AutoblogGreen Q&A: Tesla Motors Chairman Elon Musk Part 2 - Transmission shifts
As we continue the tale of Elon and Martin, we pick up from the initial involvement of Elon Musk in Tesla Motors. Musk has put in the single largest chunk of money that has allowed Tesla to develop and now start building an electric car. Here we delve into the subject of his role in design decisions. As some in the mainstream media have taken to referring to Musk as the "creator" of the Tesla Roadster, this is a particularly contentious subject. The whole issue of the choice of transmission suppliers is a particularly thorny one. Musk was insistent that Tesla should build a car worthy of the price tag. Anyone who has ever worked in the auto industry knows that is almost always a lot harder than it looks. The friction that clearly existed between Eberhard and Musk from very early on in their relationship definitely didn't help matters. (Note:If you missed Part 1 check it out first).
ABG: So, how did you get to the first stage, of the Roadster, the specs that debuted in 2006 with the first prototypes? How did that come about?
Read on after the jump.
ABG: So, how did you get to the first stage, of the Roadster, the specs that debuted in 2006 with the first prototypes? How did that come about?
Elon: That was basically an iteration between myself, Martin, and JB.
ABG: From your perspective, at least, how did you get to the point where you had a car with a two-speed gear box and the lower power motor that it started off with?
Elon: Technically it's a lower torque motor. The motor power stays about the same but the torque increases (with the upgraded motor now being tested). The problem with the AC Propulsion motor is that when you go from a kit car, the tZero, to a production car that actually has all of the safety systems and resists all the crash issues and actually has all the amenities like a real stereo system and the thing adds a fair bit of weight. So in order to have good performance, you either have to upgrade the motor torque and the current capability of the power electronics because the vehicle weight has increased, or you have to have a two-speed transmission. If you don't do that, you end up with a car that does not have sports car performance. So in fact, you're going to end up with a car that is worse than the Lotus Elise, which is a car that's half the price.
Again Eberhard's perspective on this was slightly different:
"The 2-speed transmission was the first major edict to come from Elon, and though I thought it was an unnecessary risk for the first model year's cars, I was certainly willing to be a team player and support Elon's edict. I knew there were risk and cost associated with the decision, but by themselves, I felt we would be able to manage them.
Keep in mind that with a 1-speed, I was not proposing performance that sucked. See the executive summary that I sent you. AC Propulsion's tzero was turning out 0-60 in about 3.6 seconds with a single-speed transmission. We thought that we might just break 4 seconds with Tesla's additional weight, with our "worst case" estimates coming in around 4.8 seconds. This is still EXTREMELY quick for a sportscar, and would have been a great car."
Elon: Less than half the price, actually. So it's a very tough sales proposition to tell people "please pay twice the price for a car with worse performance." It's not that nobody would buy it, that car. There would always be some people that would buy that car. But could you make a business out of it, would you sell enough to actually show that the business works. And if you can't show the business works with the Roadster, you'll have a real hard time convincing investors that to give you money for car number 2 if car number 1 is a flop.
So, the approach that I wanted to take was, the right architecture in my view is, and JB's view actually, is let's upgrade the motor power and have a single speed transmission. It's not even a transmission, it's an rpm reducer, with a differential. There's not even a clutch or anything. It's very light; it's very cheap; and it's very efficient because you're not spinning any unloaded gears, you don't have a wet clutch or any of that stuff. So you have greater energy efficiency through the transmission.
Martin actually said he doesn't want to deviate from the AC Propulsion power or torque level in the motor and he said that, we should do a two-speed transmission instead. He actually put forward a proposal for a two-speed transmission of his own design. The thing I was insistent on was, we must have compelling sports car performance. But actually, my preferred path was not a two-speed – it was a single speed with an upgraded motor.
It was Martin who insisted that we go to the two-speed route in order to achieve that outcome. And Martin did say, "Well, what about if we just do a single speed for the first year or so, and suffer that loss of performance?" I said, "I think it's really tough to crack that perception of poor performance, and say, 'yes, it's coming down the pike or something like that.' And unless you tell me this is a critical path item, you know, that this will fundamentally delay the schedule, then we should do the two-speed. If it's just a matter of investment, we should do it. If it's a matter of delaying a critical path, then we should think about it."
