Nikola: the Theranos of EVs?

[r0tor]

This is a complete non-sequitor backed up with falsehoods.

The question is why GM would fail to check that the company was what it said it was.

Really... because the model 3 battery pack has about 30% more energy density while containing less cobalt which makes it cheaper to manufacturer by over 30% and Tesla has already unveiled even better battery tech.  Then you look at the motor development of tesla and the efficiency even beats the best that Porsche has developed.

GM is totally screwed when the market goes predominantly EV and their tech is bigger, heavier, less efficient, AND costlier on top of it.  Game over GM.

[MrH]

I was really hoping for a new Silverado Soapbox Derby edition featuring GraviTec drive.

Tow rating is determined by speed limit and incline

[Morris Minor]

Tesla understood early that EVs are real-time networked computers on wheels. They do a very good job at the "networked computers" part and are just about caught up with the "on wheels" part.
They also understood early that ordinary people would rather take a beating than navigate the legacy makers' dealer networks. Unsold low-grade inventory covering vast bleak acreages where hungry salesmen prowl.
And Tesla has decent charging infrastructure - they saw that early. Better than broken chargers in the remotest creepy parking spaces of dying shopping malls.

Right now I would not buy a non-Tesla EV. Maybe in a couple of years.

[Soup DeVille]

Really... because the model 3 battery pack has about 30% more energy density while containing less cobalt which makes it cheaper to manufacturer by over 30% and Tesla has already unveiled even better battery tech.  Then you look at the motor development of tesla and the efficiency even beats the best that Porsche has developed.

GM is totally screwed when the market goes predominantly EV and their tech is bigger, heavier, less efficient, AND costlier on top of it.  Game over GM.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBRjIWRc45s

[SJ_GTI]

...featuring GraviTec drive.

I am interested in learning more about this remarkable and promising new technology.

[CaminoRacer]

The US power grid does not have capacity for everyone to have an EV.

(on the other hand, GraviTec can be rolled out immediately with no infrastructure issues. Ignoring flatlands like Nebraska, I guess)

[MX793]

Tow rating is determined by speed limit and incline

Tow rating is limited only by the rated tongue weight of the vehicle.  The GraviTec drive system, coupled to the novel Infiniglide infinitely variable transmission, is the only power train that automatically adjusts power output based on payload to provide consistent acceleration no matter how big the load.

GraviTec:  Unleash Your Potential

[Eye of the Tiger]

I am interested in learning more about this remarkable and promising new technology.

Is it anything like a monorail?

[r0tor]

Is it anything like a monorail?

Depends if it has a catchy jingle

[ChrisV]

Has Tesla started actually turning an annual profit?

This is a dumb argument. Tesla has turned a profit on their car sales for many years now. Where they've been in the red is expansion (the various gigafactories and R&D for new models over the years) and rolling out the costly supercharger network that they made no money on. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[ChrisV]

https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/

So many gems here! "We learned through emails and interviews with former partners that Trevor had an artist stencil "H2" and "Zero Emission Hydrogen Electric" on the side of the Nikola One despite it having no hydrogen capabilities whatsoever; it was built with natural gas components."

From another forum (not pro-tesla or anything, either):

Fully understanding that this 'investment research/whistleblowing entity' is really just one guy that is using his platform to make money on speculative shorts, I can't help but be both bemused by the quotes and astounded by some of the claimed findings in the article referenced in the Elektrek link above: https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/


In general I am not a fan of speculation in any sense of the word... especially not financial. So while I find it disingenuous to pose as an independent research firm to publish a exposé when you're really just one dude out there shorting stocks for big gains, I don't think anyone can deny that there are some serious inconsistencies and a pattern of deceitful behavior in the Nikola timeline. So in this situation (like many others... Fyre Festival, anyone?), why wouldn't you want to get paid for your investigative work, let alone calling out a fraud when you see one? Idk. It's an ethical quagmire, at least to me. It would possibly be better if Hindenburg Research was actually a 501c4 with payroll funded by profits from these shorts, and the one guy behind it (Nathan Anderson) just collected a modest salary as the director while there were other staffers engaged in anti-fraud policy/legislative advocacy.

So while there are issues with Nikola, there are also issues with Hindenburg Research. So take all of it, pro and con, with a grain of salt.

[Laconian]

It's not just Hindenberg, though. I've been gleefully following Nikola's scammy antics for months, ever since they IPO'd based on their amazing portfolio of truck renderings. Nothing they've done has really built a case for their credibility. They don't let the product or anything tangible speak for itself, and when challenged, they threaten lawsuits. Scam!

