chimpanzee's big project

[TEG]

Even with what little I know, I think you are oversimplifying things. Turmoil wasn't just about transmission problems and delivery delays.

In an effort to try to "move on", I will hold back on what I think the other issues were.

I think you are also oversimplifying to say that the transmission problems were due to lack of R&D. As far as I was concerned, Tesla was one big R&D effort from the start. They were inventing and refining a lot of things as they went. The transmission just emerged as the most visible of the myriad hurdles they were struggling to get over.

Also, as far as many people are concerned, Tesla has been a big success so far (even considering said delays and major staff churn). They still seem to be the best thing going in the EV business at the moment.

Right from the start many said "what are they thinking?" Their effort was from left field, and had a very questionable path to success (given for example all the previous examples of automotive start-ups that failed).
In my mind one of the biggest hurdles was the fact that the venture was conceived almost like a software/internet start-up which investors traditionally expect to see gains/returns quickly. Auto manufacturers are stuck in a world of supplier limitations, regulatory delays, and other things that conspire to slow them down way more than a software or small consumer device company would have to face. Having a large group of investors anxiously watching over your shoulder puts undue pressure on people to make quick/rash decisions sometimes.

Also, from what I can tell Tesla is still able to attract talent easily.

As much as anyone, I long for the days when TM was giving us a very tantalizing blog view into their thoughts, plans and struggles, but shifting focus from bloggers to the mainstream press does make sense as they gain credibility and finally start to deliver on their promises.

---

I agree with many points and statements you have made, but I have a harder time visualizing how everything will gel into something meaningful. Yes, academia, pure R&D and sales driven product development are all very different worlds. From the start I was always saying that EVs really only need direct drive gearboxes. Further research on CVTs and multi-speed gearboxes seems like a waste of time to me. As many have said time and time again the real R&D needs to happen in advanced energy storage. Many had hoped Eestor would have delivered by now. LiIon is too expensive and doesn't last long enough. Tesla has a business model that may work even with LiIon but the real tide change isn't going to happen until energy storage devices get better and cheaper.

I think Tesla has a huge uphill battle coming soon learning how to be a good customer support and post sales company. Dealing with problems and complaints of real customers is going to require the same sort of leaning curve they had to get through to figure out how to get into the auto business in the first place. Funders & early adopters are going to be more "supportive" customers, but at some point they are going to be dealing with a lot more people who have less willingness to just accept "teething pain" sorts of issues.

Martin and Marc ending up as EIRs at a VC is a healthy sign that they will be part of other interesting ventures in the not too distant future. Even if they don't show up as the visible face of a particular company they are there helping keep the big alternative energy push going. I look forward to hearing about the "next big thing".

 

[TEG]

By the way, I have come to the conclusion (perhaps a bit late) that airing your ideas in public like this is as likely to slam doors in your face as it is to find opportunities...

 

[chimpanzee]

By the way, I have come to the conclusion (perhaps a bit late) that airing your ideas in public like this is as likely to slam doors in your face as it is to find opportunities...

I've mentioned this before.

Scenario #1
confidentiality, developing concept in private amongst high-level types (VC, management types, etc), who are detached from the Market. Especially, the customer. Announce deal. Turns out the concept doesn't address customer & current market demand, it FLOPS.

Scenario #2
open architecture, share information with knowledgable/sophisticated customer based (such as TMC). Let them participate in Concept fine-tuning. Do a deal. However, the openness leaves open the chance of someone sabotaging the deal (stealing the contacts mentioned, etc)

I realize there is risk in #2, but there's that famous saying in Business:

"The biggest risk, is not taking a risk"

I defer to my friends comments about "Business has too many managers". There was a book called "The sun never sets on General Motors", where it was described that GM had 50 odd levels of management. Look at Hughes (GM contractor for EV1), whose management couldn't get the job done:

"there was meeting #1. Meeting #2 came to the conclusion meeting #1 couldn't come to a satisfactory conclusion"

That's how Aerovironment got the sub-contractor job, & where A. Cocconi did his pioneering work.

Summary:
Trying to privately come up with a valid Concept, without feedback from the Customer (the bottomline in any business), is a bigger risk. 80% of startup businesses fail.

PS
I will also say the lack of response by certain people to my private emails also triggered this public response. I was floored on Friday, when Dr. xxx (NREL/PV researcher) called me up promptly at 7:54am, & we had an intense conversation for the next hr. I think maybe my theory of "gap of universes" is true, & what Judy Estrin said (Innovation: Crucial to our Future) really rings true:

Reviving sustainable innovation will require sweeping changes at all levels of society -- from the schoolroom, to the boardroom, to the hallways of our nation's capitol. This year will bring a welcome change at the top in Washington. But we need not only a new administration in the White House, we need a new kind of national leadership.

"What's amazing is how INTERCONNECTED a biological system is"
-- Dr David Suzuki, biologist ("Carl Sagan" of Biology, numerous TV specials)

What she's implying is more "inter-connectedness amongst the parts", this is how Biological Ecosystems function (note that J. Estrin used the phrase "Innovation Ecosystem"). Look at how Academia & Industry are pretty much vertically oriented (each dept, discipline, is a vertical thread). The lack of a MATRIX structure (horizontal threads to connect different depts & disciplines, e.g. Interdisciplinary Science) is why companies & universities, individually don't work at full "systems integration" (inter-system). Then, having companies & universities work together is another problem in itself (intra-system). I call it the Curse of Bureacracy. Some companies (likely smaller) are very efficient. Most big companies aren't. I had an incident while contacting Caltech Mechanical Eng, where I couldn't even get an email response, so I just walked over there. Only 1 prof was able to setup an appt with me. When I confronted another guy about lack of communication, he told me "some profs don't even respond to emails from other Caltech profs"..!! I took a grand-tour back in 2001 of Caltech, & found a distribution curve of response from professors. A couple guys were extremely cordial, patient (spent time with me on the phone), professional. Some never contacted me back, others gave me a hurried response. BTW, Dr. Ed Davidson (Martin's mentor, & mine also at UIUC) actually RETURNED MY PHONE CALL from U. of Michigan, as did the head of Monterey Bay Aquarium (she was former MIT prof of Geophysics). A minority of people are very professional, most are mediocre, some are terrible. It's the famous bell-curve distribution (Gaussian).

This whole public expose on my part, was triggered by the LACK of response when I went "horizontal" to xxx (who I thought were critical contacts). However, when I went to my PhD friend at NREL/PV..the response was IMMEDIATE & a rich interaction consummated (last Fri). He immediately offerred to fly to meet me (& others), on NREL's dime. Now, THAT's the way to "do business".

It just occurred to me, maybe I should stick with my universe (high end R&D). However, it still doesn't solve the problem of communicating/connecting to the other universes (Business, VC sources, etc) when a deal needs to get done. I recall a moment from my UIUC undergrad days (Digital Design), where the professor said

"It's just as much an exercise in Communication, as it is a Technical exercise"

What I'm saying ultimately is that there was a real Communication breakdown in my attempt to contact some people (in other universes), which led to my open-architecture campaign on TMC.

 

[TEG]

You hear all the stories about deals being done on a golf course or on the back off a napkin at a restaurant. I really don't know the first thing about venues for forming an entity like that.

