They could have tried a little harder with the name. It makes me take them less seriously with a copycat name like they're not confident enough in their product and need to glom onto Tesla's success. What an awful decision.
Heaviside would be a very negative connotation for trucks and ATVs. Most people would think heavy-side or top-heavy, which is the opposite of what you want a truck to be, and not Heaviside the engineer who lent his name to the punniest function in mathematics.
Hmm... I wonder if there's any legal principle by which GE would have any legal claim to a trademark based on the word Steinmetz. A quick USPTO search only turns up 3 Steinmetz related trademarks and none appear to be associated with GE. One is a lawyer who's last name is Steinmetz. The others are random stuff. shrug
Or, they could come up with a unique name. lol I don't understand why the trendy thing is naming things poorly.
We just had this popup here the other day with the "Hydrogen" project which the guy used without research and it turned out that it was already used by someone else. Could've named these After himself or anything.
What happened to trying to come up with clever unique names?
Yeah! I thought this was a subsidiary or some other project that was secret until now related to Tesla until I couldn't find any mention of it on the website.
But Musk isn't a Tesla family member or anything, right? Morally speaking, what gives Musk the right to use Tesla's name as an homage, but somehow this other guy doesn't have the same right? If Musk can call his company Tesla, somebody else using the name Nikola should be fair game.
It's probably not the wisest naming choice in the long run, but hey, people are already talking about it, so in a sense it's something that will get them some attention.
Moral theorizing is irrelevant. Trademark law is the only relevant factor here.
The legal question under US trademark law is whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be confused by the name and erroneously infer that some sort of relationship or endorsement exists between the two companies.
As Tesla is a rather obscure figure among the general public, my personal view is that average consumers will not be confused and the Nikola Motors name does not infringe Tesla Motors' trademark. However, that is far from clear-cut would be subject to endless dispute in court, probably with both sides producing survey and focus group results promoting their interpretation.
I don't think that truck is ever seeing the light of day; the name and the rest of it all seems incredibly unlikely to materialize except as some money in someone's pockets.
you could say the same about elon musk, as the original inventor was called nikola tesla and they both ripped off the same thing
also, there was an electronics company called tesla in communist czecoslovakia, which is realatively well known in central/eastern europe.
The whole company looks a bit shady to me. The claims, the name, the renders, no legal entity named, no info on founders/advisors/investors on the website or LinkedIn, etc.
Also, why would you redesign the cabin from scratch if what's unique is the drivetrain?
"NO COMPETITION"
"MANY TIMES CLEANER THAN DIESEL ENGINES"
"Nikola Motor Company is not currently accepting walk in visitors. After we launch the vehicles at the live press release later this year, contact numbers and locations will be provided for visits."
And is apparently run by a guy named Troy A Wallin.
I hate it when companies put up a web site and then don't say the least bit about who manages the company or is involved in it in some way. Does make things look less than honest.
EDIT: I also found in an article the name of the CEO, and here is his LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theofficialtrevormilton ... Not sure if there actually is a direct relationship to Bluegentech, LLC... the Nikola Motor Company from the article is described as being Salt Lake City, Utah based. Bluegentech, LLC is registered as a foreign company in Utah. (And, yes, I am just avoiding real work this morning.)
Final EDIT: It's interesting. Going back to the original idea that the company had a fly-by-night feel. I now know that the people involved have some actual experience in their industry (at least generally). My perception of them, while still very limited, is somewhat better. I can't help but thinking that being a little more upfront about the principals would improve their first impressions... despite the name ;-)
> Nikola (pronounced Neek-oh-la) Motor Company (NMC), named
after the famous electrical engineer Nikola Tesla, was quietly formed by Founder and CEO
Trevor Milton years ago to design and manufacture electric vehicles, energy storage systems
and electric vehicle drivetrain components.
Apparently they put up the website with their 3d models a few days ago.
The fact that they claim to own their own wells and liquification is pretty fishy. What kind of startup is going to have expertise in both gas extraction and electric vehicle engineering? And why on earth would they even want to when there's pretty good infrastructure for that already?
