Battery Technology

[WillChen]

Based on the talents Lucid is trying to fill in the hardware/software engineering and power design teams, besides Power management and optimizations, it does look like the firm is looking to heavily expand its capabilities and potentially building out its own energy storage supplies and control designs. After getting familiar with off the shelf power semiconductor connection and designs, I hope they would look into building its own chip, that would make a killer difference. The org structure follows a real good engineering approach.

 

[BlindPass]

It’s a good engineering approach in fast moving new tech. There simply aren’t enough suppliers focused on pushing the tech forward that can keep up. But will it always be a good business approach?


Rawlinson speaks to how it’s advantageous to have everything design together/in-house for synergy. That’s how they gain efficiency and power. I do wonder that as the EV industry matures, if that will continue to be true. If EVs are inherently less complex than ICE, due to less convolution of the subsystems, wouldn’t it follow that the advantages from synergy is inherently less, or at least less complex?

Could what’s pushing this organizational structure be marginalized in the future?
1.) The huge thirst for range. Imo it’s already close to being too uncompromising and adding needless costs tied up in unused range. More consumer familiarity with EVs, improvements in charging infrastructure, robo functions, and even things like battery swap/lease would erode range advantages gained.
2.) More suppliers making sufficient, least-cost solutions in a less nascent technology. These suppliers won’t be of interest to a company only making halo cars, but if mass production IoT mobile devices are the goal, I think the advantages of specialization will come back into play.

 

[hmp10]

Rawlinson has said that he believes EV powertrain technology will be sufficiently commoditized within perhaps ten years for manufacturers to use off-the-shelf components to achieve top-tier efficiencies. He thinks the mistake legacy manufacturers are making currently is to think that EV technology is already commoditized. So, basically, he sees about a 10-year shelf life for the utility of keeping drivetrain engineering completely in house.

1.) The huge thirst for range. Imo it’s already close to being too uncompromising and adding needless costs tied up in unused range.

I've owned a Tesla with an EPA range of a measly 257 miles for over five years now, use it for a fair majority of my driving, and almost never charge it above 80%. I doubt if I have used a supercharger more than a dozen times, and a few of those were only to check out a new installation that I happened to be passing.

 

[WillChen]

If we compare the engineering team vs product design team, it’s feels like Lucid only plans to develop a limited number of products but significantly expand its platform offerings and possibilities. It could plan to position itself as the core chassis and battery manufacturer (similar to either Intel or an AMD/Taiwan Semiconductor split) while it turns the rest of the traditional brands to just design houses. The superior offering and manufacturing prowess would significantly dominate the market and allow it to compete with fewer core players with real EV manufacturing capabilities (only Tesla at the moment). Instead of “Intel inside”, it might be “Lucid inside” or “Atieva inside”.

Hope the firm goes public one day.

 

[hmp10]

This is a business model with which Rawlinson is familiar. We should remember that he came to Tesla from Lotus Advanced Engineering, whose business model was built around selling its engineering acumen to other manufacturers.

In interviews, Rawlinson has seemed to blow hot and cold about selling Lucid technology. At times he has said that Lucid intends to be a long-term vehicle manufacturer in its own right using its proprietary technology, and in other interviews he has mentioned the marketability of some of Lucid's component and systems engineering.

There is an elephant in the room, though. Given that the Saudis own 53% of Lucid and are investing in EVs as a broad hedge against the decline of fossil fuels, they may look at this issue through the lens of which business model gives them the greatest long-term penetration into EV transportation . . . and my guess is that leveraging Lucid as an EV technology supplier to the broadest possible EV market might look more promising than leveraging it as a car manufacturer using proprietary technology.

 

[WillChen]

This is a business model with which Rawlinson is familiar. We should remember that he came to Tesla from Lotus Advanced Engineering, whose business model was built around selling its engineering acumen to other manufacturers.

In interviews, Rawlinson has seemed to blow hot and cold about selling Lucid technology. At times he has said that Lucid intends to be a long-term vehicle manufacturer in its own right using its proprietary technology, and in other interviews he was mentioned the marketability of some of Lucid's component and systems engineering.

There is an elephant in the room, though. Given that the Saudis own 53% of Lucid and are investing in EVs as a broad hedge against the decline of fossil fuels, they may look at this issue through the lens of which business model gives them the greatest long-term penetration into EV transportation . . . and my guess is that leveraging Lucid as an EV technology supplier to the broadest possible EV market might look more promising than leveraging it as a car manufacturer using proprietary technology.

100% agree and unfortunately only the Saudi‘s were bold enough to invest in Lucid in the private market. That aside, it’s a different business model vs Tesla at the moment and it carries a higher margin, higher probability of success, and easier market expansion (with other traditional brands chipping in after development).

 

[BlindPass]

Rawlinson has said that he believes EV powertrain technology will be sufficiently commoditized within perhaps ten years for manufacturers to use off-the-shelf components to achieve top-tier efficiencies. He thinks the mistake legacy manufacturers are making currently is to think that EV technology is already commoditized. So, basically, he sees about a 10-year shelf life for the utility of keeping drivetrain engineering completely in house.



I've owned a Tesla with an EPA range of a measly 257 miles for over five years now, use it for a fair majority of my driving, and almost never charge it above 80%. I doubt if I have used a supercharger more than a dozen times, and a few of those were only to check out a new installation that I happened to be passing.

Well then!

I forget that Rawlinson has decades in the industry.

I wouldn’t know about commoditization timelines, but that sounds right to me. As far range being a driver, I think that’s marginalized sooner than full commoditization. Most buyers will find 300 enough. Particularly if fast charging keeps growing or they can swap out for 500 when needed