Will GM and Ford collaborate with Tesla similar to Toyota and Mercedes?

Will GM and Ford collaborate with Tesla similar to Toyota and Mercedes?

Even take it further, is the future of Tesla to be collaboration with basically most auto manufacturers on their EV lines. For example say GM wants to make an electric trans am and corvette, Nissan wants to make electric GTRs and 370 Z, and Ford wants to make an electric f-150. They then collaborate with Tesla using their battery packs, electric motor, power electronics, gearbox and software, etc in order to speed up the manufacturing and cut costs. Tesla would still design a few new cars every few years like they do now, but the bulk of their business would be collaboration with other auto manufacturers. Thoughts?

holidayday | 17 april 2014

I see it as inevitable in the long term.

None of the automakers have come close to designing a car with the range and high-speed recharge capability as the Model S.

Some come close with the range, but not in a price-competitive way.

In 5-10 years, when Tesla is eating up the market and more people are clamoring for electric cars; Tesla's technology will be so far ahead of the others that they will use Tesla technology instead of actually spending the money to create their own. They've had years to do what Tesla has done, but they moved too slowly.

Rocky_H | 17 april 2014

I don't have a crystal ball, but I just doubt it. There is a certain kingdom mentality that is not going to be OK with relying on someone else's stuff, rather than tech developed in house. However, I was surprised when I found out that Ford had used Toyota's hybrid system in making the Fusion hybrid, so maybe there's hope for them.

laska08 | 17 april 2014

Another thing in favor of Tesla accomplishing this collaboration besides the points holidayday makes is that Musk is such an idealist and honorable guy I think Tesla would not take advantage of a monopoly type situation. They are a truly a unique company. Their goal is not highest profits possible although they need to make a profit, it is to speed up the transition over to all EVs. If say Tesla gives Toyota a competitive advantage because their costs and technology are greater, the GMs and Fords may be forced to follow suit or be years behind and go the way of Kodak when they were slow to make the transition to the digital camera.

laska08 | 17 april 2014

Make EVs like the following at $40,000, and the the transition over to EV by market demand will be on:

laska08 | 17 april 2014

If the approx costs of 180 per KWH for the giga factory batteries are correct,in that ball park, I don't see why they can't make those type vehicles for 40 grand, even without the tax credits.

Red Sage ca us | 17 april 2014

They should, but they won't.

Pride will get in the way.


Car t man | 17 april 2014

As a matter of principle, most will avoid giving a nod to Tesla. BMW, Merc and others went on to develop own hybrid system, no better than Toyota's, years after Toyota's, just to not make it obvious they were behind...

The auto industry isn't as rational as one would assume with the competition and problematic margins. Prestige, vanity and also some stupidity here and there are quite a typical occurrence.

It also isn't really an innovative industry anymore. Just repackaging and regurgitating same crap and trying to postpone meaningful innovation until
legislation makes them do it. Kind of lame really.

s.grot | 17 april 2014

I dont think that will happen. Tesla is a paradigm shift in the personal transportation marketplace; no Big oil no Big 3. Look at the Xerox company they invented "Windows" back in the 80's and were the "big 3" in office equipment in the 80's silicone valley start-ups picked up on it and went with it. Time and time again entrenched big business can not handle a paradigm shift in their marketplace.

Brian H | 18 april 2014

I first scanned your sentence as, "Musk is such an idealist and humorous guy". Heh.

blue adept | 20 april 2014

No, I do not feel that they will because they are far too entrenched in the archaic form of vehicle powering embodied in the ICE to do anything more than give a brief nod in the direction of EV's just to obtain some funding if the opportunity arises again, just as they have in the past.

However what they should do is, instead of sitting around and waiting for someone else to do the work for them, show some ingenuity and motivation by investing the effort to develop something of their own that they can honestly put their names on.

