Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Martin Eberhard sues Elon Musk and Tesla Motors

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
We had heard this about the transmissions. They could not get the majors to make anything for them because Tesla only wanted a small quantity in relation to what the manufactures were used to supplying. Prices that were finally agreed on were very high.

Now multiply that debacle times two.

With the government loan from the DOE and the Daimler investment, that problem certainly starts to go away.

Tesla will get high volume / lower prices on components now for the Model S. The Roadster may in fact be able to ride along with this higher buying power from Tesla Motors. Perhaps certain shared components like the battery cells and other parts will drop in price.
 
Not that it matters in the end, but out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING TM could release that would change your mind on what really happened?

If that "anything" would not childishly try to blame one single person for every single problem they've had and directly contradict what we heard years ago and the other side didn't honestly admit some problems were real but for some more believable and real causes than yes, it might have change my mind because I would learn something new.

Elon's response is empty drivel, no real substance. And he is also afraid of questions. I ask you why?
 
If that "anything" would not childishly try to blame one single person for every single problem they've had and directly contradict what we heard years ago and the other side didn't honestly admit some problems were real but for some more believable and real causes than yes, it might have change my mind because I would learn something new.

Elon's response is empty drivel, no real substance. And he is also afraid of questions. I ask you why?

Fair enough. As for the questions, if you mean the locked blog post, I think it's a good idea. He shouldn't have posted it at all IMO -- though I'm glad he did -- letting any and everyone with a bone to pick start arguing in the comments on the official company website is an even worse idea IMO.
 

While I found the information contained in this Blog interesting, it strikes me as exceedingly bad use of the TM Blog forum (especially since comments were closed), and moderately bad taste. More than anything, as an avid reader of the TM Blog forum for nearly 3 yrs now, it represents the latest form of the death of that forum. Say what one will about ME, but under his guidance the TM Blog was a model of what a firm could accomplish with this relatively new channel of communication.

http://www.tendocom.com/view/behind-the-scenes-the-impact-of-blogging-on-the-tesla-roadster-690
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. As for the questions, if you mean the locked blog post, I think it's a good idea. He shouldn't have posted it at all IMO -- though I'm glad he did -- letting any and everyone with a bone to pick start arguing in the comments on the official company website is an even worse idea IMO.
I have a theory that he's trying to bait ME into a rebuttal. If ME takes the bait, he's blown any chance at clearing up the non-disparaging clause in his resignation.
 
Founders, Inventors and Funders

Let's think about Tesla Motors short and glorious history:

Starting with ALAN COCCONI's Tzero, which showed the huge acceleration of a well designed technology.

The founding of the company through MARTIN EBERHARD and MARC TAPENNING, after approximately one year backed up with finances from ELON MUSK.

In an outside view, ME has created an incredible trust in the company which attracted the best engineers, allowed the company to grow fast and steadily and attracted potential buyers and celebrities. Meanwhile EM seemed to have contributed important details to the car with the uncompromised acceleration power, lowered doorsill, refined design of the body.

Difficulties and obstacles in the finalization of the car led to a huge delay and severe financial difficulties. This finally led to the ousting of ME, who could no longer serve as the CEO. EM managed to initiate the production of the Roadster shortly after the Takeover. He brought the well prepared work of his predecessor to fruition.

EM mentions important contributions of JB STRAUBEL, from the beginning. What about the contribution of WALLY RIPPEL? Wally already was one of the engineers of the EV1 and brought a huge experience inside the company. In the time of his presence at the company (9/06-12/07) the engineering team managed ot optimise the power and the acceleration of the car, the idea of an 1.5 power-train without 2-speed transmission was probably already born.

Tesla Motors success is huge, now officially confirmed through the partnership with Daimler and the federal Loan. Now I beleave that Elons star would shine even brighter if he could take a little step back, praise the well done work of the most important founders and engineers - give them a small but well deserved (financial) share of the company!
 
Siry's POV in Wired:

Will The Real Tesla Founder Please Stand Up | Autopia | Wired.com

Martin Eberhard’s lawsuit against Tesla Motors and Elon Musk reads like the script to a daytime soap opera. But in accusing Musk of forcing him out of the company and attempting to “rewrite history” to claim credit for founding the company, Eberhard raises some interesting questions, not the least of which is who really founded Tesla.

Having witnessed the drama first-hand for two years as Tesla’s chief marketing officer, I suspect the real bone of contention between these two men is how they see their place in history — and more importantly, how they want others see it.

...
 

interesting:

Perhaps neither Eberhard or Musk realized just how right they were about how big the idea would become. If they had, they would have been more protective in the early days of Tesla Motors. Eberhard did not take the necessary precautions in giving away so much control of the company early on. And Musk didn’t act sooner to replace Eberhard, either in the early days when one member of the management team sought his ouster or at the series C round of funding when a top-tier venture capitalist conditioned an investment offer on Eberhard’s departure (In both cases, Musk backed Eberhard). Both men have privately, and sometimes publicly, regretted those decisions.

martin's folly:
In trying to win recognition as the rightful founder of Tesla, Eberhard has invited the company to expose what many will conclude is a none-too-flattering record as a chief executive, and he has given his arch enemy the opportunity to detail the circumstances of the company’s founding that many will find ring all too true.

elon's folly:
And in trying to finally crush Eberhard and convince everyone of his role as the relentless force behind Tesla — and more importantly the electrification of automobiles — Musk will continue creating needless distractions for the company just when it most needs to focus on execution. Potentially, we are witnessing the makings of a Pyrric victory for Elon in his consolidation of power and the legacy of Tesla.
 