Well I guess these days it seems that people try to get together at trade shows when a "critical mass" of experts and interested parties has assembled together.

How about this: speed pitching! Another

Maybe you should spend some time on the Alternative Energy Wild Ideas Forum?

Or become a frequent contributor on a Physics Engineering Forum?

I just wonder if TMC is the wrong place for you to fish with your ideas...

 

[TEG]

Check out how much effort went into this idea. See section 8 on R&D proposal. Do you have business plan?

 

[chimpanzee]

Even with what little I know, I think you are oversimplifying things. Turmoil wasn't just about transmission problems and delivery delays.

In an effort to try to "move on", I will hold back on what I think the other issues were.

I think you are also oversimplifying to say that the transmission problems were due to lack of R&D. As far as I was concerned, Tesla was one big R&D effort from the start. They were inventing and refining a lot of things as they went. The transmission just emerged as the most visible of the myriad hurdles they were struggling to get over.

See Judy Estrin's article, she emphasizes the value of long-term view. (she is right about the "poison" of Instant Gratification society we live in, McDonalds approach to business).

Wrong. In fact, the underlying infrastructure of research, development, and application that produced these marvels -- as well as world-changing innovations like the Internet -- has drastically deteriorated in the U.S. in recent years. The decline of what I call our "Innovation Ecosystem" poses a grave threat to both the economic prosperity of our country [ ability of companies like TM to deliver advanced technology products & prosper ] and the security of our children's future. The state of innovation is a critical issue that should be getting more attention in the days leading up to the presidential election.

The latter necessarily requires an R&D program

Also, as far as many people are concerned, Tesla has been a big success so far (even considering said delays and major staff churn). They still seem to be the best thing going in the EV business at the moment.

Only because GM (& other auto mfg sloths) are dinosaurs.

"GM is a dinosaur. They pay executives to DO NOTHING"
-- lawyer friend in Michigan, HS classmate of mine

I would be more impressed if TM was a lean mean rock-and-roll machine, with progressive management (there's a cancer at the top) & R&D program setup. Engineering snafus dealt with "smooth & fast", on-schedule delivery. A real smackdown to those dinosaurs in Detroit.

Right from the start many said "what are they thinking?" Their effort was from left field, and had a very questionable path to success (given for example all the previous examples of automotive start-ups that failed).
In my mind one of the biggest hurdles was the fact that the venture was conceived almost like a software/internet start-up which investors traditionally expect to see gains/returns quickly. Auto manufacturers are stuck in a world of supplier limitations, regulatory delays, and other things that conspire to slow them down way more than a software or small consumer device company would have to face. Having a large group of investors anxiously watching over your shoulder puts undue pressure on people to make quick/rash decisions sometimes.

from Dr. xxx NREL/PV researcher friend (who is a software specialist):

Software:
can work on it night & day, make it work

PV Research:
can work on it night & day, can't make it work

I think TM is realizing what Dr. xxx already knows. You can't do X, if you're Y. Maybe they need to make some adjustments (R&D program would be a good "insurance policy" against engineering delays).

"The ability (or inability) to made adjustments in a dynamic/changing system"
-- Complex Adaptive Systems

A Caltech prof (Nonlinear Dynamics & Control) dabbles in this, & his student ended up at Williams F1. Formula 1 Racing is a perfect Complex System, which could benefit from CAS techniques. TM should look into this as well. Murray Gell-Mann (famous Caltech Physics Nobelist left Caltech to startup the Sante Fe Research Inst (with his best friend Dr. David Pines, a UIUC physicist..btw, Martin's talk last spring @UIUC was at the Physics Bldg, aka Loomis Laboratory of Physics), which specializes in this area of Complex Systems

Also, from what I can tell Tesla is still able to attract talent easily.

I think people are not thinking (rational response), & letting the euphoria of EV/Alternative Energy take over (emotional response). Anyone who wants to work there needs to have their head examined. (sometimes the Brain has a MIND of its own)

I mean, anyone who looks at:

1) Martin & company (incl Wally Rippel/Caltech alumni, Judy Estrin) being ejected
the repercussions are that they tell their friends, & their respective alma-maters (UIUC & Caltech & UCLA) are offended. As interview prep, interviewees research the potential company..TM is therefore excluded!

2) impatience in not letting Xtrac (or Magna) work thru the tranny problem
modus-operanda = "throwing money at problem". Knowledge Consumerism..instead of Knowledge Creation (R&D takes time to solve engineering problems). Instant gratification (see Judy Estrin's spot on comments, about lack of "Innovation Ecosystem", lack of long-term planning, etc).

3) unprofessional handling of Roadster delivery to Martin
this debacle had "personal spite" written all over it.
If 1) & 2) don't do it, then 3) will. This sounds like something out of high-school. Oh wait. "Life is like High-School..WITH MONEY"/David Letterman. TM did irreparable damage to their reputation with this boner.


Re: 2), TM has this mind-set at their highest management levels! THIS is my major complaint about TM: "it starts from the Top", means this systemic flaw will manifest in future "tranny issues", i.e. engineering challenges. Fraunhofer Inst was created after WWII to jumpstart German Industry, which was a pro-active search/solution of engineering problems..BEFORE they were encountered in Manufacturing.

[ my vision of a virtual R&D Inst, spanning Industry & Academia is based on this same principle of a "search & destroy" concept. It's like in the military, where scouts are sent out to gather "Intelligence" in preparation for an attack. Essentially, TM didn't send out "scouts" to gather R&D info to "cover themselves" in their attack on the transmission problem. Business is like War. You literally need a military approach. ]

Leave it to the Germans (legendary "German Engineering") to set an example. Also, the Japanese with their famous "Japanese style of management for Auto MFG'ing" (people all along the process, including workers, could make suggestions on how to improve MFG'ing). There was a History Channel episode of Voyages about Honda, where it was pointed out that the "lazy American worker" was a MYTH. In fact, it was LOUSY American management (which didn't let the American worker participate in the MFG'ing process pro-actively, like the Japanese system) that was the issue. I sent Martin this episode, along with the one for Ferrari, Porsche, VW, Audi, Mercedes.

As much as anyone, I long for the days when TM was giving us a very tantalizing blog view into their thoughts, plans and struggles, but shifting focus from bloggers to the mainstream press does make sense as they gain credibility and finally start to deliver on their promises.

See above comments about Japanese style of Management for Auto MFG'ing, where workers (& everyone else) along the chain of command are allowed to particpate in a self-correcting/self-organizing way of improving MFG'ing.

I think a New Model for a progressive company like TV, should continue to use the Blogging solution for good Company-Customer feedback. Here's a cool anecodote from RCSE (Radio Control Soaring Electric) mailing list (where there was a cancerous vendor on the loose):

I had a problem with some equipment and sent an e-mail to the retailer,
Amateur Electronic Supply.† They responded immediately.† When I called
to make final arrangements I complemented them on their fast response.†
I will always remember what they said and will continue to do business
with them.† The response was "All we have to offer you is service".
That's all I ask for.
---------------------
Best I have heard so far. I hope the Vendors listen and this will be and

end of it.

TM better not turn into the "same old same old" model for Auto MFG'ing, & keep the customer distant. These blogs have built in CMS/Content Management System, which functions like a feedback mechanism: customer to company.

[ continued ]

 

[chimpanzee]

I agree with many points and statements you have made, but I have a harder time visualizing how everything will gel into something meaningful. Yes, academia, pure R&D and sales driven product development are all very different worlds. From the start I was always saying that EVs really only need direct drive gearboxes. Further research on CVTs and multi-speed gearboxes seems like a waste of time to me. As many have said time and time again the real R&D needs to happen in advanced energy storage. Many had hoped Eestor would have delivered by now. LiIon is too expensive and doesn't last long enough. Tesla has a business model that may work even with LiIon but the real tide change isn't going to happen until energy storage devices get better and cheaper.

Yes, the bottleneck is Battery Technology. Need to make them lighter, more efficient to give EVs better power-to-weight ratio & range. Especially the latter.

[ Ironically, a contemporary of Martin & me (we all went through UIUC/Coordinated Science Laboratory/AARG, aka Artificial Intelligence Lab), Dr. Steve Cross is now VP of Georgia-Tech & President of GTRI. The latter is involved with battery technology research, at Center for Innovative Fuel Cell and Battery Technologies. Not name-dropping, a potential key contact to get some R&D connections. Just like Dr. xx/NREL/solar for PV R&D. Whoala, personal contacts to setup a CFPT (Carbon Free Personal Transportation) using EV/PV startup. ]

I think Tesla has a huge uphill battle coming soon learning how to be a good customer support and post sales company. Dealing with problems and complaints of real customers is going to require the same sort of leaning curve they had to get through to figure out how to get into the auto business in the first place. Funders & early adopters are going to be more "supportive" customers, but at some point they are going to be dealing with a lot more people who have less willingness to just accept "teething pain" sorts of issues.

Yes, the sophisticate Roadster clientele is more educated & understanding. Joe Q Public is gonna be a tough. There's a famous saying "You can't fix STUPID!" (Believe me, I have personally experienced this in Amateur Astronomy & Offroad Racing) The sophistication level of public is like what a Caltech physics major (amateur-astronomer friend of mine) said publicly:

"They might think you are an UNDER-EDUCATED BUMPKIN!"

Martin and Marc ending up as EIRs at a VC is a healthy sign that they will be part of other interesting ventures in the not too distant future. Even if they don't show up as the visible face of a particular company they are there helping keep the big alternative energy push going. I look forward to hearing about the "next big thing".

Hey, I should be in that position of EIR!

Oh, I'm a nobody.

[ "a [ chimpanzee ] cry in the forest" is the phrase Dr. Jonas Salk used ]

They definitely need some PhDs, who understand the R&D process. See Judy Estrin's comments, that the "R&D universe" DEFINITELY needs to have some "smooth & fast" integration with manufacturing. Germany has the Fraunhofer Inst (Applied Research) which helps German Industry. Where is the American version? My vision of an "Interdisciplinary Cooperative/Collaborative R&D Inst" as a virtual entity spanning Academia & Industry is a no-brainer. I personally mentioned my idea to a German CS prof (who is w/Fraunhofer) at the recent SIGGRAPH 2008 conference, & he liked the idea of how Daimler-Benz, VW, BMW could be beneficiaries of American ingenuity. Judy Estrin would totally dig this, American-German partnership for an "Innovation Ecosystem".

 

[TEG]

See Judy Estrin's article, she emphasizes the value of long-term view. (she is right about the "poison" of Instant Gratification society we live in, McDonalds approach to business).

It saddens me on a daily basis to see how we have been heading to a disposable products society. Long term testing isn't done like it once was. Time to market wins out over tried and true.

The number of products I get these days that are DOA or that fail within a year is like 10x what it was 20 years ago.

So many manufacturers that built a long term quality reputation have sold their names to new entities that start over and have to try to figure out how to engineer quality all over again. I suppose NASA->SpaceX is an example of this trend. Maybe there is value in trying to do a periodic industry wide "restart" (and let people try again with a clean slate), but it is painful to watch all the old mistakes get repeated and relearned.

Here is one story that bit a lot of folks in the computer industry.
More on that story here. Mistake, lack of testing or planned obsolescence?

 

[chimpanzee]

It saddens me on a daily basis to see how we have been heading to a disposable products society. Long term testing isn't done like it once was. Time to market wins out over tried and true.

The number of products I get these days that are DOA or that fail within a year is like 10x what it was 20 years ago.

So many manufacturers that built a long term quality reputation have sold their names to new entities that start over and have to try to figure out how to engineer quality all over again. I suppose NASA->SpaceX is an example of this trend. Maybe there is value in trying to do a periodic industry wide "restart" (and let people try again with a clean slate), but it is painful to watch all the old mistakes get repeated and relearned.

Here is one story that bit a lot of folks in the computer industry.
More on that story here. Mistake, lack of testing or planned obsolescence?

You mention SpaceX as being part of this trend:

"Increasingly, it's a race between Education [ "Book Knowledge", R&D, etc ] & Disaster [ long-term future is dismal ]"
-- H.G. Welles

The amazing part of that quote, is it was made back in the 1930's!!

The running joke is that Microsoft lets the customer become the beta-tester in their buggy software releases. Lke you say, "time to market" wins over the QC approach:

"Long term testing isn't done like it once was. Time to market wins out over tried and true."

Back in Martin's generation & mine, Magnavox had a nice slogan:

"Quality goes in, as the Name goes On"

Whatever happened to that concept of "tried & true"?

Quality has been replaced by a "throw away product".

Look at Walmart, they are skewed over to low price-point. (see PBS McNeil Lehrer Reports series, on Walmarts predatory practices in pushing their agenda). As opposed to Performance/Price ratio. TM Roadster is skewed to the Performance parameter. After you've tasted "Quality" (as opposed to Quantity, which is low price-point), you'll never go back!

"Quantity..has a certain QUALITY ABOUT IT"
-- Dr. xxx, military weapons school

That's how USA & Russia won WWII (Germans had arguably the best military hardware: ME-262 jet-fighter, ME-109 w/fuel injection, Tiger Tank (Porsche design?), V-1/V-2 rockets, etc), their Industrial might was brought to bear where they could pump out QUANTITY of tanks/airplanes/trucks (Chrysler plant in Detroit was used to make the tinny mass-produced Sherman tank). The Russians had the amazing T-34 tank (had advanced concept of sloped armor), which was produced en-masse. E.g., the German Tiger tank (best open field tank in WWII w/lethal 88mm gun) could only be defeated by a SWARM (quantity, numerically superior force) of Sherman tanks. 2 Sherman tanks had to be sacrificed (used as cannon fodder), before a 3rd tank snuck up from behind to nail the Tiger in the unprotected rear.

If the above scenario is a fundamental concept in War & Business (Walmart effect), then we are part of this Quantity over Quality trend. Quality will always have a high-end niche-market. The Masses will get the Quantity solution.

"I have never tried, in even one single little instance, to help cultivate the cultivated classes. I was not equipped for it either by native gifts or training. And I never had any ambition in that direction, but always hunted for bigger game - the masses."
-- Mark Twain

I like Martin's TM game-plan: use the Roadster as a promotional-vehicle to change Public Perception about EV (& also establish a niche-market for high-end EV sportscar), in preparation for their long-term goal: revolutionize the world for EV for the masses (Whitestar).