Granted, I know that it will be a stretch for them, especially Ford since they've literally never had an original idea since their opening day back in the early 1900's and have only continued to copy everyone since then (except for the rare instances of a third parties'...Carroll Shelby...providing some insight), but I believe that it would be a growing experience for them and serve to provide a new perspective on the EV field overall, that is, if they only incentivize themselves.

centralvalley | 20 april 2014

Big Corporate America does not like to spend lots of money to figure something out that someone already has done.

If Tesla is successful (and I believe it will be), and BEV are getting more popular thereby cutting into the ICE automaker's bottom lines, then they will have two plans--

The first plan will be to buy Tesla if it is affordable--perhaps with a leveraged buy out, but as long as the stock price is so high, this may well be out of the question.

The second plan would be to hire away Tesla's engineers and designers at double or triple their salary at Tesla. This is much cheaper, and could result in direct competition within three years.

A joint venture would be out of the question from Tesla's point of view.

Red Sage ca us | 20 april 2014

The Big Three will never license the technology. Pride would prevent them from considering the option. As long as they believe they can do it themselves, or that it is an insignificant, inferior technology, they won't bow to an American newcomer.
If General Motors is smart, they might someday allow Tesla Motors to buy or lease the old Saturn plant in Spring Hill TN, and arrange to build cars for them alongside their own... But GM isn't smart.
Ford will be fine. Eventually. But they think they have the hybrid thing licked, and probably feel a full EV isn't far away.
Chrysler? HA! Considering how much they have spent promoting HEMI technology the past decade... No.
Don't get me wrong here... I think they should, but doubt it would happen. The biggest problem with convincing any of the Big Three to work with Tesla, would be enforcing the rules:
... 1) It must be designed from the ground up as battery electric;
... 2) there will never be a hybrid version; and
... 3) there will never be a gasoline/diesel/fuel cell version. Basically, no 'gimping' allowed, if Tesla has anything to do with it.

I would hope it would be General Motors. I've always liked their car designs, just thought they should unleash their engineers to do their best, instead of constantly compromising to the least common denominator. Heck, if all we got was a new Tesla powered Chevrolet Chevette as a rear-wheel drive, targa-top, two-seater -- about the same size as the Saturn Sky or Pontiac Solstice -- I'd be more than satisfied.

GM had spent about a billion dollars on the EV1 program. They really only did it to show off. The didn't expect their bluff to be called by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). They went to war with California when asked to ramp up sales of electric cars in the state to 10% electric before 2005. Then they destroyed almost all of them, to make sure they wouldn't be used again. Shameful.

blue adept | 20 april 2014


Merely because someone has developed a technology does not automatically mean that it has been "perfected" to any definitive degree, or that someone else couldn't devise a renovation of an aspect of it that would stand to improve its functionality overall, or even come up with an innovation that would serve to enable it to do what it does just that much better/function just that much more efficiently, as there is no end to man's ingenuity nor to his imagination other than what constraints he places on himself.

Imagine if Tesla would have looked at the works of Edison, saw his light bulbs and his generators and thrown in the towel, resigning himself with the knowledge that it had already been done so why even bother making an effort?!

Imagine where our world would (not) be today but for the ingenuity and imagination of Nikola Tesla and then tell me why "Big Corporate America" shouldn't invest any effort into "figuring something out" on their own "that someone [else] has already done."

There is no way to measure the implications or ramifications of 'possibility', or what effect an entirely new perspective could have on even set guidelines or procedures, none at all. Bear with me for another moment and consider "Dolly the sheep".

Dolly, as many people know, was the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell using the process of nuclear transfer and is quite famous in her own right:

What, however, many people don't know is that all of the doctors and geneticists and physicists and biologists and clinicians and whatever all else have you, both at the lab and elsewhere all around the World who were attempting to accomplish the very same thing (it was like this huge competition or something, as such things inevitably are in scientific or technological innovation circles), couldn't manage to pull off maturing a viable embryo in a test tube to birth a clone from and that it was the insight provided to them by a local sheep farmer (of all people), who worked evenings at the labs as a janitor, that finally enabled them to pull it off!

