Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Elon Musk'.
Found 20 results
-
Rumorpile: James Murdoch *Could* Become Tesla's Next Chairman
William Maley posted an article in Tesla
Tesla finds itself without a chairman of the board as Elon Musk has stepped down due to a settlement with Securities and Exchange Commission. A possible replacement for Musk could be James Murdoch, chief executive of 21st Century Fox and a member of Tesla's board according to a report from the Financial Times. The SEC is wanting the next chairperson to be independent and not beholden to Musk. Murdoch is the closest thing as he has more financial independence than another candidate, Antonio Gracias. The FT report says Gracias' venture capital firm, Valor Equity Partners was an early investor into Tesla, though it had sold its shares when Tesla had its IPO. Gracias is also a stakeholder in Musk's SpaceX, which clouds his independence. That isn't to say Murdoch's independence is clear either as he is friends with Musk, and has sided with him on a number of decisions. Sources tell the FT that Tesla is also looking outside of the company for a possible replacement. Tesla didn't respond for comment, but Elon Musk took to Twitter last night to respond. "This is incorrect," he wrote. Source: Financial Times (Subscription Required), Bloomberg -
Tesla finds itself without a chairman of the board as Elon Musk has stepped down due to a settlement with Securities and Exchange Commission. A possible replacement for Musk could be James Murdoch, chief executive of 21st Century Fox and a member of Tesla's board according to a report from the Financial Times. The SEC is wanting the next chairperson to be independent and not beholden to Musk. Murdoch is the closest thing as he has more financial independence than another candidate, Antonio Gracias. The FT report says Gracias' venture capital firm, Valor Equity Partners was an early investor into Tesla, though it had sold its shares when Tesla had its IPO. Gracias is also a stakeholder in Musk's SpaceX, which clouds his independence. That isn't to say Murdoch's independence is clear either as he is friends with Musk, and has sided with him on a number of decisions. Sources tell the FT that Tesla is also looking outside of the company for a possible replacement. Tesla didn't respond for comment, but Elon Musk took to Twitter last night to respond. "This is incorrect," he wrote. Source: Financial Times (Subscription Required), Bloomberg View full article
-
Late Thursday afternoon saw a massive bombshell dropped; the SEC sued Elon Musk over securities fraud over his August tweet that he was considering taking Tesla private and having the "Funding secured." But a new report from CNBC said there was a possible settlement between the two where Musk would not have to admit guilt. However, Musk pulled the plug on the deal at the last minute. According to sources, this is what the proposed deal looked like, Tesla and Musk would had to pay a fine Musk would not have to admit guilt or deny culpability Barred Musk as being the chairman for two years Require Tesla to find two new independent directors However, Musk refused this deal "because he felt that by settling he would not be truthful to himself, and he wouldn't have been able to live with the idea that he agreed to accept a settlement and any blemish associated with that, the sources said." This move puts Tesla and Musk in a very difficult spot. The company's stock fell 13.9 percent on Friday - the worst since November 2013. There are also questions as to whether or not Elon Musk will stay on as CEO or if this mess will force him to leave. Choosing to fight the SEC means it could take years for an outcome to be reached according to Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Bernstein Research. "In the absence of a settlement, the mere possibility that Musk could be removed as CEO (or entirely from Telsa) is likely to cast an overhang on the stock, and make it extremely difficult for the company to raise capital (either private or public)," Sacconaghi said. What will be Tesla's defense to the SEC's charge? The Wall Street Journal learned from a source that Musk believed "he had a verbal agreement in place with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund to help finance a plan to take the auto maker private." Musk believes that the SEC isn't "taking into account that Middle Eastern businesses routinely operate using verbal agreements in principle." Source: CNBC, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) View full article
-
Late Thursday afternoon saw a massive bombshell dropped; the SEC sued Elon Musk over securities fraud over his August tweet that he was considering taking Tesla private and having the "Funding secured." But a new report from CNBC said there was a possible settlement between the two where Musk would not have to admit guilt. However, Musk pulled the plug on the deal at the last minute. According to sources, this is what the proposed deal looked like, Tesla and Musk would had to pay a fine Musk would not have to admit guilt or deny culpability Barred Musk as being the chairman for two years Require Tesla to find two new independent directors However, Musk refused this deal "because he felt that by settling he would not be truthful to himself, and he wouldn't have been able to live with the idea that he agreed to accept a settlement and any blemish associated with that, the sources said." This move puts Tesla and Musk in a very difficult spot. The company's stock fell 13.9 percent on Friday - the worst since November 2013. There are also questions as to whether or not Elon Musk will stay on as CEO or if this mess will force him to leave. Choosing to fight the SEC means it could take years for an outcome to be reached according to Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Bernstein Research. "In the absence of a settlement, the mere possibility that Musk could be removed as CEO (or entirely from Telsa) is likely to cast an overhang on the stock, and make it extremely difficult for the company to raise capital (either private or public)," Sacconaghi said. What will be Tesla's defense to the SEC's charge? The Wall Street Journal learned from a source that Musk believed "he had a verbal agreement in place with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund to help finance a plan to take the auto maker private." Musk believes that the SEC isn't "taking into account that Middle Eastern businesses routinely operate using verbal agreements in principle." Source: CNBC, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) -