=========

I mentioned the below before, it was from my UIUC days (& Martins) 25 yrs ago:

"USA is #1 in innovation [ top research at world-class universities ], Japan is #1 in bringing Technology to the Market"
-- Japanese Industrialist

[ Japan has a Collaborative/Cooperative infrastructure involving Govt & Industry. This was no accident, it was part of a Grand Plan. Just like Germany has the Fraunhofer Inst (Applied Research outfit, started after WWII) to jumpstart German Industry, where they would pro-actively search/solve engineering probs before they are encountered in Manufacturing/Industry. And, the USA has..no such coordinated plan involving Academia/Govt/Industry! (which begs for NCEA/Nati'l Center for Energy Applications: "Interdisiplinary Cooperative/Collaborative R&D Inst for Energy Applications", my vision). As Judy Estrin pointed out, the "Innovation Ecosystem" is in crisis, the long-term future has disaster written all over it. The TM Roadster engineering crisis involving the transmission, is a perfect case where a Fraunhofer-like NCEA could have come to the rescue. I'm not surprised that Germany & Japan take the lead in Industry, they put out fabulous cars ala Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Acura, et al. There was an excellent History Int'l series called Voyages, where they profiled the major car companies: Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Nissan. They all had extensive Auto Racing development programs (R&D, ala "Real World Knowledge"). I sent Martin a DVD with these programs. ]

[ continued ]

 

[chimpanzee]

Interesting example from Offroad Racing: a top chassis designer (with background in Formula 1, pavement, electric cars..CVT) was contracted by GM to build a Trophy Truck..the elite class in Offroad Racing. The chassis were designed to be replaced after every race (tweaked/warped out chassis), because it went WAY BEYOND the concept of Power/Weight ratio. In trying to crazily minimize weight, it was not structurally sound! A top Offroad Racing team (PPI/Precision Preparation Inc, who was part of the famous Ivan "Ironman" Stewart package with Toyota) contracted UC San Diego NCSA

[ Nat'l Ctr for Supercomputing Appications, which was formed at UIUC. Founded by computational astrophysicist Dr. L. Smarr, who actually visited our AARG Lab to check out our new Vision system..the one Martin had wire-wrapped for his '81 summer internship. LS is now at UCSD/CALIT2 with another technology R&D Inst (UCSD & UC Irvine academic partners), who I think needs to be part of this new R&D Inst for AE ]

"They [ Japanese ] use the tools so fast"
-- Dr. R. Chien, UIUC/Elec Eng/Coordinated Science Laboratory/AARG

[ Martin's supervisor, when he did '81 summer internship at our lab. My MS thesis advisor for a while, his son (co-intern w/Martin that summer) is now Director of Research & VP of Corporate Technology @Intel. ]

Those "tools" are the result of that Japanese Cooperative/Collaborative infrastructure, involving Govt & Industry. If such a thing existed (ala Fraunhofer Inst), then the TM Roadster tranny issue could have been dealt with "smooth & fast". This "proof of concept" has been validated by the Germans & Japanese!! You have to wonder what the powers-to-be in Washington have been doing all these decades!? Judy Estrin mentioned that in her "Innovation: Crucial to Success" article:

It seems like innovation in many fields -- from Web 2.0 to personalized medicine -- is accelerating at a rapid pace in the United States, right?

Wrong. In fact, the underlying infrastructure of research, development, and application that produced these marvels -- as well as world-changing innovations like the Internet -- has drastically deteriorated in the U.S. in recent years. The decline of what I call our "Innovation Ecosystem" poses a grave threat to both the economic prosperity of our country and the security of our children's future. The state of innovation is a critical issue that should be getting more attention in the days leading up to the presidential election [ i.e., Washington power-to-be better do what the Germans & Japanese have already done: setup some Infrastructure like an NCEA (Coordination between Academia & Industry, R&D to help Alternative Energy companies ].

BTW, where is Judy Estrin these days? She should be leading this charge from the Silicon Valley end of things. I seem to be "leading the charge" from the Academia side. We should probably get in touch, & get something going. My NREL/PV researcher friend wants to fly out to talk with me (& others) in a couple of weeks.

BTW, the contemporaries of Martin (25 yrs ago @UIUC) could be key contacts to get some Washington action going:

1) Dr. Smarr (now at UCSD/CALIT2)
went to Washington (with endorsement of UIUC profs, incl Dr. Ed Davidson, Martin's mentor @UIUC/EE), pitched the proposal for NCSA, & got it funded. The 1st Internet browser NCSA Mosaic was a famous spinoff from NCSA (M. Andreesen, whose boss was my boss when I was MRL/Materials Research Lab computer operator, during my undergrad days), it also was the roots of Internet Explorer (via Spyglass, a startup company outside UIUC..Scientific Visualization). Perfect example of Judy Estrin's "Innovation Ecosystem" at work, NCSA was part of this new creative Infrastructure. This happened (late 80's) after Martin & I left UIUC (early to mid 80's).

2) Dr. Steve Cross (now VP of Georgia-Tech & President of GTRI/Gatech Research Inst)
testified to Congressional sub-committee, Re: Internet security. His background is AI, Software (SEI/Software Engineering Inst @CMU), now GaTech. His ex-Gatech colleague is now President of Caltech

3) Martin himself
testified to Congressional sub-committee, Re: xx (EV & Alternative Energy?). Co-founded the breakthrough Silicon Valley startup TM, & is friends with GM/Bob Lutz. Washington is in a frenzy right now (GM/Ford/Chrysler crisis), talking about 25 billion loan package. This, plus historical crisis in Stock Market, means this is PERFECT TIMING, to get Washington off its rear & do something.

Just imagine if the above 3 were part of some plan to goto Washington to push the NCEA/Nat'l Ctr for Energy Applications (a Fraunhofer Inst like Applied Research entity). With Dr. Ed Davidson in tow (formerly Univ of Michigan/EE Dept Head, now retired), he last told me in 2001 that he found a flaw in NSF (too much comparmentalization, which rejects Interdisciplinary type proposals). ]

to do a structural analysis (full blown FEA/Finite Element Analysis with a Cray). Turns out the result was a chassis that was WAY TOO HEAVY! (by real-world offroad racing standards). Indycar (& F1) cars are pretty fragile, they are walking a thin line themselves. Auto Racing is like the current consumer market: they are using flimsy product to get quick results (winning races). The driver knows the limits of the car, & doesn't drive beyond that performance curve:

"Know yourself [ driving ability ], know your opponent [ car, competition, race-track ], & you will never be defeated..in a 100 battles"
-- Sun Tzu, "Art of War"

Same thing in Business (like "War"). TM didn't know their "opponent" ("race track of Technology", where they were off-the-scale in terms of "pushing the limits": "In order to Push the Limits, sometimes you have to EXCEED THE LIMITS"), & the Roadster tranny bug bit them hard. If EM had just let Martin do his thing (let Xtrac or Magna work thru the problem, give them TIME), last years crisis never would have happened! As it turned out, Xtrac had its own development program & their offroad development partner (owner's name is Martin, btw) worked thru the problem (after 2007 was a breakage year), & successfully developed a tranny that got them 1st, 3rd, 1st place finishes..& looking to take home the coveted season points championship, going into Nov's Baja 1000. Wow!!

