Connect with us

News

Farewell Fisker. Hello Tesla!

Published

on

Click here to view original web page at www.autoblog.com

Not The First, Nor The Last Dreamer To FailLike DeLorean and Preston Tucker before him, Fisker underestimated the amount of capital it takes.  The departure of Henrik Fiskerfrom his self-named car company adds yet another name to the list of dreamers who thought they could be successful automakers.Whether or not he goes down in history a Gaston Chevrolet or John DeLorean depends on the current managers at Fisker, with whom Henrikcited as having irreconcilable differences over the future of the hybrid luxury car company.This is not to say that Fisker’s dream is doomed, but the company he founded faces a number of severe challenges to its survival as an independent make.Like DeLorean and Preston Tucker before him, Fisker underestimated the amount of capital it takes to be in the business. While the business model of having a supplier, in this case, Finland-based Valmet, building a high-priced limited-edition car had merit, in execution Fisker fell short of the mark of meeting expectations. It took far longer than anticipated to bring the Karma to market. Quality problems, issues with battery supplier A123 and the port disaster during Hurricane Sandy that destroyed 300 cars dogged the company.
Matt DeLorenzo is the former editor-in-chief of Road & Track and has covered the auto industry for 35 years, including stints at Automotive News and AutoWeek. He has authored books including VW’s New Beetle, Chrysler’s Modern Concept Cars, and Corvette Dynasty.

If these setbacks weren’t enough, the ambitious plans to build a second lower-priced model,

the Atlantic, in the old General Motors’ Wilmington, DE, assembly plant, also diverted attention and resources needed to make the Karma a success.

Fisker’s approach stands in stark contrast to that taken by Elon Musk and Tesla, and therein lies the difference in where the two companies stand today.

Fisker’s approach stands in stark contrast to that taken by Elon Musk and Tesla.

While Fisker has a great auto industry background, he came to the table with virtually no money, relying on others to fund his dream. By contrast, Elon Musk is an auto industry neophyte who happens to be a billionaire thanks to PayPal. While Musk does have outside investors, he wasn’t afraid to dip into his own wealth to keep Tesla alive at critical junctures.

The other big difference is in the products themselves. The Karma is what I would consider an outside-in car, as opposed to Tesla’s inside-out approach. Fisker, as a designer, penned a beautiful car that, beneath the skin, used a drive system that sourced componentry from existing manufacturers. Tesla, however, began first with its proprietary drive system and sourced its Roadster – the car around the drivetrain-from Lotus, before engaging designers to do the Model S and Model X. Beyond that, rather than relying on other manufacturers for key parts, Tesla has licensed its technology to and has gotten investments from Toyota and Daimler-Benz.

Advertisement
-

And while Fisker’s plans for the Wilmington plant have stalled, Tesla was successful in converting the former GM-Toyota plant in Fremont, CA., over to Model S production using former managers from Toyota.

Without its founder, what then are the prospects for Fisker? The biggest loss and calling card for Fisker is the man himself and his design sense. Both the Karma and Atlantic are distinctive-looking vehicles and whether or not that design legacy can be built upon will be a key to the future success of the brand.

The biggest loss and calling card for Fisker is the man himself and his design sense.

As for remaining independent, given the current state of finances, that’s not likely. It had been reported that

Fisker was negotiating with the Chinesefor either an infusion of cash or an outright sale in order to save the company.

A likely scenario would be Fisker’s acquisition by a car company looking for an upscale brand to complement its standard offerings. Fisker is attractive on that score for two reasons. The first is that it is somewhat established in the marketplace with a look that is still fresh. The second would be the fuel economy credits that Fisker can generate thanks to its plug-in electric technology.

Whether or not the current management can find such a partner will be the difference between whether Fisker becomes a mere footnote in automotive history or a marque that endures.

Advertisement
-
Advertisement
Comments

News

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.

Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.

The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.

SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’

Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.

Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.

Advertisement
-

The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.

The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.

Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.

Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders

Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.

Advertisement
-

Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.

Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled

This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.

FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut

While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.

There Will Be a Lot of Hype

What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.

One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Cybercab fleet grows in Austin ahead of launch event

It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.

On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”

Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”

In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.

Advertisement
-

The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.

Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.

That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.

Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”

SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success

That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.

Advertisement
-

Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.

One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.

Continue Reading