Filed under: EV/Plug-in, Tesla Motors, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Miles EV
Miles Automotive tried to stop Tesla from getting "advanced air bag" exemption
Recently, I wrote about a small, public fight between Aptera and Tesla over safety. It was just a few remarks and there are just a handful of electric car companies. Could they actually be fighting each other behind the scenes? Yes, and the fights have apparently gotten really serious. According to filings at regulations.gov, Tesla filed for an exemption on "advanced air bag provisions" in March of this year because it qualified for an "economic hardship exemption." Also, Tesla claimed, because the Roadster was basically an electric version of the Lotus Elise, Tesla wanted to use the standard air bags (and other safety systems) from the gas-powered cousin (read Tesla entire argument in this PDF). Kevin Kiley, Miles Automotive's President and COO then wrote to U.S. DOT/NHTSA a letter that reads in part;We applaud petitioner's efforts to provide significant environmental benefits and energy savings and their intent to "change the way the world sees electric-powered cars", but we believe strongly that success in this area must be predicated on careful attention to safety. ... Our concern in this matter relates directly to perceived and actual safety of electric vehicles and the potential effects on the acceptance of all electric vehicles including ours if important safety standards are not strictly adhered to.
The files at regulation.gov are dated between August 31 and September 17. Martin Eberhard, Tesla's CEO, stepped down around Aug. 12. The first file from Miles Automotive is August 30; talk about salt in the wound. I am not going to take sides on whether Tesla should get an exemption or if Miles should have intervened. There is a good discussion on this topic over at the Tesla Motor Club (guess which side most of those folks are on?). I just have one request: PLEASE, Telsa and Miles, give each other a call, have lunch, talk to each other. SOMETHING!
Seriously, a normal, electric car that the average guy can afford does not exist yet and you will have enough trouble getting one to market. Not to mention what the big car makers are going to do to BOTH of you when they start to see you as a threat. I will bet they will do more than write a letter and make a few sly remarks at a show. Guys, form a club. You have more in common than you think. Learn from each other. Help each other. This in-fighting will only hurt both of you.
The image of Kevin was taken from a video of Miles staff on YouTube. You can watch them below the fold.
[Source: Comment by ABG-reader Kardax via post to Tesla Motor Club]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave B 3:17PM (10/23/2007)
Good point Lascelles about Tesla and Miles communicating directly with one another rather than through federal filings. Miles must realize that if the EV market is ever going to take hold, there must be products on the market. There are a lot more dangers for the commuter who doesn't have an advanced airbag...like motorcycles.
Miles and Tesla have a much greater interest in seeing that their products make it to market to build this market. Ironic that they are not even competing for the same buyers. WHY? and don't insult us with words that you're concerned for safety.
Reply
Tim 3:37PM (10/23/2007)
Ah, the nanny state....
Reply
Darryl 4:13PM (10/23/2007)
Interesting that you dug this up Lascelles. I'm not sure why you are characterizing it as a two-sided spat. In this case we are going about our business and Kevin Kiley chose to file a formal letter
trying to prevent us from getting approval for the exemption. When I learned of this I was wondering the same things you are - with everything Miles must do to try to be successful, I would assume that Kevin has better things to do than to try to interfere with the success of Tesla. Then again, maybe he doesn't have anything better to do.
And I wouldn't equate this issue with Martin's comments at the conference since those were made in the spirit of good natured ribbing in response to a prior poke someone made toward Tesla. this is definitely different.
Darryl Siry
VP Sales, Marketing & Service
Reply
Lascelles Linton 4:51PM (10/23/2007)
Darryl, I wish I could take credit for watching boards and filings but one of our readers just happen to mention it. I would not call it one sided, you could say Miles has a valid point about safety and Tesla's many comments are not so funny but I actually don't think the reasons of who started the fight or even if its one sided is important.
I wanted to write a shorter article actually without getting into any detail because I don't want people to take sides. What's important is it ends. This really is the last thing electric car companies need. As I say in the article, Tesla and Miles should make friends because they will need them in the future.
Reply
Kardax 5:21PM (10/23/2007)
Lascelles: Darryl is calling it one-sided because Tesla is not fighting back. Tesla's focus right now is surviving the NHTSA approval process; Miles came out of nowhere and threw mud at them.
Your desire to see Miles and Tesla become "friends" is amusing. This is business, not a playground :)
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 6:02PM (10/23/2007)
If Mr. Eberhard crapped on my company like Mr. Eberhard crapped on the other EV companies, I'd probably try to hurt him back too. Yes, that probably makes me immature.
As to the exemption, it doesn't make any more sense to me than the people clamoring for Diesels to be allowed to pollute more so that we can get more of them. When there is a spec for what a car should meet, cars should meet it. Otherwise, the customer isn't necessarily getting what they are expecting. Would Toyota like to reduce the cost of their cars by putting in less advanced safety equipment? You can bet they would.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 6:44PM (10/23/2007)
According to the document filed with the DOT, Tesla was expecting Lotus to develop the advanced airbags for the Elise, and Tesla would simply make sure the same ones worked properly with their car.
