Gravity Orders Discussion

[Blue Lectroid]

Remember when Elon posted this..

My point exactly. Never put your company at the mercy of a very wealthy, exceptionally powerful child.

 

[borski]

Tesla does not. SAE does. Tesla developed the technology and has a lead on providing NACS compatible chargers, but that doesn't put them in control of the standard.

You’re talking about a charging port being an open standard. You are correct that it is a de jure open standard defined by SAE.

Others are talking about Tesla de facto owning NACS, due to the fact that they control the vast, vast majority of NACS chargers in North America.

What you say is technically true, but irrelevant because Tesla definitely owns >90% of the NACS chargers out there, if not more. One day that may not be true, but today it is, giving Tesla de facto control.

You’re both right.

 

[hmp10]

If the delay is from not having access to the SC network yet, I'd say that it's the fault of all the people clamoring for NACS to be a standard port and letting 1 company have all the control over that charging network. So if that's the reason, it makes perfect sense, otherwise, the flip side would be, why Lucid was stupid for not switching to NACS and keeping CCS ports on the Gravity. I remember plenty of people applauding Lucid for switching to NACS on the Gravity without realizing how much delay it would cause in the deliveries of the vehicles. If it's true that SC access will be granted by February, that's already a win because wasn't access originally slated for later 2025?

I was one of the people who got frustrated that Rawlinson seemed to be dragging his feet in adapting the NACS standard. However, that was only because the major automakers had already announced their plans to switch, and I was worried that Lucid, which was already struggling with sales, would look like even more of an outlier to potential buyers as the conviction was taking hold that the rest of the EV industry was moving to the NACS standard. Lucid was in no position to solider on alone as the NACS standard spread.

That said, my thinking then and now is in line with @Blue Lectroid's. It was a form of mass insanity for the larger EV community so willingly to line up behind a standard driven by the unstable and predatory likes of Elon Musk. However, given the morass of ongoing problems plaguing the CCS suppliers -- particularly the one with which Lucid had so closely associated itself early on -- it unfortunately put the ball in Tesla's court.

 

[Adnillien]

Moving to a single charge standard is good for the EV industry in the long run but 2025 may be a rough year for everyone. Starting Gravity with NACS is a lot easier than switching later from a parts, supply and software point of view. Doing it now makes sense for Lucid. As the existing CCS charge networks convert to NACS this year, charging will get easier for Gravity but create a whole new problem at EA sites where half of the chargers are NACS and half are CCS. Both Air and Gravity owners will need an adapter.

 

[Knucklehead]

I was one of the people who got frustrated that Rawlinson seemed to be dragging his feet in adapting the NACS standard. However, that was only because the major automakers had already announced their plans to switch, and I was worried that Lucid, which was already struggling with sales, would look like even more of an outlier to potential buyers as the conviction was taking hold that the rest of the EV industry was moving to the NACS standard. Lucid was in no position to solider on alone as the NACS standard spread.

That said, my thinking then and now is in line with @Blue Lectroid's. It was a form of mass insanity for the larger EV community so willingly to line up behind a standard driven by the unstable and predatory likes of Elon Musk. However, given the morass of ongoing problems plaguing the CCS suppliers -- particularly the one with which Lucid had so closely associated itself early on -- it unfortunately put the ball in Tesla's court.

Native NACs is one of the reasons I am seriously considering a Gravity.

I really don't understand the hatred for the man leading the company who has the best EV charging network, especially after all he has done for the EV industry. Personally, I really admire what he has built, and I have had nothing but positive experiences charging my Mach-e at a SC station. It is sooo much better than EA and the others. My list of bad EA experiences is pretty long, and the primary reason my wife refuses to consider getting an electric vehicle.

 

[hmp10]

Native NACs is one of the reasons I am seriously considering a Gravity.

I really don't understand the hatred for the man leading the company who has the best EV charging network, especially after all he has done for the EV industry. Personally, I really admire what he has built, and I have had nothing but positive experiences charging my Mach-e at a SC station. It is sooo much better than EA and the others. My list of bad EA experiences is pretty long, and the primary reason my wife refuses to consider getting an electric vehicle.

For good reason we are not supposed to get into debates about Elon Musk on this forum, so I will forego details. Suffice it to say that I have owned Teslas for nine years and still have one. But Tesla, a company I once admired, is now a very different company from what it was even a few years ago, whether it be on the service front, the sales practices front, or the communications front.

 

[hydbob]

Native NACs is one of the reasons I am seriously considering a Gravity.

I really don't understand the hatred for the man leading the company who has the best EV charging network, especially after all he has done for the EV industry. Personally, I really admire what he has built, and I have had nothing but positive experiences charging my Mach-e at a SC station. It is sooo much better than EA and the others. My list of bad EA experiences is pretty long, and the primary reason my wife refuses to consider getting an electric vehicle.

The Cosby show was awesome but doesn't mean Bill Cosby is a great person.

 

[HC_79]

Can we get back on topic. NACS / Elon hatred can be discussed in the NACS Supercharger thread.

 

[Knucklehead]

Can we get back on topic. NACS / Elon hatred can be discussed in the NACS Supercharger thread.

It seems Musk hatred pops up everywhere...

 

[flarbear]

You’re talking about a charging port being an open standard. You are correct that it is a de jure open standard defined by SAE.

Others are talking about Tesla de facto owning NACS, due to the fact that they control the vast, vast majority of NACS chargers in North America.

What you say is technically true, but irrelevant because Tesla definitely owns >90% of the NACS chargers out there, if not more. One day that may not be true, but today it is, giving Tesla de facto control.

You’re both right.

