Gravity; SUV or Minivan

[msaunders9430]

This thread is what is ridiculous. Each potential buyer will evaluate the car based on his or her own viewpoint and priorities. Someone will find the appearance to be exactly what they wanted, others will not. Someone will think it looks like an SUV, others will compare it to a minivan. So what?

Preach!!!

 

[McGriddle]

I think this is a good observation.

I am afraid to say this, because I don't like it, but the comparison with the Sienna is closer than the comparison with the Aviator. I think it is what you pointed out with the front of the vehicle, but also the height of the rear bumper over the ground. A SUV has higher clearance in the front and rear, and there is too much overhang on the front, and the rear is too close to the ground. Hmm.

I still want one.

View attachment 25296
View attachment 25299

Two me, the difference really comes down to the visual heft of the wheels and the wheel arches. I'm not sure why, but the picture in the post above ion the white Gravity looks like the wheels are small (enough.g., more "minivan"-ish.

However, in the image below (not my photo), the wheels look simply bigger, perhaps a combination of the wheel size and perhaps the air suspension being higher? To me, the below looks much more "SUV"-ish. Also, the perspective (angle of view?) also makes the overhangs appear shorter.

When I saw the same Gravity in person at my local SC, it didn't seem like a minivan at all to me.

 

[joec]

The Rivian has the higher ground clearance.
The Tesla has the sloped roof.
Therefore both defy the minivan look.

Gravity is defying gravity. Kidding
Gravity is defying the typical SUV form factors (mentioned is these most recent posts with the Navigator comparison) for the sake of function ( 3rd row headroom).

The Tesla looks like an egg. It most certainly does not look anything like what most people consider as an SUV. And that's fine. But there's just no other SUV that remotely looks like that. Other than it's little brother, Model Y.

I find both hideous. But that's my opinion. Shouldn't matter at all to the people who like them.

And as @hmp10 pointed out, despite X being so un-SUV like, there was zero discussion of whether X was a "true" SUV when it was announced or any time after. This whole conversation is frankly silly.

If you like the look of Gravity, buy it. If you don't, then don't. (You meaning people in general. Not anyone specific in this thread.)

Everything else is just excuse-making.

The bottom line is Gravity is better than most EV SUVs at being what people actually need in a large SUV: Cargo / passenger space, and range.

The vast majority of SUV owners never drive on anything even resembling a dirt road. For the five people who actually do hard-core off-roading, buy a Range Rover. Otherwise, Gravity is going to be a better choice than 99% of what's out there.

And it drives like the dickens.

Who gives a crap about anything else?

 

[msaunders9430]

This thread is what is ridiculous. Each potential buyer will evaluate the car based on his or her own viewpoint and priorities. Someone will find the appearance to be exactly what they wanted, others will not. Someone will think it looks like an SUV, others will compare it to a minivan. So what?

I couldn't agree more about potential buyers.

The thread may seem ridiculous to you, but my original intent when starting this thread was to provide information for undecided potential buyers (as you referenced) conflicted by this debate.

The debate is happening others places; ridiculous or not.

It's more of an informational record for potential buyers, especially those who may come to this forum after deliveries start. Meeting the needs of forum customers.

 

[Batteryman]

So, then, this is a minivan?

View attachment 25301



And this, too, is a minivan then?

View attachment 25300

Honestly, you're just inventing whatever "standards" suit you to bolster your argument that the Gravity is a minivan.

There's not a single characteristic I have seen anyone claim in this discussion to categorically define a minivan or an SUV that I cannot find an example of its presence in a vehicle of the other category.

Lucid chooses to call the Gravity an SUV, just as Tesla chooses to call the Model X an SUV and Rivian chooses to call the R1S an SUV. Why are Tesla's and Rivian's categorizations almost universally accepted but Lucid's is being picked apart using cherry-picked standards every way from Sunday?

Rawlinson said the Gravity is aimed at an addressable market six times that of luxury sedans. He didn't mean the minivan market. If he's wrong and the notion that the Gravity is a minivan takes hold among a public largely (and absurdly) averse to minivans, he really landed in the wrong market for what the Gravity needs to do for Lucid.

You can say that the Gravity will set new standards for what a minivan can be and will change the public's mind, and the issue will evaporate. Well, the Air set new standards for what a luxury sports sedan could be . . . and its sales numbers have been a chronic disappointment.

Minivan has sliding doors- end of discussion.

 

[Bobby]

Minivan has sliding doors- end of discussion.

Agree. It is absolutely not a minivan. That said, many people feel it looks like one.

 

[Pragmatic]

First gen Odyssey did not gave sliding doors, so that's an SUV?

 

[DrLucid]

Agree. It is absolutely not a minivan. That said, many people feel it looks like one.

Many is a relative statement. Possibly many might mean the people we are surrounded my or what we choosing to validate. That doesn’t validate it to be the truth.

 

[Pragmatic]

OK maybe not many but a non-insignificant number.

 

[DrLucid]

What’s the number?

 

[DrLucid]

Devil is in the details. That’s the philosophy I believe in.
It might be insignificant but what’s that insignificant number?

