subject I apologized for not properly researching it, and asked for help on the efficiency numbers in particular. I was hoping Martin or someone else with hands-on experience and no axe to grind or boss to please would assist. I considered trying to write the post as a well-researched effort, but I can’t spend much time or effort on it these days, and the subject is very difficult to find credible sources for, as you found out. It’s not a very important subject anyway. I decided that I would either not write it at all, or write it as a minimum effort hand-waver from memory. I hoped that I would get help from an expert, or that it would inspire anyone interested to investigate on their own.

I used to always provide links, but the same problem you ran into got me out of the habit.

Two different sources not employed by auto companies estimated the engine – generator – electric motor efficiency at 70 to 80 %, which is not an adequate sample, but it seemed like a fairly reasonable estimate.

Just appropriating text from auto company employees and extrapolating isn’t a very compelling way to generate data compared to, say, direct measurement. But using your approach, I noticed that motor and generator efficiency rewards high rpm. For a gasoline engine at an efficient rpm that would require gearing up the engine substantially, so using your transmission figure of 90% for the generator and the corresponding 10% for either the motor gearing difference or the low end of the motor efficiency, you would end up at about 69%, using your figures. But I don’t put much stock in that overall approach, and I wasn’t and am not now focused on precise umbers. I would guess the difference between the two technologies at about 15 – 20 %.

My use of the gorilla hyperbole was a desperate attempt to try to get respondents to focus on what I was talking about, and not what was dancing around in their minds that one of my words reminded them of. A lot of that was my fault—I’m learning to not refer to anything at all, even for illustration, other than the basic concept the first time through. Anyway, what I wrote, other than the weight of the gorilla, was sincere and reasonably accurate, despite my lackadasical approach.

Comparing a company employee’s or anyone’s off the wall mileage estimates (e.g. the 50 mpg) to figures taken from the EPA test cycle isn’t very compelling. I won’t comment on the mystery bicycle, except to advise anyone to think twice before investing in something like that.

The gorilla’s big brother is in the future of Tesla Motors post, which is orders of magnitude more speculative and disturbing.

Comment by Steve S. June 3, 2008 @ 12:48 am

Steve S. said:
“Have you ever seen a bicycle in which pedaling turns a generator, and an electric motor powers the rear wheel?”

Maybe a better analogy than the generator-motor bicycle would be a railroad locomotive. If a engine-generator-motor setup was so inefficient, why would almost every locomotive on every railroad in the world use it instead of just using direct drive? There must be a reason.

Comment by Keith Hearn June 3, 2008 @ 9:44 am

Keith,

Careful about using logic with Steve S. – he insists you use analysis, and will talk past you until you do.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 3, 2008 @ 10:27 am

Martin said, “I think it is possible that I will get my car in the next week or so, if things go well. When I do get my car, I will write about it on this blog.”

That’s Awesome!! Be sure to post lots of pics for us to drool over. Thanks!

Comment by Doug@Stanford June 3, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Steve,

I think “substantially more efficient” may be pushing the point. Can you quantify that? Regarding a parallel drivetrain approaching the efficiency of a direct drive EV, there can not be any debate on this point. The EV will be more efficient. It is not really worth the time to debate how close a parallel system could get because there are more important factors to consider (cost for example).

I would argue that both points are not really relevant to the discussion because if we, for the sake of the discussion, agree that the REEV approach is substantially less efficient when utilizing the ICE and that the parallel drivetrain is of equivilant efficiency of a direct drive, it still does not make the parallel approach a superior approach in actual use.

The simpler system is going to win out in the end. Toyota has a large investment in their current approach and it is very impressive but it is solving a problem from 10 years ago. Today’s problem is different and the toolset is greatly enhanced on the energy storage side. As the problem shifts from managing an ICE to managing an electric motor the solution shifts from parallel to serial designs. The question should be where is the balance of power for a typical trip, in the batteries or in the gas tank? With the ICE or with the electric motor?

To the other posters, this discussion demonstrates that simply extrapolating a given implementation does not necessarily offer a useful point of comparison. For both the bike and train case they are solving different problems than a passenger car and have different design.

The transmission for a train would need to be exceedingly large and complex to be direct drive. There are maintenance, weight and reliabilities issues that scale disproportionately to these larger and heavier vehicles designed primarily for towing. Tesla had some trouble with a 2 speed transmission. Try making one with 30+ gears which a train would require with direct drive.

In any case, I do not believe this debate is meaningful. In my opinion, the end result is going to be a pure EV. A REEV will have cost savings to manufacture, develop and test regardless of end efficiency when run from the ICE. The goal is to transition to EVs and REEVs are simply a better stepping stone for this purpose. To change a REEV to an EV you could in many cases simply replace the generator with additional batteries. The limiting factors remain energy storage density and cost; density will continue to increase while cost decreases.

Overall I do not consider the efficiency of an ICE driven REEV or Plugin hybrid to be relevant since they will rarely be driven that way. Certainly there are other solutions to increased mileage if you wish to remain tied to combusting fuel in the vehicle. VW has had a prototype for some time that gets well over 200MPG through addressing the aerodynamic and rolling resistance problems, they are said to be moving into production with it too. Aptera is working on high efficiency through reduced aerodynamic drag.

If we are going to debate something why not make it meaningful?

I will start:

Clearly aerodynamic resistance is a very large issue that scales up with vehicle speed. Personally, I would like to see the regulatory requirement for mirrors be revised so that their drag could be eliminated for future 4 wheel designs. There is nothing redeeming about a mirror and many lives could be saved with smart cameras instead. In addition to having a large and unobstructed field of view, cameras could gain up in low light, and combined with computers offer pattern recognition and other benefits. I can see no reason for “direct view” mirrors. Imagine a future where your car warns “mammal ahead” or saves you from backing up warning “child behind.” These scenarios are totally possible now with simple cameras and a commodity PC with some real-time video analysis.

Comment by Pete June 3, 2008 @ 11:40 am

Steve S. said:
“Have you ever seen a bicycle in which pedaling turns a generator, and an electric motor powers the rear wheel?”

To which Keith Hearn replied:
“Maybe a better analogy than the generator-motor bicycle would be a railroad locomotive. … There must be a reason.”

There are two:
1. Very large diesel engines have operate in a very narrow rpm band.

2. It takes a very large amount of torque at 0 rpm to get a million kg train moving.

Neither one of these apply to road going passenger cars.

Comment by J in MN June 3, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

Keith, interesting question. Here’s are some excerpts from a Wiki article:

Diesel-mechanical propulsion is limited by the difficulty of building a reasonably sized transmission able to cope with the power and torque required to move a heavy train, but are generally more efficient as transmission losses are reduced
Direct-drive transmissions can become very complex, considering that a typical locomotive has four or more axles. Additionally, a direct-drive diesel locomotive would require an impractical number of gears to keep the engine within its powerband; coupling the diesel to a generator eliminates this problem.

Diesel-hydraulic locomotives use hydraulic transmission to convey the power from the diesel engine to the wheels. On this type of locomotive, the power is transmitted to the wheels by means of a device called a torque converter. A torque converter consists of three main parts, two of which rotate, and one that is fixed. All three main parts are sealed in an oil-filled housing.
The inner rotating part of a torque converter is called a “centrifugal pump” (or impeller), the outer part is called a “turbine wheel” (or driven wheel), and between them is a fixed guide wheel. All of these parts have specially shaped blades to control the flow of oil.
The centrifugal pump is connected directly to the diesel engine, and the turbine wheel is connected to an axle, which drives the wheels.

Diesel-hydraulic locomotives are slightly more efficient than diesel-electrics, but were found in many countries to be mechanically more complicated and more likely to break down. In Germany, however, diesel-hydraulic systems achieved extremely high reliability in operation. In the US and Canada, they are now greatly outnumbered by diesel-electric locomotives, while they remain dominant in some European countries.

We’ve lived through an era of extremely cheap fuel. Gasoline was said at times to be cheaper than bottled water. Now all that’s changing, and the simplicity and maintenance advantages of diesel electrics will eventually be outweighed by the efficiency disadvantage.

So, here’s my opportunity to run by you one possible solution I dreamed up. It uses all the diesel-electric hardware, with one addition: the drive to the wheels includes both a mechanical shaft arragement and the electric motors. The shaft is set up to be able to be mechanically connected to the diesel engine with a clutch. The shaft gearing is determined by the most often used speed of the train, probably cruising speed on level tracks. When that speed is reached by the diesel electric drivetrain, the clutch is engaged after electronically matching the rpm, and the activation of the generator is discontinued. The electric motors freewheel. When a grade or other slowdown is encountered, the system automatically reverts to diesel-electric and the clutch is disengaged.

That could in principle also be applied to serial hybrid automobiles, but in that application it wouldn’t be so much one of those obvious, made-in-heaven natural combinations like alcohol and firearms.

Comment by Steve S. June 3, 2008 @ 12:50 pm

Steve S.,

Assuming there is one constant load / speed setting in which the train is usually always driving – that is a good idea.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 3, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

Your idea may not be well applicable to the series hybrid automobile, but that would be a great idea for long haul trucks.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 3, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

I stopped by Tesla Motors/LA Dealership a couple weekends ago (totally by accident), & got some pics/videos. I asked about the charging, & was told that 220V is the faster method. I assume you’ve put in a 220V system in your garage. I want to do the same, since I’m into automotive fabrication & need a 220V welder.

I stopped by Caltech/Mechanical Eng Dept today (Jim Hall/Chapparal Cars of Indycar fame is a famous alumni & on the External Advisory Board), & just sent them an email. Caltech had a DARPA Grand Challenge team (along w/Stanford & CMU), robotic UAV for desert racing. (Martin & my background is in AI/Robotics/Computer Vision) I’ve been in touch with them since ‘05, & there’s a real opportunity to startup an NCEA (National Center for Energy Applications), which is an analog of NCSA (National Center for Supercomputing Applications). This is the logical next step after the TM “hiccup”: lack of R&D led to a tranny issue (which in turn led to a “personnel issue”).

Dr. L. Smarr (now at UCSD/CALIT2) was a visitor to the UIUC lab (CSL/AARG) that Martin interned 1 summer (another guy was A. Chien, now President of Research & VP Corporate Technology). I last spoked with Dr. Ed Davidson (Martin’s mentor) in 2001 about my Interdiscplinary Research Initiative, he’s retired is still active. Another CSL/AARG alumni is Dr. Steve Cross (whose background is in Air Force), he is Vice President of Georgia-Tech & President of GTRI/Georgia Tech Research Inst), GTRI has some cool automotive projects involving NASCAR/ONR (Office of Naval Research). GTRI is also involved with battery technology.

Another UIUC alumni (Artificial Intelligence, same field as Martin & me) is Vice President/Director of Research at XXX. It’s an 800 million dollar company, a major VA based defense contractor. I worked with him (& another VA based contractor, founded by a Virginia-Tech aerospace-eng professor) on a DARPA GC related project.

