Emad Dlala out

[borski]

There are a ton of assumptions in this post.

Emad specialty is computer simulation, it is good for proof of theory and optimisation. At this stage the work is pretty much done, for HR Emad title is too big and near future contribution would be too little.

Based on what? Lucid no longer needs to innovate? Said who, ever?

Silvio did this for a reason that he believe will be good for the company.

This assumes Silvio is the one that let him go. We don’t know that. It is possible Emad left by choice. We don’t know what happened.

Human/Staff is temporary, but company goes on, Lucid is not a cult group, we don't make untouchable God.

I don’t even know what this is trying to say. Of course employees are fireable. That’s how employment works.

The question is not “can Emad leave,” but rather, why.

 

[DreamTour]

Silvio did say its more important to decide what we don't do than do.
What he didn't say was its more important to let go someone than hiring someone.

Although he just stepped into the position, he has been studying Lucid for a few months.
I love watching interview with Emad, without him there would be no Zeus and Altlas, without Peter there would be no Air and Gravity.

Emad specialty is computer simulation, it is good for proof of theory and optimisation. At this stage the work is pretty much done, for HR Emad title is too big
and near future contribution would be too little.

Silvio did this for a reason that he believe will be good for the company.

Human/Staff is temporary, but company goes on, Lucid is not a cult group, we don't make untouchable God.

Having been essentially on a founding team, and being a part of a transition where a new CEO stepped in, and other founders exited. Not finding a role for founders that presumably still want to be engaged is not a desirable outcome IMO. I understand if you want to split hairs, the founders were originally the team from atieva, but modern lucid was basically the Rawlinson, Jenkins, Bach, Dlala crew.

Beyond specific skills and know how, founders have institutional knowledge that you can't write down. Things learned the hard way. Even Rawlinson was "found a role" advisor to chairmen etc - regardless of how perfunctory it is, the optics are certainly better and it leaves bridges unburned.

 

[Ktw13]

We will never know the reason, just like we still don't know why Peter left, any speculation could be right or wrong and somewhere in between.
While some can say its totally wrong to let Emad go, either fired or allow him to leave, I believe there are many innovators working in Lucid.

I am a shareholder who also lost a few Sapphires in the past 5 years, the only thing I want is for the company to do well.

It is impossible to hold on to shares without giving CEO benefit of the doubt.

There are a ton of assumptions in this post.


Based on what? Lucid no longer needs to innovate? Said who, ever?



This assumes Silvio is the one that let him go. We don’t know that. It is possible Emad left by choice. We don’t know what happened.


I don’t even know what this is trying to say. Of course employees are fireable. That’s how employment works.

The question is not “can Emad leave,” but rather, why.

 

[tmichael]

I leased my Dream Edition with the intention of buying it out, but now I’m having real anxiety over whether Lucid will still be around if I do.

Things should be well along the way to determine if they'll make it by then. I am doing the same thing.

 

[gaskiller]

Based on what? Lucid no longer needs to innovate? Said who, ever?

Best efficiency, space, performance yet company valued at 2 billion. Right now, spending on innovation is not needed in my opinion. Cut costs where ever you can to get Wall Street confidence back,

They are set for the next 5 years regarding innovation . Once they get through the next few years, they can spend on pet projects.

 

[tmichael]

They have one goal- establish a successful automobile manufacturing hub in Saudi Arabia!

This may be a little over-simplification....

 

[Ktw13]

Peter wanted the mid-sized to be 6mi/kWh efficient, as trained engineer myself I can understand the obsession, but the question is a what cost?

In my previous life, the final year of engineering school there is a compulsory subject about marketing and financing, half of us skipped that class to spare time
for our final year project, for those who actually took the subject seriously and later did MBA most of them/us are doing pretty well.

Remember short seller kept writing article spreading how Peter "took" xxx millions and is bad for the company etc, but after Peter left, shorts write article again spinning it as bad news.
Without knowing the reason Peter and Emad left, why people assume this is a bad move like every move from Lucid is bad?

