Martin Eberhard
Martin Eberhard returned to his native California in 1983 when he completed his Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, to join a pre-public company, Wyse Technology. Wyse’s IPO and Eberhard’s own strong ideas about the importance of the emerging Internet led him to join a handful of colleagues to found Network Computing Devices, where he served as Chief Engineer.
Eberhard left NCD after its successful IPO to pursue his passion for books and to bring his Silicon Valley perspective to the publishing industry. Together with his longtime friend, Marc Tarpenning, Eberhard founded NuvoMedia and invented the Rocket eBook: a remarkable handheld electronic book and a secure web-based distribution system that allowed readers to purchase and download a large library of books from online bookstores, including current bestsellers, for the first time ever.
In a stroke of prescience (or lucky timing) Eberhard facilitated the sale of NuvoMedia to Gemstar/TV Guide in 2000, shortly before the Internet bubble burst. Not even owning a TV set at the time, Eberhard found it ironic to find himself one day to be a Senior Vice President of TV Guide.
Eberhard and Tarpenning left TV Guide and worked for a while as vice presidents of engineering at a friend’s company, Packet Design. In their spare time, they thought hard about what kind of company they felt was worth their time for their next startup effort.
Concerned about the increasingly undeniable global warming trend, embarrassed by the US’s failure to agree to the Kyoto Protocols, appalled by the US invasion of Iraq, and flabbergasted by claims that this invasion had nothing to do with oil, Eberhard persuaded Tarpenning to join him to take a fresh look at electric cars as a way to address these problems.
Extensive technical research convinced Eberhard that electric cars were indeed the most efficient, least polluting alternative to gasoline-powered cars. Why, then, had electric cars failed so many times in the past? Eberhard concluded that just about every EV attempt since the oil embargo of the ‘70s failed because the makers of those cars tried to achieve too much. These EV makers tended to be idealists who hoped to create a car for every American with their first model. But in trying to make an electric car affordable by everyone, they made cars that were desirable by nearly no one.
If we can’t compete on price, Eberhard figured, then let’s compete on performance, and let the price fall where it may. And along the way, re-invent the electric car, making it highly desirable, even if not affordable to all. With this philosophy, the Tesla Roadster was born: beautiful, unbelievably quick, and yet the most energy efficient car on the road. With less constraint on price, Eberhard and Tarpenning conceived a completely new drivetrain, powered by commodity lithium ion batteries like those in consumer electronics – and achieved the longest driving range of any production electric car by a factor of two.
Eberhard grew Tesla Motors from two people to a team of 280 people in 4 countries, with expertise across the disciplines needed to create a car company. Along the way, he raised over $100M from both Venture Capitalists and angel investors. He led the development of the Roadster from inception through design and testing including the stringent safety testing required by the US Department of Transportation, and also including performance and range tests that validate his original claims of 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds, and nearly 250 miles range per charge.
Even before the first Tesla car shipped, Eberhard’s vision had a deep impact on the auto industry and the public perception of what an electric car can be. For example, recently Bob Lutz, Vice-Chairman of General Motors, publicly commented that he restarted GM’s electric car program, creating the upcoming Chevy Volt as a direct response to the Tesla Roadster.
Eberhard has recently left Tesla Motors, as they say, to pursue other opportunities. He is being quiet about those opportunities for now, but you can be sure his next venture will be at least as interesting as Tesla Motors has already been.
140 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Martin,
Please contact me at your earliest convenience. (number deleted).
Barry
Comment by Barry Ellsworth January 7, 2008 @ 11:37 pmMartin:
Hello again !
I found your comment
interesting. Reminded me of “Three Days of the Condor” — a movie that I watched when it opened while in high school. You should be able to rent (or buy) the DVD of it.
Comment by Georg January 10, 2008 @ 6:37 pmMartin – I worked with a number of your people from Buyers (such as Remonda) to Engineers (including my favorite – Lisa Pavey) to numerous tech people in the back at Tesla. My company was one of Tesla’s cable & harness assembly manufacturers. God only knows how many design meetings I sat in at Tesla! And I still strongly recall spending my vacation week from Decemvber 26th on after Christmas, 2006 working in the lab in the back. I knew going in that our opportunity to do business with Tesla would never be long term. Tesla could not profitably manufacture in Silicon Valley. I knew at some point, the manufacturing would have to be turned over to a company with at least some expertise in manufacturing of cars. They would have their own suppliers, so while we may have been involved in the early designs at Tesla, we had no chance of making the big money with Tesla. It was too bad for us. We loved Tesla! We loved the car! We loved the people we worked with! We loved being involved in something so radically different for Silicon Valley! Unfortunately, I also knew Tesla as we knew it was on very borrowed time. I have had experience in working in several start-ups and in my experience, once the VCs get in, the original concept and love quickly goes away. The only thing VCs care about is maximizing THEIR profits, and they do not care one bit who pays the price for their profits. In Tesla’s case, I have believed for a long time and still do that Tesla does not have a long-term future as an electric car manufacturer. Tesla is going to maximise it’s capabilities and continue to make itself look very attractive so that another company, probably GM or Toyota will come in and buy it for the technology and design. The investment for them would be cheap compared to them trying to do what Tesla has already achieved. The profit potential is massive. The VCs will make out like bandits. The founders and the “plank holders” of Tesla will end up with nothing more than the ability to say that we started it all. I used to tell people that I hope to God I am wrong. But as soon as I saw your departure and have seen so many great people get terminated since, I knew my prediction was in the process of coming true. I still wish I was wrong, because you put together an incredible staff of people and in a very short period of time, these Silicon Valley techno-geeks created an incredible car! Please give Lisa Pavey my sincere regards!
Martin sez:
I bet Lisa will read it here.
Comment by Dwight January 10, 2008 @ 9:08 pmMartin,
What a bummer.
I was one of the first depositors for the Cirrus SR20. Cirrus has since gone on to set new standards for general aviation (their initial claim to fame was a whole-airplane parachute, which has saved numerous lives). I often compared Cirrus and Tesla, and if I’d had spare cash, would have been among the first in line (my house has been running 70-80% solar for several years).
In a way it is unfortunate that clean tech has become such a hot VC investment category. General aviation, by contrast, attracts investors who are either a) loons, yet committed to dumping money into aviation, b) people with real long-term vision. In either case, the investors advance the art because of their affinity for flying as there is no easy money in aviation.
My experience with Silicon Valley finance people, on the other hand, has been extremely poor. Fast money attracts ethically challenged people who will trash a company and rob entrepreneurs to extract short-term gains, hire their Stanford buddies, etc. I can count very few in the Silicon Valley finance world who I do not consider well disguised crooks.
It really is sad to see this happen to Tesla though. I thought it had the right strategy, and that it would inevitably run into challenges, just as Tucker Motors did. It is short-sighted to gullotine people for delays in such an ambitious project. It is one of the few cases where the rational response is to raise more money and soldier on. This was not some Web 2.0 “craplet”.
Good luck with your next venture whatever that is (just steer clear of flying cars, that’s a plagued category as well).
Martin sez:
Flying cars don’t appear to solve any real-world problems.
Comment by Brian January 12, 2008 @ 3:13 amI’ve been where you are – too bad, twice – once for the leaving, and once for starting the ‘founders club’ and letting all this negative energy arise – this happened for a reason – learn the leason – take the energy & channel to something positive – if you want help, get me – there are things we can do together.
Comment by David January 14, 2008 @ 4:18 amMartin,
Just read Motor Trend’s intro and am very excited that production is scheduled to begin in the next couple months.
While I am sure you would rather be part of the internal celebrations, congratulations for getting Tesla as far as you did.
As I learn more about BEVs, I wonder if you could comment on the concern of established auto mfgrs losing a big part of their dealership and parts maker profits – the service end of things.
It seems to me that Chevy, Toyota, Ford, et al have no real incentive to produce a viable BEV until there is a real threat of someone else doing it so well that their futures would suffer. And even if they build it, what incentive do dealerships have to sell the things if future service calls are nearly non-existent?
I would be interested in your perspective and insight.
Thanks again for getting your vision as far as you did. Though I feel bad that things turned out the way they did, I still hope Tesla succeeds.
Andy
Martin sez:
The US car selling landscape is complicated, because the dealerships are not owned by the car companies (OEMs). In many cases, they are owned by large dealership franchise operators, whose agendas are sometimes quite different than those of the OEMs. This system was created a long time ago, before the Internet, and before TV became such a selling tool. The OEMs depended then a lot more on local dealerships to sell cars. Today, most buyers know at least as much about the cars at a dealership than the guy in the plaid jacket does… But over the decades, the dealership franchise operators have managed to get their business interests well protected by state automotive franchise laws, and in the process, created a highly anti-competitive system that often serves neither the OEM nor the customer well.
I think a little shake-up of this system would be good for the auto industry in this country.
That said, I bet the Volt (or any other car with that much new technology) will not be service-free for many years to come.
Comment by Andy D January 26, 2008 @ 11:51 pmMartin:
As a fellow U of I alumnus (EECS), I’ve been tracking Tesla Motors for some time. For the benefit of this country, one can only hope they will be successful, a bittersweet victory for you. Over the last two years I have research and written a novel called DEADLY FREEDOM that chronicles the adventures of a team of university researchers as they crack the code and form a company for the development of what I call the “Electric Economy.” The triggering event that makes it all work is the development of electric vehicles to replace the 200M light duty vehicles that consume 42% of our oil. In some ways your circumstances parallel those of my protagonist.
My book is due out end of February. I’d like to send you an advance copy for your review. If interested, where would I send it?
Comment by HarleyDave January 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pmWe are currently very interested in Electric power vehicles, Based in China and on the border of North Korea, where we have manufacturing facilities for many things in Both Countries. We would be interested to talk about a project that is well needed in Asia. Please do reply if anyone has an interest. I have been in the automotive industry many years and have been following it closely.
Wish the best to all those that are no longer with Telsa.
Steve
Comment by Steve January 30, 2008 @ 7:44 amThis is a beautiful story in progress, but I would like to politely disagree with one thing.
There have been many theories about why the electric car failed. But did it?
Through the period of the car’s invention and growth, the electric and steam hybrids dominated the analogue market. Kind of like AOL dominating the .com boom over copper wires.
What happened?
The internet went digital (broadband) just like record became CDs quickly replaced by the digital iPod that really took off when Jobs lowered the price of flash memory for the world in one deal (nano).
Now imagine if some startup halved the price of Lithium or nano-Lithium or crystal Lithium batteries with one order.
Why would they be making that order?
Because the car went digital, not electric!
Why did it take 10 years from CD to iPod or dial-up to broadband or Walkman to Zune or Tube to Flat Screen or book to Kindle?
Because in between the industrial age (analogue) and the information age (digital), there has to be a analogue to digital converter for the masses.
A dial-up compatible website to plug into your Kindle or TV Guide to run your device or a free cable box for broad band or free iTunes software compatible with any computer OR a hybrid compatible with any gas station.
There has to be an analogue bridge for what I estimate a 10 year period followed by a swift takeover of the analogue industry, it’s players and technologies.
The electric car was never killed or came back to life!!! The analogue cars, ie steam hybrids, jet powered, hover crafts, air hybrids, fuel and tube powered electrics have been dying for 110 years.
The analogue car is dying a long awaited slow death and the digital car is accelerating out of the information revolution’s garage.
The digital conversion requires a critical mass as well as followers than can safely have one foot in the analogue world and one foot in the digital world.
With 1,000,000,000 million hybrid-electrics (each of these has 300-650 digital patents involved) owners having paid extra to straddle this digital divide, the time is now for several digital organizations to fight to become the standard (like Apple and iPod) as well as many analogue giants to fall (like Zenith at worst or Pixar owning Disney at best).
Start your digital engines!!!
Comment by John Acheson January 31, 2008 @ 12:20 amMartin,
When I first heard that Tesla and you were spliting ways I became so aggrivated that I tried to leave Elon a message and let him know how disappointed I was. If felt as though he was some how missing the point of what Tesla was for. Later that evening some one from Tesla called me up and tried to explain what had happened with Tesla and you then assured me that they were still trying to produce the best electric car that the world has seen. Okay…so Martin and Elon didn’t see eye-to-eye…Tesla is still a great car. But just tonight I read (in Tree hugger) that Tesla is trying to make a hybrid for the “Whitestar” line?????? Did you know about this or is this why you left. Isn’t a hybrid kind of missing the point of why you started the company in the first place?