Then Lotus kind of left them in a lurch by deciding to get an exemption instead. Tesla's only practical course of action is to apply for an exemption as well.
So if Lotus was allowed an exemption, along with several other low volume cars like Ferrari, then I don't see why Tesla shouldn't be allowed to have one. Maybe have the buyers sign an acknowledgement that they are getting regular airbags, not advanced ones. If they don't want to buy the car, give them a refund, which I believe Tesla already offers anyway.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 6:57PM (10/23/2007)
Kardax, I don't want to take sides but only to make this a little more equal because I think most will side with Tesla. That letter Miles wrote is literally nothing. DOT probably spent more time filing it than considering a single line of it. One could argue public statements by Tesla did more damage because it hurt image of electric cars in general. I know business. I don't want them to make castles in a sand box. I want them to not have a public fight that will hurt the industry. Telsa is asking for a fight saying all other car companies are crap then filing for an exception? Again, not taking sides, just trying to find a balance. They can hate each other all they like but KEEP IT PRIVATE. If it's THIS bad now, it will only get worse when the cars are actually out. If Tesla or Miles or Aptera or ANYONE thinks they can make fun of ONE electric car and the market will figure out, they are dead wrong, Miles and Tesla might as well replace say their own company names when they make these remarks. The average Joe just knows, that electric car company. How many incredibly tiny, unproven markets began and grew on the backs of companies calling each other crap and accusing each other of not being safe? Honestly, I think both companies probably skimped on PR and I can tell you right now, that should be HALF OR MORE OF THE STAFF FOR A CAR COMPANY, especially one just starting out. I think Tesla said they would not spend on ads. The press the wants news. You either have something amazing or something controversial; they really don't care which... maybe I'm naive but that's the way I see it.
Reply
Joseph 9:30PM (10/23/2007)
Ah, every car company has a little bit of dirt. :)
From the letters online it seems to say that Tesla is exempt from the "advanced air bag" system. These advanced airbags are supposed to be designed to reduce the risk of harming smaller people in a car crash. Basically, if you let your 2 year old sit up front without a baby seat, these airbags will reduce the risk of harming the baby.
Tesla Motors, and appearently some other companies in the recent past, have asked for expemtions from this. I think it is reasonable for Tesla to ask for this if other companies are asking for this. Why should it be harder for the EV company than for the ICE company? Anyway, the purpose of the advanced airbags are diminished since I can't imagine most people would allow their young children (like uner 10 yrs. old) to take a ride in their 100k sports car.
Tesla isn't doing the right thing, but not the wrong thing either. Miles Automotive did, in my opinion, do the wrong thing by trying to get Tesla in trouble.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:59AM (10/24/2007)
Joseph:
On the contrary, as a two seater, there is no other place to put your young kid. If it weren't a sports car, you could put them in the back, which is preferred anyway.
Reply
Yanquetino 8:59PM (10/24/2007)
Lascelles (et.al.):
You have expressed a couple of times: " I am not going to take sides on whether Tesla should get an exemption or if Miles should have intervened." Okay... then allow ME to do so. I guess I am adhering to that ol' Irish query: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone get into it?"
First, the exemption.
------------------
If Eberhard's explanations are indeed accurate, then Tesla should receive the exemption. "Standard" airbags would more than suffice for the intended market of the Roadster: anyone who actually watches the video clips of the crash-tests can see that they DO protect the "passengers."
My BMW Z3 is labeled with specific warnings that children under 8 should NOT ride in the passenger seat --as the airbag is only intended for adults. I have no problem with that limitation whatsoever. Neither do I see a problem with applying the same limitation to the Tesla Roadster.
In point of fact, it strikes me as too dangerous for a child under 8 to sit in the front seat of ANY car --even our Subaru Outback. Yes, perhaps the latter's airbag is the "advanced" type, but we know very well that a rear seat is safer than a front seat. Ergo, if someone has such a young child, having a Z3 or a Tesla Roadster or a Porsche or a Ferrari as the sole car in the household is downright foolish --no matter what model airbag it might have. Two-seaters are simply intended for older passengers. Period. I mean, c'mon: if you can afford a Tesla, yet you have small children, you can obviously afford another car with a safer rear seat for those times when you are hauling toddlers, right?
Miles' intervention.
----------------
Kiley's letter was totally uncalled for. Who asked him to weigh in on another company's application for exemption? Does he constantly monitor and report on all other auto manufacturers like this?
In my opinion, this amounts to little more than a direct affront to Tesla. To interfere like that isn't just "business": it is DIRTY business.
