7 ms·
This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. By accusing Boeing's batteries of being fundamentally unsafe, he garners the maximum amount of trust
by Camillo 14y ago
This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. By accusing Boeing's batteries of being fundamentally unsafe, he garners the maximum amount of trust from people who are concerned about battery safety, so that, when he immediately follows up with an explanation of why this couldn't happen on a Tesla, those very people are already leaning towards believing him. This goes over much better than attempting to defend the safety of high-density batteries in general.
- MikeCapone 14y agoI think he probably saw it as a defensive move: He doesn't want li-ion technology to get a bad name, and that doesn't mean only explaining why Tesla's approach is safe, but also trying to help others avoid mistakes that could hurt the whole industry including his company.
- dmix 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offe... > Generally the idea is that offensive action preoccupies the opposition and ultimately its ability to directly harm.
- nextparadigms 14y agoThat makes sense.
- Osmium 14y ago> This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. This is an awful PR move if he's wrong. I hope he's sure.
- sfall 14y agoan MIT professor already backs up what he is saying, he is not on his own with his opinion
- grinich 14y agoNot just any MIT prof-- Sadoway is an expert metallurgist and leading researcher on energy storage in batteries. The article is also incorrect: Sadoway is part of the Materials Science Engineering Department. As an aside, his intro chemistry lectures are excellent, entertaining, and available online. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering/3-091sc-introduction-to-solid-state-chemistry-fall-2010/structure-of-the-atom/1-introduction-to-solid-state-chemistry/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering...
- meh01 14y agoExcept they're both clueless about battery use in planes.
- jlgreco 14y agoDo batteries start working differently when they are placed in planes?
- rosser 14y ago...and on what basis do you make that claim?
- nitrogen 14y agoIs this like that magic ink that patents are printed in that makes inventions something entirely different when you add "in planes" or "on the Internet" to them?
- amcaskill 14y agoIt's a smart PR move in either scenario. It's unlikely this will matter if he is wrong. If he is correct, this will become an even larger main stream news story and there is a good chance that his prescience will be picked up and included in how it is reported. More importantly, if this becomes a major story, he has preempted the inevitable look at other products (tesla) which include li-ion batteries by describing the distinction between the two. This could become a major shitstorm that Tesla gets rolled into but by making this statement he's getting out in front of it and shaping how that story will be told. If he is wrong, the batteries are fine and there is no story.
- nigelsampson 14y agoNo one ever remembers the predictions you got wrong, just the ones you got right. It's the basis of all punditry.
- Avitas 14y agoThat makes me wonder what the next public and private PR moves should be for Boeing. My first guess is that their strategy should: A) Mention the tradeoffs involved with any engineering project B) Quickly accept blame instead of pushing it off to a supplier, a single employee and/or group (i.e., even if they have excellent reason and evidence for doing so) C) Make known their official stance on Elon's technical assessment I also think that they should first respond to Elon privately and later make a public statement--when they are ready. I happen to think they should make a public statement about what Elon's statement rather quickly. However, I realize that their executive staff and PR department may need some time to discuss this. Because Elon is so "high-profile," if they don't handle this wisely, the press will give them two black eyes instead of one.
- CamperBob2 14y agoD) Invent a time machine and qualify two different battery types, as they should have done in the first place. Everything else will keep the 787 on the ground for a very long time, I'm afraid.
- tlb 14y agoE) Replace with proven technologies (NiCd or AGM) which weigh more and accept a small hit on fuel efficiency until the lithium problems are sorted out.
- CamperBob2 14y agoTrouble is, any such change, even to a "proven" technology, will trigger an avalanche of red tape from the FAA. They don't issue slipstream patches in that business.
- djloche 14y agoD) take EM's offer and source the batteries / solution to a joint boeing-spacex/tesla project and proudly proclaim that they're going to the world's experts on batteries, the same people that NASA trusts - SpaceX. This provides positive press for both companies and (provided they fix the problem) resolves any long term problems that might completely destroy their business (like having multiple planes catch fire or blow up). All it will take is to swallow their pride for a moment and go to their competitor to help solve the problem.
- coryrc 14y agoTesla's /cells/ are also "fundamentally unsafe", but they make the /batteries/ as safe as possible. Fundamentally _safe_ would be LiFePO4 chemistry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery Longer lifespan and significantly cheaper than cobalt, manganese, etc; but 20% lower specific mass. Survives having a nail driven through a fully-charged cell with only some smoke and a small bit of flame -- not a meltdown like the more active chemistries.
- bigiain 14y ago"Tesla's /cells/ are also "fundamentally unsafe", but they make the /batteries/ as safe as possible." While it's certainly true that the Li-ion chemistry used in the Tesla's batteries are flammable, keep in mind the current common alternative to those potentially burning cells is carrying round a metal or plastic tank with 10 or more gallons of gasoline in it. If there weren't a 100+ year history of people doing just that and getting away with it most of the time, you surely wouldn't be allowed to do it in today's safety-conscious society.
- Retric 14y agoGasoline is not all that dangerous in the vast majority of failure modes. Li-ion is both corrosive and easier to set on fire which is a real issue for hybrids and aircraft.
- btilly 14y agoVast majority, yes. But I've seen failure modes where it was dangerous on more than one occasion.
- ricardobeat 14y agoGasoline isn't dangerous? It's ten times as easy to light up a gas tank than a battery pack, and the energy release is instant.
- 14y ago
- stonemetal 14y agoI don't know. I could see it getting to a less tech savvy media outlet and become Founder of Tesla openly admits batteries in their cars are fundamentally unsafe.
- Spooky23 14y agoA smart move would be waiting for the NTSB report instead if assuming that you can divine what is happening with a minimal set of facts. I've had my share of "experts" opine on their imagine root causes of problems based on whatever bullshit they made up while the incident response folks were figuring it out using real data. The problem is, the folks figuring this out aren't talking, because they aren't done. So now a bunch of people will remember what Elon Musk said, and the whole process is tainted. IMO, good PR is talking about how your company implemented battery technology in a safe way. Not this.
- chii 14y agoit makes strategic sense to taint your competitor, if there is no repercussion for doing so, but lots of advantages.
- jeltz 14y agoBoeing is not a competitor. If there is any strategy behind this move it is to make the public think it is just Boeing's batteries which are at fault and not lithium batteries in general.
- sangnoir 14y agoUnited Launch Alliance competes directly with SpaceX. ULA comprises Lockheed and Boeing.