Tesla CEO comments on Lotus EV report
Click above for high-res image gallery of Jason's Tesla Roadster
Following the report on Friday that Lotus was planning to introduce an electric car of its own, we contacted Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk for a comment. Tesla and Lotus collaborated on development of the Roadster and Lotus builds the rolling chassis at its Hethel factory. The FT story did not come as a surprise to Musk. Lotus apparently let Tesla know of its plans in advance and Tesla is hoping to sell some powertrain components to Lotus for the new car.
Tesla already has one powertrain supply deal with a company that has not been disclosed yet. Musk hopes that customer will be willing to make a public announcement in the next month or two. That customer is widely believed to be Daimler and the powertrain is destined for the second-generation Smart ED. Musk will be in Detroit the week after next to deliver a keynote about working with automakers to supply powertrain systems, components and software.
With the current financial situation being what it is, Musk also wants to play nice with Detroit as evidenced by the following comment, "I've made some comments about Silicon Valley being a lot more competitive on the world stage than Detroit, which few would disagree with and I think is a fair criticism, but that has been misinterpreted as anti-Detroit. The right move here for Detroit is to harness Silicon Valley innovation and work with companies like Tesla. It is ironic that our first major automotive partner is not American."
Gallery: Jason Calacanis' Tesla Roadster
Gallery: Trying out Jason's Tesla Roadster
Photos copyright ©2008 Drew Phillips, Sam Abuelsamid, Sebastian Blanco / Weblogs, Inc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2LS7? 5:33PM (1/03/2009)
Boy Musk, you sure are full of yourself.
The defining characteristic of your first partner is they are SMALL TIME. Lotus can't afford to spend their time developing a powertrain, because they'll never sell enough to make their money back on sales. They even buy their ICEs from Toyota!
It doesn't make sense for GM or Ford to buy powertrains from Tesla. Heck, GM already made an electric car before Tesla! And what would Tesla bring to the table for GM or Ford? An expensive battery pack made up of laptop batteries? Tesla only needed that because they couldn't sign big contracts with suppliers. GM and Ford don't have that problem. A motor controller? GM already made one and they are in essence hopped up RC car motor controllers anyway. How about a transmission? Oh, sorry, that was awkward.
Basically, Tesla has little to offer Ford and GM. I hope Musk understands this and just felt like getting in a little PR anyway.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 6:50PM (1/03/2009)
GM's electric car had a range of 60 miles, Tesla's 244. GM's motor controller was analog, Tesla's is digital. The Tesla is also a whole lot faster. Tesla has patents on their motor design that make it more efficient, up to 90% depending on speed and loading.
Nobody has yet figured out how to make an EV less expensive, or get a fast charge system into production. If some companies can make those happen through collaboration, I'd love to see it.
why not the LS2LS7? 9:14PM (1/03/2009)
Batteries have changed since the EV1, that's why the EV1 range was 100mi (using the optimistic estimate) to Teslas' 250 (using the optimistic estimate). You are attributing this to Tesla? Tesla has absolutely no special battery technology, they just buy laptop batteries. And they admit it. Why do you disagree?
The Tesla is faster, but a whole lot faster is an exaggeration. GM bragged about how the EV1 was faster than a Miata 0-60. Both are quick off the line and both top out far too early to be considered truly fast cars.
I'd be shocked if GM's motor controller was analog. It may not have been microprocessor controlled, but I assure you it was digital. An analog motor control would burn up instantly, you absolutely must use PWM (a digital control technique) to keep the power dissipated in the motor controller down low enough that it doesn't burn up. Again, these are largely just big RC car (well, closer to RC planes actually, since these are brushless and/or inductive) motor controllers and RC car motor controllers have been solid state digital for 20 years and microprocessor controlled for at least 10.
See this link for example.
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/why-motor-controller-21462.html
On top of all this, the idea that Tesla holds a ton of advantage over the EV1 on motor controllers is undermined by the fact that the same people did both controllers.
RSR 7:31AM (1/05/2009)
Comparing old EV1 and Tesla for technology is rather off. I'd figure that GM has learned a lot from EV1 development (as they're applying the knowledge to its Volt project) and improved since.
GSP 9:06PM (1/03/2009)
Boy "why not the LS2/LS7" I'm sure that Musk IS full of himself, but he is not alone.
I don't think Musk was referring to Lotus as Tesla's "first partner," he probably views them as a supplier. It will be interesting to see who Tesla's "first major automotive partner" will be.
Given enough time and money, GM or Ford could develop an ESS and powertrain as good or better than Tesla's 1.5 or 2.0 systems. Who has time or money? Apparently a competitor has decided to get the job done fast and cheap by hiring Tesla, and is not paralyzed by NIH syndrome.
Also, motor controllers are not commodities like oil pan bolts. I had an RC car with a 0.049 in3 COX 2-stroke engine. Are the LS2 and LS7 just "hopped up versions" of my RC car motor?
GSP
P.S. The LS3 w/ NPP is sweet.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 9:26PM (1/03/2009)
Musk is referring to Lotus here. By pointing out they are overseas. He's commenting on the Lotus EV report. What do you think he's talking about?
Lotus would definitely not be a supplier in this case, if Lotus is BUYING parts from Tesla. Did you really read the article?
