Faraday Future To Build $1 Billion Factory Outside Of Las Vegas, Employ 4,500

2 years ago by Mark Kane 104

Faraday Future factory rendering in Nevada

Faraday Future factory rendering in Nevada

Faraday Future

Faraday Future

Nevada will be home to Faraday Future’s manufacturing facility.

The EV startup, backed by Chinese billionaire Jia Yueting, says it will invest $1 billion in a factory in North Las Vegas.

The facility covers some 900 acres and 3 million square feet of working space in North Las Vegas’ APEX industrial park, of which Faraday Future says is “a thriving new environmentally-conscious development zone”.

Las Vegas is also the place where FF will show its concept car at CES. The production version is expected on the market in 2017.

The California-based company sees in its future disruptive technologies and car making:

“Though automakers have struggled to find profits with electric models, Faraday has said it aims to make money not just on the vehicles but on subscriptions for applications and infotainment piped into the car. The company plans to introduce its first car in 2017, after unveiling a concept next month at the CES electronics show in Las Vegas.

Yueting is founder and chairman of Leshi Television, a Chinese online video site.”

Update. Faraday Future released its official statement on North Las Vegas factory with infographic (PDF), showing intention to employ 4,500 people, 80% of which will be involved in actual production of EVs – with 50% of those being local hires.

Faraday Future Looks to Set Up Shop in North Las Vegas

“We at Faraday Future are thrilled to announce that we’re planning to launch a brand new, state-of-the-art automotive production plant in the very near future.

After a great deal of research, travel, and careful consideration, we have decided that the best home for our first manufacturing facility would be within the stunning mountainscape of North Las Vegas.

North Las Vegas’ long list of benefits made the decision for our plant’s placement a relatively easy one. The area offers expansive development space, an enthusiastic workforce, an encouraging tax environment, close proximity to our California headquarters, and nearby access to the thriving tourism capital of Las Vegas, which allows us to offer plant tours and other engaging experiences.

Additionally, we’ll be appropriately positioned on the south end of the “electric highway,” a pioneering stretch of U.S. Route 95 between Reno and Las Vegas that is populated with a large network of vehicle charging stations.

Now that we’ve found the perfect place for this groundbreaking new factory, we are excited to get construction underway. Faraday Future is ready to invest $1 billion into the first phase of this facility, to-be-built in Clark County’s APEX Industrial Park, a prosperous new development zone offering amenities perfect for environmentally-conscious companies.

We plan to construct something more than an ordinary ‘assembly line’ – we’re creating a 3 million square foot workshop for passionate creators and diligent visionaries, where new concepts will be refined and implemented; where new discoveries will be conjured and crafted; and where new possibilities can be made, well, possible.

After we get this manufacturing plant up and running, we will be directly staffing it with 4,500 new jobs. These positions will include a wide variety of professional and manufacturing employment opportunities, offering competitive pay and benefits.

Outside of the jobs that Faraday Future will be hiring directly, thousands more will be made available from our supplier base and other independent enterprises that will move into Nevada to better support our facility.

We look forward to having a hand in the potential job creation, economic impact, and community growth that can be made possible with this innovative new production plant. We’d be proud to play our own role in advancing Nevada’s historically industrious spirit.

A car is much more than a singular product – it is a complex union of unique, specialized parts, all working in tandem towards a common goal: to keep moving forward.

We at Faraday Future can’t wait to embrace the same collaborative vision when working hand-in-hand with the driven community of Clark County to create a more connected world and a more dynamic North Las Vegas.”

Source: Automotive News

Tags: ,

104 responses to "Faraday Future To Build $1 Billion Factory Outside Of Las Vegas, Employ 4,500"

  1. Chris C. says:

    From their statement: “Additionally, we’ll be appropriately positioned on the south end of the “electric highway,” a pioneering stretch of U.S. Route 95 between Reno and Las Vegas that is populated with a large network of vehicle charging stations.”

    Uh, what? There is NOTHING for 400 miles along that highway. Perhaps they are referring to some future buildout?

    1. Speculawyer says:

      Sssshhhhh. Maybe the local Nevadan negotiators spun a really good sell job. Don’t blow it for them! 😉

  2. Ahldor says:

    They wont succeed if they plan on milking money from their customers by locking them to their own services.

    But I could be wrong. Just look at Apple..

    1. El duque says:

      Yes because Apple is pointing a gun at their customers head. I can sense the jealousy.

  3. James says:

    What 13 year old was hired to design and render their new building? Looks like an April Fool’s joke.

    1. Anon says:

      There are two sets of “F”s on the roof…

      Must stand for Future Failure?

      1. SJC says:

        They could put solar panels over the parking, keep the cars cool in the hot sun.

        1. Mike616 says:

          Seriously, excellent idea.

    2. Nom de Plume says:

      Have you seen the Gigafactory? Whether or not their building is pretty is not terribly important.

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Oh calm down, it is just a concept drawing.

  4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “We plan to construct something more than an ordinary ‘assembly line’ – we’re creating a 3 million square foot workshop for passionate creators and diligent visionaries…”

    They plan to do all this for only $1 billion?

