Tesla Founder & CEO Elon Musk interview, March 2015

[Ace-Garageguy]

https://youtu.be/TDm6Snkle70

Edited April 13, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Let me know when Tesla offers a car at a price an average Anerican can afford and I'll be there with checkbook in hand.

I think the current Teslas are fantastic... beautifully designed, great performance, everything you could want in a car.

But if nobody can afford it, what good is it?

[Joe Handley]

Give him a some time Harry, they's still working on the Model 3, which should be a 3 Series fighter and I think it's supposed to be in the mid $30k price range.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Joe Handley

[Ace-Garageguy]

Let me know when Tesla offers a car at a price an average Anerican can afford and I'll be there with checkbook in hand.

I think the current Teslas are fantastic... beautifully designed, great performance, everything you could want in a car.

But if nobody can afford it, what good is it?

Much the same could have been said of cars in general when they were first available...they were primarily not-too-practical toys for rich folks to flaunt their wealth with.

And computers? Something with a tiny fraction of the power of a smartphone would have cost millions.

Most complex manufactured products follow a similar trajectory.

Time will tell.

[Atmobil]

Let me know when Tesla offers a car at a price an average Anerican can afford and I'll be there with checkbook in hand.

I think the current Teslas are fantastic... beautifully designed, great performance, everything you could want in a car.

But if nobody can afford it, what good is it?

You should come to Norway then, here a Tesla Model S is cheaper than a base model Mercedes E class

[Art Anderson]

Of course, it would be wise to remember that over the past 130 years or so of automobile production--there have been nearly 2000 manufacturers of automobiles, and yet today only a handful exist.

Only time will tell if Tesla is going to survive--so far, it appears they've not made a dime, perhaps barely broken even, all on the hopes of investors that at some point, they will. But with larger, more established automakers doing more than mere dabbling with electric cars, the longer it takes for a company such as Tesla to figure out just how to reach a larger customer base, the less likely it is that they (or any other maker of electric cars solely) will survive to succeed in the long run.

Art

[Atmobil]

If one acctually wants the electric car to survive in to the future one could do what has been done here. Electric cars have no registration tax, almost no road tax, no road tolls, is allowed in buslanes, free parking, free ferry tickets, cheaper insurence, cheapers bankloans and one can get a chargerstation at home paid for by the goverment and they are building more and more fast charger stations all around the country. Here we have the situation now that a car like and E-Golf is cheaper than petrol or diesel powered versions and because of the savings from taxes, runningcosts, insurence and lendingrates plus the fact that they keep their value better means a normal family will actually make money on owning an electric car.

I'm not joking, a friend of mine bought an E-Golf to use as their everyday comutercar. They are a family of four, two adults and two young daughters that are going to kindergarden. He did the maths and found out that the savings on using the E-Golf instead of the Rav4 they had before means that he can theoretically sell the car after a year and in total come out with a profit despite selling the car for less than what he paid. That means that if he saves the money he would have otherwise used on car running costs for the Rav4 for a year and then sell the E-Golf he will have more money than what he paid for the car.

[Brudda]

Tesla is in the Bay Area. This is like no other place on earth. The average joe that has paid his or her home off in the 80s is doing very well. The 1500-2000 sq ft home in San Jose is around 1 mil. in a good area. My friends have moved to other parts of the usa because they sold their home and bought a 1500 sq ft home for 150 thou cash. Then retire. What i am saying is that joe average is doing pretty good. Sooo 70 thou for a car is not bad. Palo Alto is even doing better. I just took my daughter to a american girl store in Palo Alto, and holy cow,model cars are cheap compared to that. (yes even pocher).

Bill Engwer is right,like the first TV,first car,etc it is going to be out of price for us, joe average guy or gal. Maybe in the near future we will see more of them. I did watch a formula e race,kind of interesting. Although for me, I still like the sounds of pistons and the smell of gas.

[aurfalien]

I've heard him on several occasion and he sounds like he wants to simply supply the industry with energy storage rather then cars.

And uses cars like Google uses there Nexus in that they simply want to supply software/advertising and have hardware as a sort of show case.

But the real deal and money maker is being a vendor to, well, vendors.

Just my interpretation. Personally I think there cars are too bulky and bland for my taste, no real character or pizzazz.

Its almost a pity that the company was named after a true genius of our time and frankly not worthy of the name. I mean there battery tech isn't all that impressive.

