Wasted money on Fisker & Tesla?

Re: Tesla Model S, 0-60 <4.5 sec, 320 miles range

Fisker Eyes Mass Production, DOE Funds & 2011 Profits, But Hurdles Await &mdash; Cleantech News and Analysis

The Money Keeps Raining Down On Tesla Motors - Venture Capital Dispatch - WSJ

Fisker certainly looks as risky as Solyndra and the plan should have been removed, but its executives do have some strong political influence in sacramento and washington. Foreign manuafacturing so no green jobs. Key competition could come from numerous sources (tesla, gm, ford, hyundai) even if there is a market.

Tesla is much less risky and actually follows most of the intent of the funding, unlike fisker. But shouldn't gm and toyota do part of the loan guarantees instead of the feds, tesla are after all using the NUMMI plant.

 

Re: Tesla Model S, 0-60 <4.5 sec, 320 miles range

Tesla is burning through cash like crazy. I hope they are ultimately successful and put out a product that more people can afford. I don't think the Model S is there, but at least it has more broad appeal than the roadster.

Edit: I posted this reply under another thread here and somehow it ended up in this thread. If I had meant for this reply to be in this thread I would have posted it in this thread. I wanted this comment in the other thread, which is why I replied to that thread, so I don't understand why it was moved to this thread.

 

Is it true that Fisker stole or took a bunch of IP (intellectual property) from Tesla, but that Tesla ultimately lost the lawsuit?

 

Maker of Electric Sports Car Sues a Competitor - New York Times

I'll leave you with your own opinion. It does seem he acted fraudulently and helped delay the tesla S. From the sound of it there might not have been much non-generic IP, but the basic design of the karma was originally tesla's idea.

Fisker Beats Tesla Lawsuit

 

sipn - looks like the threads may have been merged. Usually the mods are good at posting when they do that, though

 

It ain't easy building cars. You should see the The Tesla banner from I880, it's huge. I hope it's still there in 5 years.

 

Sorry, but I have to laugh! This story is too funny, in light of GM. GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009 but still had to be saved from collapse by a $52 billion infusion from the federal government. To add further insult to injury, GM began (business as usual) using some loan money to run commercials about how they repaid their loans. Uhhh yea . . . they repayed SOME loans, with LOAN money. The FTC was looking into whether they'd go after GM for the dishonest claims, which efffect stock values. What am I missing . . . isn't it, "what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander"? Sheesh . . . only in america.

.

 

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying because the government screwed up with GM it should be screwing up with Fisker?

Here is some more Fisker information that makes the loan even seem worse. Tesla, Nissan, and Ford are much different cases when it comes to this loan program.

That sounds like enough information to understand these were high risk loans. 32 mile CD at 56 mpge, then 20 mpg in CS. The volume car is delayed until 2013.

 

This all reminds me of the earliest days of the automobile, when you had inventors and tinkerers alongside companies all vying to create and discover what the "automobile" would become.

Unfortunately, sometimes great products faded into obscurity for a variety of reasons. Tesla and Fisker may both be creating automobiles way beyond the present..they may very well be creating the future..unfortunately that's no guarantee they will be the ones standing when we reach it.

As far as politics and tax payer spending? I support investment into green technologies. But it should be done with care. Too often in American Politics it seems money is thrown at things as the solution in of itself. We need to make sure we are getting the best possible return on investment. Maybe just giving away billions of dollars to smaller companies unprepared to create a mainstream product isn't the best approach?

I think there are better ways to encourage "Green Products" than simple cash give-aways for companies that may or may not be prepared to Carpe Diem.

These are the frontier days of Electric Automobiles. Of alternatives. What shakes out long term? Who knows? Sometimes I applaud the ingenuity, and sometimes I become disappointed that it's been 15 years and nobody has really offered a mainstream product that realistically rivals The Prius.

Nissan has the Leaf. I'm not so worried about how TESLA or Fisker responds, but I'm watching the horizon to see how Ford and GM respond.

