Jan 4, 2016
dha I found this live blog for the Faraday Future presentation at CES later this evening: https://live.theverge.com/faraday-future-electric-car-ces-2016
Does anybody know of a video feed?�
Jan 4, 2016
hockeythug http://www.faradayfuture.com/ces2016/�
Jan 4, 2016
Crowded Mind More discussion on Faraday here: Faraday Future - Page 15
Apparently the concept leaked. Their event starts at 8 PST.
�
Jan 4, 2016
jhm Holy batmobile! Na Na Na Na Na Na Na, Batman!
Well, it beats Sock Puppet Theatre.�
Jan 4, 2016
jak
No way! That looks more like a single-seat race car than a usable road car.�
Jan 4, 2016
Scott Ales
I thought it was a joke when I first saw it. But it's not, you can clearly see how the features match the teaser video.�
Jan 4, 2016
tinm That Faraday car: Batmobile. Toy for the one-percenters. Not practical. Meh. If that's truly Faraday, I'm tuning out.
As for Audobon:
I tend to agree that the Model 3 must stick to $35K, but I fully expect they will offer options that push the price north of $45K even $50K. The base 3 will no doubt be $35K.
But as for the staggering fraction of people who won't go for a Model 3 with lots of options: I would have said the same about the very expensive Apple iPhone. Somehow people find a way to cough up the dough for a real game-changer tech product. I think the same will happen with Model 3. People will find a way. Many will try to lease, and find a way to basically pay an iPhone a month for 36 months...
That is, as long as the Model 3 doesn't come out like a Faraday weirdmobile!�
Jan 4, 2016
Crowded Mind My notes on Faraday presentation (apologies for any errors from haste):
Started right on time! Emphasized how amazing their team is four to five times in the intro. Car under sheet, but appears to be the concept image.
Stating 4 points of differentiation, I have bolded them.
-Team
-Transformative Vision (how can we design vehicles that respect and enhance the environment, new ways of connecting to larger world, how can we create a business that is a new model of ownership, how can we create something safe are the questions they are asking) Now Nick Sampson made a really bad joke comparing to mobile phone business, no laughs.
-Incredible Alliances (Great people and great organizations are necessary. Talking about FFs plant in Nevada -- $1B FF will invest and create 4.5k jobs -- breaking ground in a few weeks.
LETV (Netflix of China) Partnership, sounds like they are partnering closely in hopes of capturing China market. LETV has an auto division that will be separate but still very close partners.
Ding Lei from LETV on stage talking about importance of environment, going electric. 4 areas of importance in transportation (EVs, driven off renewable energy, connected to internet, ecosystem with LETV's entertainment)
Personally super disappointed thus far. No differentiating factor yet. Going on to 4th factor now.
-"We are fast" ("So far we have met all of our important deadlines")
-Nick giving props to Tesla. Waiting for the "but". Here it comes - Tesla founded in '03, five years to Roadster, four more to Model S, etc.
FF founded 18 months ago. "We already have 750 employees", "We will deliver first production vehicle in only a 'couple of years' time". Some half hearted clapping. Talking about their whole design process is digital so it is faster. Don't understand how that could possibly be a differentiator.
Now something interesting, getting into their platform.
VPA = Variable Platform Architecture. All cars will be developed on it. So the VPA can accommodate 1-4 motors, and has flexible battery layout. Battery packs compared to modern christmas tree lights, "if one goes out, they don't all go out."
Can customize vehicles adding more range, more power, etc. based on preference.
"Fully autonomous ready".
Unveiling car now after talking about how platform can be used for luxury sedan, crossover, pickup etc. "We can even go as far as something like this"
FF01 Concept:
^"Aero tunnels"
^Series of battery packs
Now comparing themselves to iPhone like he tried to do earlier. Pretty tacky in my opinion.
Overall opinion, the VPA sounds interesting but I'm not sure how big of an impact that will have. Will need to defer to the engineers out there. I don't see any other differentiators from Tesla other than that. Seem to be focused pretty much on the same thing, as predicted. I think we all want or are at least ok with other EV companies coming up, but something rubs me the wrong way every time I see Faraday. They seem extremely arrogant and condescending for having accomplished nothing. Having a big team means nothing, just means you are spending more money. And by the way, 18 months + "a couple of years" is pretty darn close to 5 years, the timeline Tesla achieved that they openly knocked. Not impressive considering a much larger team and much more funding.�
Jan 4, 2016
Drax7
Another concept car, that's dead on arrival�
Jan 4, 2016
dha I'm getting a very uncanny and sketchy feeling about this whole thing. My impression is that this enterprise is being run by designers, bizdev and PR people. We're pretty far into this thing and there is zero mention of their product or tech. They only cite their "amazing team" and "transformative vision." Their top battery engineer also apparently just left the company: BREAKING: Faraday Future Chief Battery Engineer Leaves Company
I'm seeing shades of Fisker here...an operation that is not prioritizing engineering and is therefore unlikely to succeed. I'm saying this as someone who was truly hoping this presentation would blow my mind. I want nothing more than to see new and compelling entrants building awesome EV's.�
Jan 4, 2016
esk8mw Errr, excuse me faraday but wtf is that? Please tell me they have plans to make something else that doesn't look ridiculous?
why are they building a factory to produce...that? They had me going, though. My hopes for another legit electric car company are shot.
