[umsm]

> Well, there's nothing in a Model S that is earth shattering in terms of technology.

Of course the car or company is not supernatural. But there's a HUGE difference between saying "anyone could have done it" and ACTUALLY doing it. That's the key to understanding the reviews.

I am not sure anyone is reviewing the electric motors. They are not reviewing how efficient their motor is or even how small it is. They are reviewing the car as a whole.

I believe you can say similar things of any market leader. Rarely does someone change a market and invent great technology or are involved in engineering marvels. But they do solve the problem in such a way that is significantly gives them a lead.

[nawitus]

Is Tesla the market leader? Nissan's Leaf is the best selling electric car in history.

[rebootthesystem]

I don't think we disagree. As I pointed out, they excel at execution. Few ideas in electrics are new. This could very well segue into a discussion about patents, because some of the same issues exist there.

Given enough funding, a team of capable engineers and a solid vision (both of which are present at Tesla and other companies) the expectation of results should be the norm, not the exception. We, as engineers, are trained to solve problems using the scientific process.

To use battery packs as an example, there are probably thousands of engineering teams around the world who could design excellent battery packs that could withstand the rigors of automotive use. Tesla (and others) don't happen to have the only 12 engineers in the world who can do that. The same could be said of motors, electronics, software, suspension systems, chassis systems, etc.

I --and this is just my own bias-- am not impressed by what I consider to have to be the normal result of posing a problem to a capable group of engineers. That is to be expected. If you can't expect that out of engineers there's something seriously flawed with the way we are trained.

Of course, there's a continuum of capabilities out there. There is such a thing as lousy engineers with no imagination and a lack of understanding of reality despite years of schooling. Hiring is important. A company forming a substandard team will produce substandard results.

The patent segue is that there really isn't a lot today that most of us would consider to be true invention. Most everything being patented are implementations, which is a tragedy.

What is hard in the context of an organization, despite money and possibly vision is to execute on a consistent basis, keep focus on a reasonable mission and do so on a timely manner and within a reasonable budget. A good comparison of a polar opposite to a company like Tesla is just about any government-run organization where money is never a problem yet they fail to deliver consistently on even the simplest projects.

Tesla doesn't walk on water, but they have been executing a vision in what appears to be a constant series of flawless moves. They have good people who obviously work well together, they seem to know very well where they are going and, of course, they have the drive and funding to make it happen. Larger car companies could very well have to try to push the same ideas forward while mired with unmotivated and inefficient teams that just can't get anything done at the same time scale. And then there's the organizations themselves getting in their own way, AKA, "The Innovators Dilemma" [1]. There's plenty of history on that last point.

To some extent Tesla doesn't have to be a super organization, they just have to keep to their mission and they will outplay everyone else who is still failing through good management while trying to sell 5.25in drives because that's what their customers tell them they want (a reference to the book).

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-B...