What's new
By:

Emad Dlala out

DreamTour said:
That's what attracted me to Lucid as well, a fresh take, honesty and the willingness to push the envelope instead of being just another car company.

But here we are. You can have great authentic people, with the right motivations and great talent. But at the end of the day you need to put runs on the board. And putting the runs on the boards with respect to scaling successfully is clearly not something they've accomplished - otherwise we wouldn't be here right now.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree. But one still has to remember that Lucid brought its first car to market in late 2021.

Tesla brought its first car to market in 2008. It didn't reach its first full year of profitability until 2020 -- with much of that coming from the sale of energy credits. Even if you count the Model S as its first "real" product, it was still eight years before profitability arrived. Tesla's first few years didn't look too much different from Lucid's on the financial front.

Also, the severe manufacturing issues that accompanied the Model 3 launch five years after the Model S entered production have some resemblance to the software morass in which Lucid found itself with the Gravity four years after the Air launched.

The stock market used to tolerate the time it takes to get over the huge entry hurdles a new car company faces. Sadly, that tolerance is now gone for such industries, as returns come much faster on the digital side. If Lucid fails, it really makes me wonder if we'll ever see another new car company get off the ground.
 
RandomDesign said:
The one hopeful thing I see here is Marc Solsona Palomar still being there and now reporting to the CEO. Chatted with him a bunch at EVFest this weekend and he seemed to be very knowledgeable and passionate about the Lucid and Gravity specifically.
Click to expand...
Marc is great. I don’t want anything I’ve posted to indicate or imply otherwise.
 
hmp10 said:
I am not saying that engineers should necessarily run a car company. But losing them to the organization or subordinating their role too severely is fraught with risk.

There was wide consensus among observers of the Big Three in the latter half of the last century that the primary reason they descended into the product mediocrity -- and financial crises -- of the 70's and 80's was the general clearing out of engineers from the C Suites and replacing them with bean counters. With that came Cadillac's loss of the arguably legitimate claim to be the "standard of the world" in automotive engineering to slapping chromed plastic and a vinyl roof on a Chevy Cavalier to become the standing joke of the industry.
Click to expand...
I think we agree more than disagree. But, no one is irreplaceable - the organization that created and produced the products still exists and it cannot be denied they have produced exemplary product as a team. The leader of a team has a really hard job - but the team tend to be the producers. Managers hire and fire, fight for resources and provide direction. If they are really good, they make the team so good that they can move up the org chart to do the next job, while leaving the department in good hands.

I've heard good things about the people who now report to the CEO. If he is a good manager, he will let them do what they have been doing well and improve where they have not.

It's too early to see if today's changes (and tomorrow's or the next day's) are beneficial to the organization, but let's not short-change the team that is still there, still innovating and still very much alive. It can underestimate the power of the team and the structure and culture of what Emad has been able to develop over the last 8 months.
 
tmichael said:
An example is Tim Cook taking over from Steve Jobs. He was an operations guy, far away from product development and creative. Yet, the company has thrived.
Click to expand...
Steve was a spectacular operative. The company grew faster than it ever had before, under him. Tim took over (and has done well, to his credit) because Steve passed away, not because Steve wasn’t the right fit any longer.

Your point is otherwise valid, and whether it applies here I don’t know.

Apple just isn’t a good example.
 
borski said:
Steve was a spectacular operative. The company grew faster than it ever had before, under him. Tim took over (and has done well, to his credit) because Steve passed away, not because Steve wasn’t the right fit any longer.

Your point is otherwise valid, and whether it applies here I don’t know.

Apple just isn’t a good example.
Click to expand...
Apple certainly isn't a good example - but, Jobs was so smart he picked a guy from the boring side to continue to build the business. That was my poorly presented point. ☺️
 
hmp10 said:
I don't necessarily disagree. But one still has to remember that Lucid brought its first car to market in late 2021.

Tesla brought its first car to market in 2008. It didn't reach its first full year of profitability until 2020 -- with much of that coming from the sale of energy credits. Even if you count the Model S as its first "real" product, it was still eight years before profitability arrived. Tesla's first few years didn't look too much different from Lucid's on the financial front.

Also, the severe manufacturing issues that accompanied the Model 3 launch five years after the Model S entered production have some resemblance to the software morass in which Lucid found itself with the Gravity four years after the Air launched.

The stock market used to tolerate the time it takes to get over the huge entry hurdles a new car company faces. Sadly, that tolerance is now gone for such industries, as returns come much faster on the digital side. If Lucid fails, it really makes me wonder if we'll ever see another new car company get off the ground.
Click to expand...
Patience is thin when all the growth capital is getting vacuumed up by AI and the narrative is that China has already created a global race to the bottom on EV's due to their industrial policy. Doesn't change the reality of building a new car company, but it does change the context they compete in.

I prefer the world of "take the time to do things the right way" and build a business / offering brick by brick - but seems like that's currently not in vogue right now when you see everything else race ahead.
 
tmichael said:
Apple certainly isn't a good example - but, Jobs was so smart he picked a guy from the boring side to continue to build the business. That was my poorly presented point. ☺️
Click to expand...
Ah, I see.

Look, at a high level, I hear what you’re saying and there is definitely some truth in it. I have ADHD; it is definitely a “superpower” most times, but I learned a long time ago that my “stack” brain requires me to surround myself with “queue” brains in order to be maximally effective. But I’m also a catalyst under whom teams move faster than they otherwise would without me, on average.

Tim was Steve’s counter. He was incredibly effective. He ran a different kind of ship; arguably less innovative, but undoubtedly profitable.

I am not saying “Lucid is dead” or anything anywhere near that; I would never be so hyperbolic.

I am saying this doesn’t smell good, and that they are going to have a lot to prove with Emad out. If they misstep significantly after this, it’s going to be blamed (by the press and the public), at least in part, on this departure. Mark my words.

So maybe they excel after this; that’s my genuine hope, no matter that I like Emad a lot. But if they don’t, it’s going to look like more egg on their face.

And there have been a lot of broken eggs that didn’t need breaking over the last few years.
 
It might be helpful if we knew about the bench or the person in line to take over software.

I have never met Emad, he seems like an impressive guy. AND the current plan wasn’t working. Delays, issues hitting manufacturing numbers, issues hitting sales numbers, issues with suppliers. And cars that, while impressive, have missed the mark. I agree that the engineering of Lucid vehicles is amazing. But it can’t just be that. There are actual huge opportunities in front of Lucid. Maybe it means that different visionaries are needed to push this to hit those goals.

And if it just makes them a better acquisition target in the long run, maybe that’s ok. I would rather feel secure about the company backing my car than feel excited about a product roadmap that is suffering from execution.
 
I like everyone, am disappointed in this news; but let's read this carefully.

“Emad Dlala has elected to leave the company to pursue other opportunities. We thank Emad for his many contributions over the years and wish him continued success in his future endeavors. Lucid remains focused on streamlining our organization and processes to fully leverage the strength of our team and will communicate further actions soon,”
Click to expand...
This seems to me like the new CEO might have wanted Dlala to switch role or move to another position he wasn't interested in and decided to move on. No matter what it is; it would have been nice if we got a statement from Emad himself. He was fired, clear and simple. No matter how you look at, it doesn't smell good. You don't remove a pillar from your building like that. It leaves bad taste in people's mouth .
 
I cant wait to see what is next... Yes I sold my stock... But it is still sitting there... waiting.... watching... haha

Honestly, I have not been here long enough to make big statements, but sometimes Change is Good. The company had to and I mean HAD TO change direction and figure out how to be cash flow positive, if Emad did not like the direction of where the company is going or had an opportunity to leave (because he was looking because he wasnt truly happy) I wish him well he seemed like a really good guy.

