• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Fisker on its way out

Yep, Obama can really pick the winners!
Not surprised.
U S taxpayers on the hook yet again.
 
I was a trade show a few months ago and the exhibitor had one displayed in their booth. Good looking car. Tech not there yet.

But Fisker's not the only one swirling the drain of fiscal insolvency. Suzuki filed Ch. 11 today.
 
Hate to see them or Suzuki go. I think both companies contributed positively to the automotive world.
 
Last edited:
Suzuki Motor Corporation's American Suzuki Corp. (automobiles) is the one that's no-longer (as of last November). And in recent days, Suzuki Canada Inc. (automobiles) planned to cease operations.

The ongoing rise & success of Hyundai+Kia, as well as re-emergence of domestic offerings, sealed the fate of Suzuki in North America. Likewise for Isuzu. And possibly for Mitsubishi.
 
Last edited:
I got to see in-depth my neighbor's Fisker Karma and my co-workers Tesla S side by side. I was immediately reminded of Goofus and Gallant of my childhood days. :smile:

a53108f7543b75adbb34afc035d4cdf61243092860.jpg
 
Last edited:
but I bet the CEO and the top brass made millions off of it. big bonus etc.

this kind of Gov spending makes me sick
 
Can we keep this thread going about CARS and not let it spiral downward into some political talk? Electrics and hybrids are cars.... And we are car enthusiasts.... The karma was a virtual concept car available to the public. Is there nothing interesting there to talk about?

I wonder what will happen to the value of something like a karma 20 years down the road. It is a very unique vehicle that was short lived in the market place. Those cars generally become collectors cars.
 
There is a top gear review of the Karma, but other than that I know surprisingly little about the car. The concept of using a small, fuel powered generator to create electricity sounds very promising and interesting - but I suspect it was the realities of implementation that caused such headaches? Was it just the fumbling of a car company owned by a designer, or were there real hurdles that make this concept unfeasible? I also heard complaints of shoddy workmanship on the interior, has anyone experienced that?

I thought the exterior was fabulous and I personally LOVE the idea of the ultra quiet electric luxury cars, but it would be neat to get a discussion rolling on some of the REAL reasons the car fumbled.
 
but it would be neat to get a discussion rolling on some of the REAL reasons the car fumbled.

I know the car well. I've driven and worked on it. Fisker suffered from several problems. One was, Henrik Fisker was a designer, and not a man that should have been in charge of the company from the get go. What came out of that of course was that being the designer, he didn't compromise on design into production. The car sits on 22" wheels and the dash looks like something out of Star Trek. It literally went from concept to production with almost no changes. Everyone wants to own a concept car, this was a one chance to do so. The vision wasn't bad either, but the combination of some amount of mismanagement, with a drying up of funds, with a string of bad luck incidents did them in. One thing that really hurt them was that the loans that they counted on to move forward were pulled, a lot of it because of political pressure. It happened to both fisker and tesla, but Elon Musk was a more shrewd business person with more means and handled it better than fisker was able to. Then there were things like their main battery supplier, A123 systems that broke contract and was not able to supply what they had promised. They went belly up. There were incidents where cars got flooded sitting in a port by Sandy. A long string of cause an effect things. The loan promised them became more stringent because of political pressure. Because of that, fisker was forced to introduce cars to market earlier than they should have been, in order to not lose funds. The then half-baked cars presented issues, which got an incredible amount of media attention because electric car companies in general are political ping pong balls besides being car companies. They do in fact have many more hurdles to jump over because there is a contingent that has no desire to see their success. Right or wrong, it is there. Their road is difficult. The fact that Tesla managed to succeed in this area, is delivering outstanding cars, is an American company with American ingenuity is a miracle frankly, and the guys there deserve a lot of credit. Henrik Fisker was originally hired by Tesla to design their 4-door. Apparently, fisker stole a lot of information and technical knowledge, then left and created his own company. Tesla then sued him, and that too was one of the things they were dealing with. That's the word anyway, I am sure the details of the story no one truly knows.

