Speculation Gravity Features

[Tesla2.0]

Weren't launch editions capped too? I remember them being sold out when I first placed my order.

Rivian never announced how many Launch Edition they will make. They just keep making until they suddenly cut off. Estimate by people is anywhere between 5,000~10,000.

I reserved a Launch Edition R1S in February 2019. When spring of 2023 came and went without my ever having been contacted by a "Rivian Guide" (despite promises it would happen before Thanksgiving 2022), I canceled my reservation. I wonder if there was a Launch Edition waiting list at that point?

Spring of 2023 would still be delivering Launch Edition. I bought mine from secondary market on Jan 2023, The original buyer placed order Dec 2018 LA Auto Show and got delivery on Dec 2022, so it was 4 years wait.

Then I got called on Aug 2023 to configure, it was Adventure Edition, with some exterior color options gone and exclusive interior color gone, and mostly, no more quad motor as option. I lost my luster and let go my order.

Launch Edition only had difference of exclusive Blue color option, quad motor and many Easter basket badges. To me, quad motor was bigger deal than their in-house performance dual motor.

Agree. I wanted the Air Dream Edition for its extra power. I have always felt the "exclusivity factor" is largely an artificial construct manufactured by marketing departments and seldom real product advances driven by engineers.

One of the things that impressed me early on about Lucid was a conversation I had with Zak Edson, VP of Sales & Service, a year before the Dream entered production. He told me about the unique metallurgy of the Dream Edition rear motor and other engineering features of the car, such as the proprietary chemistry of the Samsung batteries used in its 118-kWh battery pack. He said the Dream Edition originated from a desire by Peter Rawlinson to see just how far they could take the car's platform with a dual-motor configuration from an engineering perspective without having to make cost too much a factor.

Yeah, it was offered in a unique exterior and interior color, but it was also a different car to drive. That is what I'm hoping for the Gravity Dream Edition . . . a difference you feel behind the wheel without going into the extremes of Sapphire territory. And I hope they make them available to all who are willing to pay for them.

They should make them to whoever wanted to pay for them. I originally ordered a Pure, but my desire creeped up to Touring then GT as time goes on and I didn’t want to wait too long. But when I finally said “F it!” Give me DE on Jan 1st, the 520 orders was filled. I got the earliest GT out of production on Mar 2022.

Aside from performance and battery size, I really like Eureka Gold and that special 21” rim.

I hope Gravity DE does put high emphasis on drivetrain performance, but rather focus on luxury of finer cabin materials and premium software. Even Rivian capped R1S at 110mph, I never felt the need to go 100mph. I do appreciate its 0-60 on freeway ramp.

 

[hmp10]

I hope Gravity DE does put high emphasis on drivetrain performance, but rather focus on luxury of finer cabin materials and premium software.

You mean you hope it does not put high emphasis on drivetrain performance?

With real Nappa leather (and premium synthetics), real wood, and the alpaca wood blend likely in the GT, I don't really know what finer cabin materials could go into the Dream unless they went down the path of crystal-faced Swiss clocks, lambs-wool carpets, sterling champagne flutes, and other such frippery we see in some cars. But that would be so far off brand for Lucid's design ethos that I can't really imagine it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "premium software". As the GT will be the top trim level over the long haul for the Gravity (at least until a low-volume Sapphire version comes long) I doubt if the DE will have any additional software features over the GT. It wouldn't make sense to take features out of the long-term production run that were already developed and implemented.

I agree that the Gravity will see little duty above 100 mph, something which I do not even view as safe in any conditions in a 6,000-pound vehicle. However, I do love the extraordinary ability the Dream Air gives one to blast away from stop lights with open road ahead and to punch out of traffic clumps in a nanosecond and would like to see something of that offered in the Gravity Dream.

 

[joec]

I'm not sure what you mean by "premium software". As the GT will be the top trim level over the long haul for the Gravity (at least until a low-volume Sapphire version comes long) I doubt if the DE will have any additional software features over the GT. It wouldn't make sense to take features out of the long-term production run that were already developed and implemented.

Yes. It makes little sense to develop complex special software features only for 500-1000 cars. Unless it's specific to the car's capabilities, like in the case with Sapphire's extra drive modes. Or the GT having massage seat control vs other trims that don't.

The blue color for Sapphire was cosmetic, so not likely very complex.

 

[Tesla2.0]

You mean you hope it does not put high emphasis on drivetrain performance?

It was typo. I mean “I hope it DOES NOT put high emphasis on drivetrain performance.” I rather see it for family outdoor function than being sporty super fast.