Somewhere in the above are the ingredients for a future R&D initiative for EV (& Alternative Energies in general). Just get a hold of Larry Smarr (who has experience pitching to Washington), you have to have the right strategy. I’m involved with physicists discussing the catastrophic cuts by DoE/Dept of Energy to Fermilab & SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator), & we know what the problem is. (Ed Davidson told me the answer: “Wilson of Cornell warned…”. Wilson is Murray Gell-Mann’s PhD student, the famous Caltech theoretical physicist). 2 of my HS classmates are involved with solar: 1 is former CFO of Siemens Solar (bought out by Shell Oil) & the other leads a solar energy group @NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab).

My ex-high school classmate is the head of NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center)

“The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center for the President, Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In case of national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a highly survivable, command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities.”

who used to head the Air Force One deal. I.e., I’m 2 phone calls away from the White House & Chiefs of Staff. Quote “Energy has become a National Security Issue”, said a major political candidate. ex-UIUC Chancellor & EE professor Thomas Everhart (Caltech president ‘87 – ‘97) GM Board member (? “Who killed the electric car”) is another key figure. Caltech physicist Dr. David Goodstein is vice-provost @Caltech thru ‘07 (Feynman’s protege, he used to come to my JPL group to work with the legendary Dr. Jim Blinn..the Voyager animation guy) wrote the book “Out of Gas”. Dr. Stephen Koonin (nuclear physicist), is on leave from Caltech provost, to influence BP (British Petroleum).

My Dad (UIUC aerospace eng prof, former Dept Head) is influential in the Aerospace Industry, there are UIUC alumni all over the place. (when Martin interned at CSL/AARG 2nd floor, my dad’s office was on the 3rd floor) I.e., JPL Stardust mgr. The former JPL head Lew Allen (when I was at JPL) is an ex UIUC PhD, 4-star general.

“Timing is Everything”
“You have to show a Solution..when there’s Need”

You can tell that something’s brewing. Tesla Motors was a consumer-product that went with VC funding. The future is in Federal based R&D funds, especially military. Lots of powerful/influential people named above. Just go “top-down” to get a program going.

After Martin get his Roadster, he needs to “roll down” to Caltech with me & talk with Caltech brass about ideas.

Comment by chimpanzee June 3, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

chimp,

I know there are a lot of scientists on the government dole, but even the good folks at NASA haven’t spun off anythng useful since Velcro.

I really fear government control of technical development, as they tend to hoard the good stuff for the military, and not share it with the rest of us.

I think VC financing of technology, with the goal of creating feasible products, not the most technically advanced, is the best way to go. Nanosolar would never have been funded by the government, because it “only” converts 6% of the incident sunlight, where government funded projects achieve in the teens, 20’s and even 30’s. On the other hand, it produces electricity for less than $1 / Watt installed, whereas government funded solar techs haven’t been productized / marketed. What then is the use of funding government tech, when they optimize on abstract efficiencies, without care for feasibility?

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 3, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Chimp- what ideas?- here’s one: soy plastic, big hollow rectangle of it, cut it out with CAD controlled lasers, the whole car cut from one piece ( then final cut- out of doors & hatchback). The car would be something like 1/4 larger than the Smart Car, otherwise very similar design- since it is a nice design- named after that lake in Russia (or maybe not). Get ready for president Obama- I saw that coming as soon as I heard that Rothschild agent George Soros was a big Obama backer. Obama link to R. family was on wikipedia (for those who can read between the lines) probably still there, haven’t looked since. Billary was on their team too-from way back, via the “farm team” they run. A good V.P. candidate, for environ. reasons (the best reason there is for a V.P. role) and for the western & latino vote: New Mex. gov. Bill Richardson.

Comment by T.J. June 3, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

Well here’s one very good thing re. 2009 (compared to the last 8 years) : whoever is elected he’ll be strong on the environment- McCain has been there for a long time on this- if not like varsity Environ. letterman Gore, at least on the JV team like Lieberman. Too (too) bad about his stand on Iraq- backing a war based on lies & manipulation. Not good, especially since the same M.O. by the same “forces” sent him to Vietnam.

Comment by T.J. June 3, 2008 @ 9:19 pm

Hi,
I hadn’t read any comments on the new electric car announced by Hybrid Technologies

Comment by HectorRV June 4, 2008 @ 8:14 am

Regarding Hybrid technologies, they are still working on their first prototype. I’ll pay a little more attention when they’ve built enough to do crash testing.

Until then they’re just another company that says they’re going to build this totally awesome car, dude. It’ll be awesome! Totally! Just look at the specs we’ve got written on this napkin here! We’ll have one built next month, and we’ll be in full production next year!

I’m not holding my breath.

p.s. Good responses on the diesel-electric locomotives, folks. I knew there had to be good reasons, but I didn’t know what they were. Thanks.

Comment by Keith Hearn June 4, 2008 @ 9:55 am

Pete

Interesting comment on mirrors. Certainly the mobile phone market would be a good source of cheap screens and video camera components. Couple these to a cheap DVR and they could also be used in the event of an accident. Throw in some coms and the car’s alarm system could send photos to your cell phone if it detects tampering.

Comment by Malcolm Wilson June 4, 2008 @ 10:13 am

Chimp,

I don’t usually make posts like this, but here goes:

Name-drop much?

Your posts are long, light on real ideas/insight, and heavy on the aforementioned name-dropping.

I’m not trying to discourage you from posting, but if you think that you’re impressing anybody… well… think again… harder.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 4, 2008 @ 11:31 am

Oh come on, Chris, some of those names are mighty impressive. Although I must admit my favorite part was the mention of the dad. That explained a lot! The old song, Ticket to Ride, has been going through my mind ever since.

Comment by Steve S. June 4, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

Google guys venture, eSolar, just landed a 245 MW deal with SCE:

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080603005398&newsLang=en

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

Steve,

bee-peep an bee-peep, yeah!

Nepotism is alive and well in the USA (and Canada too). Look no further than the White House. I prefer a meritocracy, but I am merely a droplet in a sea of faces.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 4, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Oh, wait, I guess that’s from “Baby you can drive my car”. Freudian slip. Sorry.

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 5, 2008 @ 7:35 am

Chris H.,

It depends on what you recognize as meritous. Chimp values pure efficiency and analysis paralysis, while I value feasibility, leveraging existing infrastructure and quick-to-market.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 5, 2008 @ 8:16 am

Jason,

I agree that a certain level of pragmatism is required to avoid becoming trapped in an infinite regress of navel gazing.

My main concern with Chimp is to reduce these borderline schizophrenic, pathologic attention seeking, “I’m-so-incredibly-well-connected, so-bow-down-and-worship-me” type posts, and see if he has any real ideas, insights, or commentary to offer. I am not impressed by titles, or affiliations with institutions. I say, “let me hear your ideas”. I don’t care who your daddy is.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 5, 2008 @ 8:54 am

Not to down on the Smart but I don’t understand why it only gets 36 mpg. That’s not much different than a Yaris. In fact compared to the same car class there are a ton more cars that get 50-60mpg.

Martin sez:

Ah, but not in the US. Honda made a thing called the Civic VX back in the ’90s that was rated for 51 mpg on the highway, but it no longer exists. The only way to get more than ~36 mpg in the USA is to buy a hybrid.

Consumer Reports wrote recently about the most efficient cars. They didn’t test the Smart, but it would have done well on this list. (Glad to see my Mazda 3 made the list!)

The thing to understand about the Smart is that its primary design goal was not actually gas mileage – it was size, since this matters a lot in old European cities. Its claim to fame was that it could park perpendicularly where others were parking parallel.

You Brits beware – your cars will always get better mpg than their American counterparts because your Imperial gallon is substantially bigger than our American gallon!

Comment by John1 June 6, 2008 @ 10:26 am

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

- Henry David Thoreau, 1854.

Welcome to the mass.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 6, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

# S wrote:
## T.J.,
## who is Steve?

Could “Steve S.” be Steve Schneider?

Comment by T June 6, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

T- I believe your reportage is in error. My sources have it on good authority that the elusive S is in fact none other than Steve Martin. My investigations have also uncovered the fact that, in fact, Martin (Eberhard, “the other white Martin”, and , as well, not to be confused with the wood pencil and eraser manufacturing heir) is planning to hydronically cultivate truffles, on a vast scale, in caverns in the Val d’Isere region using abundant snow melt as a water source. Via this method he will soon amass staggering quantites of euros -for as you shirley must know, the price of truffles on the open market is no mere trifle. Of this I can assure you: they are worth a pretty penny, Mr. T ! Yes, I pity the fool who plans to compete with Martin on the truffle market (open or closed, it will matter not ) once his plans are sprung on an unsuspecting world ! By this means Martin will acquire the cash to corner the supply of Tesla stock later this year, on the very day of the IPO (using cleverly hidden stalking horse frontman investors). So gaining control of Tesla, Martin will depose Musk & his sundry gang of usurping Musketeers.

Comment by Jacque Clouseau June 6, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

Swine Musketeers !

Comment by Jacque Clouseau June 6, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

Interesting, Jacque but did you also know the following most curious fact: John Eberhard Faber, he of pencil fame from Germany (per wikipedia) , had a brother Emil who came to America and founded Faber College, whose most famous alumni, so far, was one John Blutarksy. I am not joking in this fact, Jack (or Jacque, as you would say) -do a google search of “Faber College” and see for yourself. Interesting cosmic confluence of facts, no? – Qui !

Comment by T.J. June 6, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

Chris: “Consume mass quantities”- Veldar (from France)

Comment by T.J. June 6, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

Oops- I forgot, you’re right-the truffle deal must be kept secret !

Comment by T.J. June 6, 2008 @ 6:58 pm

Chris: “Life’s a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death” -Mame (with no help from the price of truffles either). Correction above: ” Beldar” -but it’s pronounced VELdar ( ! ), and it could also be a Charleton Heston quote from Soylent Green that was lost in editing.

Comment by T.J. June 6, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

N.Y. Times article sez: cost of the Iraq war is almost $5000 per second, which leads to another quote: “Life’s a banquet and most poor dumb gullible suckers voted for George Bush”.

Comment by T.J. June 6, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

I apologize for indirectly causing this mess. It’s true that I’m known as Steve Martin, not the famous comic, author and playright, but that’s not quite my real name. I got the nickname Steve because of my infatutation with the great guitar player Stevie Ray Vaughn. My real first name, Eberhard, doesn’t roll off the tongue as well as Steve or Stevie. My real middle initial is S., but I’m not going to tell you what it stands for in case Chaiman Musk is still PO’d at all the awful things I said about him before it was even fashionable to do so. Fortunately, they got delected as a result of the lawsuit threats, along with the stuff about former Tesla employees, even the innocuous one about how his persona makes my flesh crawl.