Again, my opinion here.

Edited April 15, 2015 by aurfalien

[Ace-Garageguy]

I mean there battery tech isn't all that impressive.

OK, whose battery tech impresses you?

And why?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[aurfalien]

Well, no ones batteries are that great, all kinda sux.

Granted the cars are big and heavy, but you still can't drive all that much w/o requiring a charge.

I've a few buddies who have em and they are not that fun to drive around after a while because you just need to charge all the time.

At least in a place like California were driving 30 miles a day is very avg and sorta minimum.

I suppose you can look at needing to gas up often to be impractical but at least gas stations are every where. One can argue that its a matter of time but its been a while and I've seen a battery charge station at a well visited beach be removed from lack of us. And thats after being there for 5+ years.

Plus I think its hard to beat the efficiency of combustion engines, especially a diesel one that runs on European grade diesel fuel.

Edited April 15, 2015 by aurfalien

[Ace-Garageguy]

Well, no ones batteries are that great, all kinda sux.

Granted the cars are big and heavy, but you still can't drive all that much w/o requiring a charge.

I've a few buddies who have em and they are not that fun to drive around after a while because you just need to charge all the time.

At least in a place like California were driving 30 miles a day is very avg and sorta minimum.

I suppose you can look at needing to gas up often to be impractical but at least gas stations are every where. One can argue that its a matter of time but its been a while and I've seen a battery charge station at a well visited beach be removed from lack of us. And thats after being there for 5+ years.

Plus I think its hard to beat the efficiency of combustion engines, especially a diesel one that runs on European grade diesel fuel.

Development takes time and money. Battery tech has come a long LONG way in just the past 20 years. This self-launching REAL airplane would have been physically impossible just a few years ago.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[aurfalien]

Your example is awesome, I love it.

But I'm afraid that I'm not too sure.

Back in the 70's when I saw 2001, I was like OMG 2001 will be soo exciting.

Fast forward to 2001, well tech wise it was full of promise but in reality that's all it was. So we have Siri 10 years later BFD, my Cube talks to me in that some what annoying voice that for some doesn't pronounce the R in my phone book correctly. My buddy Derek is pronounced Dajok and my other buddy whom I have listed as Barnz the car pronounces as Baynz but I digress.

As far as I can see, the purpose of tech today as its being implemented, is to sell ad dollars so that one can consume.

Advancement for the sake of itself doesn't exist and is dictated by economics. We are not nearly as far along as we should have been.

Its all seemingly stale in a way but that's fine. I think the most advance and amazing tech is already here and its called nature.

Edited April 15, 2015 by aurfalien

[Ace-Garageguy]

But I'm afraid that I'm not too sure.

Back in the 70's when I saw 2001, I was like OMG 2001 will be soo exciting.

As far as I can see, the purpose of tech today as its being implemented, is to sell ad dollars so that one can consume.

Advancement for the sake of itself doesn't exist and is dictated by economics. We are not nearly as far along as we should have been.

Frankly, I agree entirely. This is hardly the world we were promised back in the 1950s, and the technology exists to have solved a great many more of humanity's problems than has been utilized intelligently to do so. But what do we see? Primarily...tech as toys.

Again, it all comes down to greed for money, greed for political power, and fear of change.

But you still have to applaud the people who are doing something visible to move us forward as a species. The Elon Musks and Burt Rutans (and even the much-maligned Mr. Gates) of the world who actually get things done realized early in the game that you have to have money and connections to accomplish the big things. Progress doesn't happen because of some genius idealist working in a vacuum. And waiting for the other guy, or the government...well, it'll be a LONG wait.

There is so much resistance to change, and so much literal hatred and badmouthing of people like Musk, that it's kind of remarkable anything worthwhile ever gets done at all.

[aurfalien]

You know something, you're right.

Putting it that way I don't want to bad mouth him or any one really.

My opinion got the best of me here, and I could not pull off what he is doing for sure.

Being a bit introspective, my seeming frustration here is not really with Elon or Tesla but with how far we've come.

The 100MPG carb was out very briefly in the 70's and earlier then that we landed on the moon.

Since then we have gotten, well an iWatch and Amazon Prime. Of course I am a lowly person who knows little to nothing about whats happening behind the scenes.

At any rate, I got your point and agree. Sometimes I get carried away so Elon if you are reading, my sincere apology for my brash, flippant and unfair replies.

