[HN Gopher] Troubled electric truck maker Nikola files for bankr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Troubled electric truck maker Nikola files for bankruptcy
        
       Author : moose44
       Score  : 91 points
       Date   : 2025-02-19 15:46 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
        
       | fullshark wrote:
       | Briefly more valuable than the ford motor company. SPACs were
       | borderline criminal enterprises, though this one was outright
       | criminal.
        
         | kjs3 wrote:
         | And yet...just watch all the people who will think because they
         | raised $700m that they're a success to be emulated. People
         | still fervently defend Elizabeth Holmes.
        
           | miztrskinnr wrote:
           | They achieved the tallest of orders; made line go up!
        
           | stickfigure wrote:
           | > People still fervently defend Elizabeth Holmes.
           | 
           |  _Dozens!_
        
       | pstuart wrote:
       | Hydrogen has its place in our energy economy but its got too many
       | issues to be used to power vehicles. Batteries have won, and
       | synthesized hydrocarbons will be the alternative for where
       | batteries won't work (i.e., most commercial air travel).
       | 
       | That said, it's a pity to see this failure.
        
         | fullshark wrote:
         | This company was an elaborate con, legitimately. Its failure is
         | justice.
        
           | tombert wrote:
           | So much so that the CEO was convicted of fraud over it. It's
           | insane that it still had value after the Hindenburg report.
        
         | GJim wrote:
         | > Hydrogen has its place in our energy economy
         | 
         | It certainly does not! (At least, not in any meaningful sense).
         | 
         | A) How do you store it?
         | 
         | Hydrogen does not compress to a liquid (except a cryogenic
         | temperatures), meaning storage requires bulky, heavy and
         | dangerous high pressure storage..... or cryo kit.
         | 
         | B) Where do you get the hydrogen from?
         | 
         | Electrolysis of water gives less hydrogen energy out than
         | electrical energy you put in.... its more efficient to use the
         | electrical energy directly. Currently we obtain hydrogen from
         | natural gas, which itself is a finite resource (not to mention
         | CO2 is emitted when extracting the hydrogen from gas).
         | 
         | Seriously, the sums don't add up and hydrogen is a looser
         | however you look at it. The only people promoting it here are
         | the natural gas industry who are looking to get money pushing
         | the "hydrogen economy" vapourware.
        
           | mschuster91 wrote:
           | > It certainly does not! (At least, not in any meaningful
           | sense).
           | 
           | The problem is, there are applications that for the
           | foreseeable future cannot be made to work on batteries -
           | airplanes larger than bushcraft and large-scale maritime
           | shipping (the large ocean liners carry upwards of a million
           | gallons of fuel).
           | 
           | Assuming we want to convert these away from fossil fuels -
           | which we have to! - there are only two renewable
           | alternatives: biofuels, which carry serious ethical
           | implications given world hunger and soil depletion, and
           | synthfuels made from hydrogen and sequestered CO2 as base
           | chemicals. The problem is, synthfuels are absurdly expensive
           | because there is no hydrogen market yet so there isn't much
           | happening in scaling up from lab-scale.
        
             | jes5199 wrote:
             | synthfuels will catch up eventually, the economics keep
             | getting better and there's really no alternative
        
             | MadnessASAP wrote:
             | There are some enormous issues regarding hydrogen storage
             | that will need to be resolved before it will be usable on
             | aircraft.
             | 
             | Pressure vessels are heavy, hydrogen is explosive, both of
             | those are incompatible with aircraft.
        
           | standeven wrote:
           | I agree with most of what you've said, but there are some
           | niche uses.
           | 
           | https://www.liebreich.com/hydrogen-ladder-version-5-0/
        
           | dismalaf wrote:
           | > Electrolysis of water gives less hydrogen energy out than
           | electrical energy you put in....
           | 
           | This is literally all energy storage... Lithium-ion batteries
           | lose about 10-20% during charging and another 5% during
           | discharge.
           | 
           | How do you figure any energy storage medium would give you
           | more than 100% of the energy you put into it?
        
             | ggreer wrote:
             | The efficiency of using electricity to split water, then
             | compressing and transporting the hydrogen, then using that
             | hydrogen in a fuel cell to power an electric motor, is much
             | worse than using electricity to charge a battery to power
             | an electric motor.
             | 
             | Also electricity is available almost everywhere. Hydrogen
             | is only available at a few specialized fueling stations.
        
               | dismalaf wrote:
               | Electrolysis is actually around 80% efficient. The main
               | issue is infrastructure, you're right about that.
               | 
               | But the comment I initially responded to said there's
               | energy loss as though that's not the case with literally
               | every type of energy storage.
        