Comment by Steve S. June 6, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

T.J. (or Jacque, whichever you prefer)

I get the impression that we have run out of things to say, and questions to ask, about Smart Cars. So, at this point, as we wait (ahem!) for a new blog thread, I guess that almost any subject matter is fair game. However, I don’t really get the truffle thing. Perhaps, in this informational void, we are free to speculate wildly about Martin’s next project. Perhaps he has discovered a way to store massive amounts of electrical energy inside a truffle, and you have somehow deduced this fiendishly clever plot to corner the world market on truffles, and develop a world beating ESS, in one fell swoop. However, I have my doubts…

Given the recent price spikes in energy costs, specifically oil, I am surprised that there is not a conversation underway on this blog, about the causes, long-term effects, and remedies for such a situation. I am reasonably sure that the record prices we have seen for oil in the past few days will affect all our lives to varying degrees. I have to say that it’s refreshing to see Americans actually reducing their consumption of oil, and oil products, on a fairly large scale (11 billion fewer miles driven in April), and that hopefully this is the beginning of a long term trend that will spread to other aspects of their lives in the coming years. People need to realize that “conservation” is not a dirty word, and that it is possible, and indeed preferable, to lead healthy, productive lives without chewing through the Earth’s resources at a break-neck pace. Our mindless industry often reminds me of the yeast cells in a bottle of wine… and it may yet yield a similar result.

So, would anybody like to speculate about the real causes of the price spike in oil? Let me get the ball rolling. Late last month G.W.B. PUBLICLY appealed to the Saudis to increase oil supply to the U.S. The Saudis spurned this appeal. Why? Is it because the Saudis no longer like money? Are they worried about Uncle Sam’s ability to pay his bills? Is it because they are physically INCAPABLE of increasing oil production above current levels?

The traders in London and New York seem to be leaning towards the last answer. They seem to be betting on the idea that Saudi Arabia has hit peak production. What do you think? Anybody?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 8:01 am

The largest contributing factors to oil prices are:

1) China’s and India’s demand for petroleum has been growing exponentially for years, and are now at levels where that demand growth outstrips production growth.

2) US environmental policy and litigation has devasted the US’s ability to produce fossil fuels domestically. As a result, US trade deficit, most notably, the US ENERGY trade deficit, has gone through the roof, as domestic production of oil have dropped steeply. This deficit has cause the dollar to crash against foreign currencies. As the dollar crashes, the dollar cost of foreign sourced energy increases.

3) Speculators, sensing that the US is failing to properly respond to this energy trade deficit, is rightfully driving the price of oil futures through the roof.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 7, 2008 @ 8:23 am

The problem with the significant decrease in driving, is the correlating impact on the economy – unemployment jumped from 5.0% to 5.5% – a full 1/2 percent in one month. Perhaps the decrease in employment can explain the fewer miles that Americans drove – this is very bad news.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 7, 2008 @ 8:26 am

Jason,

I agree with some of your points, but I also disagree with some too.

It’s true that the global demand for oil has been increasing, and that production has not kept pace, but it is important to remember that the per capita consumption of oil in India and China is far below the same metric for the the U.S. and Canada. Although the percentage increase growth in demand for I & C is high (due to a low baseline), the increase in absolute number of barrels consumed is still relatively low compared to North America. So, what are we saying? Are we saying that the Chinese and Indians do not have the same rights in terms of access to oil as North Americans? Remember that the Chinese are actually lending the U.S. money (through the purchase of huge numbers of T-bills), and that the U.S. is using most of that money to buy oil with. Imagine if we had used the 3-5 trillion dollars, spent on the war in Iraq so far, to find alternative solutions to our energy needs. How many utility scale solar generating stations would that have built? How many terawatts could have been generated? Even without taking the human tragedy into account, a strong argument can be made that that money was not spent wisely. This also raises another question. Has the war in Iraq contributed to the demand, and subsequent increase in cost, for oil?

Consider this idea Jason. Environmental policy in the U.S. has helped your country to conserve oil for use by future generations who may be smart enough to put it to more valuable use than merely burning it.

I agree that energy speculators sense that there is money to be made on a commodity whose supply is decreasing as demand continues to increase. My only hope is that they manage to drive the cost of this commodity beyond the point where it is considered a viable option as a transportation fuel for everyday use.

Remember where we are: 384 ppm and counting…

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 10:43 am

Correction/update:

Cost of the war in Iraq is currently sitting at US$5.26 trillion… my mistake.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 11:15 am

Chris H.,

I reread my post, and can find nothing in it that deems environmental policy good or bad, just pointing to the fact that it contributes to the supply problem, which drives prices higher.

Moreover, I don’t see anything in my post that suggests US consumers deserve petroleum more than anyone else in the world. It’s a world market, and petroleum goes to the highest bidder. That said, I don’t see how Americans are evil, just because we consume more energy than everyone else – we developed our economy, and pay for what we use. Our indebtedness to foreign powers is likely more about shoring up their currencies, than our gluttony.

Finally, the Iraq War was about Saddam Hussein violating 14 different UN resolutions in pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction – weapons that Saddam Hussein himself claimed that he had (after his capture, Saddam Hussein claimed that he made those statements as a deterrent to Iran). If Saddam’s own words turned out to be false, then he only has himself to blame. BTW, this last May had the lowest rate of US casualties since the beginning of the Iraq War, but the mainstream media won’t tell anyone that.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 7, 2008 @ 11:31 am

Jason,

You said:

“US environmental policy and litigation has devasted [sic] the US’s ability to produce fossil fuels domestically.”

Well, I’m sure that you meant “devastated”, which, in my interpretation, certainly does not imply that you think it is a positive outcome. Funny how you didn’t mention the increase in U.S. demand, and its effect on prices…

I would also like to state that I do not consider Americans to be “evil” or “gluttonous”. I have a great number of American friends, and some of the people for whom I reserve great respect are Americans. Also, Canadians share a great deal in common with Americans, including similar lifestyles, and similar levels of resource consumption.

I noticed that in your response you substituted the term “US consumers” when I had used the term “North Americans”. This is what is commonly referred to as “twisting my words”, and it is a tactic that has no place in a civilized debate. Frankly, it is the type of tactic that a teenager would use in a argument with his/her parents.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that I would expect a higher level of intellectual honesty from you. The reason that I have not responded to some of you posts in the past is precisely because you are willing to ignore principles of logic and fair debate. You demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards coherence, and employ rules of logic that would make Anne Coulter proud.

Lastly, I did not express an opinion of why the Iraq war started, or even if it was justified, I merely suggested that the money could have been spent more effectively in funding a transition to a new energy infrastructure. This is another example of your willingness to misinterpret the words of others and then fly off into a nationalistic/protectionist frenzy. Good luck with that approach.

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

Chris H.,

You are breathing your own fumes. You solicited from all posters a list of what we feel are the contributing factors to the price of oil. I gave you the three big reasons – 1) exponential increase in foreign demand, 2) stymied domestic production from environmental policies and litigation and 3) oil market speculators based on future conditions, to which you replied “Are we saying that the Chinese and Indians do not have the same rights in terms of access to oil as North Americans?” – talk about a response one would expect from a teenager – and, from there, you leap into the Iraq War.

You didn’t once address my three reasons point by point. Instead, you lept into the leftist mantra of racism and war-mongering, so don’t even try to feign elitist indignation about “logic and fair debate” – you are a joke – stop breathing your own fumes.

Good times.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 7, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

Jason,

Just because I didn’t number my paragraphs 1.), 2.), & 3.) doesn’t mean I didn’t respond point by point. I think that if you reread your post, and then mine, you will see that I did indeed respond to each of your points with a single paragraph in each case.

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

I think there is a very good chance that the price of oil is being manipulated by “the forces that control the world” (Rothschilds, et al). They can pretty much control world markets anytime they want thru so many “associates/investors/fronts” that no one knows what’s going on.The great depression was just “their biggest hit” yet in this regard-as well as other smaller depressions thru history (not to mention the biggest money-maker: wars). There was something very curious about the OPEC “oil shortage/arab oil embargo of the ’70’s”- Rothschild bellman Henry Kissinger kept yapping in speeches to various groups, at every opportunity, about six months in advance of any hint of trouble “I forsee a shortage of oil” (he being “the smartest man in the world” at the time). Curiously, Reagan’s original “evil empire speech” where he first started calling the russians that (and thereafter said it again at literally every opportunity/press conference he could-like a broken record) was given almost exactly 6 months before Korean airliner flight 007 was shot down (by the patsy russians-by “mistake”,” allegedly”). This event allowed every item in the proposed Reagan defense build-up to happen (previously congress had balked bigtime-as in “what are you, nuts Ronnie ?-Breshnev has died, russia is down the tubes-we don’t need all this ‘military-industrial complex’ staggering windfall”) : MX, Star Wars, 600 ship Navy, revamped army full of expensive high-tech stuff like M-1 tanks. Fletcher Prouty (pentagon colonel/CIA liason officer) called this build-up ( partly because of the high tech./expensive nature of the weapons) “the biggest peacetime defense expenditure in U.S. history”. When the “powers that be” decide something will happen -such as “an airliner will be shot down” (under really amazing and unprecedented-before or since- circumstances) as Prouty said on the last page of his book on JFK & Vietnam: “it will be made to happen”. So the phony, weird “what was that all about !?” OPEC oil emabrgo drove inflation thru the roof to 22% max., and was a big deal (along with the hostage crisis) in shipping out Carter so that their preferred guy Reagan could come in-much to the huge benefit of the military/industrial complex-yet again. In the same way both Obama and Billary have been foisted on us as our “choices” on the demo side-for halibutin’ sure. I’m not sure re. McCain’s status-but they surely know that he ain’t no JFK or RFK (guys like that will NEVER sneak into “their” system again- JFK’s family had the cash back then, in comparison to the price of winning elections then, to” be beholden to and to need money from” basically no one. The cabal also thought at first that they could control & manipulate them- into Vietnam for one example- wrong !). So now, “on the team” operative company Goldman Sachs has gone big on the environ. , for one example. If “the team” wants Americans to pay as much for gas as europeans, it will happen- blamed on speculators, unknown causes, China, India, whatever. I don’t see any world crisis in any oil producing country-in fact the russians are shipping more oil than ever. The Saudis refused to honor Bushwhacker’s request-since his name isn’t in their “ultimate list of world-controllers” rolodex (he’s in the separate “puppet/soap opera actor” rolodex). I don’t think China and India are yet using oil at the rate to cause what’s happening to U.S. prices. I do believe that the russians, nigerians, saudis, mexicans- whoever -could ramp up to cover this, for now at least-what, there is no pre-planning and projections going on re. China, India, etc. ?. FDR said “nothing in politics happens by accident”-he could also have said the same about larger world economic issues. So it looks to me like the cabal is at work again-leading to the decline of Hummers and non-hybrid suv’s, etc. The same oil saving result could have happened decades ago via higher govt. mandated fuel mileage standards, without causing people economic pain now- but the cabal specializes in putting people under duress- and they love to use this country to do wordwide dirty work-to the current tune of that almost $5000 per second to pay for the Iraq war. The entire middle east isn’t worth that kind of cash-do you see the Europeans, Chinese, Latin Americans-anyone- being sapped of cash in a sucker play like this !? Here’s the M.O. from the last few decades: a Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in the South China Sea, causing LBJ to kick off the Vietnam war in ‘64-only thing is: the incident never happened, it was a pre-planned U.S. govt. (read” cabal powers that be behind the U.S. Govt. “throne”) lie. A Korean airliner strayed “by accident” (even though it was flying totally on autopilot, set on the same route it had normally flown many times before, since the minute it took off from Alaska) over russian territory-the russian pilots saw it was an airliner and told ground control “we can’t shoot this down”-ground control (as in: one russian general or colonel) said “it is a spy plane disguised as an airliner-shoot it down”. Even if it WERE a spy plane, what in halibut would this stupid plane be getting in terms of “valuable info.” that any spy satellite or SR-71 Blackbird couldn’t get !??-anyway !? (you figure it out). Case three: the cabal needs a war in Iraq-another big, fat , long , hugely expensive one basically just like Vietnam (minus killing so many Americans-since at least “we” succeed in not letting these cabal chimps draft us in mass, with impunity, anymore)- but the cabal can’t herd even the gullible U.S. public into that deal without an “event” (per: Remember : The Maine/Pearl Harbor/The Alamo) So airplanes are “made to be hijacked and flown into buildings”-and the lead hijacker had been living for years not in the middle east, but in Germany-the ancestral home of most of the world banking cabal families. Then Bush and his fellow soap opera actors (like Kindasleezy Rice) spouted the exact samely worded lie about “we don’t want to see confirmation that Saddam has nuke weapons coming in the form of a mushroom cloud over amaerica”. Whereas all that just one of the fools in congress (whose ability to think had been totally suspended) had to do was summon a nuclear physicist from Los Alamos or the Lawrence Radiation Lab and ask them: “well, what do you think of this claim ? ” They would have told comgress that it was an absolute, flat-out joke-particularly since Bush and his fellow criminals were claiming that “yellow cake uranium from Niger” was maybe being used, along with some “suspicious aluminum tubes”, as the source-and not any material smuggled in from Russia or N. Korea. Bottom line: vast numbers of the human race have been played for fools over and over (and over and over) again by the relatively small cabal of lying, manipulating “chimp/weasels” that be-assisted by large numbers of “associate” monkeys that know the score, but ain’t talking “cause they make a very good living as part of the team. So, per this latest “oil crunch”, chances are quite high that it’s yet another case of the weasels at work. They could have done the right things and worked to solve our population and environ. problems decades ago , but they’d rather let their various money-making, power-consolidating operations ride-and make the rest of us peasents suffer in the end, according to their long-range plans, at their convenience (-no doubt planned even up to decades out- which is what they do, as opposed to playing polo, canasta and Monopoly).

