Nikola Admits Prototype Was Rolling Downhill In Promo Video (arstechnica.com) 100
In late 2016, Nikola Motor Company founder Trevor Milton unveiled a prototype of the Nikola One truck, claiming it "fully functions and works, which is really incredible." A couple years later, in January 2018, the company showed the Nikola One truck moving rapidly along a two-lane desert highway. But last week, the short-selling investment firm Hindenburg Research published a bombshell report, accusing Nikola Motors of massive fraud, having no proprietary technology and vastly overstating the capabilities of their prototypes to investors.
Incredibly, "Hindenburg reported that the truck in the 'Nikola One in motion' video wasn't moving under its own power," reports Ars Technica. "Rather, Nikola had towed the truck to the top of a shallow hill and let it roll down. The company allegedly tilted the camera to make it look like the truck was traveling under its own power on a level roadway." From the report: On Monday morning, Nikola sent out a lengthy press release titled "Nikola Sets the Record Straight on False and Misleading Short Seller Report." While the statement nitpicks a number of claims in the Hindenburg report, it tacitly concedes Hindenburg's main claim about the Nikola One. Nikola now admits that the Nikola One prototype wasn't functional in December 2016 and still wasn't functional when the company released the "in motion" video 13 months later. Nikola claims that the gearbox, batteries, inverters, power steering, and some other components of the truck were functional at the time of the December 2016 show. But Nikola doesn't claim that the truck had a working hydrogen fuel cell or motors to drive the wheels -- the two key components Hindenburg stated were missing from the truck in December 2016.
And Nikola now admits that it never got the truck to fully function. "As Nikola pivoted to the next generation of trucks, it ultimately decided not to invest additional resources into completing the process to make the Nikola One drive on its own propulsion," Nikola wrote in its Monday statement. Instead, Nikola pivoted to working on its next vehicle, the Nikola Two. So what about that video of the Nikola One driving across the desert? "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video," Nikola wrote. "Nikola described this third-party video on the Company's social media as 'In Motion.' It was never described as 'under its own propulsion' or 'powertrain driven.' Nikola investors who invested during this period, in which the Company was privately held, knew the technical capability of the Nikola One at the time of their investment."
Incredibly, "Hindenburg reported that the truck in the 'Nikola One in motion' video wasn't moving under its own power," reports Ars Technica. "Rather, Nikola had towed the truck to the top of a shallow hill and let it roll down. The company allegedly tilted the camera to make it look like the truck was traveling under its own power on a level roadway." From the report: On Monday morning, Nikola sent out a lengthy press release titled "Nikola Sets the Record Straight on False and Misleading Short Seller Report." While the statement nitpicks a number of claims in the Hindenburg report, it tacitly concedes Hindenburg's main claim about the Nikola One. Nikola now admits that the Nikola One prototype wasn't functional in December 2016 and still wasn't functional when the company released the "in motion" video 13 months later. Nikola claims that the gearbox, batteries, inverters, power steering, and some other components of the truck were functional at the time of the December 2016 show. But Nikola doesn't claim that the truck had a working hydrogen fuel cell or motors to drive the wheels -- the two key components Hindenburg stated were missing from the truck in December 2016.
And Nikola now admits that it never got the truck to fully function. "As Nikola pivoted to the next generation of trucks, it ultimately decided not to invest additional resources into completing the process to make the Nikola One drive on its own propulsion," Nikola wrote in its Monday statement. Instead, Nikola pivoted to working on its next vehicle, the Nikola Two. So what about that video of the Nikola One driving across the desert? "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video," Nikola wrote. "Nikola described this third-party video on the Company's social media as 'In Motion.' It was never described as 'under its own propulsion' or 'powertrain driven.' Nikola investors who invested during this period, in which the Company was privately held, knew the technical capability of the Nikola One at the time of their investment."
Nikola Tesla's angry ghost (Score:3, Insightful)
Was there ever a man so libeled, exploted, and besmirched while paradoxically the vultures fight over who gets to ride his coat tails the longest?
Re:Nikola Tesla's angry ghost (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that at this point, Tesla Motor's brand is more well known than Nikola Tesla is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that at this point, Tesla Motor's brand is more well known than Nikola Tesla is.
It pains me to agree with you on that.
Re: Nikola Tesla's angry ghost (Score:5, Funny)
He invented soda, right? Thats why its called kola.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... I thought he'd made those cough drops.
Re: Nikola Tesla's angry ghost (Score:2)
I think that was his twin brother?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was his twin brother?
No, it was his clone:
Re-kola
(I'll see myself out.)
