I'm not a naysayer, having said that I don't have anything positive to offer....having said that, this forum turned into a big joke, means I visit now and then to check on new jokes and have a good laugh! Coss, I'm joking.
-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
Funding Refused By Paul Elio
- Thread starter pistonboy
- Start date
This forum is where the misinformation gets debunked. My brother has told me of some EM news twice recently and both times it was from some news from at least a couple years ago where the reporter didn't do their homework. So just doing a Google search gets you old and usually incorrect news.
There are some guys in this forum that keep listening and bring the good, current, relevant news here. That's why I keep coming back.
There are some guys in this forum that keep listening and bring the good, current, relevant news here. That's why I keep coming back.
Without real verifiable facts regarding EM status, we can only hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. Even EMV is quiet about what went wrong with their SOLO 2.0 production in China. Arcimoto is now the front runner delivering their mostly hand assembled units slowly but surely.
RSchneider
Elio Addict
What it demonstrates is how there's little investment when it comes to 3 wheelers. There's never been a mass produced 3 wheeler that has been successful in the US. Elio, SOLO, FUV, Sondors have all proven that the funding is not there. Each one is either stalled or trickling out product. The Slingshot is the most successful but that was invested internally within Polaris. Same for Vanderhall. Both of them are play toys built on a limited scale. I can tell you where the funding is going. It's for 4 wheel EV's and 4 wheel autonomous. If it wasn't for them, there would be more investment for 3 wheelers. Markets are broken for 3 wheelers.
Ty
Elio Addict
Elio used the same computer simulation software that other companies use which is VERY accurate at predicting mileage of a finished vehicle. I mean, Ford doesn't build 10,000 different cars to tweak the mileage before production. They use computer modeling just like Elio used. Sure, real-world mileage and computer mileage varies a lot. I've never gotten close to the window sticker mileage on a vehicle, for instance. But, if Elio was just guessing, they wouldn't be saying that they are close on the mileage, they'd just say they hit 84 MPG and figure it out as they went. But, no. They said they were close and then started doing a lot of rework to try to get the mileage up. Heck, they even made different styles of wheel covers trying to up the mileage. That was tough.
I'd love to see an Elio go through the EPA tests and get a real-world number. Heck, I'd like to see how people hyper-mile with their own Elio... I'm #3,898 and will track my mileage like I do with every vehicle and will surely show that. But, back to the point - The software tells one story and I'm sure that Elio doesn't have a single prototype with the correct engine/transmission/tires/suspension/HVAC/bodywork in order to produce real mileage numbers.
RSchneider
Elio Addict
What computer modeling software did Elio use? There's more than one and some have proprietary software.
Plus, Elio has said lots of things and down the road we have found out that they have not turned out very well. For example:
-Multitude of Production dates
-Space Frame Chassis
-SMC Body
-Building 25 E series with just $12M USD raised from IPO
-5 star crash rating
-Specific Elio engine
-$247M to get to production back in 2015
So I ask, do we just accept mpg as fact, but as for the rest, give them a pass? Software gave them the rest of the specs too and as we found out that completely changed. That crash test simulation was with the space frame and not the unibody. Both are completely different designs. In the end, all Elio has to do is have Roush take an Elio do an mpg test, that's the same exact one a car has to take and let Roush sign off on the results. That's how the real world works. So Elio should be happy to do this. Unless this happens, then it's all on the paper that Elio produced and not reality.
Made in USA
Elio Addict
You forgot the weasel words. They said "up to" 84 MPG which means it can be less than. Never did they say it would get to 84 itself.
Lawyers love weasel words. Remember Clinton with his "depends on what the definition of IS is". Same thing. The English language allows many interpretations of the same word. We reserved a spot in line for an Elio for instance. If they call it something else then the SIL means nothing.
Lawyers love weasel words. Remember Clinton with his "depends on what the definition of IS is". Same thing. The English language allows many interpretations of the same word. We reserved a spot in line for an Elio for instance. If they call it something else then the SIL means nothing.
Something said in prior posts reiterates a point.
1) The purpose of a product is often stated as giving people what they want, at what they are willing to pay. 2) The purpose of making the product, is returning a profit to the maker. 3) But the ideal of the activity is creating something that people actually need, and can afford.
Commercial investors are very wary of activity that looks too much like #3, they are dedicated to #2, and very manipulative of #1. The more you look like #3 than #2, the harder it is to get investors to risk real money in the game. They want proof of #2 and want #1 to be compliant in their hands. I suspect #3 is sometimes a little too ridged for their taste.
The community is very aware that there are very few examples in the automotive field where a business figured out an ideal vehicle that was in the realm of pure need, worked out a profit, convinced people they wanted it enough to pay for it, and convinced investors to jump-start it all. The very-very low success rate has spooked everyone adverse to the risk. Even though, when they did succeed, it was sometimes ginormous.
There are even less examples for 3 wheel cars, and those are not often considered relevant for today's demands on speed and safety.
At the moment I can only think of very few pure examples. The VW bug is one of the best(public/politically funded), but the Model T (and Model A), that was about the only one where some pivotal decisions went toward need over want. Issetta, Mesherschmitt these tried real hard. Even the Pinto focused on the need more than makers seem willing do these days. They now seem to consider those historical examples to be commercial failures, but by the number of sales, and early business growth, hugely popular. It was actually the conduct of business later that had any let-down.
I just NEED an inexpensive transportation to where I want to go. THEY want to sell me all kinds of other crap like cool personna, seating for 10 and autonomous driving.
1) The purpose of a product is often stated as giving people what they want, at what they are willing to pay. 2) The purpose of making the product, is returning a profit to the maker. 3) But the ideal of the activity is creating something that people actually need, and can afford.
Commercial investors are very wary of activity that looks too much like #3, they are dedicated to #2, and very manipulative of #1. The more you look like #3 than #2, the harder it is to get investors to risk real money in the game. They want proof of #2 and want #1 to be compliant in their hands. I suspect #3 is sometimes a little too ridged for their taste.
The community is very aware that there are very few examples in the automotive field where a business figured out an ideal vehicle that was in the realm of pure need, worked out a profit, convinced people they wanted it enough to pay for it, and convinced investors to jump-start it all. The very-very low success rate has spooked everyone adverse to the risk. Even though, when they did succeed, it was sometimes ginormous.
There are even less examples for 3 wheel cars, and those are not often considered relevant for today's demands on speed and safety.
At the moment I can only think of very few pure examples. The VW bug is one of the best(public/politically funded), but the Model T (and Model A), that was about the only one where some pivotal decisions went toward need over want. Issetta, Mesherschmitt these tried real hard. Even the Pinto focused on the need more than makers seem willing do these days. They now seem to consider those historical examples to be commercial failures, but by the number of sales, and early business growth, hugely popular. It was actually the conduct of business later that had any let-down.
I just NEED an inexpensive transportation to where I want to go. THEY want to sell me all kinds of other crap like cool personna, seating for 10 and autonomous driving.