Edit: I am curious to see how TSLA reacts to...that. After reflecting on the SP movement today I couldn't help but wonder if some of the decline was attributed to yet another tesla killer unveiling the murder weapon tonight. Now that we can be assured this is not the case I wonder if TSLA will see a little bump tomorrow. This of course ignores my belief that more ev makers is ultimately good for tesla in the long run.�
Jan 4, 2016
Theshadows I usually don't think things like this but FF's big reveal tonight might help lift TSLA stock tomorrow. They do not look even close to legit to me.�
Jan 4, 2016
AWDtsla Fisker had tons of employees and money at one time too. Execution is the hard part. The most disappointing part was seeing the car driving in CGI, they should have at least had a prototype before the reveal.. Stupid...�
Jan 4, 2016
uselesslogin Just have to say I am shocked by the incredibly poor showing by FF. I mean a one-seater? What is the point in having a fast car you can't give other people rides in. They are basically stealing this Chinese billionaire's money I guess.�
Jan 5, 2016
Hogfighter BWUAHAAAHAAAAAHAAA!!!! OMG I needed a good laugh after yesterday.�
Jan 5, 2016
Johan Agreed. LOL. At least it's got "Super Soft" tyres
They must have been inspired by the Bat mobile.
Only good it does Tesla is to show how there's very little real competition still.�
Jan 5, 2016
StephenM Fallout from the Triple F? (Faraday Future Flop?)�
Jan 5, 2016
farzyness Guys - I think it's VERY important that we are not dismissive of any competition popping up. Remember - most of the world was pointing at Tesla back in the 2000's as Silicon Valley garbage. Let's not lump ourselves in that crowd as well. We should welcome all competition, as it will benefit Tesla in tremendous ways, and validate the capabilities of EVs.�
Jan 5, 2016
Crowded Mind Have you watched the presentation?�
Jan 5, 2016
cgiGuy Not really a benefit though, if everyone sees it as "another rich person's toy." Was really hoping for a serious attempt to "change the world." This ain't gonna do it. Congrats to the 43 people who might own one, though.
And a SINGLE seater? C'mon...�
Jan 5, 2016
farzyness Yep - stayed up past my bedtime at 11pm EST. We can't underestimate the foundation that Tesla has laid out (don't forget, open patents) and the rate of change we may see from car manufacturers moving forward.�
Jan 5, 2016
SBenson Geez, it is a ONE seater for heaven's sake. I don't know if we can even call it a car. This is a massive FAIL, no matter how you cut it.
IIRC Tesla showed a real car with Roadster and they attracted both fans and skeptics with a real car with real performance.
FF guys didn't even open the door of the car on the stage and they have shown CG movie to show it in "action".
I mean really guys how do you even call this "competition". This is some sort of bizarre fantasy, a figment of imagination of a bunch of weirdos.�
Jan 5, 2016
farzyness Tesla started out as a rich person's toy, but it took an excellent team and leader to take that and execute on the initial goal - mass marketability.
- - - Updated - - -
Very true - but it doesn't mean that every company has to execute exactly like Tesla did to become a major player. Look at what Apple did with the iPhone - a massive cut above the rest for a long time, yet most of the market is ruled by non-apple products. I think it's important not to be 100% that FF may fail.�
Jan 5, 2016
SBenson I am out of words here. I don't know on what basis you want to give any benefit of doubt to these guys. Please, the iPhone 1 got standing ovation when it launched. I was just blown away myself when I saw the launch. I recommended all my friends buy the stock (instead of the phone, which of course wasn't meant for masses with first version). FF is utter nonsense.�
Jan 5, 2016
StapleGun Don't make the same mistake many made about Tesla when they unveiled the Roadster. The single seater is not FF's master plan. It was meant to illustrate the flexibility of their Variable Platform Architecture. They mentioned several times that new "core" products would be made on the same architecture.
I certainly have doubts about their ability to achieve what they promised given what we saw last night, but the "HAH!! nobody will buy that!" argument holds no weight when it's obviously not their goal.�
Jan 5, 2016
farzyness That's what I'm saying - Tesla is iPhone. FF could be LG/Samsung/etc.�
Jan 5, 2016
Scott Ales May I please suggest watching this video with an open mind? I watched it for the very first time this morning and now believe the concept car presented last night was not the "Foundation" of their future. Just an element of what they are capable of. Listen for the comment about the "Car" they are working on. It is clearly not the car we're talking about this morning or last night.
Behind the Scenes of the FFZERO1 Concept - YouTube
I'm reserving judgement on the effort for some time later.�
Jan 5, 2016
Drax7 The FF, starting with the copycat name, to the batmobile appearance , to the
one seat cabin, to selecting Nevada state to manufacture is pretty pathetic . The Chinese mentality
to copy falls flat, and to think we would fall for it .�
Jan 5, 2016
Hogfighter My laughter at the prototype car shows my disappointment. These guys are nowhere near as far along as I thought they were in actually producing, in mass quantities, an actual vehicle. And the fact that they spent real money on developing the batt mobile (although I'm personally flattered) shows lack of fiscal restraint, which well may doom the company. Elon said at one time that building a car costs 3 times what you think it will, then double that number.
We all believe in the future of EVs, and I was hoping another company was closer than they actually are.�
Jan 5, 2016
Drax7 FF should contemplate Space Y.�
Jan 5, 2016
WarpedOne Yet they have failed to demonstrate that flexibility.
What was on the stage for everyone to see was some "racerish shell". Anything could be under it and probably there was nothing under it.
They could just show the platform as parts or as skateboard or at least two different bodies and claim they are built on same platform.
What was the point of this presentation?
