You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This may be true, but it doesn't change what I am saying.
It was extremely risky for DOE to loan money to Tesla. I'm VERY happy that DOE made the loan, but it was almost absurdly risky at the time and no less risky than loaning money to Fisker.
DOE finalized the loan program around November 2008 and awarded its financing to auto companies starting in June 2009. At the end of October 2008, Tesla was down to $9M in cash, which insiders described as a "dire" situation. The automotive press was salivating over what was looking like a juicy disaster, and trashier publications like "The Truth About Cars" gleefully published "Tesla Death Watch" updates on a regular basis. Elon Musk himself credits Daimler for saving Tesla with a $50M investment in late May 2009: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/05/elon-musk-the-credit-for-saving-tesla-should-go-to-daimler/
So at the time Tesla would have been applying for DOE loans, the company was in a state of near collapse, with barely any shipping product, and a founder who was out of capital and getting help from friends to keep a roof over his head. It doesn't matter if someone says they will throw all their money into a company if all they have left is $0. Add all the management drama to the mix, and Tesla looked utterly finished.
I think Elon Musk is a visionary and quite possibly a genius, but there was simply no way to know in late 2008 through 2009 that he would be able to get the company to where it is today.
Again, ALL investment in leading-edge and possibly game changing technology is "high risk". There is no guarantee of return, ever, in such ventures. This stuff is trial and error, and for every success, there are lots and lots of failures.
There is no point in beating DOE over its loan to Fisker, because no matter who DOE loaned money to, they were going to lose money on some ventures. It's the nature of the game. If people want to debate whether DOE should even be involved in the game, that's a different matter entirely which I don't care to discuss.
Part of the problem with giving government money at times: "well we have to spend it, find somewhere to dump the money." IMO, if there wasn't a good candidate then don't spend the <bleep/> money. Last I checked we are very in the red.However, you're right that there really weren't any other choices and Fisker always was the 2nd strongest EV startup.
Part of the problem with giving government money at times: "well we have to spend it, find somewhere to dump the money." IMO, if there wasn't a good candidate then don't spend the <bleep/> money. Last I checked we are very in the red.
I wasn't speaking with this qualifier in my red comment.I don't believe we are even close to being in the red on the advanced vehicle fund.
Very nice recap , I'm going to post it to Fisker buzz with your permission..
I don't believe we are even close to being in the red on the advanced vehicle fund.
First, when congress created the program, they set aside 7.5 Billion for losses because they knew investing in cutting edge tech was very risky....
Again I say Fisker got the loan because, after Tesla, who else?
Remember: DOE rejected most of the electric car startups that wanted loans - GigaOm Tech News and Analysis
Were any of these less of a risk or more worthy than Fisker?
So Bob's going to drop the baddest engine he can fit in there. Will it handle okay? Will the brakes work well enough? I can see rockstars wrapping these things around power poles. Hopefully the Karmas can handle the insane speeds they will be capable of.
Musk is an entrepreneur, who made partnerships with Panasonic, Toyota and Diamler.
Fisker was a fashion designer who made no such partnerships.
This was the reason for Fiskers failure.
No, the bad luck/design of the fans which led to the fire(s), the destruction of the Sandy Karmas and the bankruptcy or their sole battery supplier hurt as well, but his lack of business experience and lack of engineering focus doomed the product.
1) Ridiculously optimistic forecast of 15,000 first year sales of a new $100K car from a new company in a new unproven market.
No one has talked about one glaring difference between Tesla and Fisker ... vision.
No one has talked about one glaring difference between Tesla and Fisker ... vision. Vision that permeates throughout the culture of the company. As far as I know, Henrik's vision was to make a sexy car (don't need to go into my negative reaction to it the fist time I saw it). It's all about design. But when you read Elon's blog from 5 years ago, there was a vision for what Tesla would become. Every employee I've talked with at Tesla shares that vision - shuttle bus driver, sales person, shop floor, marketing. They are all on board.
If you've ever worked for a startup, you know what a difference it makes when every single employee is pulling together towards a common goal. I know Tesla has that in their corner ... did Fisker?