Comment by T.J. June 7, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

Comment by T.J. June 7, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

One thing cited as a cause of rising oil prices is the fall in the value of the dollar-with the Euro now being worth about half again more. Arab oil producers, they say, are paid for their oil in dollars-or it’s pegged to the value of the dollar-so to keep getting their full money’s worth out of their oil-as the dollar falls they raise oil prices to make up for it (”we must get our full money’s worth at all cost !”). Whereas, with us peasants, when the dollar falls or jackasses that own mortagage companies decide to get even more greedy than usual, we get clobbered (unless we export stuff to Europe). So another question is “why the fall of the dollar exactly”? It was falling even before the housing credit thing, which is also tied into the world economy since foreigners bought the “investment vehicles” that had U.S. mortgages in them. But the ” weasels that be” can certainly set policies and cause things to happen (making it all look like innocent market forces at work) that will lower the value of the dollar, and raise oil prices as well.

Comment by T.J. June 7, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

Oh, and by the way: nice that the Korean airliner was KAL flight 007- some renegade CIA team’s (or similar, whoever it was) idea of a joke-literally- to choose that flight number-after which “someone” monkeyed with the autopilot electronics to direct the plane over russia while the display screen numbers said to the pilots that the co-ordinates were for Korea, as usual. As for the events of “911″- 365 days in the year and we get the emergency phone number date-a most convenient date for further media shorthand reference & impact. Somehow 217, 329, 725…..( on out x 361) just don’t make it, do they ?

Comment by T.J. June 7, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

Correcting my correction…

I was off by an order of magnitude. The current cost of the war in Iraq is not USD$5.26 trillion, it is USD$526 billion, which is still quite a lot of money…

My apologies.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

Chris H.,

Responding to my three very direct, non-inflamatory reasons for the high price of oil, with accusations of racism and war mongering, is NOT a response at all. Those claims are neither fair nor honest in a debate, so again, you dodge a serious conversation on the matter.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 7, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

T.J.

You have an interesting POV, and I’m not being dismissive when I say that. I would agree that sometimes we are the pawns of history, and that it is often long after the event has occurred before we come to understand what truly happened.

I am not overly familiar with the activities of the Rothschild family (other than that they are bankers), so I guess that perhaps I have some reading to do. I did note on Wikipedia that the London branch of the family, N.M. Rothschild & Sons, only managed a revenue of 402 million pounds (approx. USD$1 billion) in 2007, which seems a little lightweight for an international bank, but who knows? Anyway…

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

Jason,

I did not accuse you of racism or war mongering. I don’t know where you get these ideas from.

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 7, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

My evil twin brother, who can’t spell, has been spreading false rumors about my name again. The worst of it is that he misspelled the last name of the great Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Chris, I trust you’re aware that an all-too-common set of personality disorders causes some folks to post controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intention of baiting others into an emotional response. They’re far more interested in how others react to their posts than in the usual concerns of accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. They attempt to pass themselves off as legitimate participants sharing the group’s common interests and concerns, but they usually are not in control of themselves well enough to keep up the deception for any length of time. (paraphrased from Wiki articles)

Since they invariably don’t know their technical knowledge from Shinola, they always lose their arguments, but they don’t care about that. Their intention is to provoke a reaction and focus attention on themselves, at which they usually succeed, until they’re finally disinvited. On other sites I’ve observed them bragging to each other about the sites they’ve succeeded in being kicked off of. The conventional wisdom, after a lot of experience, is to not feed them. It’s a lot easier for them to come up with more BS, from places like Popular Mechanics or their anal cavities, than it is for you to keep doing a workmanlike job of refuting it.

For reasons best understood by Martin, possibly something to do with some kind of free speech experiment, this blog seems to be a safe haven for such disruptive folks. It’s somewhat troubling to me because it’s an important forum, though perhaps less so now than it was a while back when events conspired to capture a lot of attention from the media and the auto industry.

I have a fairly extensive background in automobiles and technology, and I’m happy to spend my time and effort to try to contribute here in any tiny way I can to the important revolutions in the automotive world and ecology that are taking place, in which Martin has played a very significant part. An amazing amount of progress on the automotive front has occurred in a few short months.

My employment is unrelated to the auto industry, and there’s no possibility of my benefiting in any material way from my participation here. To paraphrase Joni Mitchell, on my best days I write real good for free. It looks like the reward of routinely being insulted, derided, and misrepresented goes with the territory.

So, it appears that although you haven’t shown any tendency in that direction, you could feel free to write any inane BS you feel like, with the possible exception of two very touchy subjects: the driveline efficiency of cars driven on trips of over 40 miles in length, and a listing of various famous people you have known.

Comment by Steve S. June 7, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

Bottom line re. the Rothschilds (irregardless of any bogus/ “incomplete” current info. on them) is that circa 1820’s they were the richest family on the planet. Nathan, one of the 5 brothers, who lived in London, was worth at the time, according to a researcher of the day , the equivalent at least $6 billion in their day’s value of the money (and the researcher said Nathan no doubt had other assets he couldn’t trace). The bottom line is that no way in halibut has this kind of cash (of one brother, let alone the father and four other banker brothers-in France, Italy, Austria and Germany ) “evaporated”. Just put something like 3% bank interest in this kind of cash, take it to today and update the value per today- then add in all the other investments they made; gold, diamonds, oil, railways, mainline industries of all types, war profiteering by bankrolling both sides in wars (along with other banking families)- bottom line: the cash/assets this family has is thru the roof-and beyond the moon as well. But they didn’t come out of nowhere-they were “allowed” to become THE banking family of the world by forces still hidden to this day (which you can clearly find by reading a 1962 book on them). Since that time (JFK’s days you’ll note) they sure have been out of the media spotlight-posing as just an old-line stodgy banking family, with not much interest in anything except their wineries, etc. They have always hidden the fact that they even had any interest in America at all (which is totally absurd since no way in frickin’ halibut would they ignore the biggest emerging country on the planet). When President Jackson destroyed the federal reserve bank of the time, after much and long effort, in 1836 (calling it “a hydra-headed monster out to destroy our freedoms”) 30% of the money in the bank was directly traced to the Rothschilds (and no doubt more?). They foisted the strange war of 1812 on the world, to drive up U.S. govt. debt and lead to a federal reserve type bank to be formed as a result- which congress had not wanted to do, so a “war was made to happen” leading to such debt that congress apparently had to form such a bank-don’t know the particulars, but that was the M.O. behind that otherwise “goofy” war. They funded both sides in the U.S. civil war (via agent August Belmont in the north, and cousins of theirs-the Erhlangers- in the south). Past researchers into the Rothschild archives have found a strange approx. 10 year gap in the records related to anything involving the U.S. for the 10 years prior to the civil war-when “someone” was helping to fund the KKK and other southern rabble-rousing groups. No doubt some of the same happening in the north. Anyway-it goes on and on and on-if you want to read one book, try “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by David Icke. Don’t be thrown off by some of the “metaphyscial” stuff in the book (about 15%)-I still haven’t read this stuff myself. But when he sticks to “human events” he’s right on the money (backed up by a substantial bibliography-a number of books he lists I had read before). It’s “interesting” that Tesla board member Jim Marver used to work for the Rothschild bank in a “senior position” -check it out on Tesla site- “could be a bad sign, that”.

Comment by T.J. June 7, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

Chris H.,

Chris H. sez: “… I did not accuse you of racism or war mongering. I don’t know where you get these ideas from. …”

Here is the quote from your own post – you didn’t even take a breath between these implications:

” … Are we saying that the Chinese and Indians do not have the same rights in terms of access to oil as North Americans? Remember that the Chinese are actually lending the U.S. money (through the purchase of huge numbers of T-bills), and that the U.S. is using most of that money to buy oil with. Imagine if we had used the 3-5 trillion dollars, spent on the war in Iraq …”

Same ole, same ole, from liberal demagogues – the implications are obvious.