My hope is that one day some one will develop a transducer that converts what the ancient Chinese called Chi into usable energy for all. Then we can not care about aerodynamics and go back to 60's era looking cars like the P68, 330P4, 312P, Carrera 6, 907/8 etc...

I was hoping to be the one but am missing those neurons/gray matter that allow it.

Or if you go by what Socrates said, I am born knowing it but simply can't remember!

Edited April 15, 2015 by aurfalien

[cartpix]

The 100MPG carb was out very briefly in the 70's

The 100 MPG (200 & 300 variations) is an urban legend. It never existed. They can't even get that kind of milage out of electronic fuel injection & computer controls. How can you expect that from an outdated unsophisticated carburetor?

[aurfalien]

Eh Gas Hole touched on it briefly but urban legend is just a matter of being informed but I digress.

Going by traditional knowledge channels and news, sure its a myth.

But I've never found those to truly quench my thirst. At any rate I hope you got what I was trying to convey about progress etc...

Edited April 15, 2015 by aurfalien

[Ace-Garageguy]

The 100 MPG (200 & 300 variations) is an urban legend. It never existed. They can't even get that kind of milage out of electronic fuel injection & computer controls. How can you expect that from an outdated unsophisticated carburetor?

Eh Gas Hole touched on it briefly but urban legend is just a matter of being informed but I digress.

Going by traditional knowledge channels and news, sure its a myth.

But I've never found those to truly quench my thirst. At any rate I hope you got what I was trying to convey about progress etc...

Going by known principles of physics (inconvenient little things like how much of the energy produced by burning fuel in the MOST efficient IC engine is wasted as exhaust and cooling system heat, and how much actually makes "go"...something the most wonderful carburetor in the universe could not have ANY effect on whatsoever) and the amount of energy contained in the bonds that are broken when fossil fuels are burned, the 100mpg carburetor is total BS, perpetuated by people who want to see conspiracies everywhere. It's actually good to have a strong background in engineering, mechanics, and science (which I happen to have) in order to know what is baloney and what is not.

Things like this do no good for the reality of the situation, which is quite bad enough without overblown claims of shadowy criminal exploits among the oil and automobile companies.

And one part of the truth is that it IS possible to get much more than 100 miles from one gallon of gasoline. I believe the current world record is something like 12,600 mpg, set by this little beauty.

Somewhat impractical for real-world conditions, it's still on the leading edge of demonstrating what IS possible by shaving weight, improving light vehicle structural performance, enhancing vehicle aerodynamics, and optimizing engine design.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

I'm still waiting for an affordable Tesla.

My checkbook is at hand, and my writing hand is ready.

I'm a fan of Elon Musk and others like him. We need more "Elon Musks" in this world.

[aurfalien]

Well not to linger on and on, but keep in mind what you know is exactly that, what you know. Sure there is basis in truth and solid foundation in what we all know but I like to keep in mind, its just that.

And the entire premise of a conspiracy doesn't preclude it from being factual.

A small yet significant case in point is that a round world/Earth at one time was considered a conspiracy so much so, that to believe it was punishable by death.

One doesn't know absolutes or true possibilities as that's subjective and ever changing.

As in my own little micro-chasim, I've been told something is not possible, I prove it possible about 30% of the time and so we move on.

One thing to note is keeping it fresh and realize that you are not absolute or an over all expert, there is no such thing. However one is an expert to those who know less, hence why he/she is an expert.

This isn't a slam or meant to be disrespectful but its how I like to look at things based on observation.

At any rate I suppose the burden of proof falls on me and since I brought it up and cannot prove it due to not having one and showing you myself. Nor do I personally know any one who has had one. However I don't discount just because I don't know physics, etc.. as well as you.

Lastly, I think its a dis-service to ones self to think they know enough to make absolutes.

At any rate, I enjoy your posts and our back and forth on this. And again thanks earlier for the wake up call as I still feel bad about slamming the guy.

Edited April 16, 2015 by aurfalien

[Ace-Garageguy]

Well not to linger on and on, but keep in mind what you know is exactly that, what you know. Sure there is basis in truth and solid foundation in what we all know but I like to keep in mind, its just that.

And the entire premise of a conspiracy doesn't preclude it from being factual.

A small yet significant case in point is that a round world/Earth at one time was considered a conspiracy so much so, that to believe it was punishable by death.

One doesn't know absolutes or true possibilities as that's subjective and ever changing.

As in my own little micro-chasim, I've been told something is not possible, I prove it possible about 30% of the time and so we move on.

One thing to note is keeping it fresh and realize that you are not absolute or an over all expert, there is no such thing. However one is an expert to those who know less, hence why he/she is an expert.

This isn't a slam or meant to be disrespectful but its how I like to look at things based on observation.

At any rate I suppose the burden of proof falls on me and since I brought it up and cannot prove it due to not having one and showing you myself. Nor do I personally know any one who has had one. However I don't discount just because I don't know physics, etc.. as well as you.

Lastly, I think its a dis-service to ones self to think they know enough to make absolutes.

At any rate, I enjoy your posts and our back and forth on this. And again thanks earlier for the wake up call as I still feel bad about slamming the guy.

Certainly no disrespect intended, but really, before you can make valid judgments about anything hinging on science, you have to know some science.

You also have to know what's accepted as scientific fact, and WHY, before you're in a position to change the knowledge base by doing something new. And to change the knowledge base, you have to be able to repeat your results, openly, repeatedly and transparently. Just saying you have a magic carburetor and hiding it in a box doesn't cut it...even if you DO have a magic carburetor that somehow defies known physics.

Real science is not absolute...it changes every day, and at any moment "as far as we know right now" is the qualifier of scientific "fact" that any GOOD scientist will insist on.

And just an FYI...faster-than-light travel, "known" for years to be completely impossible and only fit for science fiction, now looks very much like it IS possible. It'll be a while yet, but the numbers are looking...interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

[Harry P.]

At any rate I suppose the burden of proof falls on me and since I brought it up and cannot prove it due to not having one and showing you myself. Nor do I personally know any one who has had one.

Are you talking about the "100 mpg carburetor?"

If you don't have one, or know anyone who has one, on what then do you base your belief in its existence?

[aurfalien]

A few (more then 1) documentaries that I've watched over my life, rather interesting ones.

However I think ppl seem to be fixating a detail here, ie; a tree rather then the forest.

The point I was making was simply about our real progress, or lack there of since 2001 was released.

Its funny, ppl fixate on what they know or like and kind of disregard the rest.

At any rate I hope I answered your question.

However I will say that regardless of the 100MPG carb, I'm certain we could have gotten much more MPGs in the 70s then was allowed by the powers that be.

Again, sales, bonuses, etc in the end dictate what advancements we enjoy.

So is not my entire diatribe worthy of conversation? Or is simply the 100MPG the one and only thing you got out of it?

[Ace-Garageguy]

A few (more then 1) documentaries that I've watched over my life, rather interesting ones...

...So is not my entire diatribe worthy of conversation? Or is simply the 100MPG the one and only thing you got out of it?

Interestingly perhaps, my own knowledge comes from hands-on experimenting with alternative fuels and an almost lifetime involvement in the field. Propane dual-fuel systems in the 1970s. An alcohol fuel pilot program run by Ga. Tech in the '80s, during which time I ran my own Triumph GT-6 daily on alcohol distilled by solar energy. In the 1990s I was heavily involved with a push to rationalize the use of CNG (compressed natural gas) as a motor vehicle fuel. I've run a cobbled-up Geo Metro on the bottled gas you get for running barbeque grills, and got over 65mpg (equivalent) in steady state cruise with nothing more exotic than a crude vaporizer / regulator / converter. I've been a loud proponent of rooftop photovoltaic-powered hydrogen-producing, household-sized units for powering vehicles. And I did some pilot work on the concept of leasing back photovoltaic rooftop power-generating units to electric consumers by public utilities...a concept that is working profitably now in several areas.

I can say with some certainty that the "100 mpg" carburetor, supposedly able to get that kind of mileage from a 4000-pound V8-powered barge, is bunk.

I can also say with absolute certainty that a LOT of promising technologies have been allowed to languish, or have been ignored entirely by the business-as-usual fraternity that's pretty well run things up until now.

I think this last sentence pretty well encompasses the subject of your "diatribe".

Edited April 16, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

A few (more then 1) documentaries that I've watched over my life, rather interesting ones.

Anyone can make a "documentary," regardless of the facts.

If a 100 mpg carb ever existed, why have we never seen one in operation? Ever????