SEC Sues Elon Musk Over Securities Fraud, Wants Him Barred As CEO
William Maley posted an article in Tesla
The tweet that has become Elon Musk's version of Pandora's Box has brought forth a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, the SEC accused Musk of securities fraud when he tweeted that he had the funding secured to take Tesla private back in August. "Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions," the SEC wrote in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court today. "Musk's false and misleading public statements and omissions caused significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock and resulting harm to investors." In the complaint, the SEC says the $420 share price was "based on a 20% premium over that day's closing share price because he thought 20% was a 'standard premium' in going-private transactions." At the time, that price would have been $419. The complaint goes on to say "Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'" The SEC is requesting Musk "be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act." This whole mess began on August 7th with Musk tweeting this, This surprised a number of people and brought forth questions as to who would provide the large amount of funding needed for this. About a week later, Musk revealed that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) could provide the necessary funding. This was based on discussions with the fund within the past couple of years. But Musk would pull the plug on this a few weeks after announcing it. "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote in a blog post. According to Bloomberg, the SEC was already investigating Tesla for various issues including projection into car sales before Musk made the tweet that brought forth a number of problems. “This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way,” said Musk in a statement. "Neither celebrity status nor a reputation as a technological innovator provide an exemption from the federal securities laws," Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division said during a press conference. Source: Bloomberg (Subscription Required), Roadshow, SEC (Link to the complaint) -
The tweet that has become Elon Musk's version of Pandora's Box has brought forth a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, the SEC accused Musk of securities fraud when he tweeted that he had the funding secured to take Tesla private back in August. "Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions," the SEC wrote in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court today. "Musk's false and misleading public statements and omissions caused significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock and resulting harm to investors." In the complaint, the SEC says the $420 share price was "based on a 20% premium over that day's closing share price because he thought 20% was a 'standard premium' in going-private transactions." At the time, that price would have been $419. The complaint goes on to say "Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'" The SEC is requesting Musk "be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act." This whole mess began on August 7th with Musk tweeting this, This surprised a number of people and brought forth questions as to who would provide the large amount of funding needed for this. About a week later, Musk revealed that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) could provide the necessary funding. This was based on discussions with the fund within the past couple of years. But Musk would pull the plug on this a few weeks after announcing it. "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote in a blog post. According to Bloomberg, the SEC was already investigating Tesla for various issues including projection into car sales before Musk made the tweet that brought forth a number of problems. “This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way,” said Musk in a statement. "Neither celebrity status nor a reputation as a technological innovator provide an exemption from the federal securities laws," Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division said during a press conference. Source: Bloomberg (Subscription Required), Roadshow, SEC (Link to the complaint) View full article
-
