Interesting take on Lucid stock

[chucky0731]

Saw this on YouTube….sounds positive despite the recent Q1 numbers:

 

[hmp10]

Lucid keeps finding new headwinds. J.D. Power just put Lucid at the bottom of its "initial quality problems" ranking, and Rawlinson is saying he has doubts about the utility of the proposed NACS charging standard for which GM, Ford, and Rivian have already signed up -- this while Electrify America continues to be a hot mess that, along with other only slightly less-troubled CCS standard bearers, are turning one major auto reviewer after another off to CCS-standard EVs.

I hope that Rawlinson is not letting his (entirely justifiable) dislike of Elon Musk blinker him in confronting reality.

 

[ARamsdale]

It didn't seem that way, to me.

From what I read, he was rejecting NACS until it could provide 1000v charging. Seems like it was more of an anchor point, which I imagine Tesla/NACS will meet at some point in the near future, if for no other reason than to fulfil his demand.

 

[hmp10]

It didn't seem that way, to me.

From what I read, he was rejecting NACS until it could provide 1000v charging. Seems like it was more of an anchor point, which I imagine Tesla/NACS will meet at some point in the near future, if for no other reason than to fulfil his demand.

Unfortunately, marketing spin carries comparatively outsized weight against technical elucidations with much of the buying public.

Rawlinson made the point that NACS is really nothing more than the CCS standard with a different plastic plug with the same copper wiring inside. He's right, as he almost always is about things technical. However, if it's just about the plug, why wouldn't Lucid move toward the plug that seems to be gaining steam with other EV brands which sell considerably more cars than Lucid? He pointed out that we really need to work toward a fast-charging CCS network that delivers 1,000 kW. Good. But who among the CCS crowd is getting anywhere near that? Electrify America's much-ballyhooed 350-kW charging is a total no-show to most users, even on those occasions when you can get one of their chargers to work. And even when the charger can actually deliver over 300 kW, the Lucid's battery pack can only take it for a very short period. In most cases, there is very little difference in charging times between using a 150-kW charger and a 350-kW charger with a Lucid. The future might be different, but there is no battery technology on the horizon of which I'm aware that promises anywhere near taking 1000 kW. Capacitors yes. Batteries no.

There's a difference brand-wise between being unique and being an outlier. Lucid's already shouldering enough burden in trying to sell its unique technology and styling (both good things) at its unique price point (justified but problematic). Why add being a charging-standard outlier to the mix?

 

[Tâm]

Rawlinson made the point that NACS is really nothing more than the CCS standard

My speculations, not facts:

Rawlinson cited the promising solid-state battery, but it is still not a reality for consumers, so it's inappropriate to consider it for now.

I guess that is the same thinking for Tesla V4 Supercharger with 1,000 Volts and 1 Megawatt (1,000 kW):

Lucid only needs 350 kW maximum, but the upcoming Tesla Cybertruck can take in 1 Megawatt (1,000 kW). I guess, according to Lucid's thinking, since there's no Cybertruck and there's no 1,000V Supercharger available for use in the US right now, speculations of the future won't cut it.

I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking.

Tesla CyberTruck will happen although it might be late. V4 Supercharger will have to happen due to the upcoming 1-Megawatt Cybertruck.

I would encourage switching to NACS now instead of waiting.

.Cheaper single plug/port format without royal fees for both AC and fast DC charging.

.safety net/redundancy: When my 350 kW is out of order, I can still fall back to Tesla 50 kW charging while waiting for retrofits/constructions of V4 Superchargers. It's just like if I can get a road tire service that currently has only a tiny doughnut spare tire, which limits my speed down from my normal 85 MPH (Texas State Highway 130) to 55 MPH, it's not ideal. Still, it is a fallback in the case I get a flat tire, and someday, the service will provide a full-size tire in the future which is not impossible to achieve.

.My speculation of the agreement is "the early bird gets the worm": It's possible to wait until the V4 Superchargers are built, but by then, the agreement might change, and it might not be as great as before.

