[Everyday Chris] I Tested the Lucid Gravity vs Tesla Model X vs Rivian R1S

[Joe]

Haven't watched this one yet but saw this just got dropped by Everyday Chris.

 

[electric]

I just learned that I can bring the headrest forward
I really need to RTFM...

Glovebox is unreal, it's like a portal to another dimension, or like TARDIS in Doctor Who show.
My wife loves it, she can put so much more crap , I mean important necessities in the car now.

 

[merveille07]

I just learned that I can bring the headrest forward
I really need to RTFM...

Glovebox is unreal, it's like a portal to another dimension, or like TARDIS in Doctor Who show.
My wife loves it, she can put so much more crap , I mean important necessities in the car now.

Don't forget you're being watched

 

[StarkyLuv]

I love his videos, he's always so enthusiastic. I thought his breakdown was fair, but I think his love for Tesla made him try to keep the Model X even with the other two.

 

[maxtor10000]

Agree, his videos are funny. And although he didn’t totally spell it out, the Gravity came out on top in his comparison.

He is a bit of a Tesla fanboy though. I chuckled when he said about the Model X: “It’s luxurious without being luxurious.”

 

[9point81]

He's got a fun energy. One thing tho I pointed out, is that to compare the Gravity at year 2 is a bit unfair to the X which has been out a decade, and the R1S which has been out about 5 years. He mentions both have gotten better with ADAS and quality and tech and software. Lucid will get there with the Gravity, but I dunno. Maybe compare it to year 1 cars of both to even out that part. Still was a good video tho.

 

[msaunders9430]

I also like his videos, especially his enthusiasm.

Nice video.

Gravity seemed to be the overall top choice.
MX has the software advantage; no surprise there with almost 20 years of development. I expect Lucid to close the software gap.
R1S has the boxy look that some like; that boxy look lends itself to the perception of ruggedness. Over time as offroad videos with a Gravity are released, that perception might change.

In the value segment, it would have been nice if he had mentioned the upcoming Touring version at the lower price.

Overall, I'm glad he did this video of the three American ev companies.

 

[RandomDesign]

He's got a fun energy. One thing tho I pointed out, is that to compare the Gravity at year 2 is a bit unfair to the X which has been out a decade, and the R1S which has been out about 5 years. He mentions both have gotten better with ADAS and quality and tech and software. Lucid will get there with the Gravity, but I dunno. Maybe compare it to year 1 cars of both to even out that part. Still was a good video tho.

See, I disagree with that. Gravity should be compared to the current state of other EVs and not get a pass because other cars also had issues in years past. They need to be able to compete with the actual competition and not some phantom of what the competition used to be like.

 

[borski]

See, I disagree with that. Gravity should be compared to the current state of other EVs and not get a pass because other cars also had issues in years past. They need to be able to compete with the actual competition and not some phantom of what the competition used to be like.

I agree; that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant that Lucid is a much newer company though. I agree they don’t get a pass though.

 

[9point81]

See, I disagree with that. Gravity should be compared to the current state of other EVs and not get a pass because other cars also had issues in years past. They need to be able to compete with the actual competition and not some phantom of what the competition used to be like.

I'm not asking for Lucid to be excused for short comings. I am saying that the presenter himself commented on how much better Rivian ADAS and Tesla FSD got over time. Then he compared it to Dream Drive today. That just doesn't sit right to me. Of course it is not in its refined state yet. I think it's great that Lucid can be compared to the modern versions, but at the same time, they need time to cook. If at 1 or 2 years, Dream Drive hasn't improved or made gains on the other systems, yes, I think it's very fair to compare and knock them for it. That's all I'm really saying. Lucid made a really good go for a year one product but the competition has a huge head start and very well should be ahead.

 

[msaunders9430]

See, I disagree with that. Gravity should be compared to the current state of other EVs and not get a pass because other cars also had issues in years past. They need to be able to compete with the actual competition and not some phantom of what the competition used to be like.