Consequently I am looking at another start up company that is making a funny looking, but intriguing all electric car, the Aptera type-1. have you looked into this company and could you give your oppinion on this car/motorcycle?
Thank you for your hard work and vision,
Stanton
Comment by Stanton Schuler February 4, 2008 @ 1:03 amI am also interested in your thoughts on Aptera. I know when you where at Tesla you knocked them for circumventing the DOT standards but their site claims they are exceeding standards but avoiding testing for time to market and cost reasons. I think the real problem they have solved is the air resistance one, because regardless of battery tech or engine efficiency the energy demands of an EV are largely dictated by this. Please let us know your thoughts.
Also, I am not sure there is any reason for mirrors at this time for new EVs. Mirrors have blind spots and things are not very visible. When you use cameras you can get IR, you can enhance the image, you can do pattern recognition to warn for people etc. Enhance the contrast, lighting etc. in real-time. Getting things to digital capture makes a lot of sense and think of the fuel savings by removing mirrors alone! I remember some statistic in the past about hood ornaments and the amount of fuel saved if they were not used and the number was signficant.
Martin sez:
I have real problem with people saying that they exceed the standards, but can’t afford to do the testing to prove it. Give me a break: how do you know you meet the standards? Testing is not something you do just to satisfy some government administrator – testing is how you prove that what you designed actually works! I guarantee that every single car company out there winds up cranking in design changes as a result of what they learn from testing. And even with the very experienced car companies, these changes are often substantial.
Note, by the way, that you can get *excellent* aerodynamics with a 4-wheel vehicle. See, for example, the Hypercar project by the Rocky Mountain Institute. 3 wheels is not some major aerodynamic breakthrough.
As far as mirrors go: I actually agree. But the DOT still require ‘em. There is a movement afoot in the auto industry to allow camera-based rear view as a replacement, but this will take a while to crank through the regulators. This is indeed partly red tape, but it is also an important review process where all stakeholders can weigh in on new regulations, ensuring that what finally gets approved will be safe and reliable.
Comment by Pete February 6, 2008 @ 10:41 amMartin,
I have enthusiastically followed Tesla Motors since I first heard whispers of it floating around the internet. I am a student at your alma mater, U of I, majoring in Environmental Economics and Policy and am an active member of the Environmentalist community there. We would be overjoyed if you would come speak at the University, as you have a vision of not only a better environment, but also a world of no compromises. As an environmentalist, I would like to see a world where we account for all of our impacts on the environment, and where people begin to place more value on nature. As an economist, I look toward solutions that do not hinder business, but rather inspire them to grow into new fields and to apply market principles to spur green development. I believe that too many listen to the problems that environmentalists tout, and then turn a deaf ear because no realistic or desirable solution is offered. You have already shown that a solution to transportation needs does not have to sacrifice speed, acceleration, styling, or range. If you could bring that message back to this campus, it would reinvigorate the environmental movement with creative people who are able to apply innovative solutions to the tough problems that face us today. We are the solution to the problems that we will face.
-Anthony Larson
Comment by Anthony Larson February 6, 2008 @ 12:39 pmMartin:
It’s so nice to see how accessible you are. I just came across Lionev.com, for $28k they are selling 2008 Ford Ranger conversions with DC motors, li ion batteries and a 200 mile range. Are these guys credible?
Martin sez:
I don’t know, but the numbers look way off.
Comment by DGP February 7, 2008 @ 7:02 amThanks for the information. For those wanting more information on the hypercar project see: http://www.hypercar.com/
I agree the testing issue does not pass the smell test but that is the only way around DOT certification at this time. If a company steps up and actually does the crash tests and passes but uses 3 wheels to circumvent other red tape I think it is a good thing. But, if they just use it to compromise safety obviously that is not ideal.
For mirrors, I see in the future a lot of possibility. With computing power increasing things like real-time pattern recognition will be powerful and save lives. Not allowing cars to run over children in reverse is not actually a very difficult computational problem. When you have a set of cameras with a full surround view of the car the computer can take that image data and do some intelligent things with it and absolutely save lives.
I also wanted to point out after listening to the most recent town hall meeting with Elon saying he insisted on the 2 speed yet always wanted the 1 speed but the tech was not there. To me, it was a little absurd. I wanted to say for many outsiders including myself, your original path certainly appears to have been validated and you deserve kudos for that. It is a shame that intervention occurred originally because I am confident people would already be in their roadsters if the car had remained with a 1 speed transmission. I don’t understand why Elon misses the point of the iterative process of development. Enhanced features and performance are what future model years are for. Oh well, I wish you best of luck in your new venture(s).
As an aside, Elon got delivery of #1, do you have a date set for when you get your Roadster? What color are you getting?
Cheers,
Pete
Martin sez:
I don’t yet have a date for my car, Founders Series number 2, though they say the next cars will be delivered in March. I was the second person to deposit $100K, well over a year ago, and I have a certificate signed by Elon stating that the second production car is mine. So I expect the next car to be built is mine and that I should be driving it in March. Whoo hoo!
As of today, I am a bit worried that they will pull something on me. I hope I am wrong, but I recently got a very bad signal from them.
Comment by Pete February 7, 2008 @ 10:11 amPete wrote:
do you have a date set for when you get your Roadster? What color are you getting?
Yes, many are curious. At least tell us if you don’t want to say so we can stop asking!
Martin sez:
No, please do ask! See my note above.
Maybe you can do me a favor and ask the folks at Tesla for a specific date for my car. One thing I promise: lots and lots of pictures and commentary about the car right here. Hey, I will even offer to take some of you for a ride!
But I am keeping my mouth shut about the color. It’s a SECRET!
Comment by TEG February 7, 2008 @ 4:37 pmre. DOT and FMVSS testing:
Where is it stated that aptera will not test? They stated they will test. Both in simulation and real.
Martin is right. First you build, then simulate, then test, then re-design as needed.
Pete said it best ” If a company steps up and actually does the crash tests and passes but uses 3 wheels to circumvent other red tape I think it is a good thing.”
That, I believe, is the whole point of the aptera.
S
Martin sez:
What other red tape are they circumventing? I’d like to judge for myself whether what they are circumventing is red tape or is actually good requirements.
Comment by S February 7, 2008 @ 5:04 pmMartin wrote:
What other red tape are they circumventing?
Aren’t 3 wheelers classified as motorcycles?
If so then aren’t there a whole slew of other regulations like headlight height, 5mph bumpers, rear view mirrors, emissions, defrost, child restraints and such that are different than for cars?
Martin sez:
Yep. And I have a hard time classifying these as red tape. As a parent of 2 kids, 6 and 8, I am a big fan of child restraints, for example.
Carolyn sez:
Child restraints in the cars, I assume you mean
Comment by TEG February 7, 2008 @ 8:30 pmYeah, I have 8 year old twins. I wouldn’t take them in a 3 wheeler either.
Comment by TEG February 7, 2008 @ 9:42 pmAnother question about P2… Do you plan to keep it in the LA area or the SF area? ( Driving back and forth would be a drag until some new charging infrastructure becomes available. )
I am going to guess in the hills east of LA since that is where ( I think ) you got your new solar system installed.
Martin sez:
I haven’t decided yet. I may actually do the drive a couple of times just to learn. I know a few places to charge along the way, for example at an RV park in Paso Robles. This means ride opportunities for you guys in both the LA and SF areas
Comment by TEG February 7, 2008 @ 11:09 pmI guess I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I’m real curious to know how you can be one of the major starting founders of a new company and then someone fire you from YOUR start-up?! I just don’t see how you could be legally fired from YOUR business.
Martin sez:
Unless you are really rich, when you start a high-capital company like a car company, you have no choice but to sell ownership in the majority of the company to raise the money you need. Founders – especially founders of hardware companies – usually own a tiny fraction of a company by the time it ships product or for that matter, goes public.
The golden rule: those with the gold make the rules
Comment by Leonard R. February 8, 2008 @ 1:35 am##Martin said: As of today, I am a bit worried that they will pull something on me. I hope I am wrong, but I recently got a very bad signal from them.
I find that absolutely incredible. Could they really be that vindictive? Is it even legal to fail to give you the car that you paid for? I really hope you’re wrong. I think you’d get a lot of support from other people on the Tesla buyer list if they tried to pull something like that. Anyway, what could be a better advert for the car than the founder driving it around and enjoying it. As a shareholder you would have no interest in publicly dissing the product…even if there were any areas you were unhappy with.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 8, 2008 @ 4:13 amAre the Tesla airbags suitable for your kids’ age group? I know they got a waiver but I don’t know what age (or weight) the problem applies to. Can the passenger’s airbag be turned off?
Martin sez:
Actually no. They are just now okay for our 8 year old (60.4 lbs this morning), but not for our six year old. Tesla had no choice but to carry over the airbag system from the Lotus Elise. This system was implemented some years ago, and was state of the art at the time. Since then, two big innovations came along: a shutoff switch for the passenger side (unarguably a good idea), and so-called smart airbags, which are so complex that I am not sure they are a good idea. Maybe I will rant further about this some day.
As I have commented elsewhere, it is practically impossible for a small company to get an airbag supplier to provide airbags or to calibrate them. Tesla was able to do so only by riding on Lotus’s (rather small) coattails, and Lotus was able to get them because of their good brand name and some very good work (smooth talk, soft-shoe, whatever) by their supply chain folks.
If you go read their exemption, Tesla (like so many other smaller car companies) got a 3-year exemption from the smart airbag requirement. I believe this is totally reasonable – note that almost no cars on the road today have smart airbags. Were they required, it is likely that Tesla (and Lotus and Panoz and quite a few others) could not ship cars: the airbag suppliers are busy making and calibrating these systems for the big guys.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 8, 2008 @ 4:21 amMartin wrote:
…Since then, two big innovations came along: a shutoff switch for the passenger side (unarguably a good idea),…
Some vehicles have had that shutoff switch for a while. My 2000 RangerEV has a shutoff switch for the passenger airbag. (My kids really enjoy riding in it).
Yep. And you would think that all that’s needed is a switch in some wiring harness. But… it ain’t so. Shutting off the passenger airbag on a system not designed for a switch will freak out the diagnostics. And without a load of testing, it won’t be DOT approved. Etc., etc. Until a company like Tesla gets big enough (or at least interesting enough), they have no leverage with the airbag manufacturers – who won’t want to do such development for such a low-volume car.
Comment by TEG February 8, 2008 @ 9:17 amMartin sez:
I don’t yet have a date for my car, Founders Series number 2, though they say the next cars will be delivered in March. I was the second person to deposit $100K, well over a year ago, and I have a certificate signed by Elon stating that the second production car is mine. So I expect the next car to be built is mine and that I should be driving it in March. Whoo hoo!
As of today, I am a bit worried that they will pull something on me. I hope I am wrong, but I recently got a very bad signal from them.
——————————————
A very bad signal??? This deepens the suspicion I have expressed previously that they have sicced the lawyers on Martin, presumably because he lamented other former employees likewise being dismissed. Gawd… I hope they aren’t that cold-hearted –and vindictive. They “transitioned” Martin to their “advisory board,” yet then punish him for expressing his advice? He has obliged their request to remove the blog about those dismissals, so what’s the point? I mean, it is not as if the company isn’t thriving more than ever: I read just recently that they now have over 900 reservations for the Roadster. Obviously, that assembly line at Lotus will be cranking them out at full capacity for years to come.
Let’s see. Roadster No. 1 came off the assembly line on December 12, but wasn’t delivered until February 6: a total of 56 days. If that’s a typical timeline, and Roadster No. 2 is scheduled for production on March 17, that means Martin would have to wait to sit in his driver’s seat until… May 12. For his sake, I hope that they speed up the shipping process more than that!
I assume that Roadster No. 3 belongs to Marc Tarpenning, as the other co-founder of the company, right? Doesn’t everyone think that the company should hold a “delivery ceremony” to honor those co-founders –despite the fact that they are no longer with the company? After all, the Roadster would not even exist were it not for Martin or Marc. Those of you who hold reservations should inquire about such matters and let the company know that it would be in everyone’s best interest to arrange that small modicum of appreciation –and bury the punitive hatchet.
Martin sez:
Marc is not in line for a Roadster. with 3 kids, he’s been holding out for Whitestar.
Comment by Yanquetino February 8, 2008 @ 3:02 pmI quite agree about the exemption, for Tesla and the others. It would have been totally unreasonable to shut them out of the US market. Thanks for the explanation.