Just a new perspective.

Other than that, Tesla is NOT for sale! Not now, not ever! No matter the amount of money...PERIOD! Mr. Musk did not get into BEV's for the money as he already had plenty of it, and still does even to today, he got into BEVs' to make the World a better place for himself, his children, his family and everyone else and their children and families.

To this end I, for one, am inclined to be of the opinion that everyone else at Tesla Motors, the "engineers and designers", are similarly inclined and subscribe to the same ideology that isn't so much profit-based as it is humanitarian with the driving goal being to make a better World for all...But that's just me.

blue adept | 20 april 2014

@Red Sage

"Chrysler? HA! Considering how much they have spent promoting HEMI technology the past decade... No."

Speaking of Chrysler, are you aware of Chrysler's ENVI BEV lineup?

So, possibly maybe? Just saying....

bigd | 20 april 2014

"To this end I, for one, am inclined to be of the opinion that everyone else at Tesla Motors, the "engineers and designers", are similarly inclined and subscribe to the same ideology that isn't so much profit-based as it is humanitarian with the driving goal being to make a better World for all...But that's just me." No they are in it for the money - the rest is just for talk. lol
Design Engineer-- $93,143
Manufacturing Engineer $91,135
Engineer $106,750
Firmware Engineer $114,062
Senior Manufacturing Engineer $109,713
Project Manager $89,150
Electrical Engineer $94,314
Senior Electrical Engineer $123,750
If you look at ford, they actually make less for the same jobs. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with what they make. But to say they do for any other reason is laughable.

bigd | 20 april 2014

I really do not know the "plan" for ford but I think it is more of the reality of commonality (ford makes its living with low priced avg income vehicles). I think that ford,and maybe others, are attempting to get the 250mile range, less than $40000 EV before they go all in. As we know, even tesla,to this point, cannot solve that dilemma . I would love to see ford and tesla "team up". With fords capital and tesla innovation in the EV it would be exciting with what they could do in a short time, I believe. I do not see it happening as there is ego on both sides. But I can dream :-). As for Govt Motor's (GM) I sure hope tesla stays away lol.

Red Sage ca us | 20 april 2014

JAA: I saw you posted that photo elsewhere earlier. I went to the Chrysler website and found nothing there. They only mention a single hybrid minivan in their current lineup. Pretty much everything else is AMERICAN IRON: HEMI POWERED or whatever.

The article you linked was from September of last year, but they seemed to just be reviewing information from years earlier. And... It turns out the photo is from sometime around 2009. I remember seeing the Dodge ZEO show car some years ago. It was kind of neat. But after going through the show circuit, it disappeared, like all the rest.

This continues a pattern I've watched with the Big Three automakers for decades. Awesome show cars. Promising one-offs. Zero production. It seems as if the Viper only exists because it was originally handled by a shop off the main premises at Chrysler. The Cadillac ELR exists pretty much because GM already had the Chevy Volt/Opel Ampera. Are there any other Detroit show cars from the past 25 years that actually made it to market, as functional vehicles?

Detroit really depresses me sometimes. I really believe they can do better. Mostly because they have told me so, often because they have shown me they can. But when it comes right down to the wire, they chicken out. Every time.

Red Sage ca us | 20 april 2014

General Motors spent $1,000,000,000 (ONE BILLION DOLLARS) to bring the EV1 to the street. They only did it to show off, to give notice to other manufacturers of how awesome they could engineer things if they really wanted to... Then they reneged on the promise of the technology, to invest in AM General and sell HUMMERS instead.

Something tells me that $1,000,000,000 would buy a whole lot more research and development in 1996 than was available to Elon Musk, using $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars) in 2004. Sure, there may have been some advances in battery technology in the interim... But GM purposely used off-the-shelf AC-Delco batteries originally, before contracting cells from a dedicated EV battery manufacturer.

That's just the way things go in Detroit.