    I don’t think this is a serious proposal. Sounds more like a way to bilk “investors” out of money.

    1. Three Electrics says:

      I don’t see any mention of battery production here; if it’s just an assembly plant it seems reasonable, given that Tesla’s 2015 capex will be $1.5B.

      They also mention that the $1B figure is for the “first phase.”. That reminds me of the Gigafactory, where the projected cost is $5B, but as of February Tesla had only spend $50M on the first phases.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Why are you trying to compare this proposal to building Gigafactory 1? A battery factory is not mentioned anywhere in this proposal.

        Yes, I did note that it said “first phase”, but if that first phase of what they describe as an “automotive production plant” doesn’t include the ability to actually assemble cars for sale, if it doesn’t include the “ordinary ‘assembly line’” mentioned in the PR copy, then what in the world would they need to spend a billion dollars on? You don’t spend a billion dollars building the floor, walls and ceiling of a factory!

        You want to compare this to Tesla Motors? Okay, let’s compare. Tesla discovered very early on, when it was trying to build the Roadster, that a billion dollars wasn’t anywhere near sufficient for an automotive startup. Not even one which was buying pre-assembled gliders (auto bodies) from Lotus.

        1. Three Electrics says:

          I think we’re in a agreement that new car development takes more than a billion dollars. FF already has 500 employees, which runs at least $100 million a year in headcount costs alone. However, the fact that they only announced a billion for the first phase does not imply, at least to me, that they don’t realize this, or have plans for more funding. It’s still super-easy to get capital (thank you, Federal Reserve) as Tesla, Uber, etc. have repeatedy shown.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Three Electrics said:

            “It’s still super-easy to get capital (thank you, Federal Reserve) as Tesla, Uber, etc. have repeatedy shown.”

            Well, I thought that you were making a your first reasonable post on InsideEVs, until that assertion. [snark] I’m sure it will come as a great surprise to 99.9% of startups that it’s “super-easy” to get capital. [/snark]

            Tesla Motors finds it relatively easy to get capital because its stock is now selling at something like 15 times the IPO offering price. Extremely few companies can say that only five years after their IPO!

    2. EVcarNut says:

      You may be onto something there….$1B not even close to the funds they need for starters! , it’s a pittance …This could be another Bicklin DeLorean Scam/0utcome

  5. Three Electrics says:

    A well funded, visionary EV manufacturer manufacturing in the US? Welcome news all around.

    1. Mike616 says:

      Yes, it’s great we have Tesla.

      It might be good we have a Chinese copy too.

  6. Anon says:

    Not sure one can produce such PR whimsy for a factory and have it taken seriously– when they’ve yet to even reveal / demo their product.

    1. Mikael says:

      It has been working well for Tesla. All you need is to create enough hype to be able to get the momentum needed to create something with substance out of smoke screens.

      1. sven says:

        I can’t wait for the Faraday Future fanboys to come out of the woodwork and start defending FF’s honor in internet forums if anyone dares to criticize them. :-\

        1. Anon says:

          Considering future career choices? 😉

          1. Jay Cole says:

            Just to give some prospective from our side of things, Faraday is basically the same model as Tesla, but they are nothing like them at the same time when it comes to PR.

            We’ve had some conversations with them, and things are going to ratchet up for them in the way of exposure on the 4th, but they have been anti-PR/exposure of late.

            FF has been keeping their cards as close to the chest as possible given their backing, and are decently self funded to come to market in volume as it stands (something Tesla was not), and haven’t looked to engage the public (or assistance) at all.

            That being said, I don’t think people realize what FF is trying to present/to do, which is put an American face on an international product (think Asia) with products not primarily intended to service the US market. Tesla is an American product for Americans, that also has been trying to represent itself as a world brand (which outside of Scandinavia hasn’t gone so well vs launch expectations – thankfully the US has done exceptionally well and picked up the shortfall).

            When you see the concepts/production-intent EVs from FF, it will be a lot clearer the difference between the two and what they are trying to accomplish.

            1. Phr3d says:

              well said, and thank you – this, like so many things posted here bode well for electric future.
              I didn’t get the international but centered in America viewpoint from previous articles.. it Did look a bit like look-at-our-neato-concept that has resulted in vapor.. ohh, a Couple times.
              Gonna be a fun-packed end o’ the teens, certainly.

            2. Stephen Hodges says:

              My bet is that the robots will be blue, but otherwise everything will look remarkably like the Tesla factory

            3. Anon says:

              The Chinese economy is shrinking, with tens of thousands now out of work. Take a look at their steel industry numbers, for example. Not good. Many empty apartments, as their real-estate bubble implodes. Sound familiar? And Anti-Corruption task forces are now ‘detaining’ CEO’s of prominent Chinese Corporations, while the government “cleans house”.

              If FF survives these and other market forces at home, maybe they’ll be able to pull off a building a US facility, pay competitive US wages, and create an affordable product that’s compelling enough to export for the entire world (not just China).

              Kinda doubt it. The “Chinese Billionaire automotive Underdog” story, hasn’t been written yet.