           | hot_gril wrote:
           | There are a lot of hydrogen vehicles on the road already,
           | especially buses.
        
           | Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
           | I wish I could upvote this twice. I grow so tired of people
           | simping for hydrogen when batteries just win in every metric
           | aside from the initial build cost, which when amortized over
           | the life of the battery, will beat out hydrogen.
           | 
           | On top of the storage problems, and the problems of the
           | energy needed to create the hydrogen, you then have to have a
           | massive hydrogen distribution network that's on par with the
           | current gas distribution network. With battery EVs, it's just
           | a matter of building chargers that connect to the existing
           | power grid, with many (possibly most) EV owners charging at
           | home.
           | 
           | As far as I'm concerned, anybody pushing for hydrogen fueled
           | vehicles is simply falling for marketing bullshit. Producing
           | a hydrogen-powered car would likely become cheaper than a
           | BEV, but they'll never be better for the environment in the
           | long run, and will never be cheaper to operate. It's always
           | going to be cheaper to just put electricity directly into a
           | battery rather than use it to create hydrogen, distribute it,
           | and then pump it.
        
             | sofixa wrote:
             | > I grow so tired of people simping for hydrogen when
             | batteries just win in every metric aside from the initial
             | build cost, which when amortized over the life of the
             | battery, will beat out hydrogen
             | 
             | Batteries suck in energy density and weight and in some
             | cases, that _really_ matters. Battery electric planes are
             | not even close to being feasible other than for very small
             | in size and range planes. Hydrogen is at least feasible.
        
               | wstrange wrote:
               | Bio-Fuel seems more practical.
               | 
               | It reuses all the existing infrastructure and requires no
               | engine modifications.
        
               | sofixa wrote:
               | No. It's practically impossible to scale them to the
               | required level
               | 
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADpsUhdIO4w a video by a
               | pilot on SAF and why it just won't cut it.
        
           | belorn wrote:
           | Green hydrogen as a power source was and still is the primary
           | plan in the Germany green party program in order to solve the
           | grid-scale battery issue, and was the primary argument in EU
           | when they defined natural gas as a green transition solution.
           | Are you saying that this strategy was the natural gas
           | industry all along, and that green hydrogen in grid-scale
           | size is unlikely to solve the problem of climate change?
        
             | huijzer wrote:
             | The fact is that we are now years and years into hydrogen
             | and we still have (almost) nothing to show for it. The
             | number of electric cars and trucks vastly outnumbers the
             | number of hydrogen cars and trucks. So the hydrogen people
             | moved on to factories. But with the history of cars and
             | trucks in mind, it will probably lead to nothing too. Also
             | note that all hydrogen cars and trucks are funded by
             | subsidies and still they one by one go out of favor. It
             | just appears that it doesn't work. It's probably time to
             | call it a day by now.
        
         | cheema33 wrote:
         | > That said, it's a pity to see this failure.
         | 
         | Nikola did not really make anything. They bought trucks from
         | Iveco in Europe and resold them here. They would sometimes
         | customize a few things including putting their logo on the
         | trucks.
        
       | idontwantthis wrote:
       | Remember when they rolled a car down hill because it couldn't
       | even drive?
        
         | m0llusk wrote:
         | That was a classic. They should have pivoted to comedy.
        
         | sct202 wrote:
         | I couldn't believe people kept pumping this company like it had
         | real promise after that came out.
        
         | Me000 wrote:
         | Imagine if someone had said this about Tesla. They would have
         | been swamped if wall of text responses. At least Nikola
         | delivered what they promised.
        
           | tombert wrote:
           | They decidedly did _not_ deliver what they promised. Their
           | hydrogen truck _did not work_ , which is why their promo
           | video had to tow a truck up a hill and film it rolling down.
        
             | bayesianbot wrote:
             | At least funnily the video delivered its promise as it was
             | titled "Nikola One in Motion"
        
               | tombert wrote:
               | Technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
        
           | idontwantthis wrote:
           | What did they deliver that they promised?
        
           | hot_gril wrote:
           | Imagine if Tesla copied another automaker's name then created
           | a demo of their car rolling down a hill.
        
           | faefox wrote:
           | Trevor, is that you?
        
           | DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
           | > At least Nikola delivered what they promised.
           | 
           | Ah yes. The Nikola Gravity Drive(tm) has been a roaring
           | success and is now powering millions of trucks worldwide.
           | This bankruptcy is merely a blip in their continuing success.
        