Ford and Chrysler were similarly cash rich once upon a time. Either of them could have set aside a few hundred million to a couple of billion bucks for research and development of electric cars a couple of decades ago. They didn't want to. They were busy selling ICE-powered pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans.

At this point, the Big Three have their heads in the sand up to their ankles.

They have spent so much time making incremental design changes, without necessarily making improvements, for multiple decades. Though there may be innovative people employed there, none of the companies has anyone around to lead them toward anything new. They don't want to fix what ain't broke, but don't realize everything is broken already. They don't set up an environment where innovation can actually be fostered, and made to grow, as a matter of pride.

Ford Motor Company closed with a $63.10 Billion market cap on Friday, April 17, 2014. A few years ago they got $5.9 Billion from the US government, specifically to invest in alternative modes of transportation. If they had dropped just half of that into dedicated development of electric cars, they'd have still had six times as much money as Tesla Motors had on hand from the same fund. The money that Tesla used to bring the Model S to market.

What did Ford bring to market? Let's see... There's the Ford Focus Electric. For $35,170 each.

Look. I know that Ford probably didn't want to go upmarket. I know they didn't want to go head-to-head with the Tesla Model S with a Lincoln. But really... When you start with twelve times the money, given to you for free, and all you can do is hack together some hybrids and one mid-$30K car with all the amenities of the typical $15K car... Can you really blame the public for wondering just, "What the hell is going on?"

When you use Ford's own comparison configurator to look at how the Focus Electric stands up to its counterparts... It ain't pretty. The Focus SE and Focus Titanium are much more feature rich, despite the Focus Electric costing thousands more. An even scarier comparison would likely be the Ford Focus Electric versus the BMW 328i xDrive Gran Turismo, which costs pretty much exactly the same amount (actually, it seems BMW recently raised their prices a bit).

The problem here is that though Ford crammed batteries into an existing platform, it still makes for a car that costs way too much for what it offers. How is it that Ford, with 12 times as much money from the government, was not able to make a completely new car from the ground up as a plug-in electric car? This simply does not make any sense to me at all.

Unless... The money didn't go to the programs it was earmarked for...

blue adept | 21 april 2014


Yes, we all have ourselves and family to support and didn't spend all of the time and money it took to get an education in a particular discipline just to have a shiny plague to hang on the wall to show off to our friends, or to piss it all away at some menial level service industry job, but much the same can be said of pretty much ANY professional/educational pursuit.

And there is no real correlation between the pay scale of Tesla engineers and that of Ford engineers because the two deal with entirely different engineering parameters/disciplines...Apples to oranges, apples to oranges.

Anyway, I never said that Tesla employees weren't interested in making money (Hey! We've all got bills to pay), only that it's likely that they are of a similar ideology as that of Tesla's founder, Elon Musk, i.e., making the World a better place for all.

Now I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of casting aspersions on those that have demonstrated that they are inclined towards doing the right thing for all of the right reasons, but that's just me.

blue adept | 21 april 2014


As to your other comment concerning a proposed joint venture between Tesla and Ford, I have my reservations, reservations which I base both on developmental awareness and even personal experience with the fore regarding their only venture into the EV world (even after receiving all of those funds as part of the Advanced Technologies Incentive Program to finance doing just that) is some pitiful electric vehicle embodied in the body of a Focus with only a 76 mile range...Really guys? REALLY?!

Granted I do appreciate their effort, really I do, but half-a$$ed is still half-a$$ed and leaves one with the unsettling feeling that they simply did not get their monies' worth.

On a personal level, I'm aware that a certain technology was developed that would increase a vehicle's fuel atomization by an exponential factor relative to balancing the fuel/air mixture in order to maintain the industry recognized efficiency optimized Stoichiometric ratio throughout the full RPM range which, in turn, results in an overall decrease in full consumption and reciprocal increase in engine performance and longevity due to complete fuel combustion.

Ford offered this guy $300,000,000 (that's like a million dollars, but times 3 hundred, lol)...NOT to employ the technology in the manufacture of their engines, no, rather so they could shelve the technology so that it wouldn't get out on the open market!