Here's an another example of how different people see the same events through their own personal filters. Musk acknowledges that he pushed for the 2-speed transmission from Job 1 in order to meet the original performance targets. From a December 2007 interview in Inc. magazine:
"The most controversial of Musk's edicts involved the transmission. Martin Eberhard, Tesla's co-founder and then-CEO, argued that it would be quicker and easier to build the car with a single-speed transmission. Musk ordered a two-speed model so that the Roadster would be able reach a top speed of well over 100 miles per hour."
None of this is disputed by either man and yet the motivations and interpretations are very different. Eberhard tells ABG that:
"JB was the guy in charge of the motor and inverter, and he did not have the skills or resources to redesign the ACP system. JB and I and the rest of the team discussed this approach and concluded that we (JB especially) could not achieve a higher-power motor/inverter in time.
JB was actually quite scared of deviating from the ACP design in the beginning because he did not understand it. Marc and I had to push him to eliminate the old analog control and switch to a DSP-based control, and even then, he did not do this until he had hired a substantial team of engineers, 2 years later. Again, this is not to denigrate JB. The ACP design was quite tricky and tweeked, and it was very poorly documented. JB was trying to make the right decision based on the available resources - as were we all.
Note that Tesla's new high-power motor depends on very new silicon from International Rectifier - silicon that only became available this year. No such silicon (IGBT transistors to be specific) was available to us in 2004, and we knew it."
As an engineer myself and having picked up responsibility for other peoples undocumented designs and tried to develop them I can certainly understand Straubel's reluctance to mess with something that at least worked up to a point. In this context the decision to follow the two-speed path with the lower torque motor certainly made sense at the time. Hindsight is of course 20/20 but as Eberhard explains, the electronic hardware to make the change apparently wasn't available at the time anyway.
Elon: And Martin said it would not delay the critical path. It was just a matter of investment. So I said, "OK, Let's do it." And that's true. If we had picked the right supplier for the transmission – the two-speed transmission is not inherently difficult. Unfortunately we did not pick a good supplier. The initial pick was XTrac, which is basically... they make transmissions for track cars.
They're very expensive and they don't really how to make consumer stuff. So they screwed the pooch. And then, instead of going from them, to someone who could really do the job, we went from them to Magna. Martin assured me and the rest of the Board that there was no one better to do this transmission than Magna.
Here Musk's opinion of XTrac may be overly harsh. Major automotive suppliers are often reluctant to deal with low-volume manufacturers. The engineering cost of developing a component for 100 cars a year is the same as 1,000,000. Variable costs go down with volume but up front development cost doesn't. That means that unless a low volume automaker is willing to pay those costs either in separate engineering expenses or exorbitantly high piece costs (that factor in engineering costs) they are usually out of luck.
"Regarding the choice of transmission suppliers: It was not a matter of having picked the wrong supplier. The problem was that real transmission suppliers - those that made production volumes of transmissions - were simply not interested in selling transmissions to a company that buys so few of them. The first model year's production of Roadster transmissions is fewer than a prototype run for a real production transmission. This is why Lotus, for example, uses absolutely off-the-shelf Toyota transmissions in the Elise. But because a motor is so different from an engine, no off-the-shelf transmission was at all suitable for our needs.
I put Mac Powell in charge of selecting the transmission vendor, and he hired a team of ex-Lotus engineers to spec the transmission and to find a supplier. These were all people experienced with producing cars and experienced with sourcing components for a low-volume car manufacturer. They scoured the landscape and came up with only 2 suppliers who were willing to make transmissions for Tesla - they decided that Xtrac was the best of the two, and I respected their experienced opinions. Nobody was comfortable with Xtrac, but they were the best we could find."
As Tesla's VP Darryl Siry told us some time ago the issues with XTrac weren't even entirely of their own making. The design intent to manage the motor torque during clutchless shifts apparently proved unworkable necessitating a change to a different design and supplier. So again here Musk maybe overstated the case with regard to XTrac.