##Martin said: Maybe you can do me a favor and ask the folks at Tesla for a specific date for my car.
I asked as did one or two others, but nobody answered. Plus it looks like they must’ve deleted your comment on Dan’s comment
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 8, 2008 @ 3:07 pmYanquetino, where did you read about the 900 reservations? I never seem to find that sort of info. I would second all that you say about Martin’s car. I can’t believe they would even consider not delivering it.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 8, 2008 @ 3:21 pmOops….my bad. I misunderstood your comment below and thought you had commented on the Tesla blog. Hence my comment above. I’ve got it now and I agree with your response to Dan in the Kaizen blog.
##Martin sez:
I was about to delete your comment, but then I went and read Dan’s post… Go read my comment there.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 8, 2008 @ 3:43 pmMartin said:
Marc is not in line for a Roadster. with 3 kids, he’s been holding out for Whitestar.
———————————–
Hmmm. Well… you won’t be able to take your 2 kids in the Roadster either, right, Martin? Especially without those new-fangled airbags.
I kinda feel bad for Marc, then. After all his hard work, he and his wife deserve to have a fun “toy” for the occasional night-on-the-town without the brood. Ah, well… to each his own, I suppose.
Still, they should honor you both, Martin, with a delivery ceremony for your Roadster.
By the way, we should start a betting pool on your car’s color. My guess is… let’s see… that premium metallic “Very Orange”!
Martin sez:
Marc is a much more conservative fellow than I am. I think he has never owned a 2-seater. Whereas when I got married 2-1/2 years ago, all I had was 2-seaters (3 of ‘em!) – and my bride had 2 kids… Out with the Audi TT Quattro, in with the Mazda 3. (Yeah, I know. The TT has back seats. But to use them, you kinda have to take your legs off and put them in the trunk…)
Hint… my car will not be one of the standard colors. Hint 2: I asked Barney Hatt for some color suggestions that would be outside the comfort zone of an old fart like me
Barney is awesome…
Comment by Yanquetino February 8, 2008 @ 7:42 pmAndrew:
I had to trace my internet browsing back a couple of days, but finally found the reference you asked for. The number was reported by Reuters on page 2 of Tesla Motors says may go public this year or next:
Some 900 customers have ordered the $100,000 Roadsters and the first will receive their British-made cars by the end of March or early April, Musk said.
Right from the horse’s mouth.
Comment by Yanquetino February 8, 2008 @ 8:01 pmMartin said
Hint… my car will not be one of the standard colors. Hint 2: I asked Barney Hatt for some color suggestions that would be outside the comfort zone of an old fart like me. Barney is awesome…
——————————–
Guffaw, guffaw. Well… since I am even older “dude,” what does that make me? I’ll tell you the definitive answer: unwilling to battle with my wife anymore. She’d choose a “retro” color like she did for our turquoise blue Z3. And funny thing is… she was right. I admit it. Now I love it.
Okay, so the “standard colors” are out. Then my guess is… something two-toned. Like a saddle shoe, maybe.
Martin sez:
Hey, we’re both still 39, right???
Comment by Yanquetino February 8, 2008 @ 8:34 pmHmmm….. I’m guessing taupe or aubergine then
They’re certainly waaaay outside my comfort zone and I’m an even older fart than the two of you I suspect.
Thanks for the Reuters article Yanquetino.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 9, 2008 @ 4:48 amMartin said:
I asked Barney Hatt for some color suggestions that would be outside the comfort zone of an old fart like me.
Hmmmm……Autumn Gold?
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/2688-post14.html
Comment by Malcolm Wilson February 9, 2008 @ 5:23 am##Martin said: As of today, I am a bit worried…
Absolute cabbage! Can’t imagine they would have a legal right to do this. I know those with the Gold make the rules, but only to a point.
Comment by David Kosowsky February 9, 2008 @ 6:37 amMartin:
I am fairly confident in my ability to read between the lines of previous posts, but now I’m just going to ask point blank: is Tesla suing you? Only a negative answer is warranted, i.e., “NO, Telsa is NOT suing me.”
If, after a couple of days, you still haven’t given said reply, or have removed this post from the blog, well… then we’ll know how to call a spade a shovel.
Comment by Yanquetino February 10, 2008 @ 9:15 amSome Lotus colors not currently offered by Tesla:
Comment by TEG February 10, 2008 @ 11:52 am* Nightfall Blue <= very nice
* Magnetic Blue
* Chili Red <= not much of a red fan myself
* Krypton Green <= would you dare?!
* Autumn Gold <= interesting…
* Graphite <= would be my choice…
Malcolm Wilson wrote:
Hmmmm……Autumn Gold?
This picture had me thinking it could be a cool color (sort of a dusty bronze), but then I found other pix that make it look rather green:
Here
Here
Apparenlty lotus did make an Aztec Bronze color as well.
Martin sez:
One thing for sure: there is no way your computer screen can possibly render car paint colors in a way that does each color justice. All colors on your screen are rendered with combinations of the same red, blue, and green colors…
Comment by TEG February 10, 2008 @ 3:36 pmYeah, we will have to see it in person to make sure you (and Barney) made the right choice!
—-
The “Chili Red” link I mentioned above had an extra / in the URL, so here is another try at a link
Martin sez:
You got it! You are hereby invited to come have a look.
The Chili Red was a big disappointment foe me. It was WAY orange in the sun. Here’s a tidbit: EP2 was originally Chili Red, but I hated it so much that we had it repainted.
Comment by TEG February 10, 2008 @ 6:13 pmAll of the paint jobs I had seen were very nice. I would not have guessed that EP2 had ever been repainted.
I guess maybe the latest repaint of EP6 might not appear quite as perfect as some of the other cars. I wonder if it was repainted somewhere different?
By the way, I don’t know if you have seen this fun Elise color lineup photo before…
Comment by TEG February 10, 2008 @ 10:37 pmIt seems as if Tesla is in a tough situation regarding delivering P2 to Martin. If I was producing a new car, I’d want to keep the first few cars off the production line “in the family”. They’ll want to do plenty of testing to make sure the cars are put together right and that there aren’t any little details that got missed between England and California (”I say, you chaps in California didn’t know that we don’t tighten the lug nuts all the way before shipping a car overseas? We thought you blokes knew that! I hope your customer wasn’t too upset when his wheel fell off.”). New production of anything always has plenty of glitches. Can you imagine GM giving the first Volt off the production line to a paying customer? GM will take the first several cars and test them extensively and then never sell them. Tesla can’t afford to do that, but they were in a decent position when P1 & P2 were both going to go to Tesla insiders. Elon and Martin would have driven them a lot and found any teething problems before any customers had a chance to. Now that they’ve ousted Martin, they’ve only got P1 to do testing on before having to give P2 to Martin. I’ll bet they’re driving P1 like mad right now, only stopping for recharges.
It looks to me like they’ve got a few options.
1) They could just go ahead and give Martin the next car off the assembly line (P2) and hope for the best, relying on just using P1 as a test car. Risky.
2) They could take P2 and dedicate it as an in-house test car and never give it to a customer and then give Martin P3. That gives Martin the second delivered car, but not the second production car.
3) They could leave P2 in its shipping container and make P3 a dedicated test car and test it like mad, and then give Martin P2 after they’re satisfied with P1 & P3. That gives Martin the second car both off the assembly line and delivered, but delays its delivery.
Any idea who is scheduled for the third delivery (hereafter referred to as “Mr. Three”)? If it’s to go to a Tesla employee, that might make a difference in what they decide to do, for instance:
4) They could take P2, not “officially” deliver it to Mr. Three and test it like mad. They then deliver P3 to Martin so he gets the second car delivered to a customer, and only afterwards officially deliver P2 to Mr. Three. Kind of underhanded, but avoids building a car that only gets used for testing.
I don’t know what they’ll do, but I’d be surprised if it was #1. They know (or at least fear) that Martin will be very vocal with any flaws he finds and they’d rather avoid any negative publicity at this stage. Any way they handle it will be awkward. My impression is that Martin wouldn’t badmouth the car if he finds flaws. He may not be happy with the people running Tesla, but the car is still his baby. I think he’d give them honest feedback to work out any production issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if he mentioned problems in a blog entry, but I really doubt he’d sensationalize them to make Tesla look bad. That’s just not the feeling I have of Martin, based solely on what I’ve read from him on this site.
Keith
Martin sez:
Exactly so.
Comment by Keith Hearn February 13, 2008 @ 2:35 pmKeith, I love the 1950s English in your Lotus sketch here but I’m guessing you haven’t spent a lot of time in Norfolk lately….or in England
Ask Martin how they speak in Hethel. ”I say, you chaps in California didn’t know that we don’t tighten the lug nuts all the way before shipping a car overseas? We thought you blokes knew that! I hope your customer wasn’t too upset when his wheel fell off.”
This is kind of like expecting everybody in the States to speak like The Fonz. Very funny though.
I think Tesla would be mad (in PR terms alone) not to deliver Martin’s car as promised and I’m sure they must’ve realised that by now, if they ever even considered doing anything different. He may be upset but he’s still a shareholder and still the father of the car.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 14, 2008 @ 3:10 amAndrew,
Yeah, I know that nobody talks like that in England anymore. I just used that style to make it clear who was speaking. I guess it worked.
Keith
Comment by Keith Hearn February 14, 2008 @ 3:18 pmIn my February 10 post above, I asked Martin to clarify his situation by responding once and for all: “NO, Telsa is NOT suing me.” Five days have passed, but he has yet to post said response –even though he has given numerous replies to others’ messages in various threads.
Consequently, it is now clearly evident that Tesla IS suing Martin.
Unconcienable.
Martin: I am so very sorry that such is the case. You do not deserve this in any way, shape, or form. It is a tragic case of adding insult to injury.
Those of you with Roadster reservations: I sincerely hope that you will contact Tesla and strongly suggest that they drop the lawsuit. What is to be gained by it? It is a vindictive waste of time, energy, and money that could be much better used to fulfill your orders. They should bury the punitive hatchet immediately. If not, when the news of the lawsuit leaks to the media, it will only do the company’s image more harm than good in the long run.
Comment by Yanquetino February 15, 2008 @ 9:52 amYanquetino, if true that is offensive. Watch them try and take this domain with a WIPO domain dispute next.
Comment by Pete February 15, 2008 @ 2:02 pmIt is interesting to read various musings on product and technology evolution. As an old teacher of design, I’ve seen quite a bit of the “future” transportation schemes. “History of the Future” might be as good a teacher as the actual history of actual industrial phenotypes that walked the earth.
I came to this site from the EV World newsletter, and I’ve been watching the painful contractions leading to the birth of something resembling EV transportation for quite a while. If I may put my three cents here, it seems that we expect the new to look like the old, only better.
Putting electric batteries and motors into cars, as we know them, is not going to do the trick, I am afraid. Not only the vehicle itself will have to change anatomically, but the huge infrastructure that the IC engine spawned. To succeed in this game one has to look at our mobility needs from a truly different angle. The oil crisis obscured the fact that the current system configuration is getting unsustainable. Changing one part of the caboodle won’t do.
Successful EV transport will have to develop its own modality, or even more likely modalities. Just one won’t do either. Obviously the barriers to entry for something truly appropriate are gargantuan. It is good that the present pressure to mutate and evolve accelerates, but successful future species must look very different, and will succeed only together with a co-evolution of its environment.
For as much as I admire Amory Lovins, their venture into the hydro-car futurism did more harm than good. Well maybe it was a good learning experience. Nevertheless the whole hoopla with fuel cells lasted as a fig-leaf for the big three for only a very short while.
I’d bet that in thirty years an EV car that weighs 3000 lb and carries a 180 lb driver on a typical highway will be either totally obsolete or serve some niche market only. Aptera is a very interesting entrant, but the successful future modalities will need to address traffic congestion, scarcity of space for more more conductive rights of way, as well as the basic need for door-to-door comfort and privacy impossible to meet in public transport. Sounds utopian? I don’t think so. But succeeding will take some serious innovation in public-private business models and collaboration not very likely in this corner of the world. What’s likely is that disruptive innovation will happen elsewhere in a place that won’t know that it was impossible, because it won’t have have the entrenched infrastructure and culture creating huge barriers to entry. Good part of that initial innovation might even happen here, but as a mature and dominant system might fully mature elsewhere. Something similar to what is happening with cellular communications n the “third world” if anybody remembers this term.
