Connect with us

Published

on

Elon Musk is technically a “founder” of Tesla, as per a court settlement. He deserves credit for Tesla’s succes, but it is true that he isn’t behind Tesla’s main innovation.

While I’m no fan of Elon Musk, I care more about the truth than smearing him, which is not the case for a lot of his haters. One of their go-to lies they like to repeat is that he is not a “founder” of Tesla.

It’s something they use to try to discredit his achievements: “He isn’t a founder or inventor. He just buys ideas from others.”

While there’s some truth to it, it’s not the whole truth. I felt like it would be essential to set the record straight.

The early story of Tesla

Tesla was officially incorporated on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning with the goal of building an electric vehicle manufacturer that is also a technology company – an idea that is still core to Tesla today.

In investment materials, Eberhard and Tarpenning’s early Tesla stated a goal to develop core technologies related to “the battery, the computer software, and the proprietary motor.” These are still Tesla’s core technologies today.

Martin Eberhard on the left and Marc Tarpenning on the right

But Tesla’s most important innovation was the use and packaging of cylindrical li-ion battery cells, previously mainly used in consumer electronic products, like laptops, in large battery packs for electric vehicles.

That was really a game changer and it’s an idea that precede Elon Musk’s involvement with Tesla.

While incorporated in 2003, Eberhard and Tarpenning had been working on the idea for a while. They had previously founded NuvoMedia where the two founders built of an early handheld device, the Rocketbook, an ebook reader, back in 1996.

They sold the company in 2000, but before that, they were working on the next-generation of their ebook and in sourcing the batteries, they noted some impressive improvements in the capacity and cost of li-ion battery cells.

The two engineers had serious concerns about climate change and oil import. They did the math and concluded that powering transportation with batteries using renewable energy would have a significant impact on reducing emissions and climate change.

Tesla didn’t invent electric cars. They had been around for 100 years by the time the company was founded, but they required making compromises compared to fossil fuel-powered vehicles, which prevented them for gaining in popularity.

That was Tesla’s difference-maker: making cars with the latest li-ion battery cells developed for consumer electronics, resulting in electric vehicles without compromises.

This core idea were reflected in Eberhard’s guiding principles for Tesla:

1) An electric car should not be a compromise. With the right technology choices, it is possible to build electric cars that are actually better cars than their competition.

2) Battery technology is key to a successful electric car. Lithium ion batteries are not only suitable of automotive use; they are game-changing, making decent driving range a reality.

3) If designed right, electric cars can appeal to even the most serious car enthusiast, as electric drive is capable of seriously outperforming internal combustion engines.

That has been the basis of Tesla’s success. The idea of leveraging the incredible progress with li-ion batteries in the 1990s to deliver electric vehicles with no compromise.

Tesla Roadster battery module and pack

This was Tesla’s core innovation. It sounds simple, but it took incredible work. No battery manufacturer wanted to build li-ion cells for EVs, so Tesla had to buy off-the-shelves cells meant for laptops and package thousands of these cylindrical cells into battery modules and packs that could be viable in a car. It’s an idea that had never been done before.

And an idea is worth nothing without execution.

Tesla couldn’t have happened without Elon Musk

Musk claims that his interest in electric vehicles predates Tesla. There’s no reason not to believe him, but there’s no evidence that he had anything to do with the abovementioned concept.

In fact, before his foray into Silicon Valley’s internet startup boom, Musk went to Stanford University to study supercapacitors, which he claims he did with the hope of using them in electric vehicles. This would suggest that he thought supercapacitors would be the future of EVs rather than Li-ion batteries.

Musk and Tesla got together through a company called AC Propulsion.

AC Propulsion pioneered the resurgence of electric vehicles and built the tZero electric sports car in the 1990s.

First, it used lead-acid batteries like its predecessors, but the company converted it to lithium-ion battery cells in the early 2000s. It’s not clear who had the idea first or if it was parallel thinking, but we do know that AC Propulsion and Eberhard were in contact during the conversion.

Eberhard tried to convince AC Propulsion to commercialize the new tZero, but the company refused because it focused on another product. That’s when Eberhard and Tarpenning decided to launch Tesla.

How did Musk come into the picture?

Musk, who was working on SpaceX at the time, was contacted by JB Straubel, a young electrical engineer with a longstanding interest in electric vehicles, including building his own Porsche EV in his garage.