Tesla having an extensive charging network does not give it "de facto" or any other type of control over NACS. They can now either choose to follow the standard or lose out on the ability for their cars to charge on the rest of the network and their ability to receive revenue from the cars made by other manufacturers.

If Tesla charted a new direction without going through the standards body/practice, the rest of the industry would not follow. There is too much momentum in creating non-proprietary networks to just let one company yank its chain. It was worth it once to greatly expand the potential network quickly by gaining access to the Tesla chargers, that same "carrot" will not work again if it is swapped for a cucumber. ("Fool me once, etc. etc.")

Tesla is bound quite a bit more by the fact that NACS has external standardization than other cars are bound by Tesla having the head start on the deployment of chargers compatible with the standard.

Also consider:

• Tesla was going to eventually lose the charging network war. If they continued with proprietary connectors then they'd eventually have to bow to the dominance of CCS. At that point they'd have to switch connectors for their cars and stations while having millions of cars on the road that are deprecated.
• Tesla was not going to receive subsidies for building out their network unless they were installing chargers that met a public standard. If they go their own way, they lose out on any future subsidies. If they back off on the compatibility for the existing stations they will likely have to return any subsidies they used.
• It is a fast path to start getting revenue from vehicles from other manufacturers. The alternative was their "magic dock" which was slow to roll out and not nearly as much of a win as convincing the rest of the industry to use a system they were already compatible with. They're not going to leave that revenue on the ground.

 

[joec]

Tesla having an extensive charging network does not give it "de facto" or any other type of control over NACS. They can now either choose to follow the standard or lose out on the ability for their cars to charge on the rest of the network and their ability to receive revenue from the cars made by other manufacturers.

If Tesla charted a new direction without going through the standards body/practice, the rest of the industry would not follow. There is too much momentum in creating non-proprietary networks to just let one company yank its chain. It was worth it once to greatly expand the potential network quickly by gaining access to the Tesla chargers, that same "carrot" will not work again if it is swapped for a cucumber. ("Fool me once, etc. etc.")

Tesla is bound quite a bit more by the fact that NACS has external standardization than other cars are bound by Tesla having the head start on the deployment of chargers compatible with the standard.

Also consider:

• Tesla was going to eventually lose the charging network war. If they continued with proprietary connectors then they'd eventually have to bow to the dominance of CCS. At that point they'd have to switch connectors for their cars and stations while having millions of cars on the road that are deprecated.
• Tesla was not going to receive subsidies for building out their network unless they were installing chargers that met a public standard. If they go their own way, they lose out on any future subsidies. If they back off on the compatibility for the existing stations they will likely have to return any subsidies they used.
• It is a fast path to start getting revenue from vehicles from other manufacturers. The alternative was their "magic dock" which was slow to roll out and not nearly as much of a win as convincing the rest of the industry to use a system they were already compatible with. They're not going to leave that revenue on the ground.

Seriously. Let’s get back on topic.

This isn’t a Tesla fan site.

Any further discussion that is off topic will be removed.

 

[HC_79]

How are you so certain of that? They delivered 9 cars. Perhaps these were delivered specifically to customers who KNEW that the licensing was not yet done with Tesla and so they’d need to deal with that (perhaps through Level 2 home chargers) until licensing is complete in relatively short order?

I was informed that all of the Gravities were delivered with J1772 and CCS adapters

 

[Murcie]

I’m curious if anyone knows or heard if any of the Gravity options packages would be upgradable post-delivery. I know some are impossible to be retrofitted like the dynamic handling package, but something like the towing package for example should be doable, maybe the sounds system too?
It’ll obviously be more expensive than including it during the production stage, but I think it’ll be useful to know ahead of time if options are locked forever or can be added at a later time for a higher price.

 

[037]

I’m curious if anyone knows or heard if any of the Gravity options packages would be upgradable post-delivery. I know some are impossible to be retrofitted like the dynamic handling package, but something like the towing package for example should be doable, maybe the sounds system too?
It’ll obviously be more expensive than including it during the production stage, but I think it’ll be useful to know ahead of time if options are locked forever or can be added at a later time for a higher price.

Assume they can’t. They are already doing their best building, retrofitting would take much longer.

0 chance.

 

[Tesla2Lucid]

Screen shot from a Reddit post.
Looks like all of them are Aurora greens. They look beautiful

@AZAirGT congrats! Which one in the picture are you?

 

[Tesla2Lucid]

Hydbob is right. Everyone got the speedforms but nobody knew in advance.
The whole event was very well executed and had kind of a shroud of secrecy.
We're asked not to do certain things, which someone already violated on Reddit.

@EVCar so are you also one of the 12/27/24 deliveries? Congrats 2u2 if u r

 

[Amster]

It seems like either no one on this board took one of the nine deliveries - or - if they did, they are not supposed to comment or post pictures online yet. I don't know what the holdup would be for, since the event is already over and even Lucid posted a video.

 

[EVCar]

@EVCar so are you also one of the 12/27/24 deliveries? Congrats 2u2 if u r

No, I wish.
Just a witness to the celebration.

 

[tonykerf1]

I just revised my order from titanium to quantum grey, I currently have quantum air but will return it. I also took off the three chamber air suspension option, any one can confirm the single chamber still allows car to ride high or low? If it still does that I can go without the three chamber. Also I was a tiny bit disappointed to see the range drop to 380miles once I did the seven seat and the 21/22 rims

 

[Murcie]

I asked my sales advisor on the 20/21's and those wheels should also shift with the stealth/platinum selection. It appears to be an error in the configurator.

It’s been a month now and the configurator is still showing black 20/21 wheels with the platinum trim selection. Has it been confirmed that it’s supposed to shift to silver wheels?