Tesla's High-Tech Lawsuits in Silicon Valley War 79
An anonymous reader writes "After pressing charges against its chief competitor in the race for the world's first production electric sports car that we broke down here recently, Tesla Motors seems to be shifting from the high-tech company re-writing Detroit's script to another Silicon Valley startup trying to sniff out the competition. So says Engadget's legal analyst in an in-depth column breaking down the legal ramifications. From the article: "This could upset the whole race for major production of an electric car in the U.S., which may be the main result of this whole drama. If anything, that's a win for Tesla. Let's just hope the company that set out to upend the automotive industry achieves its competitive goals in the lab and in the marketplace — and keeps its future fights out of the courtroom.""
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a litigious person but, (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on... (Score:1, Insightful)
SNUFF! The cliche is "snuff out the competition," as in to extinguish a candle.
Re:Plug in hybrids not electric only (Score:5, Insightful)
People who aren't automotive engineers always trivialize the implementation and think it's a great idea. Actual vehicle engineers realize that in many ways a series hybrid is the worst of both worlds: more complicated than an EV and a gas car combined, less efficient than an EV for short-range driving (because of the extra weight), and less efficient than a parallel hybrid (or even a normal gas car!) on long trips.
Yeah, I realize you said you wanted the generator to be removeable, but that's another fantasy of armchair engineers. Yes, it's possible to engineer your complicated system, but it will add unacceptable weight and cost. At least you didn't say you wanted a removeable (swappable) battery.
Look, we need electric vehicles for short range -- several standard deviations of our vehicular transit. Some applications and some drivers need longer range. The hybridization doesn't have to be in the vehicle -- it can be in the fleet. Gas cars will be around for decades, so you can borrow/rent/own a second car if/when you really need it.
I don't see how electric will work very well for long haul trucks though.
They're called railroads. Many countries use electrified rail for hauling freight. It's the only option that's long-term sustainable. The US is screwed in that respect -- a pathetic rail system and approximately none of it electrified.
Re:Not a litigious person but, (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll start looking at electric cars when they can produce one that takes no more than 60 quid to charge from fully flat, can carry four or five large adults plus their luggage plus at least 200kg of equipment, and can average no less than 100mph for 350 miles on a charge. That would be getting close to being able to replace my ordinary car, assuming it's actually nice to drive and doesn't give me a numb backside.
Chrysler just announced such a car at the Detroit Auto Show (aired on TV a few days ago) - up to 250 miles on a charge, all electric, carries 4 plus luggage. They also claim it will be very inexpensive (normal car price for a car of it's class).
Now, if it IS real, I see it as something finally pushing other car manufacturers to follow suit. I'd see such a product forcing them to - IF (even though they announced a planned release year) it ever sees the light of day (which such "concept cars" never seem to).
I have a hard time believing that a startup like Tesla is the only company that could figure out how to get such mileage off an all electric car (especially since there are aftermarket kits that can get close to that mileage without all the fancy new technology using existing car structures). Especially considering that the major car companies spend many times the amount of money on R&D.
I am beginning to believe that 250-300 miles/charge isn't that difficult per se... but that the auto manufacturers have too much invested in their current production lines, servicing, distribution, service center training, etc to WANT to make an electric car for anyone other than the hobbyist (ie: 50 or so miles/charge).
And of course, others have speculated about the tie-ins with the oil/gas industry. (not saying I agree - or not)
And additionally, others have speculated on a (our) government not wanting to see affordable, long-range electric cars because of the large decrease in gas tax revenue that would result (and thus bankrupting most states). (not saying I agree - or not)
For whatever reasons, neither the car, oil, coal or other such industries seem to care about such things. That is evidenced by the ridiculous "Coal Initiative" (or whatever it is called) commercials on TV of late touting how great and clean burning coal is.
Or the recent oil ads I've seen in the paper talking about how oil heat in the home is the way to go - even over natural gas - and how clean it burns... (gee, you can vent many natural gas heaters INTO your house - and the only thing you have to worry about is oxygen depletion (thus the internally vented ones come with an oxygen sensor to prevent such)... anyone want to vent an oil furnace into their house?). Maybe some people have coal heaters in their house? I have no idea what they are comparing it to - cleaner than what? In my area, the choices are oil, propane or natural gas (or a fireplace/wood stove setup - which shouldnt even be in consideration in their scenario).
So in my area it would be natural gas, propane, oil, coal (with of course coal not being something used here for home heating... but that is the only way their claims make sense at all).
But the point is, all these commercials & ads - including the car companies talking about all their "green" initiatives (that we have yet to see bear fruition in any usable form) all seem to indicate no desire on actually getting there, while spinning the hell out of the situation to convince the average consumer that they are doing so well on such issues.