They would be much better of without it.�
Jan 5, 2016
austinEV I don't give FF any credit for a good plan here, but *one* way to start a new ev company would be to start with a supercar. Basically the TM master plan taken further. They sell a record-smashing speed demon for $200k each, only need to sell a few, that finances a $100k roadster, they sell more, that finances a $70k sedan, etc.
Not saying that is what they are doing, but it is probably what they *should* be doing. Of course they need a better design. That doesn't even strike me as a good supercar design.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill Even assuming they could sell 1000 of a similar-ish car at 200k USD with 50% margin, that's just 100 million USD. It's pocket change considering Jia Yueting is worth around 6 billion USD, and Faraday Future is planning on building a 1 billion USD factory. The bull case for Faraday Future assumes the presentation was a diversion tactic, and that they have no plans to build this car or any similar car.
If Tesla started up today with the same business plan as they have been following over the last decade, they would have failed. The Tesla Roadster was a success not just because it was a good electric sportscar, they were also first. It didn't matter that the Roadster had flaws, or that it was expensive, or that it was delayed. With no competition, Tesla could handle all that stuff. Faraday Future, Detroit Electric or anyone else trying to use the same strategy will find that building an okay sports car just isn't enough anymore. They need to be ahead of the curve, and that is a massive challenge for a new startup.�
Jan 5, 2016
cgiGuy Their goal is to not sell cars, then? Interesting business plan.
Tesla started with a very expensive sports car, but it was far from being a "Batmobile," single-seater, with a special helmut for the driver. It still looked like a sports car with reasonable utility. The FFZERO1 is a joke. And to reveal this as their flagship tells me that they've probably spent more money on marketing than development.�
Jan 5, 2016
Irishjugg Apparently the weird one seater was prefaced with "on this platform we could even make something as crazy as this" to paraphrase.
Apparently they can make a sedan and other, more useful things on the same platform. I don't know why in the hell they would show this ugly mobile instead of one of those, but I think that's where the actual competitive push would come from. It appears that they are nowhere near having any compelling product produced or they would have shown that. Based on no renders, they don't even seem to have compelling sedan/coupes designed yet.�
Jan 5, 2016
CatB I love it, FF will make a huge investment in manufacturing assets in NV that Tesla can pick up for a song after they go belly-up.�
Jan 5, 2016
austinEV Sigh, you are right. My plan wouldn't work. I have an uncomfortable all-company email to write now.
�
Jan 5, 2016
Julian Cox Faraday Future. OK, I did not expect their debut to be that excruciatingly toe-curlingly inept and so extremely out of touch - that came as a little bit of a surprise.
But - let's say they get a free pass - just accept that this is their version of an early nervous Elon in public thing. What is the actual substance here?
Well it turns out to be this: FFs Variable Platform Architecture - YouTube An EV skateboard. Apparently what they were trying to say with the absurd race car is that you can build whatever outlandish thing you like on their EV skateboard and thus by showing some idiotic design built on it then everyone will naturally receive it with the baseline understanding that they could have more easily built something more sensible on it instead, even if they concentrated their presentation on the irrelevant race car body shell design.
So nobody got it, but that's OK.
Bottom line, they look to have an EV platform design that is more advanced than anything except Tesla's. There is a huge market out there and as the first of the me-too entrants this platform may very well find opportunities in it. For example short of collaborating with Tesla it is likely be the quickest way for for various battery manufacturers around the world to cut off supply to traditional auto makers and to go into direct competition against them. If I was running LG, Samsung or BYD I would be interested.
So they have a platform design in an undisclosed state of development that sets them on a timeline similar to Tesla somewhere between 2006-2009 and they have better funding than Tesla did back then plus as the second guy to run the 4 minute mile they have a much easier task of convincing themselves and others what they are attempting to do is possible.
One of the many things they lack is Tesla's experience in developing a real roadworthy vehicle. In 2013 I suggested that one of Tesla's core advantages was essentially a readily reusable platform - a skateboard that they could just mount different body shells on (hardly a revelation considering Tesla's chief designer discussing the Tesla 'skateboard' and opportunity space above it). Whether that remains true or not, Tesla with 30% parts commonality between the S and the X so far actually stands as an example that it may not be quite that simple - at least if the objective is to make a vehicle with an optimized design.
Naturally in reality it is possible to just mount different body shells on the Model S skateboard, and hence it would be possible to do the same with the FF platform - that is, if one was willing to compromise on efficiency and handling for example as a trade off for different looks, functionality and various features that add weight, especially weight at a distance from the vehicle's desired center of gravity. Suboptimal vehicles are currently much easier to produce with ICE when the downside of utilitarian shapes and excess weight is essentially trimmed out by fuel tank size for range, engine capacity for power and just accepting miserable fuel economy figures as a par for the course if you happen to want anything accept a low performance economy car. When the cost and weight penalty of adding more battery capacity becomes less of a cost constraint, suboptimal EVs (in terms of weight and drag) sharing a common platform will become much cheaper and quicker to develop. It is not clear whether FF understands this perfectly or whether it matters much. A very small car company can do very well with niche opportunities while fishing for opportunities to go mainstream.