Elon: What he neglected to figure out was that Magna is a build-to-print manufacturer; they're not a designer. Particularly when it requires... this requires a first principle design. You know, you have to actually understand the theory because you can't simply derive this from some existing five-speed gasoline gearbox.
According to Siry, Magna was chosen by Eberhard without any competitive bidding. Due to the late decision to change suppliers, Magna was apparently chosen because an engineer at Tesla's Rochester Hills facility was familiar with the company and had a contact there.
ABG: So if you didn't have the fundamental expertise within Tesla to provide them (Magna Powertrain) the design that needed to be built, they didn't have the capacity just to do that on their own.
Elon: Right. And that's where we got into the bloody of Magna fiasco. We spent huge amounts of money in Magna and then in the, sort of, 13th hour, Magna brought in Ricardo, because basically the design failed and Ricardo told us that the entire thing had been incorrectly designed... that we'd have to basically do a complete refresh on the thing, soup to nuts, in order to have a reliable transmission.
So that came to a head in November of last year and we said, "Well, how long is it going to take to do that?" And Ricardo said, "Well, we went through the whole timeline. It would have been like November of this year before we'll actually have a working two-speed. And the bloody things would cost a huge amount of money and your cost would be crazy high. I'm like, "Wow," so the huge development cost with a nominal timeline of, like November 2008 and a high unit cost. That's pretty shitty.
So, on the flight back from Detroit, Ricardo US is based in Detroit. JB and I were talking and said, "Hey, look, why don't we look to going back to the single speed approach and upgrading the motor power, and the power electronics current capability?"
And so we iterated on that for a bit and decided to go that path. Essentially take the development burden on something that we knew versus something we didn't know. We understood motor and power electronics a lot, but we didn't really understand transmissions. So we decided to shift the burden of the problem to something we know.
So that's what we decided to do and that's just what we're doing. We have what we call Powertrain 1.5, is working right now. We've been driving around in one of the interim prototype cars. It delivers 3.9 seconds 0 to 60, 125-mile top speed. It's actually a superior product than what we originally promised people because the 0 to 100 time is significantly improved. There's no shift delay. There's no shifting. And it improves the range slightly too.
In a followup email exchange with Musk he elaborated on what probably should have happened in the wake of the problems with the XTrac gearbox:
"The problem with Magna Powertrain (USA) is that they are primarily a build-to-print maker of transmissions. They don't know how to design a transmission from scratch, particularly if it is outside the norm. We should have contracted with a company like Ricardo for design and then with Magna for manufacturing or gone to someone like Borg-Warner that can do both design and manufacturing.
What we did after the Magna fiasco was actually both. We are working with Ricardo on a joint Tesla/Ricardo single speed, which is already working in a car now, and Borg-Warner is contracted to do a transmission for us on a completely separate path. If both designs work well, we will pick the lower cost option."
"I had essentially no involvement in choosing Magna as the transmission design house. Martin told me and the rest of the board that they were the best in the business and we could not hope for a better supplier. I only stepped in when the Magna deal started falling apart in the late summer last year and they demanded huge sums of money from us, despite failing to deliver a working product."
The discussion continues in Part 3 coming tomorrow where we discusses the lessons that Musk and Tesla have learned about starting a car company and learn more about what to expect from WhiteStar.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Michael K 8:41PM (6/24/2008)
I’m not much of a blogger, in fact I rarely ever contribute to online discussions, despite reading every forum posting and news article related to Tesla over the last 2 years. However, I have sat on the sidelines long enough and feel this subject warrants my response.
I have been infatuated with electric vehicle technology ever since I saw “Who Killed the Electric Car” in the Summer of 2006. After seeing my first glimpse of the Venturi Fetish and the Tesla Roadster in the movie, I was hooked and began feverishly researching every avenue of information on electric vehicle technology and aspiring battery electric automotive companies, to learn as much as possible. I realize compared to Martin and Elon, I’m a newby to the electric car revolution (2006 versus 2003), but I can honestly say I share their passion for the technology and the desire of someday driving in a battery-electric sports car (like many others here). That is why it pains me to see anything bad about Tesla Motors in the media and on internet outlets (autoblog, teslamotorsclub, teslafounders, mercury news, etc.)