It is a great show to watch, and thank you for playing in it for real.
Tom
Comment by Tom February 16, 2008 @ 2:26 amMartin wrote: But I am keeping my mouth shut about the color. It’s a SECRET!
Re: “bad signals”: Electric Blue? Would that have been the bad signal? Martin’s custom color is no longer custom?
Comment by Raymond Michiels February 16, 2008 @ 2:52 amYanquetino, I don’t think we should jump to any conclusions. Just because you offered Martin the opportunity of commenting on a subject and he didn’t that doesn’t mean it is ‘clearly evident’ that he is being sued. We just don’t know and Martin is sensible not to comment on the subject in case of breaching any agreement with Tesla. Let’s just wait and see if his car turns up as planned when production starts. Personally I’m pretty sure it will, but that’s just uninformed speculation. Did I read somewhere that series production should get under way as from March 17th or am I dreaming?
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 16, 2008 @ 3:24 amAndrew: That’s very kind of you to give Tesla such a benefit of the doubt, but I fail so see how Martin could be breaching any agreement conceivable by answering: “NO, Tesla is NOT suing me.” Wouldn’t that be supportive of the company? Wouldn’t Tesla want him to squelch such a rumor?
If he were to answer in the affirmative, I would agree completely: that would be treading on thin ice. But to not answer in the negative… well, that silence speaks volumes to me. Maybe mine is the sole-ear-in-the-wilderness.
Comment by Yanquetino February 16, 2008 @ 9:59 amWhat can I say? I’m just trying to see the glass half full. We all know there’s a risk of them turning nasty but unless and until there’s some evidence I prefer to believe they haven’t yet. I can’t imagine any grounds on which they could seriously sue Martin but I’m not a lawyer so who knows. I think it wouldn’t be in their long term interests to behave that way and as smart people I don’t think they will. I don’t know the legal justification for Martin not even responding to your query but I think he’d be well-advised not to take any risk. Lawyers have a way of twisting everything so the safest thing is to say nothing.
Comment by Andrew Kelsey February 16, 2008 @ 10:08 amAndrew, Yanquentino, …
I can’t speak for Martin… but there are some question that can never be answered if one values being truthful. The question about a lawsuit is one of them. It can never be answered, not even with a “no” when there is no lawsuit as there might be one in the future. And as you’ve suggested, Yaquentino, silence becomes a yes. And if you can’t say yes you have to say no, but that would be a lie. So, again, this is a question that simply can’t ever be answered… by someone who both intends to be honest and thinks ahead.
Comment by Steve Uhlir February 16, 2008 @ 12:29 pmSteve:
Okay. I understand the logic of not being able to answer “no,” just in case, at some future point of time, Tesla decides to file a lawsuit against Martin. However, couldn’t he just clarify: “NO, Tesla is NOT suing at PRESENT“? That wouldn’t be a lie, and is still thinking ahead, right?
The bottom line for me is that I feel heartbroken for Martin. I know he wants to see Tesla succeed: he has stated as much numerous times. How could he not, since he and Marc founded the company?
I therefore feel that I can safely conclude that he would immediately, quickly, and unequivocally dispell any ugly rumor about the company suing him –if he truthfully could.
Everyone, of course, has to drawn his/her own conclusions.
Comment by Yanquetino February 16, 2008 @ 9:09 pmYanquentino,
I think this topic has overstayed its welcome, but I’ll try one more time to make my point as I apparently wasn’t clear.
The reason the question can’t be answered today, not even with a “NO, Tesla is NOT suing at PRESENT” is because you could keep asking the question. If you did keep asking the question, you would get a series of “no” answers until you got silence. When you got silence you’d know you had gotten a yes. (Of course it could be the person just got fed up with the repeated questions, or something else.) So the question has to be answered with silence from the beginning. [I didn't mean to suggest that the question couldn't be answered "no" because the truthful answer now might become false. Things change. That isn't lying. What I was trying to explain was that by truthfully answering "no" now you could be forcing yourself to effectively answer "yes" in the future... or lie then.]
I do agree that everyone must draw their own conclusion.
Steve
Comment by Steve Uhlir February 17, 2008 @ 7:10 amI’ll say this much: it is encouraging that Autoblog Green, following an interview with Siry on future financing and production plans, reported this afternoon:
I’m sure that’s a relief for Martin to read this!
Comment by Yanquetino February 18, 2008 @ 6:03 pmMartin, you are absolutely right about the energy and technology development issues we face today. I saw them close up a couple of years ago when I had a startup developing a 150KW controller for electric vehicles under a DARPA grant.
If you like to put your new wisdom into practice, I’m involved in a new startup in the energy technology area with the potential to dramatically alter the energy technology field, please give me a call: [NUMBER REMOVED].
Lee…. January 20, 2008.
Martin sez:
Lee,
I would not have posted this comment on the blog because it is a personal message to me. However, the email address you left does not work: “PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1)”
Comment by Lee Ackerson February 20, 2008 @ 5:52 amWatched “Who Killed the Electric Car” recently (great documentary), then i heard that GM and Tesla are making another run at the electric car (yay for progress!) hopefully development of this technology can go on unhindered by the corporations that depend on oil consumption.
Comment by patrick February 28, 2008 @ 10:30 amMaybe being up here in Canada I am out of the loop, but this is what I heard…. Firstly that the Founder’s Series of cars will all be green. Secondly , that Arnold S. will be presented with his (wife’s) Tesla at a big press event on Earth Day, which is March 20th this year. Since production is only supposed to start March 17th, this seems like a tight schedule, but who knows? I don’t usually trade in gossip & speculation, and I fully concede that this information may not be true, but it’s what I heard so make of it what you will…..
Martin sez:
Don’t know about a lot of what you say, but I do know that the Founders series will not all be green. Note that P1 was Darth Vader black…
Comment by Chris Harvey March 8, 2008 @ 6:45 pmMartin sez:
Don’t know about a lot of what you say, but I do know that the Founders series will not all be green. Note that P1 was Darth Vader black…
That’s true. I guess I should’ve said that I heard that the remainder of the Founder’s Series cars will be green. Again, I’m not sure how accurate this information is.
Martin sez:
Mine won’t be green either… (assuming they don’t somehow screw me out of my car…)
Comment by Chris Harvey March 8, 2008 @ 9:23 pmBy the way Martin, I do hope that you get your Tesla in the very near future, and that it is P2. If anybody deserves to be driving this car, it’s you. All the best,
Chris H.
Martin sez:
Thanks, Chris. I hope so to. On top of everything else, I paid for the second car.
Comment by Chris Harvey March 8, 2008 @ 9:31 pmMartin said: Mine won’t be green either… (assuming they don’t somehow screw me out of my car…)
Martin, I know it’s easy for me to say this, but I think you should relax. They would have to be absolutely crazy not to deliver your car as promised. All that would prove is that Tesla is a company that cannot be trusted and I can’t see how that would be good publicity at a time when they’re going into series production. Your comment could be construed as implying that they are trying to ’screw you out of your car’ and that could be construed as defamation couldn’t it?
Comment by Andrew Kelsey March 9, 2008 @ 12:42 amI’m not a lawyer but I’m sure you have to be really careful what you say. Just a few more agonising days and, if there is any justice in the world, you should be receiving your car.
Hang tough!
I found out recently that there are two different dates on which “Earth Day” is celebrated. One is March 20th, as noted above, and the other is April 22nd.
This seems to be a more realistic timeline with regards to presenting Arnie with his wife’s Tesla. I’m not sure where he is on the waiting list, but I think he’s in the first 10. Maybe someone can clarify that? All the best,
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey March 15, 2008 @ 7:19 amDarth Vader black… I got a kick out of that comment. Please let us know what the current status of your roadster is.
Pete
Comment by Pete March 18, 2008 @ 2:19 pmMartin,
It is generally agreed that the biggest problem with delivering a practical, affordable electric vehicle is the battery. So why not build an EV that doesn’t need a battery???
Let me explain:
For me to consider an EV useful, it needs to:
– Perform: Comfortably drive 40-45mph in an urban setting, accelerate with the flow of traffic (seems to be no more quicker than 6 seconds for 0-30mph), and handle hills without becoming a slug. In other words, I need more than a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle.
– Keep me safe: I don’t need 18 airbags, but better crush protection that a cardboard box would be good.
How about range: I may need to go to the grocery store around the corner. That’s 5 miles round-trip and really doesn’t require much of a battery.
If OTOH I take a “longer” trip, say from the suburb into the city center, it may be 30 miles round trip, and involve higher speeds, i.e. substantially more energy. Such trips tend to be mostly highway.
Now, what if that “highway” was not the traditional freeway, but one built for EVs in that it supplies the energy to the EV as it is being driven?
If every metro area had a grid of these “energyways”, and trunk energyways connected the metro areas, then each EV would only need to carry enough energy on board to make it from my garage to either the cover store, or onto the nearest energyway. There it would drive on, and even be recharged with, grid-supplied electricity. The “last mile” at the destination could again be done on the (now replenished) onboard energy. This could be stored in a small, low-cost, light-weight battery, or possibly a super capacitor. Yet, it would appear to have essentially unlimited range!
So while it can’t do *completely* without a battery, it wouldn’t have to have an exotic one that can go hundreds of miles on a single charge and still be cheap.
Of course, eliminating the battery would also eliminate its efficiency losses and its restrictions on how much regenerative energy from braking it could accept – just feed that all back into the grid.
I’m thinking along the lines of http://tritrack.net/powermodes.html or
http://www.ruf.dk/w_faq/FAQ.htm
Chris
Martin sez:
Chris,
There are two big problems with this “slot car” idea – first is simply the gigantic cost of the infrastructure build-out. Essentially every road that you might want to drive on would have to be rebuilt with a “track”, and each track would need to have enough capacity to supply many cars.
The second problem is the chicken and egg problem: nobody will build any slot cars until there is already a track, and building the track would be purely speculative, since no slot cars exist. This is a bigger version of the chicken and egg problem with battery EVs. The reason Tesla incorporated the charger into the EV was to get around this problem, allowing early EV owners to charge from the existing electric infrastructure.
Comment by Chris March 19, 2008 @ 8:57 pmMartin,
Sure, there are problems with what you call the “slot car” idea. Certainly too big for a company like Tesla Motors to address. But not insurmountable for the country (or the world) as a whole. I’m writing from the Seattle area, where we are looking at proposals to replace a few miles each of an elevated roadway and a floating bridge for prices of several billion dollars each. I read of a replacement cost of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge for 6 billion dollars. If the figures for the RUF system are within the ballpark, you could build a network of 100+ miles for the same cost. That is still not “essentially every road” in the Seattle area. But it would put you within a few miles’ drive of essentially every spot you would need to go.
You are right that the track needs to have the capacity to supply many cars. Well, today, we have an electrical grid that has the capacity to supply every household and industrial user, so I don’t see this as a fatal problem, either.
As for the chicken-and-egg: With your experience from Tesla, what do you suppose it would cost to design and build say 10000 “slot car EVs” of the rather modest (compared to a Tesla) specs I gave as my expectations? Think it can be done for 500 million dollars or so? That’s the amount of money we here in Seattle pay each year to subsidize our public transit system.
Maybe it can be your next commercial undertaking: Design a system of tracks and “slot cars”, and sell them to congested regions in the world as a package. They can lease the initial batch of vehicles to their residents. That solves the chicken-and-egg problem. Eventually, many of the other residents in such an area would see the advantages of the system and individually buy vehicles from you.
Chris
Martin sez:
It would be interesting to run the cost numbers for the two cases: 10,000 battery EVs with something like 250 mile range versus the same number of cars with 5 mile range, plus tracks in enough roads that the cars are useful, plus power lines to the roads. (You might also run the numbers for a light rail system that goes enough places, and a fleet of Zip Cars
)
One of the issues that has been explored on this blog is the difference between what people actually need in a car versus what they think they need – what they dream of needing. Most AWD SUVs never go off-road; most sportscars never go near their top speeds. And most people could actually get by fine with an EV that has a 75 mile range. But this reality is not what drives a buying decision; we buy our cars to fit our dreams, to express our aspirations. With this in mind, would many people buy a car that only works on designated roads (and a couple miles from one)? I suspect this would be a hard sell.
Keep thinking about these ideas!
Comment by Chris March 20, 2008 @ 10:55 amI would like to comment on the cost of guideway using the TriTrack. Patent number 7,334,524 that published last month explains how it is possible to build guideway to supply the battery mules and linear motor launch of the TriTrack. This takes the hybrid concept and blows it out to the system not just on a single component. The total system greatly increases safety and with 42,000 Americans each year being killed by loose cars on wet pavement the cost of the controlled guideway is lost in the medical and human loss of not building an elevated guideway system. I am bias of course. The cost to build guideway using patent7,334,524 should be $170,000 per mile. This is a simple beam with no electrical bus bar thus the battery energy sipping. Sipping energy drops the cost of the battery pack to a very affordable price. The cars are targeted to retail for $10,000 and guideway compared to the cost of conventional highways that cannot keep up with the traffic demand is extremely low. At 5 cents per mile energy cost going against the world price of sweet crude oil the return on investment is almost instant going forward.
Comment by Jerry Roane March 20, 2008 @ 6:09 pmMartin’s objections to an ultra short range “slot” car makes sense to me. I don’t see a practical way for this to be implemented, especially when there are reasonable alternatives, but… How about incorporating this with a more extended range, say 40-50 miles. There still needs to be a way to get from here to there (there being plentiful “slot” roads) but cars like the Chevy Volt could be that way. They could have a “slot” (or inductive charge) option. So, in areas that have implemented or are implementing “slot” (or induction) roads, a buyer could purchase this option. At first they may need to use the onboard genset but as “charging” roads come online they could rely less and less on the genset. Once enough “slot” roads exist it might be practical to have a 50 mile battery range “slot” car. This doesn’t require exotic technology today and many promising battery technologies would make this even more afffordable tomorrow. Of course these battery advances may render the “slot” concept unecessary, but I do see it could be an affordable option for near and mid term (perhaps longer).
So, do you build the trains or traintracks first? Or in concert?
Comment by David Kosowsky March 20, 2008 @ 6:35 pmAlthough the initial idea of powering electric cars on the go sounds interesting, I have to side with Martin on this one. A practical implementation of this kind of technology would probably cost tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, and would still result in limited use vehicles. It would make more sense to put that money into developing more energy dense storage systems, such as better batteries or capacitors, and then building a factory that could mass produce them at a low unit cost. This could result in vehicles with greater range and lower cost than todays ICE vehicles. Any charging infrastructure that might be needed to “top up” the ESS for long trips would be relatively cheap compared to turning our highways into a giant Scalectrix set. Also, consider the effects of bad weather on an embedded live circuit that is powerful enough to drive hundreds, or thousands, of cars at one time. Rain, snow, floods, multiple freeze-thaw cycles would take their toll over time and create potentially dangerous situations. So, although I admire that “thinking outside the box” approach, I just don’t see that this particular idea would be a viable solution to short term high cost of batteries. I really cannot wait to see the next generation of electric vehicles though. I firmly believe that within the next ten years EVs will outperform ICE vehicles by any metric that you choose to consider. All the best,
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey March 21, 2008 @ 8:32 amMartin wrote: But I am keeping my mouth shut about the color. It’s a SECRET!
WIRED says: His Roadster has a custom matte gray paint job [...] with an orange racing stripe. “It’s really cool,” Siry said.
Comment by Raymond Michiels March 21, 2008 @ 12:44 pmMartin,
Thanks for your continued replies.
Light rail and Zipcar is not a bad idea. I’ve seen it in Portland, OR.
A few problems with that are of course you have to follow the light rail schedule, and you have to have enough Zip cars at every station (and the space to store them). Seeing the relatively low adoption rate of public transit in the US to date, I believe the need to follow the system’s schedule, having to wait in the cold and rain (I’m in Seattle…), and not having your own private space are major barriers for most people.
I’m all for developing that EV with a long range and 5 minute recharge time. (BTW, how *do* you transfer 53kWh in 5 minutes when the battery pack is not replacable???).
But even if we get that tomorrow, a guideway system like TriTack or RUF promises to improve congestion drastically, reduce traffic accidents and injuries (reportedly costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year currently), and (due to drafting) consume much less energy that equivalent vehicles driven individually as we do today.
I realize the system has limitations. People buying what they *want* as opposed to what they *need* is a clear problem. Maybe over time, that thinking will change. Maybe certain incentives can help with that change in thinking, such as a London-style congestion charge unless you come in on the guideway.
Comment by Chris March 21, 2008 @ 12:52 pmAlso, aren’t we already at a point in the US where we have more cars than licensed drivers? Keep that SUV to go 4-wheeling in the mud on weekends, or the minivan to take the family camping. But use the sensible “slot car” for commuting duty MO-FR.
On the topics of short range and the Chevy Volt:
I seem to recall that when the Volt was announced, they claimed 40 miles pure electric range and 50mpg once the on-board ICE kicks in to drive the next several hundred miles until the gasoline tank is empty. And they also annouced there was no battery currently available to accomplish that…
Why can’t we have a Volt today that does 5 miles on batteries alone, and then deliver 50mpg? The 50mpg is better than 99% of cars on the road today, making every single initial pure-electric mile pure gravy. Then, as better battery technology becomes available, upgrade.
We upgrade computers all the time, and Tesla’s teaching us that transmissions are a field upgrade
My point: Let’s get something that’s substantially better and yet still affordable on the road today, whether it’s a “Volt Lite” or a 5-mile-range “slot car”. This does not preclude better vehicles in the future.
OTOH, a conventional car put in service today might well consume oil and pollute for the next 17 years (I believe that is roughly the service life of cars in the US these days).
Chris
Comment by Chris March 21, 2008 @ 1:10 pmChris,
I like your comment that “Tesla’s teaching us that transmissions are a field upgrade”. That’s funny. And while we’re on the topic I just want to say that Martin must be feeling vindicated now that Elon has finally accepted the wisdom of a single speed transmission on the first iteration of the Roadster. Multiple speed transmissions can wait for a few years. Anyhow, it probably still feels like a hollow victory, considering the circumstances.
But, to get back to your post, you have to consider the economic viability of what you are suggesting.”5-mile-range “slot car[s]”” cannot be an interim solution. While the cars themselves would probably be cheaper to produce than an equivalent pure EV, the infrastructure costs required to enable them to be used on public roads would be huge. The maintenance costs on that infrastructure would also be high. And the infrastructure itself could pose a significant risk to public safety, as I previously mentioned. At this point in time the U.S. is in very bad shape economically. The U.S. Public Debt is approximately 9 trillion USD. The GDP is approximately 14 trillion USD. That makes the ratio of public debt to GDP greater than 64%. Lesser countries have become insolvent at much lower ratios. Add to that consumer credit card debt of over 1 trillion USD, and that should tell you that the U.S. is in for a very rough ride for the next 5-10 years. Neither state nor federal government is looking to take on new infrastructure obligations under these kind of economic circumstances. In case you hadn’t noticed, the U.S. already has a massive infrastructure deficit, with many roads and bridges requiring extensive maintenance work, or even complete replacement in the coming years. I believe that Obama has alluded to this situation in some of his policy speeches. So, given that the likelihood of this new infrastructure being built is slim-to-none, and that even if it were built, it would be hugely expensive, dangerous, and temporary, the cost-benefit analysis just does not indicate that this would be a good investment from any perspective. Spending money to improve current battery/capacitor technology, and lower production costs of these items would make far more sense economically. It may also be faster to implement, thereby reducing gasoline usage sooner rather than later.
Anyway, all the best,
Chris H.
Martin sez:
Funny, Elon’s recent comments now say that he wanted a one-speed all along. (See his Inc. magazine interview for a sample his earlier position.) Can you say revisionism?
Comment by Chris Harvey March 22, 2008 @ 7:42 amBTW, how come there are so many Chris’s interested in this subject? We’re going to have run the entire alphabet soon…. LOL.
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey March 22, 2008 @ 7:49 amHi Martin,
I have a question. I don’t know if you’re free to answer it, but I’ve got to ask…
Back in February you said:
“As of today, I am a bit worried that they will pull something on me. I hope I am wrong, but I recently got a very bad signal from them.”
Can you tell us what the “very bad signal” was? Have you heard anything else from TM relating to the delivery of your car? I’m sorry to pry, but I’m very curious…
All the best,
Chris H.
Martin sez:
I will write about this subject later, when I know the whole story. It will probably be an interesting blog…
Comment by Chris Harvey March 22, 2008 @ 8:04 amChris H.:
I’m with you on the high level of debt in this country. And I am aware of the large amount of deferred maintenance…
This is probably not the right forum to have this discussion, but I’d like to see an analysis of cost/benefit on “slot car” vs. roads. The claimed cost to build guideways is substantially less than highway construction. In fact, it is less than highways *maintenance*. I could well imagine it paying for itself quite quickly. Also, if it largely replaced public transit, that would save a lot of money. I’m not opposed to public transit, but it is a large and ongoing financial burden. We pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the Seattle-area public transit system every year in subsidies.
In short, adding up all costs of the status quo isn’t exactly cheap, either…
Chris
Comment by Chris March 24, 2008 @ 8:55 amI don’t mean to be harsh to Chris but the suggestion of slot cars is really out there. This will not happen and is in no way viable from any perspective.
Also, to suggest that transit funds are misallocated is a little off the wall as well. I think you need to look at this picture to understand some of the problems that transit is solving and how this saves on infrastructure build out:
http://www.green-blog.org/media/news/cars.jpg
Comment by Pete March 24, 2008 @ 11:05 amHi, Martin — long time no see. Sarah says “hi”, and wanted you to know they were discussing Tesla Motors in her Sociology class today. She was amused.
Comment by Mary Ann Neuman April 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pmMartin,
I see in the April 28th “ClimateWire” article that you are interested in “energy storage”.
I am submitting a proposal to the EISG in hopes of getting funding. To write about it on your blog would be inappropriate. Write me at
undulational.harvester@gmail.com
and I will send you some details.
It’s an idea kind of like Orville and Wilber’s “Wright Flyer” of 1908: an innovative idea, but probably not the final configuration compared to thirty years later.
Comment by Scott Bergquist April 28, 2008 @ 8:41 amRegarding energy storage…EEstor Inc.’s high density ceramic ultra capacitor. EEstor is near Austin, TX. Slated to power the “cityZenn” EV. Hats off Mr. Eberhard.
Comment by Susie Stutsman April 28, 2008 @ 8:48 pmHi Martin,
What are you thoughts on hydrogen and liquid hydrogen to power cars? Here in Australia, a University has invented a way of turning sea water into hydrogen using solar power. Keen to know if this is something that you have looked at. If you want more information on this invention, please contact me.
Best regards,
Jon Dee
Founder, Planet Ark Environmental Foundation
http://www.planetark.com
I am generally not enthusiastic about hydrogen – particularly liquid hydrogen as a fuel. I would be interested to see the efficiency for the system you describe – both energy conversion efficiency (kWh/ square meter) and also its cost efficiency (kWh per dollar invested, computed over the life of the facility). If these numbers are competitive with PV electricity into a BEV, then I am interested.
Martin sez:
Comment by Jon Dee May 17, 2008 @ 9:39 pmHi Martin, I just thought I should begin with I love the Tesla and I think you have done a truly fantastic job creating a business that brought the next step in automotive evolution. The car is sexy, made well, marketed well, and best of all is clean energy.
I was a business owner up until recently where I decided to follow my passion of auto design. I am currently working on a design I would like to get your feedback on. I admire what you created in the Tesla group and would welcome some feedback from someone who has done it right. Is there any way I could get a few mins on the phone to talk? Thank you, I hope to hear back from you.
Erik Wang
Comment by erik wang May 20, 2008 @ 10:36 pmMr. Eberhard,
My best friend, a scientist at Sandia Labs, and I work on alternative energy ideas and save the world over the phone on a regular basis. We have two ideas at the moment that we think might have value and you are one of the places I am taking them for comments and direction.
We feel that designing new gas saving vehicles is great but we still have millions of existing gas hogs on the road that will be with us for decades. How do we retrofit the existing fleet?
We have two suggestions to answer that question. First there are existing new technologies that are struggling to get into the market as retrofits, e.g. the Poulsen Hybrid among others. Why not implement national tax credits for adding certified retrofits to existing engines? Using something like the current California tax credits for approved alternative energy devises on homes as a guide, why not give the same market stimulus to automotive or truck retrofits for saving fuel both to curb our energy imports and to clean up our air at the same time, a double winner, not to mention saving the consumer money.
