Fisker Nina spy photo March 29, 2012

i think it looks great... only problem is that company itself has no engineering experience (as reports on Karma show), but Fisker as car designer is obviously good.

 

I'd like to think so . . . but they're now going to have to replace $55 million in batteries due to defects:

DailyTech - A123 Systems to Replace Faulty Fisker Karma EV Batteries for $55 Million

How a startup company can gag down a loss like that . . . I don't know. It's one thing to buy a 1st article from Toyota or Nissan but a totally brand new - from the ground up auto, imo that takes a lot of faith to pony up $100K.
.

 

Uhm... Last I heard, it isn't the company that has to gag it down, but A123, since it was THEM who messed up the battery that got put in x number of cars. Fisker is just extending the warranty on those cars for those affected, but A123 is replacing those batteries out of their own pocket as it was a manufacturing error.

 

If you dont control but outsource main component of your product, then it is your fault. Why do you think Toyota invested so much money in batteries?

Fisker on the other hand doesnt really engineer core components of their cars, so obviously it is their problem.

 

You do realize... There is a SERIOUS flaw in your arguement there.

That is like saying it is HP/Dell/Lenovo's fault that Intel put out a bad CPU. Or it is their fault that Japan's Tsunami which affected production of several key components for SSDs, Hard Drives and Memory. Given those are main components of a computer, which is also outsourced...

While Fisker aren't serious engineers as some of the other automotive companies, the logic in that argument is still incorrect.

 

I am saying they are packaging other companies product, nothing more... they have no leg up on their competition. Someone else can come in tomorrow and buy same batteries and build a better car.

This is not computer market where everything is commodity.

Car manufacturers differentiate with their technology, that they own. Thats how they control innovation, technology, costs, quality. If everything is being supplied by 3rd party, you are doing nothing and you are susceptible to faults at your suppliers at much greater level. And you depend on them greatly. You have no innovation of your own. You do not control the cost, or the quality.

Hence Toyota building 1.1 million Hybrids this year, and everyone else building less than 50k. You cant expect on someone else to innovate instead of you because innovation means huge investments, and then if they do, to give it to you below cost.

I bet BMW could get batteries from A123 at half the cost they will get them from Toyota. Yet they will still buy them from Toyota.

Car manufacturing is nothing like computers. All the manufacturers are building their own engines, with very small amounts of shared engineering. In fact probably less than before. Because engine/drivetrain is key differentiatior.

 

looks good
so NINA.. also NINA price?

 

And you just proved my point in a serious FLAW in your argument. BMW can get the batteries at half cost from A123 over Toyota, and yet still buy from Toyota... That does not make BMW, for instance, directly responsible for a manufacturing mistake by either Toyota or A123 with regards to the battery. While BMW will do a recall and replace, their responsibility is the labor to replace, not the cost of the part, which is where it comes from *gasp* the manufacturer of the defective part. The cost mentioned is the expensive part, the battery, the labor, while not cheap, is not nearly as expensive as the part that has to be pulled out and fully replaced.

The most expensive part on most computers is the Memory and the CPU, next to the Video card. If Intel or AMD makes a flawed part, that is on THEM, not Dell or HP or IBM. If that part does damage to the board or other parts, again, that is on Intel or AMD as their flaw created the problem. If the BOARD on the computer goes flambe, that's on Dell or HP or IBM because they designed and had it manufactured that way. Why do you think when Sony released a bunch of defective lithium ion battery cells, despite it being several DIFFERENT computer manufacturers having to recall it, was held responsible for the issue? Cause *gasp* they were the manufacturer of the material in question that spanned across several computer distributors.

This is why Toyota is responsible for their own battery, as you pointed out... THEY MADE THEIR OWN. Fisker did not make their own battery, they outsourced it and it is on A123's head for the manufacturing mistake.

 

Let's try to get some of the facts straight. BMW does not currently buy any batteries from Toyota. It buys lithium from A123, as well as JCI-saft, and SB-LiMotive. A123 is new to manufacturing, but does not appear to have defects in the low volume of batteries sold to BMW, these are different than Fisker. Toyota also does not make cells, they realy on panasonic. The manufacturing piece that went wrong for fisker was in manufacture of the packs, not the cells. For toyota PEV - a joint venture between panasonic and toyota - manufactures these packs.