Let’s take a step back in time 1 year ago. Tesla Motors was the most exciting startup company in the world (IMHO). Every engineer I know, in all kinds of varying industries, aspired to work @ Tesla Motors and become part of their almost certain place in history. They inspired people from every continent by attempting to accomplish the impossible – design, build, and sell a performance oriented battery electric vehicle that had mass market appeal. I remember reading articles and watching reports in the mainstream media buzzing about Tesla Motors almost certain future success in creating what was once thought to be impossible by the large automakers. 1 year ago Tesla was unstoppable and seemed destined to lead a new era in the automotive business.
These days that magic is mostly gone and is constantly being overshadowed by bad press, poor customer service, and constant bickering between current and past management. Sure the car still exists and we all know how amazing the specs are, but that perfect image of the company that inspired so many people is all but gone. I know I speak for more than myself in that I really don’t aspire to work for Tesla Motors any more. Sure they are making a great car (at a snails pace), but I really don’t see them leading the industry in the future (feel free to disagree). Fortunately for us (the consumer), we are sure to have several electric vehicle options to choose from in the future from a variety of automotive manufacturers – thanks mainly to the vision and awareness that the Founders and yes Elon @ Tesla Motors created.
From my perspective, here are the issues that need to be resolved @ Tesla:
* Elon – stop padding that ego by trying to take credit away from the original founders of Tesla Motors. You are correct in that your funding established and legitimized the company, but if you hadn’t invested someone else would have and the car would have been at least 80% as good as it currently is.
* Tesla - Publicly apologize for the poor treatment of former CEO Martin Eberhard and for the delays associated with the delivery of his car. (this is like a black cloud hanging over the company and Martin deserves some respect – so make things right already!)
* Tesla - Deliver P2 to Martin Eberhard and utilize his ability to enthusiastically promote Tesla Motors as the former CEO and founder of the company. Utilize his passion and vision to your advantage – not to your disadvantage (as you are currently doing).
* Tesla - Replace or demote Daryl Siry as Vice President of Sales, Marketing, and Service, as he is doing nothing but making the company look like a bunch of unprofessional egomaniacs (from an outsider enthusiast’s perspective). (Most of us can think of at least 2-3 PR blunders Daryl has been involved with in the last 6 months)
* Tesla - Get some more Program Update blogs out there. The last program update was May 15th, it’s now the end of June. Don’t leave the door open for speculation on the slow production process.
Tesla definitely has some issues to overcome, but nothing that can’t be resolved. Tesla is still making history and everyone is still anxiously watching what happens (hoping for the best). The question is: How do Elon and Tesla Motors want to go down in history? It’s never too late to do the right thing!
Reply
JJC 8:01PM (8/28/2008)
Michael,
You are correct. Tesla is not the same company and Dary is promoted to executive VP and the management underneath him are doing nothing but dismissing good people.
Dave B 9:02PM (6/24/2008)
Michael K,
All I can say is ditto. I hate to say it, but it looks like my options will be GM, Mitsu, or someone like Hybrid Technologies (gulp).
Reply
Joseph 9:23PM (6/24/2008)
Very interesting...
Something is not completely clear in Elon's email however. If Ricardo gets the winning design, then who will manufacture the transmission?
It must be kind of hard to choose between Ricardo and Borg-Warner for a one-speed. I mean, it is so simple that the specs are probably nearly identical!
Reply
Tesla Insider 9:34PM (6/24/2008)
Well said Michael K! I personally wish they would fire that idiot Daryl Siry. If the reason that they replaced Martin was because he wasn't getting the job done well they need to start the firings again. Elon is a liar trying to justify himself, when everyone knows he is evil. The Tesla Roadster is not a well built car. The car's firmware is written in Linux, and the fit and finish is terrible. The car has huge wind leaks with both the soft top or the hard top on that make it where you can't even hear the radio with it turned all the way up when cruising on the freeway.
