Future’s End? Faraday Future Warns of Production Delays

futures end faraday future warns of production delays


It’s hard starting a car company. Just ask Elon. Or Steve Burns from Lordstown. Sir James Dyson would also like a word. Nevertheless, plenty of businesspeople continue down a path that is alluring but certainly tilted in favor of financial annihilation. Faraday Future is on that list, following a recent warning from the company about missed production dates if they don’t raise more moolah.


The EV startup company, based in – where else? – California had been planning to begin cranking out copies of its FF 91 crossover-type vehicle sometime this summer. July, to be exact. With the end of this month rapidly approaching, suits at FF have reportedly pushed that date into Q3 or even Q4 of this calendar year. Specifically, in a form filed with the SEC just yesterday (July 25th), spox for Faraday Future said "Due to recent supply chain issues, start of production and first deliveries of the Company's FF 91 flagship electric vehicle in the United States are now expected to commence in the third or fourth quarter of 2022."


Alright, fine. Supply chains are a headache for all automakers these days, so it’s difficult to be too hard on Faraday Future for this hiccup. However, the filing went on to say there may be more to the matter than global supply chain crunches.


"The company needs additional cash to commercially launch the FF 91 and is currently seeking to raise additional capital to fund its operations through December 31, 2022."


In other words, they need an infusion of cheddar in order to keep the lights on.



Remember, when the company was founded way back in 2014, they set an initial production date for the FF 91 as early as 2018. Alert readers will note that the deadline passed four years ago. There has also been drama worth of high school playing out in the boardroom, with noted outlets like Bloomberg reporting a raft of disagreements taking place in various and sundry corner offices. Allegedly, money to the tune of $100 million had been offered by a group of shareholders in exchange for the resignation of its director, a proposal which was apparently rebuffed. Perhaps the person at the head of the table should have taken one for the team.


Our man Posky wrangled many of the notable twists in the Faraday Future gestation earlier this year, and his post remains on our recommended reading list for anyone seeking to understand the sinewy route FF has taken to get where it is today. As for now, it’d seem like all hands are searching company couches for spare change.


[Images: Faraday Future]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.


Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 6 comments
  • Redapple2 Redapple2 on Jul 27, 2022

    What was that 3 wheeled thingie?

    That never showed up either.

    PS- I dont think Rivian is a done deal even for the mid-long term (4-5 yrs)

    • ScarecrowRepair ScarecrowRepair on Jul 27, 2022

      Elio? I paid $1000, figured it was worth the risk for a cheap commute vehicle. Might even have tried some road trips. Regret the car never coming to production, don't know if they could have maintained that low price, but don't regret giving it the chance.

  • Cprescott Cprescott on Jul 28, 2022

    Can't believe this thing is still lingering.

  • Sgeffe Bronco looks with JLR “reliability!”What’s not to like?!
  • FreedMike Back in the '70s, the one thing keeping consumers from buying more Datsuns was styling - these guys were bringing over some of the ugliest product imaginable. Remember the F10? As hard as I try to blot that rolling aberration from my memory, it comes back. So the name change to Nissan made sense, and happened right as they started bringing over good-looking product (like the Maxima that will be featured in this series). They made a pretty clean break.
  • Flowerplough Liability - Autonomous vehicles must be programmed to make life-ending decisions, and who wants to risk that? Hit the moose or dive into the steep grassy ditch? Ram the sudden pile up that is occurring mere feet in front of the bumper or scan the oncoming lane and swing left? Ram the rogue machine that suddenly swung into my lane, head on, or hop up onto the sidewalk and maybe bump a pedestrian? With no driver involved, Ford/Volkswagen or GM or whomever will bear full responsibility and, in America, be ambulance-chaser sued into bankruptcy and extinction in well under a decade. Or maybe the yuge corporations will get special, good-faith, immunity laws, nation-wide? Yeah, that's the ticket.
  • FreedMike It's not that consumers wouldn't want this tech in theory - I think they would. Honestly, the idea of a car that can take over the truly tedious driving stuff that drives me bonkers - like sitting in traffic - appeals to me. But there's no way I'd put my property and my life in the hands of tech that's clearly not ready for prime time, and neither would the majority of other drivers. If they want this tech to sell, they need to get it right.
  • TitaniumZ Of course they are starting to "sour" on the idea. That's what happens when cars start to drive better than people. Humanpilots mostly suck and make bad decisions.
Next