So in conclusion I'd have to say that not only will GM and Ford NOT collaborate with Tesla, but also advise that Tesla shouldn't as all of the evidence clearly indicates that the only intentions that any of the so-called "Big 3" have for BEV development and implementation is to rig the results to show just how impractical they could manage to make them (BEV's) appear.

Well, that or to con the government out of more money...again.

blue adept | 21 april 2014

@Red Sage

Yes, that vehicle lineup was hobbled together by Chrysler just so they could take advantage of the "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing" loan program: order to get ahold of some free-ish government financing to tide them over through the recent (manufactured) financial/economic collapse, nothing more, which is the reason why you can only find a passing reference to it here and there now.

blue adept | 21 april 2014


But, yes, disappointment is what one both comes to expect and learns to live with when it comes to those fleeting, ephemeral promises of the 'Big 3'.

Red Sage ca us | 21 april 2014

JAA reminisced, "...I'm aware that a certain technology was developed that would increase a vehicle's fuel atomization by an exponential factor relative to balancing the fuel/air mixture..."

Ha! My Brother was telling me just the other day that he had a similar idea... I told him it sounded familiar, and that I wouldn't doubt someone else had already tried it. Great minds think alike. He's a Ford fan... Maybe I'll have him give them a call!

JAA said, "...I'd ... advise that Tesla shouldn't as all of the evidence clearly indicates that the only intentions that any of the so-called "Big 3" have for BEV development and implementation is to rig the results to show just how impractical they could manage to make them (BEV's) appear. ... Well, that or to con the government out of more money...again."

Precisely. Very well stated, once again. Thanks!

Just as Auto Dealers are in protectionist mode of their business model, Auto Manufacturers are protectionist of the internal combustion engine. With the dealers, I can understand... I do not understand what's going on with the manufacturers.

They should be agnostic to technology, and just use whatever is the best thing to offer their customers. Instead, they seem to protect the traditional mode of always selling parts for repairs. So anything that is 'too efficient', or long lasting, or needs less servicing... Ends up being shelved, hidden, or ignored.

blue adept | 21 april 2014

Because, as you've alluded to, it cuts into their profit margins as they've heavily invested themselves in the conventional/prevailing business model and subsidiary industrial affiliates, so they've a vested interest in maintaining the status quo irregardless of how detrimental it may be to themselves and everyone else, kinda like they're celebrating stupidity as a kind of liberating antidote to intelligence.

It's both embarrassing and depressing at the same time.

blue adept | 21 april 2014

In all seriousness, if CSX can move a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on a single gallon of fuel...

...then automakers are doing something wrong, obviously.

But maybe they're just wanting for tomorrow? Luckily for us when it comes to Tesla, tomorrow is today!

laska08 | 21 april 2014

Been thinking about how far we are off from totally electric semis being the market winner. 250 mile range with the 30 min charge up time would do. In my very rough guess type calculations, we need something like the Walmart concept semi design(the manufacturing costs of the carbon fiber material they built the trailer out of that reduced the weight of the trailer by 4000 lbs needs to be in the cost ballpark of current trailer metal material, and we need about 2/3 reduction in the weight of the current Tesla batteries. The estimated costs at $180/KWH for the giga factory batteries are already good enough for EV semis to be the winner. It is all about weight reduction through lighter manufacturing materials and lighter batteries. My estimate is about 120% increase in energy density from current Model S will do it. This rough estimates are based on the wild guess that if weight was no concern for the batteries, it would take twenty-four of the current 85 KWH battery packs to have a 250 mile range on a 80,000 lb loaded semi. If I am way off in any direction than I may be overstating or understating the specs needed. If I am in the ballpark and gradual improvements over time is what happens with the batteries, it is likely about a decade away before electric semis will be a game changer. Hoping there is a major breakthrough that drastically limits that.

blue adept | 22 april 2014


Given the predicates of Moore's and Wright's laws, an innovation in battery charging/storage capability is inevitable, ergo, electrified heavy/commercial vehicle powering is inevitable just as are low-cost BEV's.