The comments about ACP are interesting. As anyone who's tried to purchase something from them will probably understand, I've rarely seen a company less willing to sell their product. Tesla has already improved upon the original and I expect other offerings to show up as competition as well. They may be left behind in the revolution they helped start.
 
The comments about ACP are interesting. As anyone who's tried to purchase something from them will probably understand, I've rarely seen a company less willing to sell their product. Tesla has already improved upon the original and I expect other offerings to show up as competition as well. They may be left behind in the revolution they helped start.

Yeah, I was a little put off by how he kept saying AC were the real founders... in reality, I think both Elon and Martin had the idea for a while, but AC was the first one they came across that actually had one made... AC's lack of business drive seems to be the reason EM and ME met in the first place.

AC shouldn't be considered a founder at all. They contributed nothing much more than a proof of concept that really got EM and ME itching to get this thing started.
 
AC shouldn't be considered a founder at all. They contributed nothing much more than a proof of concept that really got EM and ME itching to get this thing started.

AC Built the TZero, But that's not Tesla. Tesla is a car company with a goal of being a major player. That's the company the "Founder" argument is over.

Tom and Alan are no more founders of Tesla the car company than Elon or Martin are founders of AC Propulsion.
 
AC Built the TZero, But that's not Tesla. Tesla is a car company with a goal of being a major player. That's the company the "Founder" argument is over.

Tom and Alan are no more founders of Tesla the car company than Elon or Martin are founders of AC Propulsion.

As is so often the case in situations like this, it's very Rashomon-like. Everyone could probably take a lie detector test of their version of events and pass with flying colors. It all depends upon your point of view when viewing events of this type.
 
AC Built the TZero, But that's not Tesla. Tesla is a car company with a goal of being a major player. That's the company the "Founder" argument is over.

Tom and Alan are no more founders of Tesla the car company than Elon or Martin are founders of AC Propulsion.

heh, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or debating me.
 
In 2007 Musk said:

One fierce debate was whether the Roadster should have headlight covers or not. "My opinion," says Musk, "was that if we had uncovered headlights it would look like a kit car—a little cheesy." Eberhard pointed out that the change would cost half a million dollars. Musk said he'd pay.

Eberhard had no problems with the doorsill, but Musk did. It was difficult to step up into the car, so high and thick was the sill. At Musk's insistence, the engineers redesigned it, narrowing it and lowering it by two inches. It was Musk, too, who refused to use those hard-shell Elise seats. A carbon-fiber body replaced the fiberglass one. "On some of these changes I had to be quite forceful," Musk admits, "because Martin [Eberhard] didn't want to spend the money."

And today:
There were several smaller items I suggested, such as the touchpad door latch that Eberhard tries to use as an excuse for why it cost over $140M to bring the Roadster to market instead of the $25M that he estimated in the 2004 business plan. That would have to be one hell of door latch!

A rat stays a rat.
 
I don't get your post... what do the the bolded part of the first quote have to do with the second quote? He said he had to be forceful with some of his changes in the first, in the second he says that the items he requested aren't the reason the car went from 25M to 140M....
 
Guys, I think your missing my point and taking the headline too literally. In the second paragraph I set up the premise that I don't think the important thing being fought over is who technically founded the company (obviously that is Martin and Marc), but rather the role people will play in the history of the resurgence of the electric vehicle.

I also don't equate the t-zero with the Tesla, but rather point out that the original idea of a commodity lithium ion cell electric roadster with amazing acceleration came from two other guys who are rarely talked about in the media and should figure more prominently in the story of the resurgence of the EV (I don't think they should be considered founders of Tesla)

But they didn't see just how important the idea was, which Elon and Martin both did see.
 
I also don't equate the t-zero with the Tesla, but rather point out that the original idea of a commodity lithium ion cell electric roadster with amazing acceleration came from two other guys who are rarely talked about in the media and should figure more prominently in the story of the resurgence of the EV (I don't think they should be considered founders of Tesla)

I get it. The Wired article (to me) seems worded to blur the line between "idea" and "founder" when founder is what is being argued. Thanks for clarifying your point.

I don't think the important thing being fought over is who technically founded the company (obviously that is Martin and Marc), but rather the role people will play in the history of the resurgence of the electric vehicle.

Curious. Important to that point is we know Martin paid his own money to have AC build the TZero with lithium cells and drove the car for months to prove the concept, but was it his idea or Alan and Tom's idea to use commodity lithium cells? I know that was long before you came on the scene but it might have come up. Others might be able to dig up old interviews with details.

Daryl, another way to look at your "big picture" view is to delineate the difference is, who had "concept" and who had "vision".
 
I think Alan Cocconi is a brilliant engineer who deserves all possible credit for designing the modern AC motor and power electronics for cars.

I looked at AC Propulsion from time to time over the years. They never seemed interested in manufacturing. They seemed more interested in supplying designs and prototype parts for other companies.

It's not clear to me where the idea to use the commodity lithium ion batteries in the Tesla Roadster came from. It's clear from the timeline on the AC Propulsion website that they used commodity NiMH cells to power the White Lightning in 1999. It's not clear that they were using lithium ion batteries in packs before 2005.

In any case, Martin Eberhard and Elon Musk aren't fighting over Karl Benz' place in history, they're fighting over Henry Ford's. Perhaps they'll end up with something more like R. E. Olds' place, instead.