Jump to content

Talk:Nikola Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trying to figure out how many units have been delivered

[edit]

This has two: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38569564/nikola-electric-semi-trucks-delivered/ Ronabop (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this source from Dec 20, 2021 clearly states "has delivered its first two vehicles". I believe this information is still accurate and there were no deliveries since then. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nagesaki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola has switched to fuel cell electric powertrain

[edit]

This article is currently out of date in claiming that Nikola will use natural gas generators. It dropped this idea in 2016, deciding to switch to a hydrogen fuel cell based electric powertrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPadgett (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who founded Nikola?

[edit]

I think the article could benefit with some more information about the people behind the company. Without that information it's not really clear that the company has no relation to Tesla Motors. Robert K S (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i was wondering, is Nikola Motor Company named after Nikola Tesla? (My gut feeling strongly indicates it is.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is sourced here Jakesyl (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPO?

[edit]

Should it be noted that the Nikola IPO (symbol NKLA) occurred today (Thursday June 4)? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like an ad

[edit]

For example, in the overview, section we get the quote:

"In late November 2018, it announced plans for a Nikola World event for April 16–17, 2019, in nearby Scottsdale, Arizona. The two-day midweek event will include a Public Demo Day to show off the Nikola Two truck and the Nikola NZT UTV."

This reads like an ad for a county fair, not an unbiased assessment of Nikola Corporation.

Morris of Orange (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Morris of Orange. The article has quite a few areas in need of improvement. I've made a serious first pass trying to clarify what the state of things are, based on sources, with many fewer speculative and theoretical specifications being stated as bald facts. Would be helpful if you or others would look that over, and see what more might be done to bring the article closer to Wikipedia standard of a decent quality article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs clarification: design concepts vs. built concept vehicle vs. early production vs. "in production"

[edit]

Which of these various vehicles are design concepts; vs concept vehicles where one has actually been built; vs vehicles in early production (the company has built tens or hundreds; some going for EPA testing/certification for efficiency, others for NHTSA/NTSB crashworthiness testing, others for multi-environment testing (altitude, cold, snow); vs vehicles in production today??? The article doesn't make this clear, and so it is hard to tell what is powerpoint slide concepts that could/maybe will be built, and which are much further along and capitalized for production. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clarify the prose that describes the vehicles, based on what is in the sources. Most sources are based on early unveils of one-off concept vehicles that were custom built in a shop, and shown to the public with a lot of statements about what the theoretical vehicle would do if the design/build process were to ever be completed on a production design, and if the company could raise the funds to move the vehicle to various (expensive) future steps of the development process and push it through the requlatory process to get the vehicle legal to sell in some jurisdiction.
From sources in the article, it does not look like any of these vehicles are in production yet. Moreover, various claims (in a couple of the article sections) that production would be expected in 2020 were made in 2016 or 2018, per the sources that are provided. Let's get more sources and more current reliable sources that show whether any of these biz plans and theoretical claims are being achieved in production releases and in formal testing by other than the manufacturer's claims. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having just come back from a road trip and being away from most news for nearly two weeks, I find in interesting that the media has now suddenly "revealed" so much "news" seems to show that much about this company may have been rather light on substance. Wikipedia had it reflected nearly a month earlier.

I first heard of the EV company in mid-July 2020, and as one can see in the article history, worked to improve the article rather extensively over a period of about a month. When digging into all the sources, little "there" was found in terms of production, and firm plans, and firm announcements, along with firm development and production milestones one would expect along the way. I researched to see what the media had said and was saying; the auto press in general, and EV-focused media in particular, really like to cover every advance in this field, from any company of substance. There just wasn't a lot of good verifiable info showing firm production plans and steps to get there from Nikola. In my view, the article was much improved by my last edit on 21 August, showing less of "Models" (as if there was a lot of substance) and more of the many many diverse "concepts" that Nikola Motors/Corporation had put out as one-offs over four years, while leaving a few tags on info that yet needed updating to reflect more current reality.

Seems amazing that, given that reality unveiled by a decent study of the sources by mid-August, that everyone (and the "market") could be so "surprised" by the more recent stories that have come out mostly since mid-September. Wikipedia, as an open source encyclopedia of info, had this one better covered/summarized, and nearly a month earlier, than the main general and auto media. N2e (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg report

[edit]

The claims in this report are astounding. https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/ It seems to be the most important aspect of this company's history. Would it be wrong to give it its own section and lay out each of the many claims regarding Nikola's fraud accusations? And perhaps put it at the top of the article, as the various designs of the vehicles don't seem too important now? Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report mentioned and referenced in the article, and also at Trevor Milton. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Hindenburg, looks like the firm does not have a Wikipedia entry yet. Any volunteers willing to help me write one? QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hindenburg Research ( hindenburgresearch.com ) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? CleanTechnica has an entry and it is an "entertainment" website that aggregates biased news reports. QRep2020 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is what relevant? Reliable sources Noticeboard is the typical centralized discussion for whether any given source is reliable.Dialectric (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I requested help writing a Wikipedia article about the firm. Whether or not it is a reliable, independent third-party source in its own right is irrelevant with regards to it having a Wikipedia article. QRep2020 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QRep2020 is correct. My apologies for being unclear. I posted the link to RSN not to imply that the article should not be created but to provide some information about what the Hindenburg report is.
It is unlikely that some random person reading the Nikola Corporation page would be interested in creating a Hindenburg report page, but if you create a WP:STUB that contains evidence that the page passes WP:GNG (basically you find what reliable sources say about it and write about what those sources say with citation to the sources) you are far more likely to find editors who are willing to work together to expand the article.
Again, some things are notable without being reliable sources, some are reliable sources without being notable, some are both, and some are neither. The two concepts have very little to do with each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about Nikola vehicles