The problem is at Tesla you have a bunch of guys with no automotive background trying to build an automoble company. The parts and service director Greg Zanghi doesn't have a clue when it comes to automotive service and repair, when it comes time to service these cars when the car is in Chicago and the service facility is in LA good luck.
Reply
jjc 8:16PM (8/28/2008)
Hello Insider, you comment about Gre Zanghi is right on. Good luck to the service dept.
OhmExcited 9:51PM (6/24/2008)
So what I'm getting from all this is that Musk's opinions are that:
1. He primarily funded a company that he believes barely didn't exist ("there was no there there"). Ergo, he is the real founder.
2. The transmission difficulties are all Martin's fault.
What a great guy.
Reply
Chris M 10:13PM (6/24/2008)
If Ricardo is designing the single speed gearbox, what is Borg Warner designing? Could it be a 2 or even 3 speed transmission for a future model? The combination of 2 speed transmission and the updated high torque motor would produce awesome acceleration. A 3 speed transmission would produce a highly illegal top speed, except for the Autobahn.
Or maybe its a case of Ricardo design and Borg Warner manufacturing the single speed. Somebody at Tesla must know...
Reply
Martin Eberhard 11:27PM (6/24/2008)
Sam says "The friction ... clearly existed between Eberhard and Musk from very early on in their relationship"
This is not actually true. Elon and I got on pretty well for several years. True, we did not agree on everything, and we had a few long hot discussions, but they were legitimate disagreements by two people trying hard to solve a difficult problem.
Even when Elon insisted on the 2-speed transmission, I signed up to support and implement that program, and did my very best to make it so. Though I would have made a different choice, Elon's was a legitimate choice to make, even with the costs and risks associated with it.
It's really a shame to see this part of Tesla's history being rewritten, because (contrary to Sam's assertion), there was actually very little personality friction at Tesla until sometime in the summer of 2006, with most of the problems late in 2007. What we were doing was difficult, highly stressful, and very daunting, but we were also a team.
Reply
Chris H. 12:18AM (6/25/2008)
I would also like to add my "Well said!" to Michael K. You may not blog much, but when you do, you do one heck of a job.
I think that you managed to capture the frustration that many of us are feeling about this unfortunate set of circumstances. Well done.
Reply
TEG 2:54AM (6/25/2008)
Unlike Michael K, I was actively participating in the discussion groups related to Tesla, but felt it was time to move on. Martin, and some other former Tesla staff, had infused the company with a visible public passion that has all but dried up since his departure. The persuasive, colorful debates have been displaced by elitist spin.
It seemed like Tesla started as company that encouraged everyone to question them, root for them and celebrate with them. Telsa now seems like a company that wants to be left alone except for the exclusive clique who have ponied up the price of admission.
In a way this transformation does make some sense. Lots of startup companies struggle to crossover from an idealistic engineering driven venture to one driven by marketing. Where I think Martin was selling to environmentalists, the new Tesla is moving exclusively into affluent circles where more customers for ultra exotic fetish cars can be found.
I hope everyone can move on to something more constructive now.
Reply
Meme 3:36AM (6/25/2008)
Martin: To clarify, you're not denying that you were the one to propose the two-gear transmission during the discussion over how to increase performance, right? Because you didn't trust the powertrain 1.5 concept and thought the transmission was the better solution, correct? And that what you really wanted the Roadster to have was not Powertrain 1.5 or the transmission, but more akin to the current "crippled" Teslas -- neither a powertrain upgrade nor a transmission, correct? And will you set the record straight, since Musk claims the opposite, on what your view of JB's preference (transmission or powertrain 1.5) for increasing performance was? Musk claims he wanted powertrain 1.5, and JB did too. Are you saying this is incorrect? Lastly, one more confirmation -- did you really promote Magna as described?
Sam:
"Note that Tesla's new high-power motor depends on very new silicon from International Rectifier - silicon that only became available this year. No such silicon (IGBT transistors to be specific) was available to us in 2004, and we knew it."
