Not according to Elon. Elon has said in interviews before that they didn't need the DOE loan, but that having it meant they could accelerate other developments.Tesla would be out of business if they did not get the 465 million from the DOE.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not according to Elon. Elon has said in interviews before that they didn't need the DOE loan, but that having it meant they could accelerate other developments.Tesla would be out of business if they did not get the 465 million from the DOE.
Not according to Elon. Elon has said in interviews before that they didn't need the DOE loan, but that having it meant they could accelerate other developments.
Should I be? Am I an insider? Nope, AnOutsider. Point is, the Karma was late, and if it's true the Nina development was delayed, that doesn't help the case that Fisker isn't doing what it needs to do to keep with the terms of its loan.
Nice article, though I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.
Nice article, thought I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.
Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).
Nice article, though I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.
Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).
I, too, am unsure why my post was added as quote in relation to the loan. What's the point being made? Also, moving these posts out to the loans thread.
Nice article, though I'm not sure why you quoted my statement in relation to it. There's nothing in it about Tesla needing the DOE to survive.
Barring some hard evidence, I'll take Elon's word for it that they would have made it without the loan (he did say though having the loan improved the IPO).
So, in short you're saying Elon is wrong about Tesla's abilities without the DOE loan and you are right?The factory etc was all purchased with the DOE loans..It was also repeated in revenge of the electric car. You think that Tesla could have completed Model S development, and attracted the private funds necessary to procure & tool a factory, expanded their store network etc with the 50 million from Diamler?
This is why GM and Chrysler did not get loans. The Roadster is profitable so Tesla could have survived just fine selling Roadsters.
So, in short you're saying Elon is wrong about Tesla's abilities without the DOE loan and you are right?
Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, point is know one knows exactly why.
So, in short you're saying Elon is wrong about Tesla's abilities without the DOE loan and you are right?
“We were saved by Daimler,” said Musk, about the deal in 2009 whereby Daimler AG took a stake in the young electric car maker.
“The DOE was a helpful catalyst,” said Musk, but it wasn’t the decisive factor in the company’s survival or success.
You seemed to think you knew about 20 minutes ago. Your quote was pretty definitive. You're approaching troll territory here...No I am saying no one really knows that answer since the DOE Loan was given to Tesla and immediately used by them...Its all speculation...
Tesla would be out of business if they did not get the 465 million from the DOE.
Again, do I know for sure? No. But I disagree. I think that's the BS reason they gave (and some karma owners agree). I do t think the car was ready -- even after the EPA gave the green light karmas did not begin deliveries for another 3 months (note, tesla got crash eating and EPA ratings on time and were able to begin deliveries as scheduled). Even then, the cars were plagued with issues indicative of a last minute rollout. Had they really been sitting on their hands waiting for regulatory approvals since April, one would assume most of those issues would not have existed when the car began deliveries in December.
The regulatory issues were for the Nina not the Karma...I doubt the DOE would be giving BS excuses and covering for DOE loan receivers.
Fisker’s production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, point is know one knows exactly why.
Wait what? When you said:
I assume we were talking the Karma delay (where they kept blaming the EPA). Now you're talking about the Atlantic? What regulatory issues held up the Atlantic? It's sort of hard to hold up a car that's basically a rolling prototype? Also doesn't excuse the poor performance in rolling out the Karma.
You seemed to think you knew about 20 minutes ago. Your quote was pretty definitive. You're approaching troll territory here...
Yes I believe that Tesla would be in bankruptcy if it were not for the DOE loan. I believe the DOE loan was the main catalyst for major investment in Tesla, the loan is what funded the tooling and purchase of the Nummi factory and Model S as well as new store development.
You believe that they would still be ok without the DOE loan.
Neither you nor I know the real answer since they were given the DOE loan. Tell me how it is possible for you to know for sure about this alternate reality? Are you some sort of choose your own adventure buff? Think about it bud, its all speculation
Please tell me how this is "troll territory"