Red Sage ca us | 22 april 2014

JAA wrote, "Celebrating stupidity as a kind of liberating antidote to intelligence."

This could easily be the motto of so many different organizations...

Sam, check out my diatribe 'Hauling Where the Heart Is...' I wax maniacal about the possibility of a Tesla Motors long haul truck project therein.

blue adept | 22 april 2014

Yes, I can understand that my assessment of the auto makers reluctance in converting from ICE to BEV technology might be considered a bit...harsh...but that doesn't make it any less accurate.

I just don't understand how they can be so oblivious to the all too apparent impact of CO2 emissions on both our world and, reciprocally, all of the Life on this planet. How can they overlook the fact that we are killing ourselves, our children, and even our children's children and perhaps even those that follow them, afterall, do we not all need to breathe the same air? Drink the same water? Eat foodstuffs generated from, and subsequently contaminated by the pollutants found in, those natural resources?

Then beyond that, beyond the macro view, what of all of the lives we've lost and lose pursuing these counterintuitive sources of energy? What of all of the sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, that are lost in our efforts to secure these deposits in this or that third world arm pit? What of those that do manage to make it back from these confrontations but have left part of themselves there, either physically or mentally?
Is the investment really worth the return? Isn't Life tantamount to profit? Afterall, you cannot have the one (profit) without the other (Life).

I've gone around and around in my mind trying to discern just what the motivation is for them to continue engaging in and promoting a practice that they KNOW is killing them and the rest of us along with them. Shouldn't they, instead, focus on creating/employing technologies that are conducive to and serve to enrich Life?!

Isn't THAT the most logical business model?

Red Sage ca us | 22 april 2014

You weren't being harsh at all. You were being honest. The truth is that a lot of people rebel against honesty and logic.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump' (1994)

When someone knows what the right thing is, and they know what the wrong thing is, and then they specifically choose to do the wrong thing anyway... That is STUPID. No bones about it.

blue adept | 22 april 2014

I just cannot comprehend what could possibly be motivating them to stick with such an antiquated technology.

Sure, their engine design and manufacturing arm would have to be a bit retooled (but only a bit) or perhaps shut down and reassigned altogether, to produced electric motors, but the ICE to BEV conversion won't change the architecture, design, performance, ergonomics, style or aesthetics of ANY automobile, only it's power plant which they can choose to build themselves or outsource from a third party (as they've done with so many other aspects of their cars).

I just can't discern whatever the justification might be for their continuing to pursue ICE manufacturing and, not to ring my own bell or however that phrase goes, but I'm considered as being of somewhat above average intelligence and it stymies me.

Why beat a dead horse? Why engage in a behavior that you KNOW is harmful, deadly even? Arguing with conventional automakers is like arguing with a smoker or drug addict...An exercise in complete futility.

blue adept | 22 april 2014


I don't understand how they've accomplished it, but they've somehow managed to rationalize stupidity!

blue adept | 22 april 2014


Hmm...Have Tesla become both the third-party supplier and telemetry monitoring agency (because that would be an inherently necessary aspect to insure systems' operational integrity) for ALL of the drive-line and peripheral function management componentry?

My only objection to that approach would be as I've alluded to before, i.e., disappointment over the various automaker's lack of developing something themselves from THEIR point of view, thereby offering a differing perspective on the technology that might well serve to further advance it.

Other than that (speaking SOLELY for myself) I'd consider it disappointing, but not unacceptable...As long as there were iron clad non-disclosure, non-compete clauses in the contracts with each and every manufacturer to both protect the proprietary technology of Tesla and to insure that their batteries, motors, and peripheral management electronics weren't breached, tampered with, &/or in any way corrupted in any fashion whatsoever in order to falsely portray the technology as inefficient, ineffective, insufficient or faulty, as protection of the core source's technological integrity is tantamount, in perpetuity, throughout the life of the collaboration, because we can't have some petrol headed, pro-crude burning antagonist trying to invalidate it through mischievous means.

