I’ve spent 19 years designing and developing passenger and commercial vehicles, including steel-bodied sedans and featherweight autocycle prototypes. During these years, I've worked with legacy brands like Honda and Toyota and ambitious upstarts like Aptera. I've been around long enough to know that good ideas don’t always become great cars. Especially not in the EV world. Electric vehicle startups are now a dime a dozen. But why do some, like Rivian or Lucid, grab headlines and hit production milestones, while others (like Fisker, Lordstown, or Faraday Future) flame out despite millions in funding? Now, this article won't be about market trends or VC hype cycles. Instead, I'll share what I've seen firsthand in the engineering trenches, including decisions made (or ignored) behind the CAD models, product timelines, and cost tables. The stuff that can make or break an EV startup before a single battery is charged. 5 Reasons EV Startups Succeed or Fail Here's what I know: 5 Reasons EV Startups Succeed or Fail Here's what I know: The Myth of the MVP in Hardware In software, you can ship fast and fix later. In cars, you ship once, and if you ship junk, the market knows. EV startups that treat vehicles like apps often forget that a minimum viable product in the automotive world must still survive a crash test, handle heat cycles, meet regulatory compliance across multiple regions, and hold up in the hands of real drivers. I’ve seen beautiful concepts (3D renders that wow investors) fail miserably during packaging reviews or feasibility assessments. Now, what could have caused the failure? There are a number of things, but most times, it's because they prioritize speed over validation. They skip DVPs (Design Validation Plans), ignore DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), and cut corners on component sourcing. With work ethics like that, even a rechargeable lamp production will flop. What could make it work? An MVP that means “manufacturable vehicle prototype,” One where cost targets, GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing), and even warranty risks are engineered from day one. Lucid, for instance, took their time on ride quality and thermal management, and it paid off. You Can’t CAD Your Way Out of Supply Chain Hell I love CATIA. I’ve built everything from composite tailgates to door mechanisms using it. But a beautiful surface model doesn’t mean much if you can’t source the part or the vendor can’t meet your PPAP requirements. Startups often get stuck here. They design parts in a vacuum, only to find their Bill of Materials (BOM) is unsourceable or the tooling cost exceeds their entire prototype budget. Aptera, for example, had to get creative with composite tooling and low-volume manufacturing methods because traditional supply chains couldn’t support their ultralight, aerodynamic form. What fails? Poor sourcing assumptions, Ignoring regional supplier capabilities, Designing to ideal tolerances without vendor alignment. What works? Design-to-source thinking. Involving suppliers early. Adapting your design to sheet metal realities, injection mold constraints, or lead time limitations. When we worked on truck programs, even screw thread specs had to align globally across regions. Seeing Cost Engineering As A Phase, And Not The Culture It Is. You can’t bolt on cost discipline in the final 10% of the project. By then, you’re just deleting features or swapping materials with cheaper ones that weren’t validated. Rivian is learning this now; great trucks, but they’re struggling to make money. Why? Because early decisions favored performance over scalable unit economics. Meanwhile, Aptera’s entire design was built on cost reduction principles: fewer parts, low drag, lightweight composites, and solar assist. Even their packaging was optimized to skip dealer networks. Avoid treating cost as a finance problem or using engineering to chase specs, not savings. Instead, you should engineer your details with value (VA/VE (Value Analysis/Value Engineering) in mind. The Team That Ships Together, Wins Together A great EV startup needs more than rockstar designers or visionary founders. It needs program managers who understand APQP. It needs CAD teams who know how to run tolerance stack-ups. It needs test engineers who can simulate real-world abuse. Too many startups hire brilliant people who’ve never built a car. That usually ends up in unrealistic timelines and JIRA boards full of beautiful chaos. This happens when there's no coordination between design, manufacturing, and service. It could also happen due to poor communication across these teams. Everyone needs to work together before the car can work at all. If you want a better outcome, integrate your teams. Use shared platforms like Teamcenter, MS Project, and Confluence to communicate, and respect the full V-model of development from concept to service manual. Lucid’s success wasn’t just because of Peter Rawlinson’s Tesla past. It was the experienced team around him who knew what not to repeat. Support After Launch Isn’t Optional Most people think the job ends at SOP (Start of Production). But real engineers know that’s when the work starts. Field returns, warranty data, and feedback loops are essential. I once worked on a closure system where the first 1,000 units had inconsistent latch engagement. We fixed it, revalidated it, and improved the spec in our next platform. Startups without great post-launch feedback loops burn their goodwill fast. When there is no root cause traceability, service documentation, or buyback plan, anything could go wrong. What they need is a closed-loop system of lessons learned and PLM processes that carry knowledge into Gen 2. Conclusion Everyone’s moving toward the electric future. But the