Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   It only cost Fisker $660,000 to build each of their $103,000 plug-in cars. Talk about doing it wrong   (bloomberg.com) divider line 49
    More: Stupid, Henrik Fisker, plug-in car, Fisker Automotive, General Motors Co., Superstorm Sandy, Solyndra LLC  
•       •       •

2792 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Apr 2013 at 11:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-19 10:29:12 AM  
Fisker has spent $1.3 billion in taxpayer and venture capital money, or $660,000 for each car it sold, the report said.

In all fairness, that includes R+D for the car.  If they had managed to ramp up production they could have recouped those costs.

Also:

Of the cars produced, about 1,600 were purchased by consumers. Another 338 cars were destroyed during November's Superstorm Sandy

That had to hurt the average a little bit.
 
2013-04-19 10:31:57 AM  
And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?
 
2013-04-19 11:45:39 AM  
They will make it up on volumn.
 
2013-04-19 11:47:31 AM  
Don't worry, they'll make it up with scissor sales.
 
2013-04-19 11:48:01 AM  
Well, that's a dumb way to look at R&D costs.
 
2013-04-19 11:52:11 AM  
I saw one a while back - good looking car, thought it was some sort of McLaren.

If I had $103K to spend on a car, it probably wouldn't be that though.
 
2013-04-19 11:59:01 AM  
That's not how R&D costs work
 
2013-04-19 12:02:43 PM  

Nexzus: I saw one a while back - good looking car, thought it was some sort of McLaren.

If I had $103K to spend on a car, it probably wouldn't be that though.


Very good looking car.  Very poorly engineered.
 
2013-04-19 12:09:00 PM  

Lsherm: In all fairness, that includes R+D for the car. If they had managed to ramp up production they could have recouped those costs.


Remember the articles that said it cost a brazillion dollars to make each Chevy Volt?

Funny, now that their sales are steady and on the rise (3x's that of last year) - those claims have disappeared.
 
2013-04-19 12:11:33 PM  
There are three for sale at the Caddie dealership in Tulsa.

I checked them out on a Sunday, (car lots are closed by law on sundays) I would take if I was willing to shell out that much for one.
 
2013-04-19 12:15:13 PM  
We'll make up for it IN VOLUME!
 
2013-04-19 12:17:48 PM  

mcreadyblue: They will make it up on volumn.


Came here to same this, more or less.
 
2013-04-19 12:28:27 PM  
That is some bad karma!
 
2013-04-19 12:28:53 PM  
Done in one.
 
2013-04-19 12:46:55 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?


Throw the baby out with with the bathwater? Same as the stupid whining over Solyndra?

Lsherm: In all fairness


In further fairness, the cars just aren't very good.

I was excited about Fisker initially, but the longer this goes on, the more it looks like they're just the Chrysler/Fiat of the next generation of auto companies. Toyota, Chevy and Tesla seem to be doing hybrids/EVs right. Fisker.... not so much.
 
2013-04-19 12:47:19 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?


Well, toyota was already global company that had been making billions of dollars for decades, it has dedicated R&D budgets, and was already good at building cars. The foundation was there, they just needed to redesign the engine and transmission components. Not that this is easy, but that toyota already has a team of people in place to do this sort of thing. Also, being such a huge company, they are able to absorb early losses on more experimental cars.

Fisker...has been around what? less than a decade and is building a company from the ground up?

/One of these things is not like the other....one of these things doesn't belong....
 
2013-04-19 12:50:54 PM  

KFBR392: Because People in power are Stupid: And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?

Well, toyota was already global company that had been making billions of dollars for decades, it has dedicated R&D budgets, and was already good at building cars. The foundation was there, they just needed to redesign the engine and transmission components. Not that this is easy, but that toyota already has a team of people in place to do this sort of thing. Also, being such a huge company, they are able to absorb early losses on more experimental cars.

Fisker...has been around what? less than a decade and is building a company from the ground up?

/One of these things is not like the other....one of these things doesn't belong....


And Toyota didn't/doesn't rely almost exclusively on government loans for its R&D budget, operating capital, etc...
 
2013-04-19 12:53:16 PM  

mark_bert: We'll make up for it IN VOLUME!