Was it perchance, as you have speculated, a knee-jerk reaction in response to critical statements that Eberhard had made when showing Tesla's crash-test videos? I fail to see the connection, at least not when I carefully listen to his actual comments. Here are three key statements he made:
"Okay. Everybody here's been making things. I'm gonna break a few things for you."
"This is the difference, let's say, between somebody making a little three-wheel imaginary car that would never be safe on the highway."
"So... I guess my comment is: a car crash is fundamentally different than a software crash."
Okay. First off, I do not believe that Miles makes --or is planning to make-- a three-wheeled vehicle. Its ZX40, ZX40S, OR70, and touted "future model" all appear to have four wheels. I therefore fail to see how Eberhard was referring to them, let alone attacking them. If he had anyone specific in mind, then it might have been Zap's Xebra models, perhaps UEV's COM-V3, or maybe the Aptera.
However, my interpretation of his comments above is that he was not even referring to those manufacturers --or their models. The key words here are "making things," "imaginary," and "software crash." Apparently those in attendance at the meeting had been watching some software SIMULATIONS of crashes with IMAGINARY three-wheeled vehicles that computer programmers had MADE.
Ergo, what he was pointing out, and rightfully so, is that a real-world crash-test truly is "fundamentally different" from a mere simulation. You've got to actually build and break the things to determine if they would indeed be safe on the highway. I just don't understand how anyone could interpret that observation as picking a fight. After all... he's right!
Does that offend someone? Well... I suggest that the offended individuals produce some video of real three-wheeled cars undergoing the very same crash-tests. If they fare as well --or better-- than the Tesla, only then would their offense be legitimate.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 9:07PM (10/24/2007)
Apparently Chevy is really wasting their time and money putting advanced airbags in the Corvette. Don't they know people who can afford a $50K Corvette can afford another car to drive their kid in?
Reply
Lascelles Linton 9:17PM (10/24/2007)
Yanquetino, I did not link to it in the article but Martin has said more than a few times other electric car companies are "crap." Yes, he was referring to Aptera there, not Zap or Miles. But his feelings about almost all car companies are clear. I am not siding with Miles or Tesla; I hope they talk to each other because when the cars start hitting the streets, things can start to get REALLY ugly, really quick. If I were ANY of these companies, sales were hurting and the other guy was saying something in the press, I thought was wrong (which all the companies has said about each statements in all these cases) I would would seriously consider SUING, even if it did not have basis to stop letters or statements or anything! Anyway, I don't want to see that.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/15/teslas-co-founder-says-all-other-electric-car-companies-are-wro/
Reply
Kardax 11:05PM (10/24/2007)
Lascelles Linton: You worry too much.
You can't sue people simply because their words are inconvenient to your business. Martin is well within his rights to call a car with a 25 MPH top speed "crap" or three-wheelers that have never passed a crash test "unsafe". Those are totally reasonable statements.
Tesla does _not_ need to talk to any of the companies they've insulted. Their intention is to put them out of business by offering a superior product, end of story.
Reply
vfx 2:27PM (10/25/2007)
There may have been things said but not published and reactions were based on direct communication.
At more than one event I have seen and heard The Phoenix sales dept. arrogantly insult Tesla's battery system as inferior.
At one show the Vice Pres. of Marketing/Sales and I were standing at the open hood of the Phoenix truck while he dissed the Roadster's battery cooling system. I asked why there was a radiator in the truck. Turns out they need cooling of their inverter!
These guys need to all get along. Maybe Martin can specify that all the OLD EV were crap and give the others a break as they find a nitch that Tesla is perhaps a decade away from filling
There's truly enough room for them all.
Reply
vfx 3:10PM (10/25/2007)
Back in the early 1900's there were several organizations like "The Electric Car Association".
Bringing back this type of an EV industry
group could unite the large and small Electric Vehicle manufacturers to make a single strong group. At some point they will have to admit
that they have a common need to have lobbyists to argue for EV friendly legislation and tax incentives for them and their customers,
agree on charging systems and coordinate strategic placements of public access chargers. Uniting for a common goal may cut down on the infighting.
Tesla already has a lobbyist of sorts in Diarmuid
O'Connell, Tesla's director of strategic affairs. Or perhaps Board member Steve Westly (a uniter himself) should extend the group olive
branch and (re) establish a manufactureâs organization
Reply
Jay Jackson 1:39PM (10/29/2007)
I just hope Tesla and other EV companies have watched the movie 1988 movie Tucker: The man and his dream. It shows just how much the big car companies will band together. While the Tucker was not an EV, it does give some good lessons.
Reply
Chauncey 3:36PM (10/31/2007)
Yeah, this is crazy, what a waste of time and energy, I don't understand why Miles is deliberately sandbagging Tesla?
Actions speak louder than words and it's clear to me that if Miles considers THIS issue worthy of their time, and a cause worth fighting, they're going to be making golf carts for a really long time.
The person(s) responsible at Miles should take their head out of their butt and focus on the goals ahead.
Viva la Tesla!
Reply