            4. Robb Stark says:

              Tesla has done quite well in Belgium,The Netherlands and Switzerland. And starting to gain traction in Austria. None of which are Scandinavian. And so far this year Tesla has the top selling electric model in Canada too.

              Large European countries with their own historic Brands has been a tougher nut to crack. And so has China, which doesn’t have a nationwide network of Superchargers yet.

            5. Josh says:

              I know FF has nothing to do with Apple, but it just feels like those two will cross paths.

              Maybe Apple will buy up their assets if the swing and miss.

            6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Jay Cole said:

              “I don’t think people realize what FF is trying to present/to do, which is put an American face on an international product (think Asia) with products not primarily intended to service the US market.”

              So… a Chinese entrepreneur wants to build a factory in the USA to build cars to be shipped back to Asia for sale?

              How does that make economic sense? Why wouldn’t they use less expensive Asian suppliers for parts (avoiding Chinese suppliers due to all the problems there with quality control and counterfeit goods), then do assembly in China, as Apple does?

              Jay, thanks for the heads-up, and if this company is going to create jobs for Americans, then more power to them.

              Financial matters are not my area of expertise. Perhaps if I knew more, I’d think this could be a viable plan. But as it is, I don’t see now it can work.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                “How does that make economic sense? ”

                Because an US designed/built car would be sold at a huge premium over the Chinese built version. That is how Chinese market works.

                You are clueless as usual.

                1. ffbj says:

                  Oddly enough and counter intuitive, file it under the strange but true category, due partly to the fact that the Chinese are suspicious of the quality of some products made in country.

                  Also being a Chinese backed(owned) company they will probably get special treatment on import duties etc…(reasonable speculation).

                2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  ModernMarvelFan bloviated:

                  “You are clueless as usual.”

                  ROTFLMAO!!

                  MMF, thanks for keeping us entertained. It’s always amusing when you try to “correct” someone else, and inevitably show everyone how clueless you are on very nearly every subject… for example, your posts regarding the history of the Opium Wars in this very comment thread.

                  Your latest stunt was arguing with Speculawyer, with you apparently suffering from the delusion that you know more about his own home solar power system than he does.

                  😀 😀 😀

                  1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                    The Usual idiot PuPu wrote:

                    “MMF, thanks for keeping us entertained. It’s always amusing when you try to “correct” someone else, and inevitably show everyone how clueless you are on very nearly every subject… ”

                    Really? Aren’t you the idiot who keep posting that stuff which often shows that you lack of serious math, physics or engineering knowledge? It is truly funny that you have to change your login name from Lensman just to avoid your past that still haunts you today.

                    “for example, your posts regarding the history of the Opium Wars in this very comment thread.”

                    LOL. You are the only moron here who thinks that solving trade imbalance is justified by pushing and selling drugs to people. Now, you are NOT only clueless, but you are freaking idiot bigot. Geez, keep adding titles to yourself.

                    “Your latest stunt was arguing with Speculawyer, with you apparently suffering from the delusion that you know more about his own home solar power system than he does.”

                    LOL. Coming from a Moron that doesn’t know anything about solar. That clearly shows that you don’t own any solar panels on your roof which I do. I know exactly how those things work in real life unlike you. I also know the details and impact of weather patterns in SF Bay Area which I live as well. That is why I am totally justified to point out those things with my personal experience and solid math. Unlike you who live in some small town in idiotville with no clue whatsoever… Keep going at proving that you still know nothing most of the time…

                    LOL.

                  2. ModernMarvelFan says:

                    Another evidence on how clueless PuPu head is:

                    PuPu wrote:

                    “Your latest stunt was arguing with Speculawyer, with you apparently suffering from the delusion that you know more about his own home solar power system than he does.”

                    And that is exactly the case since PuPu didn’t understand the thread at all.

                    Let us look at the event that follows:

                    Speculawyer wrote about 4,000kWh/year generation for 2.2kW system to charge an EV.

                    I wrote that is optimistic or aggressive estimate due to shading, location and roof size..etc. 1kW typically get 1500kWh to 1700kWh per year in Northern California.

                    Then PuPu tried to make it sound like I don’t know anything about solar (while I have solar and knows a little while he is completely clueless).

                    Then Speculawyer confirms that his solar only generated about 1500kWh per 1kW due to various things such as shading, angle (SW).

                    I guess this is just another piece of evidence to show that PuPu likes to pick on topic that he knows nothing about to show that he is just a bigger idiot by the day.

                    Maybe if you actually own some solar, you wouldn’t have made those kind of stupid comment.

      2. Anon says:

        No. Having exceptional product has worked well for Tesla.

        How many mass produced 2.8 second 0 – 60 MPH fully electric sedans exist that are not Teslas? Not many. How many more offer free coast-to-coast travel using one of the fastest DCFC networks on the planet? Even fewer.

        That exclusivity, coupled with tangible product– is driving Teslas’ high ticket sales. Not empty hype.

        1. Mikael says:

          For us who have been following Tesla for over a decade know how much was about empty hype and very little substance for years.

          Being this dismissive only shows that you were very late in the game or that you have forgotten the history.

          1. Anon says:

            Correct. I do not suffer “Early Adopter Syndrome”, like you or Bill.

