New Fisker Owner Lu Guangiu vows to take on Tesla

Sorry but lots of sources. I didn't hear about it from Mike. The story is true. In 2010 18 people attempted suicide at foxcomm 14 suceeded, many during iphone forced overtime. Solution to the suicide problem was not improved working conditions, but suicide nets to get that sucessful suicide rate down.
Fear Factory - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central
It is ofcourse done by many manufacturers of products we buy, and far from sensationalistic, we need to shine a light on these abhorant practices. Some of the presure has gotten tim cook to move the mac pro manufacturing to the US, and tell foxcomm to reduce the amount of illegal overtime, yes they have been violating Chinese work rules and can do something about it.

Last year we heard overtime was cut back and they were installing enough toilets. A 15 year old working for pegatron, died while working massive overtime for the iphone 5c release. Good news, it wasn't suicide it was pneumonia. I mean no direct work related cause right. Umm 15 years old workers are still making our iphones And instead of being sent home when they get pneumonia they work overtime. I guess he had a fake id saying he was 20. Did they even look at his face?
Apple's Supplier Labor Practices In China Scrutinized After Foxconn, Pegatron Reviews - Forbes

 

In this we agree. However, you've helped identify the perception problem assigned to Apple users just as all Prius owners are assumed to be "Green."

The implication is:

• By citing Apple - their customers will show their high moral character and switch to Microsoft products made in pristine work environments by happy employees singing the corporate song. Not like the earlier perception of "lowest cost at any price" cut-throat common in the PC/Windows world.

It also goes along with the assumption Prius owners are all 'Green' because it is the only way Detroit can fathom why anyone would buy one. Even now, we have Prius owners who seem to believe we all hold a single, political point of view.

Yes, I know some corporations and industries are notorious for poor labor practices. But too often it comes over as someone trying to do 'back-handed' marketing to get customers to switch products and vendors. There are of course degrees but I'm skeptical of attempts to do 'slander marketing.'

Bob Wilson

 

No, but many of us prefer that workers earn a living wage and decent work conditions.

Apple was brought up, I just ran with it. I have done work with manufacturers in China, and you can provide a good work environment. Foxcomm is the cheapest but violates even Chinese labor standards. Unfortunately I have had the discussion with apple employees that also do not like it. The iphones biggest competitor is samsung, that unfortunately also have poor working conditions. For computers you can find many that don't go for these labor practices. The X-box also was sited in the piece I sent you, for poor labor practices. People need to let the manufacturers know that this is not acceptable. I know many shop at walmart and could care less about a living wage and decent working conditions for the people that make the products, but when we are exporting jobs to be green in the US and Europe, we should look at the effects.

No slander intended. I use samsung, apple, and microsoft products. Unfortuanately all three are more interested in profits than people, and the awful situation with suicide nets is an image that should stick with us. I mean forcing sick people to work over 60 hours a week, 12 years in prission for trying to set up a union, not having enough bathrooms, 15 year old workers. I would rather pay more, but they have ganged up and we get everyone is doing it. It isn't samsung that blew the whistle they have bad practices too.

Samsung Shifts Plants From China to Protect Margins - Bloomberg
I hope that samsung will treat workers in vietnam better than they have in china, but only pressure will make that happen.

 

Back in "The Good Old Days" the 60 hour workweek was standard--10 hours per day, 6 days per week. If you want Saturday off don't come back Monday.

We don't have suicide nets because locking the doors and windows is cheaper. In the coal mine it is better to lose a man than a mule because we paid for the mule.

The corporate mindset hasn't changed. Conditions improve when workers, customers and owners stand up and demand change.

 

I'd counter with: Conditions (only) improve when: MANAGEMENT sees PROFIT in the change, or are FORCED to react by government rules they can't find ways to DELAY, CIRCUMVENT, or IGNORE.

 

I don't think either the Fisker or that blue 70s car look good. Plus the Fisker received a lot of bad reviews for poor quality control (fit & finish). I remember when I testdrove the Tesla and told the salesman: "This is not a $70,000 car." Well ditto for the Fisker. When I pay almost 3 times the price of a Fusion or Civic or Prius, I expect 3 times the interior quality.

 

It may have been more of a success, if there had been a more efficient way to couple the gasoline engine to the drive-train. After about 30 miles, the EV battery is depleted, and after that the energy is converted from gasoline to electricity, and back to kinetic energy, which is a very inefficient way to use gasoline. Not surprising that it's mileage on gasoline is so dismal.

 

I think you have missed the point of the fisker. Think about what fisker designed before like ashton martin's.
Compare Side-by-Side

To be fair, the big problem is the weight is too high for the drive-train. That means acceleration is not what it should be. Using it as a serial hybrid is no problem. The big problem is that acceleration sucks compared to the tesla S, and that is also a heavy car. The telsa S 85kwh gets 89 mpge, the fisker only 54 mpge. All around bad design for a performance car, 6.3 in sport mode (using gas and batteries, versus tesla S 60kwh at 5.4 seconds and performance 85kwh at 4.4 seconds both all batteries. Add the reliability problems and you leave a big opening for the bmw i8, more expensive than the fisker, but much lighter with better acceleration. The i8 fills that spot that the karma was seeking, but bmw looks like they did not rush it to market.

 

The Fisker was 'styled' to appeal to the likes of Bob Lutz without the efficiency necessary to be practical. I can appreciate the effort but not admire the result. So Lutz claims he will put Corvette power plants in some Fisker gliders . . . why?

Is there something wrong about the Corvette styling that a Fisker shell fixes?

