-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Fisker Karma
- Thread starter vfx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles fail Fisker karma
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
We've all pretty much known that for a very long time. I'm surprised it took others this long to finally see it.
Matthew049
Member
wow, those were good clips. thx for sharing. i especially enjoyed VP joe referring to the DOE fisker loan: "...seed money that will return to the consumer billions and billions and billions of dollars and new jobs!!!" hahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
the more i hear about how they got their loan the more angry i am that they received taxpayer funding. sounds like they were a HUGE risk. such a waste.
the more i hear about how they got their loan the more angry i am that they received taxpayer funding. sounds like they were a HUGE risk. such a waste.
How do you think they got their loan? What about it makes you so angry?
I do think there were mistakes made by all, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's worth getting particularly angry over unless you think no loans should have been awarded, including Tesla's.
I also find Darrell Issa's feigned anger rather rich given his history. He's accusing Fisker of using political connections to get a loan, when not too long ago he used his own political influence to lobby for Aptera to get a loan. Perhaps he's unhappy that he failed.
Issa-Supported Aptera Closes Without Receiving U.S. Vehicle Loan - Businessweek
Matthew049
Member
im not understanding where you're coming from thinking that if someone doesnt think fisker should've gotten a loan then tesla or any of the others shouldnt have either. i think tesla should've gotten the loan and fisker shouldnt have. in fact, ive invested tens of thousands of dollars of my own money in tesla and not a dime in fisker for all the same reasons which are too many to list. in my eyes, tesla and fisker are not even comparable as car companies. angry wasnt the right word, more like disgust. if one of fisker's founders wrote a letter saying they needed the DOE loan or they'd go under, then that's a poor choice of companies to loan to. my understanding was these loans were to help the development and expansion of the eco companies, not keep a drowning company afloat. that's high risk. and after watching those videos it sounds like they got their high risk loan thru political hand shaking, not based on the company's merit.
ipdamages
Roadster Sport 835
where did you get that? that was just selective story telling by issa. no real facts.
the hearing was classic washington DC politicking. issa raising his voice and fist slamming to further his career and agenda. blah bah blah. that's the best they have? innuendo that because kleiner perkins folks took trips to washington then the loans were obtained improperly? have they never heard of lobbying? have they never been visited by representatives of people applying for loans or with an interest in the outcome of something transpiring in washington? c'mon. really? what a colossal waste of our time and money to have even had this hearing. issa at the end saying he hoped that these guys had learned their lessons and people would be better prepared if there was a next time, and this probably wasn't fun for them. what a joke. jail time isn't fun. testifying before congress isn't a biggie for these guys - especially considering they got away without any pain to speak of. being lectured by issa? whining about not getting documents from the DOE. yawn. clearly just a political move to stir the pot. they made it clear they aren't going after fisker - they are more focused on the DOE and whether they should have pulled the plug earlier. but they don't have enough facts.
even worse is that we have no real insight into what is next. so $20 or $30 million has been repaid (i've seen conflicting accounts). fisker is for some reason hanging on. do they have some suitor for some type of asset purchase, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors? by paying what they did to the DOE they surely can't last for long. what will happen to the assets, and what about those with cars? so many unanswered questions. i suppose we should know better than to expect government to shed light on the situation.
in the end, as i see it, fisker comes across as a dreamer who couldn't make it happen. had they released the atlantic i'm confident they would have done better than they did with the karma. smaller, cheaper, nice design. but they couldn't get there. tesla too was on the brink, but they pulled it off, and i'm sure glad they did. if anything this is a reminder of the strong performance of elon and the team to have made it as far as they have. i'm sure there were many oh **** moments on the path to today, when they didn't know how they were going to get past seemingly insurmountable challenges. but here they are.
if tesla were to have failed, i'm sure people would similarly have said "see, there were indications that they had missed milestones and plans were not carried out as represented." and boy how stupid it was in hindsight to have stayed the course. but they made it through the tough times, thanks in part to investors who had faith, and a lot of people are rich for it.
for my part, when i saw the business plan and the pro formas for fisker, i said no thanks. that was soon after the DOE loan, and they successfully got that and another round or two of financing. so obviously others were willing to invest and have faith in a business plan that relied on finding solutions to problems and doing so with technology and resources that didn't exist. that's start-up investing.
Was just checking if you were specifically upset about Fisker getting a loan or about the loan program in general (with "government acting as VC") as many on that committee appeared to be.