GM evaluated A123 during the volt and did not think their manufacturing capabilities were good enough, so gave the design win to LG Chem. It is here where you might criticize fisker. They took a chance on a vendor with little experience on the complex pack. A123 has advantages in cell design. Toyota reliance on PEV and panasonic likely delayed the prius phv. This is one problem with verticle integration. GM was the master of vertical integration and it caused them a great deal of trouble. The shared technology with BMW on batteries is a way for Toyota to reduce the risk of vertical integration by sharing costs. Toyota was burned much worse than fisker by a supplier relationship. THere was a massive recall of gas pedals if you recall.

I think you mean fisker. This would be a very minor problem, but for the fact that they are in default of their loan. With supplier problems, and loan default negotiations, it really hurts. Fisker took money to build the Nina and used it to get the Karma out.

If the cells on toyota batteries are bad its the vendor panasonic. If its the battery its PEV which toyota majority owns with panasonic. Either way its toyota's responsibility to test them and fix them fast. In the US both toyota and bmw buy JCI batteries for 12V. Many replace prius batteries now with optima which is a better part, also part of jci.

Did Fisker fail in QA on the parts and cars?
http://www.torquenews.com/1075/did-fisker-deliver-karma-it-was-ready-doe-loan

 

Uhm... I think you are confusing the Aux Battery with the Main battery which spwolf and I are arguing. Unless suddenly, the Hybrid Main battery is about the size of a small box with pencil terminals. Which I don't think it is compared to the other pictures of what the Hybrid Main Battery is, Austin.

 

No confusion. JCI, the same company that makes the lithium traction batteries in the BWM Activehybrid 7 and now in trouble Ford Transit Connect EV, also makes the 12V in most US built cars and trucks. The talk was about vendors. BWM is using JCI, on of the big autosuppliers, as well as A123 on different cars. There are plenty of battery vendors that can do lithium volume, not just PEV. Panasonic right now has a virtual monopoly on Nimh though with its purchase of Sanyo, so no one can produce huge numbers of nimh battery packs but PEV. BMW in its electric car is using SB_LiMotive which is a joint venture between autoparts supplier bosch and battery maker Samsung.

 

Uhm... No. The discussion wasn't simply about vendors... The discussion was who was responsible for what. A123, for instance, was responsible for the battery pack system Fisker used. In the VERY announcement with regards to the problem with the Fisker Karma car, A123 claimed responsibility for the manufacturing mistake with the battery system that would cost them $55 million.

You also went from the Main system battery to the Auxiliary battery, as the Optima Battery is replacing the auxiliary battery in the Prius, not the main system battery.

 

It may sound flawed ... but most of the U.S. does NOT find flaw in that reasoning. Who can't remember the Ford Explorer getting FORD'S reputation dirtied, back when roll-over deaths occurred, as the Firestone tires blew out:

Tire Trouble: The Ford-Firestone Blowout - Forbes.com

In the U.S. the Ford / Firestone arrangement is called a, "Joint-Venture" ... where both profit from there dealings, and both share responsibility for the pitfalls. the a123/Fisker automotive 'product' too, is a joint venture. When products fail due to multiple defendants (think Volt fires ... or Explorer roll-overs), with litigation resulting, the plaintiffs (at least in CA, but several other states as well) can sue one or the other defendant for all damages. Then it's up to the defendants to hash out between their selves how they apportion blame among each other. That's over simplified to get the concept across ... but yes - Fisker doesn't get a free pass, just because they bought batteries from another ... not1 unless the 2 parties specifically contracted "fault" as part of their original agreement. Only a company run by fools would sign such an agreement.

.

 

And again, you missed in your own point... Firestone also pointed the issue was not just the tire but also the issue of the Explorer in and of itself as being a safety hazard. Which, in and of itself, was also an issue with the design of the SUV and the design of the Explorer's safety.

Secondly, you as well as the other ignored the following:

A123 Replacing Batteries That Led to Fisker Karma Shutdown - Bloomberg

A123 replacing battery that failed Fisker Karma during testing - chicagotribune.com

A123 fixing problem batteries, including ones for Fisker’s Karma — Cleantech News and Analysis

In each article... A123 claimed it was THEIR fault and it will cost THEM $55 million. Not Fisker, not anyone else. It was a mistake in their production of the battery modules that caused the problem. In the last article, A123 is a SHAREHOLDER in Fisker. However, it is A123 that took the hit for the mistake. And lastly, the issue was not a safety issue. But again... Trying too hard to put the blame in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

 

you dont seem to be able to understand what I am trying to say, while Austingreen is as usual trying to defend american companies .