NIH syndrome? That's not really the issue here. The issue is if you're going to make 200,000 of a car, you want to keep all the parts in-house, so you keep all the money made in-house. You don't see Toyota buying electric drivetrains from Tesla, do you? Is that because of NIH?
Why would GM pay Tesla for drivetrains when they are already making their own drivetrain for the Volt? It's the same thing just a bit less powerful. First of all, Tesla couldn't even make enough drivetrains to supply 100,000+ a year. Second, if they did, GM would be paying them a ton of money, including markup (Tesla profit). That's why you bring things in house. Yeah, if you want to make a small number (like with the EV1 or with special editions) you can outsource them to other companies cost-effectively, but it doesn't make sense to do so for large run stuff.
Your parallel to your Cox motor is ridiculous. For starters, that's closer to a Diesel than a gas motor like the LS2/LS7. Second, yes, motor controllers can be treated as commodities, as long as the motor geometry stays the same. You just change the number of driver transistors in the output stage to run more power. I actually could take the RC motor controller I have and add another level of Darlingtons to it and run a larger motor than it is rated for.
If you think you can just put 200 Cox motors on a single driveshaft and run a car, then you can consider the Cox thing a parallel to motor controllers.
slk23 11:56PM (1/03/2009)
GSP wrote:
"Boy "why not the LS2/LS7" I'm sure that Musk IS full of himself, but he is not alone."
Thank you GSP, that gave me a good laugh. Direct hit!
why not the LS2LS7? 2:00AM (1/05/2009)
Yeah, that's fine. You can point out I don't know everything, that's all well and good. But I'm not the one portraying myself as the potential savior for the big 3. That's Musk.
Sam Abuelsamid 9:42PM (1/03/2009)
Musk told me that Lotus may end up buying some parts from Lotus, but they are not the existing company that Tesla already has a deal with. That company is almost certainly Daimler and the electric Smart.
Reply
Crazytalk 10:04PM (1/03/2009)
BlackbirdHighway said...
"...... Tesla has patents on their motor design that make it more efficient, up to 90% depending on speed and loading."
Tesla has patents?? That's news to me. Can you please list one patent number. As far as I know they have only *one* "patent pending" in the USPTO system.
Reply
vfx 11:23PM (1/03/2009)
Tesla says they have +- 17 patents on battery, PEM and Motor tech.
BlackbirdHighway 9:23AM (1/04/2009)
Granted Patents:
7,433,794
7,404,720
Pending Patent:
20080272661
It took less than 2 minutes to find these, you lazy bum! Can't bother to do any research AT ALL before your lame attempt to criticize me?
GSP 10:45PM (1/03/2009)
Musk might be referring to Lotus here, but I don't think so. He is referring to Tesla's "first major automotive partner." Yes Lotus is overseas, but so is their unnamed partner. When I read the article (ahem), they speculate that would be Daimler. That's what I think he's talking about.
I was referring to Lotus' relationship to Tesla *so far* when I figured that Elon thinks they are a supplier.
Lotus *might* buy components from Tesla for their new EREV. I don't think that makes them Tesla's "first major automotive partner" either. Lotus just is not "major" (Elon's word).
It may not make sense to outsource powertrains for 10^5 or 10^6 units/year, but EVs don't fall into this category. Maybe in-source later if they take off.
That's probably why BMW bought AC Propulsion drivetrains and energy storage for their *500 units* of the Mini-E.
However, for companies like GM, that *already have* electric powertrains with the required power and torque (from the EV1 and various fuel cell vehicles) it does make sense to just use what they have on hand, taking advantage of development time and money *already* spent.
"Your parallel to your Cox motor is ridiculous. For starters, that's closer to a Diesel than a gas motor like the LS2/LS7."
What? The're both ICE's. Just scale the Cox up to a 6.2 L 1-cyl 2-stroke diesel. That'll beat the LS2 right?
I'm just trying to say there is more to inverters/controllers than meets the eye. At least if you need automotive level QRD, performance, and maximum efficiency.
GSP
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:59AM (1/05/2009)
I tell you what, I'll leave you to show the scaled up Cox motor will work.
As I said, with a motor controller, if the geometry remains the same, I can add another level of darlingtons to increase the output drive and you will see good performance and similar (although not identical) efficiency to the smaller system.
BlackbirdHighway 9:31AM (1/04/2009)
why not the LS2LS7? said: "Batteries have changed since the EV1"
Yes, much technology has changed since GM did their electric car, that's why it's foolish to say that since they already made one, they already know all there is to know about electric cars.
You wouldn't want to hire the guys who designed the Radio Shack TRS-80 to develop the latest Pentium based laptop, just because they have experience with computers!
I think you have reinforced my argument perfectly! Thanks!
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:58AM (1/05/2009)
I never said GM knows everything about making electric cars. I simply said Tesla doesn't know anything that GM doesn't.
stas peterson 11:03PM (1/14/2009)
Lotus just got tired of .other people getting the credit.
We have aTesla-Lotus EV toy, and Dodge-Lotus EV toy(maybe), garnering headlines.
Lotus just wants a Lotus-Lotus EV toy of its own, for the same reason, to garner headlines.
Outside of some PR and headlines, for bored auto writers to write about, this entire subject is over credited and useless. Collectively the TOTAL production of all three "cars" including the "high-volume" Tesla-Lotus is about a 100 cars combined for the last three years. .
How can that be significant is a world market of 35-40 million cars annually? ( about 0.00001%)
Reply