         | tombert wrote:
         | I have no idea how they managed to survive for years after
         | that. The CEO was found guilty of fraud, and it didn't seem
         | like they had any _actual_ product.
        
           | DC-3 wrote:
           | It's the natural extension of the startup ideology to non-
           | software industries. How many times on this website have you
           | seen 'founders' be celebrated for doing 'epic demo hacks' at
           | least this fraudulent? How many tech startups achieve massive
           | valuations with a broken product and a totally hypothetical
           | pathway to profitability?
           | 
           | It's easy to see through this showmanship when the product is
           | a car. So why not when the product is software?
        
             | tombert wrote:
             | Can't speak for anyone else, but I have an issue when it's
             | software too [1].
             | 
             | I think the reason that it's more prevalent with software
             | is that it's easier to hand-wave away stuff, because you
             | can say "well we're _creating_ the market for this field ".
             | I don't fall for that stuff anymore, but I did when I was
             | first starting in this field.
             | 
             | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41723417
        
             | martinky24 wrote:
             | Can you point me to one single example of "a founder being
             | celebrated on this website for 'epic demo hacks' that are
             | fraudulent"?
             | 
             | Genuinely asking.
             | 
             | Be sure that the fraud is obvious at the time of the post
             | (and not in retrospect), is actively celebrated at the
             | time.
        
               | dylan604 wrote:
               | You mean anyone that uses growth hacks? There have been
               | many growth hack posts here. Pretty much every single
               | start up has used some to attract investors.
        
               | fransje26 wrote:
               | > Can you point me to one single example of "a founder
               | being celebrated on this website for 'epic demo hacks'
               | that are fraudulent"?
               | 
               | Something, something [..] bulletproof Cybertruck [..]
        
           | lenerdenator wrote:
           | Financial momentum.
           | 
           | You have a bunch of people who consider themselves "the smart
           | money" who have been had, and if they pull out, that's an
           | acknowledgment that perhaps they're not that smart.
        
         | dismalaf wrote:
         | How do you even make an electric car that can't drive? Electric
         | drivetrains are way, way simpler than ICE ones...
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | No they aren't. We've been making ICE vehicles for 100 years.
           | The drivetrains are well understood and don't present any
           | technical hurdles. Especially in trucks. EV heavy trucks are
           | still pretty uncharted territory.
        
             | dismalaf wrote:
             | There were literally electric cars 140 years ago. Getting
             | enough energy density in a battery is a definite
             | technological problem that's difficult, but making a car
             | move with an electric motor isn't.
        
           | cheema33 wrote:
           | > How do you even make an electric car that can't drive?
           | 
           | The "pusher" truck was not supposed to be EV. It was supposed
           | to be a Hydrogen truck. In reality it was neither.
        
           | immibis wrote:
           | Reality has a surprising amount of detail:
           | http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-
           | surprising-...
           | 
           | I have no doubt it's entirely possible to make an electric
           | truck, but you still have to spend a year in the trenches
           | actually doing it and solving all the little design problems
           | before you have something to show off.
           | 
           | Especially if you weren't previously making ICE trucks. Then
           | you have to learn how to make a truck from scratch, instead
           | of just the new electric parts. You can of course buy an ICE
           | truck and convert it for your prototype, which I think is
           | what Edison Motors did, but then you'll be showing off a
           | rusty old truck that won't get any venture capital or
           | journalist attention because it's nowhere near shiny enough.
        
       | bayesianbot wrote:
       | I always wondered how it kept some value for a long time after
       | the Hindenburg Research report[1]. To me, the report (and the
       | CEO's empty response to it) made it clear there was pretty much
       | no value in it, but the stock only lost 50% in the following
       | week.
       | 
       | [1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
        
         | suraci wrote:
         | SMCI lost 60% after its auditor failed to audit and resigned
         | 
         | after that, it roses 300%
         | 
         | SMCI is also a target of hindenburg
         | 
         | https://hindenburgresearch.com/smci/
         | 
         | before this, I didn't even know that a company that couldn't be
         | audited could still be listed.
        
           | coliveira wrote:
           | Auditing a company is not a normal procedure. Many companies,
           | even in the S&P500, may have trouble during an audit. I
           | remember there was a serious report about GE at one time,
           | they decided to split the company as a response.
        
             | fitchjo wrote:
             | By law, any public company in the US (and most other
             | countries) are required to have a financial statement
             | audit. I am sure there are instances where it is not
             | required, but substantially all private companies that have
             | debt are required per their credit agreement to have a
             | financial statement audit completed. I would be interested
             | where you are getting your information that auditing a
             | company is not a normal process.
        