25 years later (Martin was my officemate in grad-school, we were both "kids"), we both converge in Automotive: Offroad Racing & EV. Google founders (S. Brin & L. Page) attended the DARPA Grand Challenge

[ Autonomous Vehicle Navigation for Offroad, "robot race in the desert" @Primm/NV, where Xtrac's development partner got 1st place 2 weekends ago (footage from last year's Primm race here) ]

& are involved with TM as investors. Along with Dr. Brian S. (MIT PhD in Artificial Intelligence, a research colleague of mine during my PhD days..same field as Martin: AI/Robotics/Computer Vision), who was Cineform lead engineer that designed the video-codec for "Dust to Glory" (breakthrough Offroad Racing film of Baja 1000, that was prominently displayed at NAB/Nat'l Assn for Broadcasters '05 conference: Microsoft booth, AMD booth, Adobe booth). Pretty amazing, that all these Artificial Intelligence researchers from 25 odd yrs ago (MIT & UIUC) converge in Automotive! This is perfect demonstration Judy Estrin's "Innovation Ecosystem" (the interconnectedness of Innovation, via Academia). Just imagine, if it were "nurtured" (her words), instead of it "happening by accident"..which is this case.

Turns out my Offroad Racing project found numerous contacts/donors (1 has 300 million who has his own aerospace company (interview here), 1 makes 7 million profit PER DAY, 1 got a 30 million bonus a few yrs ago, 1 is a wealthy Mexican transportation company), 1 of them who could be crucial ("validation prototype" for NCEA, demonstration of successful gearbox that solves the severed shockload problem in offroad & can be "transferred over" to pavement..say TM Roadster) for a DoE (or NSF) proposal for NCEA.

"It came out of the Blue [ lightning strike ]"
"Blue skies baby, BLUE SKIES"

Somewhere I think there is optimism ("blue skies") for the above happening.

 

[TEG]

Recent quote on Martin's blog:

Martin sez: I think it’s a good bet that I will be up to something new come November. Odds are also that I will need to be secretive about it for a while. The nature of new ventures…

 

[chimpanzee]

Recent quote on Martin's blog:

Martin sez: I think it’s a good bet that I will be up to something new come November. Odds are also that I will need to be secretive about it for a while. The nature of new ventures…

Check out how much effort went into this idea. See section 8 on R&D proposal. Do you have business plan?

My thing's not business, but a Fraunhofer-like "Interdisciplinary Collaborative/Coperative R&D Inst for Energy Applications" (NCEA) that is a "R&D supercharger" to help the "Alternative Energy entrepeneurial engine" (Martin's playground/universe). It will get founded based on Public Funding (DoE, DARPA, NSF). Will need to meet with leaders in Industry to establish Collaborative/Cooperative connections (Communication/Command/Control, as per military model), so they may jump in with their own funding (Industry & VCs).

1) Alternative Energy "engine" (startups everywhere)
VCs (Martin & Mark are EIRs at a VC), AE related startups (e.g., Tesla Motors). Tons of entrepeneurial startups are "jumping into the game". Based on the lessons of TM (Roadster tranny issue), a R&D program (internal & external..the latter is the below R&D Inst) is required to "cover themselves".

"In order to Push the Limits, sometimes you have to EXCEDD THE LIMITS"

The R&D programs are an "insurance policty" against any potential engineering snafus (inevitable), so they can be dealt with "smooth & fast". Manufacturing can be maintained with minimal delays. "Speed is LIFE" as the saying goes in Auto Racing.

2) NCEA/Nat'l Center for Energy Applications ("R&D supercharger")
virtual R&D Inst, an umbrella that encompasses Academia (major universities with Research Programs in AE, e.g. Georgia-Tech's GTRI) & Industry (major industrial players like Intel, Tesla Motors, Fraunhofer Inst, etc)

A simple parallel to the motivations/founding of NCSA/Nat'l Ctr for Supercomputing Applications, its origins are a UIUC researcher (computational astrophysicist) in the mid 80's (who btw, visited the AARG lab to check out our Air Force sponsored hi-speed image-buffer, which was wire-wrapped by Martin. I myself designed/wire-wrapped an interface board for that system) He is now at UCSD/CALIT2 (joint UCSD & UC Irvine Applied Research program which has Industrial partners like Toyota, Ford, Nissan), whose charter is "leveraging Communications Technology to help the EMERGING ECONOMY of California". Heh.

3) US Govt
if these characters can get their act together (a major challenge), & design a custom Infrastructure like Japan did for their Automotive Industry (& Germany did after WII for German Industry, via Fraunhofer). As per Judy Estrin's article Innovation" Critical to Our Future spot-on comments (Re: "Innovation Ecosystem", an infrastructure to nurture R&D, Innovation, etc). Martin had the foresight to hire her to TM's Advisory Board, & a Jekyl/Hyde surfaced to eject Martin, W. Rippel, J. Estrin (& others). Whoah! And, TM is talking about setting up a "state of the art R&D program on their proposed campus"? Sorry, bridge burned.


See above UIUC contacts (UCSD/CALIT2, GaTech/GTRI, Martin), who are ex UIUC alumni with strong track records in Innovation & Academics. All 3 have passed thru Washington (congressional sub-committee testimonies, & 1 guy sucessfully got NCSA funded), so they have brand-name recognition in Washington political circles.

The poltical/economic climate in Washington (near desperation, they are looking for a PR save, & more importantly a long term program to save this country's future, as per Judy Estrin's observation), in cojunction with the entrepeneurial hype-ractivity in AE/Alternative Energy (e.g., EV, hydrogen-power cars, PV/solar power, etc) because of the Global Warming hype, means that the "Timing is Right".

"Timing is Everything"
-- business saying
[ Not only do you have to suggest a Technology solution, but it has to be at the TIME at which they will WANT IT. H. Nakajima told me that in my Champcar Auto Racing project ]

Already there is talk of 25 billion earmarked as loans to save the American auto-industry (incl GM, whose EV/Volt program was triggered by TM's Roadster breakthrough), 80 million in subsidies by DoE (for TM?), etc. Every politician is talking about AE, electric cars (J. McCain posed with a Roadster, etc). Obviously, the above Economic opportunities manifest into Economic growth in the Tech sector (based on this country's strength in Innovation, uh..kinda), i.e. ultimately JOBS. The latter is the key word for politicians, it will get them elected & STAY ELECTED.

"Talk the Talk, Walk the Walk"

My NREL/PV researcher friend is on travel next week, but wants to do something the following week (fly to talk to me in Socal, & others..say, some Caltech research profs. 1 is a Mech Eng prof on sabbatical to Northrop-Grumman to investigate the AE option (I think) ). Because of his world-class research/results, he has deep connections in the entrepeneurial side of PV (knows owners, CTOs, & was being lured away), who long term future is in this area (business world, Martin's universe). His area (PV) is attracting major VC interest (SF-based), to the tune of 1 billion.