            Early years for any startup are always the hardest for any company. Someone will likely always be disappointed with some executive or engineering decision. Happens. So based on your vitriol, I’m guessing you won’t cut Tesla slack for innovating and expanding a sustainable automotive technology others refused to seriously pursue.

            Their hype got them to a place where they now have one of the heaviest and fastest Production EVs on the market. And their product portfolio is expanding, which is pressuring others in the industry to follow their lead with longer range EVs. So I just don’t see the problem.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Mikael said:

            “For us who have been following Tesla for over a decade know how much was about empty hype and very little substance for years.”

            No, I’d say that the overwhelming majority of those of use who have been following Tesla Motors since before they started selling the Roadster, would say that neither the Roadster nor the Model S are even remotely in the ballpark of “empty hype”. In fact, I think nearly all of us would say that Tesla delivered much more on its promises than anyone expected them to.

            Yeah, Tesla does throw out a lot of hype. But pretty much nobody expected the Roadster to kick off the modern EV revolution, or for the Model S to be the best-reviewed automobile in history.

  7. sven says:

    The U.S. should make Faraday Future enter into a 50/50 joint venture with an American company, just as all foreign automakers who want to open a factory in China must form a joint venture with a Chinese company. The same should apply to BYD and their U.S. bus factory. Likewise, a 25% tariff should be levied on any automobiles built in China and imported to the U.S., just as China levies a 25% tariff on all imported automobiles.

    1. Dan says:

      You sound like some crusty Detroit guy. That kind of rah rah nationalism you guys have in some parts of the country does not go down well over here in the Bay Area. People who go to work in technology and work in global teams that are spread out from Bangalore to Amsterdam are not going to come back home and push for that kind of regulation.

      1. Fail Cells says:

        it is called fair play. us companies have to do that in china

        1. Dan says:

          FF is incorporated in the US.

          1. Mike616 says:

            Tesla Faraday.
            The new: GM Ford.

          2. sven says:

            Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., is also incorporated in the U.S., but it’s parent company is not. Does Farady Futures have a parent company, and if yes, where is it incorporated.

        2. Mikael says:

          The US has never been about fair play so it’s very hypocritical to cry about China not always playing by the book when you’re not the only bully on the playground anymore.

          It is also a very big difference between building a new industry and protecting an old one. China will hopefully scale down the protection a bit when they are leveled on technology, quality and safety but don’t forget that major manufacturing countries like the US, Germany, Japan and Korea are all about protectionism in many different ways for their car industries.

          1. super390 says:

            This is a good point. America used to believe in tariffs. In fact, the Republican Party was the pro-tariff party before WW2. If the British had played by Sven’s rules during the 19th century they would have retaliated against the United States for its high tariffs against various products, and the US would have had to face two bad options. Which would have left the US poorer and less willing to bail out Britain in two wars against German expansionism.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Mikael said:

            “The US has never been about fair play so it’s very hypocritical to cry about China not always playing by the book when you’re not the only bully on the playground anymore.”

            Tell us, do you honestly believe the America-bashing Chinese Communist propaganda you’re posting here? Or are you just parroting what the Chinese censors want you to say?

            And do let us know when the term “business ethics” is no longer a literally foreign concept in China, as it is now. Do some American companies violate the principles of business ethics? Sometimes, yes; but fortunately not that often. Contrariwise, in China, the principle of business ethics, including “fair play”, does not even exist.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Dan

        “You sound like some crusty Detroit guy. That kind of rah rah nationalism you guys have in some parts of the country does not go down well over here in the Bay Area.”

        I suspect you are the one out of step here, Dan. “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

        I would love it if Chinese entrepreneurs were forced to abide by the same rules which China imposes on others. Maybe then we’d start seeing China easing off on its policies which keep out foreign trade.

        Personally, I don’t work in the auto industry, or anything remotely associated with it. I do, however, believe in “fair play” in foreign trade.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “I would love it if Chinese entrepreneurs were forced to abide by the same rules which China imposes on others. Maybe then we’d start seeing China easing off on its policies which keep out foreign trade.”

          They are. They are playing the same rule of the local government.

          Chinese rules in China, American rules in America.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            As usual, MMF, when you try to “correct” me or, generally, just about anybody else, you only reveal how clueless you are about nearly any given subject.

            Again, here is your chance to learn something today:

            “The automobile industry in China is still heavily protected behind a ‘tariff wall’ even though this wall has come down significantly since China’s entry into the WTO. Cars imported to China face a tariff duty of at least 25 percent. In comparison, American duties on cars imported into the US are only 5 percent. Taking into account the 17 percent of VAT and other levies, imported cars and foreign-brand cars produced in China are substantially more expensive than the same type of cars in the United States. A new Cadillac SLS made in China will set a Chinese household back between $71,000 and $110,000, without the anti-dumping duty. A better performing Cadillac STS, on the other hand, costs an American household between $47,000 and $56,000.”

            Full article here:
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/baizhuchen/2012/07/12/tear-down-this-wall-the-chinese-tariff-wall/

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              MMF said:

              “They are. They are playing the same rule of the local government.
              Chinese rules in China, American rules in America.”