Do I think Fisker should have received a loan? Probably not. Mainly because as far as I can tell they didn't really develop much technology, even if they keep calling it "cutting edge." But I don't think it's the worst thing that they got one. There was a chance they could have worked out their issues, and there could have been another plug-in vehicle on the market (in a space that major manufactures are slow to reach). Unfortunately, I think that the loan caused them to unrealistically move up the schedule on Project Nina and the milestones forced them to ship the Karma before it was ready which severely hurt them.
Do I think that political cronyism helped Fisker get a loan? It's unclear. Certainly possible, but probably not to the extent that Issa charges. Honestly, I think the main reason Fisker got the loan is because the DOE needed to find another small company to award a loan to besides Tesla. I followed this program closely from its inception. They had $25B to disburse and in addition to being about "advanced technology manufacturing" it was supposed to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The DOE had only made a few awards and they were under pressure to use this money.
There were a bunch of little fly-by-night companies vying for a loan and Fisker was probably the most viable of those. In 2009 Fisker had a compelling looking product that had a lot of buzz.
After Fisker who else would you give a loan to? The rules were expanded to try to accommodate Aptera, but yet they still didn't get one since they never managed to get the required private matching funds. Besides one more small loan, no one else got one, and there was still $16B available. Then when Solyndra went under in 2011 it was no longer politically acceptable to take a chance with tax payer money on clean tech.
So in 2009 Fisker was a risk, but the ATVM loan program was designed to take risks. I certainly think losing $172M on Fisker was more worth while than, for example, the $3B that was spent on the "cash for clunkers" program.
ljbad4life
Member
The more I learn about Fisker, the more I don't think it should have gotten the loan. Fisker was running on everyone's IP with no IP of it's own, even the Chinese Firms that are known for pouring money into EV tech looked at Fisker and walked away. Fisker technically was not "advancing alternate fuel technology". Fisker doesn't own a drop of the IP. That goes to Quantum, so Quantum should have gotten the Loan not Fisker. So that 1.6 Billion Dollars they raised went completely to waste. Horrible management, topped by no IP means no one is going to step in and buy them. Any other car company can outsource the way Fisker did and their is no value in an entire car company built that way.
Matthew049
Member
ipdamages, im going to disagree with just about everything you said there. i see things much much differently. one thing ive learned from the videos doug posted is that, indeed, it's not about fisker. they dont care about him at all. it's about the DOE so we're in agreement there.
there's definitely going to be political BS going on, but it doesnt mean there's not truth in it. from one of doug's posts:
"Barney Koehler wrote an email to the DOE saying needed the loan approved ASAP to stay in business and to keep up with competitors (i.e. Tesla). "
keeping a drowning company afloat w a taxpayer loan is an abuse of the program. if you see it differently, so be it.
i dont understand all the comparisons of fisker to tesla. you said if tesla were to have failed people would've said there were indications etc... well, tesla DIDNT fail and there's a reason for that. they're a good company!!!!!!! IMO, there is no comparison to the two companies. Tesla has an awesome product and awesome technology (they were selling their drivetrain while making roadsters). innovation!!!! fisker had none of the above. although, i understand getting their $ was linked to the Atlantic which may or may not have turned out better.
oh, and to add... the now defunct company that helped raise their VC sounded very shady. there was an article about their practices and how they were able to raise so much $ so quickly. i dont remember if the link to the article was from the forum directly or if i came across it while reading another article that was linked from here.
doug, i think we're mostly in agreement then. the differences being that i feel much more strongly that fisker shouldnt have gotten the loan and that they used a lot more political grease to pave their way and get their hands on the money. altho, one thing i wasnt clear on til recently was that their loan was tied to the Atlantic/Nina which potentially could've been more green and more affordable. i wasnt sure what the exact specs were going to be for the car but considering the karma went from $80s to >$100k im not convinced the Atlantic would've stayed affordable.
there's definitely going to be political BS going on, but it doesnt mean there's not truth in it. from one of doug's posts:
"Barney Koehler wrote an email to the DOE saying needed the loan approved ASAP to stay in business and to keep up with competitors (i.e. Tesla). "
keeping a drowning company afloat w a taxpayer loan is an abuse of the program. if you see it differently, so be it.
i dont understand all the comparisons of fisker to tesla. you said if tesla were to have failed people would've said there were indications etc... well, tesla DIDNT fail and there's a reason for that. they're a good company!!!!!!! IMO, there is no comparison to the two companies. Tesla has an awesome product and awesome technology (they were selling their drivetrain while making roadsters). innovation!!!! fisker had none of the above. although, i understand getting their $ was linked to the Atlantic which may or may not have turned out better.
oh, and to add... the now defunct company that helped raise their VC sounded very shady. there was an article about their practices and how they were able to raise so much $ so quickly. i dont remember if the link to the article was from the forum directly or if i came across it while reading another article that was linked from here.
doug, i think we're mostly in agreement then. the differences being that i feel much more strongly that fisker shouldnt have gotten the loan and that they used a lot more political grease to pave their way and get their hands on the money. altho, one thing i wasnt clear on til recently was that their loan was tied to the Atlantic/Nina which potentially could've been more green and more affordable. i wasnt sure what the exact specs were going to be for the car but considering the karma went from $80s to >$100k im not convinced the Atlantic would've stayed affordable.