This quote is misleading. Yes, the higher power IGBT transistors didn't exist then, but as discussed in the comments of the previous thread, they could have just used more of the lower power IGBT transitors. Currently, that would take a redesign of a number of things like the cooling system, but back then, things weren't as locked in as they are now.
Reply
Manu Sharma 3:48AM (6/25/2008)
My word of advice to electric car industry:
Just give us that damn electric car we should have had 100 years ago. One that most Americans can afford, that can carry 4 people comfortably, has a sufficient range and a good enough top speed. Who cares about who did what inside a particular electric sports car company making cars for celebrities.
My word of advice to ABG:
Get over your Tesla obsession for God's sake and end this Telsa Soap Opera. I'm sick and tired of it. I stopped reading these posts long ago but just seeing the headlines makes me mad. There are plenty of other new companies to cover doing more exciting things. If you want to continue coverage, give us an opt-out option, the way your sister site Engadget did for Apple news...
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/tired-of-iphone-and-or-apple-news-on-engadget/
My word of advice to Tesla's past and current executives:
You need to get over the illusion of your self-importance. You aren't pioneers and you aren't answering the market need. You're after the 0.01% of the market and your solution for the other 99.99% isn't even on the drawing board yet. The only thing you've done is to get people excited about electric cars. You aren't leading the industry, the developments we see now would have happened anyway thanks to market forces. So get over yourself!
Reply
Mirko 3:54AM (6/25/2008)
What I find interestin is that Elon refers to Powertrain 1.0 as the "ACP drivetrain"
When I commented on an ABG article calling the Tesla "an Elise with a AC Propulsion drivetrain", Siry responded, "educating" me that the motor and power electronics were their own design and wery little ACP engineering was in there.
Yeah, right.
Reply
RIQ 4:39AM (6/25/2008)
People, people, people. Lets all calm down.
I have a couple of questions for you.
Do you want leave it upto the big ar companies to create electric cars (who get rebates from the oil companies for every car with a fuel(gas, diesel, hydrogen) the make? Companies whose interest, are not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of their old model business?
Or would you rather leave it up to innovative companies (like tesla) to create electric cars? These innovative companies are the future of these country, because they have a new business system, that benefits all (create jobs, and have a sustainable business model). And they work to make the product better and more efficient, and produce what people really need.
That is why I am still a believer in Tesla. And I think they are more than just an experiment. They are a true car company. TESLA IS NOT PERFECT. TESLA IS GM. BUT, TESLA IS OFFERING THAT WE ALL AGREE MORE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD SHOULD HAVE OF (ELECTRIC CARS). AND, REMEMBER NO OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD. DOES WHAT TESLA DOES. AND UNTIL SOME OTHER COMPANY DOES WHAT TELS DOES, TESLA WILL HAVE MY FULL SUPPORT.
I AM POSITIVE ABOUT TESLA. as everyone I think should. SO PEOPLE AND TESLA, LETS STOP TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS, AND WHAT DID NOT WORK, AND LETS LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS.
THANKS
Reply
RIQ 4:40AM (6/25/2008)
tesla is not GM*
Reply
Throwback 9:12AM (6/25/2008)
So Tesla is in it for the benefit of the people? Please, they saw a business opportunity and they went for it, that is the American way. Tesla is a long way from a car company, you actually have to build, service and sell cars before you can claim to be an automaker. My (outside)view is Tesla has no desire to be in the car business, they are in business to make money and there is nothing wrong with that. It's very easy to criticize car companies especially American ones, but building a successful car is not as easy as it looks sitting at a computer.
Reply
dwf 9:40AM (6/25/2008)
If Tesla is such an American company building an American car the American way for the American people, then why have their last few blog entries been about selling their car in EUROPE?!? One of the written IN FRENCH no less!!!
They are a bunch of TRAITORS!!!
Reply
Martin Eberhard 11:28AM (6/25/2008)
meme,
There was no powertrain 1.5 concept in 2004, and nobody was promoting such a thing. We did investigate what it would take to increase the power output of the design, and yes, it was JB who said that we could not increase motor power.