Secondly they are openly going after a goal that Tesla has been less public about. Autonomous EV fleet. I get the impression that in this regard they think they are pioneering something that Tesla has not thought of - in which case they are delusional (or at least hope that their target audience is). Tesla has been working steadily towards the building blocks of Autonomous EV fleet for a decade and I suspect the issue here is that nobody taking a pay check from the Chinese LeTV billionaire behind FF has dared to explain this to him. For an AI EV Fleet there are a few things that are necessary beyond the obvious (those being an EV with a very low total cost per mile in terms of both energy use, maintenance and amortization and a fully functioning Autonomous driving system). These include a charging network, a servicing network, a really serious OTA network and an automated charger (like Tesla's snake or some equivalent). Tesla has every single piece of the puzzle in a very advanced state of development and a business model that enables them execute to the finish line at least five years and probably a decade earlier than Faraday Future. That business model is augmented by Solar City and SpaceX, the former being obvious regards energy capture and supply and the latter relates its plans to launch a global OTA network of 4000 low-latency broadband Internet satellites (that I suspect will also include centimeter accurate private GPS on a structure-penetrating carrier frequency that will be accessible by a global Tesla AI EV fleet). This is the kind of thing that would allow a delivery van to arrive unmanned at a destination and detach a robot to deliver goods addressed to individual workstations - like Harry Potter's owl carrying a letter addressed to a broom cupboard. This is beyond the wildest dreams of Faraday Future unless FF simply becomes a fabrication shop incorporating Tesla's tech.
So sure. FF is an interesting market entrant that is probably neither as worthless as its own unveil made it appear (obviously they should fire their chief designer for that or at least hire someone that understands the levers of market they are entering to prevent a repeat of that embarrassment). Neither is it good enough (or at least timely enough) to be of any real relevance to Tesla one way or the other except perhaps as a back door to siphon engineering concepts from ex-Tesla hires to Chinese producers somewhat eroding Tesla's perceived negotiating leverage when it comes to establishing Gigafactory and Fremont clones in China.
On balance I think FF is a good thing on the scale where perpetuating ICE is a bad thing and that this first presentation was more an error of style than substance.�
Jan 5, 2016
Johan Wait. You should scam the Chinese billionaire for a few more hundred million dollars and wait until he catches on before you jump ship. Be sure to recruit all your buddies and give them large signing bonuses and super star salaries too.�
Jan 5, 2016
farzyness Good insight Julian - goes back to my comment of not completely dismissing competition that comes around, regardless of how crappy it may look at the onset.�
Jan 5, 2016
Papafox No matter what your views are of Faraday Future's potential, one must admit that the reveal of a batmobile-looking concept car diffused some of the Tesla-killer negative sentiment that could have sprung from the reveal at CES. We dodged a bullet at a time when uncertainty rules the market, and this is a good thing.
What, then, will be the next positive catalyst that will START Tesla climbing TOWARDS its ATH this year?
My guess is that once all U.S. signature edition Model X vehicles are delivered and the majority of Tesla stores have received Model X demonstrators, the market will perceive that Model X production will have crossed an important hurdle.
I see the Q4 ER as a potential catalyst as well, with record deliveries, which will allow for improved GM on Model S, but I have no idea what the numbers will be. The negative of Q4 is likely heavy spending on R&D and other projects needed to move Tesla forward. Is anyone aware of analyst estimates for Q4 yet? Anyone doing any back of the napkin computations about Q4 yet?
The Model 3 reveal in March could kick TSLA into insane mode, but I am hoping to see us heading upward before then.�
Jan 5, 2016
MitchJi But the reason that they made that error appears to be that they have no substance.�
Jan 5, 2016
eloder Yea, I don't think FF's concept car was anything that was supposed to be set to go to production in any form. I think it was more about their skateboard platform (which I still can't figure out why it's different from Tesla, since they do a skateboard, AWD, RWD, and variable battery sizes) and that they have deep pockets and are very serious about moving forward. I won't discount them yet, but I view them as far more a problem for legacy automakers than for Tesla.�
Jan 5, 2016
Julian Cox Oh sure, that should go without saying but I'll second it anyway. In the credible threat department, whatever the eventual fate of FF, in the current world of market sentiment FF made total fools of themselves and totally blew it.�
Jan 5, 2016
madodel But are the trolls diverting any of their attacks to FF? When that begins to happen then maybe they are for real. The paid shills (not talking about the shorts who just try to manipulate the stock price) only do what they are paid to do. So if the oil billionaires aren't concerned to me its not worth bothering right now.�
Jan 5, 2016
AudubonB With FF not being a publicly-traded company, there's not a lot of reason for trolls to spend time attacking it.�
Jan 5, 2016
Drax7 FF, they don't have anything proprietary as far as we know, and they don't have a first mover advantage,
and their product is not priced for wide mass appeal. If they were clever they would invest all their
funds in tesla stock.�
Jan 5, 2016
jhm MetroSolar!�
Jan 5, 2016
tlo ^ This.
My 2 cents on Faraday and other competition:
The potential of FF is not underestimated, as shown with the amount of anticipation for the unveil. Fact is, they have ZERO product to show (they will sell zero of the FFZERO1 one-seater which is only a shell anyway). Until they do, they cannot be viewed as a competitor based on concept alone. This can be said for Apple, ICE manufacturers, Google, Uber, etc. Concepts and large teams mean nothing until there is PRODUCT. Nissan/BMW have some product, but they are inferior. Google has an expensive research product that they have yet to figure out how to bring to market (whereas Tesla has real users using autopilot). Uber actually stands out in that they have a product that leads the ride-sharing market with their technology/network/scale which will continually disrupt/converge with other transportation industries, so Uber will be a player - but it is yet to be seen how the industries will converge.
Back to FF, this is the clearest look at their strategy thus far - FFs Variable Platform Architecture - YouTube
They are basically taking technology that Tesla already has and turning it into a modular platform. Presumably, they will make their own cars as well as sell this platform to other manufacturers, which makes sense for a startup (similar to Tesla did in the early days).