[MX793]

This is a dumb argument. Tesla has turned a profit on their car sales for many years now. Where they've been in the red is expansion (the various gigafactories and R&D for new models over the years) and rolling out the costly supercharger network that they made no money on. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

If your sales don't generate enough revenue to cover expenses (like building factories, R&D, tooling, etc), you are not a profitable company.  It's that simple.

I am not overlooking loan debt, either.  Most companies, starting out, need loans and will carry debt.  A company can have debt and still report an annual profit if they are able make their scheduled loan payments (which lump under "expenses").

[r0tor]

If your sales don't generate enough revenue to cover expenses (like building factories, R&D, tooling, etc), you are not a profitable company.  It's that simple.

I am not overlooking loan debt, either.  Most companies, starting out, need loans and will carry debt.  A company can have debt and still report an annual profit if they are able make their scheduled loan payments (which lump under "expenses").

Try to digest this... Their cars make massive profits. 

As a company still rapidly expanding they are spending shit tons on product development and driving the technology forward.  EVs are still at their infancy and have plenty of room for rapid tech improvements and if you want to compete come 5-10 years from now you need to be at the top of the development.  Tesla knows this as does every other OEM.  The only way for GM to play catch-up is getting into the risky business of buying out start-ups at this point... Good luck to them

[MX793]

Try to digest this... Their cars make massive profits. 

As a company still rapidly expanding they are spending shit tons on product development and driving the technology forward.  EVs are still at their infancy and have plenty of room for rapid tech improvements and if you want to compete come 5-10 years from now you need to be at the top of the development.  Tesla knows this as does every other OEM.  The only way for GM to play catch-up is getting into the risky business of buying out start-ups at this point... Good luck to them

You can't separate cars from the company as a whole.  If Ford makes a profit on their trucks, but loses money on everything else and reports an overall loss (expenses exceed revenue), are they a profitable company?  NO.  Saying "But their trucks made money" doesn't make Ford a profitable company.

A company that does not have sufficient revenue to cover expenses is not a profitable company.  Period.

[r0tor]

You can't separate cars from the company as a whole.  If Ford makes a profit on their trucks, but loses money on everything else and reports an overall loss (expenses exceed revenue), are they a profitable company?  NO.  Saying "But their trucks made money" doesn't make Ford a profitable company.

A company that does not have sufficient revenue to cover expenses is not a profitable company.  Period.

That's across their product line... Not cherry picking.

Showing or not showing profit at this point comes down to how they are managing their business and available capital... Not because of not making a profitable product.

[MX793]

That's across their product line... Not cherry picking.

Showing or not showing profit at this point comes down to how they are managing their business and available capital... Not because of not making a profitable product.

If expenses exceed revenue, you are not a profitable company.

Remember Cannondale bicycles?  Remember how they closed their factory and went bankrupt in the early 2000s?  Do you know why?  Hint:  it wasn't because their bicycles weren't profitable.  But the company lost money hand over fist for a few years (investing in branching out into a new market segment) until they went under.

[Laconian]

Cannondales still exist?

[MX793]

Cannondales still exist?

Apparently somebody bought them and there are bikes being made under that name.  Not sure how long that's been going on.

[Soup DeVille]

Apparently somebody bought them and there are bikes being made under that name.  Not sure how long that's been going on.

Is it like Schwinn and Mongoose? Making crap for Wal-Mart?

[MX793]

Is it like Schwinn and Mongoose? Making crap for Wal-Mart?

I think the company that bought has rights to those names (at least in some markets).  According to wiki, they are made in Taiwan now.

[Laconian]

No, Cannondales are legitimately good bikes. They're on par with Specialized and Trek. Not up to the level of fancy boutique Tour De France wannabe stuff, but they're not a hollowed out husk brand, either.

[r0tor]

If expenses exceed revenue, you are not a profitable company.

Remember Cannondale bicycles?  Remember how they closed their factory and went bankrupt in the early 2000s?  Do you know why?  Hint:  it wasn't because their bicycles weren't profitable.  But the company lost money hand over fist for a few years (investing in branching out into a new market segment) until they went under.

How quickly you grow the company, how much marketing you do, and how much leveraging you do of assets are business decisions that indeed can make or break a company - it does not reflect if the product is profitable or not as you were stating.

[MrH]

Try to digest this... Their cars make massive profits. 

As a company still rapidly expanding they are spending shit tons on product development and driving the technology forward.  EVs are still at their infancy and have plenty of room for rapid tech improvements and if you want to compete come 5-10 years from now you need to be at the top of the development.  Tesla knows this as does every other OEM.  The only way for GM to play catch-up is getting into the risky business of buying out start-ups at this point... Good luck to them

They don't make massive profits...