Fresh out of school, Straubel was working on high-altitude hydrogen-powered electric aircraft at the time—something that was of interest to Musk, so they got together. The conversion eventually pivoted to electric vehicles, and Straubel, being deeply connected in this small world, made Musk aware of AC Propulsion.

They test-drove the tZero with lithium-ion batteries, and Musk was sold. Like Eberhard, he tried to convince AC Propulsion to commercialize the product. Tom Gage, AC Propulsion’s CEO, again refused, but since they were thinking the same way, he connected Musk to Eberhard, who had just launched Tesla with Tarpenning, along with Ian Wright, who had joined the two engineers.

A few months later, in February 2004, Musk led Tesla’s series A investment round, with $6.5 million of the $7.5 million coming from his pockets.

Eberhard became CEO, and JB Straubel, who, despite his young age, had the most experience building electric cars, joined as Chief Technology Officer.

Musk was busy with SpaceX, but he was more active within Tesla than simply being an investor and board member.

As Tesla was working on the Roadster, Musk led several other rounds of financing, providing a large part of the funding himself.

Things turned for the worse in 2007. Tesla was having issues bringing the Roadster to production within its budget. The move to use the Lotus Elise chassis proved to be a mistake, and by the end, the Tesla Roadster had only shared 6% of its parts with the Elise, as most of it had to be reworked.

In the summer of 2007, the board, led by Musk, asked Eberhard to step down. Several interim CEOs followed before Musk took over himself in 2008.

Eberhard fully left the company, and in 2009, he sued both Tesla and Musk for ousting him. Both sides accused each other of being behind Tesla’s problems, and Eberhard claimed Musk was “rewriting history” as if he had founded Tesla himself.

Ultimately, a judge dismissed part of Ebarhard’s lawsuit, and then both parties settled and agreed that five people could call themselves co-founders at Tesla: Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel.

Electrek’s Take

Now, in a civil case like this, the outcome is not necessarily the most just. Generally, those with the most money and the best lawyers win.

So, I’m not going to claim that there’s no value in questioning whether or not Elon is truly a Tesla founder. I get that there’s nuance here, but all parties involved have settled the matter. My main point is that it doesn’t really matter.

Tesla’s core idea was to create an electric vehicle without compromise by leveraging improvements in lithium-ion battery cell technology. However, all evidence points toward Musk’s not being involved with this core idea.

With that said, we need to give credit where credit is due. He recognized it as a good idea and put more money into making it happen than any was willing to do at the time.

Therefore, you could make the argument that Tesla wouldn’t have happened with Musk – making the founder argument moot.

After that, you also have to give some credit to Musk for Tesla’s success. He has been the CEO since 2008 and the company accomplished incredible things under his leadership. They succeeded in making EVs mainstream and pushed the industry to transition to battery-electric vehicles.

To this day, it is Musk’s original ‘Tesla Secret Master Plan’ in 2006 that convinced me Tesla would be the company to bring EVs into the mainstream. The plan made sense, and it was executed under his leadership. He took the original idea, fleshed it out, financed it, and then led the team that made it happen.

The last point is important because that’s where I start to agree with Musk’s naysayers again. Musk’s fans like to claim that he is some sort of engineering genius. Jamie Dimon just called him “our Einstein”. While I can admit that Elon is smart and has an above-average understanding of many physics and engineering principles, comparing him to one of the most impactful theoretical physicists of all time is pure madness.

While Musk has made technical contributions to Tesla, I think they are often overblown by his fanbase and Tesla’s team doesn’t get enough credit. JB Straubel, Tesla’s longtime Chief Technology Officer until 2019, and his teams should get the vast majority of the credit for the technical contributions and advancements to battery technology and power electronics that made Tesla successful.

There are too many to name them all, but I have been reporting on Tesla for more than a decade. Through my reporting, sources have praised people like Straubel, Drew Baglino, Kurt Kelty, Colin Campbell, Peter Rawlinson, Charles Kuehmann, Alan Clarke, Dan Priestley, Lars Moravy, David Zhang, Evan Small, and Franz von Holzhausen for their contributions to Tesla.

In short, yes, it’s OK to say Elon Musk co-founded Tesla. Yes, he had a critical role in the company’s survival and success, but I also think it’s fair to say that he wasn’t behind Tesla’s main innovation, and the company’s top talents don’t get nearly enough credit for delivering on the mission.

The mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy is a beautiful one and it is what attracted much of the top talent at Tesla.

Unfortunately, Musk’s leadership over the last few years has steered Tesla away from that mission, which is my main worry about the company.

Regardless, I wanted to set the record straight on his contribution before he completely destroys his own reputation and credibility.

 

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

ZeroAvia scores 45 fresh patents for hydrogen aviation engines

Published

on

By

ZeroAvia scores 45 fresh patents for hydrogen aviation engines

Aviation startup ZeroAvia says it’s been granted a “raft” of 45 new patents key to the development of practical large hydrogen aviation engines – and the company says it has 200 more H-related patents in the pipeline!

The news comes just weeks after ZeroAvia and Scottish regional airline Loganair announced a new, hydrogen-electric “turboprop” replacement motor capable of up to 5MW of shaft horsepower (~6,700 hp). United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) no. 12,341,225 covers an integrated hydrogen-electric engine design land is key to the development of a modular multi-MW hydrogen-electric engine for the ATR 42 and 72 model aircraft — which Loganair owns more than twenty of.

ATR isn’t the only potential customer ZerAvia is eyeballing, either. Despite hydrogen losing ground on utility-scale projects and more companies realizing that it’s “impossible” for hydrogen to compete as a transportation fuel, the fuel still seems to have some practical application in the aviation space. Both Airbus and Boeing have advanced plans and IP for hydrogen-ready airframes in recent weeks, as well, making the IP for large hydrogen-powered aviation engines that much more valuable.

“Recent patents filed and granted around hydrogen aviation give a window into an accelerating field of innovation,” explains Val Miftakhov, Founder and CEO, ZeroAvia. “As we see the large airframe manufacturers beginning to compete on technologies for hydrogen aircraft, there is a big opportunity for companies pioneering hydrogen propulsion systems. These are the inventions that will deliver truly clean, more affordable and highly efficient commercial air travel.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What it’s all about


ZA2000 2-5MW modular hydrogen-electric powertrain for 40-80 seat regional turboprops
ZA2000 2-5MW aviation engine; via ZeroAvia.

Like many tech-based startups, securing IP has been an integral part of ZeroAvia’s strategy, with the value of its patents being, essentially, the value of the company. Just as – if not more important to airlines like Loganair, American, and EcoJet, however, are the potential cost-savings of hydrogen compared to conventional aviation fuels like kerosene.

Importantly, these novel engines promise cost reductions for airlines. The substantially lower maintenance needs of hydrogen-electric engines will mean a decrease in maintenance and downtime for an airline’s fleet, with hydrogen fuel also projected to be significantly more cost effective than kerosene over time.

ZEROAVIA

You can read more about the new ZA600 and ZA2000 hydrogen-electric av motors here, and let us know what you think of hydrogen’s chances against traditional, kerosense-based aviation fuels in the comments.

SOURCE | IMAGES: ZeroAvia.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

100 MPH on a STANDING e-scooter?! Bo blows way past the limits

Published

on

By

100 MPH on a STANDING e-scooter?! Bo blows way past the limits

You might want to hold onto your handlebars for this one – literally. The fashion-forward British electric scooter maker Bo just unveiled what could be the most extreme electric scooter the world has ever seen. Named The Turbo, this standing e-scooter isn’t just playing around with speed – it’s aiming to smash right through it and find out what’s waiting on the other side.

And it all begs the question, “How much is too much?”

When we talk about fast electric scooters, we’re usually in the neighborhood of 50 mph (80 km/h). But the Bo Turbo doubles those numbers.

With 100 mph+ (160+ km/h) top speeds and claimed acceleration that’s faster than a Tesla, this scooter seems to use a design philosophy pulled straight from the playbook of Formula One. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the team behind The Turbo includes engineers with experience from Williams F1 and the Bloodhound Land Speed Record rocket car.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Bo Turbo looks at home in the Bo-nnevile salt flats

The world’s fastest e-scooter?

Built on the same base chassis as the company’s sleek road-going Bo Model-M, The Turbo takes everything up a notch – actually, several notches. It features a 24,000 W dual-motor powertrain, 1,800 Wh battery, advanced traction control, and a power-to-weight ratio that reportedly beats a Bugatti Veyron.