Problem is, they have no product ready, hence the need to show concept videos and a shell of a one-seater supercar to try to build hype. I have no doubt they have a talented team with great ambition, but it just seems like they set an ambitious target to unveil something at CES and it failed to materialize. We are at least 2 years away from seeing any product from them. It's good that they help build some buzz for EVs, but Tesla still has zero competition at the present time.
Tesla has all 4 characteristics of a monopoly (according to Peter Thiel's definition. worth reading - http://genius.com/Chapter-3-5-of-zero-to-one-peter-thiel-annotated):
1. Proprietary technology - best battery/powertrain/charging tech on the market, touch console, autopilot, etc.
2. Network effects - supercharger network, stores/service network, fleet learning
3. Economies of scale - gigafactory, supply chain, supercharger/stores/service network
4. Brand - best rated car, owner satisfaction, most desired by younger generation
FF, at best, can challenge Tesla on #1. Other competitors like Google/Apple have #4 (already a stretch because they are not known for cars) and none else (though they are working on #1 and can possibly catch up on #2 and #3, but there is no substance).
Contrary to what Tesla says about competing with all cars and not just EVs (true in some ways), I actually subscribe to the view that they are a monopoly on EVs and future transport which is a small but growing market (read above excerpt from Peter Thiel about monopolies "lying" about competing in a larger market).
Not meaning to add to the TSLA bullishness here, but the fact is Tesla is delivering hundreds of Model S's and X's every week to very happy customers, assembling battery packs at the gigafactory, and two months away from unveiling the Model 3. The "competition" is non-existent.�
Jan 5, 2016
austinEV FF should have shown a skateboard. Easier and less distracting. Let the viewer imagine their fantasy car on top. I think they couldn't show a sedan/coupe because that would be the design everyone judges and they don't want to commit to one, so they punted and did a sci-fi "car" because they felt they had to show something.�
Jan 5, 2016
esk8mw I agree, and this was a major fail. I understand not committing to a design at this stage, but if they would have announced plans to build a __ seater sedan and a __ seater sports car and [other practical use car] with a range up to ___ miles people would actually take them seriously. Mentioning possible performance stats, price and production date would have been gravy.
Instead, they did....that. Together with the faux shadowy secrecy stuff to try and build hype prior to their terrible presentation it all comes off very amateurish. Why are they contracting to build some big factory when they appear to want to make limited run (and hand built?) supercars or whatever? I think they just want to appear "ahead of schedule" to draw a clear contrast to Tesla. It's just dumb all the way around and I'm disappointed. I want more Teslas out there, even if TSLA takes a short term hit on SP because the market doesn't yet understand that competition is good in the long run.�
Jan 5, 2016
ecarfan I think they did not show a skateboard chassis because they have yet to build even one of them. They possibly have a very rough looking prototype but nothing that they would want anyone outside the company to see.
But even if they had a finished looking skateboard chassis prototype and showed it, it would not have made an impact because Tesla has been producing and selling basically the same thing for over three years now.
So FF made the bizarre decision to try to grab attention by showing a ridiculous Batmobile design that is just a shell with no functional parts. The result was that they look like clueless fools.�
Jan 5, 2016
Drax7 An Elon Musk equivalent is what FF needs, and that is so easy to duplicate.
besides the engineering skills, and learning from first principles,
the reckless passion and willingness to fail is not so common.
ff is a joke, starting with their name.�
Jan 5, 2016
jesselivenomore This. The biggest Tesla related development last night.�
Jan 5, 2016
SBenson Effectively they put themselves into this no win situation. Why bother? Why not stay stealth until they have something concrete? That lack of good judgment is also a big teller.
Maybe they didn't expect this level of negative reaction. Maybe they thought we will all be wowed and amazed. In that case too it says they are out of touch with reality.
It's hard to cut them slack no matter how you see it.
And most importantly, why a Fish for the logo?�
Jan 5, 2016
SBenson This is valid. The video in itself is pretty impressive (not knowing any specifics or engineering behind it). But is this validated in any shape or form? or is this too a figment of imagination?
So now what stops Tesla from doing this more-modular approach? If indeed this is a better approach than the Tesla approach, aren't they giving away the only advancement that they might have made? Tesla with it's resources today can easily replicate or even further fine tune this approach right?
I'm still not sure why they had to come out of stealth mode? Are they looking for investors? more talent? or just got pushed by the big daddy?�
Jan 5, 2016
Julian Cox The FF skateboard is exactly what any manufacturer would opt to do if it was unconstrained by the need to avoid competing with ICE vehicles. The variability of it speaks to a philosophy of seeking to amortize R&D over a range of options as opposed to seeking a design optimization for a specific role.
Tesla's philosophy on the other hand is to tackle tough engineering challenges head-on as a method of adding novel value and gaining competitive advantage. The same philosophy is more self-evident at SpaceX.
This may seem like a trivial difference but it isn't.
Vehicles as good as a Model S or a Model X don't just happen as a result of pouring a bigger battery into any platform until it achieves a desired range. As the battery weight goes up the vehicle performance, efficiency and handling goes down and the cost goes up. If the cell-level energy density goes up to compensate then the safety profile and the cycle life typically goes down and the cost goes up. If you simply wait for a low cost, long cycle life, high energy density, excellent safety profile cell to show up on the market then sure you can make a vehicle like a Model S, just ten years later. The real work (genuine innovation) starts at the intersection of competing design priorities like this.