If there is a trend at Tesla, it's that there's always more to the various stories. Case in point: On Friday night, CEO Elon Musk posted a piece on Tesla's blog saying that plans have been scrapped about taking the company private. "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote. But what led him to this decision? Over the weekend, Bloomberg, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal published pieces into Musk's reversal. The short of it comes down to Musk jumped the gun with his announcement earlier this month on Twitter without making sure everything was in place. This from the New York Times - emphasis mine. Let's begin with Saudi Arabia. As we reported earlier this month, Musk said in a blog post that he believed Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund could provide the funding necessary for the move to go private. This was based on discussions between the two, along with the fund purchasing a small stake into the company. The Saudi's didn't share the same enthusiasm. While the fund was open to make a significant investment into Tesla to hedge the country against oil and help attract tech expertise, sources tell Bloomberg the fund was only interested in a minority stake. The two hadn't reached an agreement on the possible terms according to a source, before Musk made his post announcing the fund. The Wall Street Journal learned from a government official that Musk's post angered some senior officials in the kingdom. Some officials wondered about Musk's "health as well as the role he would play in the company." This might explain some of reasoning behind the possibility of Saudi Arabia's PIF investing to Lucid Motors - something we brought to light last week. Meanwhile, there were concerns at Tesla about Saudi Arabia. Some complained to Musk about selling a large chunk of shares to a foreign oil producer wouldn't be a good look. As for the private investors, the Journal reports that Goldman Sachs and private-equity firm were brought in to help facilitate a deal. Last Wednesday, the two presented Musk a roster of investors including Volkswagen and Silver Lake itself (promising to contribute up to $30 billion according to sources). But these weren't the investors that Musk wanted as he was suspicious of rival car companies, along with losing a number of small investors. There would also be a catch as the two explained the money being provided would have strings attached such as having a lot of say in how the company is run. A day later, Musk met with the board saying that he would be withdrawing the idea of going private. Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) -
If there is a trend at Tesla, it's that there's always more to the various stories. Case in point: On Friday night, CEO Elon Musk posted a piece on Tesla's blog saying that plans have been scrapped about taking the company private. "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote. But what led him to this decision? Over the weekend, Bloomberg, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal published pieces into Musk's reversal. The short of it comes down to Musk jumped the gun with his announcement earlier this month on Twitter without making sure everything was in place. This from the New York Times - emphasis mine. Let's begin with Saudi Arabia. As we reported earlier this month, Musk said in a blog post that he believed Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund could provide the funding necessary for the move to go private. This was based on discussions between the two, along with the fund purchasing a small stake into the company. The Saudi's didn't share the same enthusiasm. While the fund was open to make a significant investment into Tesla to hedge the country against oil and help attract tech expertise, sources tell Bloomberg the fund was only interested in a minority stake. The two hadn't reached an agreement on the possible terms according to a source, before Musk made his post announcing the fund. The Wall Street Journal learned from a government official that Musk's post angered some senior officials in the kingdom. Some officials wondered about Musk's "health as well as the role he would play in the company." This might explain some of reasoning behind the possibility of Saudi Arabia's PIF investing to Lucid Motors - something we brought to light last week. Meanwhile, there were concerns at Tesla about Saudi Arabia. Some complained to Musk about selling a large chunk of shares to a foreign oil producer wouldn't be a good look. As for the private investors, the Journal reports that Goldman Sachs and private-equity firm were brought in to help facilitate a deal. Last Wednesday, the two presented Musk a roster of investors including Volkswagen and Silver Lake itself (promising to contribute up to $30 billion according to sources). But these weren't the investors that Musk wanted as he was suspicious of rival car companies, along with losing a number of small investors. There would also be a catch as the two explained the money being provided would have strings attached such as having a lot of say in how the company is run. A day later, Musk met with the board saying that he would be withdrawing the idea of going private. Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) View full article
-
Over two weeks ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took everyone by surprise by announcing his intention to take Tesla private. But those plans have been scrapped. Last night, Musk published a blog post saying that he had met with the board and “let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.” "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” wrote Musk. In a separate statement, Tesla's board of directors confirmed Musk's decision. "Yesterday, we held a Board meeting, during which Elon reported on the work he and his advisors have been doing in connection with this effort. Elon communicated to the Board that after having done this work and considered all factors, he believes the better path is to no longer pursue a transaction for taking Tesla private. After discussing this, we dissolved the Special Committee. The Board and the entire company remain focused on ensuring Tesla’s operational success, and we fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving forward," the statement says. This saga began with a tweet back on August 7th, This tweet sent everyone into a tizzy and caused NASDAQ to halt trading of Tesla stock for a few hours. There was one big question, how was Tesla going to fund this? Musk revealed a week later that it would be Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, though reports say the fund isn't so thrilled about this idea. As we reported earlier this week, the fund is in talks with another electric automaker, Lucid Motors. The announcement has prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to subpoena the company, along with a number of lawsuits from upset investors. Source: Tesla, Bloomberg -