He is a key contact in this CFPT (Carbon Free Personal Transportation) via EV/PV idea I've got, which plays into the above 1/2/3 grand-plan.

All my talk on TMC is beginning to gel into some "walk the walk" action. If Martin/Marc are EIR's on a VC firm, then they realize the above 1/2/3 is the "grand plan" that must be implemented (as per Judy Estrin's observation to establish an "Innovation Ecosystem" foundation for present/future of America) to help their vision for AE/EV. I say some "heads" need to get together for further talks (fine-tune the concept involving 1/2/3), & start writing proposals. Sept/Oct is crunch time for Fiscal 2009 proposals. I'm right in the middle of my own, involving HEP/High Energy Physics (you might have noticed the latest news on the CERN/LHC coming on line, there is great buzz/excitement in the Physics community about this, just like EV is generating great buzz/excitement within AE). Which has an interesting cross-over connection (Interdisciplinary Science) to AE.

 

[chimpanzee]

I was in the Menlo Park store yesterday to ask a few questions, in part to confirm my estimate of when I could expect delivery (#187). We all agreed on late December.

Doreen told me that "all" (my interpretation) the cars built this year will be airshipped. They want to get a lot of cars on the road quickly.

I was at SIGGRAPH 2008 last month, & wanted to meet with you to discuss the Roadster. I did attend Ed Catmull's talk, & had a brief chat with him during the following autograph session. He told me he wants the Whitestar.

So, it occurred to me. Why wouldn't the PIXAR founder (& President of Disney Animation) NOT go with a Roadster? It would be symbolic of the leader of a Technology based company like PIXAR. Then, you want a Roadster. I know Rob Cook/PIXAR drives a BMW (he told me so back at SIGGRAPH 2001), I confirmed that he still does. So, is car selection just personal preference?

I personally have no need for a sportscar, I like to haul stuff & goto the desert for amateur-astronomy. I am personally interested in getting a EV with offroad capability, exploring the outback is my thing.

My involvement with Offroad Racing (where Xtrac has built a development program with certain teams), found an interesting team who is an Xtrac development partner. After suffering breakage in 2007, they/Xtrac co-developed a gearbox that got them 1st, 3rd, 1st place finishes & are looking forward to upcoming Baja 1000 (in Nov) to take home the Class 1 points championship. I want to submit a NSF (or DoE) proposal to fund a R&D Institute (targeting AE/Alternative Energy companies like TM), & use the above "real world R&D result" as an "engineering prototype". It should be straightforward to transfer this offroad result to Pavement (i.e., Tesla Roadster 2-speed gearbox). License this Technology to a company to build after-market 2-speed trannies to Roadster clients like yourself.

Q: Would you go for such a product?
If Powertrain 1.5 can get the desired performance (0-60 in 3.9s), then what's the point of a 2-speed? Simpler is better, just like automatics are preferable over manual transmission.

I'm trying to get a feel from a Roadster client like yourself, the market for Roadsters & aftermarket products like a 2-speed. What other accessories or products for the Roadster would you like to see?

My background is in Electrical Eng (Signal Processing) w/PhD, so I'm capable of doing development in the area of PEM. I'm thinking of getting a Roadster as a test-vehicle & doing what JB Straubel is doing: doing tests under city driving conditions.

1) Write a proposal to do some development work on the Roadster
in conjunction with XXX, funded by YYY. somebody (TM or whoever) loans/leases me a Roadster, or just flat out buy one.

Or, just privately tinker with a Roadster (no cooperative work with XXX). I'm 2 blocks from Caltech (& down the 210 freeway from ACP), so maybe XXX could be Caltech Mechanical Eng & Elec Eng. YYY could be DoE or NSF or DARPA.

"Research is about not knowing what the h*ll you're doing [ "monkeying around", see my avatar ]"

TEG just pointed out that TM's approach was a cut-and-try approach: see if software startup principles could be applied to EV auto MFG'ing. Similarly, I would have an open-ended approach (like Thomas Edison): just start messing around in the lab. I would look at the problem top-down, & draw up a plan. At the same time, I would have a bottom-up "play with the Technology" approach like I did with my last Project (which created all sorts of interesting unpredictable spinoffs).

"Research is predictably UNPREDICTABLE"

It's like PIXAR vs Benoit Mandelbrot, I recall your ACM article 20 odd yrs ago. Yeah, your table (random number seeds?) used for xxx (didn't fit the technical definition of Fractal yyy, sorry it's been so long) got BM all mad, but you're thing "worked". Perfect case of "Real World knowledge" beating out "Book Knowledge".

"What works..WORKS"
-- Lynn Conway/XEROX PARC (now U. of Michigan), co-researcher with Carver Meade/Caltech
[ Lynn was the real-world computer architect, Carver was the Academic: this team ("Real World knowledge" + "Book knowledge") revolutionized VLSI design ]

Lynn had a similar fight with a "theoretician" (PARC researcher) like you did with Mandelbrot: yeah, technically they were right, but in the end.."what works..WORKS". End of Discussion.

from Lynn Conway's Perspective, Pt 4:

- - then it got serious - - we began experiencing great pressure within PARC from leaders in CSL, especially Butler Lampson, who was constantly running down the VLSI work in efforts to hurt the project and shift funding from it to CSL - - Lampson was the dominant technical persona of CSL - - - Bob Taylor's "top gunfighter" - - - he loved to verbally confront and attack people - - a walking encyclopedia of all past theory - - he'd often shoot folks ideas down if they weren't totally perfect on the smallest theoretical details - -

- - - however, Butler often missed the big picture of what was being worked on - - a "detail guy", he didn't seem to think much about "context" - - - heck, he never even asked us what we thought we were doing - - without checking it out, how could he possibly have visualized the VLSI phenomenon that was starting to loom large outside of PARC - - all he saw was the tiny little piece of the clan within PARC - - and whatever that was, he didn't like it - - - so this became a very, very big problem for us within PARC - - -

Hit that link above, it's a required reading for anyone trying to start a "Revolution" (like EV). It's not only a Technology challenge, but one in human persuasion, politics, etc.

"Der Kampf gegen die eigenen Oberen macht manchmal mehr Arbeit als gegen die Franzosen"
"It is sometimes tougher to fight my superiors [ management, colleagues ] than the French [ Market competition ]"
-- Heinz Guderian, German military innovator (Blitzkrieg), Panzer commander

[ When he got orders to stop and wait for the following infantry and tried to persuade his superiors that this would mean to throw away victory. ]

Martin got a taste of the above, so has everyone else (to varying degrees).

Lynn is also an amateur-astronomer (like Marc Tarpening & myself), offroad racer, very talented & capable. Dr. Ed Davidson (Martin's mentor @UIUC, mine too) knows her, since he was U. of Michigan/Elec Eng Dept Head.

 

[lorencc]

I skipped SIGGRAPH this year as I was too busy with work. Ed is not a sports car person. John Lasseter is and we may see him in a Roadster someday. Rob drives a M3. Rumor has it one of our directors ordered a Roadster, but I haven't confirmed it.

I couldn't not get a Roadster. I also drive a BMW (330ci) and was about to get a new one and Tesla came along. I ran the numbers and the difference (price + 5 years operating cost) was something I would gladly give to someone who could help get us out of the oil mess.