Last edited:
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I've always been somewhat skeptical of Fisker's plan too. But it's easy to say that after the fact. If they'd spent less up front, and gotten far enough to release the Atlantic, things could have been different.
A lot of private investors - including some very prominent ones - gave Fisker a LOT of money. I assume they did their due diligence and had a lot more information than I did. That alone makes me reluctant to condemn the DOE's actions yet; I just don't know enough, and smart people that knew a lot more than me make big bets on Fisker with their own money. And the DOE did, at least, mitigate the risk by setting milestones and doling out the money in chunks. That part worked and limited the losses.
I'm not a huge DOE defender - I think they have made plenty of mistakes. But I don't think there's enough public information yet to say with certainty that investing in Fisker was an obvious mistake that should never have been made.
A lot of private investors - including some very prominent ones - gave Fisker a LOT of money. I assume they did their due diligence and had a lot more information than I did. That alone makes me reluctant to condemn the DOE's actions yet; I just don't know enough, and smart people that knew a lot more than me make big bets on Fisker with their own money. And the DOE did, at least, mitigate the risk by setting milestones and doling out the money in chunks. That part worked and limited the losses.
I'm not a huge DOE defender - I think they have made plenty of mistakes. But I don't think there's enough public information yet to say with certainty that investing in Fisker was an obvious mistake that should never have been made.
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
Fisker did a lot of things right, including their political and PR savvy. The factory in Delaware was brilliant -- (theoretically) bringing union jobs back to a shuttered plan with a "green" car company. Fisker's lobbying (including throwing around Gore's name) certainly helped as well. Their press was generally always more favorable as compared to Tesla, which I attribute to a certain level of sophistication and/or focus that Tesla didn't have. Fisker also focused really hard on the design of the car, and appealing to the "green" aspects of things -- I remember a video they did with a woman where she described in painful detail how the wood paneling was from dead wood found at the bottom of a river or something, and how it was so enviro-friendly etc. etc.
But here's the thing -- any new company, including and especially a new start-up car company, has finite time and resources, and needs to put the focus where it's most important. For Fisker, it was everything but the engineering/technology and manufacturing, which as far as I can tell was basically outsourced. Tesla went in almost exactly the opposite direction, giving only as much effort and energy as was minimally necessary for everything that didn't involved the engineering and manufacturing of the car. This caused (and probably still causes) bad press for Tesla and Elon, who still does too many interviews with outlets that are too small for him, although it's much better now than it was a couple of years ago. And Tesla gets very little positive press for all of the great things it does -- brand new revolutionary technology designed in the US, using a shuttered US auto plant to build awesome cars, thousands of jobs, focusing on hiring veterans, first IPO of a car company in the US in decades etc. How has no one from the Obama administration embraced Tesla (especially post-2012 election) while they get pounded for Fisker and Solyndra?
My guess is that it's because Tesla focuses its energy not on cultivating relationships in DC with politicians or in NY or Silicon Valley with money people, but rather did the minimal amount necessary to get the money it needed to finance operations. History has already demonstrated that this was a much smarter strategy than Fisker's approach, and I was always a believer, but I definitely agree that there was no way to know this 3+ years ago when these loans were announced. Like any VC, they very notion of the loan program was to take shots and hope that some hit.
But here's the thing -- any new company, including and especially a new start-up car company, has finite time and resources, and needs to put the focus where it's most important. For Fisker, it was everything but the engineering/technology and manufacturing, which as far as I can tell was basically outsourced. Tesla went in almost exactly the opposite direction, giving only as much effort and energy as was minimally necessary for everything that didn't involved the engineering and manufacturing of the car. This caused (and probably still causes) bad press for Tesla and Elon, who still does too many interviews with outlets that are too small for him, although it's much better now than it was a couple of years ago. And Tesla gets very little positive press for all of the great things it does -- brand new revolutionary technology designed in the US, using a shuttered US auto plant to build awesome cars, thousands of jobs, focusing on hiring veterans, first IPO of a car company in the US in decades etc. How has no one from the Obama administration embraced Tesla (especially post-2012 election) while they get pounded for Fisker and Solyndra?
