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

Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.

That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.

The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.

Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.

Advertisement
-

SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.

The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.

Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading