Elon Musk AND Bob Lutz on Charlie Rose 11/9/11

From a Facebook status update from Tesla Motors:

Tesla Motors
See Elon Musk on @Charlie Rose w/GM's Bob Lutz TONIGHT at 7pm and 10pm EST! Tune in for more on Model S and Tesla's vision of the future.

Lutz and Musk are both featured in Revenge of the Electric Car.

Click to expand...

It's confirmed on http://www.charlierose.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; under Schedule

Nov 9, 2011
Robert A. Lutz & Elon Musk

Click to expand...

Check your local TV listings for the correct channel and air times.

A nice follow-up to "Revenge of the Electric Car".

Say what you will about Lutz, he was influenced by public reaction to what GM did to the EV-1, and he paid attention to what Tesla was doing with the Roadster. I get the real sense that Lutz is trying to clean up his legacy, something that I think Dan Neil said in "Revenge". One discovery for me in watching "Revenge" was the degree to which Tesla's success with the Roadster gave Lutz what he needed to tell the naysayers at GM that Lithium batteries were developed to the point that they had begun to make sense as energy storage for a car.

I admire the audacity of Musk, and I wish Tesla the very best. If they can achieve what they've set out to do with the Model S, it will be a wonderful thing for the progress of the EV movement. I have reservations about whether they can build a satisfying luxury EV from scratch in a brand new factory after never having built a complete car before, and after having so many quality and pricing issues with the Roadster.

I also saw on the show tonight that Elon misleads the naive potential customer when he says that the car will go 300 miles on a charge, and in answering another question, says that the cost will be $50k. I now know why the press gets it wrong. Elon is telling an inaccurate story to the uninitiated, which is bad for people's perceptions of the LEAF and the Volt.

Not sure how long it takes them to get the interviews posted but here is the direct link: http://www.charlierose.com/schedule/?date=2011/11/9

Video is up, just click on the image. Thanks for the heads up.

Just watched it on my local PBS. Very interesting. I liked the one part where I believe Lutz was quoted as saying that the switch to electric vehicles is "a foregone conclusion", or something to that effect. I should have recored it so I could play it back again. Thanks for the tip!

Boomer23 said:

I also saw on the show tonight that Elon misleads the naive potential customer when he says that the car will go 300 miles on a charge, and in answering another question, says that the cost will be $50k. I now know why the press gets it wrong. Elon is telling an inaccurate story to the uninitiated, which is bad for people's perceptions of the LEAF and the Volt.

Click to expand...

Interesting... I haven't watched it yet but it's on my TiVo.

If he said what he said and the way you state it, it sounds similar to automakers (esp. GM) boasting about "40 mpg" (EPA highway estimate), calling it "hybrid-like" mileage w/o a hybrid yet failing to mention the city or combined mileage, it being on a more expensive trim, frequently only w/a manual transmission, etc. just to get people to look at their cars and not consider hybrids.

cwerdna said:

Boomer23 said:

I also saw on the show tonight that Elon misleads the naive potential customer when he says that the car will go 300 miles on a charge, and in answering another question, says that the cost will be $50k. I now know why the press gets it wrong. Elon is telling an inaccurate story to the uninitiated, which is bad for people's perceptions of the LEAF and the Volt.

Click to expand...

Interesting... I haven't watched it yet but it's on my TiVo.

If he said what he said and the way you state it, it sounds similar to automakers (esp. GM) boasting about "40 mpg" (EPA highway estimate), calling it "hybrid-like" mileage w/o a hybrid yet failing to mention the city or combined mileage, it being on a more expensive trim, frequently only w/a manual transmission, etc. just to get people to look at their cars and not consider hybrids.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in your take after you watch the TiVo'd show. Not only do I see this as bad for LEAF and Volt sales, which I'm sure wouldn't bother Elon, but it is bad for Tesla. If people go to the Tesla site based on what Elon is saying, and then find out that the real numbers are something like $58,000 (before the Fed tax credit) and 160 miles (unproven, is this like Nissan's 100 miles?), IMHO people will feel misled and turned off in general. Better to be accurate and under-promise.

This is something I've been saying for a while - Tesla needs to be more upfront with 300 miles & 50K.

Ofcourse this kind of conflation isn't new - for one would say 94 mph top speed & 100 mile range. Ofcourse, you won't get both together !

Boomer23 said:

I also saw on the show tonight that Elon misleads the naive potential customer when he says that the car will go 300 miles on a charge, and in answering another question, says that the cost will be $50k. I now know why the press gets it wrong. Elon is telling an inaccurate story to the uninitiated, which is bad for people's perceptions of the LEAF and the Volt.

Click to expand...

Ok, I finally finished it. I watched the Lutz only part split over 2 sittings or so and the Lutz + Musk part all at once.

Yeah, the way Musk answered the questions was potentially misleading talking about $50K and it ranging up to $100K. He failed to mention that $50K was after the $7500 Fed tax credit and was for 160 mile model. He also failed to mention the $10K steps up for ones w/more range (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; states "300-mile option at about $20,000 more than the base").