No, Lucid shouldn't get a pass, but the reality is Tesla basically had no "actual competition" during its formative years.
Lucid has actual competition, so in some ways, they are being held to a higher standard or greater expectations than Tesla was.
I have no problem with that.
However, that fact cannot be overlooked.

It is the reason that, IMHO, Lucid and Rivian are much further along in development than Tesla was during its first five years of existence.
The expectations are greater.
This has been acknowledged during various forum discussions.
It is competition and expectations that present challenges to Lucid and Rivian, that Tesla didn't face.
Tesla faced consumer/industry expectations, but expectations aren't as threatening as competition.

The reviewer acknowledged that Tesla's FSD and Rivian ADAS improved over time, but that Lucid improved "too little".
Lucid oversold the upcoming features to the reviewer four months ago at the Gravity event he referenced.
Those oversold features could exist in the next OTA.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have called Lucid out for the advertised features, but he could have at least acknowledged that Lucid is still improving.
Sort of like he did in the quality control chapter when he talked about the OTAs he had received.
And yet, he did acknowledge that Lucid was better than what he had driven two years ago.

Competition is good for the consumer unless you can chase that competition away with tariffs.
Even then, the indirect competition of China from a global perspective should eventually impact the US consumer.
I sure hope so.
That's another thread somewhere.

 

[HC_79]

Lucid improved "too little". Lucid oversold the upcoming features to the reviewer four months ago at the Gravity event he referenced. Those oversold features could exist in the next OTA. I'm not saying he shouldn't have called Lucid out for the advertised features, but he could have at least acknowledged that Lucid is still improving.

They absolutely deserved to be called out on it because they shoved it in everyone's face in the lead up to launch. Even more so when they pre-load the teaser video in every Gravity they sell plus make a point of showing it when doing test drives \ demo's. I have no reason to believe those features are coming any time soon, why? Because Lucid isn't talking about them at all, not even with a "soon".

At what point does it become misleading marketing?

 

[Takeshi]

I don't like how he was biased towards the Model X for the entire review. In the first few minutes he touted like the dream has 1080, but for us common folks we can only afford "828" horsepower like it's nothing. He then goes and pompously says the Tesla Model X is standard with 1020 horsepower. I am wondering on what world he's getting his info from Tesla-Topia or Elon-Pedia?

By his standards of testing the Gravity should have won on all regards, from driving, space, road tripping, and value by folds seeing how many costco boxes fit in that cargo space.

 

[msaunders9430]

They absolutely deserved to be called out on it because they shoved it in everyone's face in the lead up to launch. Even more so when they pre-load the teaser video in every Gravity they sell plus make a point of showing it when doing test drives \ demo's. I have no reason to believe those features are coming any time soon, why? Because Lucid isn't talking about them at all, not even with a "soon".

At what point does it become misleading marketing?

That's marketing.
Upcoming features without a definite date of availability.

Tesla did the same; features that still haven't made it to the consumer.
Doesn't make it right, but Lucid isn't the first.

As one forum member said, don't buy based on manufacturers promises of what's to come, buy based on what exists at time of purchase.
Personal choices.

Misleading has to be proven as an intent.

 

[msaunders9430]

I don't like how he was biased towards the Model X for the entire review. In the first few minutes he touted like the dream has 1080, but for us common folks we can only afford "828" horsepower like it's nothing. He then goes and pompously says the Tesla Model X is standard with 1020 horsepower. I am wondering on what world he's getting his info from Tesla-Topia or Elon-Pedia?

By his standards of testing the Gravity should have won on all regards, from driving, space, road tripping, and value by folds seeing how many costco boxes fit in that cargo space.

Well he owns a Tesla, so to me that explains the bias; intended or not.

 

[Ughwhy]

They absolutely deserved to be called out on it because they shoved it in everyone's face in the lead up to launch. Even more so when they pre-load the teaser video in every Gravity they sell plus make a point of showing it when doing test drives \ demo's. I have no reason to believe those features are coming any time soon, why? Because Lucid isn't talking about them at all, not even with a "soon".

