What's Jalopnick "up To"?

[Chris F]

Not an issue. They are just covering themselves. The ideal is always to under-promise and over-deliver. This guy knows that and he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. A little controversy is great for advertising revenue. Can you spell "clickbait"?

 

[Rickb]

Not an issue. They are just covering themselves. The ideal is always to under-promise and over-deliver. This guy knows that and he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. A little controversy is great for advertising revenue. Can you spell "clickbait"?

It is only a minor issue for me. I would rather EM continue to cover 'us' as well as adopt the under promise and over deliver philosophy. Prime example is EM's Website and Paul Elio continue to state "currently on tack" to the Q4 2016 production schedule and their conflicting SEC filed 15 month production schedule indicating a March 2017 production schedule if everything goes according to plan, so I'm confused. Whatever will be will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera sera.

 

[floydv]

Methinks Jalopnik doth protest too much. I don't see how any reasonable person (and I'm not calling Jalopnik writers "reasonable" people) can interpret Elio's "84 mpg" as an enforceable commitment rather than a mere aspirational goal. It should be clear to everyone, even Jalopnik, that Elio doesn't yet have a commercially available product on which EPA mileage testing can be performed. So it's a bit disingenuous for them to raise "up to 84 mpg" as an issue since, by definition, any mileage claim EM may make on the Elio is somewhat speculative until a commercially ready vehicle is available for actual testing. Only at that point can Elio be held for a false advertising claim based on a consumer's reliance on the claimed mileage rating in purchasing an actual vehicle (note: it seems to me that such a reliance claim would be very weak for a person who bought stock in EM given the numerous and clear caveats spelled out in the Offering Circular).

 

[RUCRAYZE]

will the E

Methinks Jalopnik doth protest too much. I don't see how any reasonable person (and I'm not calling Jalopnik writers "reasonable" people) can interpret Elio's "84 mpg" as an enforceable commitment vs. an aspirational goal. It should be clear to everyone, even Jalopnik, that Elio doesn't yet have a commercially available product on which EPA mileage testing can be performed. So it's a bit disingenuous for them to raise "up to 84 mpg" as an issue since, by definition, any mileage claim EM may make on the Elio is somewhat speculative until a commercially ready vehicle.

Will the E (as a registered motorcycle) need EPA results. Maybe I never noticed, I don't recall any for my Motorcycles.

 

[WilliamH]

Maybe Tovaris is in trouble for not pulling enough clicks so he attacks Elio knowing we are a strong demographic.
Of course he uses "maybe" a lot in his writing.
Maybe on advise of counsel?

 

[Ekh]

I have saved all the advertising emails (I call them flyers in my folder) almost since the beginning. The first one I see where they use the "up to" qualifier is 25 September 2014. Has jalopnik been sleeping?

Nope. His head has been where the sun doesn't shine, so of course he can't see anything outside those narrow confines.

 

[Ekh]

Methinks Jalopnik doth protest too much. I don't see how any reasonable person (and I'm not calling Jalopnik writers "reasonable" people) can interpret Elio's "84 mpg" as an enforceable commitment rather than a mere aspirational goal. It should be clear to everyone, even Jalopnik, that Elio doesn't yet have a commercially available product on which EPA mileage testing can be performed. So it's a bit disingenuous for them to raise "up to 84 mpg" as an issue since, by definition, any mileage claim EM may make on the Elio is somewhat speculative until a commercially ready vehicle is available for actual testing. Only at that point can Elio be held for a false advertising claim based on a consumer's reliance on the claimed mileage rating in purchasing an actual vehicle (note: it seems to me that such a reliance claim would be very weak for a person who bought stock in EM given the numerous and clear caveats spelled out in the Offering Circular).

Well, I can certainly see how some reasonable persons could see 84mpg as a promise. It's been displayed in huge type for over two years, on every piece of advertising and press release Elio has put out. They've only started "chiseling" it down a bit and safeguarding the possible inability to get all the way there in the past few months or a year. That much repetition and bold type certainly do create an expectation in the mind of a reader that yep, that's what the Elio will do.

Legally enforceable, no. But a strong enough expectation so that some may be sorely disappointed (foolishly, imo) if it only does 81 mpg. And naysayers will seize on any variant for their own malevolent purposes. So it's better to backtrack in print and overperform in reality. And right now, the car's engine test and simulations show it at 81 mpg. But who knows what it will do both in epa and real-world testing.

As to the point that as a motorcycle, fuel efficiency testing isn't required, that's irrelevant -- it's being marketed against cars, not motorcycles, and it depends on the promise of stellar mileage to build that market. Elio has to deliver. And they can ... but at what price? There's the conundrum Paul faces every day.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

-" it's being marketed against cars, not motorcycles," marketed -maybe yes, using motorcycle designations to E's advantage(s)- yes
has always been a major factor. it'll be registered as a bike, with the small m.c. plate, it'll be able to use HOV lanes with only the driver aboard, it'll be insured, as of now (until the industry comes up with a formula) as a motorcycle ( and why not, it's priced cheaper than any bike over 750cc's, -safety ratings will have to be developed, as it's a safe motorcycle, and an "unsafe" car...... easy, easy- let's not blow a gasket, no way around it, there is a greater risk driving the E than a car.
And along these lines, I'm very concerned when the first fatal accident makes the papers. Someone gets killed on a bike- "it's their own fault", someone gets killed in a car S++T happens, however, the first couple of E fatal accidents, will.............?

XI:II time to turn in-

 

[Elio Amazed]

will the E

Will the E (as a registered motorcycle) need EPA results. Maybe I never noticed, I don't recall any for my Motorcycles.

According to this Jay Leno's garage video , the three-wheeled high-performance Tanom (motorcycle designation) had to beef up their brakes to meet some government safety requirements concerning stopping distance. The video also eluded to quite a few other federal tests they had to pass in order to offer it on the U.S. market even under a motorcycle designation.

It's my understanding that, yes, there are now EPA requirements that motorcycles have to meet.

The scary part about the whole video is that one of the co-owners stated that it took them 6 years to get government certification.

 

[TCBronson]

I thought Jalopnik was considered a credible news source in the automotive community.