With real Nappa leather (and premium synthetics), real wood, and the alpaca wood blend likely in the GT, I don't really know what finer cabin materials could go into the Dream unless they went down the path of crystal-faced Swiss clocks, lambs-wool carpets, sterling champagne flutes, and other such frippery we see in some cars. But that would be so far off brand for Lucid's design ethos that I can't really imagine it.

I mean keep it in same format like Air’s fashion from GT to Touring to Pure to incrementally scale down material grade such as glass roof, alcantara, real wood, etc. etc. Some of Air features can be improved are like AC toggle buttons and volume dial can have more solid material than light plastic or acrylic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "premium software". As the GT will be the top trim level over the long haul for the Gravity (at least until a low-volume Sapphire version comes long) I doubt if the DE will have any additional software features over the GT. It wouldn't make sense to take features out of the long-term production run that were already developed and implemented.

Sanctuary is good added software feature when driver is idle in the car charging or resting. It was what Lucid demo on Launch Day in LA Auto Show. Video streaming app with Bluetooth to headset capability is also very standard nowadays in rear screen such as Mercedes GLE and Tesla Model X. It is almost a MUST feature for road tripping SUV for family. Not asking whole new suite of software for DE, even a little graphical splash screen like they have for Air Sapphire can make DE owners feel exclusive.

I agree that the Gravity will see little duty above 100 mph, something which I do not even view as safe in any conditions in a 6,000-pound vehicle. However, I do love the extraordinary ability the Dream Air gives one to blast away from stop lights with open road ahead and to punch out of traffic clumps in a nanosecond and would like to see something of that offered in the Gravity Dream.

At 6000+ lbs, most tires cannot handle 125+ mph, so it is ok to cap speed like Rivian does at 110mph for 7000lbs R1S. If Lucid can get Gravity down to 6000lbs with better Cd and therefore improve its efficiency, great! I’m honestly not too thrilled on 440+ miles range. It’s not as I’m going to road trip every month. I do want to see more modesty ratio to EPA on mi/kWh like Rivian does. I’m more creature comfort guy.

Air = sports luxury sedan
Gravity = family luxury SUV

 

[hmp10]

Tom Moloughney posted a video yesterday with some interesting interviews of Lucid personnel involved in the Gravity design:

Jenny Ha, the Manager of Exterior Design, answered a couple of questions I had about the design:

Why the relocation of the bright beams to the air intakes? . . . The bright beams were moved down to the air intakes in order to widen the frunk opening. (However, I don't really see why the bright beam modules couldn't have been mounted on the frunk lid in order to keep them aligned with the low beam strips.)

Why no rear window wiper? . . . Although not on the demo units, there will be one mounted up under the roof spoiler.

Derek Jenkins is now saying the Cd will be 0.23 instead of the 0.24 seen in earlier promo materials. He also said the car will automatically drop 40mm (1.57") above 45 mph without mentioning anything about it happening only with an air suspension option. Does this mean the base suspension will be air, with the "Zero Gravity" option being about added functionality, not an air vs. coil/damper setup?

In the comments section of the video, Moloughney said the Gravity will launch with a CCS1 charge port, not a NACS charge port. I wonder why?

 

[Bobby]

Tom Moloughney posted a video yesterday with some interesting interviews of Lucid personnel involved in the Gravity design:

Jenny Ha, the Manager of Exterior Design, answered a couple of questions I had about the design:

Why the relocation of the bright beams to the air intakes? . . . The bright beams were moved down to the air intakes in order to widen the frunk opening. (However, I don't really see why the bright beam modules couldn't have been mounted on the frunk lid in order to keep them aligned with the low beam strips.)

Why no rear window wiper? . . . Although not on the demo units, there will be one mounted up under the roof spoiler.

Derek Jenkins is now saying the Cd will be 0.23 instead of the 0.24 seen in earlier promo materials. He also said the car will automatically drop 40mm (1.57") above 45 mph without mentioning anything about it happening only with an air suspension option. Does this mean the base suspension will be air, with the "Zero Gravity" option being about added functionality, not an air vs. coil/damper setup?

In the comments section of the video, Moloughney said the Gravity will launch with a CCS1 charge port, not a NACS charge port. I wonder why?

-Headlights cannot be on the lid because they legally must be on a fixed panel.
-I believe he is wrong about the connector.

 

[Adnillien]

I have received mixed answers on NACS vs CCS chargeport at launch. The demo unit definitely has a CCS port and that may be why Tom made the comment that it would launch with CCS. A couple of senior people at the LA Auto Show told me that NACS was more likely.

 

[xponents]

I have received mixed answers on NACS vs CCS chargeport at launch. The demo unit definitely has a CCS port and that may be why Tom made the comment that it would launch with CCS. A couple of senior people at the LA Auto Show told me that NACS was more likely.

