Is Elio Still Saying Mid 2016 To Start Production?

[slinches]

Speaking as an engineer, measurement trumps argument. Physics is the final arbiter of truth.

 

[Jeff Porter]

Not quite sure where this "half as wide" comes into play. The overall width is not much less than a car, and 3 bodies have much more drag than one.

Slinches explained it very well. And actually the overall width is wider than most normal cars. As the pictures show, the Elio is needing to cut through less air. There's some video clips somewhere showing animation of how the air passes over and behind the Elio design. Maybe other folks can find and provide links.

Also, the body of the Elio is basically 1 person wide, and most sedans today are 2.5 people wide.

 

[BaldGuy]

Since 2015 is nearly over, is 2016 possible now?

It would seem to me, a whole lot of work and money raising would have to be done in 12 short months for this to be possible. However, there site still says 4th quarter 2016.

 

[cantwait]

Since 2015 is nearly over, is 2016 possible now?

It would seem to me, a whole lot of work and money raising would have to be done in 12 short months for this to be possible. However, there site still says 4th quarter 2016.

In a word, "No.".

In a paragraph or two, not according to the SEC Reg A+ filing / Offering Circular. The minimum time needed from the conclusion of the Reg A+ offering is 15 month. The offering will close on December 31, 2015, at the earliest. That would mean March 31, 2017 is the earliest possible production date. The offering could extend to as late as March 31, 2016, which would mean June 30, 2017 would be the earliest possible production date. Both of those are dependent upon the 50% / $12,600,000 minimum being received by December 31.

It would also depend upon the $185 million ATVM funding, plus another $55-65 million being received by June-Sept 2016. If they do no receive the ATVM money, they would have to seek alternative financing, which will significantly extend the production date, according to the SEC filing/offering circular. As you observed, there is a whole lot of work and money raising left to do, and it will take more that 12 short months to do that. It has taken over seven years to get to this point, and there is no reason to think that everything will magically be different in the next twelve months. Hopefully, it will not take another seven years, but 2016 is no longer a possible production (meaning autocycles being delivered to customers) date. Again, go by the reservation agreement (no promises) and the SEC documents (15 months, etc), rather than the website.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

In a word, "No.".

In a paragraph or two, not according to the SEC Reg A+ filing / Offering Circular. The minimum time needed from the conclusion of the Reg A+ offering is 15 month. The offering will close on December 31, 2015, at the earliest. That would mean March 31, 2017 is the earliest possible production date. The offering could extend to as late as March 31, 2016, which would mean June 30, 2017 would be the earliest possible production date. Both of those are dependent upon the 50% / $12,600,000 minimum being received by December 31.

It would also depend upon the $185 million ATVM funding, plus another $55-65 million being received by June-Sept 2016. If they do no receive the ATVM money, they would have to seek alternative financing, which will significantly extend the production date, according to the SEC filing/offering circular. As you observed, there is a whole lot of work and money raising left to do, and it will take more that 12 short months to do that. It has taken over seven years to get to this point, and there is no reason to think that everything will magically be different in the next twelve months. Hopefully, it will not take another seven years, but 2016 is no longer a possible production (meaning autocycles being delivered to customers) date. Again, go by the reservation agreement (no promises) and the SEC documents (15 months, etc), rather than the website.

reality trumps fanciful thinking every time! thanks. (I think)

 

[JEBar]

In a word, "No.".

In a paragraph or two, not according to the SEC Reg A+ filing / Offering Circular. The minimum time needed from the conclusion of the Reg A+ offering is 15 month. The offering will close on December 31, 2015, at the earliest. That would mean March 31, 2017 is the earliest possible production date. The offering could extend to as late as March 31, 2016, which would mean June 30, 2017 would be the earliest possible production date. Both of those are dependent upon the 50% / $12,600,000 minimum being received by December 31.

It would also depend upon the $185 million ATVM funding, plus another $55-65 million being received by June-Sept 2016. If they do no receive the ATVM money, they would have to seek alternative financing, which will significantly extend the production date, according to the SEC filing/offering circular. As you observed, there is a whole lot of work and money raising left to do, and it will take more that 12 short months to do that. It has taken over seven years to get to this point, and there is no reason to think that everything will magically be different in the next twelve months. Hopefully, it will not take another seven years, but 2016 is no longer a possible production (meaning autocycles being delivered to customers) date. Again, go by the reservation agreement (no promises) and the SEC documents (15 months, etc), rather than the website.