At what point does it become misleading marketing?

What is the "it" you are talking about? Which feature did they shove in everyone's face that's not available. Legit question, not trying to be argumentative.

 

[HC_79]

What is the "it" you are talking about? Which feature did they shove in everyone's face that's not available. Legit question, not trying to be argumentative.

There’s a demo video that’s pre loaded in the car. It shows the AR HUD, Camp Mode, Streaming of movie, tv content etc. none of which is available nor has Lucid given any indication on when it will be available.

The way the video plays though you’d think it’s all available in the car today.

 

[allenmhc]

That's marketing.
Upcoming features without a definite date of availability.

Tesla did the same; features that still haven't made it to the consumer.
Doesn't make it right, but Lucid isn't the first.

As one forum member said, don't buy based on manufacturers promises of what's to come, buy based on what exists at time of purchase.
Personal choices.

Misleading has to be proven as an intent.

For better or worse, Tesla's success has set up the playbook for how EV startups can survive that initial, extremely challenging ramp to mass production:

• Start with a luxury vehicle to establish an R&D arm, focus on something on the high-end that differentiates the vehicle/brand
• Move down-market to mass-market vehicles, taking the learnings from the luxury cars and using cheaper replacements, lower-cost techniques, etc. efficiencies that come from mass manufacturing
• Showcase future features, which may exist as proof of concepts or demos but have not been hardened with real-world usage to be truly viable for months/years, and potentially require hardware/processor upgrades to fully realize

This is not just Lucid; it's also Rivian, Polestar, the EV lineup for Volvo, etc. The problem is that if everyone else is showing future features but you just stick w/ what you have in the moment, you look really deficient compared to the competition, but if you wait until everything is ready, your time to market suffers even more.

 

[RandomDesign]

I guess I see his point though. Lucid has a bad habit of advertising features with either no or very little information that they're not available yet. Yes the information is out there but

I'm not asking for Lucid to be excused for short comings. I am saying that the presenter himself commented on how much better Rivian ADAS and Tesla FSD got over time. Then he compared it to Dream Drive today. That just doesn't sit right to me. Of course it is not in its refined state yet. I think it's great that Lucid can be compared to the modern versions, but at the same time, they need time to cook. If at 1 or 2 years, Dream Drive hasn't improved or made gains on the other systems, yes, I think it's very fair to compare and knock them for it. That's all I'm really saying. Lucid made a really good go for a year one product but the competition has a huge head start and very well should be ahead.

See the problem with this is (and I don't think this scenario is going to happen but it IS a possibility) what if Lucid's ADAS doesn't improve that much over time ? I think it's fair to point out that Rivian and Tesla improved without having to say Lucid will too because there's no way to truthfully predict that it will happen and the person who's making the statement would be wrong to promise it.

 

[msaunders9430]

I guess I see his point though. Lucid has a bad habit of advertising features with either no or very little information that they're not available yet. Yes the information is out there but

See the problem with this is (and I don't think this scenario is going to happen but it IS a possibility) what if Lucid's ADAS doesn't improve that much over time ? I think it's fair to point out that Rivian and Tesla improved without having to say Lucid will too because there's no way to truthfully predict that it will happen and the person who's making the statement would be wrong to promise it.

I don't think a truthful prediction or promise is needed.
However, a statement alluding to the possibility of improvements with ADAS is possible.
That's basically what he did during the quality control chapter when he was addressing the error messages.

Perhaps he sees the OTAs needed to address error messages potentially related to software as easier challenges for Lucid to address than the work needed on the features that utliize the lasers and sensors he mentions.

Perhaps is easier to talk about the improvements with the error messages because he's seen the OTAs; evidence provided.
However, evidence of closing the Tesla software gap to his satisfaction is lacking in his opinion.
Therefore, he doesn't suggest the possiblity of improvements.