What I've heard is that all 2025 Lucid models will have NACS, and I would assume that the Gravity would be a 2025 model year car leaving it with NACS.

 

[joec]

What I've heard is that all 2025 Lucid models will have NACS, and I would assume that the Gravity would be a 2025 model year car leaving it with NACS.

This has been my understanding as well. I was told by more than one Lucid employee all 2025 model year Lucid vehicles would have a NACS port.It would make no sense for Lucid to launch Gravity in November or December as a 2024 model.

I think @Bobby is right. Tom saw the CCS port on the current prototype and made an assumption.

 

[hmp10]

This has been my understanding as well. I was told by more than one Lucid employee all 2025 model year Lucid vehicles would have a NACS port.It would make no sense for Lucid to launch Gravity in November or December as a 2024 model.

The auto press is consistently referring to the Gravity as a 2025 model. Since the Air that was released In October 2021 was designated a 2022 model, I'm pretty sure the same will be so with the Gravity.

This has me wondering if there's any commonly-accepted cutoff date for model designations. Going back to at least the 1950's, Detroit revealed its new models in September of each year as next-year models. When Tesla released the Model S Plaid in June 2021, it carried a 2021 model year designation. So . . . is September still kind of it?

(FWIW, J.D. Power says that the model year encoded in the VIN can differ from the manufacture year by up to six months.)

 

[borski]

The auto press is consistently referring to the Gravity as a 2025 model. Since the Air that was released In October 2021 was designated a 2022 model, I'm pretty sure the same will be so with the Gravity.

This has me wondering if there's any commonly-accepted cutoff date for model designations. Going back to at least the 1950's, Detroit revealed its new models in September of each year as next-year models. When Tesla released the Model S Plaid in June 2021, it carried a 2021 model year designation. So . . . is September still kind of it?

(FWIW, J.D. Power says that the model year encoded in the VIN can differ from the manufacture year by up to six months.)

I bought a 2013 Mazda in July 2012.

 

[xponents]

I bought a 2013 Mazda in July 2012.

Yup, most manufacturers do that or at minimum are 1 month before the year starts. Some are really extreme though and do 2025 models in February, for example.

 

[hmp10]

Yup, most manufacturers do that or at minimum are 1 month before the year starts. Some are really extreme though and do 2025 models in February, for example.

Per the ISO 3779-1983 standard created by the Association of Automotive Engineers, I think that would violate the rule that the manufacture date has to be within six months of the model date encoded in the VIN. An automaker may "reveal" a coming new model that early, but they can't actually manufacture it as a next-year model more than six months ahead of the model year.

I bought a 2013 Mazda in July 2012.

That would comport with the 6-month rule.

 

[cabood]

Tom Moloughney posted a video yesterday with some interesting interviews of Lucid personnel involved in the Gravity design:

Jenny Ha, the Manager of Exterior Design, answered a couple of questions I had about the design:

Why the relocation of the bright beams to the air intakes? . . . The bright beams were moved down to the air intakes in order to widen the frunk opening. (However, I don't really see why the bright beam modules couldn't have been mounted on the frunk lid in order to keep them aligned with the low beam strips.)

Why no rear window wiper? . . . Although not on the demo units, there will be one mounted up under the roof spoiler.

Derek Jenkins is now saying the Cd will be 0.23 instead of the 0.24 seen in earlier promo materials. He also said the car will automatically drop 40mm (1.57") above 45 mph without mentioning anything about it happening only with an air suspension option. Does this mean the base suspension will be air, with the "Zero Gravity" option being about added functionality, not an air vs. coil/damper setup?

In the comments section of the video, Moloughney said the Gravity will launch with a CCS1 charge port, not a NACS charge port. I wonder why?

Another interesting video from Tom. I get the impression that the improvements to the Gravity UI are largely hardware dependent. Like having different Apps running on top and bottom screens. The engineer seemed to point more toward the new hardware capabilities than software. Just my takeaway that those new features may not be coming to our legacy Air vehicles.

 

[joec]

Another interesting video from Tom. I get the impression that the improvements to the Gravity UI are largely hardware dependent. Like having different Apps running on top and bottom screens. The engineer seemed to point more toward the new hardware capabilities than software. Just my takeaway that those new features may not be coming to our legacy Air vehicles.

It doesn’t take special hardware to make two different screens display two different things. Linking them up was the harder task.

No doubt, some of the Gravity’s new UX will be hardware dependent. The onboard chips are just faster. And the overall architecture is simpler and more capable. And that may limit what they can do with the Air’s hardware.

The steering wheel buttons are a good example of physical differences that can’t be reconciled. But those mainly fire off functions that can be done elsewhere.