              PuPu Said,

              “MMF must be wrong since the rules in China are unfair”.

              Freaking idiot, that is why I said, they are rules made by local government. I never said they are fair or unfair, just they are rules made by each government.

              You are only showing that you can’t read…

              LOL. Keep adding evidence to show you are bigger idiot by the day.

    2. Mikael says:

      It is already an american company. Why would you have an american company go into a joint venture with another american company?

      Maybe it’s the south african company called Tesla you mean should be forced to pair up with Faraday Future.

      You know that the US non-tariff barriers for cars coming from another country are generally considered higher than the Chinese 25%?

      1. Dan says:

        I’m pretty sure he was just carried away by the fact the the investor is a Chinese citizen and then drew dotted lines to China, the country. I love that technology and green industries are some of the last places in the world where who you are and where you are from don’t matter as much as how you want to change the world for the better. We need to keep it that way. Let’s see what kind of vision they have and how they are able to execute. I couldn’t care less if the founder was a martian.

        1. Mikael says:

          More people like you and the world would be a better place. 🙂

        2. sven says:

          Dan said:
          “I love that technology and green industries are some of the last places in the world where who you are and where you are from don’t matter as much as how you want to change the world for the better.”

          Sorry comrade, but in China it DOES matter who Tesla is and where it is from. As a U.S. automaker it can not by itself open a car factory in China to make cars for the Chinese market. By law, as a foreign auto company, Tesla must form a 50/50 joint venture with a Chinese company to open a car factory in China and thus avoid the 25% tariff on imported cars. That means Tesla must not only split half their profits with their joint venture partner, but also share their intellectual property with them.

          Stop drinking the Koolaid.

          1. sven says:

            And Dan, tell me how it doesn’t matter that Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, eBay, youTube, or Uber are American companies and not Chinese companies when they try to compete in China.

            1. Dan says:

              eBay was founded by a French born Iranian. Tesla was founded by a South African. Google’s CEO is Indian. Facebook’s CEO is also the backer of FWD.us, an initiative to truly open up American borders and eliminate immigration restrictions. You seem to be the one who is out of touch with how the world works. I’m sure your argument would make sense in a Trump or Sanders rally, but not necessarily in the way groups of people from across the world collaborate to design and build and sell the products we all love.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Dan said:

                “Tesla was founded by a South African.”

                Actually, Tesla Motors was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, both born in California. Elon Musk took it over later, despite his claim of being one of the “founders”.

                Also, Musk became an American citizen in 2002, years before he took over Tesla.

          2. Mikael says:

            So you say that if you want to open a factory in their country you have to follow their rules? What a strange place… I wonder how other countries do it.

            You know that they are voluntarily on the Chinese market, there is no one forcing anyone car company to sell cars there.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Mikael said:

              “So you say that if you want to open a factory in their country you have to follow their rules? What a strange place… I wonder how other countries do it.”

              Well, no other country does it by forcing foreign investors to agree to a 50/50 partnership with a domestic company, plus force that foreign company to give up their trade secrets, to get the right to sell cars in their country without excessively high tariffs and red tape barriers which restricts foreign companies, but not domestic ones.

              Only China does that. It truly amazes me that any foreign company would show even the slightest interest in investing in China, unless they stop that crap.

              This isn’t much different than the policies keeping out foreign trade out of Imperial China, policies which lead to the Opium Wars. Seems that nothing has really changed in China in centuries; they are just as hostile to foreigners as ever.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                “This isn’t much different than the policies keeping out foreign trade out of Imperial China, policies which lead to the Opium Wars. Seems that nothing has really changed in China in centuries; they are just as hostile to foreigners as ever”

                Really? Are you serious? So, you actually defend the Opium war which is absolutely a repression of using Military Power to support selling drugs?

                I thought you actually had a brain. Now, I am not so sure anymore. Yes, it is an insult. But you really deserve this one…

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  “So, you actually defend the Opium war which is absolutely a repression of using Military Power to support selling drugs?”

                  I rather suspect that if you really knew what lead to the Opium Wars, you wouldn’t have misinterpreted my remark as “defending” British military aggression.

                  Here’s your chance to learn something today, MMF:

                  http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/opiumwars/opiumwars1.html

                  Note in particular the details concerning the rather large imbalance of trade between Britain and China… an imbalance heavily favoring China.

                  Not much has changed, has it?

                  1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                    “I rather suspect that if you really knew what lead to the Opium Wars, you wouldn’t have misinterpreted my remark as “defending” British military aggression.”

                    Of course, I know about it. But the fact remains that in order to solve the trade imbalance, British “solve” the problem by pushing Opium onto the Chinese market ILLEGALLY.

                    That is the problem with your entire attitude toward this topic. So, you are condoning solving trade imbalance by pushing drugs to other countries?

                    Absolutely NONESENSE. Maybe that is what Mexico or Columbia should have done to the US by pushing more drugs into the US…

                    “Here’s your chance to learn something today, MMF:”

                    LOL. Maybe you should learn something about ethics before post more.

