[sirozha]

I have two reservations that I changed to non-refundable pre-orders before August 16. I actually did it within an hour of when they became available. A few days after I selected the Ultra for both preorders, I decided that I wanted one of them to be changed to the Extreme, so I opened a ticket with Fisker support. Today I received a response that these non-refundable deposits cannot be changed to a different trim.

 

[FutureSurfer]

I have two reservations that I changed to non-refundable pre-orders before August 16. I actually did it within an hour of when they became available. A few days after I selected the Ultra for both preorders, I decided that I wanted one of them to be changed to the Extreme, so I opened a ticket with Fisker support. Today I received a response that these non-refundable deposits cannot be changed to a different trim.

That is what the FAQ had said (there was an order section that is now gone). Though I am not sure why it is so rigid. Especially since you are trying to change to a trim that they have open production for... I suppose it could have to do with the binding purchase agreement thing that motivated the early order conversions in the first place.

 

[sirozha]

That is what the FAQ had said (there was an order section that is now gone). Though I am not sure why it is so rigid. Especially since you are trying to change to a trim that they have open production for... I suppose it could have to do with the binding purchase agreement thing that motivated the early order conversions in the first place.

I saw another thread on here with one of the forum members saying that he asked the same question of HF on Instagram, and HF gave him a 👍. So, everyone is thoroughly confused about the whole thing. As always, kudos to the US Government for screwing up another useful program. They never fail.

 

[FutureSurfer]

I saw another thread on here with one of the forum members saying that he asked the same question of HF on Instagram, and HF gave him a 👍. So, everyone is thoroughly confused about the whole thing. As always, kudos to the US Government for screwing up another useful program. They never fail.

I think I remember seeing that. It was probably Henrik's intern that got that wrong.

 

[TT97]

I believe the reason they do not allow trim changes is it would violate the terms of the binding agreement. While a Written Binding Contract "continue[ s ] to be binding if the parties make insubstantial changes in its terms and conditions," changing trims would not be considered insubstantial.

 

[sirozha]

I believe the reason they do not allow trim changes is it would violate the terms of the binding agreement. While a Written Binding Contract "continue[ s ] to be binding if the parties make insubstantial changes in its terms and conditions," changing trims would not be considered insubstantial.

I just wanted to hedge my bets. It's unlikely I will want to get the Extreme anyway, as IMO, it's way overpriced. It's also unlikely I will end up owning two Oceans.

 

[al2882]

Oh that was me! Yes yes - I got the thumbs up emoji but again, who knows what that means?

Here's a pic:

Could mean that yes, you can change your order but you'll lose the 7500 EV credit.

Does the trim of the car actually matter for EV credits? Like if I ordered a Tesla Model 3 standard range, and then called up Tesla 2 weeks later and said, hey, can you make it a long range model instead...is that not technically still the same car (chassis, drivetrain), just different features?

Seems kind of silly to me given that the intent of the law was to make EV adoption more popular, not obfuscated.
I will be at the NYC showing tomorrow so if Henrik is there in person, I will ask him and point out the mixed signals they've been sending to everyone.

 

[sirozha]

Oh that was me! Yes yes - I got the thumbs up emoji but again, who knows what that means?

Here's a pic:
View attachment 1513



Could mean that yes, you can change your order but you'll lose the 7500 EV credit.

Does the trim of the car actually matter for EV credits? Like if I ordered a Tesla Model 3 standard range, and then called up Tesla 2 weeks later and said, hey, can you make it a long range model instead...is that not technically still the same car (chassis, drivetrain), just different features?

Seems kind of silly to me given that the intent of the law was to make EV adoption more popular, not obfuscated.
I will be at the NYC showing tomorrow so if Henrik is there in person, I will ask him and point out the mixed signals they've been sending to everyone.

Thank you!

 

[TT97]

Seems kind of silly to me given that the intent of the law was to make EV adoption more popular, not obfuscated.

That was the old law, the new law main goal is to derail EV adoption while making it seem the Democrats “won.”

 

[sirozha]

That was the old law, the new law main goal is to derail EV adoption while making it seem the Democrats “won.”

At least the republicans can’t be blamed for this one. They voted against. Democrats shot themselves in the foot all by themselves.

 

[DBatz10]

I actually don't share that view. the bill will encourage companies to bring production to the US, which it seems to be working. Hyundai, Mercedes, and Fisker have indicated various levels of interest to bring production to the US. So while there may be a short term negative impact on EVs, you already have a massive amount of momentum pushing the EV vehicle adoption. Ford, VW, GM are all dumping massive amounts of money in to EV research and have stated goals of being all in on EVs. So yes, it will be harder to get the full credit for a year or two, but there is already a 1-2 year wait list on most EVs as is.

 

[TT97]

I actually don't share that view. the bill will encourage companies to bring production to the US, which it seems to be working. Hyundai, Mercedes, and Fisker have indicated various levels of interest to bring production to the US. So while there may be a short term negative impact on EVs, you already have a massive amount of momentum pushing the EV vehicle adoption. Ford, VW, GM are all dumping massive amounts of money in to EV research and have stated goals of being all in on EVs. So yes, it will be harder to get the full credit for a year or two, but there is already a 1-2 year wait list on most EVs as is.

The bill encourages bringing production to North America, which is not the same as U.S. but does not benefit adoption of EVs, it benefits the "image" of bringing manufacturing to the U.S. The bill will also keep many companies from importing vehicles to the U.S. as they can just keep the sales in Europe & China that have laws that incentivizes the manufacturers to sell in those countries. Several of the potential new manufacturing sites have significant local resident opposition - everyone likes the concept of U.S. manufacturing until it is in their backyard. And wait until they need to start mining in their back yard to meet the mineral content requirements.

The bill also favors PHEVs over BEVs which is moving in the wrong direction. Everything in the bill was done for image and not substance.

 

[SeaPhil4]

That was the old law, the new law main goal is to derail EV adoption while making it seem the Democrats “won.”

Thanks Joe Manchin. Hope Big Coal and Big Oil put a little something special in your Christmas stocking this year…
The Bill had great potential until this idiot played with it.
Still fairly useful, except for EV Credits…🙄

 

[HotIce]

I actually don't share that view. the bill will encourage companies to bring production to the US, which it seems to be working. Hyundai, Mercedes, and Fisker have indicated various levels of interest to bring production to the US. So while there may be a short term negative impact on EVs, you already have a massive amount of momentum pushing the EV vehicle adoption. Ford, VW, GM are all dumping massive amounts of money in to EV research and have stated goals of being all in on EVs. So yes, it will be harder to get the full credit for a year or two, but there is already a 1-2 year wait list on most EVs as is.

Factories don't get built overnight, though. It's going to take YEARS. Samsung and Panasonic already had plans to start building factories here in the US. The bill does nothing for the mass adoption of EV's in my opinion. It's like a Civic with one of those massive exhausts on it that makes a lot of noise but it really doesn't go anywhere. The bill seems like it's making waves but it's really not going to make a significant impact in my opinion.

 

[DBatz10]

Factories don't get built overnight, though. It's going to take YEARS. Samsung and Panasonic already had plans to start building factories here in the US. The bill does nothing for the mass adoption of EV's in my opinion. It's like a Civic with one of those massive exhausts on it that makes a lot of noise but it really doesn't go anywhere. The bill seems like it's making waves but it's really not going to make a significant impact in my opinion.

I don't disagree that factories don't just pop up overnight, but if this piece of legislation drives companies to bring production to the states I do, which then allows their vehicles to qualify for some or all of the tax credit, that seems like a win.

Even if it's simply speeding up plans that were already in the works, again you're bringing manufacturing and jobs to the states, which hopefully means good jobs along with more affordable vehicles.

I'm not saying I love this bill, but I can see some positives and what it's trying to do. Hopefully time will show that while there was definitely some negatives as it relates to the EV industry, there were some positives as well. If it helps bring more affordable vehichles to the market as well as production to the states (pear is a great example).

 

[remichex]

The bill encourages bringing production to North America, which is not the same as U.S. but does not benefit adoption of EVs, it benefits the "image" of bringing manufacturing to the U.S. The bill will also keep many companies from importing vehicles to the U.S. as they can just keep the sales in Europe & China that have laws that incentivizes the manufacturers to sell in those countries. Several of the potential new manufacturing sites have significant local resident opposition - everyone likes the concept of U.S. manufacturing until it is in their backyard. And wait until they need to start mining in their back yard to meet the mineral content requirements.

The bill also favors PHEVs over BEVs which is moving in the wrong direction. Everything in the bill was done for image and not substance.

This was Joe Manchin’s bill. He is the one who derailed it for all EV’s and he seems more GOP than Democrat. (Can’t wait to see the 💩 I just stirred with that one)

 

[voxel]

A slowdown in EV sales might be a welcome reprieve to fix the CCS charging network with the incoming NEVI funding. My last two weekends of EA charging on 300 mile in-state trips has been horrific. EA has degraded to the point where it is borderline functional and frankly not worth paying for. Soon we will see Walmart like fights at them.

 

[TT97]

A slowdown in EV sales might be a welcome reprieve to fix the CCS charging network with the incoming NEVI funding. My last two weekends of EA charging on 300 mile in-state trips has been horrific. EA has degraded to the point where it is borderline functional and frankly not worth paying for. Soon we will see Walmart like fights at them.

Since the CBO is estimating only costing $85mm in EV credits for 2023 (about 11,300 cars @ $7,500, with the majority to PHEV); it would be nice if they can apply all that savings to additional funding to CCS network upgrades!

 

[HotIce]

This was Joe Manchin’s bill. He is the one who derailed it for all EV’s and he seems more GOP than Democrat. (Can’t wait to see the 💩 I just stirred with that one)

I mean, you're not wrong.....

 

[ocsteve39]

This was Joe Manchin’s bill. He is the one who derailed it for all EV’s and he seems more GOP than Democrat. (Can’t wait to see the 💩 I just stirred with that one)

Just warms my heart that GOP as anti everything is a given.