The E-series Build.

[Elio Amazed]

 

[Ekh]

There's no way in hell the Elio could get a 5 star rating using the official crash testing. There are quite a few safety regulations that the Elio doesn't meet. That's why they no longer advertise a 5-star rating.

Rob, the issue is that the test protocols on which the rating is based simply do not apply to an Elio. For instance, the test protocol for an offset crash specifies two dummies, one in driver position, and one average weight female in the passenger seat. Since the Elio does not have a front passenger seat, this test protocol cannot be used. Hence, no 5-star rating could be issued. This isn't just a matter of logic-chopping -- it reflects the very real differences between an autocycle and conventional cars.

Elio is working with the insurance Institute for Highway Safety to develop appropriate test protocols and methods for a 3-wheeled auto cycle. IIHS is the other agency in the US besides the Feds whose testing is universally accepted. Having them willing to work with Elio on this important task is a Good Thing. Whatever safety rating eventually emerges will reflect the vehicle's relative safety (compared to other light weight small vehicles) in terms that make the comparison fair.

So, to sum up, the problem isn't necessarily deficiencies in the Elio's design, it's the mismatch between the Elio and how the existing tests are done.

 

[Ekh]

It should make you worry because the blogger who wrote it didn't bother to really do much research e.g. the proposed changes to Federal Code are only "recent" if you call 2012 when it was first introduced by NHTSA recent. By the same standard, you'd want to consider EM's use of crumple zones, airbags, enclosed steel roll cage, etc, etc as "recent" too.

I think there will be plenty of angst, anger, name calling, prognostications, and all manor of Tom-foolery the closer we get to another new vehicle manufacturer in the US. Get your popcorn and beverage of choice as the fun begins!

This alarm is bogus. There is no real problem here, as John suggests. See my post #118 based on Joel Sheltrown's response to my query about this matter.

 

[AriLea]

I got two items from Jerome the last time I was face to face with him.
1)At the moment, yes they need the loan. 2)Each of these recent advancements have made the ATVM loan more accessible.

So I would guess the A+ put them in the position of better access to all funding for two reasons. They can complete their proof of safety and their qualification threshold of 75mpg, plus exhibit the viability of the company to proceed to more completions.

Never before had EM admitted that 'need'. I think it's because they now are reasonably secure Em will get the loan. Either way, I think need in this case is contextual. It was about making a 2016 production startup. EM can still attempt to acquire the amount other ways, and at some point in time their position could reach the point where a combination of commercial lending and public financing could yet close the gap. IMHO, it's just a long shot to use that method and finish in the desired time-frame.

That silly magazine article is exploiting 'need' to justify their full stance, i.e. as they say, "The odds of starting a successful new car company are quite small, and Elio’s unusual vehicle complicates matter further.". Which is true only from a gross historical perspective, but from a current tactical perspective the unusual features of the are exactly what is qualifying the car for the loan. These features are what make the car of use. From a strategic perspective the features are what is enabling it's disruptive marketing opportunity. So to jump on the 'quite small' band wagon, is frankly, un-informed in current context. They will be kicked in the butt when Elio produces day-1 product.

I really should add; Look at it this way, if they had the funding, what is the likely hood of a successful sales year? In the past that has always been an unknown for most start-ups. EM is one of the few with fairly solid proof this will fly. That is exactly what the investment, lending and government agencies need to hear, second only to proof of the performance specs of the car and purchase price.

 

[Rob Croson]

I really should add; Look at it this way, if they had the funding, what is the likely hood of a successful sales year? In the past that has always been an unknown for most start-ups. EM is one of the few with fairly solid proof this will fly. That is exactly what the investment, lending and government agencies need to hear, second only to proof of the performance specs of the car and purchase price.

This is a great point. Let's not forget that EM already has $300M+ in orders. There is demand for this, and that demand will only go up when an actual product hits the streets.

 

[Rob Croson]

Rob, the issue is that the test protocols on which the rating is based simply do not apply to an Elio.
...snipped...
So, to sum up, the problem isn't necessarily deficiencies in the Elio's design, it's the mismatch between the Elio and how the existing tests are done.

I completely agree with you on this, and your explanation is much more thorough than mine. My point was only to say that the Elio does not, and under the current testing standards cannot, have a 5-star safety rating.

 

[AriLea]

This is a great point. Let's not forget that EM already has $300M+ in orders. There is demand for this, and that demand will only go up when an actual product hits the streets.

I forgot that the profit margin is another thing that needs representation, and that is what Paul had developed, first (backed by real life data) even before completing the P2.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

This is a great point. Let's not forget that EM already has $300M+ in orders. There is demand for this, and that demand will only go up when an actual product hits the streets.

I'm sure once production starts, there will be pressure on local, state, and federal governments to purchase Elios too to save money on the cost of vehicles, plus save on fuel costs. I don't know how many times I've seen a single government worker in a vehicle.

 

[Ekh]

I got two items from Jerome the last time I was face to face with him.
1)At the moment, yes they need the loan. 2)Each of these recent advancements have made the ATVM loan more accessible.

So I would guess the A+ put them in the position of better access to all funding for two reasons. They can complete their proof of safety and their qualification threshold of 75mpg, plus exhibit the viability of the company to proceed to more completions.

Never before had EM admitted that 'need'. I think it's because they now are reasonably secure Em will get the loan. Either way, I think need in this case is contextual. It was about making a 2016 production startup. EM can still attempt to acquire the amount other ways, and at some point in time their position could reach the point where a combination of commercial lending and public financing could yet close the gap. IMHO, it's just a long shot to use that method and finish in the desired time-frame.

That silly magazine article is exploiting 'need' to justify their full stance, i.e. as they say, "The odds of starting a successful new car company are quite small, and Elio’s unusual vehicle complicates matter further.". Which is true only from a gross historical perspective, but from a current tactical perspective the unusual features of the are exactly what is qualifying the car for the loan. These features are what make the car of use. From a strategic perspective the features are what is enabling it's disruptive marketing opportunity. So to jump on the 'quite small' band wagon, is frankly, un-informed in current context. They will be kicked in the butt when Elio produces day-1 product.

I really should add; Look at it this way, if they had the funding, what is the likely hood of a successful sales year? In the past that has always been an unknown for most start-ups. EM is one of the few with fairly solid proof this will fly. That is exactly what the investment, lending and government agencies need to hear, second only to proof of the performance specs of the car and purchase price.

Another way to look at it: Elio has reservations for 49,000 cars worth just under $334,000,000 at a base price of $6,800. Add $500 worth of options (a very likely average) and you get $353 million. That is a lot of business for a first year operation. Those advance sales are why Elio should be taken seriously both by investors and by DOE. It also suggests Elio can be profitable somewhere between the end of year one and year two with the backlog of old debt cleared, and only operating capital to be financed, as it is for any large business.

 

[Elio Amazed]

...second only to proof of the performance specs of the car and purchase price.

So... I hope to see some major kick-ass going on starting Feb. 1st.