                    The Opium war was a result of trade imbalance. But it was also resulting from a fact of trade that is heavily dependent on lack of global currency. British Empires wanted Ceremic, Tea and Silk from the Chinese empire but the Chinese empire want nothing else in return except for silver for payment. That basically bankrupted the British empire until they figure out a way to grow Poppy in India and sell Opium to China. Opium was illegal and Chinese enforcement of that resulting in Opium war.

                    The fact is that still British wanted stuff that China had, but NOT the other way around.

                    In today’s market, it is not the case. The Chinese want American goods,especially those that are made in the USA for higher quality. But the trade imbalance is mostly due to American corporation or global corporation sourcing from China. Completely different.

                    iPhone is a great example of that. Apple makes more than $200 per phone where the Chinese supplier (Actually Taiwanese Foxconn) gets paid about $6 per phone to assemble it with major components from Japan, South Korean and US. But the entire Phone price was counted in favor to China in the so called “trade balance”. Then Chinese buyers would have to pay a higher premium (more than what American consumers pay) when they purchase the real iPhone in China.

                    Why do you think the wealthy Chinese consumers are buying up everything when they travel to Japan, US or EU? (Remember the HK problem?)

                    Talking about trade balances… LOL.

                    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      ModernMarvelFan continued arguing:

                      “…that in order to solve the trade imbalance, British ‘solve’ the problem by pushing Opium onto the Chinese market ILLEGALLY.”

                      As usual when you disagree with me, MMF, you are entirely wrong. In addition, in this case, you’ve even missed the real point.

                      Why did the British East India Company start exporting opium to China in the first place? Why didn’t the British export manufactured goods to China, as it did in the classic Triangle Trade Route with African and America?

                      Wasn’t there any demand for high quality goods in China? British technology was better; wouldn’t there at the very least have been demand for the superior tools, scientific and technical instruments, and the products of superior metal machining, available from British manufacture?

                      The reason that Britain wound up with opium as virtually the only export to China was because the Chinese put so many restrictions on trade that opium was, quite literally, the only thing which they could legally and profitably export to China. Trade in almost everything else which would have been profitable was banned.

                      It was only later, after the opium trade was a going concern, that China outlawed that trade, too. By then it was too late to stop it; the opium trade was so lucrative that the notoriously corrupt Chinese bureaucrats and petty officials (something else which hasn’t changed since then) were simply bribed in wholesale lots to allow it to continue, with virtually no reduction in trade.

                      For anyone actually interested in learning more about the subject (obviously not including MMF), I also recommend this article:

                      http://www.teamuse.com/article_010502.html

                      But do use critical thinking when reading it. Like all too many articles on the subject, it claims — contrary to both common sense and historical evidence — that there was no demand in China for British manufactured goods… even though an example is given in the very first paragraph of one fabric which would have been in demand if trade wasn’t banned!

                      I agree with Ann Sherman, Univerity of Minnesota Department of Economics, when she says in the first comment on that article:

                      “…they [the British] wanted the emperor to open up trade in general. If the emperor had told them that they could not sell opium but could sell other goods (woolen cloth, clocks, tools, pots and pans, etc.), they would have traded those. They wanted to trade for tea.

                      “The emperor of China didn’t want trade because people would recognize that the goods coming in were foreign and were more advanced. Why do I assume that they would be more advanced? First, because the Industrial Revolution had led to technological break-throughs in Britain, and second, because there’d be no reason to try to export things to China unless they were better. Only superior products would develop a market.”

                    2. ModernMarvelFan says:

                      PuPu continue to make his own stupid pointless point:

                      First, I never argued that trade imbalance or trade protection wasn’t the cause of the Opium trade. I argued that trading for opium does NOT justify as the method to cure trade imbalance as you have implied repeatly.

                      Second, “The reason that Britain wound up with opium as virtually the only export to China was because the Chinese put so many restrictions on trade that opium was, quite literally, the only thing which they could legally and profitably export to China. Trade in almost everything else which would have been profitable was banned.”

                      Opium was banned as well. But as you stated that certain loop holes or corruptions allowed it to continue in the black market.

                      I never said they weren’t. But they could have sold “advanced goods” on the black market also, but they didn’t since they weren’t as profitable.

                      That is the entire ethical question which you have avoid admitting since the start. If trade imbalance is the problem, then don’t buy anything from China, thus no trade imbalance. The fact that British demanded Chinese goods and then got frustrated with trade imbalance caused by protection and then depending on drug trade to justify it is what I call unethical. That is something you have been trying to justify by using trade protection as an excuse. That is like justifying slavery by making the arguement for defending state’s right. Totally unethical. But I guess that is clearly something you lack… LOL.

                      I recommend you to pick up some ethic along with some basic intelligence while you still can.

          3. Dan says:

            Faraday is NOT From China. Its founded by an individual from China, who happens to be quite well known in the tech world. Tesla’s CEO is South African and Google’s CEO is from India. They are no less American either.

          4. super390 says:

            And by doing things that way instead of the American neocolonial way (google “Washington Consensus” and “The Shock Doctrine”), China has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the entire US-dominated 3rd World – which may in fact have more extremely poor people than it did before being raped by Wall Street neoliberal policies.