They would sustain themselves on their own cash flow if that were the case.  There is clear evidence of pumping gross margin numbers.  There are multiple whistleblower cases going on about this exact thing.

[MX793]

How quickly you grow the company, how much marketing you do, and how much leveraging you do of assets are business decisions that indeed can make or break a company - it does not reflect if the product is profitable or not as you were stating.

I never said the product was unprofitable.  I said the company is unprofitable.  You moved the goal posts.

That said, if a company cannot generate enough revenue from sale of product to cover not only the direct cost of manufacturing the product, but also all other costs of doing business (R&D, Facilities, marketing, etc) associated with the production and sale of that product, it's very hard to argue that the product, on the whole, is profitable.

[r0tor]

I never said the product was unprofitable.  I said the company is unprofitable.  You moved the goal posts.

That said, if a company cannot generate enough revenue from sale of product to cover not only the direct cost of manufacturing the product, but also all other costs of doing business (R&D, Facilities, marketing, etc) associated with the production and sale of that product, it's very hard to argue that the product, on the whole, is profitable.

You are failing to comprehend that they have taken the business decision to rapidly grow the company through debt instead of slowly growing the company through profit.  That's a conscious business decision and not reflective if they could be profitable or not.

[cawimmer430]

In other truck news....



New Mercedes-Benz GenH2 Fuel-Cell Semi Concept Previews Production Model Coming Soon

The world depends on semis to transport goods across the globe, but they're responsible for a lot of pollution.

Daimler wants fix this so they've hosted an event to unveil their electrification strategy for the trucking sector. The big news was the debut of the Mercedes GenH2 concept which is a heavy-duty fuel-cell truck made for long-distance hauling.

Designed to have capabilities similar to the Actros long-haul truck, the GenH2 concept has gross vehicle weight of 40 tons and a payload capacity of 25 tons. More importantly, it has two liquid-hydrogen tanks which each have a storage capacity of 88 lbs (40 kg).



The concept has also been equipped with a 300 kW fuel cell system and a battery which can temporarily provide an additional 400 kW of power. The battery has a capacity of 70 kWh and is designed to "provide situational power support for the fuel cell, for example during peak loads while accelerating or while driving uphill fully loaded."

In the pre-production truck, there will be two electric motors which each have a peak output of 443 hp (330 kW / 449 PS) and 1,527 lb-ft (2,071 Nm) of torque. However, they have a lower continuous rating of 308 hp (230 kW / 312 PS) and 1,163 lb-ft (1577 Nm).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiYGG7HTMP4

While semis aren't particularity exciting, the key takeaway is that the GenH2 will be eco-friendly and have a range of approximately 621 miles (1,000 km) on a single tank of hydrogen. This should make it ideal for long-haul operations.

While the GenH2 is technically a concept, Mercedes confirmed it previews a production model. Customer trails are set to begin in 2023, ahead of series production which is slated for the second half of this decade.

The GenH2 might have been the keynote model, but the that wasn't the only truck introduced today. Daimler also previewed the Mercedes eActros LongHaul which is a battery-powered long-haul truck which is "designed to cover regular journeys on plannable routes in an energy-efficient manner."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oap18MMGph8

The eActros LongHaul will have a range of approximately 311 miles (500 km) and is slated to be ready for production in 2024. Mercedes didn't release too many details, but noted European Union regulations require truck drivers take a minimum 45 minute break after 4.5 hours of driving.  Recharging during this time will provide a "large proportion of the energy needed for the ongoing journey."

While 2024 is still a ways off, the company the said the eActros for distribution transport – which was originally introduced in 2018 – will go into production next year. Daimler added the model will be able to "significantly exceed" the prototype's range of approximately 124 miles (200 km).

According to Daimler's Martin Daum, "We are consistently pursuing our vision of CO2-neutral transport with a focus on the genuinely locally CO2-neutral technologies battery power and hydrogen-based fuel cells, which have the potential to succeed in the market in the long term. This combination enables us to offer our customers the best vehicle options, depending on the application." He went on to say battery powered trucks will be better for lower cargo weights and shorter distances, while fuel-cell models will be the "preferred option for heavier loads and longer distances."


Link: https://www.carscoops.com/2020/09/mercedes-introduces-genh2-fuel-cell-semi-concept-previews-upcoming-production-model/

[Laconian]

CEO of Nikola resigned/was sacked.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/09/trevor-milton-steps-down-from-nikola-stock-sinks/

[Morris Minor]

CEO of Nikola resigned/was sacked.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/09/trevor-milton-steps-down-from-nikola-stock-sinks/

Someone in the GM HQ is waddling with a curiously awkward & stilted gait towards the executive bathroom.

And with a smelly brown stain on the seat of his trousers.