Our second idea is an invention. A substantial amount of weight in cars is the air conditioner. The AC is there all winter long being dragged around needed or not. It also uses a lot of fuel when you turn it on. So here is a solution. A retrofit (or it can be in new vehicles as well) cooling system can be installed in the trunk, well insulated, that is plugged into an electrical home outlet in the evening. The device is a small electric freezer that cools an antifreeze solution within finned tubes like any AC coils. During the day when the car is driven the blower fan is turned on to blow air across the cold fins in the cooler and you have AC on demand indistinguishable from the current system. But in the winter it can be taken out for weight savings. Even if left in it does not drag on the engine. It never uses fuel other than home electrical current. For persons who want to know they have AC for long trips it also could be used in tandem with a conventional system as primary cooling allowing for a smaller unit installed on the engine for fuel savings.
Do you see merit in either idea? If so how do you suggest we give them legs, so to speak?
Thanks.
Comment by Richard Brown May 28, 2008 @ 10:39 amRichard,
Your invention sounds cool – but it’s mother (necessity) is based on faulty data. Less than 2% of the weight of the car is from the AC unit, less than 1% in most cars. The belt-driven compressor does steal quite a bit of power when engaged, but hardly any at all when not: it’s just a free spinning wheel.
In terms of weight reduction, the rule of the thumb I’ve always heard is that every hundred pounds you take out of the car results in an extra .1 seconds on the 1/8 mile. I don’t know what a hundred pounds reduction means for gas mileage, but I would guess its certainly less than 1 mpg. Replacing your hood and trunk with carbon fiber would get you better results than removing the AC (in terms of weight – turning it off does wonders for hp and mileage).
Comment by Gabe May 28, 2008 @ 2:08 pmRegarding your forced departure, this is a big concern for me as I have a term sheet that gives 51% and CEO control to a private investor with a very successful track record.
My question, is it possible to add a clause to the definitive agreement that the founder cannot be terminated for a period of x years? What can I do to mitigate the risk of being pushed out? ~Eddie
Martin sez:
It’s tough to put a clause like that in an agreement – investors will naturally resist. You might be able to put in some protection for yourself – a “golden parachute”, but even these usually get rejected during negotiations.
The best thing you can do to protect yourself is to bring in other investors so that no individual has too much control over the company.
Comment by Eddie Rezek June 15, 2008 @ 6:25 pmMartin,
Thank you for your response regarding Investor control (51%). This is my first time going through the capital raising process for a startup, and it has been intense lately. One lesson I learned was NOT to spend so much on employees and consultants at the beginning, and allocate funds toward a PPM. We delayed this believing that we had many private investors lined up which did not pan out. With funds too tight to start a road show with VC’s, now we are in a vulnerable place. ~Eddie
Martin sez:
You bet. Typically, early employees at a startup are paid very little salary (often no salary) and instead are granted significant stock options in the company. Cash burn is your biggest problem at a startup!
With private investors and VCs alike, you can’t count on the money until it is in your bank. On the other end of the startup cycle, you can’t count on the value of your stock until you have sold the stock and the money is in your bank! Obvious, but I am constantly amazed at how many people get these truisms wrong.
Comment by Eddie Rezek June 17, 2008 @ 6:53 amMr. Eberhard , your cars rocks, too bad about what happened with you guys.
Comment by H.Sampson June 27, 2008 @ 5:19 pmThe Tesla company and the car it was to have produced fascinated me the moment I heard of them. I have been hoping for such a development away from fossil fuel burning to an environmentally friendlier motorisation for several years. Your approach appeared ingenious and promised a quick changeover; I do hope that it yet be allowed to come to fruition.
In the meanwhile, here a suggestion in line with the refitting idea.
Ingredients:
(1) NASA researched use of computer steered lasers to explosively heat mere air for propulsion …here within the combustion chambers of otherwise normal motors
(instead of igniting a fuel/air mixture there)
(2) Just in time electricity for the lasers provided by H2 fuel cells (instead of batteries)
…the waste water produced while releasing electricity be then collected for reuse in electrolysis to replenish the H2 (or perhaps H2 and O2 mixture) used by the H2 fuel cell.
(3) The electrolysis might be in part powered by solar cells form-fitted to the outer hull of the car, in part by municipal electrical supply.
Were the whole to be as it were a black box retro-fitted unto existing cars (or perhaps even jet airplanes) then an immense reduction in or even elimination of exhaust gases produced by existing and future motorisation and jet propulsion could potentially be fairly quickly achieved. (Perhaps within but a few short years?)
I would very much rejoice at such a development. Do you consider it possible? Might China or India (Tata perhaps?) be a more suitable partner in the endeavor?
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 2, 2008 @ 11:36 amWe have started a grassroots effort to reduce oil consumption. See website at http://newghas.com. EV tech is great and we are thinking about integration into some of our fueling locations since we will produce excess power from renewable sources. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Comment by John Jackson July 3, 2008 @ 7:41 amMartin,
I hope that your presentation at the Marin Fair goes well tonight.
All the best,
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey July 3, 2008 @ 1:41 pmHey Martin,
Just found your blog…it’s been awhile! Interesting stuff!
Jim
Comment by Jim Rubino July 5, 2008 @ 12:57 amAdding to my earlier suggestion for a black-box conversion of combustion motors to a fuel-free and thus in as much Zero Emission technology motorisation via lasers explosively heating mere air instead of spark plugs igniting a fuel/air mixture within the combustion chamber(s) of the motor(s), I have discovered the following indication of a VC = Venture Capital enterprise group with at least aligned (vested) interests.
Might they be a welcome ally or more a competitor for the suggestion I made? Are all Venture Capitalists merely out for the quick, big buck or might some of them be in fact interested in getting the world off on an ecologically friendly technological footing??
____________________
[quote]SAIL Venture Partners, L.P. is a national venture capital firm with offices in
Southern California and Washington, D.C. We invest primarily in early-stage
companies in the Energy/Cleantech sector.[/quote]
http://www.sailvc.com/5portfoliocompanies.html
I point in particular to their subordinate enterprise…:
http://www.pulstarplug.com/contact-us.html
which would appear to be more suited to keep us burning fuel for the sake of profit, rather than using lasers as envisioned.
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 9, 2008 @ 9:26 amRobert Martin,
have you ever heard of “ozone”? Ground level ozone is hazardous, and is considered a major pollutant. It sounds like the system you are proposing would be an ozone generator on wheels.
Just a thought…
Comment by Chris Harvey July 9, 2008 @ 1:14 pmSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
Ozone or trioxygen (O3) is a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic O2. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals and humans.
Sources…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-cities-hot-for-hydrogen/2100-11392_3-6172986.html?hhTest=1
http://www.greenscissors.org/transportation/freeride.htm
← I guess you’re thinking about the above
I’m intending something more like the following..:
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html
It’s just that I am hoping that the brownsgas not get merely burned to directly propel the car such as in the following usage model…:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/animation.html
but rather recycled so as to replenish H2 fuel cells, which for their part power the lasers by reuniting the H2 and O2 gas so as to produce the electricity to power the lasers, just in time to produce the desired propulsion.
In concept, absolutely no exhaust gas emission need occur. For the system is then closed except for the intake of electrical energy to power the electrolysis of the waste water produced by the H2 fuel cell (hopefully largely or completely provided by photovoltaic at the point of use, being the vehicle, itself) and the release of electricity via the H2 fuel cells.
In other words, the (hopefully largely) solar powered electrolysis of the H2 fuel cells’ waste water serves to replenish the self-same. Thus the H2 fuel cells function as an interim storage of solar energy. By reuniting the H2 and O2 into water, the H2 fuel cell releases that energy as electricity, just in time for use by the lasers, which by explosively heating mere air within the combustion chambers of otherwise conventional car or jet plane motors (sort of as in a ramjet) produce the desired propulsion.
The hopefully possible refitting of existing motorisation is just part of the attractiveness of this idea, imho. The real cake to be eaten is the absolute reduction to zero (in the case of cars) of exhaust gas emission.
Eventually even the heat produced by this process could in part be recaptured, having been made useful, for example, within the process of electrolysis.
(here I grope…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903412)
The envisioned closed system might be able also to be enhanced or augmented by use of electricity produced directly from solar energy via photovoltaic. The use of fuel cells as described would nevertheless provide a means of storing solar energy for use in addtion to or instead of such direct solar powering of the lasers.
Thus, neither ozone nor any other exhaust becomes produced within the envisioned system.
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 10, 2008 @ 4:56 amOzone production and other pollution becomes relegated to the production of such electricity as be produced municipally. Hopefully, the central production and/or storage of electricity could become so optimized as to itself also stay environmentally friendly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/28/abu-dhabi-to-invest-2-billion-in-solar/)
I find it quite striking that Tesla is suggesting a 250 mile range per charge. This sounds remarkable given General Motors is only predicting an all electric range of 40 miles for the 2010 Chevrolet Volt. Silicon Valley has won if the Tesla performs as planned.
Comment by Ames Tiedeman July 12, 2008 @ 11:39 amMr. Eberhard,
Probably the most annoying question you get everyday so please forgive me, do you have your car? Any news on where it is and it’s ETA?
Your vision became our hope. Thank you.
S. Stutsman
Comment by Susie Stutsman July 13, 2008 @ 9:23 amSusie,
Today was the day that I predicted Martin would get his car (119 days since it started down the production line on March 17th, same as Jeff Skoll’s car), but it looks like I was wrong… Apparently it is still being repaired after a “technician” “accidentally” ran it into the back of a truck at 11:00 am June 3, Southbound on US 101 in San Jose. Since June 18th we have had no updated info on Martin’s car.
All the best,
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey July 13, 2008 @ 10:40 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
[quote]The following technologies are related to electrolysis:
* Electrochemical cells, including the hydrogen fuel cell, use the reverse of this process.[/quote] …i.e to produce electricity.
For example, the above two links led me to expect that the process of electrolysis (verwendet on the waste water of the H2 fuel cell in order to replenish its reactants) followed just in time by the reverse process within the H2 fuel cell to produce the electricity needed by the lasers employed within the combustion chambers could take place as it were as a closed system. “Closed”, of course, but for the intake of electricity to power the electrolysis and the output of electricity to power the lasers.
The main idea is not the use of fuel cells. It is the use of the lasers to explosively heat mere air within the combustion chambers.
That would obviate the use of an air/fuel mix bought to explosion via spark plugs, thus eliminating exhaust gases entirely.
In other words, the intended goal was to not reduce pollution via exhaust gases but to eliminate it.
That ozone or other pollutants might be produced within the black box did occur to me. My hope was/is that whatever pollutants be so produced both remain enclosed within that box and also become recycled in the closed loop reactions within the box, so that also thereby no emissions occur.
For besides the nice effect of having Zero Emissions Technology as a means of propulsion, I was also hoping that eventually or at least potentially even energy autonomy of individual propulsion or power conversion/usage units (cars, jet planes, households or even space ships or planetary rovers) could be achieved by such means.
The use of the conversion of solar into electrical energy to power the electrolysis is one of the atractive aspects of the idea, I figure. The use of municipal electricity as needed I considered to be a concession onto the eventually greater energy need of the process than could alone be provided via conversion cells directly applied to the exterior of the individual car. For I merely speculate and hope that others more gifted than myself and such as be equipped financially and technically can iron out the fine points and problems that arise by way of actually achieving such products.
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 14, 2008 @ 2:11 ambtw I sincerely do not intend to offend anyone with my suggestions. Please do excuse me, should I nevertheless have naively done so.
I simply hoped that Mr. Eberhard might find the idea worthy of his and others’ attention to the benefit of all.
Regardless, I admire that which he already achieved and wish him well in future.
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 14, 2008 @ 2:29 amRobert,
I don’t think anybody was offended (I certainly wasn’t), I was just trying to point out possible drawbacks to the system you were proposing. Sorry if I came across a bit harsh…
All the best,
Chris H.
Comment by Chris Harvey July 14, 2008 @ 11:12 amright, thanks for that feedback and for the reassurance.
Actually, I took no offense, but I had only just gotten to some comments elsewhere about trolls and feared that I might have been counted among them, despite only good intention on my part.
btw, I have so far no further ideas of my own to share, So I have gone over to simply continuing to read the comments and to follow up on the many links pointed out by the several contributors to these blogs. Many thanks for making them freely available for reading.
