>One thing I will say and that's that a lot of people saw an EV so something >good did come from the scam . I wonder if he tighten the wheel nut or just >pretended it went bad.
Not much good came from it. If you have a worldbeating idea, it does not need the sort of risky sendup he orchestrated. Even now, if the idea is valid, go out on the road with five people, demo it, and word will get around. The idea is not valid, I conclude. The last possible reason for holding back would be patent-protection concerns. I have sympathy for this concern, but not when this much of folks' time has been wasted, which is what they've done. Even if it's remotely possible that something actually did go wrong with the vehicle, it was *sooo* predictable that this would happen. They took themselves out of their usual element and look what happened. They could clear up this mess in the next six hours, if they actually had any worthwhile technology. They choose not to clear it up, so I conclude that they are incapable of doing so... that they have no worthwhile technology. The only out I can think of for them is patent-protection concerns. And look at all the attention that *hasn't* been given to *real* electric vehicle stories, such as GM's decision to destroy their EV1's, such as Ford's decision to drag out the Th!nk program for years and then, one or two months away from the scheduled release of the first 65 mph EV that would have more or less been offered *for sale* to consumers *nationwide* (or close to it), they announce that they can't find a good battery and that demand is not sufficient to warrant production (despite waiting lists at some of the very few dealerships that had been taking orders). I have been wondering for a few weeks now how hard Ford *really* looked for a suitable battery, but I have not read too many discussions of this. Perhaps some of the automotive reporters were off wasting their time on Mr. Tilley's mechanical breakdown.
