Fisker no more?

Sounds like the company is on its way out.

Discuss. (But please play nicely.)

Someday, when the time is right and oil is really expensive, a high zoot electric will work. It will be a major automaker that will do it, too, because they have the fiscal means to make it live. I actually support alternative fuel/hybrid/external combustion development, so we can get some of the science figured out now, before we HAVE to figure it out.

Yeah, they look like they're all done: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/06/report-obama-backed-fisker-lays-offs-workers-faces-suit-by-solyndra-related/

Thank God they didn't fire the Executives. Yet.

meh....there are only so many people out there that want an all-electric, strange-looking, $100k+ car.

I won't shed a tear. If companies want EV's and hybrids to be successful, they need to cater to people who really need them to save on gas money, etc. Millionaires don't worry about the price of gas, so the only ones that go for a Karma are those who want to make a political or societal point, IMO. And let's be honest, most of the ultra-rich probably don't care unless they're celebrities or politicians.

There are only so many people in the world that can afford ultra-$$$ cars, and when you try to sell ONLY that kind of car, you're competing against the Benz, BMW, and other luxo-makers that have other volume cars actually making the rear profit in their companies.

Halo-only carbuilding has historically been a financial loser. Ferrari, Lambo, Rolls.....the list is pretty short. And most of these companies sell exotic sportscars that appeal to many of the flashy money-set, so they can survive.

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, they look like they're all done: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/06/report-obama-backed-fisker-lays-offs-workers-faces-suit-by-solyndra-related/ Thank God they didn't fire the Executives. Yet.

ah Fox News, always on the lookout for any program that got a federal subsidy and then ended up failing, and let's throw Solyndra in there just to make sure everyone knows that Fisker's demise is directly attributable to Obama...

Wonder if Fox has ever done a story on all those federally-subsidized companies in the alternate-energy sector that are doing great and making huge profits.

(ex-republican now rolling my eyes smiley goes here)

Streetwiseguy wrote: Someday, when the time is right and oil is really expensive, a high zoot electric will work. It will be a major automaker that will do it, too, because they have the fiscal means to make it live. I actually support alternative fuel/hybrid/external combustion development, so we can get some of the science figured out now, before we HAVE to figure it out.

irish44j wrote: meh....there are only so many people out there that want an all-electric, strange-looking, $100k+ car. [...] Halo-only carbuilding has historically been a financial loser.

/thread

Everything that needs saying has been said. The EV company that wants to survive will build something similar in capability and price to the best selling cars in the US...an EV corolla.

My concern is for Valmet and what they do next.

irish44j wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, they look like they're all done: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/06/report-obama-backed-fisker-lays-offs-workers-faces-suit-by-solyndra-related/ Thank God they didn't fire the Executives. Yet.

ah Fox News, always on the lookout for any program that got a federal subsidy and then ended up failing, and let's throw Solyndra in there just to make sure everyone knows that Fisker's demise is directly attributable to Obama... Wonder if Fox has ever done a story on all those federally-subsidized companies in the alternate-energy sector that are doing great and making huge profits. (ex-republican now rolling my eyes smiley goes here)

Irish44j - Defiantly interested in learning more this companies.

"federally-subsidized companies in the alternate-energy sector that are doing great and making huge profits."

Can you point me in the right direction to learn more?

Datsun1500 wrote: I love the fact that a lawsuit was filed by the employees because they didn't get 60 days notice. They are bankrupt. Your lawsuit is a waste of time.

Ya and who gets to pick up the tab for the $193 million Fisker has spent of the government loan and can't pay back now? Hmmmmmm let me think now.......I sure hope all the execs get their bonuses like the bankers did when they went bankrupt.

In reply to Datsun1500:

Blood from a turnip.

If I recall, wages are at the top of the heap at the bankruptcy court. I'll bet the lawyers that jumped on that are counting on the workers claim on the WARN thing having higher standing (or whatever the lawyers call it) than, say, the rest of us who gave them 193 MILLION dollars when it comes to selling the office furniture to get some cash in.

Oh, and I still think it is way-cool that Fisker was the first to invent a car that would actually catch on fire UNDER WATER.

Please, Irish, do tell us of these magical companies that we working peons bankrolled that are now making all kinds of money in the alternative energy sector. Maybe we can all invest a few more dollars from our private stash (versus the public trough from our grandchildren that they already got funded by.)

Alternative energy is important. That's why we're funding it. Not to make the government money.

Now, bailing out banks is what makes us money.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/11/business/la-fi-mo-aig-bailout-treasury-department-20121211

But yeah you're right Obama sucks.

Sultan wrote:

irish44j wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, they look like they're all done: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/06/report-obama-backed-fisker-lays-offs-workers-faces-suit-by-solyndra-related/ Thank God they didn't fire the Executives. Yet.

ah Fox News, always on the lookout for any program that got a federal subsidy and then ended up failing, and let's throw Solyndra in there just to make sure everyone knows that Fisker's demise is directly attributable to Obama... Wonder if Fox has ever done a story on all those federally-subsidized companies in the alternate-energy sector that are doing great and making huge profits. (ex-republican now rolling my eyes smiley goes here)

Irish44j - Defiantly interested in learning more this companies. "federally-subsidized companies in the alternate-energy sector that are doing great and making huge profits." Can you point me in the right direction to learn more?

I could, but I won't waste my time, since I prefer talking about cars. Clearly you're being sarcastic so it's doubtful that any example I could cite would be accepted as legitimate by you if that is the case.

You have the internet...If you actually want to "learn more" I'm sure you can find whatever information suits your fancy.