Over two weeks ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took everyone by surprise by announcing his intention to take Tesla private. But those plans have been scrapped. Last night, Musk published a blog post saying that he had met with the board and “let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.” "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” wrote Musk. In a separate statement, Tesla's board of directors confirmed Musk's decision. "Yesterday, we held a Board meeting, during which Elon reported on the work he and his advisors have been doing in connection with this effort. Elon communicated to the Board that after having done this work and considered all factors, he believes the better path is to no longer pursue a transaction for taking Tesla private. After discussing this, we dissolved the Special Committee. The Board and the entire company remain focused on ensuring Tesla’s operational success, and we fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving forward," the statement says. This saga began with a tweet back on August 7th, This tweet sent everyone into a tizzy and caused NASDAQ to halt trading of Tesla stock for a few hours. There was one big question, how was Tesla going to fund this? Musk revealed a week later that it would be Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, though reports say the fund isn't so thrilled about this idea. As we reported earlier this week, the fund is in talks with another electric automaker, Lucid Motors. The announcement has prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to subpoena the company, along with a number of lawsuits from upset investors. Source: Tesla, Bloomberg View full article
-
Last Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted out that he was considering taking the automaker private and had "secured" funding. Since then, the question of who is providing the funding has been left unanswered. Today, Musk wrote up a blog post that provides some insight. The post reveals that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund is responsible for the possible funding of Tesla's move to private. In the last two years, representatives of the fund have met with Musk and discussed possibly taking the company off the market. The most recent meeting was on July 31st, after the fund bought an almost 5 percent stake. "During the meeting, the Managing Director of the fund expressed regret that I had not moved forward previously on a going private transaction with them, and he strongly expressed his support for funding a going private transaction for Tesla at this time. I understood from him that no other decision makers were needed and that they were eager to proceed," Musk wrote. "I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement." The board was notified about Musk's intentions to take Tesla private on August 2nd. From there, the board held a meeting (minus Musk and his brother Kimbal, who is also a board member) to discuss this possibility. Musk also planned to speak to the company's largest shareholders about the possible move. Towards the end of the post, Musk said he is continuing "to communicate with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund," and that "he has expressed support for proceeding subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals." But there is one big question that is unanswered; did Musk secure the funding when he made that tweet or not? As we reported last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking into whether or not Musk was lying about the funding. If Musk was able to get the funding, it will be quite awhile before Tesla can become private. Per the blog post, the board needs to put together a plan that it can agree upon. From there, shareholders will vote on the plan. If approved, Tesla can start on the next steps. Source: Tesla View full article
-
Last Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted out that he was considering taking the automaker private and had "secured" funding. Since then, the question of who is providing the funding has been left unanswered. Today, Musk wrote up a blog post that provides some insight. The post reveals that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund is responsible for the possible funding of Tesla's move to private. In the last two years, representatives of the fund have met with Musk and discussed possibly taking the company off the market. The most recent meeting was on July 31st, after the fund bought an almost 5 percent stake. "During the meeting, the Managing Director of the fund expressed regret that I had not moved forward previously on a going private transaction with them, and he strongly expressed his support for funding a going private transaction for Tesla at this time. I understood from him that no other decision makers were needed and that they were eager to proceed," Musk wrote. "I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement." The board was notified about Musk's intentions to take Tesla private on August 2nd. From there, the board held a meeting (minus Musk and his brother Kimbal, who is also a board member) to discuss this possibility. Musk also planned to speak to the company's largest shareholders about the possible move. Towards the end of the post, Musk said he is continuing "to communicate with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund," and that "he has expressed support for proceeding subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals." But there is one big question that is unanswered; did Musk secure the funding when he made that tweet or not? As we reported last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking into whether or not Musk was lying about the funding. If Musk was able to get the funding, it will be quite awhile before Tesla can become private. Per the blog post, the board needs to put together a plan that it can agree upon. From there, shareholders will vote on the plan. If approved, Tesla can start on the next steps. Source: Tesla -