As for the War in Iraq, you can’t begin to assess the value of securing the Middle East from rogue states, who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction, as Iran now is. Even Barack Hussein Obama is claiming to defend Israel from all threats.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 8, 2008 @ 5:00 am

Steve,

thanks for the advice. I think that I will follow it this time. I agree with you that this is an important forum, and I would like to see things get “back on track”.

Although I do have more than a casual interest in automotive technology, my overriding interests in this site has more to do with energy efficiency, and mitigating the environmental impact of transportation.

BTW, what is your take on the recent spike in oil prices?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 8, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

T.J.

thanks for the snapshot of the Red Shield family, and activities. I will keep my eyes open for the book by Icke. I can certainly see the benefit for a large banking organization to instigate a war for the sake of profit. When I think about the “War on Terror” I often consider the possibility that it happened solely for the purpose of transferring money from the U.S. public purse into private hands. I would think that it has to be one of the largest (if not the largest) transfers of public monies to private pockets in human history. All they needed was a “reason” to initiate it.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 8, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

Martin and friends,

I developed a question that I thought ya’ll might have the answer to: if better battery packs are developed in the future (for the next model of roadster in 5 years) how feasible would it be to swap a new pack into the Roadster? Is this on the technical level of engine replacement in a ICE car, or is a fairly simple piece of surgery?

Martin sez:

It’s on the order of difficulty of an engine swap. The trouble is that someone would have to develop a new pack specifically for the Roadster. Not infeasible by any means, but the market for this custom pack will be small compared to hopefully much higher numbers for newer models.

The replacement pack would need to be exactly the same shape and mass, operate at the same voltage, have the same interconnect system for power, signals, and for liquid cooling. It is possible that this new pack would need to be proven to meet the safety standards again – particularly FMVSS 305. I don’t know if the “gas gage” software would need to change outside the battery pack (to compensate for the higher capacity), but it might.

All perfectly doable, but also nontrivial.

Comment by Gabe June 8, 2008 @ 7:14 pm

Chris-yep,” and the con goes on” -it’s easy for them since no one knows/remembers the con from year to year, decade to decade, generation to generation- and they own the media (which changes the “societal agenda & what’s talked about any time they want) so don’t expect them chimps to tell “us”. Cheney & Rumsfeld (at the behest of some of the real powers behind the throne: called Feith, Perle & Wolfowitz, for three) originally claimed that this latest totally ” pre-planned, pre-scheduled, as usual” war would cost “no more than $50 to $60 billion”-a figure to help further con congress as usual (though it didn’t work on Teddy Kennedy, or course). Experts (some of whom wrote an article on this in Vanity Fair Mag.) now put the cost of the war definitely over $1 trillion and up to, ultimately, $2.8 trillion. There’s the saying (that Bush mangled) : “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. The con-man chimps running the planet are out to fool anyone they can, in any way that works, for as long as they can. The wrecking of a heck of a lot of people’s lives in the process, per their usual time-tested M.O., means absolutely nothing to them. Civilized society usually has a term for such monkeys: criminals.

Comment by T.J. June 8, 2008 @ 7:56 pm

More criminal activity-back to Vietnam even (”what a surprise”-not) : Cerebus company ( now owners of Chrysler-and a company definitely put in place/allowed to thrive by the powers that be-no matter how much to the contrary it might look) have a subsidiary called IAP which , thru privatization, now runs the main army VA hospital : Walter Reed, in D.C. A lot came out recently about terrible care there and run-down state of the building as well ( mold all over etc.). Hospital went from 300 govt. employees to less than 60 private ones. Rumsfeld is an investor in IAP. IAP is run by two former execs. of Kellogg, Brown & Root- a big construction firm from Texas that’s now raking in vast cash out of Iraq war contracts. A long time ago, when they were called Brown and Root, they were THE biggest backers of Lyndon Johnson (he who started the Vietnam war in ‘64-JFK had no troops there, only military & CIA “advisors”) throughout Johnson’s career, from the very beginning and ( well what a surprise here) they were THE biggest Vietnam civilian contractor working (make that: “war profiteering”) all during Vietnam war. Kellogg Brown and Root used to be a subsidiary of Haliburton, formerly run by Cheney . So “the war profiteers” including lap-dog ones like Cheney & Rumsfeld- first help to make sure there is a war, then reap vast profits on the war, then when people come back maimed for life, one way or another, they make a further tidy profit. It would be really interesting if everyone in the world knew full well what the ongoing game of ,shall we say, “the bankers” was and is. There’s an old phrase ” what if they held a war and nobody came ?” Well, in terms of the U.S. military, if all those in it (including the reserves and guard) knew full well the score and “an Iraq type event” was foisted on them, their option would be to refuse to go (en masse) to become nothing but cannon fodder for a bunch of “banker chimps” . Of course then the chimps might try to set a reign of terrorism at loose in the U.S. & world to convince the still gullible that “it all IS real”-and a whole bunch of guys who hadn’t gotten a clue yet might jump into the cannon breech as fast as their feet could fly. So, what’s really needed is a vast conspiracy “of our own” -and when “the banker chimps, et al , sense this ” we” say: “what are you, conspiracy nuts ! ?-that’s all just a conspiracy theory, of course-don’t be stupid”. What’s good for the geese is good for the chimps. Don’t hold your breath on this happening in a dumbed-down world (and more dumbed down in the U.S. than europe no doubt) where “the media” controls the info. and the agenda, like clockwork, from week to week-and where people “don’t want to hear bad news”-news like “you’ve been conned !” and ALL the sad news and facts that goes with that, stretching way back into history.

Comment by T.J. June 8, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

Martin,

your reply reply to Gabe was just too long. We’re all waiting for you to write, “sorry I can’t spend much time to post in detail, I’m having too much fun driving the Roadster”.

Martin sez:

I look forward to that day as well…

Comment by Jeff Holman June 9, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

Well, this partially answers what Ian Wright is up to:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/wrightspeed-to-challenge-bugatti-veyron-928.html

It will be interesting to see where tesla goes with future roadster iterations (I am sure it will continue to improve even as work continues to the sedan and lower end models).

Comment by Pete June 10, 2008 @ 10:59 am

I didn’t realize Bugatti had a vehicle that outperforms the Saleen SR7:

http://www.saleen.com/saleen_s7_performance.htm

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 10, 2008 @ 11:31 am

Gypped!: http://go2market.blogspot.com/2008/06/tesla.html

Comment by vfx June 10, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

Check out this flex skin concept by BMW – make sure you watch the video:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365042,00.html

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 10, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

Chris,

How oil prices are determined isn’t very clear to me. Since they don’t affect me much personally, and there’s little chance I could have even the slightest affect on the process, I haven’t even tried to understand this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price .

Incidentally, it appears that only a quarter or less of our oil comes from the Middle East. Seeing that surprised and pleased me. My orientation is toward solving problems, and the Middle East to me is like a huge book of unsolvable puzzles.

However, the increasing derivation of oil from Canadian tar sands is very distressing. Evidently it requires huge amounts of natural gas to heat the tar to extract it and convert it to oil, which is disgusting because the natural gas would be very valuable in replacing coal in power plants.

Some folks concerned about ecology are all in favor of high gas prices, and say that one of the worst things that could happen is the discovery of a huge new oil resource, which would let us befoul the atmosphere at an increasing rate for a few more decades. I can’t take any joy in thinking like that.

I worry more about the economic hardship high prices are causing and will increasingly cause to people who have been having a tough time as it is. Obviously, increasing transportation costs are affecting the price of almost everything, even for people who drive very little.

Although the price of gasoline isn’t at all a hardship for me, I use a bicycle more than ever. I’ve stopped driving across town to my favorite bookstore, and to most restaurants and stores. I’m not only using much less gasoline, but spending much less on gasoline. And on rich food and junk I don’t really need. It feels good! I like to think positively. I’ll feel even better when I can buy a new car and plug it in.

Comment by Steve S. June 10, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

Steve,

I appreciate your honesty regarding your position on oil prices. I take very little joy in the situation other than that it may accelerate our move, en masse, to a more sustainable transportation infrastructure. Personally, I also attempt to minimize my driving, and most days my car sits in the driveway while I find alternative ways of getting around, or I work from home.

My wife and I recently purchased an electric bicycle to use on short trips where we might otherwise have used the car. I have to tell you that it feels like one of the best purchases we have ever made. We anticipate that it will pay for itself in only 5 or 6 months, through reduced gasoline usage. It costs about 30 cents to charge it fully from a flat battery, and it’s good for about 30km per charge. I get the “EV grin” each time I ride it, even though it’s only a bike.

I agree with your view on the Canadian tar sands. They are responsible for a large percentage of Canada’s CO2 emissions, and as far as I’m concerned, they are a national disgrace. They are talking about building a nuclear reactor out there to reduce the use of natural gas (and thus reduce emissions), but, of course that will present a new set of problems, and it does nothing to mitigate the large scale environmental destruction that is going on there. I guess about 20% of the U.S.’s oil supply comes from Canada, most of it from the oil sands. Also, our current Prime Minister is from Calgary, Alberta, the epicentre of the Canadian oil industry, and many of the people who paid his way into that office are connected to the oil industry in one way or another. So I guess that nothing is going to change here for the next year or so.

Anyway, it’s getting late, and I’m getting tired, so I’ll leave it there.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 10, 2008 @ 9:14 pm

Given the exponential increase in the consumption of petroleum, in spite of rising prices, Canada’s tar sands are going to be a vital source of oil / gasoline – be thankful it’s there. No one should be griping unless / until they are living fossil fuel free.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 11, 2008 @ 4:28 am

Martin,

this wouldn’t be your next “project”, would it?

“Toyota also said it’s setting up a battery research department later this month to develop an innovative battery that can outperform even that lithium-ion battery.”

This excerpt is from the following article:

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080611.wtoyota0611/GIStory/

I imagine that you prefer to “run your own show”, but maybe Toyota made you an offer you couldn’t refuse?

Whatever your next move is, you know that we’re all dying to find out…

All the best,

Chris H.

Martin sez:

No, but it looks very interesting.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 11, 2008 @ 7:57 am

Caterpillar sees that AC motors are the best way to go for tractors:

“Cat sets plan of attack on ac electric drive”

http://www.sae.org/ohmag/techinnovations/06-2008/11-16-4-8.pdf

This after the Firefly battery. These guys are really breaking ground. One might even say “visionary”. It’s another place Martin might be welcomed.

Comment by vfx June 11, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

Chris-rumor has it Martin recently made his next move via purchase of controlling interest in Truffle Cultivation, Inc. (website: Trufflecultivation.com).

Comment by T.J. June 11, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

(Yes-H., as you can see, Martin’s vision will now revolutionize the world of haute cuisine).