Well, in theory, they would.  Provided the actual costs to build each car were less than the selling price, if they sold enough cars they would eventually make up the fixed costs to design them.
 
2013-04-19 12:58:44 PM  
I saw my first one the other day driving around the 'burbs (Pasadena) by what appeared to be a lost 17-year-old blond girl.
 
2013-04-19 12:59:33 PM  

Lsherm: In all fairness, that includes R+D for the car. If they had managed to ramp up production they could have recouped those costs.


Yeah, but if the government wanted to just fund R&D for non-fuel alternatives they could have gone with DARPA or something, opened up the money as grants to researchers instead of funding a car company. The same goes for the Volt IMO.
 
2013-04-19 01:03:19 PM  
If only they could have made some cuts, somehow.
 
2013-04-19 01:03:46 PM  

chevydeuce: And Toyota didn't/doesn't rely almost exclusively on government loans for its R&D budget, operating capital, etc...


They've also been around for a bit longer than Fisker.

And they needed government help at the beginning.

http://www.toyoland.com/history.html

Sakichi Toyoda, a prolific inventor, created the Toyoda Automatic Loom company based on his groundbreaking designs, one of which was licensed to a British concern for 1 million yen; this money was used to help found Toyota Motor Company, which was supported by the Japanese government partly because of the military applications.

Also...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/03/its-true-toyota-asks-japane se -government-backed-bank-for-2b/

Toyota Financial Services has requested a $2B loan from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, a government-backed lending institution.
 
2013-04-19 01:17:49 PM  
Wow, I thought Bloomberg had real business news.  I guess I was wrong.  Misleading article is misleading.
 
2013-04-19 01:24:39 PM  

Gig103: Lsherm: In all fairness, that includes R+D for the car. If they had managed to ramp up production they could have recouped those costs.

Yeah, but if the government wanted to just fund R&D for non-fuel alternatives they could have gone with DARPA or something, opened up the money as grants to researchers instead of funding a car company. The same goes for the Volt IMO.


Eh I can see the need for stuff like this. Its a steep hill to climb to get such a massive swing in current technology into wide adoption. You need to seed it a little so that the price of the tech can drop. Especially considering the power that traditional fossil fuel holds in Washington.
 
2013-04-19 01:35:32 PM  

chevydeuce: And Toyota didn't/doesn't rely almost exclusively on government loans for its R&D budget, operating capital, etc...


The money to Fisker is a Loan. Toyota also gets loans from their government.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7001748&page=1#.UXF_cLWG2rk

 
2013-04-19 01:37:00 PM  

KFBR392: Well, toyota was already global company that had been making billions of dollars for decades, it has dedicated R&D budgets, and was already good at building cars. The foundation was there, they just needed to redesign the engine and transmission components. Not that this is easy, but that toyota already has a team of people in place to do this sort of thing. Also, being such a huge company, they are able to absorb early losses on more experimental cars.

Fisker...has been around what? less than a decade and is building a company from the ground up?

/One of these things is not like the other....one of these things doesn't belong....


So only global companies that have been around a decade or so deliver new products? I wonder how they get started.
 
2013-04-19 02:32:10 PM  

MrSteve007: Lsherm: In all fairness, that includes R+D for the car. If they had managed to ramp up production they could have recouped those costs.

Remember the articles that said it cost a brazillion dollars to make each Chevy Volt?

Funny, now that their sales are steady and on the rise (3x's that of last year) - those claims have disappeared.


Actually, after reading this article, I may have to disagree with myself.  It doesn't sound like the CEO knew how to do anything except borrow money.
 
2013-04-19 02:39:49 PM  
Let's say you develop a new shoe, build a factory, hire workers, and start producing shoes.  Let's peg that at... $2 Million, total, why not.  The first shoe that rolls off the line just cost you $2 Million dollars.

HOLY shiat A $2 MILLION SHOE LET'S ALL FREAK OUT OMG
 
2013-04-19 02:43:31 PM  
R&D Math fail taken to the EXTREME

... the very first car they produced cost billions to produce, but the second car they produced cut the average cost per car in half.