The delay doesn't bother me as the car shipping now is so much better than the one I signed up for (and they froze the price for us early depositors).

I have no plans to take it to a track, except perhaps for some advanced driving lessons. I live on a twisty road out in the country and I'll have plenty of opportunities to amuse myself.

Hacking a Roadster could be a fun project but I have no shortage of those.

Also, you got the gist of the Mandelbrot fuss. Surprised anyone remembers it...

Fortunately, here at Pixar, there are *no* jerks. No kidding. We turn them into productive people or we get rid of them. Company policy.

 

[TEG]

I used to be a regular at Siggraph back in the 80's when I was writing computer games. The yearly evolution of the Pixar demo reel was the highlight of the show. I bought and saved all the old tapes, but now I just have them all on Disney bluray.

When the Mandelbrot equation first got published in Scientific American some friends and I wrote our first distributed C app (on a network of Sun 1s) to visualize. It was so exciting. We worked out some ways to display different levels as different colormap entries, then rotated the palette for wild effects. Those were the days...

---

Regarding Roadster R&D... Tesla plans to grow and has lots of talent already. Do they really need an outside firm to do transmission research?! (I think not). If there is any outside angle, perhaps it would be to organize a race series. I know there is demand for that sort of thing from some of the customers.

Personally, the main type of "improvements" for the Roadster I would like to see in coming years would be:

#1: Cost reductions.
#2: Longer range.
#3: Longer pack calender lifespan.
#4: Airbag improvements (including passenger seat disable for kids).
#5: Brake blended (more adjustable) regen.

I suppose the German customers need a water cooled eMotor for the Autobahn as well. Might be useful in racing too.

 

[chimpanzee]

I skipped SIGGRAPH this year as I was too busy with work. Ed is not a sports car person. John Lasseter is and we may see him in a Roadster someday. Rob drives a M3. Rumor has it one of our directors ordered a Roadster, but I haven't confirmed it.

I couldn't not get a Roadster. I also drive a BMW (330ci) and was about to get a new one and Tesla came along. I ran the numbers and the difference (price + 5 years operating cost) was something I would gladly give to someone who could help get us out of the oil mess.

The delay doesn't bother me as the car shipping now is so much better than the one I signed up for (and they froze the price for us early depositors).

I have no plans to take it to a track, except perhaps for some advanced driving lessons. I live on a twisty road out in the country and I'll have plenty of opportunities to amuse myself.

Hacking a Roadster could be a fun project but I have no shortage of those.

Also, you got the gist of the Mandelbrot fuss. Surprised anyone remembers it...

Fortunately, here at Pixar, there are *no* jerks. No kidding. We turn them into productive people or we get rid of them. Company policy.

Hi, thanks for the update.

Personally, I don't have a car right now..I declared my gas-guzzling 4x4 van non-operational (until June/2009). No more gas fills at $4/gallon..NO WAY. I'm car-free on a bicycle + Public Transportation. My next car will be all-electric, no intermediary hybrid. I'm an extremist (Martin doesn't like hybrids either)

If things go right, I should have a Roadster to play with by next Sept (I would be #1201 !!). I'm not a sportscar person, but this whole TMC group (filled with Roadster fans) has got me "hooked" (kinda). I remember Martin taking me to his apartment (UIUC, summer '81)..so that means I got a ride in his '67 Mustang (have no recollection of that, however). His other office-mate had turqoise '69 Mustang Mach 1.

I see myself being a JB Straubel type: tinkering with it, driving it with cables hanging out of the dashboard (messing with PEM), swapping out gearboxes (transmissions have my attention). That Xtrac development partner (offroad) uses a BMW M5 engine in his race car.



Re: Mandelbrot fuss, I mentioned to Al Barr/Caltech (20 odd yrs ago in his office), & he quickly sized it up for me. I clearly remember that ACM article. I do remember BM stomping out of SIGGRAPH 1985 (San Francisco), "Mathematics of Computer Graphics" seminar, all mad!! Coincidentally, a fellow UIUC PhD candidate at the time referred to BM as an "egotist" (ironically, he (Computer Vision researcher, UT Austin) just got a UIUC Alumni award with Martin a few weeks ago)

We had a similar "fuss" in my field of Computer Vision (the time Martin & me were in the AI/Robotics/Visionfield, early to mid 80's): big-name MIT Vision group (Grimson/Hildreth) VS Haralick (image processing icon Virginia Tech). Same thing: big fight, it spilled over to a journal publication (IEEE PAMI/Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence), where the 2 sides "dueled". Reminds me of TM, battle of the "heads".

I find the "parallel threads" fascinating in above: Graphics, Vision, VLSI, EV/Tesla Motors. All 4 fields had huge battles with "big personalities" involved (a term used for the HST/Hubble mirror disaster). Some involved the classic "Experiment" VS "Theory" battle. Someone business-savvy would see there is a Need for a Solution, just figure out a business-model. It's worth BIG BUCKS to solve company crises that can be costly. I think Ed Catmull needs to "patent" the winning system he's created at PIXAR.


I DO remember Rob Cook & his buried reference (in a SIGGRAPH paper circa '85) to "Distributed Ray Tracing", which I thought was a deep fundamental concept in CG. Random sampling, in image space (to combat spatial anti-aliasing) & time (to combat motion anti-aliasing). This "random sampling concept" maybe tied to your table-based random number generator. I might be involved with some research projects in "Geometric Computation" (interesting ATI GPU research here using object-space Tesselation, where I resurrect this concept)

 

[chimpanzee]

I used to be a regular at Siggraph back in the 80's when I was writing computer games. The yearly evolution of the Pixar demo reel was the highlight of the show. I bought and saved all the old tapes, but now I just have them all on Disney bluray.

When the Mandelbrot equation first got published in Scientific American some friends and I wrote our first distributed C app (on a network of Sun 1s) to visualize. It was so exciting. We worked out some ways to display different levels as different colormap entries, then rotated the palette for wild effects. Those were the days...

---

Regarding Roadster R&D... Tesla plans to grow and has lots of talent already. Do they really need an outside firm to do transmission research?! (I think not). If there is any outside angle, perhaps it would be to organize a race series. I know there is demand for that sort of thing from some of the customers.

Personally, the main type of "improvements" for the Roadster I would like to see in coming years would be:

#1: Cost reductions.
#2: Longer range.
#3: Longer pack calender lifespan.
#4: Airbag improvements (including passenger seat disable for kids).
#5: Brake blended (more adjustable) regen.

I suppose the German customers need a water cooled eMotor for the Autobahn as well. Might be useful in racing too.

I like those bullet-points, thanks.

[ In the end, its customer feedback (being a good listener on TM's part) & customer service which will win the day. ]

That battery-pack thing is tops on my list: improving range/weight ratio. There is a revolution in R/C electric flying: NiCads, NiMh, LiIon are being blow away by the light weight & powerful LiPo battery packs (as of 3 yrs ago, I've been away for awhile). EV needs the equivalent of a LiPo.