I have no clue if they will or will not get into production in the last quarter of 2016 .... that said, the target dates and such given in the Reg A filing have been acknowledged to be worst case scenarios .... no problem if EM exceeds numbers given, there can be problems if the exceed them ..... with that being the case its hard to make definitive statement based on the filing

 

[Coss]

I have no clue if they will or will not get into production in the last quarter of 2016 .... that said, the target dates and such given in the Reg A filing have been acknowledged to be worst case scenarios .... no problem if EM exceeds numbers given, there can be problems if the exceed them ..... with that being the case its hard to make definitive statement based on the filing

Include Paul Elio has stated that production will be Q4 2016 in his introduction at the P5/E1 reveal on November 19th, 2015
He is the one person that would know; statements from anyone other than Paul Elio, or the EM Board of Directors is only making a guess.

 

[John Painter]

Include Paul Elio has stated that production will be Q4 2016 in his introduction at the P5/E1 reveal on November 19th, 2015
He is the one person that would know; statements from anyone other than Paul Elio, or the EM Board of Directors is only making a guess.

It was my impression sometime ago that PE was well aware that he needed to demonstrate to DoE vehicles which could be mass produced (as the engineering versions are), can attain the ball park fuel economy (and safety though not required) they claim, and pull in some significant capital (as they are currently shooting for) would go a long way to nailing down ATVM. WIth that access to start up capital, a lot more would likely open up, money loves money (look at the near bizarro world stock value at Tesla Motors vs vehicle revenue), I think the next six months of line production, testing and anlysis will be super important and crazy as PE tries to convince DoE that his company can run with the big dogs. If DoE agrees, EM will sprint to production where the real money is.

 

[pistonboy]

Anyone know how they arrived at 84 MPG.... I'm doing good to get upper 50s my 500cc motorcycle ?

84 miles per US gallon is equal to 100 miles per Imperial gallon. I read this is how PE arrived at 84 miles per US gallon.

 

[cantwait]

Include Paul Elio has stated that production will be Q4 2016 in his introduction at the P5/E1 reveal on November 19th, 2015
He is the one person that would know; statements from anyone other than Paul Elio, or the EM Board of Directors is only making a guess.

I have no clue if they will or will not get into production in the last quarter of 2016 .... that said, the target dates and such given in the Reg A filing have been acknowledged to be worst case scenarios .... no problem if EM exceeds numbers given, there can be problems if the exceed them ..... with that being the case its hard to make definitive statement based on the filing

The SEC Reg A+ filing was signed/authorized by Paul Elio & the Board of Directors. It is a very official statement, much more reliable than a press conference. I've not seen anywhere that Paul Elio has stated that the SEC filing is inaccurate, or that it is a "worst case scenario". The actual wording of the filing indicated that the last quarter of 2016 was a best-case scenario, and that 2017 was more likely. The time frames were presented as being Elio's plans, and the financial statements were presented as accurate and audited.

There would be no legal ramifications for being unable accomplish everything listed in their plans, UNLESS it could be shown that the plans were not real, but just for show. I think that it is much more reasonable to take the information presented as being accurate to the best of Elio's knowledge, rather than to believe that they were just making things up. Based on both the history or the company, and a superficial knowledge of the industry, it seems reasonable to believe that to go from an incomplete prototype to full production in 15 months is an aggressive, optimistic plan, rather than a worst-case scenario. The offering circular states: As disclosed in the section of this offering circular entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Plan of Operations,” in addition to the successful completion of this offering, we must raise an estimated $240 million to fund production. Our anticipated production timetable is therefore highly dependent upon receiving such funding in a timely manner, and delays in obtaining additional funding will delay our production timetable.

I could be reading things incorrectly, be it seems very clear to me that the tone throughout the offering circular / Reg A+ filing is one that strongly indicates that the 15 months from the close of the Reg A+ offering to production is a best-case, everything goes well with the prototype builds and testing, funding received on time, etc, scenario. Locking yourself into a "I'm going to be driving my Elio by Christmas 2016" mindset is a sure recipe for disappointment.