Whatever your political persuasion is, you seem to have been slurping down the supersized Liberal Big Gulp Kool Aid.

Maybe Mayor Bloombergs prohibition of Supersizing the Kool Aid might do your town some good?

I encourage those companies but don't endorse them and definitely despise having the tax payers at this time funding / loaning them. Whats worse, transparency of these companies financials are not fairly represented. Yes, I do realize Tesla's deals with the MB Smart and further how Mr. Toyoda of Toyota helped in acquiring the Torrence plant is creative but the tax payers never agreed to this. Are the taxpayers dollars really funding an electric Smart or for Toyota technology? Rocket boy Musk is a slick salesman and I like his endeavors, but shouldn't lean on our money. Henri Fisker has flopped loan money for his car operations out of the US (to Finland, Munich and Beijing), so what good is that for American employment / jobs? C'mon... stinks like batteries burning.

Jumping forward: Good, bad or not of a car and whether these makers survive or fold, your'e going to be very surprised when the Chinese and India launch all sorts of electrics for a fraction the price of a Fisker or Tesla's.

Perhaps it's the other way around, you seem to have been slurping down the supersized Big Gulp Iced-Tea-Party flavored Kool Aid.

Personally, I see no reason to politicize a technology. It's become a political whipping boy. Just because your political nemesis endorses a technology doesn't mean you have to hate it.

Discuss it on its merits. Decide for yourself.

How 'bout we move this thread to PARF, where packs of wild dogs can arrogantly tear to shreds these efforts toward alternative technologies using brilliant tactics like name-calling, caricaturization and inaccurate analogies. Another nice touch would be some cartoons depicting researchers and developers as dopey-looking animals or perhaps infants. Have a good laugh. Bring plenty of cold beer and lawn chairs, and perhaps an umbrella for shade.

Meanwhile, some people who are obviously not nearly as smart as you are will continue to work on solving the problems.

U can HOPE

If the link goes dead, here's the list of Tesla's Patent submissions so far in 2012:

20120153901 Method of Withdrawing Heat from a Battery Pack
20120153718 Thermal Management System for Use with an Integrated Motor Assembly
20120153682 Single Piece Vehicle Rocker Panel
20120153675 Reinforced B-Pillar Assembly with Reinforced Rocker Joint
20120151843 Vehicle Door Secondary Sealing System
20120111445 PERFORATION APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY ENCLOSURE
20120111444 FILL PORT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY ENCLOSURE
20120105015 Battery Pack Overcharge Protection System
20120098501 EFFICIENT LEAD ACID BATTERY CHARGING
20120091953 AC CURRENT CONTROL OF MOBILE BATTERY CHARGERS
20120046815 Method for Optimizing Battery Pack Temperature
20120046795 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EXTENDING LIFETIME FOR RECHARGEABLE STATIONARY ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES
20120041628 Control, Collection and Use of Metal-Air Battery Pack Effluent
20120041625/626/627 Efficient Dual Source Battery Pack System for an Electric Vehicle
20120041624 Electric Vehicle Extended Range Hybrid Battery Pack System
20120041622/623 Charge Rate Modulation of Metal-Air Cells as a Function of Ambient Oxygen Concentration
20120040255 Hazard Mitigation Through Gas Flow Communication Between Battery Packs
20120040253 Collection, Storage and Use of Metal-Air Battery Pack Effluent
20120040212 Hazard Mitigation Within a Battery Pack Using Metal-Air Cells
20120040210 Thermal Energy Transfer System for a Power Source Utilizing Both Metal-Air and Non-Metal-Air Battery Packs
20120038314 Electric Vehicle Extended Range Hybrid Battery Pack System
20120037310 SELECTIVE CURE OF ADHESIVE IN MODULAR ASSEMBLIES
20120034501 Battery Pack Configuration to Reduce Hazards Associated with Internal Short Circuits
20120034497 Battery Pack with Cell-Level Fusing
20120030932 Method of Controlled Cell-Level Fusing Within a Battery Pack
20120025765 Charge State Indicator for an Electric Vehicle
20120021258 Method of Controlling System Temperature to Extend Battery Pack Life
20120019212 BIDIRECTIONAL POLYPHASE MULTIMODE CONVERTER INCLUDING BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST MODES
20120019194 LEAKAGE CURRENT REDUCTION IN COMBINED MOTOR DRIVE AND ENERGY STORAGE RECHARGE SYSTEM
20120013341 Method and Apparatus for Electrically Cycling a Battery Cell to Simulate an Internal Short
20120007532 Rotor Temperature Estimation and Motor Control Torque Limiting for Vector-Controlled AC Induction Motors

They are diversified by selling products to other manufacturers. They get a pretty good range compared to others. They use a body that is in general production.

All will eventually drive down costs.

Eric ^^^^ Impressive for some of this but if you want to see some real innovation, check out Lit Motors:

Website: Home | Lit Motors, Inc.
See video: Lit Motors, Inc. | Rekindle the Excitement

C-1 motorcycle car seeks traction as commuting alternative | Video | Reuters.com

Hmmm, the video says they are out of the Bay Area but who-is out of Rhode Island....

kaisen, please tell me which patent(s) set the Tesla apart. ...maybe some of those process patents?