Comment by T.J. June 11, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

Chris, a friend sent me a link from the nrdc which is a dot org. I got a “discarded” message when I tried to include it here.

Here’s some of the content: The tar sands found deep beneath Alberta’s vast old-growth forests are made up of 90 percent sand, clay, silt, and water and 10 percent bitumen, a tarlike substance that can be converted to oil. Currently, most tar sands production relies on open pit mines, some as large as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. Because less than 20 percent of the oil-producing bitumen deposits are close to the surface, the rest of the deep reserves must be extracted by injecting steam underground and pumping out the melted bitumen. The amount of natural gas used daily during these processes could heat about four million American homes. Once separated from the sand, clay and silt, the bitumen is still of low grade and must undergo yet another energy-intensive process to turn it into a crude oil that more closely resembles conventional oil.
Over the past ten years, oil production from Alberta’s tar sands has doubled to more than one million barrels per day. Seventy-five percent of that oil is bound for the United States as both raw and refined products. Driven by skyrocketing U.S. demand, the tar sands rush has spawned a rapidly expanding web of pipelines, roads and wells that threatens to destroy and fragment more than 55,000 square miles of boreal forest habitat — an area the size of Florida. Just a few square miles of these wildlands can support as many as 600 breeding pairs of migratory birds, many of which are now at risk of losing critical habitat from the logging and toxic pollution that go hand in hand with tar sands extraction. For indigenous peoples, mining in the region is reducing local water supplies, increasing water pollution and heightening their exposure to dangerous toxic substances.
But the staggering environmental impact of this dirty fuel boom extends well beyond the boreal forest. The massive amount of energy needed to extract, upgrade and refine tar sands oil generates three times the amount of global warming pollution as conventional oil production. In fact, global warming pollution related to tar sands development is projected to quadruple from 25 megatons in 2003 to as much as 126 megatons by 2015, the equivalent of putting 15 million new cars on the road. Even now, tar sands extraction is largely responsible for Alberta’s rising levels of air pollution and is Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions.
Most Americans are unaware that fully 8 percent of our oil supply already comes from Alberta’s tar sands — at an unacceptable cost to our continent’s boreal forest.

Comment by Steve S. June 11, 2008 @ 11:44 pm

vfx, thanks for the go2market link. I noticed that the article has received zero comments so far. Someone who can figure out how to register to comment should express interest in a subsequent article about the part the only guy he mentioned, Elon Musk, played in creating the Tesla.

Chris, what brand of electric bike did you buy? I’d like to try one myself. Although I’m used to pedaling, I could go farther, faster. I never see any for sale around here.

Comment by Steve S. June 12, 2008 @ 12:18 am

Chris, I tested the nrdc link and it was “discarded” again. I’ll leave off the www at the beginning and try it as text, for what it’s worth. The photos are very revealing.
.nrdc.org/naturesvoice/campaign1.asp

(just to see if it gets through)

Comment by Steve S. June 12, 2008 @ 5:12 am

Steve S.,

Good info on the tar sands – I suppose steam could be generated by renewable sources, so that the tar sands don’t lead to significant increases in CO2 emissions, but, make no mistake, the world still thrives on petroleum products, so we will need that petroleum, regardless of the processes used to extract it.

The exponential growth of renewable energy, as well as the all out race to produce hybrids and EV’s by the world’s automakers, will gradually shift our energy mix, but it will be many decades before petroleum use becomes minimal.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 12, 2008 @ 6:28 am

Steve,

thanks for the information on the tar sands. It all sounds fairly accurate to me, and it is consistent with some of the information on the Wikipedia page on the Canadian tar sands:

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

So far I have only read the excerpt that you posted, but I will go to the nrdc site and read the rest. Thanks.

Regarding the go2market link; I have tried posting two separate comments there, including one directly to David Zinman, but neither have been posted or responded to. The comments section does note that all comments are subject to “approval by the blog author”. I guess Dave does not approve of my comments, or he has been too busy to check his blog in the past 48 hours. Or he is just using the blog to collect active email addresses to sell. He is in marketing, after all. I say this because all his blog posts are “hot button” issues, and yet I can only find one that has a comment posted. Who knows?

Lastly, the electric bike that my wife and I bought is a Schwinn iZip. Although it is branded as a Schwinn, it is manufactured by Currie Technologies in Chatsworth, California (who probably buy the base bike from elsewhere and then add the electric drive system). Their site is currietech.com. We bought the bike at our local Canadian Tire for $499.00 plus GST. It came with a recharger. I will put up a link to the Canadian Tire site on a separate post.

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 12, 2008 @ 7:08 am

Steve,

OK, a few of Zinman’s blog posts have comments, but not many…

Here’s the Canadian Tire link:

http://www.canadiantire.ca/browse/product_detail.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474396673780&bmUID=1213284229419&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524443296291&assortment=primary&fromSearch=true

Wow, that’s a long URL!

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 12, 2008 @ 7:29 am

Steve,

I also found this blog by Liz Barratt-Brown that is quite informative:

://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb/mordor_of_the_north_tar_sands.html

She describes the tar sands as “Mordor of the North” (for all you “Lord of the Rings” fans out there). It’s quite an eye opener regarding the extent of the destruction in the Athabasca Basin. It’s depressing to see just what lengths we are willing to go to for our oil “fix”.

All the best,

Chris H.

P.S. This post was also “discarded” because of the link, so just cut and paste, and add “http” to the beginning.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 12, 2008 @ 9:14 am

Here is a video of an appropriate test track drive for the Smart Fortwo:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/foxcarreport/index.html

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 12, 2008 @ 11:48 am

Tar sands in Alberta was story on “CBS 60 Minutes” a few months ago. Latest news is: increased and new drilling for oil in L.A. area (Huntington Beach and elsewhere) and Texas in old fields that are now workable again due to price of oil. A whole lot of oil is said to be still left. New wells cost about $1 million each. In L.A. they drill out horizontally in all directions-even under places like Beverly Hills- from hidden derricks disguised to look like some kind of tall, narrow building. This of course beats tar sands. I look for 2010 to be some kind of watershed year-the Bushwacker will have been gone for awhile (and maybe we’ll be mostly out of Iraq and no longer wasting that approx. $5000 per second on next to nothing)-and elect. cars will be hitting the mainstream in quantity, and solar will be thriving even more, what with Bushleague no longer standing in the green highway being built, waving his “slow and stop” road signs like the trained monkey that he is.

Comment by T.J. June 12, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

Anyone see CNN today? All the EV’s met at Capitol Hill, Washington today. Gerri Willis CNN newslady fell head over heels for the Roadster, she wants one BAD (it was a dark colored model with red pinstrip on the seat). Martin you could have that woman SO easily if you had your Tesla. O wait, you’re already married, never mind. You were the one thing missing from that photo shoot (maybe you were there?).
I saw a blue Smart car Monday here in Boulder City, NV. It had an EAA sticker in the back window. It didn’t look to punishy, but I still get better gas milage in my pre Yarus (Toyota Echo) and I don’t need heated seats in the desert. To brag, I got 48 mpg driving Yuma-Las Vegas with A/C. I do use the next grade up from regular because I think it makes a difference.

Comment by Patman3 June 12, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

CNET News: U.S. Dept. of Energy & GM, Chrysler, Ford to fund $30 million towards getting plug-in hybrids (with 40 miles per charge range) on road by at least 2014 (Energy Dept. & automakers to each pay half). Also involved are: G.E., Elect. Power Research Institute, So., Calif. Edison, Johnson Controls & Brookings Institution (the last being a pack of establishment weasels). At 40 miles per charge I’d never need to run on gas to commute. 2010 can’t come soon enough.

Comment by T.J. June 12, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

Chris, the Wiki tar sands link was really good. Since I got the nrdc link (just add www in front of .nrdc.org/naturesvoice/campaign1.asp for some good photos) from a friend, I unfortunately didn’t get around to searching on my own. Two things that caught my eye were the Venezuela tar sand reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orinoco_tar_sands which are said to be larger, of better quality, easier to extract and cheaper than Canada’s. Evidently the political situation is friendlier in Canada.
The other was this text:
“An agreement has been signed between Petro-China and Enbridge to build a 400,000 barrels per day pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta, to the west coast port of Kitimat, British Columbia, to export synthetic crude oil from the oil sands to China and elsewhere in the Pacific, plus a 150-million-barrel-per-day (24,000,000 m³/d) pipeline running the other way to import condensate to dilute the bitumen so it will flow. Sinopec, China’s largest refining and chemical company, and China National Petroleum Corporation, have bought or are planning to buy shares in major oil sands development.”

T.J., as you know, after WW2 the US mainland was unscathed and we were the world leaders in manufacturing and technology. The wartime manufacturing experience and then the GI bill made us the best trained and educated workforce on the planet. We became rich as a nation. A few decades later, we’re by far the worst debtor nation the world has ever seen, and getting worse by the minute. Our workforce is working longer hours and our standard of living is declining. Our deficit is the worst in history, and China regularly comes up with vast amounts of money to help finance it. We also have the worst trade deficit in history, largely to China. Almost everything I buy other than food and gasoline is made there. We have the trade profile of a colony. We mostly sell agricultural goods and raw materials overseas, and import manufactured products. Now with the big Canadian pipelines on the way, Canada will be even more like a colony too.

Overall it seems like a really awful turn of events, but a friend disagrees. He says you have to remember the name we give it: The Triumph of Capitalism and the Free Market Economy. He says the mantra for the new millennium is Globalization and Corporate Control, so it doesn’t really matter what country you happen to live in. He points out that a famous scientist said that it’s all just part of a general restructuring by the big corporations of even the rich nations, along the lines of a third world model in which islands of wealth and privilege are surrounded by poverty.

I don’t know enough to disagree with the scientist, but I think my friend is being sarcastic. There’s an old saying that the trouble with capitalism isn’t with capitalism, it’s with capitalists. Many of them seem to have a tendency to become selfish, greedy, ruthless SOBs. Now that in the US and Canada they’ve figured out how to marginalize politicians and make them their toadies (“Politics is the entertainment branch of industry”) there doesn’t seem to be much if any of the oversight that would seem to be a necessary part of the capitalist equation. I’d rather that the oversight won’t be ultimately provided by Communist China, but the trends don’t look good.

T.J, don’t take this politics stuff too seriously. As far as I know it’s factually accurate, but I don’t know squat about politics and I don’t even believe in economics as a science. I just wrote a bunch of words to tighten the jaw of any fundamentalist dipstick who might be lurking.