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 18, 2008 @ 3:19 amRobert,
if I may, I would like to suggest something that is an interesting read. It is a white paper written by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2006. It’s called “The 21st Century Electric Car”, and it lays out the rationale for pursuing an EV approach to personal transportation. You can download a PDF copy at:
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers.php
All the best,
Chris H.
Martin sez:
Tesla Motors has removed that white paper. Don’t know why. It was getting a bit crufty – I originally wrote that very early in Tesla’s history (largely based on tzero performance), and Tesla had learned a lot since then. Maybe they will re-issue an updated version that includes state-of-the-art knowledge about drag, charging efficiency, mass, fuel costs, etc.
Comment by Chris Harvey July 18, 2008 @ 10:06 amTwo words: Congrats and Condolences. Okay, so I lied. Them are three words. I need to contact you. Please send phone or email. Thanks.
Comment by John Dinkel July 21, 2008 @ 12:33 pmjd
Hallo again
Thx Chris H. for pointing out that link. I look forward to its having been updated and then made again available online.
As for my having envisioned a closed circuit or black box fuel cell tech to power the lasers, I only just discovered at the following link that NASA has already produced and intends actually to use precisely such an energy storage system on the moon
Check out if you would…:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/lunar_fuel_cell.html
[quote]“What makes our regenerative fuel cell unique is that it’s closed loop and completely sealed,” Bents said. “Nothing goes in and nothing comes out, other than electrical power and waste heat. The hydrogen, oxygen and product water inside are simply recycled over and over again.”
[...]
“On the moon, you would start with a tank of water. You’d use the solar arrays to make hydrogen and oxygen during the day, then use the hydrogen and oxygen to make electricity during the night when there’s no sun,” said Bents. “Ideally, if nothing broke and nothing wore out, it could run forever without being refueled.”[/quote]
*hurrah*
I have been hoping/expecting that such a black box energy storage would perhaps be as speculated above long-lived on up to normally not in need of replacement. For the insides would not be getting used up but ever again reused either catalytically or as ever again losslessly chemically converted works material.
One advantage then over batteries I was hoping for was not needing to periodically replace that system, as has in the past been necessary in the case of batteries. I hoped that only in cases of exceptional repair need would the black box energy storage need replacing.
Might not such a system in the end become priceworthy enough and energetic enough to make it a possible or even an attractive replacement for battery tech within cars?
respectfully
rdm <– sorry, not one of the famous ones 8/
Martin sez:
It’s this bit that I find the most interesting:
I wonder what the constraints on the system are? Does it require a very cold environment? How is the cost? How does it do for power density?
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 22, 2008 @ 4:54 amRDM,
I know I’ve seen NASA research centers stuff with fuel cells that can hit a 1000wh/kg, I don’t know how much more weight it would take to me them regenerative. I’ll try to find a link.
If they could make a regenerative fuel cell that takes electricity (from any source) and doesn’t require a hydrogen refill, and stores a even kwh/kg…well game over for BEV.
The Roadster’s current ESS gets what, like 110wh/Kg? So the system described above, at the same weight as the current ESS, would get 1800+ miles per charge? Pretty sweet…
Comment by Gabe July 22, 2008 @ 8:43 amHere is one example of a kwh/kg fuel cell which looks like it could be designed to be regenerative.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39874/1/06-1204.pdf
Martin sez:
The trouble with this particular technology is its poor energy efficiency. This whitepaper says that the theoretical efficiency is 75%, with actual efficiency at 60% for low-power operation, 30% efficiency at higher-power. Compare to ~93% efficiency for Li Ion cells.
With this poor efficiency, the storage system would require a lot more energy to get rid of the heat – so the system efficiency would be even worse. (Note that the poor charging efficiency of NiMH cells cause the GM engineers to design the second generation EV-1 so that it ran the A/C the entire time it was charging, reducing the EV-1’s energy efficiency considerably.)
Cars built using this kind of energy storage would use twice or maybe 3 times as much energy per mile as cars built around Li Ion…
Comment by Gabe July 22, 2008 @ 8:57 amaha. Ok. What about it not needing replacement (I was hoping) whereas batteries get used up and need periodically to be replaced (or so I have been assuming)?
I had been hoping that the heat could be of benefit maybe by way of somehow helping to recapture/generate electricity underway or perhaps by way of making the electrolysis less energy costly?
The other matter was the use of lasers in the combustion chambers (the other black box part of the idea. It would be surely at least tempting to GM for example to take a SUV or something and simply add the two black boxes to it in place of the gas tank and of the carburation/spark plugs etc to produce ZEV EVs
…anyways, it would have made retro-fitting of existing car models and even oldies possible. And it would have made H2 delivery infrastructure unnecessary.
A no go probably?
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 22, 2008 @ 12:21 pmSo we would get the electric equivalent of a gas hog: an electron hog, maybe? Electricity guzzler?
So (maybe) higher range but at a much higher operating (kwh) cost.
Martin sez:
A Joule-fool? A Meter-beater?
Comment by Gabe July 22, 2008 @ 12:31 pmHi Gabe
is that for sure? My non-expert reckoning/hoping has been that the pure electromotor would use the electricity less efficiently than the lasers would.
What I mean is, I picture taking an existing electromotor, than adding coils and wiring enough to say double its top-end output of propulsive power.
In contrast to that I picture adding to a single cylinder motor a second cylinder in order to (naively conceived) double the top-end output of the combustion chamber motor. For that would seem to me to be roughly what would be needed.
My imagination left me considering the probable net weight gain in the latter case to be much less than in the former. Thus I expected – admittedly naively – that the net gain in performance would be better with the lasers. Of course, I have no means of, myself, testing the idea.
As for the comparative heat production of the electrical power source “black box” involving fuel cells vs batteries. Would the mentioned relative inefficiency not be acceptable in the face of the prospect of not having to completely replace the present day automotive fleets the world over before achieving overall ZEV EV motorisation?
Wouldn’t there actually be a net savings in environmental costs in a retro-fitting scenario as opposed to the total environmental and monetary cost of replacing all those vehicles as well as of scrapping them?
That matter with the relative heat production via batteries vs that fuel cell and waste water reuse in a closed system is more than can definitively determine.
Might it not be, however, that roughly speaking, the heat production of the one side of the electrolysis followed by fuel cell electrical discharge mean additional heat on the one and absorption of heat energy on the other side? (I think I saw some mention of such a correlation somewhere – sorry if I lie way off the mark with that envisioning).
Still hoping it would all work well…
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 22, 2008 @ 1:11 pmrdm
Here is another aspect to battery vs fuel cell that might need to be taken into account.
The process called “PosiCharge” by the people at avinc.com is supposed to make the use of battery powered vehicles more energy efficient. That is because the batteries get ever again recharged, so that they end up operating at between 40% and 80% efficiency. That is to say, the batteries do not continually perform at any one very high percent efficiency throughout their charged life but instead are ever again performing at much less than their optimal efficiency, the longer they have had to discharge since having been recharged.
I don’t think that that be the case with fuel cells, or is it? Could it be that the fuel cells operate continually for the duration of their being not yet completely depleted of their fuel and thus in the end at a higher efficiency all-round than the battery can normally achieve?
Ok, I’m guessing about that, too. Simon and Garfunkel once sang…: “I get all the news I need from the weather report”
With me it’s more like, >>I get all the info I get via internet<<. So be lenient with me please.
as always respectfully
rdm
____________________
[quote]http://www.avinc.com/PosiChargeFAQ_detail.asp?ID=24
Q: 2. How fast is PosiCharging?
A: Fast charging can take a 48 volt, 1000 amp hour battery from 20% state of charge to an 80% state of charge in about an hour with no cool down period required. That’s four times faster than a standard charger, but where it really shines is during breaks and shift changes. By charging batteries right in the truck just 15 to 30 minutes at a time, you can keep your trucks performing strong between a 40% and 80% state of charge all day. [/quote]
Martin sez:
Posicharge was solving a problem that exists primarily in lead-acid batteries. Lithium Ion batteries have pretty much the same efficiency throughout their state of charge.
Fuel cell efficiency is hugely dependent on load, as far as I can tell – and max power is very far away from max efficiency. And max efficiency is poor even at its best – never even close to the efficiency of a Li Ion battery at its worst!
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 22, 2008 @ 3:00 pmMartin, for what it’s worth, Doug Korthof (seen in Who Killed) did a video on YouTube about automotive NiMH batteries. As you suggested, it was necessary to cool the EV-1 Ovonics batteries while charging, but evidently Panasonic did major development and improvement to their versions which made that unnecessary for the RAV4 EV and Prius batteries, which as we know have excellent longevity.
Comment by Steve S. July 22, 2008 @ 3:55 pmMeterbeater sounds like a highly efficient car: beating the meter.
How bout ohm-roam?
Or differentiate an electric car from an ICE, perhaps the metaphor of cars as drinkers should be forsaken. Instead of guzzlers and sippers, we could use cars as eaters, calling highly inefficient drives:
amp-muncher, volt-swallower, watt-glutton.
Comment by Gabe July 22, 2008 @ 4:27 pmHi again
(1) “Fuel cell efficiency is hugely dependent on load”
would that also be true of such a closed system as be envisioned by NASA for the moon project?
For the system as a whole, being closed, its H2, O2 and water thus getting in principle never depleted. Does that not in itself count towards a plus in efficiency, at least in terms of efficient use of resources?
What, too, about the whole life environmental cost?
NASA considers it possible that the fuel cells used in that closed system now in development for use in the lunar project might virtually run forever. Thus they are made one time and then – barring their getting damaged – are essentially non-polluters, at least chemically. (I presume)
Aren’t batteries therefore less environmentally friendly in that they need ever again to be replaced, whereupon they become hopefully recycled but to the extent that their materials can or do not become recycled their components become pollutants?
As far as being an energy glutton be concerned, supposing the fuel cells within such a closed system be able to function well with just the electrical energy won by photovoltaic, would not that then be acceptable?
(2) Setting the retro-fitting aspect of the idea aside, for the moment.
What do you think of the use of lasers to heat mere air within the combustion chambers as opposed to continuing on with spark plugs igniting some fuel/air mixture there? And how does / might the former compare in efficiency in your view to a purely electromotor / battery construction?
I hope for the envisioned use of lasers and fuel cell tech (as described) to even be useable, for example, in shipping. And I assumed that to propel massive ships with electromotors and batteries alone must surely be prohibitively costly and / or relatively inefficient. Especially for such massive systems I was reckonning that there be perhaps sufficient wall and roof surface for photovoltaic to perhaps provide all the electric power needed for the refueling of the fuel cells via electrolysis. Should the closed systems approach to fuel cell usage also do good service in that service area and were they in fact to need no or very little maintainance, than, at least,they might be considered preferable to batteries. Or not?
eh, I have been assuming that batteries, regardless their construction type, get chemically / physically used up and need replenishment/construction or replacement ever again. Wrong?
Comment by Robert D. Martin July 23, 2008 @ 2:54 amHi Martin,
Comment by Nick July 26, 2008 @ 11:07 amI have a diagram to an electric motor that can produce enormous power while consuming not much electricity.
Contact me if interested.
Thank you.
Thank you for the inspiration Martin.
I hope you don’t have any objections to another electric supercar:
http://www.teslambo.com
Comment by Rex Solomon July 26, 2008 @ 6:57 pmMr. Eberhard, I know you are speaking at Wilkes University on October 1st, but that is a tough lecture for me to get to because I do not drive due to disability and the bus schedule up there is poor. Will you be speaking elsewhere in the Northeast this academic year? Is there a place where I can find your public schedule so that I can keep tabs? Please advise. I can be reached [Cabbage] or by e-mail at [cabbage]. Thank you and have a nice day. Jason in PA
Martin sez:
I don’t have any further plans for speaking in the Northeast at this point. Were I more organized, I’d publish my speaking schedule… I will try to do so on this blog one of these days.
By the way, if you post your phone number etc. in your comment, it will be immediately visible to everyone. I try to knock them off when I get to them, but for your privacy, better not to do that.
Comment by Jason Porta August 23, 2008 @ 4:14 pmI have a solution to the problem you were facing while at Tesla, when you asked people to fill a spreadsheet to calculate their available amps. The solution now has patent pending status, is really simple, fits in with SAE1772 and would put chargers implementing it at a decided market advantage. Let me know if you’re interested. It doesn’t conflict with Jerry Kaplan’s big ideas, but complements them.