tesla ford morgue Tweeter War after Elon Musk calls Ford a Morgue
G. David Felt posted a topic in Tesla
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-races-to-exit-teslas-production-hell-1530149814 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2018/06/28/elon-musk-calls-ford-morgue-ford-fires-back/741328002/ Seems Elon Musk is up to his habit of deflecting attention on Tesla's lack of profit, inability to deliver 5000 Model 3s a week and has to rely on calling for "like a morgue according to the news. Seems lots of finger pointing by Musk and yet Ford, GM and others have shown the media how they turn out a 1000 auto's a day on their production lines. Ford recently brought the media into one of their plants to show off how they build 1000 trucks / SUVs a day on the assembly line. Something Tesla has not been able to reproduce. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2018/02/12/ford-boosts-navigator-expedition-production/110331592/ -
Tesla and SpaceX Facebook accounts Deleted by Elon Musk Musk Tweets What is Facebook as he has deleted his Tesla and SpaceX accounts. Seems Facebook is not reliable, safe or should even be used anymore. http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/elon-musk-facebook/index.html http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-deletes-tesla-spacex-facebook-pages-2018-3 Business insider expands on the story by pointing to 2016 when a SpaceX rocket that was supposed to launch a Facebook Satellite blew up costing Facebook millions. Some interesting reads and challenges. What do you think?
-
Elon Musk Compensation Update Seems the board is holding Elon Musk to a compensation plan that is all stock for hitting deliverables and taking the company to a $650 Billion value. First stock options kick in at $100 Billion and then every $50 Billion after that. He is not being paid cash or any other awards especially with the slip in Tesla 3 production. 12 year vesting period Stock grants only based on achieving milestones Must stay as CEO or serve at Chairman of the board and Chief product officer. Currently no changes in existing roles. Full Story here
-
One thing you cannot call Elon Musk is a shrinking violet. The CEO of Tesla has taken to Twitter once again to defend the company. This time it deals with the results of Consumer Reports' annual reliability survey where the Model S, a vehicle which had earned the coveted Recommended rating, lost it this year due to a number of problems reported by owners. CR says the Model S likely to face a "worse-than-average" overall problem rate. Musk said in his tweets that problems outlined in CR's survey were because of early production models and that new models have these issues ironed out. Musk goes on to say "Most important, CR says 97% of owners expect their next car to be a Tesla (the acid test)." Source: Elon Musk Twitter, (2) -
One thing you cannot call Elon Musk is a shrinking violet. The CEO of Tesla has taken to Twitter once again to defend the company. This time it deals with the results of Consumer Reports' annual reliability survey where the Model S, a vehicle which had earned the coveted Recommended rating, lost it this year due to a number of problems reported by owners. CR says the Model S likely to face a "worse-than-average" overall problem rate. Musk said in his tweets that problems outlined in CR's survey were because of early production models and that new models have these issues ironed out. Musk goes on to say "Most important, CR says 97% of owners expect their next car to be a Tesla (the acid test)." Source: Elon Musk Twitter, (2) View full article
-
G. David Felt Alternative Fuels & Propulsion writer www.CheersandGears.com Tesla Elon Musk extends Auto Warranty to 8yrs unlimited miles It is a good thing to drop into the Tesla Blog every so often as you pick up things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmm! Infinite Mile Warranty On August 15th 2014, CEO Elon Musk posted that the Warranty on the Drive unit would now match the Battery pack. So retroactive to the beginning, all Tesla's will now have an 8yr, unlimited mileage warranty on the 85kWh motor and battery pack. Musk states that this should have been the standard warranty from the begining and that the electric motors are more reliable than a more complex moving parts, oily residue polluting gas engine that gets gummed up. To the investors, he does acknowledge that in the short term this will have a negative effect on Tesla as they build up their warranty reserves above current levels as required. With this announcement it does make one think and brings up questions! How many auto's have had electric motor and or battery failures to date? Is this to push off or make go away lawsuits by current auto owners over battery and electric motor issues? What is Tesla trying to hide? Is this a shell game to hide profits? Is this a move to account for on going cash drains? Is this to make you equal to Toyota Prius family warranty of 8 yrs / 100,000 miles warranty on powertrain and battery? Questions, Questions, Questions, What is Elon Musk hiding? What is your thoughts?