This model, I feel, would not be unaligned with Tesla's core ideology or underlying goal of freeing the World from the clutches of so-called "Big Oil" dependence.

I'd approve, though the contracts with the various automakers would have to be very carefully worded and agreed to without stipulations or clauses, hidden or otherwise.

bigd | 22 april 2014

JAA ---"I just cannot comprehend what could possibly be motivating them to stick with such an antiquated technology." --"Ford Posts Full Year 2013 Pre-Tax Profit of $8.6 Billion". Now what was Teslas profit last year without carbon selling/ ....It really isn't to hard to figure out with an "above average intelligence". (Not sarcasm so don't think im trying to argue) But hey, they got to feed their families also.
" What of all of the sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, that are lost in our efforts to secure these deposits in this or that third world arm pit?" You are absolutely right, it makes no sense when we have more than enough in our own back yard if the federal govt would just allow it. ‎

blue adept | 22 april 2014


"The United States tiptoed closer to energy independence last month when — for the first time in nearly two decades — it produced more crude oil than it imported, federal officials said Wednesday.

The nation has been moving toward this milestone, because two trends are converging. Domestic oil production is at a 24-year high while foreign oil imports are at a 17-year low. The result: production exceeded net imports for the first time since February 1995, although the nation still imports 35% of the petroleum it uses."

And that the U.S. surpassed even Saudi Arabian production to become the largest oil producer in the World?

The "federal govt." IS 'allowing it'.

Yeah, Ford has to keep its' shareholders happy, even if it's killing them and their families and the rest of us along with them, too! Are you aware that air pollution kills about 7 million people a year globally?

It's pretty unfortunate for us that the auto industry has monetized genocide, you know, just to turn a profit, huh?!

BTW, no offense taken.

laska08 | 22 april 2014

Red Sage, the link 'Hauling Where the Heart Is... is not working.

Red Sage ca us | 23 april 2014

Sorry. I had a typo. Must have hit the '0' key and not noticed before...

Hauling Where the Heart Is...

I haven't figured out how to go to a specific post within a thread of messages here yet.

The link is actually to my catch all thread Reaching for the Pie in the Sky... I use that to post things that might not fit elsewhere in the forums. I suspect I may also copy some of my other long posts to that thread as well. Eventually I'll post drawings of ideas I have in mind, but they aren't ready yet.


bigd | 23 april 2014

I did notice that out of those 7 million that 2.6 were outdoor type and most in india and china "The World Health Organization states that 7 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 3.3 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution and 2.6 million (most were not CO2 toxins) outdoor air pollution." But even 2.6 worldwide is outlandish. What would you suggest to solve the problem at hand / You know I will counter point all answers not been a troll just open discussion.

blue adept | 23 april 2014


Alright, I'll overlook the fact that you're just arguing semantics when you've already acknowledged that the number of deaths directly attributable to CO2 pollutants is "outlandish" by focusing in on just those deaths that directly result from vehicle emissions...

According to MIT, the research team from the Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment concluded that “ground-level emissions” from combustion engines like those in cars, ships, trains and more, cause about 200,000 premature deaths each year, with another 10,000 or so Americans dropping dead from “changes in the ozone concentration.”

What they did was, with the use of a multi-scale air quality model applied to assess the health impacts of major emissions sectors in the United States, emissions were classified according to six different sources:

*Electric power generation
*Commercial and residential sources
*Road transportation
*Marine transportation
*Rail transportation

Then, using epidemiological evidence to relate long-term population exposure to sector-induced changes in the concentrations of particulate matter(PM), that stuff that comes out of exhausts, and ozone to incidences of premature death, it was determined that total combustion emissions in the U.S. account for about 200,000 premature deaths per year in the U.S. alone due to changes in PM concentrations, and about 10,000 deaths due to changes in ozone concentrations as a result of the PM emissions.