Comment by Steve S. June 12, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

Steve-when Clinton was president there was no deficit, but rather a surplus. I wasn’t a big Clinton fan (I much preferred his V.P.-many times over). One problem with the country is half the people are dumb (and/or uninformed or whatever else you want to call it, which is as good as dumb- a co-worker thinks it’s more like 2/3’s). We could have had Gore-and a surplus and no war and a greener country and on, and on-what an easy, slam-dunk decision that was. The little chimp called Ralph Nader ultimately swung it for the huge, overgrown chimps -but no way in halibut should it have been that close for him to have had any effect. The U.S. still exports a lot of higher end/bigger ticket stuff, but that’s swamped by consumer goods type imports and oil imports. You’re right, but of course, about the “greedy SOBs”-overpaid CEO’s and Musk-like actions. Add to that the current housing collapse/recession engineered by a bunch of filthy rich SOBs who land on their feet, at least 80% of the time, no matter what happens. Here Martin and Alan Cocconi kick off something big (that GM dropped with the EV-1-that Calif. caused to happen in the first place) and the fat cats step in with their Volt cars, etc . and the general public thinks they did/are doing the whole thing “because they’re so good and smart”. Us in the know aren’t that impressed by any of them, and that includes Lutz of GM in my book. He’s “O.K.” but no better than countless car fans in this country would be. This has got to be the most corporate controlled country in the world-and like you said, it leads to a lot of islands of big money and not near enough important “trickle down”-hence Martin’s demise at Tesla. It’s obvious that this country’s problem lies mainly at the top and in middle America, the south and rural areas-all the urban and coastal people were Gore fans. As for China, isn’t it a joke that they’re “still commies” just like the Cubans – so much, like I said before, for the bogus reason for fighting the Vietnam war- the 58,000 Americans killed-and about 2 million Vietnamese- would love to hear about it, wouldn’t they ! ? We’re being played like cheap violins in this country by “the powers that be”-and most of the stupid string section by far is located in the abovementioned hick parts of the country. I could write a book on what’s wrong with the country- I made a list recently, it was over 200 items. In today’s paper there was a long list of jobs at the Univ. of Nev. Las Vegas (UNLV)-the article was saying that the pay scales were basically too high in all of them, and now that the state has a big deficit happening due to the economy, it makes it worse. They have professors making like $150,000 right and left-the last and cheapest listing is for an asssistant prof.-making $100,080. The list has 315 people on it -making from about $248,000 to $100,000 (avg. being about $125,000). In many parts of the world, like europe, college is free- and yet the jackasses running things in this country pay these fat salaries (for not even a full year’s work, since a lot of profs. get summers off like the students, right?) while the students get clobbered. Yet get this: a guy I work with taught beginning classes in the architecture dept. at UNLV-he has an art degree. Knowing him for years I knew he would make a great teacher type. Students were lining up to get into his section, yeah-word was out on the street how good he was. He liked the job too since he could teach the classes basically any way he wanted. Yeah, right on ! (per dated parlance) . The guy who hired him said that he consistently got the best student reviews at the end of the year of any of the people teaching his type of class. Yet I told him when he was first hired that schools can have even more political B.S. than the real world. Lo and behold some upper-level joker started trying to tell all the guys like him exactly how to teach their classes, exactly what the program was to be, etc. Partly, apparently, this was to appease “the accreditation national powers that be” . Furthermore, they wouldn’t let him advance, teach more sections and different classes (still beginning, bascially “non-architecture design ones” ) because he didn’t have an architecture degree-and a master’s degree at that. This is the typical behavior of “squids that teach because it’s a cushy little system and no doubt accreditation squids too”-the system attracts these squids. He had to quit because he literally couldn’t make a living-and yet he was really good. If I were running such a damn bloated racket of an institution/system I would know right away, slam dunk, that someone with an art background is the PERFECT guy to teach begining classes in an architecture dept.-since it isn’t “architecture” at that point anyway-and an art guy would bring in potentially a GREAT different outlook compared to someone who came out strictly out of architecture. He told me a story of some stupid prof. (who I knew, so I knew he was a squid type architect) who actually gave student’s “D’s” and “F’s” in an architecture class that was bascially mainly reading, writing/essay based. What a jackass x 3 ! : if anything was ever subjective it’s architecture. As long as someone does the required work/effort no way in halibut should they get a “D” let alone an “F”. Basically the fool prof. had his own way of looking at things, with his own stringent little set of “required requirements” and any who deviated from this were up halibut creek in his book. Let me at ‘im: an’ a left ,an’ a right-combination, uppercut: he’s outta here ! Wonderful-and students pay the system good money for this B.S. Yet another little example of the U.S. at it finest.

Comment by T.J. June 12, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

Steve S.,

You are right – you don’t know anything about politics, nor economics, I might add.

The US actually has a trade surplus when it comes to services – financial, etc., as many nations depend on our expertise in tracking / controlling costs, investments, tax codes, etc.

The US was following the trend of Great Britain, becoming purely a center for finance, because unions were killing their ability to manufacture too. Today, the trends have reversed, as unions are doing everything they can to accomodate corporations to keep companies solvent. Now, foreign energy companies are creating manufacturing shops within the US, specifically in the rust belt states, to fabricate parts and systems that go into solar, solar thermal and wind energy infrastructures. 3 years ago, there were only 2 plants making wind turbine parts and systems, now there are 11. Is the government building these plants? No, foreign corporations, recognizing the enormous American market for energy, are investing in these communities and building the plants.

I think most people see the clear path forward, and exponential growth in vital industries will take place, with or without the government’s support.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 13, 2008 @ 5:02 am

After looking at the wonderful NASA astronomy picture of the day archive,
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html about a week ago, I navigated to a NASA website with an educational feature. On page 3 of http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mars103.php at the bottom, I noticed the following text:

“During the 2001 dust storm, the global air temperature on Mars was about 30 degrees C (86 degrees F) warmer than before the storm began.”

Ever since a beginning high school physics class, if not before, I’ve known that 30 degrees C warmer is not the same as 86 degrees F warmer. In a section called Ask the Team, I asked if they knew why it’s not the same. A week later, the error hasn’t been corrected and I haven’t received a reply. Either they don’t read their Ask the Team responses, or they don’t care about accuracy, or they believe the statement is accurate as it stands.

So here’s the quiz of the day, and an opportunity to show that you understand science better than a pretentious NASA team: what should the degrees F warmer temperature should have been?

Incidentally, knowing more about science than a NASA employee isn’t necessarily a feather in your cap. I once saw a prominent NASA official say that in the not too distant future we’ll be sending our kids to college on the moon. He had a glazed look on his face.

A rule of thumb for low earth orbit is $10,000 a pound (nobody knows yet what it will cost Space-X to accomplish that feat) so that’s about a million and a half, and the kid still has way over 200,000 miles to go. To put his dorm room on the moon would cost about as much as we spent to unite the terrorism-promoting forces of secular Arab nationalism with those of militant Islam, or to find that guy hiding in the mother of all foxholes in the dirt.

Comment by Steve S. June 13, 2008 @ 8:29 am

# Steve S wrote:
## So here’s the quiz of the day … what should the degrees F warmer temperature should have been?

Let’s ask Kelvin… maybe he knows.

54 not 86.. They used a lookup table with the 32 vs 0 degree freezing offset. You don’t add that twice.

Comment by TEG June 13, 2008 @ 8:57 am

TEG, you’re right of course.
Did you mean Kelvin Kline?

Comment by Steve S. June 13, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

Martin-new blog topic post needed-shelf life about to expire.

Comment by T.J. June 13, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

delta 30 degrees C multipled by nine then divided by 5 gives you a delta 54 degrees F.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 13, 2008 @ 4:12 pm

MartinBlog (TM) idea: what Martin would do personally & re. ev’s and green energy, etc. in the country, if possible.

Comment by T.J. June 13, 2008 @ 8:18 pm

Reckless Prediction # 372:

Jeff Skoll’s car took 119 days from start of production (Feb. 8th) until delivery (June 6th). Based on a similar time line, I predict that Martin’s car will be delivered on, or about, July 13th 2008.

Any takers?

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 13, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

PBS “Now” show had whole hour about increased income disparity in U.S.- compares it to “Gilded Age” of the robber barons at turn of the century. In past 30 years “worker productivity” has increased by 76% whereas avg. wages (adjusted for inflation) increased 2%. As for “uppermost class and CEO pay”, it’s thru the roof. I do believe Obama is going to clean McCain’s clock. However does his “change we can believe in” really amount to nickels and dimes, or two bits at the most ? At least there is (if Obama follows thru) “the war difference” between him and McCain-which was mentioned on “Now” as a “no kidding” big drain on money that could be destined elsewhere-as in here. At this point the entire mideast, speaking of change, should be worth about 2 cents to most voters. Since the late ’60’s the U.S. has had to put up with the halibutola generated by those turkeys over there. By rights the rich arab oil states should take care of their own fellow poorer arabs-with Israel helping, since Israel is the project of “the fattest of all (by far) of the bankers in quesiton”-those people that Mel Gibson was really talking about, whether he knows it or not. The stupidity of a lot of the U.S. runs awfully deep, but it’s got to have a limit (”say it’s so, Joe !”). I do believe the country is going to want a democrat as president to go with a democratic-controlled congress- to quash any presidential foot-dragging/veto threat B.S. for a change. However, the game is rigged since Obama is on the team, but they’ll let us have some of our “change” since after every phony war they like to put someone in to make like “things have changed”- witness Nixon and the Vietnam war followed by supposedly “Mr. Clean, big-change, goody two-shoes Carter” (who was on the team as well). On the “Now” show a guy who wrote a few books on Wall St., etc., said that behind a lot of the mortgage crash was a lot of people trying to maintain a standard of living via credit cards, home equity loans, etc.-trying to keep up by living beyond their means. Of course the mortage rodents were only to glad to help them on the ride-taking them for a ride, and ultimately taking all of us for a ride to Recessionville. One good thing now has to be that the govt., via the IRS, is getting a nice message with less money coming in from all the “working slaves of the new gilded age system”. Too bad that the robber barons have trounced the economy- maybe the “change we can believe in (or not)” will make things better enough so that by about 2010 a lot of people can buy plug-in hybrids. Too bad our fat war debt will put a damper on the govt. promoting green tech.- it could be spectacular if really pushed, but it has to be able to trickle down to as many people as possible-but of course certain of the “chimplike powers that be” want to limit that as much as possible for as long as possible. Smart foreign investment in U.S. green tech.-that would be the ticket-and the way to help overcome the halibutola that our fellow approx. 50% (by volume) American Idiot citizens (both credit card addict types and the greedy fool CEO/business weasel/politician types) have gotten us into.

Comment by T.J. June 13, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

Oh-by the way it’s not “change we can believe in” but rather ” what change they’ll allow us to have -cleverly disguised as change we can believe in”. Oh-and then there’s “The Audacity of Hope”. There they go with hope again, like their agent Bill Clinton: the man from Hope , Arkansas. Like I said “played like a cheap violin”. Chris-I’d be more interested in when my Aptera would arrive-only I can’t order one since I don’t live in Calif. Martin should get an Aptera too, to further help the good guys live long and proper in the EV Car Wars.

