Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Fisker, Tesla, and their DOE loans

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Not according to Elon. Elon has said in interviews before that they didn't need the DOE loan, but that having it meant they could accelerate other developments.

Should I be? Am I an insider? Nope, AnOutsider. Point is, the Karma was late, and if it's true the Nina development was delayed, that doesn't help the case that Fisker isn't doing what it needs to do to keep with the terms of its loan.

Fisker, Tesla, and American Auto Innovation | Department of Energy
 
Nice article, thought I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.

Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).

I, too, am unsure why my post was added as quote in relation to the loan. What's the point being made? Also, moving these posts out to the loans thread.
 
Nice article, though I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.

Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).

The factory etc was all purchased with the DOE loans..It was also repeated in revenge of the electric car. You think that Tesla could have completed Model S development, and attracted the private funds necessary to procure & tool a factory, expanded their store network etc with the 50 million from Diamler?
 
I, too, am unsure why my post was added as quote in relation to the loan. What's the point being made? Also, moving these posts out to the loans thread.

Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, point is know one knows exactly why.
 
Nice article, though I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.

Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).

One of the stipulations of the loan was that applicants had to prove that their businesses were viable without the loan money. This is why GM and Chrysler did not get loans. The Roadster is profitable so Tesla could have survived just fine selling Roadsters.

It was the investment from Daimler and Elon putting in the last of his personal fortune that saved Tesla, and not the DoE. In fact, the DoE funds are explicitly for development of Model S and auditors ensure that the are only spent on costs related to Model S.

Thank Elon and Daimler for saving Tesla, and thank Toyota and the DoE for the fact that the Model S isn't still 2 years away, and and thank the stock market for Model X.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
The factory etc was all purchased with the DOE loans..It was also repeated in revenge of the electric car. You think that Tesla could have completed Model S development, and attracted the private funds necessary to procure & tool a factory, expanded their store network etc with the 50 million from Diamler?
So, in short you're saying Elon is wrong about Tesla's abilities without the DOE loan and you are right?
 
This is why GM and Chrysler did not get loans. The Roadster is profitable so Tesla could have survived just fine selling Roadsters.

I thought Chrysler & GM withdrew their DOE loan and did not get rejected?

The main point of the roadster was to show proof of concept and attract investment, not have it be a profit center.
 
So, in short you're saying Elon is wrong about Tesla's abilities without the DOE loan and you are right?

No I am saying no one really knows that answer since the DOE Loan was given to Tesla and immediately used by them...Its all speculation regardless of what Elon or anyone else may say. In this climate it would be foolhardy for Elon to come out and say that the DOE loan was required, in order for Tesla to be solvent. What do you expect the guy to say?
 
Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, point is know one knows exactly why.

Again, do I know for sure? No. But I disagree. I think that's the BS reason they gave (and some karma owners agree). I don' t think the car was ready -- even after the EPA gave the green light karmas did not begin deliveries for another 3 months (note, tesla got crash testing and EPA ratings on time and were able to begin deliveries as scheduled). Even then, the cars were plagued with issues indicative of a last minute rollout. Had they really been sitting on their hands waiting for regulatory approvals since April, one would assume most of those issues would not have existed when the car began deliveries in December.
 
No I am saying no one really knows that answer since the DOE Loan was given to Tesla and immediately used by them...Its all speculation...
You seemed to think you knew about 20 minutes ago. Your quote was pretty definitive. You're approaching troll territory here...
Tesla would be out of business if they did not get the 465 million from the DOE.
 
Again, do I know for sure? No. But I disagree. I think that's the BS reason they gave (and some karma owners agree). I do t think the car was ready -- even after the EPA gave the green light karmas did not begin deliveries for another 3 months (note, tesla got crash eating and EPA ratings on time and were able to begin deliveries as scheduled). Even then, the cars were plagued with issues indicative of a last minute rollout. Had they really been sitting on their hands waiting for regulatory approvals since April, one would assume most of those issues would not have existed when the car began deliveries in December.


The regulatory issues were for the Nina not the Karma...I doubt the DOE would be giving BS excuses and covering for DOE loan receivers.
 
The regulatory issues were for the Nina not the Karma...I doubt the DOE would be giving BS excuses and covering for DOE loan receivers.

Wait what? When you said:

Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, point is know one knows exactly why.

I assume we were talking the Karma delay (where they kept blaming the EPA). Now you're talking about the Atlantic? What regulatory issues held up the Atlantic? It's sort of hard to hold up a car that's basically a rolling prototype? Also doesn't excuse the poor performance in rolling out the Karma.
 
Wait what? When you said:



I assume we were talking the Karma delay (where they kept blaming the EPA). Now you're talking about the Atlantic? What regulatory issues held up the Atlantic? It's sort of hard to hold up a car that's basically a rolling prototype? Also doesn't excuse the poor performance in rolling out the Karma.

Dude this is all in the link I posted....

Fisker’s loan has two parts. In the first part, Fisker used $169 million to support the engineers who developed the tools, equipment and manufacturing processes for Fisker’s first vehicle, the Fisker Karma.

That loan is now dispersed and being paid back by Fisker....everything else is now Fiskers future cars


The larger portion of the loan -- $359 million – is supporting the production of Fisker’s Nina vehicles. Fisker is using this funding to bring a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware back to life and employing more than 2,500 workers. Fisker was attracted to this site in part by the opportunity to rehire some of the trained, dedicated workers who lost their jobs when that plant closed.

Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control,

The Nina's schedule is now delayed due "regulatory issues" Nina aka Atlantic was supposed to be out in late 2012. That is why the second half of the loan was pulled because the production schedule for the Nina was not on track, due to regulatory issues.
 
You seemed to think you knew about 20 minutes ago. Your quote was pretty definitive. You're approaching troll territory here...

Yes I believe that Tesla would be in bankruptcy if it were not for the DOE loan. I believe the DOE loan was the main catalyst for major investment in Tesla, the loan is what funded the tooling and purchase of the Nummi factory and Model S as well as new store development.

You believe that they would still be ok without the DOE loan.

Neither you nor I know the real answer since they were given the DOE loan. Tell me how it is possible for you to know for sure about this alternate reality? Are you some sort of choose your own adventure buff? Think about it bud, its all speculation

Please tell me how this is "troll territory"
 
Yes I believe that Tesla would be in bankruptcy if it were not for the DOE loan. I believe the DOE loan was the main catalyst for major investment in Tesla, the loan is what funded the tooling and purchase of the Nummi factory and Model S as well as new store development.

You believe that they would still be ok without the DOE loan.

Neither you nor I know the real answer since they were given the DOE loan. Tell me how it is possible for you to know for sure about this alternate reality? Are you some sort of choose your own adventure buff? Think about it bud, its all speculation

Please tell me how this is "troll territory"

Ahh. Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle. I imagine that Tesla would look a lot different than it currently does without the loan. Maybe it would be a supercar company like Keven Sharpe wants.