How is the Press Responding to the opening of Gravity Orders?

[fisheral]

I was not implying that I think Gravity pricing is too high. I don't. What concerned me is that orders opened before there were any test drives by the press that I am confident would have been strongly positive. As it is, there's really nothing for the automotive press to talk about right now other than pricing, and it caught even as seasoned a reviewer as Kyle Conner off balance.

I'm just worried that the absence of much early positive press about the Gravity is going to suppress early ordering at a time when a lot of onlookers are watching to see the level of interest in it. Whether rightly or wrongly, these things get traction in the internet world where many buyers now go to check out automotive prospects and, once the first impressions are out there, they can develop a lot of stickiness.

The total lack of reviews during the unveiling makes me think they are farther behind in the production process than they want to let on. There seem to be a number of test mules floating around. If none of those are press ready, that says something. That is unless they've imposed a continuing embargo on reviews for no reason that I can fathom.

 

[joec]

The total lack of reviews during the unveiling makes me think they are farther behind in the production process than they want to let on. There seem to be a number of test mules floating around. If none of those are press ready, that says something. That is unless they've imposed a continuing embargo on reviews for no reason that I can fathom.

Anything can go wrong in the development cycle of a vehicle. If I had to venture a complete out-of-my-butt guess, I'd say it's possible the software is still being tweaked, and although the car is in great shape physically, perhaps they don't want a whole new line of reviews with "but the software…" in the conclusion.

Total speculation on my part, though. I'm very confident the UX and other improvements on Gravity will be great. But what they announced a year ago, and just listed as launch features, is a tall order for any team. There's every reason to suspect they just want to put some more polish on it before handing it over to YouTubers.

 

[DrZorro]

I agree with the sentiment here that it feels like they are actually slightly behind and trying to mask it. I suspect that the true delay is on the software side, not the hardware side. I don't think they want to risk a similar situation with early reviewers similar to what happened with the Air that basically boiled down to "great car/bad software". I also think they don't want to have reviews coming out with any sort of "pre production software" disclaimer making customers nervous about buying a half-backed vehicle.

The other thing that has me wondering is when they decided to make the switch to NACS out of the gate and if that's potentially causing delays if that was a last minute decision. That also has software and hardware implications. It does seem that most of the early (and even some of the recent prototypes) still had the charging port up front...and while I realize the vehicles sold outside North America will retain the CCS charger up front...the switch to NACS definitely happened after the Gravity was originally designed.

 

[DrZorro]

Anything can go wrong in the development cycle of a vehicle. If I had to venture a complete out-of-my-butt guess, I'd say it's possible the software is still being tweaked, and although the car is in great shape physically, perhaps they don't want a whole new line of reviews with "but the software…" in the conclusion.

Total speculation on my part, though. I'm very confident the UX and other improvements on Gravity will be great. But what they announced a year ago, and just listed as launch features, is a tall order for any team. There's every reason to suspect they just want to put some more polish on it before handing it over to YouTubers.

Lol I think we were typing pretty much the same thoughts at the same time!

 

[HC_79]

The other thing that has me wondering is when they decided to make the switch to NACS out of the gate and if that's potentially causing delays if that was a last minute decision. That also has software and hardware implications. It does seem that most of the early (and even some of the recent prototypes) still had the charging port up front...and while I realize the vehicles sold outside North America will retain the CCS charger up front...the switch to NACS definitely happened after the Gravity was originally designed.

Was on the prototype that was shown in Torrance, August of this year. It was when everyone got confused by comments Peter made and we all thought the car was going to come with CCS and NACS. That got quickly rectified a few days later

 

[Rogue]

Was on the prototype that was shown in Torrance, August of this year. It was when everyone got confused by comments Peter made and we all thought the car was going to come with CCS and NACS. That got quickly rectified a few days later

I guess we get the best of both worlds with an adapter unlike the Air. If they are going to use NACS, then they would likely have accounted for the amp differences (maybe... hopefully). That is a huge selling point if that is the case.

 

[DrZorro]

I guess we get the best of both worlds with an adapter unlike the Air. If they are going to use NACS, then they would likely have accounted for the amp differences (maybe... hopefully). That is a huge selling point if that is the case.

I'm anxiously waiting for the details on this matter amongst others. The lack of detail and specific specs on the website is a little frustrating.

 

[HC_79]

I guess we get the best of both worlds with an adapter unlike the Air. If they are going to use NACS, then they would likely have accounted for the amp differences (maybe... hopefully). That is a huge selling point if that is the case.

