100 Preproduction Elio's To Be Built In December!!

[Eliodude]

Certainly the SEC filings require more information than EM would otherwise release and share with the general public..........so it's an accurate bigger picture...........perhaps not the whole picture..........but big.

The 10-Q's are wonderful tools to evaluate Elio's current financial health, and it's abilities to further fund vehicle development.

At this point, the big picture is binary, successful production with profitability, or bankruptcy. There will be no middle ground.

Let's hope for the best outcome!

 

[3wheelin]

The filings intentionally slant to the negative. But since the E cars aren't even 1/3 done, the testing cannot realistically be done before year end 2016. So obviously 100 cars are vaporware until 2016, and i am betting well into the second quarter at the earliest. IF they get the ATVM loan that can speed up some ... but net net, IMO, is full production is a year away at best. Next year in Jerusalem, right?

Totally agree. So far, we have not heard of another completed E-series test Elio/s let alone results of any tests completed and it's almost Sept.! No wonder the reservations has not moved much and it'll take a long while to get to 65K unless drastic and positive announcements are revealed soon.

 

[floydv]

Until the ATVM loan is approved (and maybe even some time afterward), it's likely all EM filings will be very conservative in their language, a necessity in today's litigious environment.

 

[pistonboy]

Originally there were to be 100 vehicle for in-house usage. I interpreted this to mean some vehicles or partial vehicles would be used for calibration of robots. In envisioned some vehicle bodies with welded parts that were precisely aligned and this would be placed at a robot welding station to educate the robot on where to weld, and would be used in the future to check the robot’s accuracy. A “calibration/alignment tool” like this would exist for every robot station, and periodically brought out on 3rd shift to keep the assembly line accurate. This is what I thought these 100 vehicles for in-house usage would be used for, among other uses. This is my speculation, of course.

That is why I was surprised they would be sold to a fleet customer. I also assume any vehicle put on the road would have to incorporate design changes resulting from E1,E4, and E5 at minimum. Things changed from delivering vehicles to reservationists on 2016, to delivering 100 preproduction vehicles in December, to starting to delivery 100 preproduction vehicles in December.

Is the sale of the 100 preproduction vehicle sale to a “fleet customer”, really a disguised delay? EM was heading towards another delay but did not want it to be known due to the backlash from the previous delay? So, they said they would sell 100 preproduction vehicles to a fleet customer, and reservationists would receive theirs in 2017. This makes it look like they really are making delivery in 2016, but I don’t see how they can. (???)

Note this:
Now the SEC filing says something slightly different. It says:
“A detailed 47-week launch plan has been developed,
which includes 25 weeks of pre-production activities, 10 weeks of manufacturing validation and training, and 12 weeks of increased
production to reach optimal production output. Incorporated into the launch is the plan that the first 100 vehicles produced will be sold
to a fleet customer to provide feedback.”
Notice it is talking about “100 vehicles”, not “100 preproduction vehicles”. These are technically two different things. The SEC document sounds like it is talking about genuine “production vehicles”, not preproduction vehicles.

The part:
“12 weeks of increased
production to reach optimal production output”
sounds like the period where they start at zero and ramp up to 1000 vehicles per day, thus the vehicles produced after it would be genuine production vehicles (sold to some fleet customer), not preproduction.

I guess if everything is a complicated quagmire, no one can say you are doing anything wrong.

Edit: I removed two footnote numbers because they do not reproduce as superscripts properly.

 

[Ekh]

Originally there were to be 100 vehicle for in-house usage. I interpreted this to mean some vehicles or partial vehicles would be used for calibration of robots. In envisioned some vehicle bodies with welded parts that were precisely aligned and this would be placed at a robot welding station to educate the robot on where to weld, and would be used in the future to check the robot’s accuracy. A “calibration/alignment tool” like this would exist for every robot station, and periodically brought out on 3rd shift to keep the assembly line accurate. This is what I thought these 100 vehicles for in-house usage would be used for, among other uses. This is my speculation, of course.

