Yep - stayed up past my bedtime at 11pm EST. We can't underestimate the foundation that Tesla has laid out (don't forget, open patents) and the rate of change we may see from car manufacturers moving forward.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yep - stayed up past my bedtime at 11pm EST. We can't underestimate the foundation that Tesla has laid out (don't forget, open patents) and the rate of change we may see from car manufacturers moving forward.
Geez, it is a ONE seater for heaven's sake. I don't know if we can even call it a car. This is a massive FAIL, no matter how you cut it.
IIRC Tesla showed a real car with Roadster and they attracted both fans and skeptics with a real car with real performance.
FF guys didn't even open the door of the car on the stage and they have shown CG movie to show it in "action".
I mean really guys how do you even call this "competition". This is some sort of bizarre fantasy, a figment of imagination of a bunch of weirdos.
Tesla started out as a rich person's toy, but it took an excellent team and leader to take that and execute on the initial goal - mass marketability.
- - - Updated - - -
Very true - but it doesn't mean that every company has to execute exactly like Tesla did to become a major player. Look at what Apple did with the iPhone - a massive cut above the rest for a long time, yet most of the market is ruled by non-apple products. I think it's important not to be 100% that FF may fail.
I am out of words here. I don't know on what basis you want to give any benefit of doubt to these guys. Please, the iPhone 1 got standing ovation when it launched. I was just blown away myself when I saw the launch. I recommended all my friends buy the stock (instead of the phone, which of course wasn't meant for masses with first version). FF is utter nonsense.
StapleGun
Member
Don't make the same mistake many made about Tesla when they unveiled the Roadster. The single seater is not FF's master plan. It was meant to illustrate the flexibility of their Variable Platform Architecture. They mentioned several times that new "core" products would be made on the same architecture.
I certainly have doubts about their ability to achieve what they promised given what we saw last night, but the "HAH!! nobody will buy that!" argument holds no weight when it's obviously not their goal.
Scott Ales
Member
May I please suggest watching this video with an open mind? I watched it for the very first time this morning and now believe the concept car presented last night was not the "Foundation" of their future. Just an element of what they are capable of. Listen for the comment about the "Car" they are working on. It is clearly not the car we're talking about this morning or last night.
Behind the Scenes of the FFZERO1 Concept - YouTube
I'm reserving judgement on the effort for some time later.
Behind the Scenes of the FFZERO1 Concept - YouTube
I'm reserving judgement on the effort for some time later.
The FF, starting with the copycat name, to the batmobile appearance , to the
one seat cabin, to selecting Nevada state to manufacture is pretty pathetic . The Chinese mentality
to copy falls flat, and to think we would fall for it .
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
My laughter at the prototype car shows my disappointment. These guys are nowhere near as far along as I thought they were in actually producing, in mass quantities, an actual vehicle. And the fact that they spent real money on developing the batt mobile (although I'm personally flattered) shows lack of fiscal restraint, which well may doom the company. Elon said at one time that building a car costs 3 times what you think it will, then double that number.
We all believe in the future of EVs, and I was hoping another company was closer than they actually are.
We all believe in the future of EVs, and I was hoping another company was closer than they actually are.
Yet they have failed to demonstrate that flexibility.
What was on the stage for everyone to see was some "racerish shell". Anything could be under it and probably there was nothing under it.
They could just show the platform as parts or as skateboard or at least two different bodies and claim they are built on same platform.
What was the point of this presentation?
They would be much better of without it.
I don't give FF any credit for a good plan here, but *one* way to start a new ev company would be to start with a supercar. Basically the TM master plan taken further. They sell a record-smashing speed demon for $200k each, only need to sell a few, that finances a $100k roadster, they sell more, that finances a $70k sedan, etc.
Not saying that is what they are doing, but it is probably what they *should* be doing. Of course they need a better design. That doesn't even strike me as a good supercar design.