I think a good bit of what we’ve seen so far will in fact make it in some form to the Air. Not all of it. But more than you might imagine.

I was told by the design team that a lot of the new Gravity UX was designed with “how can we also do this on Air?” as a common refrain. That doesn’t mean the software team won’t veto some things because they are just too hard to pull off well. But we’ll see.

Making the screens independent shouldn’t be impossible, though. Unless I’m missing something. And I could very well be.

 

[hmp10]

This article gives some very specific specs for the Gravity Dream Edition, such as a 124kWh battery pack with 122kWh usable, etc. I wonder how good their sources are:

Lucid Gravity Dream Edition :: evkx.net

Lucid Gravity Dream Edition is an all-electric SUV with a EPA range of up to 708 km (440 miles). EVKX.net has all the details.

evkx.net

 

[xponents]

This article gives some very specific specs for the Gravity Dream Edition, such as a 124kWh battery pack with 122kWh usable, etc. I wonder how good their sources are:

Lucid Gravity Dream Edition :: evkx.net

Lucid Gravity Dream Edition is an all-electric SUV with a EPA range of up to 708 km (440 miles). EVKX.net has all the details.

evkx.net

Considering they have a "charging curve" for the Gravity DE, I do not think their sources are good (or even existent). Maybe for released cars, but there is NO way they could get this data without having a car on hand (which there is simply no chance of this early).

 

[hmp10]

Considering they have a "charging curve" for the Gravity DE, I do not think their sources are good (or even existent). Maybe for released cars, but there is NO way they could get this data without having a car on hand (which there is simply no chance of this early).

Yeah, there's definitely something odd here. The article also says that the air suspension option's height adjustment spans from 155mm minimum to 220 mm maximum ground clearance. I've not seen such specific figures mentioned anywhere else. Is this guy (he's a solo operative in Oslo, Norway) just pulling figures out of thin air, or does he have some inside (possibly illicit) source at Lucid?

I searched the EPA and U.S. Patent Office websites to see if Lucid has filed anything about the Gravity charging curve with them but found nothing.

But who invents something as arcane as a charging curve chart for as pointless a purpose as posting it on an obscure website? It's not as if charging curves are going to make or break a vehicle purchasing decision for many buyers.

Just plain weird.

 

[xponents]

Yeah, there's definitely something odd here. The article also says that the air suspension option's height adjustment spans from 155mm minimum to 220 mm maximum ground clearance. I've not seen such specific figures mentioned anywhere else. Is this guy (he's a solo operative in Oslo, Norway) just pulling figures out of thin air, or does he have some inside (possibly illicit) source at Lucid?

I searched the EPA and U.S. Patent Office websites to see if Lucid has filed anything about the Gravity charging curve with them but found nothing.

But who invents something as arcane as a charging curve chart for as pointless a purpose as posting it on an obscure website? It's not as if charging curves are going to make or break a vehicle purchasing decision for many buyers.

Just plain weird.

It looks like the charging curve is the exact same as the one they have on record for the Air, which may have been the result of an assumption that they would be the same (airs curve below):

The air suspension height I am very confused about, as there is no obvious reference for that information. Around 2 inches of travel also seems abnormally low for a SUV (and we have seen Gravity's lowered as well as on max height during promos, it looks way more than 2 inches). I think all information that does not have a reference from the Air is therefore made up, as there is simply no way that the owner could get the information to be this detailed.

 

[hmp10]

It looks like the charging curve is the exact same as the one they have on record for the Air . . .

Look more closely. The curves are shaped a bit differently, especially near fuller states of charge, where the Gravity curve remains linear in its slope and the Air curve flattens noticeably between 70-85%.

The air suspension height I am very confused about, as there is no obvious reference for that information. Around 2 inches of travel also seems abnormally low for a SUV (and we have seen Gravity's lowered as well as on max height during promos, it looks way more than 2 inches).

I think I remember either Derek Jenkins or Erich Bach on some video mentioning that the height adjustment range was near 6 inches, but whoever said it did not give the maximum and minimum ground clearances.

Another specific thing in this article was that the battery pack will be 124kWh with a 2kWh buffer, yielding 122kWh usable. That squares with Peter Rawlinson's comment that the pack will be "around 120kWh". (Naturally Rawlinson would round down, as he was making the point that the Gravity pack would be not much larger than half the size of another unnamed SUV's pack -- er, cough, cough, um, the Escalade.)

Again, this just seems to be a lot of trouble taken to come up with mostly credible-sounding details to create a hoax that has no real point. Lucid's reputation will be neither bolstered nor harmed by any of these claims, most buyers will never come across them, and the few that do probably will not care, as none of it goes to the criteria on which most buyers focus.