The largest contributors for both pollutant-related mortalities are road transportation, causing 53,000 PM-related deaths and 5000 reciprocal ozone-related early deaths per year, with power generation causing 52,000 PM2-related and 2000 reciprocal ozone-related premature mortalities per year, being the other front runner.

Meanwhile it was determined that other forms of industrial emissions contribute to 41,000 early deaths from PM and 2000 reciprocal early deaths from ozone.

The results are indicative of the extent to which policy measures could be undertaken in order to mitigate the impact of specific emissions from different particular black carbon emissions from road transportation and sulfur dioxide emissions from power generation, that is, if only they weren't so concerned about those profit margins you referenced to substantiate your/their position on the matter.

Some links for reference:

blue adept | 23 april 2014

@Red Sage

You has drawings? I can has drawings?!?

blue adept | 23 april 2014


Oh, and the telemetry used to produce the graphics is from NASA's EOS-Aura satellite via a program developed in collaboration with the EPA located at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:

Aura's main page:

blue adept | 23 april 2014

Ooops! Sorry 'bout that Brian....

blue adept | 23 april 2014


Red Sage ca us | 23 april 2014

JAA: I think that the width="600" attribute has been disabled for future posting of images... I had noticed that others were unavailable, such as color="red" for text or align="center" on images as well. It is probably a means to defend against hacking of the forums by bots.

blue adept | 23 april 2014

Red Sage

Oh well....

Brian H | 24 april 2014
Red Sage ca us | 24 april 2014


blue adept | 24 april 2014

I guess it's fixed now...?! But image size is irrelevant to the discussion as it is the factual information relayed that is the most important factor and not picture sizing nuances.

bigd | 24 april 2014

I agree it is high but what I am getting at is how do you propose we "fix" it. 1st and foremost it is high but if we are just playing a numbers game, how about these numbers. "Based on available state-level data, an estimated 1.04 million abortions took place in 2012—down from an estimated 1.16 million abortions in 2009 and 1.13 million abortions in 2010." Are you fighting on this subject to limit the number of deaths From this. I also would like to hear what is the solution. Now we need to make sure we don't let a good theory get in the way of reality. As we know there is not a EV that is capable of extended range (250 miles) that is affordable. How do we cross the gap between affordable long range vehicles. For example, I am pretty sure ford could make a car that is comparable to tesla (not as good mind you, just compatible).However, that market is slim ($100000 cars) and I am glad that Tesla is in it. Now remember that the car makers have to make a profit, or get the govt to give them handouts. Do you propose they stop making the ICE cars or what is your solution?

Red Sage ca us | 24 april 2014

bigd noted, "How do we cross the gap between affordable long range vehicles."

Manufacturing is manufacturing. Economies of scale apply. If you only made 25,000 gas tanks a year, world wide, they would be expensive. If you increase that number to 50,000 the next year, it will cost less. Increase again to 150,000 the year after that, lower cost. Keep going until you make 500,000 gas tanks a year, and the full run just might cost you little more than the initial run of 25,000 did.

The battery pack is nothing more than the gas tank of an EV. It is far more economical than a hydrogen tank. A battery connected to an electric motor is far more reliable than a fuel cell attached to one.

Build more battery packs sooner, and the prices will go down sooner. The converse is also true. Keep making battery packs in limited supply, and the prices will remain high. This is why the first Gigafactory, and eventually more of them, are necessary.

bigd challenged, "Do you propose they stop making the ICE cars or what is your solution?"

I propose placing electric cars on even footing with ICE vehicles for each market segment. Then let the buying public decide which they prefer.

A lot of people who might have bought a Porsche Panamera, Audi A8, Mercedes S Class, or BMW M5 chose the Tesla Model S instead.

A lot of people who might have considered a Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Maxima, or BMW M3 will have a similar choice in a few years. Let's see if they choose Tesla Model E instead, shall we?