Fisker’s Upcoming EV To Go 400 Miles, But Henrik Says OEMS Should Stay Away From Autonomous Development

8 months ago by Mark Kane 31

Henrik Fisker: A Breakthrough: Innovative new butterfly doors in our new Fisker model, for easier ingress/egress. More next week...

Henrik Fisker: A Breakthrough: Innovative new butterfly doors in our new Fisker model, for easier ingress/egress. More next week…

Henrik Fisker is back in the plug-in vehicle news cycle with the recent announcement of a new company, battery breakthroughs and a new all-electric car in developments.

Fisker's Game Changer

Fisker’s Game Changer

A new model is be unveiled next year, and recently this week we saw the first teaser, which included “butterfly” doors.

The new EV is said to have a usable range of over 400 miles (that lasts for the entire life of the vehicle).   The new battery  to provide such lofty benchmarks is set to be developed at Fisker Nanotech’s facility in California.

This first EV is also said to be a precursor for a more affordable model, a very similar plan that we have seen unfold with Tesla and the Model S and upcoming Model 3.

However Fisker’s approach to autonomy will diverge from Tesla’s, as the new Fisker outfit has zero plans to develop its own proprietary system.

Henrik Fisker even said to Business Insider he doesn’t think automakers should develop such technology at all, but rather leave that to 3rd parties:

Henrik Fisker With His Original Karma

Henrik Fisker With His Original Karma

“I probably have a very controversial view on autonomous driving versus anybody else in the auto industry. I don’t believe that it makes any sense for an automaker to develop autonomous driving.”

“He added that suppliers, instead of independent car companies, should be the ones developing and integrating driverless tech in cars going forward.

“The implementation of autonomous driving needs a whole new rethinking,” he said. “To really make it an attribute for society, we really need to think differently about where and when and how we implement this.””

It would seem likely that the new all-electric Fisker probably will be produced by VLF Automotive in Detroit.

source: Business Insider

Tags: , , ,

31 responses to "Fisker’s Upcoming EV To Go 400 Miles, But Henrik Says OEMS Should Stay Away From Autonomous Development"

  1. jimijon says:

    Fisker is FOS Vaporware ..Why do even they publish this BOZO.

    1. SJC says:

      There is room for a luxury four door EV that is NOT a Tesla. He needs to partner with people who know how to build cars.

  2. Renzo says:

    Fisker may be a good designer but a technologist he is not. He sure got snooker by Quantum Fuel Technologies. Hmm, wonder if his battery buddy took lessons from QTWW?

  3. mhpr262 says:

    Maybe Fisker should first start a car brand that doesn’t go broke before telling other OEMs what they should and shouldn’t do …

    1. jomijon says:

      Yea really…But going broke is how Scammers make their monies..They have a Knack of getting into people’s Pockets ,They Grab & Run !

  4. MDEV says:

    Exactly why Karma went broke, backwards thinking, he should keep working as an employee designing and leave production of cars for the people who knows it.

    1. jimijon says:

      I agree , but he can’t make the BIG easy BUCKS on designing alone . Scamming along with some BS design to go along with it, is his Forte’,that creates the opening to get into people’s/investors pockets .

  5. Ahldor says:

    Autonomy may be too expensive to let 3rd party companies develop, since every car model needs its own autonomy system integrated and where a huge amount of data has to be collected just like for Tesla cars.

    Elon Musk said Tesla cant just sell the autonomy hardware as a kit to other manufacturers, due to the complexity of the system.

    If it is anything a car manufacturer should make by themselves it is the autonomy system for their cars (which may be a pity for smaller manufacturers, atleast in the near term).

    1. arne-nl says:

      On the contrary.

      The interesting thing in autonomous driving is the software, not the hardware. Apart from the computing core, the hardware is mostly cheap off-the-shelf components.

      What these third parties will sell is a computing core that accepts a varying selection of sensor inputs (camera, radar, lidar, ultrasonic, acceleration, wheel rotation) and can be hooked up to the the car’s CAN bus to control the steering, drivetrain, brakes, turn signals, etc. Finding a place for a computing core somewhere in a car is trivial. That doesn’t require you to make it in-house.

      That computing core can be made generic so that it can accept a variable collection of sensor inputs and use whatever is available. So for example 8 camera’s + radar. Or 4 camera’s + lidar or whatever combination yields the best value for money.

      It will be parameterized to know (or learn by itself by doing a few rounds on a special test track) the important properties of the vehicle (length, width, weight, center of gravity, max acceleration, traction etc). Even a manufacturer will do that so the same autonomous AI can be shared over various models in the lineup and different iterations of the same model.

  6. Ocean Railroader says:

    I think this new company is planning a smart move to avoid self driving cars for the time being.