             | howlingfantods wrote:
             | Public companies have to undergo a financial audit every
             | year. If you're referring to a tax audit from the IRS, then
             | yes, those are rarer.
        
         | kimbernator wrote:
         | It's almost like stock value and real value have been entirely
         | decoupled
        
           | guywithahat wrote:
           | I mean they still had ~$50 million in cash on hand, plus some
           | teams and prototypes. I certainly wouldn't have invested, but
           | if you have $50 million, the potential to sell more stock,
           | and a prototype there's still a lot you can do.
        
             | michaelt wrote:
             | If a business has $50 million in cash on hand and no
             | significant liabilities, the business is worth at least $50
             | million, no doubt.
             | 
             | However that still leaves $29.95 billion of the $30 billion
             | valuation unexplained.
        
         | hot_gril wrote:
         | People also bought Fisker cars again, even knowing that the
         | company produced defective cars before going bankrupt last time
         | (which they did again this time).
        
           | pkaye wrote:
           | I think its because Fisker was in bankruptcy and the cars
           | were sold at deep discounts as part of liquidation.
        
             | hot_gril wrote:
             | People also bought them well before bankruptcy. I saw them
             | around, and someone at work was telling me how he's buying
             | one.
        
           | Yeul wrote:
           | Maybe because investors assumed they could sell their shares
           | to the next sucker.
           | 
           | How many people who own stocks actually give a shit about the
           | company they invest in (for about 5 seconds)?
        
             | hot_gril wrote:
             | But these are customers, not investors.
        
           | ricardobeat wrote:
           | The reborn Fisker only inherited the brand name, everything
           | from design to manufacturing was entirely new. In hindsight
           | maybe they brought the curse onto themselves...
        
             | hot_gril wrote:
             | It was also the same founder.
        
         | mempko wrote:
         | I watched a Demuro video where he visited Nikola's factory.
         | Yes, the founder defrauded investors, but it's clear the
         | engineers were building real things. They just were nowhere
         | near where the founder claimed. So there is probably some value
         | there, as it's not complete vaporware. But clearly they
         | couldn't turn it around.
        
           | cheema33 wrote:
           | > but it's clear the engineers were building real things
           | 
           | Nikola did not build their own vehicles. They bought their
           | vehicles from Iveco in Europe and made small modifications
           | including putting their names on them.
        
         | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
         | I totally agree. But it feels like, at least over the past
         | 20ish years or so, that the increased "gambling-ification" of
         | the stock market has made it so these events take longer to
         | resolve (i.e it takes longer for the stock price to go to 0)
         | _even if_ all participants eventually think it will go to 0.
         | 
         | That is, even though the stock will (and, in this case, did)
         | eventually go to 0 with very little statistical probably of an
         | alternative, there is enough volatility in the interim that
         | stock market participants are just playing that volatility in
         | the short term (i.e. trying to time the market, trying to not
         | be "bag holders" in WSB parlance) even if everyone knows in the
         | long term it's going to 0.
        
           | hot_gril wrote:
           | This one in particular was the perfect storm because it was
           | an EV company during an EV bubble / govt subsidy frenzy,
           | combined with the overall auto market being out of wack at
           | the time, and pandemic-era extremely low rates.
        
       | fohara wrote:
       | Apparently some of the software in Nikola vehicles was written in
       | Crystal [1]. [1] https://manas.tech/blog/2020/02/11/nikola-motor-
       | company/
        
         | pbronez wrote:
         | Interesting. That's only the second time I've heard of crystal
         | being used in production. The first is Kagi, which uses it in
         | search query processing.
        
           | TremendousJudge wrote:
           | >in production
           | 
           | are there Nikola trucks on the road right now?
        
             | sofixa wrote:
             | > are there Nikola trucks on the road right now
             | 
             | Importantly, under their own power, and not going downhill.
        
       | perihelions wrote:
       | A sample of old HN threads (this one's the origin of the "HTML5
       | supercomputer" classic),
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24436721 ( _" Nikola: How to
       | Parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with GM
       | (hindenburgresearch.com)"_ (2020), 414 comments)
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24473231 ( _" Nikola admits
       | prototype was rolling downhill in promotional video
       | (arstechnica.com)"_ (2020), 248 comments)
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27996321 ( _" Grand jury
       | indicts Trevor Milton, Nikola founder, on three counts of fraud
       | (cnbc.com)"_ (2021), 509 comments)
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685607 ( _" Nikola founder
       | to be sentenced for federal fraud charges (cnbc.com)"_ (2023),
       | 186 comments)
       | 
       | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=nikola&sort=byPopularity
        
         | soneca wrote:
         | There is also this older one (when they launched?):
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11683508
         | 
         | To give HN credit, the overwhelming sentiment at the time is
         | that this was a very suspicious and scammy endeavor already
         | right at launch.
        