winners won’t be the flashiest, or even the first to market. They’ll be the ones; Who engineers trust. Who integrates cost with creativity. Who respects the brutal demands of hardware. Who knows that a good spec is only as good as the plant that builds it, and the ones who keep it running. So to every aspiring EV founder reading this: Your concept looks great. But can it pass a 96-hour salt spray test? The Myth of the MVP in Hardware In software, you can ship fast and fix later. In cars, you ship once, and if you ship junk, the market knows. EV startups that treat vehicles like apps often forget that a minimum viable product in the automotive world must still survive a crash test, handle heat cycles, meet regulatory compliance across multiple regions, and hold up in the hands of real drivers. I’ve seen beautiful concepts (3D renders that wow investors) fail miserably during packaging reviews or feasibility assessments. Now, what could have caused the failure? There are a number of things, but most times, it's because they prioritize speed over validation. They skip DVPs (Design Validation Plans), ignore DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), and cut corners on component sourcing. With work ethics like that, even a rechargeable lamp production will flop. What could make it work? An MVP that means “manufacturable vehicle prototype,” One where cost targets, GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing), and even warranty risks are engineered from day one. Lucid, for instance, took their time on ride quality and thermal management, and it paid off. The Myth of the MVP in Hardware In software, you can ship fast and fix later. In cars, you ship once, and if you ship junk, the market knows. EV startups that treat vehicles like apps often forget that a minimum viable product in the automotive world must still survive a crash test, handle heat cycles, meet regulatory compliance across multiple regions, and hold up in the hands of real drivers. I’ve seen beautiful concepts (3D renders that wow investors) fail miserably during packaging reviews or feasibility assessments. Now, what could have caused the failure? There are a number of things, but most times, it's because they prioritize speed over validation. They skip DVPs (Design Validation Plans), ignore DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), and cut corners on component sourcing. With work ethics like that, even a rechargeable lamp production will flop. DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) What could make it work? An MVP that means “manufacturable vehicle prototype,” One where cost targets, GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing), and even warranty risks are engineered from day one. GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing), Lucid, for instance, took their time on ride quality and thermal management, and it paid off. You Can’t CAD Your Way Out of Supply Chain Hell I love CATIA. I’ve built everything from composite tailgates to door mechanisms using it. But a beautiful surface model doesn’t mean much if you can’t source the part or the vendor can’t meet your PPAP requirements. Startups often get stuck here. They design parts in a vacuum, only to find their Bill of Materials (BOM) is unsourceable or the tooling cost exceeds their entire prototype budget. Aptera, for example, had to get creative with composite tooling and low-volume manufacturing methods because traditional supply chains couldn’t support their ultralight, aerodynamic form. What fails? Poor sourcing assumptions, Ignoring regional supplier capabilities, Designing to ideal tolerances without vendor alignment. What works? Design-to-source thinking. Involving suppliers early. Adapting your design to sheet metal realities, injection mold constraints, or lead time limitations. When we worked on truck programs, even screw thread specs had to align globally across regions. You Can’t CAD Your Way Out of Supply Chain Hell I love CATIA. I’ve built everything from composite tailgates to door mechanisms using it. But a beautiful surface model doesn’t mean much if you can’t source the part or the vendor can’t meet your PPAP requirements. Startups often get stuck here. They design parts in a vacuum, only to find their Bill of Materials (BOM) is unsourceable or the tooling cost exceeds their entire prototype budget. Aptera, for example, had to get creative with composite tooling and low-volume manufacturing methods because traditional supply chains couldn’t support their ultralight, aerodynamic form. What fails? Poor sourcing assumptions, Ignoring regional supplier capabilities, Designing to ideal tolerances without vendor alignment. Poor sourcing assumptions, Poor sourcing assumptions Ignoring regional supplier capabilities, Designing to ideal tolerances without vendor alignment. What works? Design-to-source thinking. Involving suppliers early. Adapting your design to sheet metal realities, injection mold constraints, or lead time limitations. Design-to-source thinking. Involving suppliers early. Adapting your design to sheet metal realities, injection mold constraints, or lead time limitations. When we worked on truck programs, even screw thread specs had to align globally across regions. Seeing Cost Engineering As A Phase, And Not The Culture It Is. You can’t bolt on cost discipline in the final 10% of the project. By then, you’re just deleting features or swapping materials with cheaper ones that weren’t validated. Rivian is learning this now; great trucks, but they’re struggling to make money. Why? Because early decisions favored performance over scalable unit economics. Meanwhile, Aptera’s entire design was built on cost reduction principles: fewer parts, low drag, lightweight composites, and solar