Faraday Future Way Behind Schedule, First Deliveries “Not Possible” In 2017

DEC 12 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 19

Faraday Future’s recent struggles, including a work stoppage order at its Nevada factory, have delayed the release of the automaker’s first production electric car, according to a source.

Faraday Future Electric Car

Faraday Future Electric Car

Initially, Faraday had promised to release its first car for sale to the public by the end of 2017, but without a factory, it seems that’s far too optimistic a timeframe now.

As TechCrunch states, the folks over at Financial Times spoke to an “anonymous former employee” of Faraday and this particular individual clearly stated that deliveries in 2017 are “not possible.” The former employee didn’t provide any additional details, but given that the factory is nowhere near completion, we tend to think his “not possible” in 2017 is accurate.

We will be in attendance to see Faraday Future’s first production vehicle debut in Las Vegas just before CES on January 3rd 2017 (check out one of their prototypes racing a Ferrari and a Model X here), and we expect to get a more solid idea of the currect status and timeline of the company’s production EV then.

Source: Tech Crunch

Categories: Faraday Future

Tags:

Leave a Reply

19 Comments on "Faraday Future Way Behind Schedule, First Deliveries “Not Possible” In 2017"

newest oldest most voted

I have nothing against EV start ups, I actually root for them. Lucid, for example, I really hope they succeed. But FF?

They lost me after that strange non street legal, non functioning, 1 seater kind of race car unveil. After they showed teasers about a car sharing and autonomous future in driving . They clearly have the wrong priorities.

Completely agree with you on FF. They leave me with the feeling they have a mad scientist at the helm. Promising mad visions of one then, then midstream conjuring visions of something totally different.

Since Faraday Future and Lucid Motors are both financed by LeEco, maybe the should just merge and combine their efforts/talents. Then they could work on building the new factory in Casa Grande together (or Las Vegas if they go that route).

That actually makes sense since the FF has a planned SUV and Lucid has a planned sedan.

Faraday Future was nothing more than dot-com era marketing hype to lure venture capital funding and big name talent onto the payroll. I am sure that missing their roll-out timeframe means they won’t be able to show revenue, and their investors will demand some value, which means either a sale to a holding company or a liquidation. But then, I figured that out when it was clear to the consumer market that there would be nothing to buy from Faraday Future.

Say, I had a thought: maybe no more articles on FF until they actually do something. Oh say like produce a thousand cars or so.
But since that is wishful thinking here we can view a few headlines in advance, just like FF does.

Faraday Future: Foibles, and Fumbles, Follow the Fleet. Frenzied FF Failures and Founders.
FF Flim Flam Flame-outs.

So, this company is starting out like Tesla did. Commenters should give them a chance.

Did Tesla start out by making ludicrous claims that it would be building cars in its own factory within two years after its first press release? No. Did Tesla build a mockup, non-functional pretense of a one-seater “batmobile” race car, and tout that as their “prototype”? No, Tesla used the existing tZero prototype from AC Propulsion as their prototype, so they were actually able to give potential investors rides in a real BEV “supercar”. Tesla also licensed AC Propulsion’s EV tech to build what became the Tesla Roadster. Did Tesla start out by building its first car in its own factory? No, Tesla started out with more modest, and more realistic plans: They contracted with Lotus to build “gliders” (cars with no powertrain) for them, and then Tesla installed their own EV powertrain into it. Did Telsa also make ridiculous and pointless claims, like FF claiming it was inventing new battery tech to give their cars the “highest energy density” of any production EV? Heck no, Tesla said quite plainly that they’d be buying commodity batteries on the open market, to make their battery pack using the cheapest possible cells. Tesla had a lot of problems in their early years,… Read more »

“But altho those in charge of Tesla had some fundamentally unrealistic ideas, most notably trying to build cars like Silicon Valley builds computers, their plans were almost infinitely more realistic than the ones of whoever is in charge of Faraday Future.”
———

I believe FF has already tapped a lot of Detroit talent. This something Tesla didn’t do until later, when they realized the difficulty of actually building cars.

I am interested to hear more from FF, and the reveal of their vehicle. But just like Tesla, my ears won’t perk up until they make something that’s around $40k, which is about what I’m willing to spend for something like a car.

How about “until they make anything at all.”

They will be showing their new car in a couple weeks and have videos of it racing other fast cars. The question is if this will ever make it out of a factory?

No, the question is “what factory?” Ha ha. In seriousness, Elon Musk walked in with his Paypal riches to fund Tesla Motors. He also got the Toyota RAV4 EV contract and Daimler for the Smart EV.

I sincerely hope that all those talented folks at Faraday Future will have jobs next year. I have my doubts as to whether they will have their current jobs, however.

Odds are stacked against them. Pulling off any startup is tough, and in the auto-industry, almost impossible. That’s why I don’t feel like jumping on the pile to shoot them down. Even if startups like these don’t survive, we need them to keep pushing the envelope and keep the pressure on the existing OEMs. Otherwise they will just sit back & relax.

Kdawg said:

“I believe FF has already tapped a lot of Detroit talent. This something Tesla didn’t do until later, when they realized the difficulty of actually building cars.”

That is certainly true, and point in favor of FF.

But why does FF need so many high-profile execs, when it’s not even building its own factory yet? (Just clearing the land doesn’t count any more for FF than it did for Tesla just clearing the land for its Gigafactory.)

Let’s hope that those execs are actually employed doing something useful, altho really, how many execs do you need to oversee building and testing a prototype car? The Nevada State Treasurer’s claims that FF is a “Ponzi scheme” makes me wonder if most of them were hired just to promote FF to investors, and not to actually build either cars or an auto assembly plant.

Many called Tesla a “Ponzi scheme” (and some still do). Like I said above, I just don’t feel like it’s necessary to bash them at this point, a new EV company. They have enough hurdles that they don’t need us to give them another one. If there was a new diesel car company starting, then I could see us taking aim.

The Detroit talent they tapped (some via Tesla) is all the sort that’s useless for a startup focused on getting to market quickly. They’re high-level managers from Big Auto, whereas Job #1, #2 and #3 for an EV startup is demonstrating working prototypes. That requires a couple of dozen engineers, and not executives. If they have money to burn, that should be spent on making several different prototypes in parallel, to shorten R&D time.
Until there are working prototypes, no money should be spent on VP salaries, factories or show attendance.

“Initially, Faraday had promised to release its first car for sale to the public by the end of 2017, but without a factory, it seems that’s far too optimistic a timeframe now.”

Ya think?

Faraday Future’s claims about how soon they were gonna get their car into production were never even remotely possible. It takes about two years to build a factory and fine-tune it for volume production. So, in the unlikely event that FF solves its problem with not being sufficiently funded, and they actually start building a real auto assembly plant next month, at the beginning of 2017, then they might be able to actually start making cars there in early 2019.

Again, that’s a very optimistic scenario, and ignores all the very large red flags that indicate FF is either run by someone with no clue about how to run a business, or else it’s a scam. While I don’t personally see sufficient evidence to state as fact that it is a scam, the Nevada State Treasurer has stated flatly that it is a “Ponzi scheme”. And he’s obviously in a position to know more than I do.

More likely, they are doing a peer to Peer scheme, of which the Chinese are famous for pulling off. Doing it on US soil with US workers doesn’t mean that the Chinese executives aren’t fooling their backers. The time table smacks of lies, just as you said. If one of the 3 major auto manufacturers said “we’re building a new factory in Amarillo, TX in the next 18 months,” I’d believe them. They can simply copy an existing factory, use existing suppliers, and work from that.

The sad reality is that no supplier is going to extend FF a line of credit if they aren’t paying their bills. We’re only the masses following a news article, but the reality is that these private business conversations are much, much more telling.

I’m unfamiliar with P2P (peer-to-peer) lending/investment scams, so thanks for the heads-up. Vexar. Googling the subject, I see the term “Ponzi scheme” is used to describe Chinese P2P investing scams.

Your scenario would certainly fit with reports that FF is keeping their list of investors secret, which is something at least one analyst finds troubling, and certainly could be a sign of someone trying to hide evidence of a scam.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-fraud-idUSKCN0VB2O1

http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/faraday-future-factory-electric-car/