Fisker Buzz Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
Originally, Fisker's halted production was believed to be a result of A123's bankruptcy--but according to the interview with Kessen, A123 had actually fulfilled "every order that was received" from Fisker before the battery firm went under.
Dismissed too is the idea that A123's high-profile battery recall led to its bankruptcy. That was instead put down to a "confluence of factors", including slower than average market growth.
While this may be partially true I find it hard to believe that a $50 million dollar+ hit (that A123 washed after the BK) did not play a major role. At the time Fisker was A123's biggest customer and creditor (warranty claim). A123 fulfilled many of the orders with poorly tested or bad modules. It is mind-boggling that any auto manufacturer would use this company for their HV packs after what they did to FA (borderline fraud).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
Just a side note A123 wanted Fisker to replace just the bad modules within the battery . From what I was told by A123 Fisker refused to have the technicians learn to repair the batteries and the amount of actual bad batteries was a lot less then first thought . A123 has washed their hand of the Fisker battery pack and have turned over all their inventory to a third party that will supply the needed parts and modules for replacement .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
Just a side note A123 wanted Fisker to replace just the bad modules within the battery . From what I was told by A123 Fisker refused to have the technicians learn to repair the batteries and the amount of actual bad batteries was a lot less then first thought . A123 has washed their hand of the Fisker battery pack and have turned over all their inventory to a third party that will supply the needed parts and modules for replacement .
Naturally, A123 would want to push the blame on Fisker, but there is no doubt that A123 created the defect, not Fisker. The rest is just blamestorming by A123.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
Naturally, A123 would want to push the blame on Fisker, but there is no doubt that A123 created the defect, not Fisker. The rest is just blamestorming by A123.
Both are certainly at fault instead of blaming each other they should of worked together. But A123 isn't the first vendor I've been in contact with that has had the same thing to say about Fisker . Fisker wouldn't listen to recommendation from the vendor . Case in point Tremec who makes the RDM I was told by Tremec that they never validated the RDM because of the design Fisker went with the C clip for the axel .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
Naturally, A123 would want to push the blame on Fisker, but there is no doubt that A123 created the defect, not Fisker. The rest is just blamestorming by A123.
Both are certainly at fault instead of blaming each other they should of worked together. But A123 isn't the first vendor I've been in contact with that has had the same thing to say about Fisker . Fisker wouldn't listen to recommendation from the vendor . Case in point Tremec who makes the RDM I was told by Tremec that they never validated the RDM because of the design Fisker went with the C clip for the axel .
I agree that Fisker was terrible at validating design and probably failed to listen to vendors and its own engineers about design choices that they later came to deeply regret.

With regard to the battery, though, my point was that the defect was not a design defect but a straight manufacturing defect caused only by A123. In this particular case, Fisker could only react to the defect when it was discovered, and it was well within its rights to demand working batteries rather than a repair kit and instructions.

Maybe in retrospect, that was the wrong way to go, but I don't think it is fair to lay any blame for this problem at FA's door, since all they did was order a bunch of batteries from A123 and got some that were defective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
A123 even up to the end was delivering batteries with defective modules. Even some of the last batteries that they delivered at the end of 2012 had major defects. Why would Fisker keep building cars to put bad batteries in them? Many of the cars were being held back to have the recalls performed and even at that point it was not 100% known if the batteries that had been installed were defective. If A123 had delivered what they said they would, this would be a non-issue.

To re-iterate there were batteries in the last batch (April settlement) that A123 had assembled with modules that had tested bad.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top