I don't think it will be a problem with Gravity

 

[illopp00]

People could easily discern that the GT, priced at $95K, would be a bare-bones model from the changes Lucid made to its Air lineup. While I personally believe Lucid could enhance some base model features, I was genuinely surprised that a fully loaded Gravity came in at a lower price than the Air. Typically, the SUV equivalent is $10K to $15K more expensive, suggesting that Lucid is actively trying to be competitive.

Lucid is targeting a market that prioritizes performance and range above all else, resulting in a trade-off in standard options. I always thought they could improve by offering 300/350 mile versions, including more features as standard, and maintaining comparable pricing to Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and so on. However, this is not their core focus. They have their strategy and are committed to it. You can't really argue that it’s not working, the Air is outperforming its competitors in its segment.

Lucid is also potentially in a precarious position. This is their second model, and they cannot afford to give them away. Adding bells and whistles incurs costs, and when you have substantial cash outlays, it’s a wise strategy to offer more options rather than including them as standard features, as it can generate additional revenue. To be fair, I believe Lucid has learned a great deal from the Air and its pricing structure. People were frustrated by the inability to choose and customize options, but the Gravity now offers a high degree of customization. For instance, the DreamDrive Pro option has significantly reduced in price, and they’ve introduced a middle choice.

While I believe the Gravity should have come with more standard features at that price point, I think $125K loaded is still reasonable when compared to Cadillac IQ, which is significantly more expensive.

I also tried to make an similar MB EQS SUV and AMG GLS and both were well into 125K without half the performance, space and range of the Gravity. Those vehicles have even more fluff options spam.

 

[Bobby]

I'm anxiously waiting for the details on this matter amongst others. The lack of detail and specific specs on the website is a little frustrating.

Dude, it’s been one day.

 

[illopp00]

I'm anxiously waiting for the details on this matter amongst others. The lack of detail and specific specs on the website is a little frustrating.

In the video Eric did with Out of Spec a couple months ago he did say they didn't use Cybertruck style 48V electrics because they didn't need it/had no benefit. The higher energy systems were running on 400V (Air Compressor, Heat Pump), so I believe this will also be used to make the DC fast charging compatible with Tesla Superchargers.

 

[DrZorro]

Dude, it’s been one day.

Well, it's not the length of time...it's more along the lines that I had some expectation they would release all the details for a vehicle scheduled to go into production in a few weeks alongside the preordering configurations and prices. I'm not sure exactly what they are waiting for. If they have all the final specs, I don't really see a reason to not release them....it almost seems like they are trying to suppress initial demand by not releasing all info, having prototypes in studios and test drives as well as journalist reviews. Alternatively, it could leave me to believe it isn't fully baked yet. I guess we'll find out soon!

 

[momo3605]

You’re not wrong, but remember: this is competing with other luxury vehicles, and they are in this price range.

Lucid doesn’t have to, nor does it want to, be cheaper than the competition. It wants to be priced right within them.

They want to win on quality, not price. It isn’t priced like Porsche, even fully loaded.

But it’s also not a Hyundai.

The way you do this is as a new brand…is by coming in with a quality product at a good value. In the 90s, Lexus went viral due to the LS being able to compete with the S class for half the price. Skip to today, and their lineup is right in line with Mercedes, BMW, Audi pricing because they built a big loyal fan base when buying a Lexus was considered value.

I would say the same happened with Rivian. At $73k for the quad motor fully loaded R1, people got super excited and they sold a ton of preorders. Then they bumped prices by 20%, but the reputation had already been cemented, to this day, their sales volume hasn’t dropped as drastically as if they had started at $100k and worked their way down.

I do agree, lucid should not be competing with Hyundai or Toyota or Ford, but they do need to compete with BMW and Audi and Tesla and Rivian if they want to grow volume. Beyond that, sales volume drops hard. $90k for a loaded touring and $105k for a loaded GT would’ve been perfect. Not too cheap, but also not too far beyond the competition.

 

[Batteryman]

The way you do this is as a new brand…is by coming in with a quality product at a good value. In the 90s, Lexus went viral due to the LS being able to compete with the S class for half the price. Skip to today, and their lineup is right in line with Mercedes, BMW, Audi pricing because they built a big loyal fan base when buying a Lexus was considered value.

I would say the same happened with Rivian. At $73k for the quad motor fully loaded R1, people got super excited and they sold a ton of preorders. Then they bumped prices by 20%, but the reputation had already been cemented, to this day, their sales volume hasn’t dropped as drastically as if they had started at $100k and worked their way down.