Doesn't look like it. The CEO did sell a previous company to them, but it looks like he's started a new venture with some of the same players. I wouldn't be surprised if companies they've worked with were invested in the new venture, but the legal filings (see my other comment on this thread) suggest this is a new venture.
The technology is legit, there's nothing preventing a company from building a truck like this. There's a few things that bug me:
1) Why natural gas to run the turbine and not, say, diesel? It seems natural to run the truck on diesel, if nothing else so the driver can hang out with his friends and show it off at the local truck stop.
2) There's only renders, no photos. They haven't actually built one yet? At least that high-efficiency truck Wal-Mart was/is testing, they actually built the thing before they started crowing about it.,
America is swimming in natural gas -- we are a net exporter. Natural gas requires nearly no refinement, and is locally produced, so the additional energy required to make it available to customers is much smaller. It also produces less CO2 per unit of energy than most other fossil fuels, since it has a very high ratio of hydrogen to carbon. When it burns, you get 2 water molecules and 1 CO2, vs say decane where you get 11 water molecules and 10 CO2.
The answer to #1 provides some insight as to what might make this play a little more interesting. Reading into the truck page, check out this gem:
"At Nikola Motor Company, we’ve decided to invest in American energy. Nikola owns the rights to its own natural gas wells along with the Nikola One fleet that transports the natural gas from the wells to the stations. With 7 wells on a single property, Nikola can pump out millions of gallons of clean natural gas each day. Nikola plans on having more than 5 well sites for redundancy throughout the United States. Complete vertical integration removes market uncertainties and allows Nikola Motor to control its own prices and keep them that way for Nikola customers. Nikola bypasses all the gas companies, liquifies the gas on site, then delivers it to the station through its fleet of electric trucks."
The trucks appear, in part, to be a method of arbitraging future LNG prices which have been going down, and can be expected to continue to fall for the foreseeable future as more and more wells keep coming on line.
The choice of name alone ensures that the first impression is of a copycat at best and a scam at worst. Even if neither of those things are true and this company is totally legit, the fact that whoever is behind this company chose to use the name really kills their credibility. So, three possibilities here:
* The whole thing is a scam
* It's a copycat company
* The backers have money and/or connections but no taste or business sense
All from a name. Congrats guys, way to crater a business before it even gets off the ground. It's like trying to compete with Ford by naming your company "Henry".
The company's Facebook account only appeared on May 1st and their Twitter sometime since then [1][2]. It also appears that their website only became public on May 4th [3]. Given the recentness of their public presence, I would not imagine that they were expecting this much publicity yet.
I think that they are legitimate because the "What's Inside" photo for the Nikola One is definitely an export from a real CAD model [4]. And Google Image search cannot find the photos they have on their social media profiles used anywhere else besides when referring to them [5]. That said, they seem distinctly in the prototype phase and have a long way to go before actually shipping something. Tesla took 6 years to ship less than 150 cars. [6]
[4] https://nikolamotor.com/one#safety (my dad does mechanical engineering, and the only place I've seen pictures like the one on Nikola's page is in CAD exports)
It has to be a joke... right? I don't see how it could be serious.
I mean, even ignoring the naming (which only makes sense as parody), nobody is going to put down nearly $1000 to reserve a car based on what looks like a bunch of early 2000s 3D renders, right?
That said, it isn't a particularly funny joke, there's not really even any subtle humor here, but at the same time I can't understand how this could be a real thing.
If it is a joke, then they put a lot of effort into making it look serious. The CEO has a LinkedIn page, there are serious press releases on big sites, lots of mentions on forums.
Well, it's pretty obvious that that's one of the impressions they are trying to create, but it's almost disturbing that anyone would jump straight to that conclusion without passing through many, many, many stages of suspicion and research first.
At the very least this early on you should have some page listing all the people involved and their qualification along with any investors involved. It gives you legitimacy. As it stands this screams vapourware to me.
My scam meeter is off the charts. It's exactly like Tesla except no tangible product, no funding, no founder with a proven track record, and way too many details.
I found it odd how difficult it was to figure out what the company's products are: a CNG powered hybrid semi truck and an all terrain vehicle. (Not clear why its a UTV instead of an ATV).