TM management:
I've been saying this many times. "It starts from the TOP". TM has a "system gestalt" (Artificial Intelligence term) that is flawed because of...well. PIXAR is the opposite, the guy at the top (Ed Catmull) not only is a technical leader, but a organizational genius. The latter may be his greatest contribution to PIXAR. Recall the WWII anecdote, Eisenhower was chosen to head European Theater of Operations, not because of his military prowess..but because of his ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS (he was the perfect guy, to keep the ego-maniacs Patton & Montgomery in check)

It's like in Baseball:

"You can always find good hitters (offense), but it's HARD TO FIND GOOD PITCHING! (defense)"

Lots of top engineering talent everywhere, but the key is to use them EFFECTIVELY. PIXAR has done that..they FIGURED IT OUT during their evolutionary phase & are running in top-form. TM hasn't done that (company-wide progressive design, like PIXAR/Catmull). They can attract "hitters" (OFFENSE), but can they put in management scheme, find the right leaders, implement strong R&D program (internal & external) to "protect themselves" (good DEFENSE). It's a sports cliche, but "DEFENSE wins Championships"

[ witness the catastrophic Stealth Bloodbath, where Martin, W. Rippel..famous Caltech engineer, Judy Estrin were all ejected. Martin & his team were unfairly blamed for "choosing the wrong Transmission vendor", which was total BS. TM management was impatient & didn't allow Xtrac or Magna the development TIME to work out (expected) engineering issues. Xtrac's development program in offroad brilliantly illustrates this concept. If TM had the foresight to have an internal (& possibly make a deal with an external) R&D company, the tranny snafu could have been overcome in short order ]

..& they still haven't done that. They are relying on hype/buzz to lure "top talent", & it will catch up with them. Another engineering snafu, possibly another stealth bloodbath.

"There are TWO tragedies in Life..One, you get what you want. Two, you don't get what you want"
-- Dr. Jonas Salk, medical researcher (founder of Salk Institute)
[ another Ed Catmull-like technical leader, who is a "Big Aristotle"..philosopher extraordinaire ]

TM could be on the path of "getting what they want", & ultimately failing in the long-run. Maybe LorenC can arrange a meeting, where PIXAR/EdC can come in & work his magic.

"The JOURNEY *IS* the Reward"
-- John Wooden, UCLA basketball coach ("Wizard of Westwood")

"Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France, because of his PROCESS [ strategy, modus-operanda ]"
-- xx

"Lance Armstrong is a CALCULATED KILLER [ rides slow enough in mountain stages to take the win, while conserving energy ]"
-- Phil Ligget, cycling commentator (Tour de France)

"If you put yourself in a position to win [ good tactics/strategy ], YOU HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING"
-- Jim Valvano, NC State basketball coach, '83 NCAA champs

All of the above champions won-the-War with a brilliant, effective STRATEGY. TM is winning some battles, but possibly losing the war. TM needs to sit down, study historical examples (especially in Auto Industry, borrow some from other fields like PIXAR, NCAA basketball, cycling, etc.), & DO THE PLAN.

"In the end, THEY HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT THEMSELVES"
-- USA right of passage
[ the founding fore-fathers of this country did it, PIXAR too ]

All my hee-hawing, links to above historical case studies, PIXAR's great example won't do it..TM HAS TO DO IT.

 

[chimpanzee]

I was in the Menlo Park store yesterday to ask a few questions, in part to confirm my estimate of when I could expect delivery (#187). We all agreed on late December.

Doreen told me that "all" (my interpretation) the cars built this year will be airshipped. They want to get a lot of cars on the road quickly.

I made a recent query, & if I put a deposit down now ($60K) I would be #1201 with expected delivery Sept 2009. Remainder of balance when the car goes to paint (say May 2009). I might be in such a position to buy one, for a research program. The latter would also invalidate the 3 yr 30K mile warranty.

Realistically, can anyone advise me on how true the above dates sound? They've delivered ~30, & #1201 will be delivered by Sept 2009?? I have to be truthful to myself & funding agency, I can't make a promise & not fulfill it.

I need some feedback on Roadster maintenance. How much can an individual do? I mean, no more oil changes & other nonsense associated with ICE. If the car is a LOT of electronics ("drive by wire"), then it HAS to go back to the dealership for adjustment.

Since the dawn of cars, enthusiasts/hobbyists have been tinkering with cars (therefore jeopardizing their spousal relationships). Heck, if a "PC supercomputer" is accessible to hobbyists (look at Tomshardware.com forums, filled with hardware junkies & hackers), then I supose the same would be true for the Roadster. Somehow, they'll figure things out (software or hardware). Look at how just about any electronic gadget can be hacked (e.g., "jailbreaking" an iPhone).

I suppose somebody out there could "jailbreak" a Roadster, & put in totally custom software apps (PEM, for example). Put in custom battery packs, custom AC Induction motor, custom gearboxes. Consider what offroad hobbyists can do:

This thing is totally custom: Cromoly 4130 tubular frame/chassis, custom suspension (A-arm front, 4-link trailing arm rear), custom motor (punched out big block Ford), custom gas-tank (60 gallon), custom wiring. The only thing stock is that Ford truck "shell" (bought from a junk yard, from a wrecked car). BTW, the above is not street-legal. There are some pre-runner conversions that ARE. They buy a wrecked 60's truck, keep the ladder frame, & build a Cromoly chassis around it. It puts some limitations on how "crazy" they can get with suspension travel, but it's 70% of the above.

The same thing could be done with a Roadster, just replace just about everything except the chassis (which still makes it street legal). New electric motor, new tranny, new PEM, new battery pack. Then, what's the point of shelling out $109K for a Roadster? I guess to have something street legal.

Or, can I buy a wrecked Porsche (or Ferrari) & convert it to Electric? Do I need to jump through hoops to get it licensed? Didn't JB Straubel convert a Porsche just for fun? (before his gig at TM)

 

[TEG]

I suppose somebody out there could "jailbreak" a Roadster, & put in totally custom software apps (PEM, for example). Put in custom battery packs, custom AC Induction motor, custom gearboxes.

Gearheads and hackers will mod just about anything.
With that said, when I look at the Roadster, there is very little I would want to change (other than the stereo perhaps). Some other vehicles are ripe for improvement, but the Roadster is already highly optimized. A lighter battery pack with the same current output, but less range could be good for racing. Someone might try to retrofit water cooling on the eMotor for substained high speed.
Actually if I had one I would be tempted to put in yellow turn signals instead of red on the rear. Perhaps custom wheels too.
Turning it into AWD would be an interesting/complex project.
(I saw a show about an AWD Mini conversion done by Getrag)
http://www.motoringfile.com/2005/12/01/driving-the-awd-getrag-mini/

can I buy a wrecked Porsche (or Ferrari) & convert it to Electric?

Check out these guys

Do I need to jump through hoops to get it licensed?

Small hoops. Lots of home brew EV conversions roam the streets legally.

Didn't JB Straubel convert a Porsche

Electric Porsche 944

 

[vfx]

Production EVs can and will be modified.

You just have to think about all the ways (reasons) to modify a car.

Just a few examples...You might want to drag it, jump it, make it hop, off road it, drift it, add huge music, concourse it, road race it, distance race it, live in it, time trial, record it, or demo it.

These are extremes. there are millions of in-betweens.

Most all of these forms will need new classifications and new categories. It's an exciting new world and I'm glad to be alive to see it.