-
William Maley Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com August 21, 2012 Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk recently gave an interview with Automobile Magazine talking about the company and what lies ahead. Musk also took the opportunity to rip into Fisker. “It’s a mediocre product at a high price. The car looks very big, and yet it has no trunk space and is very cramped inside, particularly in the rear seats.” Musk also spoke out against Fisker founder, Henrik Fisker. “The fundamental problem with Henrik Fisker — he is a designer or stylist…he thinks the reason we don’t have electric cars is for lack of styling. This is not the reason. It’s fundamentally a technology problem. At the same time, you need to make it look good and feel good, because otherwise you’re going to have an impaired product. But just making something look like an electric car does not make it an electric car.” Musk went onto to say, “[Fisker] thinks the most important thing in the world — or the only important thing in the world — is design, so he outsourced the engineering and manufacturing. But the fact is…that’s the crux of the problem. And he’s outsourcing to people who don’t know how to solve the problem.” So why does Elon Musk have so much hatred for Fisker. Well, Musk alleges that when Fisker was tasked to design the Model S, he took specifications of the vehicle and used them for the Karma. “We were paying someone to do styling for his own car,” Musk said. Tesla sued Fisker over this, but was unsuccessful. Automobile Magazine asked Henrik Fisker for comment. This was his response. "Obviously, Tesla and Fisker are appealing to two different customer bases with two totally different technologies. Tesla has pure EV and Fisker has a range-extended offering with no compromise on range. We are proud to have delivered over 1000 Karmas to customers in the U.S. and Europe and are now moving into the [Gulf Cooperation Council countries] and Chinese global markets. We wish Tesla all the best with their latest model and hope that both companies go from strength to strength as they challenge the automotive rulebook." Source: Automobile Magazine William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster. View full article
-
William Maley Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com August 21, 2012 Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk recently gave an interview with Automobile Magazine talking about the company and what lies ahead. Musk also took the opportunity to rip into Fisker. “It’s a mediocre product at a high price. The car looks very big, and yet it has no trunk space and is very cramped inside, particularly in the rear seats.” Musk also spoke out against Fisker founder, Henrik Fisker. “The fundamental problem with Henrik Fisker — he is a designer or stylist…he thinks the reason we don’t have electric cars is for lack of styling. This is not the reason. It’s fundamentally a technology problem. At the same time, you need to make it look good and feel good, because otherwise you’re going to have an impaired product. But just making something look like an electric car does not make it an electric car.” Musk went onto to say, “[Fisker] thinks the most important thing in the world — or the only important thing in the world — is design, so he outsourced the engineering and manufacturing. But the fact is…that’s the crux of the problem. And he’s outsourcing to people who don’t know how to solve the problem.” So why does Elon Musk have so much hatred for Fisker. Well, Musk alleges that when Fisker was tasked to design the Model S, he took specifications of the vehicle and used them for the Karma. “We were paying someone to do styling for his own car,” Musk said. Tesla sued Fisker over this, but was unsuccessful. Automobile Magazine asked Henrik Fisker for comment. This was his response. "Obviously, Tesla and Fisker are appealing to two different customer bases with two totally different technologies. Tesla has pure EV and Fisker has a range-extended offering with no compromise on range. We are proud to have delivered over 1000 Karmas to customers in the U.S. and Europe and are now moving into the [Gulf Cooperation Council countries] and Chinese global markets. We wish Tesla all the best with their latest model and hope that both companies go from strength to strength as they challenge the automotive rulebook." Source: Automobile Magazine William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.