My guess is that it's because Tesla focuses its energy not on cultivating relationships in DC with politicians or in NY or Silicon Valley with money people, but rather did the minimal amount necessary to get the money it needed to finance operations. History has already demonstrated that this was a much smarter strategy than Fisker's approach, and I was always a believer, but I definitely agree that there was no way to know this 3+ years ago when these loans were announced. Like any VC, they very notion of the loan program was to take shots and hope that some hit.
sp4rk
Banned
Not sure if this is old news, (well a day old), but Fisker Automotive...Coming Soon is back up again claiming a new site coming soon.
Hummm.
Hummm.
Zzzz...
Member
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
This new site will be an auction site where anyone can bid on the company assets as they liquidate. It goes live as soon as they file for Chapter 7. :biggrin:
ipdamages
Roadster Sport 835
ok, several points here.
1) there is nothing illegal about koehler saying that fisker needed money to keep up with tesla and stay in business. in fact, in hindsight, he was right. they even needed more of it. while you may not like it, and in hindsight the investment by the DOE turned out badly for us as taxpayers, there was no lie here. no illegal act. as for "keeping a drowning company afloat w a taxpayer loan," actually, that IS the point of the program. find companies that need help and are doing something that looks like it could benefit society, and help them. in the end, fisker ended up perhaps helping society some, but not as much as they hoped they would. but the loan program is there to help companies who may be having a hard time getting financing elsewhere, and to get them through a tough patch when they are in need. it isn't to lend to companies who don't need money and are very healthy financially, with an established business.
2) people have long compared fisker to tesla, for many reasons. no time to get into all the similarities, but...
- tesla hired fisker to design the model S, and tesla sued fisker for the designs, which were alleged to have been used in the karma.
- the model s and karma have competed for the same customers, and are the same size car, with some green features.
- they are two prominent new auto companies from the US that rose in the mid-2000s decade.
- they each sold about 2,000 of their first cars.
- they each got DOE loans of over $300 million.
i could go on. also of significant note is that tesla was on the edge of failure on several occassions, with recalls, delays, furious customers, and lots of bad press. just like fisker.
is tesla a "good company!!!!!!!"? in hindsight the results are good. but along the way things were painful at times. does tesla have "an awesome product and awesome technology"? many people think so. but many investors had high opinions of fisker when the DOE loan was made. fisker had a working prototype. they had lots of credentials. they had lots of equity financing so the DOE debt was insulated. it was later that they encountered the ultimately fatal difficulties. like hurricane sandy, fires, A123... none of those was known back when the DOE loan was signed.
did fisker have no "innovation!!!!"? you seem to forget that fisker touted its business strategy as outsourcing to others the capital intensive aspects of automotive manufacture. and capital markets loved it. have others invest in what they do best, and you find a way to integrate them. leave everyone to their highest and best use. give them specs and then let them create. of course, in hindsight that was a flawed strategy for such a complex product, where they were dependent on many others to get everything right. and too many things failed. A123. quantum. and even fisker as the integrator and project manager. but that was a selling point rather than a perceived weakness. also, a quick USPTO search shows that fisker has 20 patents.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=%28%22fisker%22+AND+henrik%29&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=fisker+and+henrik
so your binary characterization of fisker as stooges and tesla as angelic, and that that was known long ago, is plainly not supported by the facts.
3) yes, the fisker DOE loan was set up to fund the atlantic. that was always the story for the DOE loan and the equity investors. and i can tell you that when i saw the atlantic in person i was damned impressed. i wasn't sure how they could make that happen to those specs and at that price, and in fact to this day i don't know how they can get it done. because if they could, they should have just skipped the karma. just like i think that tesla should have just skipped to the gen 3 and bypassed the model S. but the technology just isn't there yet, which is why the LEAF, the activee, the e-tron, and everyone else has been unable to do a electric 3-series-like vehicle with acceleration under 5.0 and 250-mile range for less than $50K. i'll believe it when i see it. but if fisker could have done that, then it would have been a market killer. volt meets maserati.
in hindsight, more DD was needed to see whether that was attainable and whether they were on track. i personally didn't look at the books and records, so i don't know what the true state of play was at that time. but from what i did see, there were some big assumptions. but the DOE loan was always about the atlantic. the DOE didn't have a desire to fund a $100,000 luxury sedan only. the atlantic was supposed to be a $40K car. mass market. just like tesla, where the model S was touted as a $49,900 car. now that has been killed and only the more expensive cars will be sold, because sigs who were required to buy an 85 kWh and the other early adopters didn't want the 40 kWh car. but when the tesla DOE loan was signed tesla was supposed to sell cars for under $50K.