 

sorry ... I get exhaspirated when I see inconsistencies then start typing away too fast.
GM's bko extinguished HUNDREDS of billions that they'll never have to pay back for their criminal behavior - vis a vis the toxic wasteland they left behind ... hundred of acres of abandoned manufacturing sights:
New GM Shirks Responsibility for Old Toxic Dumps and Mercury Disposal | Hybrid Cars

Violating clean air/water law(s) is criminal. Much of GM's behavior is criminal ... all the way back to conspiring to buy up then crush electric trolleys so they could sell more busses. Business as usual. Criminal behavior is SUPPOSED to fall outside the purview of bko laws - yet legislators let GM's bankruptcy she-bang just slid on through. The sheer scale of GM's mess is multiple times WORSE than Fisker ... yet GM is swept under the rug. So now, they want to go after Fisker? That's what I call straining out the fleas while the government swallows the elephant. We go after Fisker (nothing illegal ... maybe just stupid ... typical for the government) ... yet fail to go after ANY of GM's 'activity'.

Am I saying let Fisker issues go? No ... I'm saying the statute hasn't run on GM's ex-board members for their criminal behavior. We ought to be going after criminal issues, before we look into simple negligent/stupid behaviors. Horse before the cart.

.

 

Well that is just one of the reasons the country should have not bailed out GM, but this isn't about GM.

This Fisker Loan guaranty looks like pure politics. It does not have the qualities of the Ford, Nissan, or Tesla loans under the program. The location of Delaware looks fishy and even that is delayed, so this is giving fisker money to build cars in finland to compete with tesla. The car is not pushing technology, it is behind Tesla, Nissan, and GM. It gives money without any high likelyhood of providing american jobs. The business plan looks highly suspect and they have been missing major milestones. Even if the cars are sucessful, it will be unlikely to reduce much energy use either by this car replacing less efficient cars or being a halo to drive other car companies to produce more efficient cars.

The ABC piece slams tesla too, but I think it does this incorrectly. Tesla does follow the rules for the program. They have a business plan, and have sold cars. They used the money to reuse an old factory that will provide american jobs. Tesla is likely to be able to pay back the loan. The tesla S is more efficient and is likely like the roadster to be a halo for green cars.

 

Re: Tesla Model S, 0-60 <4.5 sec, 320 miles range

Unfortunately, the video doesn't work. I just get a "Service error: Error in Get Entry":.

Yeah, it sure seems like it. They opened up a showroom in Santana Row in San Jose and have a dealership up in the Seattle area. They have a bunch more. Keeping these places running while having few Roadsters left to sell while waiting for the Model S to ship means even more money being burned.

If you watch http://priuschat.com/forums/tesla/98263-bloomberg-risk-takers-elon-musk.html, you'll see how many times Tesla has been low on cash and how much money Elon Musk has personally poured into the company as it ran into trouble.

I haven't looked over their financials carefully but one has to wonder whether what they're doing is sustainable. One can look at them at Tesla - SEC Filings.

 

I read Tesla's annual report, IIRC, from 2010. They had lost almost $500 million by 2010 since starting up in 2003. They were planning to stop Roadster production this Fall, I believe and they knew the S would not roll off the line until mid 2012. A large portion of the annual report contained warnings to investors like " there is no guarantee this venture will work" and "we have never produced our own car from scratch (something like that. Roadster chassis produced in UK)" ...... I don't read annual reports a lot, but perhaps many companies have warning sections. Just saying it was a lot of warnings in the report.

So, they were very up front in warning investors there is certain risk investing with the company.