EDIT: deleted the rest, since this is a pointless and endless conversation. Just like Fisker was a pointless company with a finite customer base that couldn't support its product.

So, does this mean Justin Bieber is the new Andy Dick? Making everything he owns automaticly uncool to have?

A few points. 1. The Fisker is not all electric, like a Tesla, it is a plug-in hybrid, like a Volt. It has a 2,0 EcoTec 4-banger in the nose to make juice. Second, having seen/sat in multiple ones over the last two years, it does not surprise me. The quality was very lacking, especially in panel gaps, fit and finish, and the interior. People who pay that kind of $$$ for a car expect better. And finally, well duh! Any company that sold it's cars and bought the batteries back instead of just selling a battery-less car (talking about the LS9-equipped Lutz-mobile) and thought it was a good idea needed a rude awakening...

I always take it hard when any car company goes under. I realize not every idea or company can make it but I always root for the underdog. Even if the underdog only sells 100k+ vehicles.

I was wondering why I saw a truckload of them going by on I-5 the other day.

irish44j wrote: I could, but I won't waste my time, since I prefer talking about cars. Clearly you're being sarcastic so it's doubtful that any example I could cite would be accepted as legitimate by you if that is the case. You have the internet...If you actually want to "learn more" I'm sure you can find whatever information suits your fancy. EDIT: deleted the rest, since this is a pointless and endless conversation. Just like Fisker was a pointless company with a finite customer base that couldn't support its product.

Seriously, that's the best you got?

Companies like Fisker and even Solyndra aren't pointless. The derision comes from fatal flaws in their business plans, the eagerness to fund them without due diligence and the outrageous claims made about their success. Sometimes you just gotta say NO or at least acknowledge your failures.

Fisker suffered from bad karma because it was built that way - bad.

oldsaw wrote:

irish44j wrote: I could, but I won't waste my time, since I prefer talk Fisker suffered from bad karma because it was built that way

Great use of puns :)

I'm not sure that targeting a lower priced audience would have done them any better. Porsche is pricing their Panamera hybrid at almost $100,000 and the Mercedes S400 hybrid is almost $100,000 so they obviously think there's a market at that pricepoint. The Fisker had the advantage in that it was unique looking so it was instantly identifiable as a hybrid so the "look at me, I'm being green" crowd were happy, but also people who were just looking for a really good looking 4 door car.

Coda tried to go the low-price route and they just went under too.

oldsaw wrote:

irish44j wrote: I could, but I won't waste my time, since I prefer talking about cars. Clearly you're being sarcastic so it's doubtful that any example I could cite would be accepted as legitimate by you if that is the case. You have the internet...If you actually want to "learn more" I'm sure you can find whatever information suits your fancy. EDIT: deleted the rest, since this is a pointless and endless conversation. Just like Fisker was a pointless company with a finite customer base that couldn't support its product.

Seriously, that's the best you got? Companies like Fisker and even Solyndra aren't pointless. The derision comes from fatal flaws in their business plans, the eagerness to fund them without due diligence and the outrageous claims made about their success. Sometimes you just gotta say NO or at least acknowledge your failures. Fisker suffered from bad karma because it was built that way - bad.

perhaps "pointless" wasn't the word I meant to use. I totally recognize the value of what new-tech companies are intended to do. What I meant was that Fisker's business model was lousy, and always doomed to fail....hence why it was a "pointless exercise" so to say, since it could never succeeed trying to sell to such a niche customer base.

oldsaw wrote: Companies like Fisker and even Solyndra aren't pointless. The derision comes from fatal flaws in their business plans, the eagerness to fund them without due diligence and the outrageous claims made about their success. Sometimes you just gotta say NO or at least acknowledge your failures.

I like the idea of the government supporting new technology. They just should do it in a different way.

Tim O'Reilly " Ideal targets for government intervention are "platforms" or platform technologies that enable the market as a whole, rather than bets on individual companies." https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/5eQacBJD5wA

DeLorean syndrome?

Sounds like the few cars that were sold might be worth some coin down the road. Anyone have a count of registered cars?

Answer: Wikipedia says 2,000 delivered worldwide as of Oct. 2012 If they go under, It's gonna be a cool rare car. Much better looking in person.

This failure is just one more example of the government not being able to make a profit on really ANYTHING and never as well as the private sector could.

Private investors and other people to actually answer to are where it's at.

Ever see the difference in a car that was simply given to a kid vs a car that the kid has worked his butt off and spent his own money on?

Tom Suddard wrote: Alternative energy is important. That's why we're funding it. Not to make the government money. Now, bailing out banks is what makes us money. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/11/business/la-fi-mo-aig-bailout-treasury-department-20121211 But yeah you're right Obama sucks.

well that was a pretty poorly thought out, trollish post. I expect better from the magazine staff!

First, your article hardly supports your stance (if it even is your stance, you did use a smilie that could be referring to sarcasm about multiple subjects). Profit is a word that can be bandied about in any which way. I sincerely doubt that 'profit' includes the astronomical amount of billing against this whole deal being put into action. They are strictly talking about the greater Mount of money they received for the extraordinary risk they took with the publics money. They frieking better well earn some money back, which probably barely covers the overall costs of the program besides the short sited 'amount of loan'.

Second, as said elsewhere, all this does is give the government precedence to use our money to bail out the rich so they get to keep their jobs and big houses, while hundreds of thousands (millions) of people suffer for these shiny happy people.

so ya, Obama done goofed. But it sure sounds good wrapped in liberal hippy bias.

(I'm Canadian, therefore, I can't flounder a thread about us politics. My logic is infallible! :p )