Gravity; SUV or Minivan

[Haggy]

The whole SUV/minivan debate is pointless, because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's a crossover. In terms of form factor, it's closer in appearance to the original station wagons (that took people and luggage to and from train stations) than what people think of as station wagons today. And I don't mean that in a negative way. Station wagons had their uses, but developed a reputation as a mom's car, as if there was anything wrong with that. Iacocca came up with a different twist, taking the macho image of a van, reducing the size, and giving the world a more practical vehicle that wasn't a station wagon, but was functionally better. But over time, it became the soccer mom's car, which again took on a stigma for no good reason. Then people shifted to SUVs even though they didn't need SUVs, and as a result they had something good for off road use with a truck chassis even if the closest they got to off road was parking in a gravel overflow lot at the state fair.

Given the lack of a drive shaft down the middle, the suspension issue comes down to how comfortable it's going to be, not whether it's truly like a traditional SUV. Those were largely replaced by crossover vehicles anyway, whether companies wanted to call them that or not. The Gravity gives a more ideal version, with the features of an SUV that most people actually want, but with features more traditionally found in minivans such as stow away seats. It doesn't matter much what you want to call it. Lucid calls it an SUV, and if it bothers you that from some angles it looks like a minivan, I suggest that you reconsider whether any vehicle should have a stigma in the first place. These days, minivans, SUVs and crossovers are all modern takes on station wagons, whether people want to call them that or not.

I've read criticism about the Gravity supposedly being a minivan, but I never see anybody saying what features they dislike about it because of that.

 

[msaunders9430]

Agree completely. Either you like the look or you don't, no matter what you call it.

I've read some say the rear opening is too large. Better too large than no large enough.

I've read some say they want a sliding rear door since it looks like a minivan. The lack of that feature, might suggest it's not intended to be the traditional minivan.

Believe it or not, there may be some who like the look, but won't buy because it reminds them of a minivan. Their choice.

There are some who love the Tesla and EQS models. They look like bubbles to me. Who cares!?

But what you like. After all you're paying for it!

 

[Haggy]

Agree completely. Either you like the look or you don't, no matter what you call it.

I've read some say the rear opening is too large. Better too large than no large enough.

I've read some say they want a sliding rear door since it looks like a minivan. The lack of that feature, might suggest it's not intended to be the traditional minivan.

Believe it or not, there may be some who like the look, but won't buy because it reminds them of a minivan. Their choice.

There are some who love the Tesla and EQS models. They look like bubbles to me. Who cares!?

But what you like. After all you're paying for it!

Sliding doors can be convenient because it's not practical to have an opening that big with no door in the way when a door swings out. In real life, I rarely found it to be an issue, but if Lucid had the equivalent of Tesla's basic summon, which does nothing more than move a supervised car back and forth, it would take care of tight parking spaces or garages that lack sufficient room to get in and out of a car comfortably.

Kia got around the issue by creating what's essentially an SUV with a sliding door, but calling it minivan, for those who actually want something called a minivan. If sliding doors are the remaining distinction, I suppose that rules out the Gravity being called a minivan.

Many of us are old enough to remember the days when you could buy a particular model of car and get a four door configuration, a two door configuration, a station wagon version, etc. Later on, you could even get different versions of the same so-called model, such as a Celica vs a Celica Supra before Toyota decided that they were different models. Back then, something like the Model Y would have been called a Model 3XL or something like that, rather than a different car. Had the concept of a minivan existed back in the 1960s, and had SUVs been common, I don't doubt that there would have been versions of the same vehicle with and without sliding doors, and with no need to call it a different type of vehicle. But these days, if adding a sliding door adds convenience but gives the vehicle a stigma, it's not going to happen. A company could do what Tesla did with gull wing doors, giving the advantage of a big opening with no door in the way, and not having something called a minivan. Calling it an SUV when it had a rounded shape not reminiscent of SUVs was another story, but since there were no other vehicles designed like that, it wasn't a case of "it's not this, it's that." The Model X was called an SUV because Tesla decided to call it that, and the Gravity is called an SUV because Lucid calls it that, but it's really a vehicle that's not quite like what anybody else is making.

 

[msaunders9430]

Imagine what a two-door Gravity might look like!

I think it would sell.
The Atlas is sort of a shorter Gravity, but a different model, still with four doors. Kinda what you were saying Toyota did with different models instead of different versions.

Imagine a two-door Air! Air with a hatch!
I think that would sell as well.

Perhaps two-door versions of cars take more time and cost more than different models.

 

[Haggy]

Imagine what a two-door Gravity might look like!

I think it would sell.
The Atlas is sort of a shorter Gravity, but a different model, still with four doors. Kinda what you were saying Toyota did with different models instead of different versions.

Imagine a two-door Air! Air with a hatch!
I think that would sell as well.

Perhaps two-door versions of cars take more time and cost more than different models.

Back in the days when assembly line workers built a chassis and then bolted on panels such as fenders, the cost considerations were different. I don't know to what extent any given component was hand welded or bolted, but with robotics everything changes.

Aside from the roof, there are no substantial exterior differences from one Air to another. Interiors are a package deal and have the same form factor, so aside from the wiring harness and minor footwell changes for carpet, a given interior is pretty much going to be the same size components across vehicles.

I wouldn't even begin to be able to figure out the effects on cost to be able to offer more choices in bodies for a given car, but given that some companies drop color choices to increase throughput, I don't think that they would find it economically viable to give more choices.