At full power, the system is capable of propelling riders down a straightaway at three-digit speeds while standing upright. It’s absurd. It’s glorious. It’s gratuitous. It’s a dream. Or it’s a nightmare.

Bo says the machine is already delivering 85+ mph (137+ km/h) in early track testing at Goodwood Motor Circuit and is currently in development to push beyond the 100 mph barrier under Guinness World Record supervision.

And just in case you’re wondering if this is some experimental prototype cooked up in a lab – it’s not. The company is planning a limited run of built-to-order Turbo scooters, starting at a whopping $29,500. The first one is scheduled for delivery to a collector in Madrid during the 2026 Formula One race weekend.

The Bo Turbo shares the same chassis as the more mild-mannered Bo M scooter

From F1 brake ducts to street scooter DNA

Despite the headline-grabbing speed numbers, there’s a ton of serious engineering going on here. The Turbo uses ram-air intakes based on F1 brake cooling designs to keep the motors and controllers from overheating. The chassis – made from aerospace-grade aluminum and CNC-machined billet parts – is based on Bo’s proven Monocurve platform, the same structure that underpins the Bo Model-M. In fact, that might be the most impressive part of all, that the same chassis used underneath their everyday-ride-it-to-work Bo Model-M scooter is also holding together this 100 mph beast.

Bo’s team insists that despite the monster specs, The Turbo remains “surprisingly rideable.” Professional BMX rider Tre Whyte has piloted over 20 high-speed test runs, with the team now preparing to push the envelope even further.

A wild PR stunt – or something more?

It’s tempting to see The Turbo as just a headline machine (and hey, it works), but Bo says this project is about more than just chasing speed records. According to Bo CEO Oscar Morgan, “The Turbo is part of our mission to elevate these futuristic electric vehicles into the top tier of automotive performance.”

And honestly, they’ve got a point. E-scooters have exploded in popularity as low-speed urban vehicles, but the category rarely gets taken seriously in the performance world, despite the advent of racing leagues. Bo wants to change that – and they’re using motorsport technology to do it.

Electrek’s Take

Is this a practical daily rider? Absolutely not. But that’s not the point.

Bo is doing what so few e-scooter companies are willing to do – pushing boundaries, proving performance, and trying to make scooters feel exciting, not just functional. Whether The Turbo hits 100 mph or not, it’s already helped raise the bar for what electric micromobility can be. And if that means they develop safer and stable ways to build scooters along the way, then all the better.

The fact that they actually plan to sell these is a bit worrying, though the $30k pricetag means the local teens on your street aren’t going to be terrorizing the sidewalks with them. Well, not unless you’ve got an oil sheikh and his teenagers living on your street.

But hey, if you’ve got thirty grand and a need for painful death levels of speed – maybe this is your next toy.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Chevron defeats Exxon in dispute over Guyana oil assets, clearing path for Hess acquisition

Published

on

By

Chevron defeats Exxon in dispute over Guyana oil assets, clearing path for Hess acquisition

Chevron prevails in mediation over Exxon in Guyana oil assets

Chevron has prevailed against Exxon Mobil in a dispute over Hess Corporation’s offshore oil assets in the South American nation of Guyana, Exxon CEO Darren Woods told CNBC’s Becky Quick on Friday.

The ruling by the International Chamber of Commerce in favor of Chevron clears the way for the oil major to complete its $53 billion acquisition of Hess Corporation.

Chevron shares jumped about 3% in premarket trading.

“We disagree with the ICC panel’s interpretation but respect the arbitration and dispute resolution process,” Exxon said in a statement Friday.

The dispute had created significant uncertainty over whether Chevron’s acquisition of Hess would close, weighing on the oil major’s stock performance. The transaction would have failed if Exxon had prevailed.

Exxon and China National Offshore Oil Corporation had filed an arbitration case with the ICC, claiming a right of first refusal over Hess’s assets in the Stabroek Block, an oil development off the coast of Guyana.

Hess has a 30% stake in an oil patch, while Exxon leads the project with a 45% stake and CNOOC maintains 25% stake.

“We welcome Chevron to the venture and look forward to continued industry-leading performance and value creation in Guyana for all parties involved,” Exxon said.

Continue Reading

Trending