            But SO DID JAPAN. So did South Korea (US military aid built its giant manufacturers). So did Taiwan (former world’s biggest book pirates). Face it, free trade is a scam when Wall Street finance has rigged the game. The countries that have made any progress are the ones that screw us over.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              super390 said:

              “…Wall Street neoliberal policies”

              Superlatives aside… This may well be the most clueless post I’ve ever seen on InsideEVs.

      2. Robb Stark says:

        “You know that the US non-tariff barriers for cars coming from another country are generally considered higher than the Chinese 25%?”

        Good grief what a bunch of nonsense.

        How can non tariff barriers be higher than 25%? That does not make any sense. You can’t put an accurate number on non-tariff barriers.

        Chinese tariffs are 26% across the board. US tariff’s on cars is 2.5% and 25% on trucks.

        US non tariff import rules are clear and consistently applied.

        Chinese non-tariff barriers are a Byzantine nightmare and are applied arbitrarily. Much like Japan and South Korea.

        That is why the domestic US auto industry has ~50% US market share while Japanese companies have ~95% domestic market share where most “imports” are from domestic brands. South Korean auto companies have ~87% domestic market share.

        1. Fail Cells says:

          yep. no idea why we let these countries take advantage of us and put americans out of work. Follow the money to corrupt Republicans and Democrats…and the sheeple keep voting for them

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Robb Stark said:

          “Good grief what a bunch of nonsense.

          “How can non tariff barriers be higher than 25%? That does not make any sense.”

          Of course it doesn’t make sense. Communist propagandists are not used to having their propaganda and lies subjected to logic and fact-checking.

    3. Fail Cells says:

      +100000

  8. Jacked says:

    All the FF press releases sound great and they have a killer engineering and design team. Now for the hard part: design and build a competitive EV.

  9. Three Electrics says:

    I didn’t realize how many leaders at Faraday are ex-Tesla. The only other member on the About page came from BMW:

    Sampson, Senior Vice President of R&D and Engineering – Former Director of Vehicle & Chassis Engineering, Tesla Motors

    Dag Reckhorn, Vice President of Global Manufacturing – Former Director of Manufacturing, Tesla Model S

    Alan Cherry, Vice President of Human Resources – Former Senior Director, Human Resources, Tesla Motors

    Tom Wessner, Vice President of Supply Chain – Former Director of Purchasing, Tesla Motors

    Richard Kim, Head of Design – Founding member of BMW i Design and Lead Designer, i3 and i8 concepts.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      If all those people really are employed by FF, and if they really do have the experience claimed, then that makes this sound much more like a solid plan for an automotive startup, and a lot less like just one more company that has nothing but a website and a concept drawing, seeking investment money.

      But I remain rather skeptical. China, after all, is a place where doing business is a case of “caveat emptor” on steroids. I don’t regard a listing on the website as solid evidence that those people are actually employed by FF. Even if they all agreed to let their names be associated with FF, that may mean nothing more than they were paid a one-time consultant’s fee.

      Here’s another red flag: When I typed “Faraday Future” into Google’s search field, the #1 suggestion was “Faraday Future stock”.

      1. Three Electrics says:

        A quick search verifies titles, at least if you believe LinkedIn (which performs no verification):

        Example: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicksampsonfaraday
        “A founding member of the Executive team of FF, a new Connected Electric Vehicle company.”

        Another: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dag-reckhorn-6b537911
        “Building up a new company to build world class electric vehicles.”

        Yet another: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomwessner
        “Member of founding executive team creating a new world-class Connected Electric Vehicle (EV) company; utilizing Internet, automotive and aerospace technologies & methodologies.”

        Interestingly, all of these executives didn’t jump directly from Tesla; they all did a stint of one year or more somewhere else, despite California’s lack of non-compete. This might have been a workaround non-solicit agreements, which are enforceable in CA.

        Your suggestion that these executives were paid a “one time consultant fee” to tie their personal brands forever with the fate of FF is… a little hard to believe, Elon. Especially since when I type “Faraday Future” into Chrome, the first result in the suggestion bar is “faraday future car”, not “stock.”

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Gosh, I guess it’s just me then, who is skeptical that this is a real attempt to start a new auto manufacturing company in the USA.

          Oh, wait…

          http://www.businessinsider.com/if-electric-car-startup-faraday-future-is-for-real-then-elon-musk-will-be-very-happy-2015-7

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            OMG, you have lowered yourself to the level of Business Insider… LOL.

            BI is basically a glorified online blogger site, or “new age news media”….

      2. Mikael says:

        Considering that the owner is taking the money out of his own pocket and that he is running a very successful multibillion company it seems to be a very strange way to do it if you want to scam people and then run with the money.

        It’s no guarantee for success, most companies fail and especially car companies. But their odds and seriousness seems to be a lot better and higher than when Tesla started out.

        1. Michael Will says:

          It’s great news actually – the first factory tesla bought in Fremont from legacy car makers that couldn’t use it to create value. Maybe by the time faraday runs out of funding tesla can pick up another one for cheap.

          1. Mikael says:

            That is always a scenario, but hopefully Faraday will be very successful and both them and Tesla will be buying failing traditional ICE companies facilities on the cheap instead.

