But it's really not 20,000 Model S deliveries in the first year. Remember, the first Model S delivery was in July 2012 (similar to the first Fisker Karma delivery in December 2011) . So in reality we have seen 13k-14K Model S deliveries in the first 12 months. And that was from a manufacturer delivering their 2nd vehicle, not their first, as was the case with Fisker. No experience, no track record, no credibility. 15K in the first 12 months was totally unrealistic IMO.
You're correct, Dennis, it isn't 20K in year one (the official release date for the Model S was June 22, 2012). That said, Tesla has not been able to meet demand for its cars in foreign markets. It also was not able to ramp up its sales as quickly as it would have liked, given supply problems and bugs. Had Tesla had a smoother launch, including sales outside the US in its first nine months, they would have sold more cars in the first year - likely more than 20K.
Of course, things happen when one releases a car. Bugs happen. One can't sell in all countries on day 1. And as a summary point, in hindsight, I think that Fisker's projections were too optimistic - including how long it would take to release the car and the sales volumes, among many others. Hindsight certainly supports that.
But were they impossible as of the state of things in 2008? I don't think so, based on the early specs. The problem is that reality hit them, and they didn't revise their projections downward.
Also, projections like these are seen all the time in start-ups. That's why financial markets apply high discount rates to these projections, by people who have an incentive to project high so as to obtain funding. I've worked on several matters in which investors were unhappy after the dust settled and the early projections weren't met. But that's what due diligence is for. Kick the tires. And if you don't agree, don't invest.
So to me the question is whether the projections were completely unrealistic as of 2008 or 2009. I think they were aggressive, and I thought so then, but not "totally unrealistic." And obviously a lot of people felt the same way, with investors voting with over $1 billion of their money. (note: that investment was in Fisker generally, not a bet on whether they were going to hit 15K cars in year one - but many people bought into Fisker's story).
Were they "totally unrealistic" by the middle of 2011, when the car had risen in price to $96K base model pre-incentives, and the compromises in specs were apparent? I say absolutely.
As regards the question of whether the Karma release was more like the Model S or the Roadster, I suggest that it was in between.
Fisker had a dealer network. Fisker had built some of his own cars (e.g., Tramonto), though they were really just altered BMWs and Mercedes. Fisker arguably had more auto industry experience than Tesla. Fisker's model was to use others' expertise and experience rather than building it in house. The Karma was pitched as an $80K, sexy, four-seater (and it wasn't clear whether that $80K was pre- or post-incentives - that didn't become apparent until late in 2008 or early 2009). The Karma has almost identical exterior dimensions to the Model S.
On the other hand, Tesla certainly learned more from the Roadster than . The Karma was not pitched as a 7-seater. Fisker may have pitched that they wanted to out-source, but that meant added risk. Fisker's DOE loan was really for the Atlantic, while it appears that Tesla didn't have to pitch the Model S as a first-gen car that was going to lead to something that would meet the DOE's criteria. And several other differences.
I guess my point is that I'm just not into hyperbole with statements like: "totally unrealistic," "no track record," "no experience," and "no credibility." Obviously they had some credibility at the time, at least with some people, like the DOE and several wealthy investors.
I think that had Fisker delivered on the early specs and had a smooth rollout, they may very well have hit 15K in year one.
And as to your point in post #2142, stopcrazypp, I totally agree that a $90K car pre-incentive is different from a $57.4K car pre-incentive. As I wrote above, the Karma was not originally pitched as $80K post-incentive. There was no mention of incentives. It was $80K - full stop. The Model S was at that time pitched as having three battery options, with the lowest having a base price of $57.4K pre-incentives. And Tesla's prospectus described how they expected to get $25K per car above that. But the data and announcements were clear that the Karma was going to in general be more expensive than the Model S. And Fisker's story on that was more in line with what the reporters were saying: a guilt-free supercar with HOV benefits and no range anxiety. And that would have offered something beyond what the Model S was expected to offer.