 

[joec]

The whole SUV/minivan debate is pointless, because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's a crossover. In terms of form factor, it's closer in appearance to the original station wagons (that took people and luggage to and from train stations) than what people think of as station wagons today. And I don't mean that in a negative way. Station wagons had their uses, but developed a reputation as a mom's car, as if there was anything wrong with that. Iacocca came up with a different twist, taking the macho image of a van, reducing the size, and giving the world a more practical vehicle that wasn't a station wagon, but was functionally better. But over time, it became the soccer mom's car, which again took on a stigma for no good reason. Then people shifted to SUVs even though they didn't need SUVs, and as a result they had something good for off road use with a truck chassis even if the closest they got to off road was parking in a gravel overflow lot at the state fair.

Given the lack of a drive shaft down the middle, the suspension issue comes down to how comfortable it's going to be, not whether it's truly like a traditional SUV. Those were largely replaced by crossover vehicles anyway, whether companies wanted to call them that or not. The Gravity gives a more ideal version, with the features of an SUV that most people actually want, but with features more traditionally found in minivans such as stow away seats. It doesn't matter much what you want to call it. Lucid calls it an SUV, and if it bothers you that from some angles it looks like a minivan, I suggest that you reconsider whether any vehicle should have a stigma in the first place. These days, minivans, SUVs and crossovers are all modern takes on station wagons, whether people want to call them that or not.

I've read criticism about the Gravity supposedly being a minivan, but I never see anybody saying what features they dislike about it because of that.

Could not agree more. The whole minivan debate is so silly to me. It looks better than any SUV, Truck, Minivan, Thing-that's-not-a-sedan out there to me.

Given how much ugly there is in today's automotive industry, this is a breath of fresh air.

People can make fun of you and call it a "minivan" all they like. You're not going to hear them laughing when they are quickly vanishing in your rear view mirror.

 

[Batteryman]

The reason there was a 1 year delay in releasing the Gravity was this redesign. Instead of using the exact battery configuration of the Air, Peter decided a ground up design. Kudos to Peter for taking this risk and providing us with the best possible EV SUV. If you design a high box, it becomes inefficient, unfortunately , many complainers- " this looks like a minivan " ...don't understand this. A traditional SUV design like the Ioniq 9 would shave 50 miles off the range if you add the increased drag and weight.

I'm hoping Gravity will get 450+ miles when EPA tested, vs the 300 miles with the dual motor Ioniq 9. Also, Ioniq 9 dual motor makes half the Hp of the Gravity.

 

[DreamTour]

Back in the days when assembly line workers built a chassis and then bolted on panels such as fenders, the cost considerations were different. I don't know to what extent any given component was hand welded or bolted, but with robotics everything changes.

Aside from the roof, there are no substantial exterior differences from one Air to another. Interiors are a package deal and have the same form factor, so aside from the wiring harness and minor footwell changes for carpet, a given interior is pretty much going to be the same size components across vehicles.

I wouldn't even begin to be able to figure out the effects on cost to be able to offer more choices in bodies for a given car, but given that some companies drop color choices to increase throughput, I don't think that they would find it economically viable to give more choices.

Production adaptation now is non trivial as you pointed out. Not only is there more automation now but the assembly of evs is different. They are basically built like airplanes. The aluminum is laser cut to size, pressed, glued, fastened, hemmed, baked to get body in white.

To offer different chassis setups basically means a new robotic assembly line that needs to be maintained / tuned.

 

[JB67]

The reason there was a 1 year delay in releasing the Gravity was this redesign. Instead of using the exact battery configuration of the Air, Peter decided a ground up design. Kudos to Peter for taking this risk and providing us with the best possible EV SUV. If you design a high box, it becomes inefficient, unfortunately , many complainers- " this looks like a minivan " ...don't understand this. A traditional SUV design like the Ioniq 9 would shave 50 miles off the range if you add the increased drag and weight.

I'm hoping Gravity will get 450+ miles when EPA tested, vs the 300 miles with the dual motor Ioniq 9. Also, Ioniq 9 dual motor makes half the Hp of the Gravity.

@Batteryman where did you learn that a battery redesign delayed the Gravity? I ask because your statement was the first time I had heard that. (I had understood the battery was different, but not that it delayed things)

And I am completely with you on the mileage.

 

[hydbob]

@Batteryman where did you learn that a battery redesign delayed the Gravity? I ask because your statement was the first time I had heard that. (I had understood the battery was different, but not that it delayed things)

And I am completely with you on the mileage.

It wasn't a battery redesign, it was a chassis redesign.

 

[JB67]

It wasn't a battery redesign, it was a chassis redesign.

Were any more details than that shared? (Like why the redesign was needed?

 

[Bobby]

Were any more details than that shared? (Like why the redesign was needed?

Peter himself said they didn’t want to just simply build a different car with a different shape and different purpose on the same chassis. Since they wanted to maximize every millimeter of space, an entirely new chassis was warranted.

 

[borski]

Peter himself said they didn’t want to just simply build a different car with a different shape and different purpose on the same chassis. Since they wanted to maximize every millimeter of space, an entirely new chassis was warranted.

But they are planning to reuse the chassis for the midsize models, with different motors (Atlas)

 

[DreamTour]

But they are planning to reuse the chassis for the midsize models, with different motors (Atlas)

How do you mean chassis in this case?

Do you mean the undercarriage / drive platform?

The aluminum shell is clearly going to be smaller. I can’t imagine a midsize with gravity’s wheelbase.

 

[hydbob]

But they are planning to reuse the chassis for the midsize models, with different motors (Atlas)

midsize has it's own chassis

 

[borski]

midsize has it's own chassis

Yeah, chassis was the wrong word. Platform would have been more correct.