Martin sez:
You should contact Coulomb Technologies and see if they are interested. Full disclosure: I am an adviser to Coulomb, and they have hired several ex-Tesla folks.
Comment by Mike Schuler September 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pmhttp://moschus.livejournal.com/102961.html
Comment by ng f gf September 15, 2008 @ 6:27 amMr. Eberhard,
I’m a student at the University of Southern California. I’m taking a class focusing on entrepreneurism and one of our assignments is to interview an entrepreneur in a field which we are interested in. I was wondering if it would be possible to interview you for my class. Thanks!
Comment by Charlie September 15, 2008 @ 1:16 pmBob Lutz on Colbert Report
Comment by TEG September 18, 2008 @ 12:43 pmMartin,
I saw your presentation at the Marin County Fair. At the time you said you would make your presentation available to us. I found it the most compelling argument for batteries/electricity vs. H2, corn ethanol, etc… Have you posted it yet? I need a copy of it to help convert the Naysayers! Thanks!
BTW – I am Tesla owner #632 Only 600 cars to go!
Martin sez:
You bet. Scroll down on my home page and you will find an entry called “The Greenest County Fair on Earth.” work your way to the bottom of that entry and you will find my slides.
I am giving a few talks in October that will include this argument, but I will be updating the numbers to match the real Roadster numbers (rather than projections based on rather old models) and also based on the new EPA numbers for the Prius. No earthshaking changes, but a bit more accuracy. I will try to post one set of slides sometime in October.
By the way, someone who likes math noticed that the power output from the large-scale solar installations I gave divided by the number of cars each would support was not constant. This is true – I tried to account for the fact that some installations (e.g. those in the Mojave) produce more electricity per day than others (e.g. those in Germany).
Now that there is a growing number of Roadsters on the road, what about a Roaster owner’s meet at my place one of these days? I have a charger – you can top off your car there
Comment by Severex September 20, 2008 @ 7:44 amHi Martin,
I attended the lecture you gave in Wilkes-Barre and just wanted to thank you for your inspiration and rationalized thought. At the reception I brought up the idea of hydrogen on demand as a possible fuel source. You quickly asserted that the idea was perpetual motion and I guess you were right (time to face reality
. I was under the impression we could split water fast enough to run an ICE while using the alternator it drives to split the water. But then the combustion would yield water which could be directed back into the tank and thus the engine would run forever (which I know isn’t possible). I hope you will be able to give another lecture in Wilkes-Barre after your next achievement.
Nicholas
Comment by Nicholas Soroka October 1, 2008 @ 6:28 pmThere are a couple of interesting companies I’ve read about:
ZPower claims their silver-zinc batteries run 40% longer than lithium-ion battery of the same size.
AFS Trinity Power in Bellevue, Washington says they have technology that lets plug-in hybrids get 150MPG.
Comment by Rene Sugar October 3, 2008 @ 5:12 pmMartin — Any reaction or insight to today’s news?
Martin sez:
I am disappointed, sympathetic with the employees who will lose their jobs after years of hard work, concerned as a shareholder, but not especially surprised.
Comment by Matt Nauman October 15, 2008 @ 8:49 amWoolsey interview mentioning Martin
Comment by TEG October 15, 2008 @ 10:51 amMartin, any chance you will/can post power consumptions for driving your roadster at constant speeds (of, say: 10, 20, … 80 mph)? Perhaps complemented with A/C, heating and other power consumers in your car?
Once you get your updated drive train?
Comment by Raymond Michiels November 5, 2008 @ 12:56 pmComment by Georg November 23, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Alternate copy of Woolsey interview…
Comment by TEG November 24, 2008 @ 8:04 amMartin,
Thank you Martin for all the hard work you do and for the dedication to change the auto industry. I have watched you since your first venture at Wyse and with the innovation of the WY-30. You are a father to modern technology and I have been inspired by your work for many years.
I recently have started some designing and hopefully in the near future, some testing on a new EV that runs on magnets. I have been successful so far but have, as with all ventures, run out of funds. But none the less, if ideas like ours continue grow and change things, this world will be a better place.
Thank you for your work and your attitude towards technology. Keep up the good work. I would also love to bounce a few ideas off of you but I know that you’re a very busy man.
Thanks! Jim
Comment by Jim Merrill November 24, 2008 @ 3:56 pmHere’s an idea for green transportation fans: turn the S.S. United States (check out S.S. United States Foundation website) green per Lindblad Expeditions eco-cruise concept (check out their website)-and Abercrombie and Kent cruises as well ( per website) using KiteShip tech. (per website) for some power, as well as algae based bio-fuels (grown in ponds at the home port). The S.S. United States is owned by Norweign Cruise lines and Apollo Private Equity Group of N.Y. owns half of NCL (as of 2007). With Obama in, the world will be going green fast(er). There is no major sized eco-tour ship now- the United States would be a perfect “green recycle” ship: not too big, by today’s standards, and not too small. Being on a big ship with “living room” would be a big plus, for most customers, for any cruise of a week or longer, at least-and no eco-cruise ship fits this bill. The United States, having a total aluminum superstructure, is a light ship-and slick thru the water-fastest ocean liner ever built (plus 50 mph)-with a new “bulb bow” it would get even better. Slap a lot of skylights (going down to the lower decks as well) on the ship and pop-up wind turbines even (for use at night in port- got to be a lot of sea breeze action happening in ports at night)- totally green the ship in every possible clever way (using maybe the renowned green architecture firm of MacDonaugh Assoc.). Better to “recycle to green” than build from scratch. I think Google.org (Al Gore is on the board,no ?) should JV with NCL and Apollo over the next couple-or three- of years (timed out right for the world economic recovery) to float this boat- “as a green warning to the rest of the shipping/cruising world”.
Comment by TJ November 25, 2008 @ 12:29 amHi there,
I’m working on an article about tesla and I heard a rumor that the company was laying off all R&D folks – anyone not involved with producing the cars that have been on order. Do you know anything about it, or can you point me in the direction of someone who might?
Thanks very much!
Amy
Martin sez:
Though Tesla laid off quite a few people including many excellent engineers, I have not heard that they laid off all the R&D folks – quite the contrary, several of my engineer friends are still employed at Tesla.
Comment by Amy November 26, 2008 @ 12:39 pmHi Martin,
As you have been an evagelist about electric cars and why everybody should adopt it. Have you ever thought about having an open source community on electric car technology. I’ve a dream of seeing electric car being commodities like PC, running of quality software to bring efficiency and selling cars online.
I see you like Marc Andreessen for Internet and I guess many people would like to see you in that role.
Let me know if you find my thoughts interesting. We can talk about it.
Thanks,
Vipul Singh
Martin sez:
I think the open source community might be a good way to generate new ideas for cars (electric or otherwise) but I can’t imagine how you could actually make a car via open source methods. Keep in mind that your car is quite likely the most dangerous thing you own by a large margin. It’s easy to take for granted the huge amount of experience and engineering that went into making it as safe (and reliable) as it is.
I would suggest that the software running in your car is far more reliable than the software running in your PC or your cell phone. Have you ever heard of a software crash in someone’s ABS system, for example? It just does not happen. This kind of reliability does not happen by accident, and insistence on reliability is part of the reason that car companies get beat up for their slow software development, their slowness to adopt new technologies.
Comment by Vipul Singh December 7, 2008 @ 4:45 pmSir, I just wanted to say how much I admire your work. When everyone was thinking about eco-friendly car. You came up with eco-friendly supercar. I am a 19 year-old who looks up to you as a role-model. I recently found out that you went to University of Illinois which is amazing because that is where I want to transfer for my electrical engineering degree. I know things are rough around the edges with Elon. But you are the founder of Tesla. I’m sure you can come up with more brilliant ideas to show Elon that he made a mistake. Is there any advice that you can give this 19 year-old with ambition to follow your foot-steps?
Comment by Frank December 15, 2008 @ 3:22 amcentral chevrolet…
I think you did a great job writing The Last American Hero Again. Bravo….
Trackback by central chevrolet December 30, 2008 @ 10:12 amMartin-
Comment by DrTaras January 16, 2009 @ 8:08 amDon’t have your e-mail handy so hope you don’t mind if I write you here. Did you see the latest rumor on the TM owners blog? Look under “Styling, Interior, and Options” under the heading of “Tesla Increases Prices for Existing 2008 Orders.” I hope it is not true because I will have felt conned (still less than 1% of what you felt)! Whadayathink?
Martin,
Any thoughts about how Tesla is now asking for more money on things that were suppose to be included in the original price?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/01/17/prospective-tesla-owners-not-happy-about-price-increases-on-lock/
Martin sez:
I think cutting features and options from cars for which customers put down large deposits months, even a year before delivery, is excruciatingly poor form and shows lack of appreciation for what these early customers mean to a young company. The deposits if these customers – both the cash itself and the faith the cash represents – is a big part of what generated all the excitement about Tesla.
Comment by John January 19, 2009 @ 7:48 amHere is a post which lays it out:
http://www.saxton.org/tom_saxton/2009/01/tesla-price-increase.html
Comment by DrTaras January 20, 2009 @ 5:43 amMartin,
Can you clarify if the early clients who put down a deposit signed any type of legal agreement that gave Tesla the right to change the final specs of the car prior to delivery? All I can type is that if I had put a deposit down and then hit with this, I would not have only asked for my deposit back but sued for bait and switch and reported this to the DMV. This type of tactic is exactly what Tesla strongly preached they didn’t want to be like.
Comment by John January 20, 2009 @ 9:29 amI can only think that Tesla would have done SO much better to have made this price hike optional (or at least negotiable), rather than mandatory. Something like: “There’s a $7500 rebate coming to each of you; Tesla is in a bind and needs to show profit on each car to qualify for the Model S loan, so we’re humbly requesting that customers allow us to split the difference, effectively adding $3750 to the purchase price. We’re prepared to negotiate this with owners on an individual basis.” This sort of approach would strengthen trust rather than destroy it, and I would be surprised if many (even most) owners don’t approve the increase on these terms. After all, the early adopters are the ones who most want Tesla to succeed, and might even feel honored to be put in such a crunch-time position to help them. Elon’s latest response was somewhat informative, but didn’t really contain the apology it needed to. I keep asking myself, WWMD…? (and btw, if you’re going to TED this year, see you there!)
Comment by Ben January 20, 2009 @ 1:31 pmNot to mention, if Tesla were to account for the interest they’ve accumulated on customer deposits by having them two years in advance, that’s even more profit per car for them.
Comment by Ben January 20, 2009 @ 1:49 pmI know what my contract says. It actually has a bit of a loophole. It explicitly lists the optional items I get for my $100K. It doesn’t list the standard items, so there would be room in this language to do things like make the charger an option. (It is moot for me, as I have my car.)
I also talked to someone who has a somewhat later (beyond the first 200 though not extremely later) car. The contact language of this person is completely different. It does explicitly allow for the price to change until the lock-in date.
Even if completely legal, I think it is very poor form and will hurt the company to have changed pricing and options on people who committed money to the company a long time ago.
And… I still am having a ball with mine!!!
Comment by Steve Uhlir January 20, 2009 @ 7:36 pmSteve, exactly: UNTIL the lock-in date. The affected customers were ALREADY locked-in. In any case, inviting a slew of lawsuits against your company is an awful business practice, regardless of whether you can “win” on a technicality. (And there’s all likelihood a jury would side with the customer.) I continue to be appalled by this latest chain of events.
Comment by Ben January 21, 2009 @ 1:41 pm[...] Posted by DDB …wonder what Martin thinks? Well, he did say a bit here: [...]
Pingback by Tesla Increases Prices for Existing 2008 Orders - Page 17 - Tesla Motors Club Forum January 23, 2009 @ 5:29 amI was excited to have my first Tesla sighting tonight in Palo Alto. The color scheme (gray with orange stripes) looked familiar and the distinctive license plate was another clue… that was your roadster, wasn’t it? :-} It’s a great looking car and my wife, who has a very discerning eye, loved it too.
One thing that didn’t strike me until I saw a Tesla ‘in the flesh’ is the large size of the air inlet scoop in front. I know the batteries, motor, and controller need cooling but I’m surprised it needs so much area. I’m involved in the homebuilt aircraft scene and cooling drag is a major concern; low drag aircraft use inlets that are kept to the minimum size possible. Is the Tesla’s inlet optimized for its cooling requirements?
Comment by Steve January 30, 2009 @ 10:21 pm