            Fiat has a few facilities and they don’t seem to want to change so I wouldn’t mind them suddenly going into bankruptcy.

  10. M. St. J. says:

    As soon as I get my Tesla model 3 I will drive by and see how their plant is doing

    1. Fabian says:

      Ha ha! + 100

    2. ffbj says:

      The ‘Quip of the Thread.”

  11. Speculawyer says:

    Someone really wants to be Elon Musk.

    1. Three Electrics says:

      I hope not, or FF’s cars will never arrive.

      1. Get Real says:

        Obviously 3 electrics is having a hard time accepting that Tesla has sold the most EVs in the entire US in 2015 with only one Model (and by far the most expensive and capable EV made). Just wait until they are ramped up and selling the Models S, X, and 3.

        http://insideevs.com/november-electric-vehicle-sales-us-strengthen/

      2. ffbj says:

        Good one, but you should have said it will happen eventually, just not when they say it will.

  12. Chip says:

    This venture sounds similar to Aptera, which hired a lot of talent but did not focus on generating revenue by getting a car into production quickly.

    Tesla started selling cars quickly using a lightweight Lotus body & AC Propulsion electric R&D.

    It will be interesting to see what styling Richard Kim comes up with after the BMW i8:

    In that video, Richard Kim refers to the design options presented by CFRP. Will Faraday opt for all aluminium like Tesla or aluminium frame & CFRP body like BMW i3?

    1. Robb Stark says:

      1)And Elon Musk said if he had to do it all over again he would start from scratch and not use Lotus gliders because Tesla ended up modifying ~97% of the parts.

      2) Tesla needed to generate revenue ASAP. Tesla’s Angel investor Elon Musk had a net worth of $180M and was also funding startup SpaceX. FF’s Angel investor Jia Yueting has a net worth of ~$7B.

  13. Foo says:

    Their factory needs more palm trees.

  14. evnow says:

    As Sony CEO commented the entry barrier to auto industry has gone down with EVs. Look for several new entrants in the next decade. Apple, Sony, Dyson … to name a few.

    1. super390 says:

      I would rather see battery companies like BYD get into EV production because they have an obvious interest in its success, and they have a cost advantage.

  15. Burdett says:

    And where will they get the water to be used by the factory and all the workers? t seems an odd location logistically.

  16. Breezy says:

    These comments make it easy to separate the true EV fans from the Tesla fanboys. Thanks for contributing.

  17. Rolf says:

    Maybe they will run their EV on capacitors instead of Li-Ion batteries. Hence the name “Faraday” Future. Then we will have a new category: CEV. I have seen big model trains running on so-called “Gold-Caps”, very impressive. Capacitors could be charged in a time comparable to a gas stations stop if you have enough electric power available. As far as I know, there should be no degradation, nor a temperature problem during charge/discharge. Let’s look into their/our F. Future.

  18. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    I see I’m not the only one asking if Faraday Future is a real company. See: “If electric-car startup Faraday Future is for real, then Elon Musk will be very happy”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/if-electric-car-startup-faraday-future-is-for-real-then-elon-musk-will-be-very-happy-2015-7

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      Apparently, you are BI fan… That is a new low for you.

      Business Insider is basically a glorified blogger site. But that is at least one opinion. Even this opinion isn’t nearly as negative as what you have been posting here.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I’d think that you’d eventually get tired of displaying your cluelessness about virtually everything, MMF.

        I don’t know much about Business Insider, but the Wikipedia article about the site indicates it’s well respected… contrary to the reputation you have earned!

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider#Reception

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          PuPu said:

          “I’d think that you’d eventually get tired of displaying your cluelessness about virtually everything, MMF.”

          LOL.

          Really, should we revisit about the topic on transmission or charging cable or how surface to volume ratio are calculated?

          I don’t think I need to school you anymore.

          Or are you going to cry about it by changing your login name again to something else?
          LOL.

  19. ModernMarvelFan says:

    I thought at one point, most of the people here would support all forms of EVs in one way or another. But the more I read it, the most it is apparent that some of the “usual suspect” are just partial to a brand or another. Mostly, it is just a bunch of Tesla Fan Boys that don’t allow other competitions. Sure, Telsa is the flag ship and it has set the EV on a path to glory. But why is it a problem to have other competition entering the market?

    It is a good thing to have more choices…

    The constant bashing of alternatives to Tesla is just tiring and stupid.

    The off topic bashing of Chinese investor is even more stupid. Then again, considering the source, I am not surprised.

    1. ffbj says:

      Well, as usual it all depends, and I will reserve judgement till it all plays out.
      I think if they producing a compelling ev in the future, then good for them, and the more the merrier. We will certainly need more than on maker of premium evs.

      The problem is if you talk of alternatives to Tesla, currently that is just a Chimera, a mythical beast, since there are none. Thus the name Faraday Future…We are not there yet, that’s why they call it the future. It has yet to occur.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “The problem is if you talk of alternatives to Tesla”

        Did Faraday talk itself up or did other news outlet talk it to compare it to Tesla?

        I think the facts support the latter.