UTV = Utility Task Vehicle
"UTVs differ from all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in that UTVs typically have a side-by-side seating arrangement, many have seat belts and roll-over protection, and most have a cargo box at the rear of the vehicle. UTVs generally have a higher payload capability and are longer and wider than ATVs"[0]
UTVs are a huge market. According to one article[1], there were 670,000 sold between 2010 and 2012. That's about 223,000 per year. They range from about $10K - $25K new, and are popular for hunting, recreation and outdoor work (think a mini pickup that can go anywhere). If we assume the average purchase price is $15K, that's $3.3 Billion in annual sales.
I'm amazed by how many people around me, in rural Idaho, have spent ~$15K on one.
But, even assuming this thing is real, no one is going to spend $42K on one. Especially when I suspect there's a significant overlap between "people who are skeptical of electric vehicles" and "people who are likely to purchase a UTV".
You'll notice they left price out of their comparison table, because it would look like this:
* NIKOLA ZERO: $42,000
* POLARIS RZR 1000 TURBO: $24,999
* CANAM MAVERICK TURBO: $22,999
* ARTIC CAT WILDCAT: $20,999
And they're comparing the Zero to top of the line most expensive models from their competitors. I think the average purchase price is probably much closer to $15K on a UTV.
I will say that the pricing is the one thing that lends credibility to this company. I expect building a good electric UTV really would cost close to $40K. If I were just trying to build hype, I'd price it much closer to my competitors.
ATVs have a very different market – with different needs. UTVs are for commercial use, where a high payload is useful, such as construction. It's clear they're not a consumer company, which is why they aren't offering an ATV.
I was just thinking an electric UTV like that might be perfect for the National Parks system. I bet they have a million uses for such a vehicle, now instead being filled by noisy, offensive, gas-burning UTVs.
Interesting that they went with onboard CNG generators that are directly charging batteries. Those types of generators are a proven reliable technology, and batteries seem to have proven mostly reliable in Tesla products, so I can see their longevity claims of 2x higher than diesel trucks being at least plausible.
It's a pretty well established system in marine applications, so it seems like a good idea. Of course, the hard part isn't the tech, it's building a company.
Apparently, the Nikola Motor Company is a Utah-based startup. According to [1]:
"The company is run by Trevor Milton, a former executive at dHybrid Systems, which developed a CNG system for tractor-trailers that’s now owned by Worthington Industries."
All their products seem target at city stop-n-go usage for some reason. Which is an interesting contrast. (As is already having physical products/prototypes.)
Because that plays to an electric vehicles strengths (torque, energy recovery, noise and air pollution levels), and avoids their weakness(energy storage capacity and charge time).
Noise levels may actually be the big one, as it can allow a crew to work in designated quite hours which some communities have.
I want to list all the things wrong with this project. But the Automotive Industry does need to be disrupted so even horrible execution may work.
If the founders need a software engineer with experience in emission testing, fuel economy testing, info-tainment programming, and engine control programming email: codylaeder@gmail.com based in Detroit willing to relocate (but you appear based there too).
An early stage startup will give you every reason not to jump on board. But the current state of the industry is riddled with inefficiencies most self created due to managerial decisions made half to a quarter century ago (then adopted by competitors). A lot of these make adopting new methodologies and technologies impossible.
I'd rather work on solving problems then working around them.
If you think turbines aren't possible, you might need to have a word with... uh literally everything producing power with turbines since the 1910s. It's extremely well-proven, reliable technology. (It's just very bad at powering wheels directly, because it only runs efficiently at a single speed-- for a generator, however, that's perfect.)
Site looks super shady, however the technology could work. They're pitching a series hybrid CNG (they do call it fuel agnostic and state Diesel would work too) turbine-electric truck. Very similar to the way hybrid Diesel trains work.
This does smell a bit like a "throw together a lot of high-tech buzzwords" design exercise more than a real product.
First, series hybrids are generally a bad idea for road-going vehicles, where a mechanical link is a) pretty straightforward and b) a lot more efficient at cruise, which is where fuel economy really matters for most applications.
