I remember them pitching it as a Model 3 competitor. They were too EV naive to understand all the reasons that it didn’t really compete. DCFC was literally optional (why would people want to road trip EVs?).

It didn’t help that most people that I showed it to thought it was ugly. I never minded the appearance, but it wasn’t a selling point.

Not a bad idea, but it sounds like these are supply chain subsidies. It is critical to maintain domestic sourcing for critical supplies.

Two good reasons:

1. The cars are expensive and not everyone can afford the models currently available. Government can’t really change this
2. Every mandate to buy more of something is instantly opposed, regardless of how rational it might be. This is feeding a _lot_ of irrational EV opposition already.

Better to use the carrot and balance subsidies relative to subsidies in other industries. Get EVs closer to a level playing field and things will shift naturally.

There’s a lot of amiguity about around this and people have been cited:

https://twitter.com/brandenflasch/status/1682051749954084867

As you can see, though, generally the rules are on the side of using them last.

The thing is, Fisker is basically just the brand and design. Manufacturing is outsourced, and AFAIK service might be as well?

The upside is that they seem to be a lot less capital intensive. They don’t have a huge cash pile, but it won’t take much fundraising to maintain their runway until logistics improves.