During the time that we made this decision, JB was promoting getting rid of the ACP-based bank of IGBTs and replacing the whole thing with an off-the-shelf module (made by Semikron) that would have reduced the power of the car substantially. This is how nervous he was of the ACP design.
We did eventually increase the number of IGBTs above the number used by ACP in the inverter. But even this I had to push JB's team to do - they were reluctant to make any changes to the high-power design.
And the story about my promoting Magna is seriously twisted. The reason that we did not get any competitive bids for the transmission is because no other transmission company was interested in the business at that time - no one else submitted a bid. Magna was interested because of past relationships with our team in Michigan, and our own engineering team felt that they would be a good choice, maybe our only choice.
The entire technical team at Tesla supported the move to Magna, and they convinced me. There seemed to be no way to success with XTrac, and Tesla's engineers and supply chain people simply could get no other bids. I brought Mac Powell into the Board meeting to present his case to the Board, and the board agreed that it was the best path.
It is utter nonsense to say that Elon had nothing to do with this decision. Elon spent countless hours with the President of Magna USA, including many, many conversation that I was not privy to. When the Founder and CEO of Magna International came to visit Tesla, Elon insisted on being there for the meeting. I believe Elon's signature is on the contract with Magna; mine is not.
Reply
David H Dennis 11:37AM (6/25/2008)
It's devilishly hard to find anyone to back a project with the kind of obstacles that faced Tesla from the start. Anytime you try to build something totally new, it costs twice as much as you think, and takes three times as long to build.
Everything from the early BART rapid transit system to the RED Camera has been way behind schedule and way over budget. Heck, even the iPhone took a massive engineering effort to ship on time.
When Martin ran into some teething troubles, Elon threw him off the bus, which I think was a big mistake. He should have realized that projects like this, unfortunate though it is, always cost more than you think, and there are always mistakes, no matter who you have in charge or how passionate they are about the product.
So I'd like to tell Elon to relax. My God, the story of the company is well known. Martin Eberhard and his two partners founded the company and created the concept.
Elon breathed life into it by giving it money. And although we all appreciate Tesla's founders, that role shouldn't be understated, either. I am sure the project ate through money like a house full of cockroaches. Elon had the patience, and the bucks, to see it through so far. I think that has to be treated as a big positive and a great thing he's done for the world of the electric car, even if we think his management is, well, not exactly appealing.
What I would like Elon to understand is that he has a vital role in the Tesla story and nothing will take that away from him. He doesn't need to have designed the car himself or created the concept or be a "founder" to have a great role to play.
And he should step back and think, well, why do Tesla's customers love Martin? Why are they upset at him for throwing him out?
And I say, because Martin was transparent. We could trust what he said. When he said there was a delay for some reason, well, that's why there was a delay. When you have someone like him on the team, he can sell buyers on a year or more of delays and they'll still stick.
Don't want to think about Martin? Consider Jim Jannard of RED Digital Cinema. Jim's company is creating a better camera than Sony, at 1/3 the price. In dealing with the complex engineering challenges, he's suffered from a seeming eternity of delays. He posts on his message board and says exactly why the delays came, and what he expects to do about them, and you know what? RED's customers worship Jim. Heck, Jim even says he doesn't know what he's doing and RED's customers eat it up.
But Elon, when you say delays are because of special leather upholstery or special paint jobs that take an extra hour or two to set up at the paint shop, people stop believing you. If you were honest, and told people why their cars were delayed, and said where everything was in the process, Tesla owners would respect you again instead of feeling suspicious and wary.
In the last couple of years I have closely followed three revolutionary products: iPhone, the RED Camera and the Tesla Roadster. All of them are great ideas. Each of them have faced production problems and obstacles. RED had to do a critical redesign of the lens mount when problems where spotted in the field, and they retrofitted all of the initial run of cameras with the new mount at no charge. That seems almost precisely analogous to Tesla's transmission problems.
But RED didn't fire its founder or its engineers - Jim knew he had an exceptional team. Instead, they fixed the problem and moved on. I think that's what should have been done at Tesla too.
Hope that was an interesting perspective.
D
Reply