Re: Nikola Tesla's angry ghost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As luck would have it, I was working at the Bell Labs Murray Hill site when Thompson and Ritchie were there to accept the Japan Prize. Ritchie did not look well, and needed assistance on stage. I was glad for the opportunity to meet him; he died not long afterward.
Re: (Score:1)
Has there ever been a more overrated person in history. You'd think he was the second coming of Christ, when he was really an oddball inventor as well known for absurd positions like his rejection of General Relativity, when he really had no ability to assess if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
In the modern PR=B$ (public relations equals lies for profit), no different to Actors, Musicians, Athletes, all the same crap, none of them are special, they are just marketed that way for profit, to sell what ever they sell. In this case they sell the CEO, they market them, to hype the shares at the behest of early investors, those that cash in when the company goes public, they sell and it often self destructs.
Yes, it is all a marketing con to generate massive profits and they do it on purpose, for that
But did it win? (Score:5, Funny)
Did it win the soap box derby? That's the important part.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It got disqualified for not meeting the weight requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's hardly any balsa wood in that truck!
Wood? (Score:2)
You don't know how much wood they used.
Next whistleblower will tell how may trees they stuffed in the back for giving it more potential energy.
Re: (Score:1)
I heard Boeing is thinking about hiring people from Nikola to handle the SLS demo flight.
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing he didn't tweet "propulsion secured"...
Re: But did it win? (Score:5, Funny)
Should have called the company "Newton" ;)
Re: (Score:2)
FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow.
Throw the book at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
The description of the video they posted says the truck is "1,000 HP". When the actual number is "0", that's a lie, even as a technicality. Cuts both ways...
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. It had a 1,000 HP motor. Sitting in the bed of the truck. :-D
Re: FFS (Score:3)
You'd think, but the statement says that the motors were one of the things they hadn't gotten figured out yet (along with the energy source).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video..."
Don't need to throw the book at them. They sunk themselves.
NOBODY (who pays attention) will believe a single thing coming out of Nikola unless they state it explicitly. The truck has 4 doors? Prove it. It is street legal? Prove it.
What you get for a weak excuse quibbling about what was said.
Re: (Score:1)
what book.
also it's just a truck with fucking electric motors and batteries. truth is that none of the companes have properiaty technology worth anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a single time that Ford, GM, and the like ever found a need to announce that the vehicle they were showing off was moving under its own power . . .
up next: "We never said that our vaccine was for the ChiCom virus!" . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you're convinced this is a dump scam, buy the stock while it is cheap. Or even better, put in some options to buy in the future. If you're really "smart" you would combine the options (buy/sell) and you'll make money if it goes up or down, but not if it stays the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It's another variant of Theranos. Though the main guy has a longer history of lying than Holmes. Maybe he believes it can work, but it is a continual smoke and mirrors show over at Nikola and it really does seem like a flat out con-job rather than a CEO who's just irrationally exuberant.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen the prices of the options on that stock? January at the money options are almost a third of the share price. January 2022 at the money are half the price of the stock. How much money do you expect to make if you buy calls and puts?
Out of the money is not much better, by the way. A bit better leverage, but much more risk if the stock doesn't drop quite rapidly enough. No free lunch, the options are already priced for failure.
The only way I can see to make money off of this, is simply shorting t
Re: Keep in mind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is this the electric version of Desert Bus videogame? https://www.newyorker.com/tech... [newyorker.com]
How many hours does it take to get to the end of the road?
Re: (Score:3)
Analysis (Score:2)
HIndenburg's analysis seems to depend on issues bringing the Nikola One to market, then issues bringing the Two to market. As Nikola reports, they decided not to produce the One. The One was a semi-functional prototype. The Two is a functional prototype. They are currently having production issues. There is currently a huge global pandemic going on, so yeah, I could see them having production issues.
Did you read the Hindenburg report? Some of the allegations are serious. A lot of them are along the lines of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
After watching the launch video for the truck and some of the dubious claims about hydrogen I'm inclined to believe they were on very shaky ground to begin with.
Putting their money where their mouths are... (Score:2)
This report is brought to you by an investment company who stands to loose a lot of money if Nikola's stock price doesn't go down. Grains of salt should be applied liberally.
So, what, they should have released the report first, then put themselves in a short position when the stock price had already gone down because of the revelation? Don't be daft.
If the report is false, the stock price drops a little, and it rebounds probably more than before as the truth comes out and the moral outrage at someone trying to hurt the little company that could unfolds. The stock price would likely not drop enough for a short position to net anything. No, their self-identified short position
GM just formed a partnership with Nikola (Score:3)
Source [gm.com]
What kind of f-ckery is going on here I wonder. Who's trying to do what?
Re:GM just formed a partnership with Nikola (Score:5, Informative)
This looks like two loser companies embracing each other while drowning.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like two loser companies embracing each other while drowning.
. . . and just guess who will end up paying the bailout bill in a few years . . . ?
Re:GM just formed a partnership with Nikola (Score:4, Funny)
Nikola Badger to be Engineered and Manufactured by General Motors
King Arthur: What happens now?
Sir Bedevere: Well, now, uh, Launcelot, Galahad, and I, uh, wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the rabbit, taking the French, uh, by surprise. Not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!
Arthur: Who leaps out?
Bedevere: U-- u-- uh, Launcelot, Galahad, and I. Uh, leap out of the rabbit, uh, and uh...
Arthur: Ohh... (he and Lancelot slowly put their hands to their heads at the realization that they messed up)
Bedevere: Oh. Um, l-- look, i-- i-- if we built this large wooden badger--
Re: (Score:2)
That truck wouldn't go Voom if you put 4 million Volts through it.
Well, it might if the motor was hooked up. but hey
The deal is Nikola buys trucks from GM (Score:5, Informative)
Under the deal, GM will make trucks with the upper body designed by Nikola. Nikola will pay GM up to $700 million to set up the tooling to make them. Additionally, GM now owns 11% of Nikola, at a significant discount from the prevailing stock price at the time of the deal.
So, long story short - Nikola paid GM a lot of money in order to be able to buy GM trucks and stick a "Nikola" logo on them.
Re: The deal is Nikola buys trucks from GM (Score:1)
That would work fairly well if GM was successful in making electric trucks. Or had a really good battery or fuel cell business. Since it does neither ... I'm not sure wtf Nikola is hoping to buy ...
Re: (Score:2)
The GM contract is cost-plus. So Nikola can get their hands on as many as they want, but they have to pay GM whatever it costs to make them, plus engineering, plus profit. Also, any trucks that Nikola ever makes on their own, outside of Europe, have to buy GM fuel cells and batteries.
To be fair, in the contract, GM "bought" 11% of Nikola in order for Nikola to give them such a sweetheart deal. But it was a no-cash, "in kind" deal, and valued the company at a significant (then) market discount - whatever
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it could be that GM is like a woman who thinks she can "fix" some loser guy, because now he's with the right woman. (Insert your genders or orientations of choice, here. You get the idea.)
Re: (Score:2)
Trevor is a master of the chained confidence game. He comes to prospective good-reputation partners with a too-good-to-pass-up offer that basically offers some massive chunk of Nikola's supposedly rosy future in exchange for a low-to-no-risk deal. Each new player assumes that they can take him at his face value because some other previous partner has an established reputation, and surely they did proper due diligence - when in reality, they did the exact same thing. Follow the chain back a few steps at an
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
From all accounts this is de rigueur for Trevor Milton, doing everything he can to deceive investors but falling back on some technicality to avoid being prosecuted for outright lying. Any reasonable person viewing this "In Motion" video -- which was purposefully edited to make it appear the vehicle was traveling on level ground -- would think it was moving under its own power. That was the point of editing it, to give a false perception, otherwise why edit it?
If you cannot make it (Score:4, Insightful)
Fake it. You may still get rich in this messed-up world. At least if you can deliver something eventually.
Re:If you cannot make it (Score:5, Interesting)
Fake it. You may still get rich in this messed-up world. At least if you can deliver something eventually.
You can deliver nothing and still get rich. Just ask Adam Neumann. Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani came damn close to getting away with it as well. And these are just the scams we know about. Imagine how many others slip right past simply because they only scam tens or hundreds of millions of dollars instead of billions?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. No wonder the world is going to hell.
The interesting thing is... (Score:2)
There should be, and there is, regulatory apparatus to help prevent consumers and investors from being defrauded.
But if you increase the intrusiveness of the regulators and inspectors to the point where all fraud is eliminated, you've long since passed the point of diminishing returns in the size of your regulatory apparatus. The genuinely innovative people are now being harassed by red tape to the point where they can't accomplish anything.
With that understanding, eliminating all fraud should not be the g
Re: (Score:1)
Which brings up the age-old "who watches the watchers?" scenario and the specter of regulatory capture.
The only truly effective countermeasure to things like Nikola and Theranos is investors who actually perform due diligence and demand clear, complete answers to penetrating questions from companies before investing in them. Unfortunately many investors run lemming-like to unicorns and flock on
Re:If you cannot make it (Score:5, Interesting)
Faking it seems to be a common strategy in embedded software development, at least in my experience. The developer produces a demo, showing all the right things on the display, but the firmware actually has no working guts.
One chap ran his demo, which appeared to show a temperature controller near completion. Then he went on holiday. The customer came in to check on progress. My colleague and I tried to get the firmware to run, but it was hopeless. The guy had not only faked the demo, he had left it in an unusable state, with no backup. The customer was not pleased. He more or less demanded that the faker be sacked, which we did.
There was another job which we took over, which had all sorts of fancy GUI stuff. It was supposed to be displaying data from some embedded firmware, communicated over a serial link. It looked like the job was nearly ready to go. But there was no "engine room" code. The job had barely been started.
In these two cases, the developer did the job the wrong way round. My approach is to attack the "engine room" code first: make stuff work. You can make it look pretty later; that is the easy bit. I think there may be a mistaken idea that you design a product around its user interface, and fill in the working code later.
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I not surprised. I did hear similar stories from a friend doing some part of card phones a decade or two back though.
In these two cases, the developer did the job the wrong way round. My approach is to attack the "engine room" code first: make stuff work. You can make it look pretty later; that is the easy bit. I think there may be a mistaken idea that you design a product around its user interface, and fill in the working code later.
Your approach is the way anybody competent does it: First the core engineering (including security!), then things like speed and reliability, then the pretty surface. Last element optional, a functional (but not hard to use) interface is quite enough. Sadly, in an increasing superficial time many supposed "engineers" revert to a state that is not even that of a technician, but that of
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily the best way to design something depending on how it's going to be used. I like to start from UI and work backward if it's a consumer product.
It's much easier to get a client to settle on a firm scope if they can "use" a facsimile of the end product. "How do I download the last 24 hours of data to my phone? Which button does that?" The sooner they can take a test drive, the sooner they can settle on what the firmware actually needs to accomplish.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally disagree. If you sell the customer a product on a faked up demo, but can't deliver the real deal, then you deserve to go bust.
Maybe work from both ends. Make sure the engine room works first, then do some pretty faked up guff for the sales people to present. When you get the contract, make the product real.
Proof of Concept (Score:5, Insightful)
The major OEMs usually save money on the proof of concept vehicles by starting with a similar used vehicle, and remove the parts they want to change. This results in a vehicle that is quite ugly to the eye, [reddit.com] but proves the concept is viable.
Seems like Nikola got it backwards.
Name dropping (Score:5, Funny)
The name dropping in this situation is damn near hilarious. "Nikola" and "Hindenburg" are bad enough in the same article. All they need now is a company run by a guy named "Edison" to pop up and say Nikola stole their ideas and a guy named "Heisenberg" to say he's uncertain about the position and momentum of the truck in the video.
Not just namedropping; hackish unoriginality (Score:2)
It's not just namedropping, it's hackish unoriginality. Nikola Tesla's last name is already taken by an EV company? No problem, we'll just use his first name.
There is actually a Chinese rocket company whose logo looks almost exactly like the SpaceX logo. Talk about knockoffs.
Oh for FS (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The "plan" was.. Well, I mean the plan they told investors, behind the scene the plan was to take their money and runs. But the plan they told investors was, there would be a hydrogen fuel cell that would power the truck to increase the range of batteries alone. Sort of like a plug-in hybrid, but with fancier technology to sparkle in the eyes of those with the checkbooks. And this "plan" appears to have changed often, which is part of the pattern of fraud that shows up in the Hindenburg report. What Ni
Re: (Score:2)
All you have to do is power the damn thing with off the shelf Panasonic batteries, like Tesla does.
Holy shit. Don't ever pretend to know anything about electric cars at all. Please.
- Tesla does not run with "off the shelf" Panasonic batteries. They developed specific batteries in conjunction with Panasonic using an off the shelf form factor.
- The batteries are literally the *least* of your problems when designing an electric car. Unless you don't care about your car turning into a fireball as you're rolling down the road.
rolling down the road (Score:2)
Yes. Nikola developped a perfect alternative for a "car not turning into a fireball"
as you're "rolling down the road."
HAHAHAHA
Incredible (Score:2)
How incredible that they went to such great lengths to fake their demo.
If you have the capability to build a one-off vehicle prototype that looks like theirs, you clearly have the skill to buy a motor, some batteries, and a drive controller and bolt it to the wheels.
This to me would be the distinction between a company that is giving it their best effort to try and make things work and a company that is trying actively to misrepresent itself. Although both companies would ultimately have the same fate, for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be a case where investors money is spent on more hype and faked demos, with no money left to develop a working product. This is unfortunately quite an effective way of making money these days. Speaking as an engineer actually designing stuff that works, this makes me mad, to say the least.
The scam is to puff up the non-existent product, pocket the investors money, then run off before the financial regulators get at you. Rinse and repeat. Profit!
Re: (Score:1)
"In motion... not on its own" (Score:1)
Incredible, this statement seems to be coming fron an episode of The Simpsons where they parody dishonest marketing, instead it's reality. And what about the fact that they called their company "Nikola" to mimic the "Tesla" brand...
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the fact that they called their company "Nikola" to mimic the "Tesla" brand...
when you borrow branding from famous historical names, especially one associated with what you are trying to do then neither Tesla nor Nikola has any justification to be pissed at others that do the same.
MP Obligatory: Rename it (Score:1)
"Camelot"
Re: (Score:2)
*whispers* it's just a model!
Throw the book at them? (Score:2)
Yeah, right after the book gets thrown at Solyndra and all the rest of the companies that went under during the last administration. Oh, and reserve some of that ire for World View, the company senate candidate Mark Kelly was involved with. Come on, man, one of the founders was involved with Biosphere 2. Did nobody see that coming?
Shades of SCO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the lawsuit against Tesla still proceeding? (Score:2)
They were suing Tesla for copying the design of their downhill-only truck... this new design feature is an interesting plot twist.
Post Truth... (Score:2)
In the Post Truth world, it's inevitable that a car company will shamelessly claim something like "we never told you it had a motor or steering capability."
Next: McDonalds releases burgers for everyone. (The cows were vegetarian ...)
Theranos of electric cars? (Score:2)
What is happening to the unicorn founding? Are they all hyped out of reason or the guys with money have not clue what they up to?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about unicorn funding is that one good win will pay for a lot of duds. This is professional investors I am talking about. You can miss out on a genuine good venture by being too skeptical. A side effect is parasite ventures, that suck funding, without actually doing anything useful.
Look at the STOP sign at 0:17 (Score:4, Informative)
Why was NKLA stock up over 10% today? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
There are very few responses like *disappointed, selling my shares and taking my loss*.There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on. Even lots of people saying they are pleased with the rebuttal. Which means that they have no issue in being fooled with a purposely deceiving movie of a moving truck.
Niiiiiiiikooooolaaaaa! (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Where are the throat lozenges and cough drops?
Nikola is basically just a kickstarter now, lol (Score:2)
Apparently, Nikola never actually went public. They just got âoeboughtâ by another company, VectoIQ and changed their name back to Nikola.
Itâ(TM)s similar to when for-profit universities buy up defunct schools in order to purchase accreditations.
Nikola essentially just fast-tracked their way into the biggest Kickstarter on the planet: The US stock market. The SEC tries to limit the risk to investors by preventing crap companies from going public, but it usually fails and is really pretty much
Anyone remember Fox Jet (Score:3)
Tony Team Industries previewed the Foxjet in the late 70's; it was a biz jet that foreshadow today's Gulfstreams et. al. They had a promotional video that showed it taxiing, taking off an flying, even though it was a non-flyable prototype that was towed around and the videos edited to appear as if it actually flew. The could not use the original engines they selected, although when I was at university we studied the a/c and concluded even if it had the intended powerplant it would not have achieved the claimed performance. The plane never went into production.
Fox Jet Promo Video [youtube.com]
Foxjet ST600e [wikipedia.org]
Missing the real story (Score:2)
This isn't the real story. That was for the Nikola One, a truck that was scrapped.
The real story is the CEO saying they had 5 truck prototypes coming off an assembly line in June, and then posting a picture of those 5 incomplete and non-functional trucks on Saturday. That is a material misrepresentation of the company's readiness to manufacture that specific vehicle. e.g. They do not have an assembly line and it is not capable of producing these trucks in a functional fashion.
Investors at the time knew? (Score:1)
"Nikola investors who invested during this period, in which the Company was privately held, knew the technical capability of the Nikola One at the time of their investment."
So did they make this information public when the stock started trading publicly?
Hindenburg - boom! (Score:2)
Hindenburg reported that the truck in the 'Nikola One in motion' video wasn't moving under its own power
Boom! In an explosive revelation, Hindenburg ignites controversy that sinks high flying Nikola and sends their hopes crashing and burning down to earth.