.Stock price: NACS is just like drugs. Each company, Ford, GM, and Rivian, announced the NACS adoption had an immediate rise in the stock price as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[idiot900]

Is there anything stopping us from just using NACS to CCS adapters, if Tesla opens up their Superchargers to Lucid cars?

After all there is a version converting the other way for Tesla cars: https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter

 

[hmp10]

Is there anything stopping us from just using NACS to CCS adapters, if Tesla opens up their Superchargers to Lucid cars?

After all there is a version converting the other way for Tesla cars: https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter

I'm getting beyond my understanding of the technology here, but I have read that the adapters currently available for Tesla-to-CCS conversion do not transmit the full power available from the charger.

 

[Tâm]

Is there anything stopping us from just using NACS to CCS adapters, if Tesla opens up their Superchargers to Lucid cars?

After all there is a version converting the other way for Tesla cars: https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter

My opinions, not facts:

I don't think there's a technical reasons that 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters won't work for Lucid. That means there's no technical reasons that Tesla can't sell us 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters.

It looks like it's a procedural reasons that those who got an agreement would be able to use the adapters.

You might borrow the 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters for your Lucid but I don't think it will work because the software would detect that your Lucid has no NACS agreement.

That means Lucid cars are at the mercy of very few Magic Dock availability in order to use Superchargers.

I don't know the reasons why Tesla doesn't treat folks with an agreement (who will get 2024 adapters) equally with folks without.

It could be because of the ease of billing. Each company would write their own software to take care of the billings.

It could be that Tesla wants to prioritize the agreement folks first and once they are taken care of, maybe non-agreement folks will get the adapters too if Tesla wants to expand the revenue.

It also means waiting won't help the stock price either.

 

[Bobby]

My opinions, not facts:

I don't think there's a technical reasons that 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters won't work for Lucid. That means there's no technical reasons that Tesla can't sell us 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters.

It looks like it's a procedural reasons that those who got an agreement would be able to use the adapters.

You might borrow the 2024 Ford, GM, and Rivian adapters for your Lucid but I don't think it will work because the software would detect that your Lucid has no NACS agreement.

That means Lucid cars are at the mercy of very few Magic Dock availability in order to use Superchargers.

I don't know the reasons why Tesla doesn't treat folks with an agreement (who will get 2024 adapters) equally with folks without.

It could be because of the ease of billing. Each company would write their own software to take care of the billings.

It could be that Tesla wants to prioritize the agreement folks first and once they are taken care of, maybe non-agreement folks will get the adapters too if Tesla wants to expand the revenue.

It also means waiting won't help the stock price either.

And, regardless of outcome, on any existing Tesla supercharger the maximum charge it will be 50kW. No thanks.

 

[Alex]

And, regardless of outcome, on any existing Tesla supercharger the maximum charge it will be 50kW. No thanks.

Tesla has many Urban Supercharges that put out (non-shared) 70kW max each. These would be ok for Lucid to use and would be handy within a city for shopping or whatever. Lucid (or Tesla) should supply a 5+ foot Tesla to CCS1 cable, so that you can reach the charging port without gymnastics.

 

[Tâm]

...Lucid (or Tesla) should supply a 5+ foot Tesla to CCS1 cable, so that you can reach the charging port without gymnastics.

My opinions, not facts:

The longer cable has to be retrofitted/built into the stall, and it is not an extension cord because if you see the cable cross-section above, it has coolant running through it.

Longer cables have been started in Europe, reaching a generic car's left or right side.

 

[Alex]

My opinions, not facts:

The longer cable has to be retrofitted/built into the stall, and it is not an extension cord because if you see the cable cross-section above, it has coolant running through it.

Longer cables have been started in Europe, reaching a generic car's left or right side.

Yes. I was talking about the Urban Superchargers, which only go to 70kW. They do use liquid cooling, although the extension cord could be thicker gauge like they used in the non-liquid cooler V1-V2 superchargers. Since the Lucid will only use 50kW, it could do with a slightly thicker non-cooled extension cord.

 

[quantum]

NACS and the Tesla chargers are inferior - lack of bidirectional charging, don’t support higher voltages, cable length sucks

Only benefit is they work. Software works.