I was a bit disappointed that they were on together for so little time. I wished the whole ep was the two on together.

Yeah, this "Apples are cheap and oranges taste good" mixed comparison is annoying, and has been happening for a long time.
It (and "bait and switch") seem to be common ploys in the auto business, but it is still sad to watch a company that "dares to be different" end up playing the same games.

Make no mistake, no matter what you may think are their motives, they are in the business of selling cars and planning to make a profit doing so.

I really think Musk has higher motives in mind, but probably not averse to making money at it

You have to be insane to start a car company and a rocket company..

Herm said:

I really think Musk has higher motives in mind, but probably not averse to making money at it

You have to be insane to start a car company and a rocket company..

Click to expand...

nope, he just thinks he's "Tony Stark" AKA Iron Man, he's as close as we'll get to a real life one, anyway If you had 175 Million for selling your company, most of us would say "I'm done", not Iron Man...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TEG said:

...and planning to make a profit doing so.

Click to expand...

That, I doubt ;-)

I found the part on Lutz interesting. Especially his denial position on climate change and rationalizing the GM bailout all while criticizing the current Administrations efforts that stabilized the rest of the economy. A real genuine self serving guy. :roll: Lutz came across just like Bush, Cheney, Rice etc all out there regularly trying to "clean up" their history. Not gonna happen.

TRONZ said:

I found the part on Lutz interesting. Especially his denial position on climate change and rationalizing the GM bailout all while criticizing the current Administrations efforts that stabilized the rest of the economy. A real genuine self serving guy. :roll: Lutz came across just like Bush, Cheney, Rice etc all out there regularly trying to "clean up" their history. Not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the type of stuff Lutz was saying on Charlie Rose is the same type of thing he'd been saying in other interviews to promote his book. He blames the government for passing CAFE standards (which started in the mid 70s) for GM's decline and the rise of imports. See http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/94898-gms-bob-lutz-tells-all-in-book-car-guys-vs-bean-counters-2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and skip to about the 15:50 mark.

He's said global warming is "total crock of sh**" in the past and made another amusing statements (http://www.worldcarfans.com/10802132309/bob-lutz-says-global-warming-is-a-total-crock-of-sh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2008/01/30/gms-lutz-on-hybrids-global-warming-and-cars-as-art/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false.

The point about which I disagreed with Lutz the most was his statement that 90% of the market was based on design, i.e. looks. ISTM that's what sank US automakers, the fact that they spent so much time and effort putting new sheetmetal on the same platform every year, while letting the technology and especially the build quality of their cars fall far behind.

If looks was 90% of the reason people buy a car, Toyota wouldn't have sold millions of Corollas and Camrys over the decades - it would be hard to imagine cars that are generally more bland to look at and drive. Apparently, price and reliability play a much larger role than Lutz claims, at least for mainstream buyers who aren't driving enthusiasts.

GRA said:

The point about which I disagreed with Lutz the most was his statement that 90% of the market was based on design, i.e. looks. ISTM that's what sank US automakers, the fact that they spent so much time and effort putting new sheetmetal on the same platform every year, while letting the technology and especially the build quality of their cars fall far behind.

If looks was 90% of the reason people buy a car, Toyota wouldn't have sold millions of Corollas and Camrys over the decades - it would be hard to imagine cars that are generally more bland to look at and drive. Apparently, price and reliability play a much larger role than Lutz claims, at least for mainstream buyers who aren't driving enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Yep. To top it off, for the longest time, GM seemed to be in denial that their quality was any worse than that of the Japanese and asserting that Consumer Reports is biased and wrong. I wish I had the video clip handy where it showed numerous GM execs/CEOs over the years claiming their cars were every bit as good.

Sorry to go a bit OT, but for those who are interested in the industry, http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was an EXCELLENT podcast and was very insightful as to how broken GM manufacturing was until they finally got it, in the late 90s, IIRC. I wrote more about it at http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/78530-great-story-nummi-nprs-american-life.html#post1097941" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

On the subject of Musk, http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6022" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was pretty decent. Surprisingly, nobody replied to that thread.

People buy cars for very fickle reasons, many for style like Lutz mentioned and many other for practical reasons.. I personally could care less if a car had been manufactured for 30 years and still looks like the first year, it has to be completely debugged by now and repair parts must be plentiful, to me its a great advantage.

The best selling vehicles tend to be utilitarian.

For instance, a basic "workhorse" pickup tends to be the best selling vehicle in the USA.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ehhl/best-selling-cars-of-2011#content" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But for a $50K+ luxury sedan, I assume that style plays a much bigger part in which ones get the most customer $.

TEG said:

The best selling vehicles tend to be utilitarian.

For instance, a basic "workhorse" pickup tends to be the best selling vehicle in the USA.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ehhl/best-selling-cars-of-2011#content" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

True.

Large volume vehicles need to be "not dated" in design & not disliked by many people. In other words plain vanilla. That is exactly how the Camrys and Accords look like.

While a gorgeous looking car might sell a few based on looks, it won't become a large volume vehicle based on how it looks. Value & reputation plays a large part.