But they must have been a lot less efficient then, because the third car only brought the average down to 1/3rd of what it cost for the first car (nothing as dramatic as the 1/2 drop from the first car to the second car.

The diminishing returns simply continued with the fourth, fifth and subsequent cars. So that by the time they reached the 100th car, they were only able to improve from 1/99 the cost of the first car to 1/100 the cost of the first car.

// So the moral of the story is, stop after you build the second car because it's all downhill from there.
 
2013-04-19 02:51:14 PM  
I've seen the Fisker at the auto show, and it is a beautiful car.  If I had that kind of money to blow I would be looking at them.  Well, not now since they are bankrupt, but last year when they still looked like a good company.

I hope that someone buys their design and technology, and can make that car a viable option on the market.  It is cool.
 
2013-04-19 03:12:58 PM  

TeDDD: Let's say you develop a new shoe, build a factory, hire workers, and start producing shoes.  Let's peg that at... $2 Million, total, why not.  The first shoe that rolls off the line just cost you $2 Million dollars.

HOLY shiat A $2 MILLION SHOE LET'S ALL FREAK OUT OMG


Right, but if you then only sell ten shoes before you fold, they're $400k a pair and that is worth concerning yourself with.

I think that a lot of people are jumping to Fisker's defense because they want to defend the electric car, while others are poking at the extremely poor business practices that caused the company to spend a fortune in tax-payer dollars to design a substandard car that nobody would buy and then quickly fold.

I'm really taken by the Tesla Model S.  There's one that I see all the time around work, and if I were looking for a full-size luxury car, I'd very seriously consider one.  They're about the price of a loaded 5-series when you factor in the tax breaks and you get a really sweet looking car with a lot of gee-whiz factor.

I'd never have considered a Karma, because they were a status symbol that never really worked right as a car.

/I'll keep my fuel-hoovering M3 for now...
 
2013-04-19 04:03:53 PM  
In today's news.... how retards confuse sunk, fixed, and marginal costs.....
 
2013-04-19 04:12:35 PM  
I'm probably one of the most militant, evangelical advocates of Electric Vehicles on this site (I'm pretty sure some people have ignored me for going too far in an EV thread).  But I won't defend Fisker for a second.  Very poorly run company founded by someone who appears to be a slime ball if not a crook.  Definitely the government will lose out on this one (no way they are getting their loans back).  But overall they are still doing great.  Tesla is paying back a couple of years ahead of schedule.  And the technological advances coming out of all of this is good for everyone.  Even Fisker managed to prop up A123 just long enough to develop some pretty sweet technology (the company didn't survive but the technology did, and managed to stay in the US).

And, like I said, it was a beautiful car.
 
2013-04-19 04:30:16 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?


Toyota is welcome to flush however much of its own money it wants to. Same for Fisker. Trouble is, the federal government is trying to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money and doing a miserable job of it.
 
2013-04-19 04:34:36 PM  
Where
Picture of Tucker
wher
\0/
|
/\
 
2013-04-19 04:47:36 PM  

jjorsett: and doing a miserable job of it.


Actually, it isn't.
 
2013-04-19 05:42:15 PM  
In the late 80s, a desktop computer could still cost upwards of $4. It had less than the power of the phone in most folks' pockets.
Innovations in technology cost big bucks, even if they'll be the best path for our world moving forward. Despite being a loss for Fisker, it's good for the rest of us in the long haul.
 
2013-04-19 06:41:57 PM  
Shoulda stuck with what they know

i34.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-19 06:54:29 PM  

jjorsett: Toyota is welcome to flush however much of its own money it wants to. Same for Fisker. Trouble is, the federal government is trying to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money and doing a miserable job of it.


...he shouted at the world with the help of a whole host of technologies that only exist because of the federal government's work funded by taxpayer money....
 
2013-04-19 07:34:56 PM  

skozlaw: jjorsett: Toyota is welcome to flush however much of its own money it wants to. Same for Fisker. Trouble is, the federal government is trying to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money and doing a miserable job of it.

...he shouted at the world with the help of a whole host of technologies that only exist because of the federal government's work funded by taxpayer money....


SHHH! You might summon QuantumPunctuationMark!
 