As for the car itself, I was struck by two things driving it. How large it is... the arched front fenders and long low hood making the front feel like a coke bottle body corvette, and the rear visibility being compromised. The interior room also, was low compared to the cars of this size. Driving it around you may as well be a Hollywood celebrity, it made the attention my nsx gets seem like zero. The torque is amazing.... 1000 lb/ft... the car felt powerful and strong. Handling is sharp, especially for such a big car. Braking was good. It felt sporty for sure, just big.

The interior panels did come apart on me, and the dealer support was horrendous. The guys servicing the car were lost. 50% of the time the car would go in for one issue, and come out with two.

IMO, it was a good first effort but it needed work and baking time, something that with political pressure, there wasn't much of.

I guess at the end Elon Musk has the last laugh, because although he may have had some design stolen, he produced a car that was just picked as "automobile of the year" by motor trend, is being compared to good BMW 5 series and Jaguars that are NOT electric, and Fisker is done. There is a big difference in both cars, the fisker was a plug-in hybrid using a GM motor to recharge batteries, and tesla decided to do away with engines, exhausts, cooling and emissions, extra dead weight and lost room, and go 100% electric. That's a bold step, and IMO the right one. Hybrids play more to the fears of being stranded, but in reality, the way 98% of cars are used, it is a non-issue.

If you drive a Tesla, you will see it is really an INCREDIBLE car.
 
Last edited:
Forging away as an independant "upstart" such as Tesla & Fisker (and in the past, DeLorean/etc) is ephemeral. Tesla should've slotted itself as a division of Lotus (and/or one of the domestic Big-3), Fisker as a division in one of the Scandinavian-duo Volvo or Saab (the latter already w/ synergy w/ GM at the time; the former w/ Ford ties not too long ago) or German Big 3+1 or Fiat-Alfa-Maserati-Ferrari juggernaut (using Chrysler distributorship). These individual & autonomous divisions could've mined/utilized the resources (via economies of scale) of their parent companies, gotten nurtured & grown to stand on their own feet. Less risk(s), still notable reward(s).
 
Last edited:
I don't that would have worked. Tesla is already producing a car GM couldn't dream of making. GM would have shit on their car frankly. How do you start yourself off as an upstart in a partnership with a company who doesn't share your vision or ideas? Tesla saw other companies as dinosaurs.
 
I just read in the Wall Street Journal that Chinese automaker, Geely, is the lead dog in acquiring Fisker. They recently purchased Volvo for 1.3 Billion and are now looking to pick up Fisker. We shall see how this plays out.
 
All politics aside, the DOE has been doing loans to entreprenuers with energy related ideas, dreams and schemes for years under administrations from both sides of the isle. Most of them are very high risk propositions and yes the entreprenuers usually have political connections that put pressure on the agency to do the deal. The problem I have is the lack of experienced underwriters most federal agencies have except for the SBA of course. A proper business plan would have to show the management team's experience running a "successful" business within the industry. It appears that Fisker had no one at that level. And even if they did it was a risky deal. There is little capital for high tech start ups so the Gov tries to step in and fill the gap.

If I were to underwrite this deal I would be looking at how much the borrower is putting up of their own capital, the feasability of the product or service, value of the "financially" commited pre-orders for the product and management's experience in industry operations and management. If there is a weakness in any of those catagories the new business is likely to fail and shouldn't be considered for loans. And, even if the borrower has it all, that is no guarantee that the business will survive. There is a lot of luck and prayer involved as well.

We only hear about the failures in gov. lending and nothing about the successes. That said, this deal clearly wasn't underwritten properly so I hope that some other auto company will buy them out so that the DOE will get most of "our" funds back. IMO the only federal agency that should be lending to businesses is the SBA and there are creative ways to make these deals work and minimize the risk to the tax payer. Of course we are talking about the federal government so don't expect common sense and imagination to show up.:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
I think that's the issue for me. Not that the company was funded but it was obviously done too quickly and, very likely, in spite of funding best practices or minimum funding requirements.

Even without seeing their financial statements, the risk of the Fisker failing, inherent in any startup, seems very high in this case. High fixed costs, low adoption rates (even before they started catching on fire)/sales, regulatory issues, reliability issues, likely cash flow problems, struggling economy, no EBITDA. The list goes on - yikes!
 
Back
Top