Is Elio Still Saying Mid 2016 To Start Production?

[WilliamH]

Fair enough. Here's why.

Why ATVM loan expected last September? Because the Elio team mentioned somewhere around the middle of last year that, although they didn't know exactly when, they were on track and hoping to hear an approval by around September. That much I recall clearly.

Last September, I noted, the StartEngine thing popped up, I noticed specifically to produce 25 prototypes. No mention of loan approval, oddly, but an eagle-eyed elioowners poster noted that in the SEC filing there was a mention that the ATVM people had made a requirement that they produce and test full production prototyes before the loan process could continue. Odd, that that happened when we were hoping for loan approval at any moment, and certainly the Elio people were saying that was the case. But instead, they needed immediate funding for prototypes they'd never said they needed before. Production was expected as a next step, not crash prototypes without production. So, conclusion, the DOE people had invented an unexpected step and tossed it at Elio rather than the loan approval.

The Elio team also said that the ATVM people politely requested that we not lobby them for approval, so the team passed that along as a request to us. It implied, and the news from the Elio team seems to reflect this, that the process was not open to the public and that talking openly about it was not productive for them. So, they can't talk about the banana peel the DOE tossed under them.

DOE concerned about ability to raise funds, couple of things. Paul Elio mentioned in one of the many interviews that he had spent a year talking to angel investors (2014-2015) and found that VC people were not interested in a startup with such a long payback period and such low returns. He said that they wanted major cash in months, not years. He said further that it had been, my phrase, a waste of a year, and he'd given up on the VC people.

Another point about investors, my own: Aptera. What happened there was that they brought in an outside manager - a former auto executive - who promptly fired the two founders and designers of the vehicle, and at the point they'd been ready to begin production stopped everything and redesigned the vehicle, wasting a at least a year and producing a bloated mess that popped a door during a public exhibition. There is more, but bottom line is don't let outsiders gain control of your company. Their goals aren't yours.

Paul Elio has stated (I've been told but not heard from his own interviews) that some of the investors that *are* interested want too much control. He's a former executive, and I trust him on that judgement and what it implies. Those he has already I assume he trusts.

Isn't this interesting?

........"The Elio team also said that the ATVM people politely requested that we not lobby them for approval, so the team passed that along as a request to us. It implied, and the news from the Elio team seems to reflect this, that the process was not open to the public and that talking openly about it was not productive for them. So, they can't talk about the banana peel the DOE tossed under them."......

If the mob did this it would be called blackmail and extortion.
When an Executive Branch of the government does it we accept it as business as usual.

 

[nickskeys]

I haven't visited the site in a while. Is Elio still staying with mid 2016, or has it been pushed back again?

Just visited the NAIAS in Detroit last Saturday. The folks there told me "late 2016".

 

[John Painter]

Fair enough. Here's why.

Why ATVM loan expected last September? Because the Elio team mentioned somewhere around the middle of last year that, although they didn't know exactly when, they were on track and hoping to hear an approval by around September. That much I recall clearly.

Last September, I noted, the StartEngine thing popped up, I noticed specifically to produce 25 prototypes. No mention of loan approval, oddly, but an eagle-eyed elioowners poster noted that in the SEC filing there was a mention that the ATVM people had made a requirement that they produce and test full production prototyes before the loan process could continue. Odd, that that happened when we were hoping for loan approval at any moment, and certainly the Elio people were saying that was the case. But instead, they needed immediate funding for prototypes they'd never said they needed before. Production was expected as a next step, not crash prototypes without production. So, conclusion, the DOE people had invented an unexpected step and tossed it at Elio rather than the loan approval.

The Elio team also said that the ATVM people politely requested that we not lobby them for approval, so the team passed that along as a request to us. It implied, and the news from the Elio team seems to reflect this, that the process was not open to the public and that talking openly about it was not productive for them. So, they can't talk about the banana peel the DOE tossed under them.

DOE concerned about ability to raise funds, couple of things. Paul Elio mentioned in one of the many interviews that he had spent a year talking to angel investors (2014-2015) and found that VC people were not interested in a startup with such a long payback period and such low returns. He said that they wanted major cash in months, not years. He said further that it had been, my phrase, a waste of a year, and he'd given up on the VC people.

Another point about investors, my own: Aptera. What happened there was that they brought in an outside manager - a former auto executive - who promptly fired the two founders and designers of the vehicle, and at the point they'd been ready to begin production stopped everything and redesigned the vehicle, wasting a at least a year and producing a bloated mess that popped a door during a public exhibition. There is more, but bottom line is don't let outsiders gain control of your company. Their goals aren't yours.

Paul Elio has stated (I've been told but not heard from his own interviews) that some of the investors that *are* interested want too much control. He's a former executive, and I trust him on that judgement and what it implies. Those he has already I assume he trusts.

I've never seen Elio Motors or Paul Elio write or say anything other than they had made it to the second of three stages of the ATVM loan process, and that they believe they are doing well. Though it's accurate around September/October of 2014 Elio Motors announced they had moved from the first to the second stage of three of the ATVM due diligence process. EM has always needed funds to build engineering vehicles, which they had started talking about needing back in 2013 if not earlier Jerome V had made a comment back then that they had a plan in place and were working on it, however that was before the issues with Commissioner Lynch. I do agree EM suggested to supporters petitioning DOE would not be helpful (I respectfully disagree, as the funds are allocated by Congress and both Congress and DOE are answerable to the public) though I half suspect it more to do to the fodder for detractors like when I started a "We the People" petition, I am aware that a couple of "anti Elio" groups latched on to that to suggest EM started it and was a sign they were desperate, though just the opposite was my motivation I've personally backed off a bit, though certainly not completely. Aptera was an interesting concept and showed solid engineering promise, there were a lot of issues both internal and external that led to their demise.

 

[grampi]

I guess I just don't know why this whole ATVM loan process is taking so long...what could they possibly be hem hawing around about for this long?

 

[Rob Croson]

Test results for the actual MPG achieved by the P5, probably.

 

[John Painter]

I guess I just don't know why this whole ATVM loan process is taking so long...what could they possibly be hem hawing around about for this long?

Elio Motors demonstrating they have the ability to pay the loan back would be on the DOE's list of "must haves".

 

[Rickb]

Test results for the actual MPG achieved by the P5, probably.

Proving the performance claims with the P5 testing, $70 Million of debt, and the #1 reason the ability to repay the loan.

 

[3wheelin]

Proving the performance claims with the P5 testing, $70 Million of debt, and the #1 reason the ability to repay the loan.

Well, this is gonna be a somewhat scary and exciting moments for all of us and depending how one entertain it! EM have less than a year now to meet their production target Q4 2016! A lot of hurdles ahead, but they've come this far and we've waited this far! I hope all goes well on the E-series build and testing phase. The results may well be the key to the money (funding)!

 

[grampi]

Elio Motors demonstrating they have the ability to pay the loan back would be on the DOE's list of "must haves".

How are they going to "demonstrate" that they can pay back the loan without actually starting production and then showing a profit? That's like making a person prove they can shoot the apple off of someone's head with a bow and arrow before giving them the arrow to do it with.

 

[slinches]

If I recall, the actual wording is something like 'have a reasonable expectation to meet the repayment terms' rather than "prove they can pay back the loan". It's an important distinction in that there is no burden on them to prove beyond any doubt, but instead just have to indicate there's a strong chance of success if the loan is granted. Considering the current number of reservations would provide revenues greater than the loan value should they reach production, I think that hurdle is fairly achievable. All it should take is showing that the Elio will meet (or come close to) the cost, mileage and safety goals that those reservation were based on.