2013-04-19 09:31:04 PM  

Hollie Maea: jjorsett: and doing a miserable job of it.

Actually, it isn't.


No, in this case, they did.  Same with Solyndra.
 
2013-04-19 09:35:30 PM  
Didn't Lexus make a supercar with a similar cost / price ratio? Then only made a few dozen because they were supposed to be a bit of a company showoff.
 
2013-04-19 10:37:12 PM  

Lsherm: Hollie Maea: jjorsett: and doing a miserable job of it.

Actually, it isn't.

No, in this case, they did.  Same with Solyndra.


That's not how venture capitalism works.  Christ, for people who have a hard on for capitalism you would think you guys would have at least the slightest inking of how it works.  You never look at specific interests to judge the performance of a venture capitalist.  You look at the portfolio.  No venture capital entity ever bats 1.000.  Hell, an entire discipline (hedge funding) exists predicated on the idea that you are guaranteed to lose sometimes.
 
2013-04-19 10:45:49 PM  

Hollie Maea: Lsherm: Hollie Maea: jjorsett: and doing a miserable job of it.

Actually, it isn't.

No, in this case, they did.  Same with Solyndra.

That's not how venture capitalism works.  Christ, for people who have a hard on for capitalism you would think you guys would have at least the slightest inking of how it works.  You never look at specific interests to judge the performance of a venture capitalist.  You look at the portfolio.  No venture capital entity ever bats 1.000.  Hell, an entire discipline (hedge funding) exists predicated on the idea that you are guaranteed to lose sometimes.


If you actually read the link I posted upthread, you'd realize they only got VC funding after the initial round because of guaranteed government loans.  You'd also realize that eventually new loans were not granted because even the Obama administration realized the company was wasting funds on a level that was ridiculous.

So how about you do some reading, mmmkay?
 
2013-04-19 10:54:27 PM  

Lsherm: If you actually read the link I posted upthread, you'd realize they only got VC funding after the initial round because of guaranteed government loans.  You'd also realize that eventually new loans were not granted because even the Obama administration realized the company was wasting funds on a level that was ridiculous.

So how about you do some reading, mmmkay?


What does that have to do with anything?  If YOU did some reading, you would see that my point is not that Fisker was a good investment, but that you don't judge VC performance by one or two losers (the original person I was commenting to said that Fisker proves the government is bad at VC).
Solyndra was not a bad bet, even though it was a wrong bet--for reasons I stated earlier (ask someone to help you sound out the big words).  Fisker was probably not the best bet, but overall the government's renewable energy investment portfolio has done very well.  And the fact that they didn't give more loans out when it was obvious Fisker sucks in indication that they are good investors, not bad.  Bad investors would have thrown good money after bad in a desperate attempt to regain their money.  The government rightly knew that they weren't going to get anywhere with this one, knew that overall their investments were doing well, and moved on.
 
2013-04-19 11:21:17 PM  

jjorsett: Because People in power are Stupid: And the Toyota Prius lost money in the first generation of cars, so what's your point subtard?

Toyota is welcome to flush however much of its own money it wants to. Same for Fisker. Trouble is, the federal government is trying to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money and doing a miserable job of it.


If you bothered to look at a previous link for someone who made a similar dumb statement -Toyota also borrows money from their government.
 
2013-04-19 11:51:59 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: chevydeuce: And Toyota didn't/doesn't rely almost exclusively on government loans for its R&D budget, operating capital, etc...

The money to Fisker is a Loan. Toyota also gets loans from their government.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7001748&page=1#.UXF_cLWG2rk


I think it's time to ban loans to companies and governments outside of the USA by the government of the USA.  Unless they want to do business in the USA.  But they really have to mean it.  I mean they can't just mfg a bunch of cars in Euro or something and try to ship them to the USA in a storm or something.  I mean they really have to be a manufacturer with a proven record of successful products that people in the USA like to buy.  And they work really good, not just super-long warranty, good stuff.

Because this is what I want Congress to be working on

/drunk
 
2013-04-20 08:49:40 AM  
Since I bought a Chevy Volt, I can't remember how to put gas in my lawnmower. The neighbors are getting angry.
 
2013-04-20 09:50:12 PM  
Delorean
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report