4) advanced equities sounded very shady? well sounding shady isn't illegal. there was an article that said something about how they raised money quickly? uhhhh, yeah. that's what they do. advanced equities set up the equity investor event i attended in newport beach and which finished up at fisker automotive. they were the bank that was pitching the opportunity. as we as potential investors sat and watched henrik and saw the presentation we got to ask questions. i found the information to not be compelling enough to invest. but if pitching an investment that eventually fails is illegal, half of silicon valley is going to jail. that's start-up investing. if people have facts about misrepresentations, let's talk about that. but sounding shady and having a guy write an article after an investment fails? that's standard fare.
5) you may not have been aware of the karma/atlantic components of the DOE loan, but that has been clear from the beginning, as i described above, and as was part of the deal as disclosed in september of 2009 when the deal was signed.
"The Department of Energy has approved a low-interest loan of $528M for Fisker. The majority of the money will be put toward Fisker’s Project NINA, with the rest helping to fund the completion of Karma development. The sedan will be the company’s first product and will bow next year, featuring a 402-hp range-extended electric drivetrain and an $87,900 price tag.
Fisker says Project NINA will result in a family-oriented plug-in hybrid costing just below $40K after tax credits. The company plans to launch it by 2012, with an annual sales rate reaching 100,000 units."
Fisker Approved for $528M DOE Loan | Car and Driver Blog
- - - Updated - - -
thanks, doug!
Last edited:
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This is exactly what I was thinking. The drama surrounding the company during the years of the Roadster's development and initial production had me thinking back then that there was no way that Tesla would become what it is today. There's just no way to know for sure how things will turn out for any startup.
You raise some good points, some points I have a simple difference of opinion with, but this whopper... Holy cow!
I don't doubt there is some overlap, heck there are a number of people that own both.
However, the same size? Have you been inside each car?
Perhaps you were speaking only of the outside dimensions??
For the inside space available, there is no comparison. The EPA categorizes the Karma as a sub-compact.
As for the environmental aspects of each, the Model S is actually pretty inefficient as far as EVs are concerned, but when compared to the Karma, there is once again no comparison. The Karma has an EPA rating of 650 Watts/Mile. The Model S is almost half that.
I could go on, but I think you get the general idea. I think you have some misconceptions or outright misinformation oboist the Model S, or the Karma.
ipdamages
Roadster Sport 835
i don't think i am misinformed, and i have spent a good deal of time in both cars and studying both cars. as an initial matter, i was pointing out similarities between fisker as a company and tesla as a company as Matthew said he didn't understand the comparisons between the two companies. i was not trying to say that the karma and model S are comparable on every criterion. but i still believe what i wrote - the model s and karma have competed for the same customers, the size of the car is the same, and they each have some green features.
same customers? yes, there is a substantial amount of discussion on the competition between the companies and the strengths and weaknesses of the cars by comparison. and as you point out, some folks have bought both cars. some have said that those who bought the karma should have bought the S instead.
same size? yes, i was talking about exterior dimensions.
karma (per wikipedia):
Length 195.67 in (4,970 mm)
Width 78.11 in (1,984 mm)
Height 51.57 in (1,310 mm)
model s (per teslamotors.com):
length 196.0"
width 77.3"
height 56.5"
both are huge as they each have a lot to fit onto the chassis.
some green features? well it is pretty well settled that tesla's car(s) have better green creds than fisker's (which is a big part of why i drive a tesla and not a karma). but each company is in the green car space.
as some have pointed out, some people have driven their karmas in EV mode for the vast majority of their miles, and have been far greener in doing so than the EPA estimates.
so yes, you can go on, and i get your general idea. i got it before you posted it. i think you misread what i wrote. i said that tesla and fisker are similar for several reasons. you grabbed one and ran with it. i didn't say that that the karma is a very similar car to a model s. i pointed out a few similarities.
so no, i don't think i had misconceptions or misinformation. but to be clear, i think that while neither car is good for me as i don't want a car that huge (and when i say huge i'm talking about overall size, not inside space, such that i'd be happy with a karma because it was small inside), the market has spoken and is telling us that they find the model s to be far more compelling than the karma.
Starting to get a bit off track here. Lets save the direct comparisons for this thread: Karma -vs- Model S
Similar threads