Bob Wilson

 

Lutz doesn't have a say about it anymore?

 

Lutz really has little to do with GM today. He wanted to buy the cars for low volume convsion so his company VL motors would make a little cash. He hoped to sell them to other rich people like himself. Think of it kind of like selling deloreans. Some people will buy them, and they are fairly unique.

So the answer is to make money. duh. But Wanxiang bought the company and A123, so lutz will be able to buy the shells cheaply. The billionaire running the company really wants to have a plug-in car company. The intellectual property of fisker is pretty worthless, and the company didn't cost them much, but wasn't worth much. This will make it less costly for fisker to make bodies for their own cars.

Never Bet Against Bob Lutz: VL Destino a Go Under Fisker’s New Chinese Owner – News – Car and Driver | Car and Driver Blog

That should answer your corvette question. VL only is going to make dozens of these Destino's. It's not as if GM decided it was a good business instead of making corvettes (also may need a plug, like the 911 is going to have in 3 years ;-)) The odds against VL motors being around in 10 years are very high. Fisker will take a lot of cash if it is going to suceed, but in the chinese market, who knows. I'd bet against VL but not against Wanxiang


As to who the car appealed to, that is easy Al Gore and Justin Bieber. They were the big fans that got the first oness. Gore's support probably helped the company get its venture capital and government loan, that now will never be paid back.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125383160812639013

Wanxiang does have some good intellectual property with A123, but could end up buying batteries from LG, Samsung, or even tesla for a future fisker.

 

I missed this part before. What are bko rules? The karma was produced in Finland. I think bankrupcy killed any claim of us US citizens to the loan money the company stole from us. I don't think the new company has any obligations, creditors get to fight over the money paid. I thought that was why they waited this long to purchase, to kill any loan covenants.

 

Maybe somebody wants a "stealthy" 638-hp supercharged V-8 powered car?
The eco-chic will think it's a greener car than a premium-only 13MPG super car that can knock down a standing quarter mile in >10 seconds.

As far as Corvette styling?
That's a subjective thing, but I personally think that they whiffed on the C7 (G7)
Other than having the brand image positively ruined by some of its more prominent owners, the Karma is an arguably more attractive package if you don't mind the diamond shaped accents.

 

Maybe it should have been designed more like a Tesla-S, but with a gasoline engine in the back, coupled to the drive-train along with the electric motors. That way, at least when the EV battery ran out after 30 miles or so, you could still toodle along fairly efficiently, without the huge penalty of conversion losses of back-and-forth from the battery. You'd have to plug in to get the full power back.

 

Let's not exaggerate: An engine running at an ideal RPM can be more efficient than the same engine with its RPMs bouncing all over the place. Trains use an engine-to-electric-to-wheels conversion & still run more efficiently than if the engine hooked directly to the wheels. A serial hybrid in a car can do the same (if designed properly).

 

Prior to the BK, one of the Chinese companies bought the debt at a discounted amount ($25 Million as I recall).
The debt to the US taxpayer was lost (except for that $25 Million) at that point.

 

Trains use diesel-electric power, not because of it's efficiency, but because the only practical way to deliver full horsepower and full torque at low RPM (besides a steam-engine) is by using an electric motor. Diesel engines cannot deliver full power directly at low-RPM.

Locomotives would not be able to move large loads starting at low speeds by using anything similar to an automotive drive-train, because the engine must be at nearly full power from a dead stop, and then gradually increase in speed over long distances with full torque, is nearly impossible with conventional transmission technology. There have been a number of direct-drive locomotives over the years, but few of them have been successful. Drive-trains in large, powerful applications need to be simple and reliable, and a diesel-electric design is nearly as simple as it gets.

Few designs come close to the efficiency of the Prius Hybrid Synergy Drive. Two electric motors which share the load with the gasoline engine, control it's speed in proportion to the drive-train, delivering exceptional fuel efficiency and reliability. Nonetheless, conversion of kinetic energy to electricity, then to battery storage, then to electricity, and finally back to kinetic energy is very inefficient. Losses approach 70%. That's why the Prius is designed to avoid charging the battery directly by using gasoline as much as possible.

Locomotives have no storage battery, therefore they are more efficient than any system with an intermediate battery step, but far less efficient than a direct coupling of the engine to the drive-train.

 

Looking this up, anouther diservice to taxpayers -

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/317952/Insolvency+Bankruptcy/In+Brief+Debt+Purchasers+Credit+Bid+Limited+PostFisker

It appears the US government sold what turned out to be $90M interest for $25M (loss of over $100M from original loan). I can't imagine why other than total incompetence. At the time it didn't look like the government would be fully repaid, but it had a claim to much more of the assets. It could have worked with the new company on loan covenants, or just killed them, to get more of the loan repaid.

I still don't understand the initials BKO from hill's post. You can see from the WSJ article I posted from the time of the loan, that it looked suspect when the loan was made, and people were bringing up Solyndra on the loans possibility of default even before fisker received any money. At the time of the loan the US government knew the karma would be produced in Finland, there was a promise that the next car would be made in the US, but if dilligence had been done correctly it was a real long shot.

 

Many of the loans were long shots.
The original legislation built in a 25% loss on the loan program as many of the loans were speculative.

If Fisker had been eliminated and the assets sold off, I don't believe the Government would have gotten half of that $25 Million.
They auctioned it off and it went to the highest bidder.

As to weather or not it should have been made in the first place, I never liked Fisker. Their goal was to make a PHEV that had double the energy needs of the Model S on electric and a hugely inefficient ICE as well.
All design, minimal needed engineering.