What's new
By:

Living with the Lucid Gravity: A Tesla Owner’s Journey

One thing I'll add about the Lucid nav, it seems to have learned, or at least accepted my driving style. I take several sides roads in my daily 20 mi drive to school and it shows this route as this best when I do set nav in order to see traffic. That is something my Model S never did. It constantly tried to route me back to highways, so the nav was practically useless for timing, though I used it to see general traffic. And the few times I've ignored the Lucid nav when it wanted to take me an odd way, it has been to my detriment and I ended up stuck in accident traffic and very late.
 
prgarg said:
Sounds like you picked up a GDE Unicorn Edition :)
Click to expand...
I think rather, the latest and best example so far. I am familiar with the fob issues. My third test drive had 25 mins of problems before we could drive it. If I hadn’t already seen it do better I would likely not have gone on to buy one.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
This is why I am hoping they’ll offer the Air helicopter connector package for the Gravity. I don’t need a spare if I can carry my heli with me. Just have to be careful in tunnels and under low bridges…
View attachment 32800
Click to expand...
Tesla would promise this and then just not do it
 
TahoeMichael said:
I think it's reasonable to decide you wont buy a car that doesn't have a spare. But I'd think it odd if you spent a lot of time here complaining about the lack of a spare on a car with two sizes of tire. Not that you are.

I've self rescued on a rocky desert road with no cell signal when driving my Highlander. I don't know that I'd take the Gravity down such a road.
Click to expand...
Crap! I did not have a spare for my C6 ZR1 nor my 911 Turbo. I think one came with fix a flat and the other was - huh, why would you need a spare?
 
boydracing said:
Crap! I did not have a spare for my C6 ZR1 nor my 911 Turbo. I think one came with fix a flat and the other was - huh, why would you need a spare?
Click to expand...
1759015237882.webp
 
GEWC said:
One thing I'll add about the Lucid nav, it seems to have learned, or at least accepted my driving style. I take several sides roads in my daily 20 mi drive to school and it shows this route as this best when I do set nav in order to see traffic. That is something my Model S never did. It constantly tried to route me back to highways, so the nav was practically useless for timing, though I used it to see general traffic. And the few times I've ignored the Lucid nav when it wanted to take me an odd way, it has been to my detriment and I ended up stuck in accident traffic and very late.
Click to expand...
I usually drive with turn by turn on the upper display and big picture map on the lower. I love where the big picture map shows you the multiple route options and the plus or minus time and energy for each. Tesla would just reroute you based on your settings and you had to take it on faith it was how you wanted to go.
 
socktucker said:
Oh man a ZR1 and a 911 turbo, which did you like best??
Click to expand...
The 911 Turbo was very balanced and easy to drive. It made you a hero. If anyone was in PCA or the Orange County Porsche club in the early 2000s, I drove the speed yellow one. Easy to drive and not that scary as the car felt like it was dialed to 7. The C6 ZR1 was a complete opposite. This car was scary fast, handled great, and was a great track car that burned through $3,000 worth of tires. It also ate clutches every 8k to 11k of miles. Oh, and if you drove it fast, the Pirrelli P-Zeros had little to no traction for a car with 638 hp, 650 ft/lbs of torque. It was dialed to 10 and sometimes 11 when it was cold outside. Both were not perfect but darn, the ZR1 was just an incredible car. Admins, feel free to delete as completely off topic.
1759031595685.webp
 
boydracing said:
The 911 Turbo was very balanced and easy to drive. It made you a hero. If anyone was in PCA or the Orange County Porsche club in the early 2000s, I drove the speed yellow one. Easy to drive and not that scary as the car felt like it was dialed to 7. The C6 ZR1 was a complete opposite. This car was scary fast, handled great, and was a great track car that burned through $3,000 worth of tires. It also ate clutches every 8k to 11k of miles. Oh, and if you drove it fast, the Pirrelli P-Zeros had little to no traction for a car with 638 hp, 650 ft/lbs of torque. It was dialed to 10 and sometimes 11 when it was cold outside. Both were not perfect but darn, the ZR1 was just an incredible car. Admins, feel free to delete as completely off topic.
View attachment 32815
Click to expand...
That’s a great analysis though. Thank you.
 
Elfin said:
View attachment 32813
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that a spare would be nice but cars not having a spare has become quite common today. My current 2 Mercedes (car and SUV) as well as previous BMW SUV don’t have spares. A friend of mine sold his Porsche Cayenne due to no spare and needing to do long road tips. My son’s Ford Expedition has a spare!
 
Bdr100 said:
Yes, I agree that a spare would be nice but cars not having a spare has become quite common today. My current 2 Mercedes (car and SUV) as well as previous BMW SUV don’t have spares. A friend of mine sold his Porsche Cayenne due to no spare and needing to do long road tips. My son’s Ford Expedition has a spare!
Click to expand...
Yep, only trucks and real suvs have spares these days. The G-class has a spare.
 
allenmhc said:
That's just…not how product development works.

You ship your hardware because you need to exercise all aspects of your product, from design to manufacturing to sales and support. You ship it because there are a lot more users who put it in various conditions that no amount of internal testers you employ can hope to match. You ship so that you can iterate on issues and get to the next, better version. I build software for a living and one of the traps the junior developers fall into is the sense that they'd rather spend months/years tweaking their work till they think it's "ready for release" and every time the results are underwhelming for the amount of time + effort spent, because there's no real feedback loop without end users making full use of the product.

None of the luxury car brands got to where they are now without having released a bunch of cars with issues that they improved year-on-year. None of the infotainment and software in the car are where they are without releasing multiple major and minor versions, again through years of shipping. Getting what feels like an incomplete and buggy software experience can be frustrating and isn't for everybody; hence this forum and early adopters pay that cost of figuring things out, one version at a time.
Click to expand...
What a wonderful reply! As a long time Systems Engineering Manager, and my wife being a 35 year Software and Systems Senior Staff Engineer, we both know exactly what you said. One thing I would like to add is a bit of engineering wisdom: Better is the enemy of good enough.

And, for the original poster, I hope you've begun to find satisfaction in your Lucid. If not, I'll happily loan you my 15-year-old Ford Edge in exchange for your Gravity until mine is delivered, probably before Christmas. Then I'll take the ford back as I have a friend who's chomping at the bit to buy it.
 
Brian_N said:
Also, I’m not ignoring Lucid support or the manual. I’ve already spoken with technical service at least three times, all my issues are recorded, and the earliest appointment I could get was for the end of October. And I do use the manual—on Day 1 I even noted how frustrating it was that the in-app manual has no search function.
Click to expand...
You've probably already done this but, in case you haven't... I downloaded the Gravity user manual to a pdf on my laptop and, in the Document Viewer (it's a Linux machine), I have search capability. Same when viewing the pdf in a tab on my browser.
 
dcm said:
You've probably already done this but, in case you haven't... I downloaded the Gravity user manual to a pdf on my laptop and, in the Document Viewer (it's a Linux machine), I have search capability. Same when viewing the pdf in a tab on my browser.
Click to expand...
Conveniently, @HC_79 also built a search tool for the manual if you add your vehicles to https://lucidtracker.app
 
borski said:
Conveniently, @HC_79 also built a search tool for the manual if you add your vehicles to https://lucidtracker.app
Click to expand...
I need to figure out how to get the latest online links for the manuals. I have an AI agent pointing to the link and is parses the document online to provide the search results. I was hoping Lucid just updated the same link with new additions but seems they create new links for each revision. Might be easier to just switch to parsing the PDF's
 
HC_79 said:
Fun fact, Tesla uses Google Maps only for imagery snd some data but the actual routing engine is developed in house by Tesla
Click to expand...
Actually, Tesla uses MapBox's Valhalla routing engine, with OpenStreetMaps as one of its data sources. Like most systems today, routing computations are done on a server and then sent to the vehicle. Tesla hosts its own routing servers (running Valhalla), providing the MapBox API. Correct that Tesla uses Google for visualization (Baidu in China I believe).

As for CarPlay, the only "piece" for Apple to do is test and approve, they don't have development to do. I've lead intotainment development for two automotive OEMs, both doing CarPlay, so I have real world experience with this. You buy the special chip from Apple and put it in your system, and then the programming is all on you. Apple has great documentation, and describes their testing well. They work with you during development, but unless you find a bona-fide bug, they aren't coding anything themselves. Heck, once the chip is in your infotainment system, CarPlay can work - that's how you develop and test.

And, relevant to this thread, I have a GGT on order, supposedly a 3rd week of Nov start of production date. I've been driving electric since 2011 when I bought a Tesla Roadster (which I still own and drive). I also had one of the first 2000 Model 3s, and two Model Xs. We're terminating our Model X lease early to get a Gravity.

Navigation on the Teslas has been great. At first, we ran both Apple and Google Maps to see what routes it suggested, especially when traffic was an issue, but it was, in our experience, just as good. The way it suggests charging stops on road trips is really nice, too, as it knows which chargers are busy and which aren't, plus it optimizes overall charging time. But,I'll post my own comparisons once we get our vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Smorgasbord said:
Actually, Tesla uses MapBox's Valhalla routing engine, with OpenStreetMaps as one of its data sources. Like most systems today, routing computations are done on a server and then sent to the vehicle. ........
Click to expand...
this is an awesome level of detail. thanks for this!
 
Smorgasbord said:
As for CarPlay, the only "piece" for Apple to do is test and approve, they don't have development to do. I've lead intotainment development for two automotive OEMs, both doing CarPlay, so I have real world experience with this. You buy the special chip from Apple and put it in your system, and then the programming is all on you. Apple has great documentation, and describes their testing well. They work with you during development, but unless you find a bona-fide bug, they aren't coding anything themselves. Heck, once the chip is in your infotainment system, CarPlay can work - that's how you develop and test.
Click to expand...
Yes, the special Apple chip [Apple Authentication Coprocessor (also known as the MFI Authentication IC or coprocessor)], which is the reason Tesla or Rivian don't have/want CarPlay – they would have to add it to their car's hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top