That is why I was surprised they would be sold to a fleet customer. I also assume any vehicle put on the road would have to incorporate design changes resulting from E1,E4, and E5 at minimum. Things changed from delivering vehicles to reservationists on 2016, to delivering 100 preproduction vehicles in December, to starting to delivery 100 preproduction vehicles in December.

Is the sale of the 100 preproduction vehicle sale to a “fleet customer”, really a disguised delay? EM was heading towards another delay but did not want it to be known due to the backlash from the previous delay? So, they said they would sell 100 preproduction vehicles to a fleet customer, and reservationists would receive theirs in 2017. This makes it look like they really are making delivery in 2016, but I don’t see how they can. (???)

Note this:
Now the SEC filing says something slightly different. It says:
“A detailed 47-week launch plan has been developed,
which includes 25 weeks of pre-production activities, 10 weeks of manufacturing validation and training, and 12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output. Incorporated into the launch is the plan that the first 100 vehicles produced will be sold
to a fleet customer to provide feedback.”
Notice it is talking about “100 vehicles”, not “100 preproduction vehicles”. These are technically two different things. The SEC document sounds like it is talking about genuine “production vehicles”, not preproduction vehicles.

The part:
“12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output”
sounds like the period where they start at zero and ramp up to 1000 vehicles per day, thus the vehicles produced after it would be genuine production vehicles (sold to some fleet customer), not preproduction.

I guess if everything is a complicated quagmire, no one can say you are doing anything wrong.

For reasons known only to Elio, the E cars are designated E1-a through E1-w. In other words, E1 followed by a letter. The pre-production cars are designated S. Start-up production vehicles are V, for validation.

 

[Ty]

Originally there were to be 100 vehicle for in-house usage. I interpreted this to mean some vehicles or partial vehicles would be used for calibration of robots. In envisioned some vehicle bodies with welded parts that were precisely aligned and this would be placed at a robot welding station to educate the robot on where to weld, and would be used in the future to check the robot’s accuracy. A “calibration/alignment tool” like this would exist for every robot station, and periodically brought out on 3rd shift to keep the assembly line accurate. This is what I thought these 100 vehicles for in-house usage would be used for, among other uses. This is my speculation, of course.

That is why I was surprised they would be sold to a fleet customer. I also assume any vehicle put on the road would have to incorporate design changes resulting from E1,E4, and E5 at minimum. Things changed from delivering vehicles to reservationists on 2016, to delivering 100 preproduction vehicles in December, to starting to delivery 100 preproduction vehicles in December.

Is the sale of the 100 preproduction vehicle sale to a “fleet customer”, really a disguised delay? EM was heading towards another delay but did not want it to be known due to the backlash from the previous delay? So, they said they would sell 100 preproduction vehicles to a fleet customer, and reservationists would receive theirs in 2017. This makes it look like they really are making delivery in 2016, but I don’t see how they can. (???)

Note this:
Now the SEC filing says something slightly different. It says:
“A detailed 47-week launch plan has been developed,
which includes 25 weeks of pre-production activities, 10 weeks of manufacturing validation and training, and 12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output. Incorporated into the launch is the plan that the first 100 vehicles produced will be sold
to a fleet customer to provide feedback.”
Notice it is talking about “100 vehicles”, not “100 preproduction vehicles”. These are technically two different things. The SEC document sounds like it is talking about genuine “production vehicles”, not preproduction vehicles.

The part:
“12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output”
sounds like the period where they start at zero and ramp up to 1000 vehicles per day, thus the vehicles produced after it would be genuine production vehicles (sold to some fleet customer), not preproduction.

I guess if everything is a complicated quagmire, no one can say you are doing anything wrong.

When GM changed to the new model while I was there, they had one partial body on a skid that they took to a few stations. I suppose that was because there weren't a whole lot of changes. But, the thought of needing 100 production vehicles in order to start production doesn't make sense. It hurts my head.

 

[WilliamH]

Originally there were to be 100 vehicle for in-house usage. I interpreted this to mean some vehicles or partial vehicles would be used for calibration of robots. In envisioned some vehicle bodies with welded parts that were precisely aligned and this would be placed at a robot welding station to educate the robot on where to weld, and would be used in the future to check the robot’s accuracy. A “calibration/alignment tool” like this would exist for every robot station, and periodically brought out on 3rd shift to keep the assembly line accurate. This is what I thought these 100 vehicles for in-house usage would be used for, among other uses. This is my speculation, of course.