Going to NACS at this stage does not benefit Lucid until they offer 1000V charging at every station. I mean, what’s the point!

Also 80% of buyers hardly ever charge outside the home. It’s not a big deal not using inferior NACS. Just because it is smaller, doesn’t make it better.

 

[xponents]

NACS and the Tesla chargers are inferior - lack of bidirectional charging, don’t support higher voltages, cable length sucks

Only benefit is they work. Software works.

Going to NACS at this stage does not benefit Lucid until they offer 1000V charging at every station. I mean, what’s the point!

Also 80% of buyers hardly ever charge outside the home. It’s not a big deal not using inferior NACS. Just because it is smaller, doesn’t make it better.

Im sorry but this is absolutely wrong. NACS is JUST A CONNECTOR. Its a piece of plastic essentially. It still uses CCS underneath it, meaning it is capable of bidirectional charging.
The actual chargers you have a point, but V4 will fix that. Anyways, lucid can just announce that they will use NACS from 2025 of 2026 or something, as everybody else has.

 

[hmp10]

NACS and the Tesla chargers are inferior - lack of bidirectional charging, don’t support higher voltages, cable length sucks

Only benefit is they work. Software works.

Going to NACS at this stage does not benefit Lucid until they offer 1000V charging at every station. I mean, what’s the point!

Also 80% of buyers hardly ever charge outside the home. It’s not a big deal not using inferior NACS. Just because it is smaller, doesn’t make it better.

I don't disagree with any of this.

The point of my original comment was about marketing. Lucid is already sailing into so many headwinds in generating sales: price, new company with unproven longevity, a first year of crushing reports about miserable software, bottom of J.D. Power quality survey (probably driven by early software issues), growing number of major reviewers saying CCS network should be avoided. If other carmakers -- particularly the legacy makers with which buyers are more comfortable -- move to what is presented as a national NACS standard, trying to sell Lucids that buyers perceive as being "off standard" when it comes to highway charging will just exacerbate the marketing challenges.

I'm not saying Lucid should not retain the ability to use CCS charging. I'm saying it should quit talking publicly about why NACS is a bad idea and just make sure its cars can also use NACS chargers when the owners want . . . and hope the CCS providers start getting their acts together.

 

[joec]

I don't disagree with any of this.

The point of my original comment was about marketing. Lucid is already sailing into so many headwinds in generating sales: price, new company with unproven longevity, a first year of crushing reports about miserable software, bottom of J.D. Power quality survey (probably driven by early software issues), growing number of major reviewers saying CCS network should be avoided. If other carmakers -- particularly the legacy makers with which buyers are more comfortable -- move to what is presented as a national NACS standard, trying to sell Lucids that buyers perceive as being "off standard" when it comes to highway charging will just exacerbate the marketing challenges.

I'm not saying Lucid should not retain the ability to use CCS charging. I'm saying it should quit talking publicly about why NACS is a bad idea and just make sure its cars can also use NACS chargers when the owners want . . . and hope the CCS providers start getting their acts together.

I haven’t seen Lucid talking publicly about NACS at all. I saw a recent interview with Peter where he simply said the connector is not the point, which is entirely accurate. My impression was that he was open to whatever plastic connector, but only if it is connected to a 1000v charger.

As far as I know, Lucid has made no statement that it will not support NACS.

 

[hmp10]

I haven’t seen Lucid talking publicly about NACS at all. I saw a recent interview with Peter where he simply said the connector is not the point, which is entirely accurate.

??? That interview with Rawlinson was Lucid talking publicly about NACS.

While Rawlinson certainly made the point that the real issue is the need to develop a thousand-volt charging standard, not the configuration of the plug, he was also saying that the NACS standard, by not incorporating that need from inception, will not be future-proof and is not where taxpayer dollars should be going at this point.

One EV news site introduced his interview with this lead-in: "Lucid CEO Peter Rawlinson seemed to have reservations about adopting the NACS for the EV startup’s vehicles."