Secondly, gas turbines are primarily an advantage where power-to-weight ratio is important (much more of a concern in, say, a helicopter than a heavy truck). They are generally less efficient than diesels, especially at the size needed to power a truck, and even more so when running at less than full power. (Incidentally, diesels are pretty trivial to convert to run on CNG).
Total vaporware. Their claimed performance is just ridiculous - they propose a massive hauler truck with 4x the battery capacity of a Tesla Model S while getting...5x the range? and 4x the HP.
It is not a fully electric system like the Model S. The drive system is electric but the electricity itself comes from an onboard CNG turbine. The battery just acts as a buffer and place to store regenerative breaking energy.
Based on the fact that every image on the site is a digital rendering, I'm going to guess they need the reservation fees to actually build the first vehicles.
That is also what's confusing about the reservation price. If I was a buyer of trucks on a fleet, you can be darn sure that I'm paying more than $1,500 to land a truck.
Many trucks are owned by the drivers and not part of a fleet. I don't know what the ratio is nationally but I can say locally it's probably in the range of 50%, maybe even more are owner-operators vs. company fleet. So this pricing model would make sense to target that market.
I think this is very legit, and when we see a built prototype, which they project by the end of the year, it could be a game changer in fleets. If you research the owner (Trevor Milton), you'll find he started a company called D Hybrid. It involved natural gas conversion technology of diesel systems. It was bought by Worthington Industries, a publicly traded company, so he was able to pass that test. This seems like a logical profession of an innovator. The name does seem like a miss step, but they aren't a direct competitor with Tesla motors (at this stage). I'm only basing this on what I can trace about the founder and I'm thinking the founder is an innovator that knows what they are doing. As they say, build it and they will come. They'll call you crazy or a fraud until you do. My bet is this is very real and we'll know relatively soon.
This appears to be a CNG hybrid-electric truck, not an electric one. Hybrid-electric buses (diesel or CNG engine generates electricity for electric motor, which spins the wheels) have been around at least for a decade. What's different/new about this?
Also, from memory, burning CNG generates about half the pollution of burning diesel.
Not sure where to begin with this, looks like a complete scam to me, and looking at the spec of the zero buggy, it claims 20" suspension clearance (this would be travel, not clearance), and that the regenerative braking means you can corner "2-3x" faster.
The Truck seems very interesting, if real, they claim it is [0]
With the range of 1000 miles A - it can provide enough distance for arriving at a cargo bay; B - enough distance before the driver is required to rest (at 50mph that's about 20 hours of driving) and can recharge the truck.
Aside from the obvious environmental impact (as long as the electric source is not coal), an electric truck makes it an easier pathway for having autonomous trucking.
The truck doesn't recharge -- it fills up. It carries a tank of fuel (natural gas being the main one they're promoting) and has a generator to charge the battery.
Reminds me of the scene in Boiler Room when the guys from J. P. Morgan stroll into the bar and later point out that the firm in the movie, J. T. Marlin, is named such so as to try and sound like a stock firm people have heard of.
I don't think the site looks "shady" as many have said. It just has some shady information: to anyone with half a brain, it's clear you are not getting whole story. My impression is the company is insecure about their product and ability to execute, so they are overcompensating with big promises and deception. Shame really; because for all we know they are smart and well-intentioned.
Oh. Not so far fetched from an economics standpoint. We've been burning natural gas into the air for years because there's no demand for the supply. Build a product to create the demand for a surplus thing that needs a market.
Big trucks are understood. Battery systems at this scale are understood, also natural gas motors that run at this size are understood. It's imminently buildable.
Nice try to use Tesla's success and nail couple of millions (to be read: US$) for nothing. The difference is Tesla already produced other cars, that's why people invested in something that it's not produced yet.
Disclosure: I'm not a Tesla owner, neither gave deposits for any of their cars, which I find very stupid, but it's not my money :)
With all the shady companies with questionable tech going around, it's about time we agree on a simple test:
Show us the proof. Either a prototype or a model or something that physically works. Until then it's all dreams/vaporware/scam depending on how dubious it seems.