Comment by T.J. June 13, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

Steve,

You’re right, the pictures of the Canadian tar sands are disturbing; huge piles of gelatinous black goop as far as the eye can see… And to see the kind of wilderness that those projects is destroying/displacing just adds to the tragedy.

Side note: My wife and I saw a pair of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks on a recent walk along the local river. No Woodland Caribou though.

Regarding natural resource depletion: It is important to recognize that, as a civilization, we are entering the “End Game” period of our evolution. National governments around the World are fully aware of the Earth’s finite resources, and are scrambling to lay claim and sequester as much of those resources as they can. Hence, we have Russian “research” submersibles planting flags on the sea bed at the North Pole, and China buying up mineral and energy rights all over the Globe. And, of course, the grand daddy of all resource wars being waged in Iraq.

All this puts Canada in a position that is simultaneously enviable and nerve wracking. With the possible exceptions of Russia and Brazil, Canada has possibly the greatest reserves of natural resources of any sovereign nation left on Earth. However, our closest neighbours have the largest military apparatus of any nation on Earth, and an insatiable appetite for resources. So, what happens as competition for resources heats up? Although we admire and respect our neighbours to the south, we are also aware of their propensity to behave like a bull in a china shop, and we’re not the only ones.

So, what does happen in the “End Game”? Nations around the world will steadily ramp-up their military capabilities to defend their resources, and, in the process, they will accelerate the consumption of those resources. As a species, we find it hard enough to be peaceable when things are going well, but when the prospect of mass starvation, environmental disasters, and, heaven-forbid, loss of fuel for transportation, is thrown into the mix, things can get downright nasty.

Anybody who has had even a cursory exposure to the science of population dynamics can see the arc of our destiny. Unless we can muster the intelligence, and will power, to demonstrate restraint in population growth, and to create genuinely sustainable practices, we shall share the fate of the same “dumb” animals whose populations spike, and then plummet, often resulting in extinction.

Well, now that I’ve cheered everyone up…

All the best,

Chris H.

Comment by Chris Harvey June 14, 2008 @ 8:31 am

Chris H.,

Thomas Malthus wrote extensively on this subject in economic theory:

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

It’s funny that liberals embrace Darwin so enthusiastically, but reject Malthus – seems they go hand in hand. The biggest mistake liberals make, is that they enjoy creating a crisis, like preventing the contruction of dams, building of nuclear plants, drilling for oil and natural gas, etc., but then give people no feasible alternative, and then they wonder how wars get started. I too recognize the thin veneer of humanity, even in the best of times, and know all too well of what they are capable, when resources diminish. Liberals should learn that they are only given a mandate when economics are good, so they should provide a stable economy to advance their agendas. Already Barack Hussein Obama is planning to raise the price of gasoline through taxes, and demand other methods of limiting consumption, instead of providing alternatives. He won’t win the election doing things like that.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 14, 2008 @ 10:50 am

The coming solar age (which should also be accompanied by a geothermal age) has the ability (reality another matter, but the ability-yeah, no kidding) to really take oil and natural gas out of the picture, as far as building energy (60% of U.S. fossil fuel use) and car energy goes-IF, in the case of cars, battery supply doesn’t become a problem. The real “problem with the world”, which I keep mentioning-because it’s correct-is not “blocks” of people (to the left, right, or sideways) or govts. even-it’s “the powers that be”-them being : “the powers with the money and control”. We had the first serious warning about overpopulation , resources, etc. at least by 1970-and on global warming 12 years before that. The people studying this knew it and told “us” -but the powers that be put the lid on it all. Now the Saudis just announced they’ll be pumping more oil, to keep the cost in check-so they can sell more in the future-as in: “keep as many people hooked as possbile”. The monkeys really running the world have got people suitably “divided and conquered” (and uninformed, manipulated,conned-all the usual stupid chimp tricks of theirs ) and they’ve got them pitted against each other-distracting each other and blaming the mere minions of the said chimps who are really in control instead of going right to the source and blaming said chimps-in person, as it were. All this is great for allowing said chimps to run their game(s) behind the scenes -and “us vs. them” always has been a big part of their game. When Bill Clinton was at Oxford (on a Rhodes scholarship, set up by Cecil Rhodes, who was in turn set up by the Rothschilds-ring a bell?- who in turn got started via the Oppenheim’s bank in Hanover) he said he read a book by Carroll Quigley (a powers that be insider) called “Tragedy and Hope”-wherein he saw who really runs the world (and how, no doubt, he could be on their team). I skimmed this huge book at a library once, I never did get around to reading it-but the jist of it I already had read about elsewhere. Yeah, I should read it, but it’s like 3″ thick-and why should I always be one of the ,what. less than 1% of the people in the developed world who care to find out the REAL facts? I’ve done my “civic duty” many,many times over by now-as opposed to the rest of the slackers in this country and world. The deal is: McCain, Obama, Billary are all on the same team. Based, for one item, on who Al Gore’s oldest daughter married, he’s on the team too-just a “kinder,gentler” member of the team. The bottom line iz: if you want someone to change the world you better look to the abovementioned chimps -those in ultimate control of all the “subchimps” that we (not me so much , but the collective “we”) rail against and vote for over and over again every time we whiz past them again as the merry-go-round we’re on turns. Need to jump off the merry-go-round and investigate who’s really at the controls. But in this vast divided, conned and conquered world of people just trying to make a living there’s a really fat chance for you !

Comment by T.J. June 15, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

Chris, you may have noticed that the troll has been making some sort of uninvited comment on almost all of my posts, which is to me a mild form of harassment. I’ve never found any merit in any of his posts; he somehow can’t seem to get both his facts and reasoning right about anything. I thought the reason might be that he’s obviously not a car guy, nor comfortable with energy or environmental protection, the main subjects of this blog.

Out of curiosity I decided to see how he does on issues that he’s more comfortable with. That would obviously include “conservative” Republican politics and fundamentalist economics, so I set up a few easy targets for him.

That turned out not to be the reason, as you saw. Financial services? Tax codes? Wind turbine plants? In the words of a friend, “He’s got nothing.”

One of the reasons for the conventional wisdom of don’t feed the troll is concern for the troll. They all have a lot of time on their hands so they’re usually unemployed. They could be physically or mentally challenged, or suffering from a bad disease, or 12 years old. They could have very few contacts with the outside world other than the blog. A decent person wouldn’t want to cause any distress in someone like that.

So, I did a quick Google search beforehand, and was pleased to find that the troll seems to have found a happy home on the GM-Volt site. He includes what’s presumably a photo of himself with every post, in which he’s seemingly physically OK. According to the site stats, since joining in February he’s made over 550 posts, an average of almost five per day. They seem to tolerate him much better over there, allowing him to make comments like the following.

“Why look it up when I can provoke you into doing it for me? As I said, I own you.”

“I am the most visionary and effective executive I know….”

“This is why you are rank and file, and I am executive level.”

Anyone thinking of visiting the GM-Volt site should be warned that some folks tend to use some very harsh and possibly offensive language to describe trolls.

Elsewhere he alludes to his take on environmental issues:

“Do you think global warming Gore stands a chance? I think the Democratic field is in far worse shape for 2008, than the Republicans.”

“You guys just don’t get how silly you look every time you hype up one of these storms just to have it peter out on you.”

He seems to enjoy disparaging Martin:

“I love debating those West Coasters, who grab a book on Kaisan, and boast about their new found religion of continual improvement.”

“I believe Eberhard was against a range extender in his early blog posts, and didn’t see the light until just before his ouster, but his deathbed conversion didn’t convince Musk.”

“Martin Eberhard had a death-bed conversion, hoping to keep his job, but his subsequent presentations have been about BEV’s only. “

“…fortunately, Tesla’s CURRENT leadership has more vision than you can obscure.” (emphasis his)

But he gushes about the Chairman.

“Elon… I love your REEV approach for the future. Initially, until plug in EV’s have years of testing in the real world, I imagine customers, like myself, would be leary of driving anywhere without some sort of RE backup, in the event the battery pack goes dead unexpectedly. Can you makesure there is a RE bypass, so that, if the batteries die unexpectedly, you can run the vehicle off the RE alone?
Thanks for your dedication and conviction – Happy Holidays!”

“Awesome page, thanks for the post. I absolutely love that Elon took the drive down University Avenue for a victory lap….”

The use of the word “love” is understandable, because the Chairman seems to reflect many of his own characteristics like egotism, self-absorption, ambition, and ruthlessness. The Chairman also seems to possess what he doesn’t have but longs for: wealth, success, and fame.

We’re left with a picture of someone who set up camp on Martin’s blog which is devoted to issues he’s unfamiliar with or opposed to, and started dealing out fatuous pronouncements, baiting the participants, making false accusations and insults, and in general being disruptive. He disparaged Martin, and shamelessly sucked up to the Chairman who forced Martin out of the company he created and spent years of his life developing.

What kind of human being would do something like that, I was thinking. I knew people were capable of such things. There’s an old joke that attorneys are replacing rats in lab experiments because 1. Lab assistants don’t become fond of them, 2. There’s a big surplus of them, and 3. There are some things that rats just won’t do. But I didn’t understand their mentality at all.

An old friend gave me a possible answer: a small percentage of people are born without a conscience. It’s not a result of something that happened to them, or choices they made; it’s like color blindness. The brighter ones understand that most people do have a conscience, but they don’t know how it feels to have one. Many of them are successful in certain kinds of businesses, for which their condition may even be an advantage. Not surprisingly, many of them routinely commit crimes and end up in prison where they are convenient subjects of studies on the subject. The most famous of them all was Josef Stalin, who liked to say, “Gratitude is a disease suffered by dogs.”

Chris, this is a roundabout way of saying that I am no longer offering any advice or guidelines on whether or not to feed trolls. The subject is too complex, depressing and unrewarding.

Positive times!

Comment by Steve S. June 16, 2008 @ 2:59 am

Steve S.,

Next time you solicit responses, just state that you don’t want feedback from Jason M. Hendler – I would only grin.

You’ve taken many of my quotes out of context, which are much more understandable given the current (now past) events. Yes, I often used the word “love” as an intentional irritant to the peanut gallery that was pilloring Elon, but in the case of Elon’s victory lap around Stanford University, it was far more about my alma mater, than Elon’s justifiable celebration.

You neglected to quote my posts on the Tesla Motors website, where I give high praise to the engineers who posted threads on the motor, traction control, transmission, etc., as well as my posts right here, naming Martin as an inspirational leader with a vision, as opposed to a visionary leader. I give plenty of praise, where I feel it is due.

… and yes, I am the most visionary exec I know.

Comment by Jason M. Hendler June 16, 2008 @ 6:28 am

Tesla Founders Blog

Recent Comments

Pages

a

Blogroll

Blog Stats