Umicore selling its stake in beLife lithium iron phosphate JV to Prayon
GM sets October retail sales record in China, Up 15%

Faraday Future EV startup says it will invest $1B in US manufacturing facility

Faraday Future (FF), a new electric vehicle and future mobility startup company, announced that it will invest $1 billion in a US manufacturing facility as a phase one investment. The company has been considering several locations including California, Georgia, Louisiana and Nevada, for its facility. FF will announce the exact site in the coming weeks.

FF expects to bring its first vehicle to market in 2017. In addition to producing vehicles, the company plans to explore other aspects of the automotive and technology industries, including unique ownership and usage models, in-vehicle content and autonomous driving.

Faraday Future is a California-based company comprising a global team of more than 400 automotive and technology experts. FF says it intends to develop a range of 100% electric vehicles that offer “intelligent, seamless connectivity to the outside world” and “unique ownership arrangements”.

Among FF’s automotive team are:

  • Nick Sampson, Senior Vice President – Former Director of Vehicle & Chassis Engineering, Tesla Motors

  • Dag Reckhorn, Vice President of Global Manufacturing – Former Director of Manufacturing, Tesla Model S

  • Alan Cherry, Vice President of Human Resources - Former Senior Director, Human Resources, Tesla Motors

  • Tom Wessner, Vice President of Supply Chain - Former Director of Purchasing, Tesla Motors

  • Richard Kim, Head of Design – Founding member of BMW i Design and Lead Designer, i3 and i8 concepts

Michael Faraday was a 19th century English scientist whose main discoveries include electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis. Faraday’s law of induction predicts how a magnetic field will interact with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)—the fundamental operating principle of transformers, inductors, and many types of electrical motors, generators and solenoids.


It would seem that the West Coast's enthusiasm for electric cars would give the California and Nevada locations a leg up on Georgia, which recently recinded its EV incentives and slapped on an extra $200 tax. The $800 shipping fee to get all those cars to market in California would be hundreds of millions over the next decade.

Account Deleted

Super interesting. They say they will launch their BEVs in 2017 and also emphasises autonomous driving. Their home page shows the silhouette of a large and a smaller model. Sounds a little too good to be true. They are only 400 people currently and they have nothing to show yet or any factory. This is difficult and it will take time to organize. I would like to know who is funding them? Is it Sergey Brin or Alphabet or someone else? They must by rich because funding a new factory and developing two new BEVs simultaneously will cost at least 2 billion USD. Not that many have that kind of money to spend on a very risky project. Anyway super interesting. The old auto industry is going to wake up to a totally different competitive landscape when Apple, Tesla and now perhaps this upstart start selling their cars in volume by 2020. The industry barrier to entry is almost gone when you skip the complexities of combustion engines, multispeed transmissions and exhaust systems. But you need to crack autonomous driving or it will not become mass market. The capital cost of long-range BEVs is simply too high to make as a mass market car. Only an autonomous taxi BEV makes sense for mass market as you have low maintenance and fuel costs and only in a taxi setting can put enough miles on the car to lowers its capital cost as well.

The race to bring the world its first autonomous taxi BEV is in full motion for sure.


Will the planned "unique ownership and usage" lower "user's" cost enough to mass produce and sell xxx millions of Faradays extended range BEVs or will much lower cost, higher performance batteries and imported lower cost parts do it?

Doubt that automated drive e-taxis would be enough, but shared UBER like fully automated units, could be a way to multiply usage per unit by 4X or so, thereby reducing individual cost from $100K to $25K over a given period of time.

However, people will have to get use to sharing a vehicle with others (instead of owning) and calling for service etc.

Ideally, more higher speed e-trains, e-trams, e-subways and e-buses should also be used to reduce increasing traffic density and delays.


I will look to see retail sales somewhere in 2019. It seems that so many Tesla personnel may have been thinking that Elon's company may be missing its mark and decided to jump ship. Certainly this is the right time.

As a stockholder for Tesla I've seen the share price get whacked despite it producing gee whiz product.

Wall Street is not happy with any company that tries to put fur on its back without rewarding stockholders. But in a growth phase all you can expect is high risk with no commensurate dividends. And to keep the "longs" from bailing you have to keep extending and embellishing the "story".

Tesla is quite capable of meeting guidance on deliveries, the problem is that they don't win all their gambles and often times seem to be snatching failure from the jaws of success - I believe is the obvious cliche.

Feature creep has caused production dislocations and the goal of an affordable car is reaching evermore into the future.

The optics are that Tesla - in the name of progress - has been made more and more appealing in order to garner an even more upscale market. The argument presented is that there is more gross margin on those sales. What I am seeing on the blog postings etc, is more discontentment among those same customers because something isn't completely perfect on its first iteration. Precipitating comments like : "I paid good money for this and I am not receiving..."

It is time for another company to enter the arena with a slightly modified strategy. Perhaps using the Nissan Leaf as the target vehicle to beat.

First, the battery compartment should be the most thermally insulated and air tight enclosure on the market, it should share the cabin A/C equipment as Tesla has done. Because the Battery is the Car when it comes to electric vehicles.

Second, the powertrain needs to be given a Top speed rating from the Engineering Dept not Marketing for the following reasons. The fact that aerodynamics at speeds above 60mph work severely against EVs as regards vehicle range. The fact that there is a financial compromise that has to be taken on motor size and gearing when an unrealistically high speed is chosen. The coarser gearing required to reach maximum speed will always impact bottom end acceleration negatively.
You can have one or the other. Or you can have both by selecting a larger frame size motor but going that route will increase powertrain cost unless profitability is sacrificed while holding on to a previously set retail price target.

Notice Prius limits out at 100mph and you don't hear complaints. The EV1 was initially 75mph. The EV1 proved that an EV with an 8 sec to sixty back in the 1990's coupled with instant throttle control was quite respectable, I saw no comments on its lack of top speed either, rather difficult unless you also condone road racing I would think. And that brings me to something that could have been trumpeted more often over at Tesla. Yes, these are quick cars, acceleration wise, but they were never intended to be used as track cars.

Account Deleted

T2 that is the most emotional, unsubstantiated nonsense I have read in a while. Instead of weeping out laud I suggest you sell your stock (if you indeed have any it would be totally self-contradictory) and get over it.


The TESLA Model III may be using another more common sense approach or compromise?

It may be a mass production affordable e-car instead of a monster race e-car?

The selling price may depend a lot on the battery pack size and price.

Account Deleted

OK, goggled it and found an informative piece on Faraday Future in LATimes.

It is founded by a 7B USD net worth Chinese businessman that are also owning an UBER like service in China. That makes sense. They will launch one halo luxury BEV vehicle in 2017 in the US that will build the brand. After that they will move down in price. So same as Tesla's business plan in that regard. Otherwise still very secretive. They are poaching employees from BMW, Tesla, Space X and GM. Whether they are those that got fired from these companies or are actually the bright ones or something in between if difficult to tell.

They are obviously into autonomous drive and selling transportation services instead of selling cars in a traditional way. Musk was asked in the latest shareholder conference whether Tesla will also launch a transportation serves business but he declined to answer but said he will not comment of future products and that the strategy has not fully baked. IMO that means of cause Tesla will go into transportation services but exactly how is still a question. Until we have a fully autonomous car that functions and that is documented to function by million of miles of autonomous driving in various environments it is to early to make an exact strategy. Better focus on more important issues like increasing production and lower production costs and expanding sales and service channels.


@Henrik, I also googled

When the Royal Society was formed in the 17th century they adopted the motto : Nullius in verba, which is Latin for "Take nobody's word for it".

I would hope we have a policy of full disclosure at GCC that requires viewpoints to be qualified by vested interests. You have to take my word on my stockholdings. On the evidence it would be unlikely I would make contradictory statements re Tesla unless I was still holding on to some of the Tesla story. Despite the anachronisms Tesla is still the best game in town and likely to be for at least the next five years.

I don't think you can come on here and make nonsense claims against me unless you supply the reasons. Otherwise it is you that is making the emotional response, I just call them as I see them.
The remainder of response is just plain rude. If I was looking for rudeness I would just go on YouTube.

As for the unsolicited advice to sell my stock , frankly that is none of your business.

The comments to this entry are closed.