Faraday Future has just 60 deposit-backed reservations for its FF 91 electric vehicle

[Shawn Knight]

Faraday Future earlier this month at CES unveiled a prototype of its first consumer electric vehicle, the FF 91. Shortly after the event, the automotive startup said it had received more than 64,000 reservations within the first 36 hours.

That’s an impressive figure at first glance until you realize that “reservations” and “pre-orders” aren’t synonymous.

If you recall, people were allowed to place a reservation with or without a $5,000 deposit. With that in mind, sources tell Business Insider that only 60 people submitted a deposit alongside their reservation.

For those keeping score, that totals just $300,000. Faraday Future hasn’t yet said how much the FF 91 will sell for although the general consensus seems to be around the $180,000 mark. If that’s accurate, it means that total pre-order money wouldn’t even buy two vehicles. For a company that many believe is already in serious trouble, that can’t be encouraging.

Tesla’s Model 3 generated nearly 300,000 paid reservations in the first three days although worth noting is the fact that A) a Model 3 reservation commands just $1,000 and B) its entry price of $35,000 is far cheaper than what the FF 91 will likely start it.

One unnamed Faraday Future source told the publication that if they can’t figure out a way to get the money they need out of China within the next 60 days, suppliers would essentially force them into bankruptcy.

While Tesla would no doubt like to see Faraday Future crash and burn, it’d be far more beneficial to both consumers and the industry in general for it to succeed. Competition lowers prices and fosters innovation, things we can all get behind.

Lead image courtesy Ethan Miller, Getty Images

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67873-faraday-future-has-60-deposit-backed-reservations-ff.html

 

[VitalyT]

My money is on them to fail, and the reason is because rather than targeting the wider and cheaper market that Tesla has been paving with Model 3, they aim at the ultra-luxurious sector. That's a huge mistake, too ambitious and not that profitable (on a large scale), certainly not when the market is screaming for cheap electric vehicles with acceptable range.

After all, it is an hypocrisy, making economical cars that can only be afforded by people who buy them as a leisure item, and care little for the savings offered by the technology.

 

[umbala]

Yeah, I think it's a stupid mistake on FF's part to try and break into the high end market right from the start. The smart play would've been to try to make a quality vehicle with good range that can compete with Tesla's Model 3 on price. Then once you have a foothold and making some profit then you come out with a luxury version for high end customers. This company will almost certainly crash and burn. I hope I'm wrong, but only time will tell.

 

[1khomeff]

Will Tesla Motors take Faraday under it's wings to keep it afloat? Faraday has some good technical break throughs that we would hate to see thrown in the garbage.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

That's 60 people with too much money and not enough common sense. It makes me wonder how they ever made money in the 1st place.

 

[mbrowne5061]

My money is on them to fail, and the reason is because rather than targeting the wider and cheaper market that Tesla has been paving with Model 3, they aim at the ultra-luxurious sector. That's a huge mistake, too ambitious and not that profitable (on a large scale), certainly not when the market is screaming for cheap electric vehicles with acceptable range.

After all, it is an hypocrisy, making economical cars that can only be afforded by people who buy them as a leisure item, and care little for the savings offered by the technology.

I doubt that they have the capability to sell on any large scale yet - lacking a supplier network, lacking demand for the brand/product, lacking actual manufacturing. Starting with higher-profit-per-unit ultra-luxury cars makes sense when you're first starting out. It maximizes the money coming in for what a new company is capable of producing. This is why Tesla started with the Model S and not the Model 3 - though they did have more capital, and so were able to produce the Model S as a luxury vehicle instead of ultra-luxury.

But I still bet on them to fail. This comes across as a cash-grab funded and conceived by a Chinese mogul who is watching his steel and coal fortunes dry up, maybe one step above a Ponzi scheme.

 

[davislane1]

My money is on them to fail, and the reason is because rather than targeting the wider and cheaper market that Tesla has been paving with Model 3, they aim at the ultra-luxurious sector. That's a huge mistake, too ambitious and not that profitable (on a large scale), certainly not when the market is screaming for cheap electric vehicles with acceptable range.

They're targeting a niche. Volume vs margin markets are two sides of the same coin. You're betting on them to fail because they aren't targeting a market they aren't marketing to. That's like betting on a pass play to fail because it isn't a run (people unfamiliar with American football can google that).

After all, it is an hypocrisy, making economical cars that can only be afforded by people who buy them as a leisure item, and care little for the savings offered by the technology.

You're looking for a different word.

 

[Phr3d]

Having watched to FF91 presentation, and watching whichever engineer talk about the car like the ECO TY (money man) had never Seen it before, and the self-parking questions, and the parking Fail until we turned off the house lights so it could follow the bright Straight line it was capable of doing, the first 20 minutes of I-don't-know-what from the company prez..
yeah, gonna hang on to the 5 kilobux for the moment, lol..