For a moment however.... Ask yourself what is the biggest (car) failure about our Lucids.... I have to say it is mostly software that is the "let down" .... It is as simple as our door handles.... It sure isnt the car itself. If there was ever a department that needed a little "slap in the face-wake up" it is the engineering department. Think of what Lucid is learning through this. What they have already learned.

It is a base as to which to grow... (hopefully)

Perhaps inside the that company is the NEXT Emad.....

Or perhaps RIGHT NOW there is a young engineering graduate who is setting the world on fire with his ideas and would love to have his first job at a big company like Lucid.

I mean.... Emad was looking for a job when he found this one... =) The machine is at its core THE MACHINE regardless of the meat inside it.

I cant wait to see what happens next.

HOPEFULLY THAT IS UX3.6 FOR AIR! HAHAHA or perhaps they can get my CCC v2 to work... Hire more techs?? Open more service centers??
 
hmp10 said:
I don't necessarily disagree. But one still has to remember that Lucid brought its first car to market in late 2021.

Tesla brought its first car to market in 2008. It didn't reach its first full year of profitability until 2020 -- with much of that coming from the sale of energy credits. Even if you count the Model S as its first "real" product, it was still eight years before profitability arrived. Tesla's first few years didn't look too much different from Lucid's on the financial front.

Also, the severe manufacturing issues that accompanied the Model 3 launch five years after the Model S entered production have some resemblance to the software morass in which Lucid found itself with the Gravity four years after the Air launched.

The stock market used to tolerate the time it takes to get over the huge entry hurdles a new car company faces. Sadly, that tolerance is now gone for such industries, as returns come much faster on the digital side. If Lucid fails, it really makes me wonder if we'll ever see another new car company get off the ground.
Click to expand...
The BIG DIFFERENCE was, Tesla was "the first mover" on the mass EV market. They can afford to, and they made mistakes. But they had a comprehensive vision of building battery packs, building charging stations, create a decent service network, etc.. Furthermore, Tesla expanded internationally in sales and manufacturing, and synergistic technology plays like Solar/Powerwall, etc..

I am NOT a Tesla fan. But Tesla has/had a comprehensive game plan that created a viable EV first-mover advantage.

Lucid is a much smaller player in a more matured EV market with many international players. The current US administration's Big-oil preference further undermines Lucid's chances. BYD will eat their lunch! And Canada's trade policy change to allow Chinses EV imports will enable companies like BYD to establish a beachhead, service infrastructure, and eventual entry in the US market on its own or via a partnership.

It is unclear to me how Lucid can muddle its way to profitability in the coming period!
 
The fact that he is not commenting... I really hope this doesn't backfire on LUCID. I loved his energy and enthusiasm, and seems like he was well respected. Seems like he really turned things around with the software issues that plagued the initial launch of the Gravity. I'm super disappointed and these continued changes really give me cause for concern. Hoping there are better news to come....
 
BS8899 said:
The BIG DIFFERENCE was, Tesla was "the first mover" on the mass EV market. They can afford to, and they made mistakes. But they had a comprehensive vision of building battery packs, building charging stations, create a decent service network, etc.. Furthermore, Tesla expanded internationally in sales and manufacturing, and synergistic technology plays like Solar/Powerwall, etc..

I am NOT a Tesla fan. But Tesla has/had a comprehensive game plan that created a viable EV first-mover advantage.

Lucid is a much smaller player in a more matured EV market with many international players. The current US administration's Big-oil preference further undermines Lucid's chances. BYD will eat their lunch! And Canada's trade policy change to allow Chinses EV imports will enable companies like BYD to establish a beachhead, service infrastructure, and eventual entry in the US market on its own or via a partnership.

It is unclear to me how Lucid can muddle its way to profitability in the coming period!
Click to expand...
As reflected in the stock price - what is the path?

Darkest before the dawn...
 
RajD said:
Even the Cosmos and Earth marketing to different family personas was bizarre and didn’t make sense to me or anyone else. ‘Upscale nurturers’? What are they talking about? Literal head scratching from the major EV review outlets on that one.
Click to expand...
I took it to be terrible marketing speak for "upper-middle-class parents".
 
BS8899 said:
The BIG DIFFERENCE was, Tesla was "the first mover" on the mass EV market. They can afford to, and they made mistakes. But they had a comprehensive vision of building battery packs, building charging stations, create a decent service network, etc.. Furthermore, Tesla expanded internationally in sales and manufacturing, and synergistic technology plays like Solar/Powerwall, etc..

I am NOT a Tesla fan. But Tesla has/had a comprehensive game plan that created a viable EV first-mover advantage.

Lucid is a much smaller player in a more matured EV market with many international players. The current US administration's Big-oil preference further undermines Lucid's chances. BYD will eat their lunch! And Canada's trade policy change to allow Chinses EV imports will enable companies like BYD to establish a beachhead, service infrastructure, and eventual entry in the US market on its own or via a partnership.

It is unclear to me how Lucid can muddle its way to profitability in the coming period!
Click to expand...
Yep - Tesla was creating everything out of whole cloth - they were literally inventing the ecosystem entirely with no precursors. The companies that have followed have it easier and harder at the same time - they can learn from Tesla’s experience, leverage those suppliers, use tested processes and tech, and hopefully shorten the ramp, but they also now have to compete against an entire army of other brands and much higher (and more demanding) customer expectations. Some brands decided to “bespoke” everything and are paying a terrible price for that decision.

I didn’t go to CEO school, but if fixing the service morass and getting out from under the comically bad spending on rental cars for weeks on end even for basic service items is not priority number one right now, all the rest won’t matter. Lucid has to expand the service footprint, keep customers happy, and stop the absolute hemorrhaging of money to Enterprise. Yes, having the cars operate correctly in the first place would clearly help, but that ship has sailed. The warranty costs are astronomical and aren’t sustainable.

The last thing Lucid needs is to try to push the envelope with a bunch of cool tech that is so different from everyone else, yet misses on the basics and leads to the massive backlog for service.

My prediction is that Lucid ends up being acquired by a legacy OEM to provide the engineering hardware for their own EV ambitions - like an Aston Martin or Lamborghini or even VW. The hardware is so good that there is real value there but the actual business is just a sinkhole swallowing cash.
 
Leftlane said:
Yep - Tesla was creating everything out of whole cloth - they were literally inventing the ecosystem entirely with no precursors. The companies that have followed have it easier and harder at the same time - they can learn from Tesla’s experience, leverage those suppliers, use tested processes and tech, and hopefully shorten the ramp, but they also now have to compete against an entire army of other brands and much higher (and more demanding) customer expectations. Some brands decided to “bespoke” everything and are paying a terrible price for that decision.

I didn’t go to CEO school, but if fixing the service morass and getting out from under the comically bad spending on rental cars for weeks on end even for basic service items is not priority number one right now, all the rest won’t matter. Lucid has to expand the service footprint, keep customers happy, and stop the absolute hemorrhaging of money to Enterprise. Yes, having the cars operate correctly in the first place would clearly help, but that ship has sailed. The warranty costs are astronomical and aren’t sustainable.

The last thing Lucid needs is to try to push the envelope with a bunch of cool tech that is so different from everyone else, yet misses on the basics and leads to the massive backlog for service.

My prediction is that Lucid ends up being acquired by a legacy OEM to provide the engineering hardware for their own EV ambitions - like an Aston Martin or Lamborghini or even VW. The hardware is so good that there is real value there but the actual business is just a sinkhole swallowing cash.
Click to expand...
Doom scroll me is thinking it will get zombied by the PIF for political reasons until all the retail investors are diluted out instead of doing something accretive for retail investors. At least an auto industry has the promise of making jobs unlike more data centers.

Would like more positive thoughts than that though. Anyone have something optimistic to share?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top