Re:Tesla California sales beat Chrysler, Volvo, Cadillac, ot...
by SuperChihuahua on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:00AM
(#6268150)
Elon himself gave an explanation to why Fisker failed:
"Fisker thinks the most important thing in the world is design, so he outsourced the engineering and manufacturing. But the fact is that's the crux of the problem. And he's outsourcing to people who don't know how to solve the problem. So he came up with a product – it's a mediocre product at a high price. It looks good. Particularly from the side it looks good. I don't love the front. It looks too much like a caricature of a Mexican Bandito, the grille. The car looks very big, it's bigger than the Model S, but it has no trunk space and it's cramped inside, particularly in the rear seats. The mark of a good design is something that has great aesthetics and great functionality."
There were several:
* The business argument for electric cars has been there for a long time. It's obvious to anyone who looks at it that there's an efficiency to using electricity instead of gasoline, as evidenced now by Tesla's incredibly low cost-per-mile. That of course doesn't explain Fisker....
* Many of us started believing in Tesla almost immediately after hearing the 3-part business plan: Build a ridiculously fast, desireable sports car (which they did, and brought it to market long before the DOE loan), then build a luxury car, then build a mass market car. I had a sense Tesla would do well with this plan, for the same reason I think Square will do well where others will fail: You need more than a viable destination, you also need a viable stepping stone at every point between zero and profitability. Tesla always had this plan. It was a good one. It's proving itself to be a good one.
* Did I mention they already had built, brought to market, and made real revenue off a car? You can't say that about Fisker.
* Musk had a track record as a successful CEO.