Not saying that is what they are doing, but it is probably what they *should* be doing. Of course they need a better design. That doesn't even strike me as a good supercar design.
Even assuming they could sell 1000 of a similar-ish car at 200k USD with 50% margin, that's just 100 million USD. It's pocket change considering Jia Yueting is worth around 6 billion USD, and Faraday Future is planning on building a 1 billion USD factory. The bull case for Faraday Future assumes the presentation was a diversion tactic, and that they have no plans to build this car or any similar car.
If Tesla started up today with the same business plan as they have been following over the last decade, they would have failed. The Tesla Roadster was a success not just because it was a good electric sportscar, they were also first. It didn't matter that the Roadster had flaws, or that it was expensive, or that it was delayed. With no competition, Tesla could handle all that stuff. Faraday Future, Detroit Electric or anyone else trying to use the same strategy will find that building an okay sports car just isn't enough anymore. They need to be ahead of the curve, and that is a massive challenge for a new startup.
cgiGuy
Active Member
Their goal is to not sell cars, then? Interesting business plan.
Tesla started with a very expensive sports car, but it was far from being a "Batmobile," single-seater, with a special helmut for the driver. It still looked like a sports car with reasonable utility. The FFZERO1 is a joke. And to reveal this as their flagship tells me that they've probably spent more money on marketing than development.
Apparently the weird one seater was prefaced with "on this platform we could even make something as crazy as this" to paraphrase.
Apparently they can make a sedan and other, more useful things on the same platform. I don't know why in the hell they would show this ugly mobile instead of one of those, but I think that's where the actual competitive push would come from. It appears that they are nowhere near having any compelling product produced or they would have shown that. Based on no renders, they don't even seem to have compelling sedan/coupes designed yet.
Last edited:
I love it, FF will make a huge investment in manufacturing assets in NV that Tesla can pick up for a song after they go belly-up.
Faraday Future. OK, I did not expect their debut to be that excruciatingly toe-curlingly inept and so extremely out of touch - that came as a little bit of a surprise.
But - let's say they get a free pass - just accept that this is their version of an early nervous Elon in public thing. What is the actual substance here?
Well it turns out to be this: FFs Variable Platform Architecture - YouTube An EV skateboard. Apparently what they were trying to say with the absurd race car is that you can build whatever outlandish thing you like on their EV skateboard and thus by showing some idiotic design built on it then everyone will naturally receive it with the baseline understanding that they could have more easily built something more sensible on it instead, even if they concentrated their presentation on the irrelevant race car body shell design.
So nobody got it, but that's OK.
Bottom line, they look to have an EV platform design that is more advanced than anything except Tesla's. There is a huge market out there and as the first of the me-too entrants this platform may very well find opportunities in it. For example short of collaborating with Tesla it is likely be the quickest way for for various battery manufacturers around the world to cut off supply to traditional auto makers and to go into direct competition against them. If I was running LG, Samsung or BYD I would be interested.
So they have a platform design in an undisclosed state of development that sets them on a timeline similar to Tesla somewhere between 2006-2009 and they have better funding than Tesla did back then plus as the second guy to run the 4 minute mile they have a much easier task of convincing themselves and others what they are attempting to do is possible.
One of the many things they lack is Tesla's experience in developing a real roadworthy vehicle. In 2013 I suggested that one of Tesla's core advantages was essentially a readily reusable platform - a skateboard that they could just mount different body shells on (hardly a revelation considering Tesla's chief designer discussing the Tesla 'skateboard' and opportunity space above it). Whether that remains true or not, Tesla with 30% parts commonality between the S and the X so far actually stands as an example that it may not be quite that simple - at least if the objective is to make a vehicle with an optimized design.
