Interesting Interview with Elon Musk

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by scuncio

When you say "abandoned GM technology" are you referring to IP that is off patent?

This is one of the better essays on Tesla's history with AC Propulsion: https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/cl...-it-was-tesla/

Off patent? Yes.

Patent not defended? Absolutely.

Technology therefore abandoned? Definitely.

A parasitic business approach.

Here is a perfect example of GM's rationale. They did not want the mark (GM) associated with potential failure of any kind. EV-1 was a business failure. So like the GMRCE development (Wankel RX-7 engine) GM allowed others access to the technology to create conditions for the betterment of the technology sector.

Sometimes the technology access is part of the business strategic approach The LRV is a perfect example. Who developed and designed and tested the Lunar Rover? History tells you that it was Boeing. In reality, it was 99% GM. GM gave the credit to Boeing because as the GM team stated they were told at the time by management that if GM took the credit, and the LRV broke down and failed on the surface of the moon GM's reputation would be devastated. "FORD would have never let us forget it" The other excuse was that NASA wanted a zero G test facility constructed for pre launch certification and Boeing already had such a facility so GM decided to become the lead contractor to Boeing for these reasons.

GM has not really changed on one major way. They rarely openly lead in the technology sector because the safe approach is to act as a lead contractor or better yet let someone else develop the technology then GM moves in after the market is created and cashes in.

All kinds of examples here like GM giving the carburetor technology to Holley, letting Holley do all of the work to prefect it, and then taking the technology back and letting Rochester Products build it - nearly destroying Holley as a company in the process.

I have been pretty tough on GM over the EV issue. Not because I think that GM's technology will be substandard to TESLA, but to the contrary, I think GM's battery and drivetrains will likely be better because GM in this way is parasitic in its business approach -- in this case allowing TESLA to do all the heavy lifting to perfect it and create a viable market, now only to have GM sweep back in to attempt to literally take the market away from the patsy. This is how GM actually works, thinks.

I just believe that the average GM buyer will ultimately reject EV technology being forced upon them by GM. Therefore the approach being taken by Mary Barra is fraught with risk because it will be next to impossible to take TESLA buyers from TESLA at this point and the average GM buyer wants nothing to do with an EV.

The deep dive into the GM history on EV's is here directly from the men who did it first:

http://www.pilotcarregistry.com/60-s...r-program.html