5 ms·
If they want to have one single blade move back and forth, that's cool, but this seems like a bafflingly complex way to do it. What's wrong with a normal linear
by brianpgordon 7y ago
If they want to have one single blade move back and forth, that's cool, but this seems like a bafflingly complex way to do it. What's wrong with a normal linear actuator? It's powered by a regular electric motor (something right in Tesla's wheelhouse), can be built very reliable, and is plenty efficient. There's no reason to build the Space Shuttle when people just want an electric car, and won't be able to tell the difference under the hood anyway. Maybe they want as many solid state components as possible for durability? Talk about diminishing returns...
No, my guess is that this is to lock down the patent so they own it (and as many other even vaguely plausible concepts as possible) and can wield it in patent battles with other automakers. More charitably, you could look at it as clearing as much land as possible so that 10 years down the line their engineers are minimally encumbered by patent concerns and can build whatever they want. Typical corporate R&D, and not particularly deserving of a Car and Driver fluff piece.
- Scoundreller 7y ago> If they want to have one single blade move back and forth, that's cool, but this seems like a bafflingly complex way to do it. Some Mercedes models do this. The wiper shifts inward toward the middle of the stroke.
- deanclatworthy 7y agoTesla is one of the most open companies with their patents [1]. I don’t share your scepticism. I would think this is protection against someone else patenting the idea and inhibiting their ability to innovate. [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
- kenhwang 7y agoTesla's way of opening up patents is interesting. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on the topic can chime in, but my understanding is that Tesla's just saying they won't initiate a lawsuit if they believe you're using their patent in "good faith". Tesla's lawyer's clarification made their "good faith" restriction much more restrictive: A party is “acting in good faith” for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not: - asserted, helped others assert, or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment; - challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or - marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so. So it makes sense that no one major would take up Tesla's offer, because they're not going to waive the right to sue Tesla. That's a little bit different than, say, Toyota, which offered to licenses out their patents royalty free with no strings attached and even offer consulting on how to use them for a fee. There's some guarantees there (or can be negotiated) that the tech/goodwill won't disappear on a whim.
- ricardobeat 7y agoThose restrictions sound pretty reasonable - you wave the right to sue them for patents only. Would be kind of odd to use one of their patents freely while suing the opposite way. Toyota announced the patent release five years after Tesla, and its mostly for technology released in 1997 for the Prius, hardly anything revolutionary now. By the way if you manage to find their contact form re. this, it says "We have closed accepting inquiries for technical support."
- _nedR 7y agoPatents from 1997 would have expired by 2017.
- taneq 7y agoYeah, I would have thought a traditional electric motor turning a pulley which drives a belt would be a far easier and more efficient way to do it.