Battery is differentiation in EV vehicle. Simply using someone else's tech is not going to work well, as these issues with Volt, Karma are showing. You can not expect someone else to develop high tech part and sell it at low cost to you.

And Austingreen - 12v batteries are commodities. What is production capacity of any of these companies for car lion batteries? 10k a year? What exactly are we talking about here? Thats peanuts.

BMW is currently buying from whoever, but they are buying 500 per year. And when they needed more, they saw that they can not go with A123 or JCI but decided to go with Toyota, just like what Ford did years ago when they licensed Toyota tech and used Toyota owned suppliers to get their hybrids going.

In the any case, these are not movies of companies serious into development of future generations of vehicles, to me it seems they are trying to mitigate the costs to someone else and that means they are not serious about technology.

I dont think Ford is serious when they outsource battery to companies that end up in bankruptcy as Azure did (where JCI is partial owner), and plenty of others like Think, Ener1, etc. A123 lost 250 million last year and 158 in 2010. Will they even be here in 2015? When you rely on this company to do all your work for you, to me it shows you are not serious about your business.

On the other hand, you have Toyota buying lithium ore mines around the world. Just think about this. Ford, GM are buying tech from startups. Startups are thinking on how to survive tomorrow. While Toyota is buying up lithium ore mines so they can control the technology from ground up.

We will see what happens in 4-5 years when PHEVs and EVs become more familiar sight in the showrooms, but I predict one company will again, sell most of them.

 

actually OZC is/was using a sandforce controller. the controller would give you bsod. OZC learned their lesson and bought a controller company late last year. lesson learned control everything. (pardon the pun).

for now buy ssd's with the marvel controller like crucial.

 

Spwolf, I understand COMPLETELY... It is the argument people are taking is incorrect. While you may be correct that it is best for the company to be directly involved or engineer the parts in question, the simple fact is, that not all companies, even serious ones, will be able to match the power of other companies when it comes to being able to design, engineer, and/or manufacturer the parts in question.

Slowturd - I have worked with Crucial SSDs, they are also not 100% perfect. I have had some fail for no reason within a year. And by fail, I mean literally cannot access data. But this argument also ignores the point made. Blaming the company for inability to produce things due to critical components that are manufactured in Japan but could not be delivered due to the tsunami killing production.

The problem here is, a lot of this whole thing is being viewed at a myopic level. Small car companies trying to do the 'big thing' not all of them are going to have all the resources into some things. I know one small company that is growing rather quickly where they didn't exactly have all the people for several things and is trying to hire for that level of talent, but at the same time, they do have to do exactly the thing I pointed out. Rely on outsourced components that are critical for said systems while also engineering the system.

 

Yes, I agreed with you on A123 was responsible for the fault. Fisker was responsible for QC on their cars before they made it to reviewers and customers. No one got hurt, but both companies got black eyes.

I understand this was confusing to you, and apologize. Not important to the argument, other than showing one of BMW traction battery suppliers is capable of massive high quality fulfillment.

LG Chem should have capacity of over 100K per year. Nissan has the most Lithium capability. JCI has the most experience supplying batteries to car companies and can ramp up quickly with design wins, to millions of batteries a yar. SB LiMotive is small but the parents Bosch and Samsung can ramp up quickly. There are big companies here

The deal says that Toyota is buying their tech - diesel engines - from BMW. It said the two companies are sharing R&D. BMW is buying from everyone to see who is going to be the winner, they have no comitment to buy batteries from Toyota, no matter how much you keep saying they buy them now. If Panasonic has the best tech at the time, they may buy some from Toyota, or cells from Panasonic. Last I checked panasonic was not a wholey owned subsidiary of toyota. They are a fierce competitor, and bought their biggest competion, for Lithium technology.

Try to keep some facts straight.

 

you always have trouble with keeping the facts straight.

You somehow think that producing nimh and lion batteries is world apart. It is not. They are going to be using same factories and production lines. Toyota already spent $120 million to add 100,000 capacity for lithium battery production in its PEV.

Who are these other companies going to produce their batteries for? All these other cars together dont sell 30k/year while Toyota produces a million.

Economies of scale is completely different.

From European magazines, BMW will actually buy the tech from Toyota. Rest is just mambo jumbo just like when Ford licensed Toyota tech and bought systems for their hybrids from Toyota.

Main story here is that only Toyota is significantly investing into technology. Almost everyone else is working on their PR's.