       | andix wrote:
       | If somebody is interested in how the Nikola Trucks drive, there
       | is a great YouTube channel from a German truck driver, that
       | drives the European version (IVECO) of the Nikola truck on a
       | daily basis across Europe.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/@electrictrucker
       | 
       | German channel: https://www.youtube.com/@elektrotrucker
        
         | sofixa wrote:
         | > the European version (IVECO) of the Nikola truck on a daily
         | basis across Europe
         | 
         | That's a wildly misleading way of wording that.
         | 
         | Iveco make trucks and vans and buses. Nikola bought some of
         | them and rebadged them and tried to pass them off as their own
         | revolutionary prototypes. There's a YouTuber driving the real
         | thing, which is entirely unrelated to Nikola in any way.
        
       | exabrial wrote:
       | The entire purpose of Nikola was to create proliferation route
       | for taxpayer dollars into private bank accounts. To this end,
       | they were moderately successful.
       | 
       | A few other ding dongs, like GM, didn't do their due diligence
       | and also fell for it.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | In GM's defense, the deal with Nikola didn't really cost them
         | anything. It only damaged their reputation. Some other clueless
         | investors then assumed that GM had done due diligence before
         | signing the agreement, which was never the case.
        
       | dawnerd wrote:
       | There's quite a few driving around SoCal, mostly by WattEV for
       | testing. Figured they were selling enough to keep going but guess
       | not.
        
         | cheema33 wrote:
         | > Figured they were selling enough to keep going but guess not.
         | 
         | They were buying their vehicles from Iveco in Europe. Putting
         | their name on them and selling them at a loss here in the US.
         | Making money by selling vehicles was never the goal with this
         | company. Defrauding foolish investors was the primary money
         | maker.
        
       | bryanlarsen wrote:
       | This is chapter 11, not 7. So they think there is still a viable
       | business here after restructuring.
        
         | mikikian wrote:
         | They filed a Sale Motion for all the assets.
        
       | rlewkov wrote:
       | Electric truck ... nuff said
        
         | zdragnar wrote:
         | Why is that? Light duty trucks and SUVs outsell cars in the US.
         | They are comfortable to ride in, have better leg room and head
         | room, and have a heavier duty frame that enables them to haul
         | and tow more as needed. You can fit a plow on many trucks as
         | well in snowy regions.
         | 
         | Electrifying them has only upsides with the exception of road
         | weight and range, but I'm repeatedly told that's not a problem
         | for cars anymore.
         | 
         | Granted, the F150 lightning hasn't done well compared to Ford's
         | expectations, which might say a lot about the reality of range
         | concerns (especially when towing).
        
         | jmcnulty wrote:
         | They pivoted from pure BEV to bet their future on Hydrogen FCEV
         | trucks. They were a flop and that's what sunk them IMO.
        
       | tim333 wrote:
       | In contrast to the failed Nikola approach there's a small Aussie
       | company that seems to be doing quite well with electric truck
       | conversions. Rather than build in batteries like in cars they
       | swap packs using a forklift -
       | 
       | vid https://youtu.be/9eYLtPSf7PY?t=145
       | 
       | Seems quite a good idea to me - it's a different market to cars
       | where no one wants to muck around with forklifts, whereas with
       | trucks they use forklifts to load stuff anyway and people don't
       | especially want to have to plug it in for hours to recharge.
       | 
       | Also you can charge the batteries while not installed using
       | things like solar, whereas with built in batteries like on the
       | Tesla semi you need a lot of grid power to supercharge.
        
         | rfwhyte wrote:
         | There's also a small Canadian company called Edison Motors
         | that's doing some very interesting work in developing hybrid
         | diesel-electric logging and back-country hauling trucks.
         | They've taken a far saner approach to growth (Ie. not the
         | typical SV hyperscalling model) and are actually building
         | trucks that solve real world problems and I am personally a
         | huge fan of them. They might not have the glitz or funding of
         | your typical "Startup" but they are actually building a
         | sustainable business that has a very good chance thriving for
         | decades to come.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6e2Lh9u58
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-02-19 23:02 UTC)