Naturally in reality it is possible to just mount different body shells on the Model S skateboard, and hence it would be possible to do the same with the FF platform - that is, if one was willing to compromise on efficiency and handling for example as a trade off for different looks, functionality and various features that add weight, especially weight at a distance from the vehicle's desired center of gravity. Suboptimal vehicles are currently much easier to produce with ICE when the downside of utilitarian shapes and excess weight is essentially trimmed out by fuel tank size for range, engine capacity for power and just accepting miserable fuel economy figures as a par for the course if you happen to want anything accept a low performance economy car. When the cost and weight penalty of adding more battery capacity becomes less of a cost constraint, suboptimal EVs (in terms of weight and drag) sharing a common platform will become much cheaper and quicker to develop. It is not clear whether FF understands this perfectly or whether it matters much. A very small car company can do very well with niche opportunities while fishing for opportunities to go mainstream.
Secondly they are openly going after a goal that Tesla has been less public about. Autonomous EV fleet. I get the impression that in this regard they think they are pioneering something that Tesla has not thought of - in which case they are delusional (or at least hope that their target audience is). Tesla has been working steadily towards the building blocks of Autonomous EV fleet for a decade and I suspect the issue here is that nobody taking a pay check from the Chinese LeTV billionaire behind FF has dared to explain this to him. For an AI EV Fleet there are a few things that are necessary beyond the obvious (those being an EV with a very low total cost per mile in terms of both energy use, maintenance and amortization and a fully functioning Autonomous driving system). These include a charging network, a servicing network, a really serious OTA network and an automated charger (like Tesla's snake or some equivalent). Tesla has every single piece of the puzzle in a very advanced state of development and a business model that enables them execute to the finish line at least five years and probably a decade earlier than Faraday Future. That business model is augmented by Solar City and SpaceX, the former being obvious regards energy capture and supply and the latter relates its plans to launch a global OTA network of 4000 low-latency broadband Internet satellites (that I suspect will also include centimeter accurate private GPS on a structure-penetrating carrier frequency that will be accessible by a global Tesla AI EV fleet). This is the kind of thing that would allow a delivery van to arrive unmanned at a destination and detach a robot to deliver goods addressed to individual workstations - like Harry Potter's owl carrying a letter addressed to a broom cupboard. This is beyond the wildest dreams of Faraday Future unless FF simply becomes a fabrication shop incorporating Tesla's tech.
So sure. FF is an interesting market entrant that is probably neither as worthless as its own unveil made it appear (obviously they should fire their chief designer for that or at least hire someone that understands the levers of market they are entering to prevent a repeat of that embarrassment). Neither is it good enough (or at least timely enough) to be of any real relevance to Tesla one way or the other except perhaps as a back door to siphon engineering concepts from ex-Tesla hires to Chinese producers somewhat eroding Tesla's perceived negotiating leverage when it comes to establishing Gigafactory and Fremont clones in China.
On balance I think FF is a good thing on the scale where perpetuating ICE is a bad thing and that this first presentation was more an error of style than substance.
But - let's say they get a free pass - just accept that this is their version of an early nervous Elon in public thing. What is the actual substance here?
Well it turns out to be this: FFs Variable Platform Architecture - YouTube An EV skateboard. Apparently what they were trying to say with the absurd race car is that you can build whatever outlandish thing you like on their EV skateboard and thus by showing some idiotic design built on it then everyone will naturally receive it with the baseline understanding that they could have more easily built something more sensible on it instead, even if they concentrated their presentation on the irrelevant race car body shell design.
So nobody got it, but that's OK.
Bottom line, they look to have an EV platform design that is more advanced than anything except Tesla's. There is a huge market out there and as the first of the me-too entrants this platform may very well find opportunities in it. For example short of collaborating with Tesla it is likely be the quickest way for for various battery manufacturers around the world to cut off supply to traditional auto makers and to go into direct competition against them. If I was running LG, Samsung or BYD I would be interested.
So they have a platform design in an undisclosed state of development that sets them on a timeline similar to Tesla somewhere between 2006-2009 and they have better funding than Tesla did back then plus as the second guy to run the 4 minute mile they have a much easier task of convincing themselves and others what they are attempting to do is possible.