That lead-in might have been off base but, as I've said, my issue is with Lucid marketing at this point. As a significant stockholder, I'm getting seriously worried about Lucid sales. It is now emerging that Lucid's clearly superior technology alone is not going to be enough to make Lucid the player it should be. They've got to avoid the pitfalls of poor marketing and public misperception as well.

Rawlinson is usually right on technical issues, and I'm pretty sure he is on this one. But with Tesla now having the best-selling car in the world with the Model Y, and with Ford, GM, and Rivian now climbing onto the NACS bandwagon, I just don't think Rawlinson needs to invite being perceived as a voice in the wilderness on charging infrastructure. It's enough that Lucid has already tied its brand identity on that score to Electrify America's miserable track record.

 

[joec]

??? That interview with Rawlinson was Lucid talking publicly about NACS.

While Rawlinson certainly made the point that the real issue is the need to develop a thousand-volt charging standard, not the configuration of the plug, he was also saying that the NACS standard, by not incorporating that need from inception, will not be future-proof and is not where taxpayer dollars should be going at this point.

One EV news site introduced his interview with this lead-in: "Lucid CEO Peter Rawlinson seemed to have reservations about adopting the NACS for the EV startup’s vehicles."

That lead-in might have been off base but, as I've said, my issue is with Lucid marketing at this point. As a significant stockholder, I'm getting seriously worried about Lucid sales. It is now emerging that Lucid's clearly superior technology alone is not going to be enough to make Lucid the player it should be. They've got to avoid the pitfalls of poor marketing and public misperception as well.

Rawlinson is usually right on technical issues, and I'm pretty sure he is on this one. But with Tesla now having the best-selling car in the world with the Model Y, and with Ford, GM, and Rivian now climbing onto the NACS bandwagon, I just don't think Rawlinson needs to invite being perceived as a voice in the wilderness on charging infrastructure. It's enough that Lucid has already tied its brand identity on that score to Electrify America's miserable track record.

That’s my point, though. There’s a chasm between what Rawlinson said and how the press is characterizing what he said. I listened to the actual interview, and the words “We’re not going to adopt NACS” were never said. There have been no press releases stating as much, either.

Should they make some sort of statement? I don’t see how they can. Moving to NACS would be a huge step backward for the air at the current state of V3 Tesla superchargers. And if they say “We’ll move our cars by 2025, or 2026, or whatever deadline”, there’s no guarantee Tesla will have upgraded their network to 1000v by then.

Not to mention, anyone thinking of buying an Air today will figure the car is already obsolete for having the “wrong plug.” So it will further kill sales in the short term.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.

This is exactly what Elon wants. To put everyone else in a box and make them commit to something that only benefits him.

I don’t see any upside for Lucid talking about this at all. Which is probably why Peter is trying to change the subject. Unsuccessfully.

 

[DeaneG]

...Longer cables have been started in Europe, reaching a generic car's left or right side.

Those are the new V4 dispensers with longer cables. They're currently being operated at 450V max using v3 power conversion cabinets.

 

[Adnillien]

That’s my point, though. There’s a chasm between what Rawlinson said and how the press is characterizing what he said. I listened to the actual interview, and the words “We’re not going to adopt NACS” were never said. There have been no press releases stating as much, either.

Should they make some sort of statement? I don’t see how they can. Moving to NACS would be a huge step backward for the air at the current state of V3 Tesla superchargers. And if they say “We’ll move our cars by 2025, or 2026, or whatever deadline”, there’s no guarantee Tesla will have upgraded their network to 1000v by then.

Not to mention, anyone thinking of buying an Air today will figure the car is already obsolete for having the “wrong plug.” So it will further kill sales in the short term.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.

This is exactly what Elon wants. To put everyone else in a box and make them commit to something that only benefits him.

I don’t see any upside for Lucid talking about this at all. Which is probably why Peter is trying to change the subject. Unsuccessfully.

I don’t see any reason that Lucid could not say something like Lucid will likely move to NACS when there are plentiful 1000V NACS chargers available with the NACS connector and there is widespread availability of NACS adapters for current Lucid owners and buyers. This would clarify their position on NACS.