 

[borski]

Devil is in the details. That’s the philosophy I believe in.
It might be insignificant but what’s that insignificant number?

How many significant digits does it take before it becomes insignificant?

 

[DrLucid]

That’s Upto the statements made,to make it look significant

 

[Blue Lectroid]

I think the Gravity looks a lot like the Aviator. So, is anyone saying the Aviator is a minivan? Not that I know of.

So why is it an issue with Gravity? Is it because the roof is flatter?

If that's a "minivan," sign me the F*%^& up! It looks absolutely BADASS. Can we all agree and just call it a BEV -- Badass Electric Vehicle? I mean really, the amount of time energy and keystrokes we have all spent (myself included) discussing whether this is a minivan or an SUV? It seems really immaterial in the grand scheme of things (and yet I myself felt compelled to chime in on the topic...again, LOL)...

 

[Knucklehead]

Two me, the difference really comes down to the visual heft of the wheels and the wheel arches. I'm not sure why, but the picture in the post above ion the white Gravity looks like the wheels are small (enough.g., more "minivan"-ish.

However, in the image below (not my photo), the wheels look simply bigger, perhaps a combination of the wheel size and perhaps the air suspension being higher? To me, the below looks much more "SUV"-ish. Also, the perspective (angle of view?) also makes the overhangs appear shorter.

When I saw the same Gravity in person at my local SC, it didn't seem like a minivan at all to me.

View attachment 25313

I totally agree that the wheels make a huge difference. The wheels on the photo I posted are the base wheels, and the ones that will give the longest range (i.e. 450 miles). I would much rather have the big ass wheels, but range will be impacted, especially on the highway.

Maybe if the highway range ends up being better than expected, I could put those on. But I have a feeling the range will be impacted by 10-15%, and that isn't going to work - for me anyway., One of the big reasons I am interested in the Gravity is range.

I think if you black out the roof (not just gray, but black) with some vinyl or PPF, it will make it look even less like a minivan. I will probably do that if I get a Gravity.

As I was getting ready to post this, I realized that picture above is not just different because of the wheels. Look at the front. Why is the image on the ordering page so much different than what is shown above? Is it because that is a prototype, and the production version has a longer overhang in the front? The one on the right looks a lot better, IMO.

Here is an image from the Gravity page:

The green one must be a prototype, and not an accurate representation of production.

 

[hmp10]

When I saw the same Gravity in person at my local SC, it didn't seem like a minivan at all to me.

Exactly.

I've been driving minivans since 2011, and I've seen the Gravity three times in person and sat in it on one of those viewings. The first thing I said as I approached it for the first time was that it reminded me of a bullet train. I have never said that about any minivan I've ever seen. (And I was caught off guard when, a couple of weeks later, I heard Derek Jenkins say in an interview that bullet trains had been one of the design inspirations of the Gravity . . . and airplanes as well, another element I saw in the design.)

I know some of the posters on this topic have seen the Gravity in person, but I wonder how many of those with such strong opinions about it's being a minivan have actually seen it in person. The Gravity is one of those objects that are very difficult to capture well in a photograph.

(Jeez, I've got to get a wired keyboard. I'm going through way too many batteries on this one.)

 

[msaunders9430]

Minivan has sliding doors- end of discussion.

Works for me.

 

[msaunders9430]

First gen Odyssey did not gave sliding doors, so that's an SUV?

You just had to throw that in there, huh?

 

[hmp10]

View attachment 25317

I mean really, the amount of time energy and keystrokes we have all spent (myself included) discussing whether this is a minivan or an SUV?

That's my point. Everything from Range Rovers and Rivian R1S's to Model X's -- and some things well beyond -- have been called SUV's by their manufacturers with nary a challenge raised. The bulbous Porsche Cayenne passed unchallenged as an SUV. The stately (and hideous) Rolls Royce Cullinan passed unchallenged as an SUV. The Lamborghini Urus that will never be seen on a rocky cowpath or hauling livestock feed passed unchallenged as an SUV.

Yet, boy, let Lucid try to get by with calling the Gravity an SUV and it's "Katie, bar the door!"

Frankly, some of this discussion just strikes me as another chapter in the continuing saga of "Lucid is a dumpster fire (Musk)", "Lucid is going bankrupt", "every car costs Lucid $300K, $400K, $500K to make" . . . .

 

[Batteryman]

That's my point. Everything from Range Rovers and Rivian R1S's to Model X's -- and some things well beyond -- have been called SUV's by their manufacturers with nary a challenge raised. The bulbous Porsche Cayenne passed unchallenged as an SUV. The stately (and hideous) Rolls Royce Cullinan passed unchallenged as an SUV. The Lamborghini Urus that will never be seen on a rocky cowpath or hauling livestock feed passed unchallenged as an SUV.

Yet, boy, let Lucid try to get by with calling the Gravity an SUV and it's "Katie, bar the door!"

Frankly, some of this discussion just strikes me as another chapter in the continuing saga of "Lucid is a dumpster fire (Musk)", "Lucid is going bankrupt", "every car costs Lucid $300K, $400K, $500K to make" . . . .

I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla fanboys are spreading this rumor.