[edit]

Until the SEC, and the DOJ are finished with their investigations, any allegations of fraud made by Hindenburg Research should be taken just simply being allegations. Unless the SEC and DOJ verify the allegations with official, legal reports, any claims made by Hindenburg should not be used as reference for any of Nikola's operations or vehicles. Also, Hindenburg is a short-seller with motivations to profit from the drop in Nikola stock price so that they can buy Nikola shares at a lower price for potential profit. They are not a neutral third party when it comes to Nikola, and should not be trusted. Leiwang7 (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find according to wiki policies that so long as Hindeburg's claims are being widely reported the claims that make it into reliable sources are acceptable content for this article, however uncomfortable that may be for shareholders, fanbois, and others. Greglocock (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I please see a list of reliable sources that support adding information about allegations of fraud? See WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. I am not implying that they should or should not be included; I need to see the sources first. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call. TBH I don't really care much either way and I'm not going to waste time wikilawyering. I did read WP:NOTABILTY and it does mention that not all topics in an article have to meet notability criteria, bugger now I'm wikilawyering. /out/ Greglocock (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT, not WP:NOTABILITY. BTW, if you can't be a Wikilawyer, consider being a Wikiparalegal. (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit silly, but here you go:
QRep2020 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like more than enough to support a section on fraud allegations. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Guy Macon that there are enough sources that support adding information about allegations of fraud. I was not aware of the WP:WEIGHT policy. As it stands, I believe that we should keep all mentions of the fraud allegations. Thank you Guy Macon for finding all those reliable sources by the way. -Leiwang7 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QRep2020 gets the credit for that fine work. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thank you QRep2020 for the fine work that you did for getting reputable sources regarding the fraud allegations. -Leiwang7 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (2020): Nikola Zero into Nikola Corporation

[edit]
MERGED
The content seems to has been merged already. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Moved from Talk:Nikola Zero

I propose that Nikola Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Nikola Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Nikola Zero is just the prototyping test vehicle for Nikola drive systems and concept car version of the NZT. As the One was a freewheeling model, and the company changed track on their drive systems several times since the Zero unveil, there's not much there for an article. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge (2020): Nikola Badger into Nikola Corporation

[edit]
Moved from Talk:Nikola Badger

I propose that Nikola Badger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Nikola Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Nikola Badger was announced in 2020 and cancelled in 2020. It was an ephemeral existence without a public beta vehicle, and little impact on the automotive industry, so not a notable concept car design. It should be handled in a section of the corporation article, like the other models from Nikola. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this has been open for a month with no objections, I have completed the merge of Nikola Badger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into Nikola Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Dialectric (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

[edit]

Hi @Weavergirl:, in this edit you removed the following sentence:

Since its founding, the company announced multiple deadlines for these concept vehicles to enter production, but as of February 2022 did not meet a single deadline.

I believe this sentence is accurate, since all past deadlines passed without Nikola Corporation delivering any vehicles or services. The most recently announced deadline was announced in July 2021 and was to deliver at least 50 production Nikola Tre trucks by the end of 2021. By the end of 2021, Nikola delivered just two trucks, which implies the deadline was not met. Did I make a mistake in my assessment? Was the deadline postponed or cancelled?

Also, you marked the edit as "minor" edit, please see WP:MINOR for a clarification on what constitutes a "minor" edit. Thanks! [ (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Anton.bersh:,

I deleted the sentence because it is not accurate. During Nikola's third quarter earnings call in November, the company said they intended to deliver "up to 25" battery-electric vehicles by the end of 2021. They delivered two, which technically fits the "up to 25" criteria. https://nikolamotor.com/press_releases/nikola-corporation-reports-third-quarter-2021-results-141 and https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/nikola-expects-125-million-sec-penalty-under-proposed-resolution.html
Thanks for the clarification on WP:MINOR.

CEO Lohscheller

[edit]

The former Opel and Vinfast CEO should be mentioned in this article. L.Willms (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production at Iveco plant in Ulm, Germany

[edit]

also not mentioned L.Willms (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola claims to make a hydrogen propelled truck

[edit]

this is a complex subject. Without reference to Nikola's assertion that it made a hydrogen propelled truck, this "September 23, BP backed away from a potential partnership to develop hydrogen refueling stations for Nikola's EV Trucks" makes no sense. Also, a link to the Hindenburg Research report would be helpful. 216.147.122.104 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Corporation&oldid=1206261226"