assist. Even their packaging was optimized to skip dealer networks. Avoid treating cost as a finance problem or using engineering to chase specs, not savings. Instead, you should engineer your details with value (VA/VE (Value Analysis/Value Engineering) in mind. Seeing Cost Engineering As A Phase, And Not The Culture It Is. You can’t bolt on cost discipline in the final 10% of the project. By then, you’re just deleting features or swapping materials with cheaper ones that weren’t validated. Rivian is learning this now; great trucks, but they’re struggling to make money. Why? Because early decisions favored performance over scalable unit economics. struggling to make money. Meanwhile, Aptera’s entire design was built on cost reduction principles: fewer parts, low drag, lightweight composites, and solar assist. Even their packaging was optimized to skip dealer networks. Avoid treating cost as a finance problem or using engineering to chase specs, not savings. Instead, you should engineer your details with value (VA/VE (Value Analysis/Value Engineering) in mind. VA/VE (Value Analysis/Value Engineering) The Team That Ships Together, Wins Together A great EV startup needs more than rockstar designers or visionary founders. It needs program managers who understand APQP. It needs CAD teams who know how to run tolerance stack-ups. It needs test engineers who can simulate real-world abuse. Too many startups hire brilliant people who’ve never built a car. That usually ends up in unrealistic timelines and JIRA boards full of beautiful chaos. This happens when there's no coordination between design, manufacturing, and service. It could also happen due to poor communication across these teams. Everyone needs to work together before the car can work at all. If you want a better outcome, integrate your teams. Use shared platforms like Teamcenter, MS Project, and Confluence to communicate, and respect the full V-model of development from concept to service manual. Lucid’s success wasn’t just because of Peter Rawlinson’s Tesla past. It was the experienced team around him who knew what not to repeat. The Team That Ships Together, Wins Together A great EV startup needs more than rockstar designers or visionary founders. It needs program managers who understand APQP. It needs CAD teams who know how to run tolerance stack-ups. It needs test engineers who can simulate real-world abuse. It needs program managers who understand APQP. It needs CAD teams who know how to run tolerance stack-ups. It needs test engineers who can simulate real-world abuse. Too many startups hire brilliant people who’ve never built a car. That usually ends up in unrealistic timelines and JIRA boards full of beautiful chaos. This happens when there's no coordination between design, manufacturing, and service. It could also happen due to poor communication across these teams. Everyone needs to work together before the car can work at all. If you want a better outcome, integrate your teams. Use shared platforms like Teamcenter, MS Project, and Confluence to communicate, and respect the full V-model of development from concept to service manual. Lucid’s success wasn’t just because of Peter Rawlinson’s Tesla past. It was the experienced team around him who knew what not to repeat. Support After Launch Isn’t Optional Most people think the job ends at SOP (Start of Production). But real engineers know that’s when the work starts. Field returns, warranty data, and feedback loops are essential. I once worked on a closure system where the first 1,000 units had inconsistent latch engagement. We fixed it, revalidated it, and improved the spec in our next platform. Startups without great post-launch feedback loops burn their goodwill fast. When there is no root cause traceability, service documentation, or buyback plan, anything could go wrong. What they need is a closed-loop system of lessons learned and PLM processes that carry knowledge into Gen 2. Conclusion Everyone’s moving toward the electric future. But the winners won’t be the flashiest, or even the first to market. They’ll be the ones; Who engineers trust. Who integrates cost with creativity. Who respects the brutal demands of hardware. Who knows that a good spec is only as good as the plant that builds it, and the ones who keep it running. So to every aspiring EV founder reading this: Your concept looks great. But can it pass a 96-hour salt spray test? Support After Launch Isn’t Optional Most people think the job ends at SOP (Start of Production). But real engineers know that’s when the work starts. Field returns, warranty data, and feedback loops are essential. I once worked on a closure system where the first 1,000 units had inconsistent latch engagement. We fixed it, revalidated it, and improved the spec in our next platform. Startups without great post-launch feedback loops burn their goodwill fast. When there is no root cause traceability, service documentation, or buyback plan, anything could go wrong. What they need is a closed-loop system of lessons learned and PLM processes that carry knowledge into Gen 2. Conclusion Conclusion Everyone’s moving toward the electric future. But the winners won’t be the flashiest, or even the first to market. They’ll be the ones; Who engineers trust. Who integrates cost with creativity. Who respects the brutal demands of hardware. Who knows that a good spec is only as good as the plant that builds it, and the ones who keep it running. Who engineers trust. Who integrates cost with creativity. Who respects the brutal demands of hardware. Who knows that a good spec is only as good as the plant that builds it, and the ones who keep it running. So to every aspiring EV founder reading this: Your concept looks great. But can it pass a 96-hour salt spray test?