Anyone can set out to do a CAD drawing of the FF platform or even to produce one and anyone can run the math to prove to themselves that an AI EV with a million mile service life pulling 300 Wh per mile average will wipe out the economics of gasoline. So far nobody is even close to Tesla's execution of that future in reality. FF is simply on the right track (which is way better than most). How they cope with the hard work between having the right idea and producing something that works both engineering wise and economically and in a timely fashion remains to be seen. The chance of FF producing a vehicle that a consumer would purchase in preference to a Tesla is I think extremely low indeed, and that will hamper them severely unless they can somehow avoid direct competition with Tesla by for example taking on the hard work of tackling a particular vehicle type that Tesla is not tackling or selling a service or into some niche where Tesla is not selling. An off-road vehicle or a Chinese government block-buy contract for example. Whether they are smart enough for that remains to be seen. The variable platform thing seems to suggest a desire to take shortcuts at a time when it is possible to get established with solid technical foundations and that does not bode extremely well to my mind. I think the default outcome for FF is to become a design workshop for third parties. If they want to become a vehicle or transit service brand in their own right (i.e. anything like Tesla) then there is work ahead both in engineering and in terms of management that was not on display at CES.�
Jan 5, 2016
Blip Has this become the FF Short-Term thread? :-/�
Jan 5, 2016
MattFishbach Their logo is 2 capital F's, drunkenly falling over to the right. No doubt this symbolizes all the drinking they've been doing the last past six months instead of building a credible prototype.�
Jan 5, 2016
erha Probably not worth it spending more time discussing FF, but I've got a few things to mention.
Looking at the web page and videos of FF they have done a nice job with web design and videos. However, it is impossible to find any details about their plans. I really don't see their need in gathering a lot of attention right now. I wouldn't be surprised if they have spent all their time doing design and PR up until now. I think (not completely sure) that I even saw a sponsored post either on Instagram or Facebook lately. What a waste of money at this time...
Looking at their about page, they list some of their key people. Nick Sampson, their Senior Vice President of R&D and Engineering, worked for Tesla but was let go in 2012 before the Model S was released. Bloomberg reports back then that Musk, referring to Sampson, said he �asked basically for Nick�s resignation� because there wasn�t a �good fit for him within the organization.� Their Vice President of Global Manufacturing, Dag Reckhorn, is spelled Dag Rechhorn at the same page by the way. The about page also says they are aiming for 500 employees by the end of 2015, while I've read other places that they claim they are already 750.
I did have a quick look at their current openings. They have a lot of open positions apparently, but there are, apart for a few exceptions, no description of the positions listed. And for the few positions with descriptions it is only a couple of keywords. For engineering they are hiring all over autonomy, machine learning, electrical, aerodynamic and infotainment. They are also hiring a lot of PR, designers, social media and the likes.
This company is going to burn a lot of cash and I doubt we'll ever see a product. Looks like a bunch of amateurs. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see how even big pocketed Chinese investors can save this company.�
Jan 5, 2016
jhm I, for one, am happy to see Faraday enter the EV industry. I would very much like to see them succeed. I'd also like to see them coordinate with Tesla on many issues. Certainly I would welcome participation in the Supercharger network. It would be cool if they could coordinate on autopilot technology. Specifically, if Faraday uses compatible sensor hardware and programmable driving control, it could license autopilot software from Tesla and participate in fleet learning. I'd also be pleased to see Tesla service centers provide service to Faraday cars and all other EVs. Tesla could even become a dealership for Faraday. All this would depend on Faraday producing a quality product, but the opportunities to work together to accelerate sustainable transport are many. There's absolutely no problem with Faraday developing any new technology that works. The EV industry absolutely needs to work out all the technological options. This is essential to beating oil. I'm tired of waiting for traditional automakers to get serious about EVs. It's time for new entrants to step in. Faraday does not have to compete at Tesla's level. If they can make a batery-mobile better than the average gasmobile, then I want to see them do it. Viva La batmobile!
- - - Updated - - -
This is sad. The 13k decline in Leafs would have offset demand for 500 barrels of oil per day.�
May 7, 2016
Johan After reading this "Q&A" with one of their head engineers slash test driver (!) who is supposedly doing both jobs 50/50 that, with its professional still photos and very Public Relations heavy writing + checking out the video clip of their "mule" driving on a racetrack (but they don't show any part of the actual car, only the track), I'm more and more convinced this whole thing is only a big scam.
Q&A with Faraday Future�s Principal Engineer of Brake and Chassis Controls�
May 7, 2016
BluestarE3 That's it? That's their mule? I could have made a video from the dash of my Prius driving around a track, sped up the video, added sound effects and claimed it was a Model 3 mule. And why does an electric car mule make sounds like that of an internal combustion race car?�
May 7, 2016
Johan When the company is a scam, looking for gullible rich investors that could be wooed by some shiny pictures and slik writing. Their website, presentations and marketing material is the best part of their company; this should be like a blasting warning alarm to investors.�
May 7, 2016
MikeC It's like FF is the company that the bears think that Tesla is.�
May 7, 2016
Johan Absolutely, except Tesla's communications department and media strategy is their weakest link. Like it probably often is in companies ran by engineers.�
May 7, 2016
ecarfan A "Q&A" entirely written by FF. PR fluff. The video clip is meaningless, it shows nothing.
