Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses China

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch 70

Posted by timothy from the cool-cars-hot-fires dept.
New submitter sumit sinha notes recent reports that Tesla may soon be joined again by Fisker in the world of high-end, all-electric car makers. According to a Reuters story, the Fisker Karma in something very close to its previously available form may be offered for sale again sometime soon. Says the article: The "new" Karma that California-based Fisker, acquired by Wanxiang earlier this year, is rushing to finish is based largely on the 2012 model, said the people, who asked not to be identified. Wanxiang's top U.S. executive said in February the Karma would be reintroduced within a year. "It will have to be nearly identical to the 2012 model, or it would need to go through (safety) testing and certification again," a person close to Fisker's suppliers said. "I don’t think they want to put a lot of engineering into it either, as well as probably use up some of the old parts that are in inventory." Close, but not exact,: Fisker does not plan to simply reintroduce the 2012 Karma, a source close to Fisker said. “Not 100 percent identical," the person said. "The new Karma will be different in many key areas. It will have noticeable upgrades." He declined to provide details. Using the 2012 Karma design could present problems given it has older features and technologies. "You're not buying something that's considered 'state of the art' necessarily," the supplier source said. "It's a big hurdle to overcome."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch More

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Comments Filter:

  • Misleading Article Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by lag10 ( 667114 ) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @08:34AM (#47958493)

    New submitter sumit sinha notes recent reports that Tesla may soon be joined again by Fisker in the world of high-end, all-electric car makers.

    The Fisker Karma is not an "all-electric car." It has an electric drivetrain with a gasoline range extender. The article itself makes this quite clear:

    The Karma, a hybrid-electric vehicle equipped with a small gasoline engine that kicks in when its on-board battery is depleted, previously had a starting price of around $100,000.

    If you could try to make more accurate article summaries in the future, that'd be great. Thanks.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tapi0 ( 2805569 )
      Well, it all depends on where you get your electricity. The vehicle is purely electrically driven. It does have a petrol driven generator to top up the battery, but the engine is not involved in driving the wheels, so could easily be described as all-electric as you can rip out the engine and the car still drives.
      The tesla has a large amount of batteries, charged from an external generator.
      The fisker has slightly fewer batteries, charged from an on-board generator in the space created (and external as nee

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lag10 ( 667114 )

        Well, it all depends on where you get your electricity. The vehicle is purely electrically driven. It does have a petrol driven generator to top up the battery, but the engine is not involved in driving the wheels, so could easily be described as all-electric as you can rip out the engine and the car still drives.

        No, a hybrid is not an "all-electric car." The Fisker Karma is a series hybrid [wikipedia.org], not an "all-electric car." There is a huge difference between an "all-electric car" and a hybrid.

        Being able to easily describe something one way does not necessarily make the description accurate.

        The tesla has a large amount of batteries, charged from an external generator.

        An "all-electric car" such as Tesla's Roadster, Model S, or Model X can obtain its electrical energy from any number of sources. That's one of the major selling points for "all-electric cars." Sure, The Fisker Karma is a plug-in hybrid,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "The vehicle is purely electrically driven. It does have a petrol driven generator to top up the battery, but the engine is not involved in driving the wheels, so could easily be described as all-electric as you can rip out the engine and the car still drives."

        Well you could rip out the batteries of a hybrid and it would still drive as well. Does that mean you could call a hybrid "all-gas"?

        An electric drivetrain with a gas generator is a hybrid, not all-electric. It differs from other hybrid designs but t

    • The Fisker Karma is not an "all-electric car." It has an electric drivetrain with a gasoline range extender. The article itself makes this quite clear:

      Bad Karma! Bad, bad Karma!!!

      Sounds more like some sort of tax credit scam than an actual relaunch, given the current competition.

      • Hybrid or not, I'm not buying a Chinese car.

        I'll pay twice as much for a Tesla first.
        • I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal.

          If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".

          Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?

          There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).

          That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.

          Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.

          I used the proper equatio

        • I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.

          You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.

          Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are go

          • ... I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24] [slashdot.org]

            No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "pow

            • No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".

              I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.

              I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right...

            • Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [thermalradiation.net] I've repeatedly [slashdot.org] given Jane [slashdot.org] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.

              I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.

              But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scatte

              • ... I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24] [slashdot.org]

                Completely backwards, as usual. I've already shown [slashdot.org] that my solution keeps electrical heating power constant. Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power [slashdot.org]. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly [slashdot.org], which led him to the absurd conclusion tha

                • Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

                  You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".

                  These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)

                  Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.

                  And that last sentence is not

                  • ... These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-25] [slashdot.org]

                    Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him

                    • Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.

                      As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.

                      As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in

                    • Just so we're clear: I respect Dr. Roy Spencer. But he's not immune from Getting Things Wrong. Even so, all things considered, he has been less wrong [tufts.edu] than you.

                      Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.

                      For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to reco

                    • ... As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26] [slashdot.org]

                      It's not that interesting that Prof. Brown decided to ignore Jane/Lonny Eachus, given that he later said [archive.today]:

                      "Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. Th

                    • Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.

                      Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.

                      Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are com

                    • Also, STOP sock-puppet modding down my comments. THAT'S AGAINST SLASHDOT'S RULES and it's just plain an asshole thing to do.

                    • Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?

                      Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-28] [slashdot.org]

                      This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that

                    • This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference

                      You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.

                      And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own

                    • You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-01] [slashdot.org]

                      That reference [omega.com] shows the object (i.e. chamber wall) temperature has an effect on the temperature controlled cavity (i.e. source). Which Jane denies:

                      ... Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics! ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21] [slashdot.org]

                      No, that's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. If radiation from the cooler walls really had no effect on t

                    • ... Almost Latour's entire thesis is that S-B law says net heat transfer is either 0 or in one direction, from the hotter area to the colder. If the roles are reversed, and the colder item becomes the hotter, then the sign changes and the net heat transfer is still only in one direction... from hotter to colder. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-29] [slashdot.org]

                      ... At no time in this experiment are the temperatures equal, so net heat transfer is always in one direction and only one direction. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04 [slashdot.org]

                    • That reference [omega.com] shows the object (i.e. chamber wall) temperature has an effect on the temperature controlled cavity (i.e. source). Which Jane denies:

                      Via a QUANTUM EFFECT, you fucking moron. Further, I repeat for about the 100th time that I do not deny that some radiation is absorbed; but then it's just re-emitted. Sometimes, in a non-gray body, in a slightly different form.

                      And ALL of that is straw-man irrelevancy, since no NET radiation absorption occurs from colder bodies to warm, which was the subject under discussion.

                      It's a combination of your historical tendency to straw-man argue, and outright lies about what I wrote.

                      This is the only kind

                    • If we can agree on all those points, that's great. Maybe this will help Jane write down a simple equation describing the electrical heating power required to keep a blackbody source at 150F inside 0F chamber walls. Remember that "electrical heating power" is different than "radiative power out". Also remember that blackbodies can only absorb radiation, not reflect or scatter it. Finally, remember that the graybody equation has to reduce to the blackbody equation when emissivity = 1.

                      I don't need to "agree" with you about anything. I've already demonstrated how TEXTBOOK PHYSICS proved you wrong. That doesn't require any kind of "agreement". I'm just wondering when you're going to stop the dishonesty and admit you were wrong.

                      The whole world is going to see it soon anyway, so you might as well "come clean", as they say.

                    • That reference [omega.com] shows the object (i.e. chamber wall) temperature has an effect on the temperature controlled cavity (i.e. source). Which Jane denies:

                      Via a QUANTUM EFFECT, you fucking moron. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-03] [slashdot.org]

                      Charming. As I just explained [slashdot.org], IR detectors don't have to depend on quantum effects. Classical mainstream physics allows a temperature-controlled source to detect IR from the cooler chamber walls as follows:

                      electricity = (e*s)*(T1^4 - T4^4)

                      If the required electrical heating power is

                    • Jane probably won't write down an equation describing electrical heating power for a blackbody source, so I'll try to guess at Jane's reasoning.

                      If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".

                      Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do kn

                    • Jane probably won't write down an equation describing electrical heating power for a blackbody source, so I'll try to guess at Jane's reasoning.

                      It's not a "black body" source, it's a "gray body" source, as per our agreement when this discussion first started. And I showed you my equations not just once but many times.

                      You're just lying again.

                      What is wrong with you? I ask this question very seriously. You were very clearly shown to be wrong, using textbook physics methodology, yet you continue this bullshit. Why? I'd really like to know. (And it was indeed textbook physics. I have 3 different textbooks here... wait, make that 4... which all dis

                    • It's not a "black body" source, it's a "gray body" source, as per our agreement when this discussion first started. And I showed you my equations not just once but many times. You're just lying again. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-03] [slashdot.org]

                      Again, Jane's gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 1, so this is a way to check Jane's work. But since Jane seems convinced that checking his work is "lying" let's write down both equations simultaneously.

                      Draw a boundary around the (gra

                    • Since Jane probably won't even say yes or no, I'll keep trying to guess at Jane's reasoning. Now the next term for Jane's gray body:

                      Because "radiative power out from source" is emitted by the graybody source at temperature T1, the Stefan-Boltzmann law says:

                      gray electrical heating power + (e*s)*T4^4 = (e*s)*T1^4 + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)

                      Is that what you're saying, Jane?

                      Now the next term for Jane's black body check:

                      Because "radiative power out from source" is

                    • Since Jane probably won't even say yes or no, I'll keep trying to guess at Jane's reasoning. Now the next term for Jane's gray body:

                      There is no reason to "guess" at my reasoning. I spelled it out quite clearly when we had our "argument" (which you lost).

                      You do realize this is all going to be published, right? I warned you not just once or twice, but many times now. Every time you pull this kind of BS will be just another instance of widespread public knowledge of your dishonesty.

                    • Because "radiative power out from source" is emitted by the graybody source at temperature T1, the Stefan-Boltzmann law says:

                      gray electrical heating power + (e*s)*T4^4 = (e*s)*T1^4 + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)

                      I am not going to get drawn into an argument that you have already lost. I repeat that the equation you show is for HEAT TRANSFER, not "radiative power out". You are just plain wrong about that and any heat transfer textbook will you so.

                      Every reply you have given the past couple of weeks has demonstrably been a lie, in one form or another: presenting principles which you know to be not representative of the real situation (e.g., heat transfer in place of the proper "radiated power" equation), or claims t

                    • There is no reason to "guess" at my reasoning. I spelled it out quite clearly when we had our "argument" (which you lost). You do realize this is all going to be published, right? I warned you not just once or twice, but many times now. Every time you pull this kind of BS will be just another instance of widespread public knowledge of your dishonesty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-03] [slashdot.org]

                      I have to guess at your reasoning because what you've said doesn't make any sense.

                      If radiation enters the boundary and goes r

    • Never understood why anyone would buy this over a Tesla. The Fisker was heavier and way more expensive. If I wanted a range-extended hybrid-electric luxury car, I'd get the Cadillac ELR instead.

      • meh. chevy volt technology and rolling chassis. i'm curious to see the bmw i8. it will be more like a hybrid than an EV. small battery pack compared to the volt (7.1 kwh vs. 16.5 kwh). but if you can get a BMW experience with 50+ MPG that will be pretty good for me.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haruchai ( 17472 )

        I agree but I think some people thought it looked better than a Model S and wasn't limited in range. After reading the YouTube review by owner Brian Greenstone, it's clear to me that the Model S is an overall better car.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • I followed Fisker for years of development, primarily because they had a four-seat convertible on their roadmap, the Karma Sunset. Tesla hasn't managed one of those yet.

  • Anyone who could afford a Karma and wanted electric would have already bought a Tesla S or Roadster.

    The only way they'll sell some is to greatly upgrade the interior to Tesla Model S-type screen and software.

    • Re:Who are the proposed customers? (Score:4, Funny)

      by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @10:00AM (#47958781)

      "Anyone who could afford a Karma and wanted electric would have already bought a Tesla S or Roadster"

      Like a ;ot of people here, I have Excellent Karma and certainly can't afford a Tesla

    • Supply has been limited for both the Tesla S and Roadster. There are multi-month preorders right now and the situation will not improve anytime soon. The Karma with some minor upgrades and maybe a $5000 drop would sell.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haruchai ( 17472 )

        It would take a LOT of improvements and maybe $20000 price drop before I would consider it and better performance and a battery at least as large as the LEAF is not negotiable at any price point above $50k.
        Here's one owner's review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • Maybe you are right. But the primary thing that needs to be done is up the build quality and make people feel comfortable about the long term prospects for the car. The car has unusual good looks. Rich people will buy it if they think its not gonna leave them stranded. I said $5000 because that gets the car under the magic $100,000 price barrier.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by haruchai ( 17472 )

            "The car has unusual good looks" - that was before the BMW i8
            "Rich people will buy it if they think its not gonna leave them stranded" - there's also the Porsche Panamera S eHybrid, which has better performance for about the same money and a big name behind it. For 1/3 more - which wouldn't be a deal-breaker for folks in the upper-upper-middle-class - there's the aforementioned BMW i8, also backed by a well-known automotive maker. WangXiang may not be small but they don't - as yet - have solid name recognit

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Anyone who could afford a Karma and wanted electric would have already bought a Tesla S or Roadster.

      And given the Karma's perchant for catching on fire if you stare at it funny, going with the Tesla is probably a better idea. At least those only catch fire in accidents and generally in ways that don't consume the entire car.

      Seriously, Hurricane Sandy destroyed a fleet of brand new Karmas when they shorted out [jalopnik.com]. Sure, it destroyed a LOT of brand new cars when it flooded the port (about 15,000 cars in total),

  • Don't listen to Wanxiang, they're probably just jerking us off.

  • No thank you, but China's reputation has been to make it worse in the name of making it "cheaper".

    They've done it themselves, and do it to about every brand they touch.

    Lenovo? They have the opposite of the Midas Touch - everything they touch becomes worse (Thinkpads, servers, etc.).
    The GM H2/H3? It's not even a Suburban.
    Buick? At least you could get a decent one before China was prioritized. Now it's Opels, Daewoos, and cut-down I4 mysterymeat cars everywhere.
    Geely? They've devalued the Volvo brand in w

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close