IMO, the next innovation would come from software side, Lucid hardware is capable of many things, ESS V2H being one, and software for the car itself is pretty decent, but to add on supplementary value, more function could be developed and to me it would be software implementation going forward.

Best efficiency, space, performance yet company valued at 2 billion. Right now, spending on innovation is not needed in my opinion. Cut costs where ever you can to get Wall Street confidence back,

They are set for the next 5 years regarding innovation . Once they get through the next few years, they can spend on pet projects.

 

[borski]

We will never know the reason, just like we still don't know why Peter left, any speculation could be right or wrong and somewhere in between.
While some can say its totally wrong to let Emad go, either fired or allow him to leave, I believe there are many innovators working in Lucid.

I am a shareholder who also lost a few Sapphires in the past 5 years, the only thing I want is for the company to do well.

It is impossible to hold on to shares without giving CEO benefit of the doubt.

I agree with all of this.

 

[borski]

Best efficiency, space, performance yet company valued at 2 billion. Right now, spending on innovation is not needed in my opinion. Cut costs where ever you can to get Wall Street confidence back,

They are set for the next 5 years regarding innovation . Once they get through the next few years, they can spend on pet projects.

R&D takes time to spin up. It is not a thing you can just “turn a faucet on” for. If you stop innovating (which is not what Lucid is doing) you do not suddenly start again.

You flail for years, unable to catch up. Dozens of examples of this.

It took Lucid over a decade to innovate to here. If they lose that lead, they have just about no moat.

So no, they cannot just rest on their laurels.

That doesn’t mean R&D needs quite as much funding as it used to.

Innovation is not a “pet project.” It is the lifeblood of a company, because Lucid isn’t making paper towel rolls.

 

[borski]

Remember short seller kept writing article spreading how Peter "took" xxx millions and is bad for the company etc, but after Peter left, shorts write article again spinning it as bad news.

There’s a lesson here: people will write articles bashing heavily shorted stocks. Period.

Worth keeping in mind.

 

[erigion]

The EV industry is still closer to its infancy than maturity. Developments in battery types and chemistry are going to making Lucid's focus on efficiency practically meaningless sooner or later. Good handling and powerful but small motors aren't an actual economic moat either. I see people elsewhere on this forum chuckling at Rivian and comparing them with Yeti. Well, I think Lucid would kill to be compared to a brand with such cult like devotion. And plenty of companies in America make billions every year by allowing their customers to pretend to live a lifestyle they don't actually live.

What's Lucid's equivalent comparison? And how does that company's moat compare with Lucid's?

Also, car manufacturing is always going to be a high cash burn endeavor. There's no way around it short of getting rid of models so you don't have to do R&D and production tooling, like Tesla did with the S and X

 

[DeaneG]

...They are set for the next 5 years regarding innovation...

Only if every other car company also pauses its R&D for the next 5 years.
Or if you want the midsize trio to be Lucid's last competitive product.

 

[gaskiller]

R&D takes time to spin up. It is not a thing you can just “turn a faucet on” for. If you stop innovating (which is not what Lucid is doing) you do not suddenly start again.

You flail for years, unable to catch up. Dozens of examples of this.

It took Lucid over a decade to innovate to here. If they lose that lead, they have just about no moat.

So no, they cannot just rest on their laurels.

That doesn’t mean R&D needs quite as much funding as it used to.

Innovation is not a “pet project.” It is the lifeblood of a company, because Lucid isn’t making paper towel rolls.

Speculation, but perhaps that’s why Emad left, cut in funding, which he did not agree with.

When in survival mode, IMO, you shouldn’t be spending on innovation. You can hold back year or two.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Peter wanted the mid-sized to be 6mi/kWh efficient, as trained engineer myself I can understand the obsession, but the question is a what cost?

In my previous life, the final year of engineering school there is a compulsory subject about marketing and financing, half of us skipped that class to spare time
for our final year project, for those who actually took the subject seriously and later did MBA most of them/us are doing pretty well.