When they produce a car and let non-FF people drive it, I will pay attention. You know, like what Tesla did over 8 years ago.�
May 7, 2016
EV-lutioin Funny, and to think people hassle Elon of having unrealistic timelines, but he actually builds cars and launches rockets.�
May 7, 2016
CButterK This could be a total windfall for Tesla in the not so faraday future! FF could lure investors to ensure funding for their Factory in Vegas, build it out, and then go bankrupt. Tesla could pick up that factory at $0.10 on the dollar with everything in it, and instantly double the production capacity of whatever products Tesla is building at that time...�
May 7, 2016
Johan Except scam companies don't actually invest the investors' money in anything other than keeping up the facade.�
May 7, 2016
CButterK Very True. But iirc, they already broke ground in vegas, have received decent incentives from Nevada, and they already have funding from the Big Chinese backer to at least build out the factory I think...�
May 7, 2016
Johan Broke ground... Well they are putting on a very good show for desperate Nevada folks and they're shamelessly copying Tesla's entire concept (including going to Nevada for an economic incentives package). Except they'll never build anything.
'We plan to succeed': Electric-car startup Faraday Future officially breaks ground on its $1 billion factory
Note the super slick PR material but no technical or architectural specs what so ever on a plant that is supposed to exist in 2 years. Yea right. I also heard they have a great deal on some beachfront real Estate in Idaho.
�
May 8, 2016
EV-lutioin Maybe they should change their name to Faraway Future�
May 8, 2016
Krugerrand 1. I don't think FF is a 'scam'. I believe the intention (to make EVs) is there, they just aren't going about it the right way/have focused on the wrong end of things/don't have the right people and so on...
2. In the early days of Tesla (and SpaceX), I'm quite sure that there were people (like everyone there) who had multiple jobs to do and oversee such as our Mr. Lubbers, who sounds like a total Ironman. So while his current role of looking after all those functions seems impossible, it's not like there's any other choice at this point in time. As a company grows the role of employees becomes more focused across the board.
3. I'm not hopeful they'll succeed long term and I am immediately suspicious of the slickness with which they present themselves and their product in terms of the ability to be successful. For as much as Tesla gets grief about sizzle over steak, FF is currently the undisputed king of EV sizzle over steak.�
May 8, 2016
wdolson The reason there have been no successful automotive start ups in the US since 1925, and very few worldwide since then is the automotive business is not easy to get into. At least not building cars from the ground up. Tesla has only gotten this far because Elon Musk has the ability to rethink everything everyday and change his thinking on a dime if need be.
FF obviously has some slick sales people and maybe they are serious about building cars, but it takes more than just sales, more than just money, and more than just facilities to successfully make cars. Though all three are important factors. A new EV company might make it without someone at the helm like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, but it's a handicap for them not having that kind of talent to keep to the mission even when things don't go well.
I think Elon Musk's awkward delivery style helped sell the brand. Elon thinks too fast for his mouth and he's not comfortable on stage, but to anyone listening carefully it's obvious he knows what he's talking about at least 90% of the time. It's obvious his skills lie elsewhere, and that gets people thinking maybe he's better at making cars than talking about them.
A slick sales pitch on the other hand makes people think that maybe the company is just selling vaporware. Which has most of us reading this thread thinking that way. FF may have substance, but so far it does look largely like a con man's pitch.�
May 9, 2016
ZachShahan You can believe me or not (up to you), but have had some off-the-record communications with FF people and it leaves me with the impression they are definitely trying, that it's not a scam. That said, their goals are pretty insane and I think the style of PR that they have been doing is often counterproductive ... except that it may not be for its actual aims... (which are not to scam, but to grow very quickly -- which faces many uncommon problems).
FF is obviously facing a tremendous challenge right now, and the number of skeptics are sure to be higher than the number of believers. From everything I've seen, I'm neither. I'm just watching. My hopeful side wants to see another fully electric player in the space. My critical side isn't very hopeful. We'll see.
And... if you want some more on-the-record stuff and haven't seen this, here's my video interview with Nick Sampson from ~1 month ago:
Interviewing Faraday Future�s SVP of R&D, Nick Sampson (Exclusive Video Interview)�
May 9, 2016
tftf FF mainly depends on backing from LeEco (at least for now). So to judge FF and its progress, keep an eye on LeEco:
China's LeEco teases its very own autonomous electric car�
May 16, 2016
electracity Yes, FF at CES was a mistake. Car makers need to sell more like consumer electronics now. Apple showing a wild iPad design that they never intend to build would be treated like a joke. FF showing the shell of a batmobile that they never intended to make was rightly treated as a joke.
I don't know why FF would pursue a plan in the U.S. and forgo the protection of starting in China.�
May 16, 2016
wdolson I agree, that is a mystery.
They probably wanted to tap into the design talent in California (partially picking off Tesla employees), but they could design it in California and build it in China. Everyone but Tesla does that.
Selling in the Chinese market is also safer. China is a growing market and the rest of the world is stable with mostly just replacement of existing cars. In a growing market you can make more mistakes and survive than in a stable market. Being funded by a Chinese billionaire gives them a ticket into the Chinese market that Tesla doesn't have.�
May 16, 2016
Johan The did gone got legal counsel Chen. It's all about them Benjamins. Whatta loser. He couldn't even win one dealership fight in one state for Tesla so good riddance. They need Johnny Cochran with the Chewbacca defense:
Chewbacca defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
�
May 16, 2016
brianman Ah, and maybe that's the plan - get acquired by Tesla to be the communications and marketing department.�
May 16, 2016
wdolson There is a saying among lawyers:
If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If neither is on your side, pound the table.�
May 17, 2016
ZachShahan Hmm, that made me think to go check the latest US elections news....�
May 23, 2016
neroden ...and he researched the business model of all the successful car companies in the pre-1925 period, found the common elements of the succesful ones, and copied them. I'm absolutely amazed that none of the other startup electric carmakers did this, but they didn't; Tesla is the only one which used the tried-and-true business model from the 1910s. Musk even *published* the business model online, and nobody else copied it.