 

.... yes it's pure politics - and isn't that ALWAYS the case? Just follow the money. And YES it IS about GM, because the same policies that allowed GM's rescue is the same policy that lets other disaster/rescues occur. One of the BIG critics of Tesla / Fisker money give-aways is Mitt Romney:

DailyTech - Romney Blasts EV Loans, Auto Bailout; Gets Big Money From Bailout Banks

And yet, in the same artice:

But what I found most intriguing in this read, was that Romney seems to be throwing stones in his own glass house. On the one hand Romney is crying about throwing money away bailing out green transportation (needed to reduce oil addiction / increase national security) even as he funds his OWN pets ... from which the U.S. TRULY got nothing:

So . . . how do YOU spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y? IMO, if I were going to throw money away on SOME thing ... at least I'd want it to be on a crap shoot. The banks and GM are not even 5 to 1 odds, imo. Green transportation is a MUST, if the U.S. is to ever be successful.

.

 

The above warnings are standard practice in SEC filings for every company I've looked at. For example, take a look at the current 10-Q at Microsoft Investor Relations - SEC Filings under Risk Factors section. You can jump to it easily by searching for "may not be". Ditto for the annual report at Apple Inc. - SEC Filings, using the same search text.

From page 23 of http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-11-221497&CIK=1318605, I see that for the 6 months ending June 30, 2011, they had total revenues of ~$107 million but they had a net loss of almost $108 million vs. for the same period in the previous year revenues of $49 million and a loss of $68 million. For that latest period, that means they spent about double what they took in.

 

SO are you saying Its good because Mitt thinks it's bad? I forgot the issue, but I read one where he had 5 positions. I know he was both for and against the GM bailout.

Here is How the WSJ reported it over 2 years ago

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan - WSJ.com

Note that is $40K after tax credit. Now is it likely that Fisker would be able to deliver back then

Doesn't sound like experience to deliver to a mass audience

How did they do with that? Delivery in 2011 instead of 2009. Range of 32 versus 50. Fuel economy of MPGe 52 for those 32 miles then dropping to 20 mpg in cs mode, price $95K instead of $80. Pretty far off the mark. Could we have known, or can we pull the money Fisker has not already gone through?

Fisker had not even really started design on the nina, but they were diligent that they could ramp up a factory and produce it in america.

From the previous article

Fisker's Federal Fiasco: Loans, 20-MPG Electric Cars, Shoddy Reporting

So $169 spent on rich boy toys that won't really save much gas or promote PHEVs. and

Will the Nina sell? Will it make it out in 2 more years?

Hey funding fisker sounds a lot like the bailing out of GM. Is that what you meant. It does have a gm engine. It doesn't look like it does much for the cause of green cars, more a picture of government waste.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2012-f...ratings-explained-hint-it-weighs-5300-pounds/
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/the-fisker-karmas-20-m-p-g-conundrum/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...f-from-critics-of-low-mileage-electric-car/2/

 

Ray Lane on Obama as VC - YouTube!

Just to add to it all, here is ray lane, the vc and now proud owner of the second karma praising solyndra loan and hinting that fisker might get some of that sweet cash too. At the time they had around $100M in investment, and used the government loan money as a seed to raise enough to produce the karma. Reduces the risk to ray, but leaves him with the car and profits if its successful.

 

Thanks for bringing that up.

Instead of giving billions to just a few companies, if you give ten million each to 1000 companies, you are bound to have some great ideas and a few winners emerge. In the early days of the automobile, there were hundreds of teams of engineers working on cars. Many borrowed and improved upon others ideas to get around (better product than) patents. The process of innovation of the automobile went on for about 50 years (1850s to 1900s). I work in the biotech industry, and there are MILLIONS of research labs around the world. As a result, dozens of new discoveries are made every day. Results are published and made available for all the other research labs in the world to read. Products for some of these discoveries are patented, and just like the early automobile, other teams immediately begin researching ways to get around the patent (by creating a better product). The government should have invested in hundreds or thousands of new green automobile start-ups. For those that do succeed, then they can use their accomplishments to attract private investment to continue.

By then, the Gen IV Prius will be out and the Lexus HS250h and CT200h might be unveiling second generations. The competition in two years will be much tougher. Yes, Tesla and Fisker have style and presence that larger volume cars don't have, but they will still be competing for consumers' wallets.