    The reason why I think it’s a good idea is that they have not had a major case yet that has reached the US Supreme court to show who’s fault it is in a car accident with a self driving car.

    At the same time this is going on Tesla in theory could have some major events go wrong with it’s self driving cars that put it in law suit city. Which could in theory shrink the company.

    Besides considering how new this company is they really have to focus on range and power along with cost.

    1. ffbj says:

      Too many if, ands, or buts. If you are not on the technology train you are going to get run over by it.
      As regards not developing your own tech for a company already so far behind it does make sense to use off the shelf components. It also makes sense to minimize the efforts of those who are vastly superior to you in that area.

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        The reality now is there are a lot of ifs and what could happen or what could not happen running around at this point in time.

        Here is a example http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/driverless-car-hits-lorry-during-test-drive It was a small accident but the 900 pound gorrlia has to be answered first about what if it kills someone in auto mode.

        I don’t want to be on the technology train if it’s heading towards a missing bridge that is hiding around the bend.

        1. ffbj says:

          I am not trying minimize your concern merely pointing out that this is happening and there is nothing to stop it.

  7. Terawatt says:

    Maybe they can innovate, but we have no reason to think so. The ironically named Karma certainly was an exercise in pure style over substance. Technically it was a disaster. And even I could tell, long before stories about them catching fire began to emerge!

    The gimmicky doors are a tell. Unlike the FWD mistake there’s not even a rationale behind these, no problem they attempt to solve. It’s a bad omen; expect another crappy product with only exclusivity and looks to offer. Get one if you like paying to advertise your ignorance!

  8. Alaa says:

    If autonomous cars are safer then what he is telling us is keep killing people. What is the matter with this man?

  9. Ocean Railroader says:

    I found a video from a TV Show called Rescue 911 that I ran across today. it has a guy ave a heart attack and pass out in the car. While it’s still driving down the highway.

    What I’m wondering about is if this car had been a self driving car would it keep going the speed it’s going though the stoplights. And would the car keep driving on it’s predetermined course or if the driver put the in auto drive before he passed out. Would the car keep driving till it runs out of power?

    1. floydboy says:

      The fully self driving car will take the individual to a destination and stop. A lower level of autonomy will nag and then slow down and stop. A manually driven car….sorry, you’re on your own!?

    2. Roy_H says:

      Interesting point. I wonder if the car should keep track of driver alertness and take some action if not. I think fully autonomous cars should have an emergency function easily activated i.e. driver says “Help!” and contacts police and drives to nearest hospital.

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        I remember reading that railroad locomotives have a dead man’s switch that the Railroader would have to interact with every few minutes to keep the train running. If the Railroader doesn’t interact with the switch or dies the train would come to a stop.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Ocean Railroader said:

      “What I’m wondering about is if this car had been a self driving car would it keep going the speed it’s going though the stoplights.”

      If it’s really self-driving, then it’s going to observe and obey traffic lights. Google’s self-driving cars have been doing that for sometime. Also, Tesla has recently demonstrated one of their cars has the ability to do that, at least under the conditions shown in their recent video.

  10. Nix says:

    All I’m seeing is excuse making and dreaming.

    When you say “The new battery to provide such lofty benchmarks is set to be developed”, that means it doesn’t exist now, and pretending it will magically happen on schedule is a fantasy.

    When you don’t have autonomous software, and no budget or time to develop it, you say it is a bad technology. That’s just sour grapes.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…just sour grapes.”

      Exactly what I was going to say.

  11. William says:

    Fancy doors, that BMW and Tesla Have Already Done, and some extra range, without a super charger network! Take a pass on this, again! H. Fisker will need a new hat, for which to pull his next rabbit from. Great Designer of cars, the Fisker Atlantic would have been cool, had it made it into production!

  12. Roy_H says:

    I don’t think Fisker deserves all the negativity in these comments. I don’t think the Karma was a great car, but the failure was more to do with bad luck. Electric motors manufactured with the wrong bearing, battery with manufacturing error (welding seam in wrong place) both requiring expensive re-call and replacement, then hurricane wiping out inventory with no insurance (they thought they were insured). None of these were Fisker’s fault.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to oversee production of the parts and sub-assemblies. I do agree that it would be unfair to blame Fisker for the problems in A123’s batteries, because that’s a specialty technology that it’s not reasonable to expect anyone at an auto manufacturer to have spotted.

      But if one of the subassemblies had the wrong bearing, that should have been spotted by Fisker.

      Blaming everyone else for all your problems isn’t what successful businesses do. Nor responsible adults, either. In either case, it’s the mark of a failure.

  13. LOL says:

    Bravo Fisker, nothing wrong with your controversial stance, many ofhers share your views, but are momentarily out of breath, so cannot spill it out.