Seriously, I have some patents myself ... that maybe, gives me a bit more insight into what gets a patent, and these days, it doesn't take much. That is, the patent office no longer makes much effort to award patents only to new useful ideas. It's more like if the right lawyers submitted the thing, the PTO give it a number and let the lawyers battle out who had the idea first.

So, again, where's the big innovation? Because from a look at those titles, (Battery box... way of selective adhesive...) I would say they have patents on things which should fall under the category of solutions obvious to people skilled in theirs craft.

examples per wiki:
U.S. Patent 5,443,036, "Method of exercising a cat", covers having a cat chase the beam from a laser pointer

U.S. Patent 6,368,227, "Method of swinging on a swing", issued April 9, 2002[37] by patent examiner Kien T. Nguyen,[38] was granted to a seven-year-old boy, whose father, a patent attorney, wanted to demonstrate how the patent system worked to his son (aged 5 at the time of the application). The PTO initially rejected it due to prior art, but eventually issued the patent.[37] However, all claims of the patent were subsequently canceled by the PTO upon reexamination.[39]

it is very clear that EV's (from Volt to BEV's to Fuel Cell EVs) will be an increasing segment of the vehicle fleet in the future

I am glad that Tesla (and some others) are making sports cars and sporty cars that are EVs -- that will ensure that you can drive an EV and have fun.

Beyond that, an EV offers significant advantages for high performance -- everything from low end torque to the ability to optimize the placement of masses inside the car body (or to distribute the mases thru-out the car's body).

speaking of lawyers, this is how Tesla pissed on Top Gear. (per Wikipedia)

One would think that if their stuff was so fuch 'n Wonderful . . .the performance would be clear and speak for it's self. No. Tesla has lawyers ... and marketing ... and lobbyists.

Again, I think it's great that this stuff gets built. But I have no false expectations about it being some sort of technological wonder. ..bad-ass golf cart, sure.

You're grasping at straws with your arguement

Technology may move incrementally or exponentially, but it still moves. Sometimes the incremental movements pave way for the breakthroughs.

The point is that Tesla, and many others, continue to innovate. Whether evolutionary, revolutionary, or both, they are contributing. The patent list is simply tangible evidence that they're out there developing technologies and not simply buying parts off the shelf from other suppliers and slapping it together just to take YOUR hard-earned tax dollars.

And remember, the list above is ONLY from 2012. Much of the important groundwork for today's S sedan would have been done long before.

grasping at straws, eh? :rolleyes:

Clearly you are quite willing to change the point to make a point.

Do you not understand just how far away from being competitive this tech is? ...or are you just looking for some small aspect of this conversation to leverage into being right. Hear's a gamtical bad typo. Please corect me an tell me how stoopid iBe so that we can git back on topic.

sheesh, this place...

I think the issue many have is that a lot of money is being spent to develop a technology that can never meet the needs of the device. Think of it as throwing huge money at developing steam engine tech... Sure some of the knowledge gained can be applied to the next generation breakthrough, but the effort should be spent on the breakthrough directly...not shoehorning inadequate tech into a product.

That said I applaud the effort as long as it's their own money. But I fear that won't be the case here, when they eventually fold they will default on the loans It's almost a given, oh well at least they look neat.

I think that is the correct analysis, tho I disagree with your conclusion. We would then never fund NASA, nor many of the other "push the envelope" type stuff at the Nat'l Labs. Those are all items that are along the lines of the govt. acting a bit like a VC firm.

How many of you would shut down ONR or DARPA?

Hmmmm, where does it say that Tesla Motors failure will cost taxpayer money. Unless I missed it, all it says on the net is that they company has lost $1Billion USD.

I am assuming the rich MOFO from PayPal and Space X along with the stock holders would take the hit.

A hit sure, "Thee" hit, no chance. They will default.

My point has always been the same, never changed. I never said Tesla's new tech was akin to the reinvention of the wheel.

But by the same token, what new tech from Toyota, Honda, Ford, or Porsche fits your self-imposed criteria?

If Tesla fails in the marketplace, so be it. Believe me, if you've read my posts I'm the last one to throw stones at making an irrational, emotional car purchase. But people do. However, I'm not against their freedom of choice. If enough people want steam powered cars and there is a company (or industry) that comes up with innovative ways to fill that niche, great. If they take out loans to make that happen, great.

If they fail and Bank of America loses a billion bucks, that means you and I pay MORE for Bank of America's services. If those loans came from the Department of Energy, or the Department of Health, or the Federal Bureau of Land Management, it's still our money. It gets absorbed somewhere. If you're outraged that the government makes bad choices in which technologies to invest, you should be outraged at your bank, your investment fund managers, your pension fund, your health insurance companies, and every other company that dabbles in the markets.

So beyond politics, why be mad that some company thinks they can provide an alternative? That even if it isn't THE best way of doing something that there might be value to some customers in their way of doing it?

Why do we "bother" with gasoline motors when diesel provides better energy density?
Why aren't you mad at your government for allowing that? Why aren't you mad that they incentivize companies to make gasoline powered cars more efficent?
Are you going to call people who like gasoline powered cars "stupid"?

It's an unwinnable arguement. And you're not in the position to choose for others.