Lanewatch doesn't replace anything - the mirror is still there, you just get a different/possibly better view on the internal screen to accompany the mirror.
A diesel-electric transmission system includes a diesel engine connected to an electrical generator, creating electricity that powers electric traction motors. No clutch is required. It also is able to supply full torque at 0 RPM. Diesel-electric systems are also used in submarines and surface ships and some land vehicles.
I was always fascinated by locomotive engines, particularly due to the engine and drive train combination. The statement above regarding full torque at 0 RPM is rather thought provoking if you've never looked at these systems. Imagine solving how to couple a mechanical transmission to thousands of ft-lbs of torque and the problem becomes very interesting which is why the decoupling is pretty cool. Yes, yes, there are mechanical transmission locomotives, but they are generally for light work comparatively.
There's conventional liquid fuel on board -- gasoline, or diesel, or compressed natural gas -- that allows a turbine to run, which in turn drives a generator, which in turn charges the batteries.
Same thing as the hybrid cars with an internal combustion engine that recharge the batteries, but just in a better, more efficient way.
Fair. It depends on the output of the turbine they might use. Various articles about Jay Leno's EcoJet car also says that they were looking into ways to add an "intake" muffler, also citing that the Chrysler turbine car seemed to manage to quell the intake noise.
Totally valid concern, but I'm sure they'd be able to manage to quiet it down enough. If it's quieter under braking than typical semis that use jakebraking, it could be a win.
They don't note from what speed and that seems like a basic physics violation to me on several points.
1 - the mass of the vehicle doesn't change significantly (they claim a 2k lb reduction in cab weight)
2- the limiting factor in truck accidents I have seen is tire grip not braking capacity
I would love for this to be real, I think it is an idea with great potential and a useful and disruptive use of hybrid technology...but this company sounds like pure vaporbsware to me. They claim typical rigs last 500k miles which seems seriously low to me
They may be measuring engine braking. Many trucks use Jake brakes to slow down and save their regular brakes, especially on downhills. A regular engine brake only slows you down a little, and isn't nearly traction-limited. I imagine that an electric regenerative braking system could be friction-limited.
If I had to guess, they're measuring 2x based on the cab alone - no trailer. I would guess the combination of 2k fewer pounds and better weight distribution would potentially do it? Not sure.
They look wonderful to the casual eye, but the map of their fuel coverage tells me that nobody is going all the way cross-country without carrying their own topups.
I feel like perhaps a lot of the comments here are being a tad overly dismissive because a) Nikola as a name is bit of a rip on Tesla (and I imagine will eventually lead to a TM suit of some kind), and b) because it's not more obvious that the vehicle is CNG -> Electric and not just an EV.
That said, who knows if they'll successfully make it to market. The premise behind the truck sounds quite reasonable, though I don't really get the UTV, but that's maybe because I associate similar vehicles with Dudes going on proctored hunting expeditions.
If its nonsense and they are taking money (which they try to do, but they don't filter test cards before it hits the processor) a better term for it is "scam".
I don't see an owner-operator being willing to buy one, since if it fails on the road it could take a day or more to get it fixed/replaced.
However, I do see 2 markets for the vehicles:
1. Trucking that has a defined area of operation such as say, the truck that does local deliveries in a city covered by a listed CNG center; or a point to point route.
In such a case the long haul truckers will deliver to a big warehouse; then another trucker will load up for deliveries locally. E.g. ice cream, lettuce, carrots delivered by 3 diff. trucks to warehouse; then 1 truck to deliver a mix of these items to each local store in a grocery store chain .
2. For the Zero, there are lots of park rangers that right now have pickup trucks - they drive around the same city or state parks all the time and have 2 way radios. Since they can't go fast anyways, like 10 or 20 miles an hour, the range limitation won't kill them.
Though something in their pitch reminds me some superpower notebooks "L-something" 15 years ago, that were never produced, so I am a bit sceptical about the reality of this promise. But I wish them luck.
but why electric?
why not a normal, LPG or CNG combustion engine?
LPG bus fleets are quite popular in Europe so these engines should also be able to power trucks without the need for hybrid drive.
The truck looks neat, though.