I do agree, lucid should not be competing with Hyundai or Toyota or Ford, but they do need to compete with BMW and Audi and Tesla and Rivian if they want to grow volume. Beyond that, sales volume drops hard. $90k for a loaded touring and $105k for a loaded GT would’ve been perfect. Not too cheap, but also not too far beyond the competition.

If you depress the sales price, revenue will be bad. Better to start high and see how it goes. Also, I think Saudi Gov will buy a lot of these high priced models. They will sell all of them.

 

[HC_79]

The way you do this is as a new brand…is by coming in with a quality product at a good value. In the 90s, Lexus went viral due to the LS being able to compete with the S class for half the price. Skip to today, and their lineup is right in line with Mercedes, BMW, Audi pricing because they built a big loyal fan base when buying a Lexus was considered value.

I would say the same happened with Rivian. At $73k for the quad motor fully loaded R1, people got super excited and they sold a ton of preorders. Then they bumped prices by 20%, but the reputation had already been cemented, to this day, their sales volume hasn’t dropped as drastically as if they had started at $100k and worked their way down.

I do agree, lucid should not be competing with Hyundai or Toyota or Ford, but they do need to compete with BMW and Audi and Tesla and Rivian if they want to grow volume. Beyond that, sales volume drops hard. $90k for a loaded touring and $105k for a loaded GT would’ve been perfect. Not too cheap, but also not too far beyond the competition.

Given the Air pricing is now structured similarly and is outperforming the competition within its class I think Lucid knows what it’s doing and the Gravity will do just fine.

 

[momo3605]

Given the Air pricing is now structured similarly and is outperforming the competition within its class I think Lucid knows what it’s doing and the Gravity will do just fine.

Yes $500/month leases might have had something to do with that

 

[hmp10]

Well, it's not the length of time...it's more along the lines that I had some expectation they would release all the details for a vehicle scheduled to go into production in a few weeks alongside the preordering configurations and prices. I'm not sure exactly what they are waiting for. If they have all the final specs, I don't really see a reason to not release them . . . .

I agree. It's odd, for instance, to open up an order configurator without final EPA ratings, especially when wheel/tire choices can have a significant impact on range.

I get the impression that there are still some production issues or decisions in the works that Lucid thought would have been settled by now, but they went ahead with the opening of orders before the earnings call in order to maintain confidence in their in their claim of starting production before year end.

Personally, I'm okay with Lucid missing the start of production by year end. It's much more important to get everything right about this SUV. I just worry that there might be a little borrowing from Peter to pay Paul with schedules and hope Lucid manages market communications well in the run up to deliveries.

 

[HC_79]

Yes $500/month leases might have had something to do with that

C‘mon…… Lucid wasn’t the only one doing good leading deals. They all were!

 

[HC_79]

I agree. It's odd, for instance, to open up an order configurator without final EPA ratings, especially when wheel/tire choices can have a significant impact on range.

I get the impression that there are still some production issues or decisions in the works that Lucid thought would have been settled by now, but they went ahead with the opening of orders before the earnings call in order to maintain confidence in their in their claim of starting production before year end.

Personally, I'm okay with Lucid missing the start of production by year end. It's much more important to get everything right about this SUV. I just worry that there might be a little borrowing from Peter to pay Paul with schedules and hope Lucid manages market communications well in the run up to deliveries.

You must be aware that misleading investors is a serious offense for the SEC. If a company is aware of information that could significantly impact the stock price, guidance, revenue, or other relevant factors, it is considered a violation of securities laws.

Lucid has consistently stated that the car will enter production by the end of 2024. Therefore, it is advisable to refrain from creating conspiracy theories and instead trust their statements.

 

[hmp10]

You must be aware that misleading investors is a serious offense for the SEC. If a company is aware of information that could significantly impact the stock price, guidance, revenue, or other relevant factors, it is considered a violation of securities laws.

Lucid has consistently stated that the car will enter production by the end of 2024. Therefore, it is advisable to refrain from creating conspiracy theories and instead trust their statements.

There's no suggestion of a conspiracy here, nor did I say anything about misleading investors. I said I thought Lucid was trying to maintain confidence in their claim of starting production by year end, something that I'm sure Lucid intends to do if at all possible.

My point was that I'm not sure they'll make it but, absent specific fraudulent intent, failing to meet a stated goal is not actionable under securities law. (And yes, as a retired Senior Managing Director of a major hedge fund, I'm aware of securities law.)