That is why I was surprised they would be sold to a fleet customer. I also assume any vehicle put on the road would have to incorporate design changes resulting from E1,E4, and E5 at minimum. Things changed from delivering vehicles to reservationists on 2016, to delivering 100 preproduction vehicles in December, to starting to delivery 100 preproduction vehicles in December.

Is the sale of the 100 preproduction vehicle sale to a “fleet customer”, really a disguised delay? EM was heading towards another delay but did not want it to be known due to the backlash from the previous delay? So, they said they would sell 100 preproduction vehicles to a fleet customer, and reservationists would receive theirs in 2017. This makes it look like they really are making delivery in 2016, but I don’t see how they can. (???)

Note this:
Now the SEC filing says something slightly different. It says:
“A detailed 47-week launch plan has been developed,
which includes 25 weeks of pre-production activities, 10 weeks of manufacturing validation and training, and 12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output. Incorporated into the launch is the plan that the first 100 vehicles produced will be sold
to a fleet customer to provide feedback.”
Notice it is talking about “100 vehicles”, not “100 preproduction vehicles”. These are technically two different things. The SEC document sounds like it is talking about genuine “production vehicles”, not preproduction vehicles.

The part:
“12 weeks9 of increased

production to reach optimal production output”
sounds like the period where they start at zero and ramp up to 1000 vehicles per day, thus the vehicles produced after it would be genuine production vehicles (sold to some fleet customer), not preproduction.

I guess if everything is a complicated quagmire, no one can say you are doing anything wrong.

For reasons known only to Elio, the E cars are designated E1-a through E1-w. In other words, E1 followed by a letter. The pre-production cars are designated S. Start-up production vehicles are V, for validation.

So we now have Elio involved with two governmental agencies filled with lawyers and other bureaucrats.
All of them trying to put their noses in Elio Motors posterior orifice.
With that situation, do you really expect things to not look like a major CF?
And with that as background, EM is trying to satisfy paper requirements promulgated by lawyers rather than producing their (our) product.
Old Willie had it right.
Henry VI, part 2 ,Act 4, Scene 2

 

[Ekh]

So we now have Elio involved with two governmental agencies filled with lawyers and other bureaucrats.
All of them trying to put their noses in Elio Motors posterior orifice.
With that situation, do you really expect things to not look like a major CF?
And with that as background, EM is trying to satisfy paper requirements promulgated by lawyers rather than producing their (our) product.
Old Willie had it right.
Henry VI, part 2 ,Act 4, Scene 2

William, you are sometimes right about things. But your political views are prominent in much of what you have to say, and your general hostility and rudeness have now made you only the second person I've set to "ignore." Enough is enough.

 

[Rickb]

So we now have Elio involved with two governmental agencies filled with lawyers and other bureaucrats.
All of them trying to put their noses in Elio Motors posterior orifice.
With that situation, do you really expect things to not look like a major CF?
And with that as background, EM is trying to satisfy paper requirements promulgated by lawyers rather than producing their (our) product.
Old Willie had it right.
Henry VI, part 2 ,Act 4, Scene 2

EM is asking OUR government for a $230 Million dollar low interest loan. There should be vehicle validation and payback indicator requirements met before the application warrants approval.........with strings attached.......or chains for that matter..............before handing over that amount of money. The ATVM loan discussion is relevant to Elio, but your personal opinions are political. The DoE is waiting on EM for the validation and that is a good thing. The ball has been held in EM's court for quite some time now. The DoE is waiting patiently just like we are.

 

[wizard of ahs]

Totally agree. So far, we have not heard of another completed E-series test Elio/s let alone results of any tests completed and it's almost Sept.! No wonder the reservations has not moved much and it'll take a long while to get to 65K unless drastic and positive announcements are revealed soon.

Not moving much ??????
I think that over 50 reservations a day for the last 3 weeks is moving along nicely