Automobile: Q and A: Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla

[ohaq]

3 Pages
Q and A: Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla - Automobile Magazine


Same artilcle on one page
Q and A: Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla - Automobile Magazine

[goyogi]

"I don't think very highly of Henrik Fisker. At first I thought I'd outsource the design of the Model S to Henrik Fisker when he had a styling company...And, the initial proposals he came with were pretty good, and then as we got into it they started getting worse and worse. I was very puzzled as to why he was producing such awful designs for us. It turns out what he actually decided to do was to take our specifications for the Model S...he took that basic plans, shopped it, got it funded, didn't tell us. What it turned out was, we were paying him to do styling for his own car."

So...to sum it up, "Karma is a bitch."

[Krugerrand]

He's just so candid about everything. That's appealing.

[Grendal]

"The next six months for Tesla are going to be tough. I think six months from now, we'll know whether it will survive or not. And I think it will. But the next six months will determine that."

I think that is the telling statement concerning Tesla. I've never gotten the impression that Elon lies to himself. He strikes me as brutally honest even when it doesn't benefit himself - hence the comments on the Karma and Fisker.

[brianman]

"I don't think very highly of Henrik Fisker. At first I thought I'd outsource the design of the Model S to Henrik Fisker when he had a styling company...And, the initial proposals he came with were pretty good, and then as we got into it they started getting worse and worse. I was very puzzled as to why he was producing such awful designs for us. It turns out what he actually decided to do was to take our specifications for the Model S...he took that basic plans, shopped it, got it funded, didn't tell us. What it turned out was, we were paying him to do styling for his own car."

So...to sum it up, "Karma is a bitch."

What Elon's describing (regarding Fisker's behavior) is unethical, and likely legally actionable if he had a way to prove it.

[vfx]

What Elon's describing (regarding Fisker's behavior) is unethical, and likely legally actionable if he had a way to prove it.

Tesla sued.

And lost.

[Norbert]

"The next six months for Tesla are going to be tough. I think six months from now, we'll know whether it will survive or not. And I think it will. But the next six months will determine that."

I think that is the telling statement concerning Tesla. I've never gotten the impression that Elon lies to himself. He strikes me as brutally honest even when it doesn't benefit himself - hence the comments on the Karma and Fisker.

It also re-emphasizes that he thinks the challenge is production, and not possible demand problems later-on. Meaning, that once they meet the challenges of the next 6 month (to profit and/or positive cash flow), they made it, in his view, in terms of survival. I think it also means, implicitly, that we shouldn't expect Tesla to lower prices at this point, or even to add features for free at this late point (even though they made supercharging standard), and he is perhaps implicitly asking for understanding in that regard. Don't want to put words in his mouth he didn't say, just could imagine that is implied.

[Norbert]

Tesla sued.

And lost.

Fisker's comment above say the "judge threw out the case". Is that the same as losing, or does it mean that it would be difficult to prove that a design is non-optimal (to a well-known designer), let alone that there are reasons behind it?

While the words used in Fisker's response in the article seem quite non-confrontative, is it just me if I get a sense of something like "that's car business, get used to it" between the lines?

[Arnold Panz]

Fisker's comment above say the "judge threw out the case". Is that the same as losing, or does it mean that it would be difficult to prove that a design is non-optimal (to a well-known designer), let alone that there are reasons behind it?

one of the things I tell anyone considering a lawsuit, or settling if they've been sued and want the "truth" to come out in court, is that a lawsuit has very little or nothing to do with the "truth", only what one can prove according to legal standards of proof. This is a unique system, and the US system is arguably the best in the world, but it still doesn't have much of anything to do with proving something happened or didn't happen the way one might believe it did. So Fisker was successful in Court, but that doesn't mean that Fisker's version is the "truth" (or Tesla's, for that matter).

A good example is the Top Gear case by Tesla -- we know that Tesla was right in that case (the Roadster's range has been proven repeatedly by owners), but still basically lost on their bigger claims.

[doug]

Fisker's comment above say the "judge threw out the case". Is that the same as losing,

If you're the plaintiff it's the same as loosing. In fact, the judge fined Tesla for bringing the case in "bad faith". I think in discovery some evidence came to light that hurt Tesla's case.

A good example is the Top Gear case by Tesla -- we know that Tesla was right in that case (the
Roadster's range has been proven repeatedly by owners), but still basically lost on their bigger claims.

That was a bad idea in the first place. They couldn't prove any damages because they didn't claim any. I'm not sure they ever expected to win anyhow. It was a PR campaign by lawsuit.