Remember short seller kept writing article spreading how Peter "took" xxx millions and is bad for the company etc, but after Peter left, shorts write article again spinning it as bad news.
Without knowing the reason Peter and Emad left, why people assume this is a bad move like every move from Lucid is bad?

IMO, the next innovation would come from software side, Lucid hardware is capable of many things, ESS V2H being one, and software for the car itself is pretty decent, but to add on supplementary value, more function could be developed and to me it would be software implementation going forward.

This article is one of the many interviews where Peter Rawlinson talked about 6 mi/kwh efficiency. In short, with efficiency that high, you can get a battery pack as low as 25 kwh for 150 miles of range. And as long as you plug in the car every night, that's enough range for the day.

Now that I think about it, 6 mi/kwh (or really close to it) just might be achievable for the Lunar robotaxi project. Less mass to carry around, the motors and battery can be tuned for extra efficiency (e.g. forego acceleration, power, and top speed), you can opt for simpler suspension and braking setup (e.g. Macpherson suspension and brake-by-wire) and when they're being serviced and cleaned at the end of the day, they can charge up while doing so.

But anyways, this is getting derailed from the topic of the thread.

 

[borski]

The EV industry is still closer to its infancy than maturity. Developments in battery types and chemistry are going to making Lucid's focus on efficiency practically meaningless sooner or later.

People have been saying this since Tesla started. It’s 2026. We’re still waiting.

Good handling and powerful but small motors aren't an actual economic moat either. I see people elsewhere on this forum chuckling at Rivian and comparing them with Yeti. Well, I think Lucid would kill to be compared to a brand with such cult like devotion.

Yeah, there are definitely no cult-like devotees to Lucid. None, especially here.

And plenty of companies in America make billions every year by allowing their customers to pretend to live a lifestyle they don't actually live.

What's Lucid's equivalent comparison? And how does that company's moat compare with Lucid's?

Not sure how this is related. People can buy an SUV and never use it for the S or the U.

Also, car manufacturing is always going to be a high cash burn endeavor. There's no way around it short of getting rid of models so you don't have to do R&D and production tooling, like Tesla did with the S and X

R&D has nothing to do with getting rid of older models. R&D, sort of by definition, is focused on new models.

 

[borski]

Speculation, but perhaps that’s why Emad left, cut in funding, which he did not agree with.

When in survival mode, IMO, you shouldn’t be spending on innovation. You can hold back year or two.

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve ever run a company.

What you are saying is simply untrue. You cannot arbitrarily “hold back on R&D/innovation for a year or two.” That is not how it works.

It will take you a year or two just to put a team back together and start producing real innovation again, if you happened to hire well.

Companies that “turn off R&D for a while” end up like GE. Went well until it didn’t.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Developments in battery types and chemistry are going to making Lucid's focus on efficiency practically meaningless sooner or later.

Disagree. Focusing on improving efficiency means less battery needed to carry around, and that brings down costs because you don't have to design for as much mass. And that also allows you to produce more vehicles for a given shipment of batteries.

 

[BS8899]

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve ever run a company.

What you are saying is simply untrue. You cannot arbitrarily “hold back on R&D/innovation for a year or two.” That is not how it works.

It will take you a year or two just to put a team back together and start producing real innovation again, if you happened to hire well.

Companies that “turn off R&D for a while” end up like GE. Went well until it didn’t.

Well, I wouldn't knock GE stock. It has done reasonable well in the past few years.

 

[socktucker]

Things should be well along the way to determine if they'll make it by then. I am doing the same thing.

Dream Editions are mostly problem free right? All the stuff we hear about seems like newer Air's and Gravities.

Except @hmp10 who seems to have ran over a witch in all of his Lucids

 

[Need4Sleep]

Well, I wouldn't knock GE stock. It has done reasonable well in the past few years.

View attachment 39321

a stock price doesn't reflect the R&D and innovation of a company