One of the many things they lack is Tesla's experience in developing a real roadworthy vehicle. In 2013 I suggested that one of Tesla's core advantages was essentially a readily reusable platform - a skateboard that they could just mount different body shells on (hardly a revelation considering Tesla's chief designer discussing the Tesla 'skateboard' and opportunity space above it). Whether that remains true or not, Tesla with 30% parts commonality between the S and the X so far actually stands as an example that it may not be quite that simple - at least if the objective is to make a vehicle with an optimized design.
Naturally in reality it is possible to just mount different body shells on the Model S skateboard, and hence it would be possible to do the same with the FF platform - that is, if one was willing to compromise on efficiency and handling for example as a trade off for different looks, functionality and various features that add weight, especially weight at a distance from the vehicle's desired center of gravity. Suboptimal vehicles are currently much easier to produce with ICE when the downside of utilitarian shapes and excess weight is essentially trimmed out by fuel tank size for range, engine capacity for power and just accepting miserable fuel economy figures as a par for the course if you happen to want anything accept a low performance economy car. When the cost and weight penalty of adding more battery capacity becomes less of a cost constraint, suboptimal EVs (in terms of weight and drag) sharing a common platform will become much cheaper and quicker to develop. It is not clear whether FF understands this perfectly or whether it matters much. A very small car company can do very well with niche opportunities while fishing for opportunities to go mainstream.
Secondly they are openly going after a goal that Tesla has been less public about. Autonomous EV fleet. I get the impression that in this regard they think they are pioneering something that Tesla has not thought of - in which case they are delusional (or at least hope that their target audience is). Tesla has been working steadily towards the building blocks of Autonomous EV fleet for a decade and I suspect the issue here is that nobody taking a pay check from the Chinese LeTV billionaire behind FF has dared to explain this to him. For an AI EV Fleet there are a few things that are necessary beyond the obvious (those being an EV with a very low total cost per mile in terms of both energy use, maintenance and amortization and a fully functioning Autonomous driving system). These include a charging network, a servicing network, a really serious OTA network and an automated charger (like Tesla's snake or some equivalent). Tesla has every single piece of the puzzle in a very advanced state of development and a business model that enables them execute to the finish line at least five years and probably a decade earlier than Faraday Future. That business model is augmented by Solar City and SpaceX, the former being obvious regards energy capture and supply and the latter relates its plans to launch a global OTA network of 4000 low-latency broadband Internet satellites (that I suspect will also include centimeter accurate private GPS on a structure-penetrating carrier frequency that will be accessible by a global Tesla AI EV fleet). This is the kind of thing that would allow a delivery van to arrive unmanned at a destination and detach a robot to deliver goods addressed to individual workstations - like Harry Potter's owl carrying a letter addressed to a broom cupboard. This is beyond the wildest dreams of Faraday Future unless FF simply becomes a fabrication shop incorporating Tesla's tech.
So sure. FF is an interesting market entrant that is probably neither as worthless as its own unveil made it appear (obviously they should fire their chief designer for that or at least hire someone that understands the levers of market they are entering to prevent a repeat of that embarrassment). Neither is it good enough (or at least timely enough) to be of any real relevance to Tesla one way or the other except perhaps as a back door to siphon engineering concepts from ex-Tesla hires to Chinese producers somewhat eroding Tesla's perceived negotiating leverage when it comes to establishing Gigafactory and Fremont clones in China.
On balance I think FF is a good thing on the scale where perpetuating ICE is a bad thing and that this first presentation was more an error of style than substance.
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Sigh, you are right. My plan wouldn't work. I have an uncomfortable all-company email to write now.
Wait. You should scam the Chinese billionaire for a few more hundred million dollars and wait until he catches on before you jump ship. Be sure to recruit all your buddies and give them large signing bonuses and super star salaries too.
Similar threads