Aptera was also really trying. So was Fisker and they even sold a few cars. Rimac is in a position to execute the business model if they want to and can find financing (wheel hub motors give them an advantage if they can deploy that advantage properly). Faraday Future is currently vaporware, though I certainly hope they start executing.�
May 23, 2016
palmer_md That is not correct. They do not have hub motors. In fact the motor/gearbox assembly is similar looking to Tesla except that instead of a motor on one side of the gearbox and an inverter on the other, they have a motor and gearbox for each side of the vehicle mounted back to back. So yes, they have an individual motor for each wheel, but they are not in the hub but are mounted inboard at the center of the vehicle. This gives them the ability to use torque vectoring and may be what you were thinking.
Rimac Automobili Explains All Wheel Torque Vectoring (w/video) - Inside EVs�
May 23, 2016
Snerruc Hub wheels were tried 40 years ago. The unsolvable problem is unsprung weight. Talk to ride/ handling engineers.�
May 23, 2016
neroden Yes, actually this is what I was thinking, thank you. "Wheel motors" is what I actually meant. Having one motor for each wheel is ideal, and having them sprung is ideal, so Rimac has an excellent design.�
May 25, 2016
mspohr News in Electrek about Faraday Future.
Apparently they are in negotiation for 157 acres of land on Mare Island (SF Bay Area).
Faraday Future is already working on a second factory, this time in California
In spite of the odd PR releases, it looks like they are serious about making electric cars. Hopefully something mainstream that will have a good market.�
May 26, 2016
neroden How much money *does* Faraday Future's rich Chinese backer have, anyway? The reason Tesla has followed its business plan is that it's the only way to build a new car company with a reasonable amount of money. "Reasonable" meaning the hundreds-of-millions to billions which Musk and the other early investors put in.
By contrast, "build two factories and massively staff up before you've designed a car, and after you've managed a giant publicity belly-flop" is usually a good plan for burning large amounts of cash with nothing to show for it. If the backer of Faraday Future has about $100 billion dollars of his own, it probably doesn't matter. If he only has $5 billion, he's playing with fire.
It looks like Jia Yueting's wealth is only $7.8 billion. At this rate he could easily burn all of that without getting a successful car out. I wish them the absolute best, but don't think they're being cautious enough.
Tesla was actually very, very cautious in a number of ways. This is something which is not usually appreciated about Musk: he has a pretty decent sense of risk assessment and has done fairly well at risk mitigation, which is contrary to his image as an extreme optimist.�
May 26, 2016
kenliles Good point. I think that translates to:
He's just smarter than most everyone else, across the spectrum�
May 26, 2016
neroden Not really -- he's done a terrible job with all his marriages! So there's an area he's not smarter in.
He happens to have a combination of talents which is perfect for things like sending rockets to Mars or overturning the automobile industry.�
May 26, 2016
Krugerrand That's not a fair comment for a number of reasons. And you know that being married yourself.�
May 26, 2016
neroden Well, having followed Justine Musk's blog... Elon could have been a lot less competent in his personal relationships and plenty of people are, but he screwed up his first marriage with what are essentially rookie errors. And I do know that, being partnered myself and in a stable relationship for 18 years because *I learned how to do it*.
The polite way to put it is, perhaps, that he had other priorities than marrying someone he could live with for the rest of his life, had other priorities than making his marriage work, and decided to let it fail. From what we can tell from what's come out in public, he proceeded to screw up his second marriage largely by repeating the same mistakes.
This does not indicate smarts in this arena. But hey, nobody's smart about everything. I don't have $100 million from co-founding PayPal.�
May 26, 2016
kenliles too late
clearly�
May 27, 2016
Krugerrand It takes two to tango.
Everyone is always very clear what the other person did wrong and not necessarily what they did wrong. Her repeated need to shout to the world after the fact what an awful person he was says more about her than him. It's no secret she's very bitter and angry. Maybe move on.
Their lives together changed dramatically and when that happens it often sends people in two different directions - especially when fame and money is part of that dramatic change.
The death of a child is often unbearable. While it sometimes brings a couple closer together, more times than not it rips them apart.
It takes two to tango. It's not like she didn't know where his priorities laid or his time was spent.
Both times the marriage ended amicably, which is quite different than the first one. We don't see her blogging about what a horrible husband he was. Hmm...
25 years of marriage with plenty of days in there of wanting to kill each other...if only a weapon had been handy...
I'm quite sure he made mistakes, maybe even repeated some mistakes along the way, but surely you can find enough to criticize him about without getting into the personal arena, which is often behind closed doors (and should stay there) and which we aren't privy to from both parties.�
Aug 11, 2016
mspohr Latest on Faraday Future and LeEco:
Faraday Future�s Chinese backer LeEco will build a ~$2 billion factory to produce 400,000 EVs per year
Looks like LeEco will be building a combination car factory, amusement park and multimedia experience in China.
This should be interesting.�
Aug 11, 2016
EV-lutioin It all sounds pretty LeSilly to me.... go to a LeAmusement park to drive LeEco LeCars and listen to LeMusic. Oh boy....�
Aug 11, 2016
22522 Why do I think the atieva folks are better?�
Aug 11, 2016
madodel That the dancing bears will take seriously. How bizarre.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét