backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by maugrimtr.. on Nov 13 at 4:51 AM


  (Source: Car and Driver)
Sixteen were destroyed by a fire while the rest had flood damage

As a result of Hurricane Sandy, Fisker Automotive lost 320 Karmas to either flooding or fires on the east coast.

According to Roger Ormisher, a Fisker spokesperson, 320 Karmas parked on a New Jersey port were destroyed during Hurricane Sandy last week. This meant a $32 million loss for the company.

Of the 320 Karmas, one had a short circuit that caught fire and due to high winds, 15 other Karmas caught fire as well. The rest of the Fisker plug-ins parked along the port were damaged by floodwaters.

These Karmas were shipped from Finland and destined for U.S. dealers. Ormisher said there may be a temporary shortage of certain color or trim options for the Karma, and that he doubts this loss will impact the price of the Karma in the U.S.

This year has been quite a rollercoaster ride for Fisker. The automaker had two incidents where Karma vehicles caught fire while in the possession of a customer. One occurred in May 2012, when a Karma plug-in was responsible for a house fire in Houston, and the second occurred in August 2012, where a Karma parked in a Woodside, California grocery store parking lot had went up in flames.

Before that, A123 Systems, the battery maker for Fisker's Karma, had recalled over 200 batteries for the Karma. However, Fisker said the battery wasn't the issue in the two fires this year.

Just last month, Consumer Reports flunked the Karma for its design and execution, saying that the vehicle has a cramped interior, limited visibility, awkward access and poorly-designed dashboard controls. 

Source: Inside Line



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Trisagion on 11/8/2012 12:50:00 AM , Rating: 4
Why didn't they drive / move them out before the storm? Why would they park 320 cars at the PORT before a hurricane hits? Why, Fiskar? Why?


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Lord 666 on 11/8/2012 1:16:55 AM , Rating: 4
Why did the US Naval command arrange the fleet the way they did in 1941?


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 11/8/2012 8:25:34 AM , Rating: 4
At least naval vessels don't spontaneously combust when immersed in water.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By GotThumbs on 11/8/2012 11:18:54 AM , Rating: 4
It's sad that this story fails to even note that Fiskers Karma battery supplier A123 filed for Bankruptcy October 16th.

I think this company could have had a better shot at success if they had a better battery supplier. High-end EV cars are still in the product innovation stage, so I think potential buyers need to fully accept/understand they are buying products still just getting past the development/testing stage.

Anyone interested in an EV car, but not willing to take the risk needs to hold off until the product life-cycle is in the mid-stages.

I do not think other easily viable alternatives should continue to be overlooked by the current administration. Biodiesel is easily produced by re-purposing the millions of gallons of used cooking oil from american restaurants. Modern Diesel technology is far superior than the years past. VW's TDI rocks IMO.

It can be so frustrating when higher ups cant see/choose not to see how easy/quick some solutions can be implemented and assist in truly eliminating the US dependence on Arab oil.

Since the election is history, now we get to see what new regulations and treaties (by-passes many of our balanced government processes) will surface and that have been in the planning all along. Careful what you wish for.

Too bad the US Government wasn't smarter in investing OUR money.

Best wishes for the coming year.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 11/8/2012 11:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
It was a joke. I was intentionally missing the point of the post, and pointing out that naval vessels are not closely related to automobiles, and hopefully creating a mental picture of the US Naval command spontaneously combusting the first time they were introduced to water. Sorry.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 11/8/2012 11:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
Also, it may not have been a battery failure. Shorting out some high-current electronics could easily release enough energy to get an unrelated part of the vehicle hot enough to burn.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Dorkyman on 11/8/2012 3:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
Nonetheless, the autos burned up.

But you have to look at the bright side. That's 320 cars that wouldn't have the possibility of combusting one day in a parking lot. That's a good thing.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Ammohunt on 11/12/2012 1:51:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Too bad the US Government wasn't smarter in investing OUR money.


Too bad i couldn't have kept my money and invested my self instead of having the Government pick the winners and losers.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Jedi2155 on 11/8/2012 11:21:22 PM , Rating: 4
RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By V-Money on 11/8/2012 1:24:17 AM , Rating: 5
I'm assuming that they were all insured mostly due to
quote:
He said the luxury sports cars, which sell for about $100,000 each, were insured and company doesn't expect the loss to have a material impact on its business.
from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702047...

In that case it makes perfect business sense when you are hurting for sales for a niche market high cost to accidentally leave 100's of them in the direct path of a hurricane. Even if the insurance only covers the cost of them, it helps them in 2 ways: Economies of scale and in a way best stated in the article
quote:
"It makes it more of an exclusive,"


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By th3pwn3r on 11/8/2012 7:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
So shady BUT it certainly make sense +6 to your post good sir.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By CZroe on 11/8/2012 9:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think they wanted them gone for the insurance payout, just like I thin RIM wanted that truckload of BlackBerry Playbooks to get stolen last year. "Poor Fisker," indeed.

Also, how bad is it that "high winds" can spark a fire in a sports car the will be generating relative hurricane-forces with a wind-speed of zero?


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By robert5c on 11/8/2012 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
you read that wrong, a short caused the fire...in one car, the winds is what spread it to all the other cars that torched.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By JediJeb on 11/9/2012 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
Is the outer shell of those cars actually that flammable? Or were they parked a few inches apart, but even at that, it should take quite a bit of heat over a long period of time to make the shell of any automobile catch fire.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By danjw1 on 11/8/2012 10:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Because they needed the insurance money. You don't think they had actually sold those cars, do you?


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Jedi2155 on 11/8/2012 11:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
They weren't the only ones hit. Toyota lost 4800 cars, Nissan lost 6000. Blame the port, not the automaker.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2012/11/08/automakers-lo...


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By AlvinCool on 11/8/2012 1:20:50 PM , Rating: 3
Because they are in transit and in PORT. That means customs has control and nobody can drive them anywhere.


RE: Karma's a @#@@#?
By Chocobollz on 11/10/2012 11:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously they don't believe in karma, ie. they don't believe in logic. Of course if they put the cars outside when there is storm incoming then the cars will be destroyed. But they don't believe it, so that's their own fault. :p


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki