Kyle shares more about Lucid Cosmos

[HC_79]

Check out @outofspeckyle video talking about the Cosmos

 

[HC_79]

AI Summary for those who don't want to watch the full hour

Kyle’s Lucid Cosmos preview was ultimately very positive on the engineering, efficiency, and packaging, but much more mixed on Lucid as a company and its ability to actually turn great ideas into a compelling product people emotionally want to buy. He came away impressed that Cosmos looks production-ready, feels younger, sharper, and more striking than the Air or Gravity, and appears to be Lucid’s most promising mainstream product yet. He highlighted the huge focus on efficiency, cost reduction, space utilization, clever mixed-material construction, new Atlas drive unit, centralized electrical architecture, and strong projected specs like under $50,000 starting price, 0–60 in 3.5 seconds, and 200 miles of range added in 15 minutes. In his view, the car has the ingredients to be one of the best vehicles in the segment on paper.

At the same time, the video had a recurring theme that Lucid still struggles with execution, software, and brand identity. Kyle and Thyman both questioned Lucid’s lack of emotional appeal compared with something like Rivian’s R2, arguing that Lucid keeps winning the engineering spreadsheet but still hasn’t figured out how to “capture the heart.” They also criticized the investor-day rollout, the awkward secrecy around the car, Lucid’s continued software shortcomings, and the failed live demo of its AI assistant as another example of overpromising and underdelivering. Their conclusion was that Cosmos could sell well “for a Lucid” and may help the brand, but Lucid still feels like a company with strong engineers and weak direction—great at building technically impressive cars, but still searching for the identity, leadership, and execution needed to truly break through.

 

[Dolphins4ever]

AI Summary for those who don't want to watch the full hour

Kyle’s Lucid Cosmos preview was ultimately very positive on the engineering, efficiency, and packaging, but much more mixed on Lucid as a company and its ability to actually turn great ideas into a compelling product people emotionally want to buy. He came away impressed that Cosmos looks production-ready, feels younger, sharper, and more striking than the Air or Gravity, and appears to be Lucid’s most promising mainstream product yet. He highlighted the huge focus on efficiency, cost reduction, space utilization, clever mixed-material construction, new Atlas drive unit, centralized electrical architecture, and strong projected specs like under $50,000 starting price, 0–60 in 3.5 seconds, and 200 miles of range added in 15 minutes. In his view, the car has the ingredients to be one of the best vehicles in the segment on paper.

At the same time, the video had a recurring theme that Lucid still struggles with execution, software, and brand identity. Kyle and Thyman both questioned Lucid’s lack of emotional appeal compared with something like Rivian’s R2, arguing that Lucid keeps winning the engineering spreadsheet but still hasn’t figured out how to “capture the heart.” They also criticized the investor-day rollout, the awkward secrecy around the car, Lucid’s continued software shortcomings, and the failed live demo of its AI assistant as another example of overpromising and underdelivering. Their conclusion was that Cosmos could sell well “for a Lucid” and may help the brand, but Lucid still feels like a company with strong engineers and weak direction—great at building technically impressive cars, but still searching for the identity, leadership, and execution needed to truly break through.

I think he is right about the emotional tie rivian has had success with, but I think execution in releasing a car that works with superior specs at a similar price point wins far more at that price point than an aspirational tie to adventuring.

I have this in my to listen, but thanks for the summary!

 

[Halodde]

If that AI summary is accurate, it will probably be the last time he gets a sneak peek at a Lucid before launch. I assume they were expecting much better/more positive PR from him.

 

[HC_79]

If that AI summary is accurate, it will probably be the last time he gets a sneak peek at a Lucid before launch. I assume they were expecting much better/more positive PR from him.

I mean, he's not wrong. I think his comparison to the R2 event summed it up best where no one cared about the charging speed, range, efficiency etc. on the Rivian and Lucid has built it's whole brand on that and people just aren't buying into it. It should appease investors as doing more on less should put them in a good position for higher profitability per vehicle over the competition but the public doesn't care.

I appreciate that Kyle calls it how it is and can respect the brand for what they've achieved but also call them out on where they need to change. He's made more vocal frustrations about them in the past and he still keeps getting invited back. I also found his comments on the Cosmos were quite positive but was more targeting Lucid's continued missteps and the constant overpromising and underdelivering which they've gotten into a really bad habit of doing.

 

[borski]

I mean, he's not wrong. I think his comparison to the R2 event summed it up best where no one cared about the charging speed, range, efficiency etc. on the Rivian and Lucid has built it's whole brand on that and people just aren't buying into it. It should appease investors as doing more on less should put them in a good position for higher profitability per vehicle over the competition but the public doesn't care.

I appreciate that Kyle calls it how it is and can respect the brand for what they've achieved but also call them out on where they need to change. He's made more vocal frustrations about them in the past and he still keeps getting invited back. I also found his comments on the Cosmos were quite positive but was more targeting Lucid's continued missteps and the constant overpromising and underdelivering which they've gotten into a really bad habit of doing.

I appreciated his commentary

 

[erigion]

I don't really understand why they're releasing the lifted fast back (for lack of an actual visual) version instead of a more traditional SUV shape. I'm sure they must have some data that tells them that they have customers who want a large trunk area in exchange for a slightly compromised rear passenger space but I really wish they swapped the Earth and Cosmos releases.

Also, it sounds like the wide/combined instrument cluster and infotainment screen is weird. I think during the actual investor presentation they said It's a way to save costs on making multiple dash variants for different world markets but they need to get the actual implementation right because this isn't something you can completely fix through software updates months down the line. Obviously, it'll depend on the software, but the Gravity's software seems to be less refined than the R1S/T at the moment.

And, I really don't need a separate AI assistant that I can only use in my car. Yes, you can use CarPlay/Android Auto but the integration is just worse than what the EX60 looks like it can do with Android Automotive with Google Services integrated.

 

[BS8899]

AI Summary for those who don't want to watch the full hour

Kyle’s Lucid Cosmos preview was ultimately very positive on the engineering, efficiency, and packaging, but much more mixed on Lucid as a company and its ability to actually turn great ideas into a compelling product people emotionally want to buy. He came away impressed that Cosmos looks production-ready, feels younger, sharper, and more striking than the Air or Gravity, and appears to be Lucid’s most promising mainstream product yet. He highlighted the huge focus on efficiency, cost reduction, space utilization, clever mixed-material construction, new Atlas drive unit, centralized electrical architecture, and strong projected specs like under $50,000 starting price, 0–60 in 3.5 seconds, and 200 miles of range added in 15 minutes. In his view, the car has the ingredients to be one of the best vehicles in the segment on paper.

At the same time, the video had a recurring theme that Lucid still struggles with execution, software, and brand identity. Kyle and Thyman both questioned Lucid’s lack of emotional appeal compared with something like Rivian’s R2, arguing that Lucid keeps winning the engineering spreadsheet but still hasn’t figured out how to “capture the heart.” They also criticized the investor-day rollout, the awkward secrecy around the car, Lucid’s continued software shortcomings, and the failed live demo of its AI assistant as another example of overpromising and underdelivering. Their conclusion was that Cosmos could sell well “for a Lucid” and may help the brand, but Lucid still feels like a company with strong engineers and weak direction—great at building technically impressive cars, but still searching for the identity, leadership, and execution needed to truly break through.

@HC79

Were you the AI agent that generated this summary? If so, you did well!

 

[TahoeMichael]

I watched the whole thing. First, I think it's obvious that the OOS guys are just incredibly naive about the business side of running a car company. In particular, not really understanding the difference between an investor event and a media event struck me as just odd. Next, I think Lucid deserves the constant bashing it gets about execution. But I also think the OOS guys are just off about the supposed lack of emotional appeal of Lucid's vehicles. Think they a Lucid has no soul and thus won't appeal to the market, and yet the Air outsells every competitive EV, and most competitive ICE vehicles. The Gravity it's too early to say, but it seems like Gravity sales are also doing well. I think that if Lucid can launch the Cosmos without being beaten up about quality, then the company's strengths will sell a lot of vehicles.

On a different note, I found the discussion of technology advances increasingly starting to happen in the mid-market vehicles to be interesting. I don't know what I think that will do to the more expensive luxury segment that Air and Gravity play in. I think we're at a moment where the EV industry (at least in the USA) is just getting started in the mid-market, and so the premium segment still has a lot of appeal. But if a mid-market Lucid is more technically advanced than the Air/Gravity, costs half as much, and is missing very little, will I still think that a Gravity makes sense to buy? Near as I can tell, the Cosmo will sacrifice space due to being a smaller vehicle (while still having class leading packaging), will have a slightly less refined suspension (while still having class leading driving dynamics), will have a slightly less good display screen setup, will probably (?) have somewhat less range (while still having very fast charging), and will offer better autonomy. Will I really want to spend twice as much on a Gravity once product launches are done and the mid-market competition is more established? This isn't a question about Lucid alone, as other companies are also launching the best technology in the mid-market.

 

[socktucker]

Still better than Engineering Explained tho!

 

[Halodde]

I mean, he's not wrong. I think his comparison to the R2 event summed it up best where no one cared about the charging speed, range, efficiency etc. on the Rivian and Lucid has built it's whole brand on that and people just aren't buying into it. It should appease investors as doing more on less should put them in a good position for higher profitability per vehicle over the competition but the public doesn't care.

I appreciate that Kyle calls it how it is and can respect the brand for what they've achieved but also call them out on where they need to change. He's made more vocal frustrations about them in the past and he still keeps getting invited back. I also found his comments on the Cosmos were quite positive but was more targeting Lucid's continued missteps and the constant overpromising and underdelivering which they've gotten into a really bad habit of doing.

That's my point. He's probably not wrong. And I like the candid take, too. It's like the EE video in that regard. I was only saying he doesn't seem to be just saying positive things which is probably what Lucid would have preferred and maybe even expected when they decided to give him the preview. But that's only my guess and opinion of course

 

[DrJBell]

I don't really understand why they're releasing the lifted fast back (for lack of an actual visual) version instead of a more traditional SUV shape. I'm sure they must have some data that tells them that they have customers who want a large trunk area in exchange for a slightly compromised rear passenger space but I really wish they swapped the Earth and Cosmos releases.

Also, it sounds like the wide/combined instrument cluster and infotainment screen is weird. I think during the actual investor presentation they said It's a way to save costs on making multiple dash variants for different world markets but they need to get the actual implementation right because this isn't something you can completely fix through software updates months down the line. Obviously, it'll depend on the software, but the Gravity's software seems to be less refined than the R1S/T at the moment.

And, I really don't need a separate AI assistant that I can only use in my car. Yes, you can use CarPlay/Android Auto but the integration is just worse than what the EX60 looks like it can do with Android Automotive with Google Services integrated.

I agree with you. I think the thinking was that since this is a new platform, they needed to prove what it could do before moving to the slightly more inefficiently focused Earth model. That said, this approach may end up hurting them.
They’re missing the market at a time when they really need both sales and brand recognition. I understand the concern about model cannibalization, but they should consider releasing these vehicles closer together.
It’s a shame to have such advanced technology and strong products that keep getting overshadowed—either by a design that may not appeal to everyone, like the Gravity, or by entering a segment that was already shrinking with the Air.
To me, the best move would be to release Cosmos while also launching the Gravity X this year. They need more compelling models on the road sooner rather than later.
All of that said, it ultimately comes down to the software. If the software is solid, that’s a huge win. But if it’s still having issues, then unfortunately none of this will matter.
Also it pains me that there is so much buzz around Rivian when it’s just a box on wheels with way less engineering advancement compared to lucid, yet they have such brand recognition already and sell so many more cars than lucid that’s it’s really fascinating. I still get asked who makes my air when people see me out and about and I very rarely see that many other air drivers and still haven’t come across one gravity out in the wild in the phoenix area yet although I know they are around.

 

[socktucker]

Model Y is a lifted fastback and it’s the most popular car in the world

 

[Leftlane]

I watched the whole thing. First, I think it's obvious that the OOS guys are just incredibly naive about the business side of running a car company. In particular, not really understanding the difference between an investor event and a media event struck me as just odd. Next, I think Lucid deserves the constant bashing it gets about execution. But I also think the OOS guys are just off about the supposed lack of emotional appeal of Lucid's vehicles. Think they a Lucid has no soul and thus won't appeal to the market, and yet the Air outsells every competitive EV, and most competitive ICE vehicles. The Gravity it's too early to say, but it seems like Gravity sales are also doing well. I think that if Lucid can launch the Cosmos without being beaten up about quality, then the company's strengths will sell a lot of vehicles.

On a different note, I found the discussion of technology advances increasingly starting to happen in the mid-market vehicles to be interesting. I don't know what I think that will do to the more expensive luxury segment that Air and Gravity play in. I think we're at a moment where the EV industry (at least in the USA) is just getting started in the mid-market, and so the premium segment still has a lot of appeal. But if a mid-market Lucid is more technically advanced than the Air/Gravity, costs half as much, and is missing very little, will I still think that a Gravity makes sense to buy? Near as I can tell, the Cosmo will sacrifice space due to being a smaller vehicle (while still having class leading packaging), will have a slightly less refined suspension (while still having class leading driving dynamics), will have a slightly less good display screen setup, will probably (?) have somewhat less range (while still having very fast charging), and will offer better autonomy. Will I really want to spend twice as much on a Gravity once product launches are done and the mid-market competition is more established? This isn't a question about Lucid alone, as other companies are also launching the best technology in the mid-market.

Investor events and media events are essentially the same these days - how are consumers getting their info? If you aren’t putting on a show at every opportunity you are missing out - everything ends up on YouTube and blogs anyway.

There really shouldn’t be much debate that Lucid the company has not been run very well and is the source of much of the frustration. No one has issues with the engineering - it’s all the blocking and tackling of running a business where they appear clueless. Marketing, advertising, service, responsiveness, choice of business partners - these can make or break a company no matter how good the product has the potential of being. If they fail, it won’t be because of an engineering issue - it will be all the rest of those things that alienate current and prospective customers.

 

[Nunya]

This is supposedly the first SAE L4 car you can buy for personal use and not even discussion on that point? I know, not much to talk about with a static display but a conversation would be nice.

 

[AZLucidGuy]

I think that Cosmos will eat directly into Model Y sales. I think it will be dramatic. My concern is different. If Cosmos will mostly be built at AMP-2 in Saudi Arabia, will they be able to ship volume to the US market? I hope that AMP-1 also tools up for Cosmos while making some Air and all the Gravity.

 

[Need4Sleep]

I think that Cosmos will eat directly into Model Y sales. I think it will be dramatic. My concern is different. If Cosmos will mostly be built at AMP-2 in Saudi Arabia, will they be able to ship volume to the US market? I hope that AMP-1 also tools up for Cosmos while making some Air and all the Gravity.

I believe this was asked during the investor day Q&A. Initial production will be in Saudi Arabia, then later on assembly will be done in the Arizona plant. Car & Driver's article also mentioned this

 

[erigion]

The Model Y was the only EV CUV for years, and Tesla (whatever you think of them) is still the default EV for most people in the US, much of Europe, and still very popular in China. As much as I like my Kia EV6 (also a fastback SUV thing), the Y is still the best CUV being sold in the US right now. At least in Europe, there are already stories of the BMW iX3 and Volvo EX60 getting more orders than both manufacturers had initially anticipated. The demand is there for a more traditionally looking EV SUV.

Rivian can tell a story about being the outdoorsy brand with a go-anywhere, do-anything SUV. What's the story Lucid is trying to tell if they're competing directly with the Model Y? Aside from efficiency, they've put a lot of emphasis on being the best handling EVs on the market but ask Mazda what being the driver's brand has gotten them against Toyota and Honda.

This is supposedly the first SAE L4 car you can buy for personal use and not even discussion on that point? I know, not much to talk about with a static display but a conversation would be nice.

Sure, let's ask Tesla owners what statements made about future self-driving plans at Investor's Days actually mean.

 

[The_Don]

They seemed a little biased in their take on Lucid's brand. They're both coming off their highs from Rivian's R2 reveal. There's no doubt that Rivian has a clear and unique brand identity tied to adventure. To date, Lucid has always positioned itself as a driver's car that doesn't have to sacrifice on efficiency, space or luxury. The fact that they're trying to check all those boxes could be seen as lack of identity, but this is where their "compromise nothing" slogan comes into play. As we all know, they need to work on their software before that slogan rings true.

They're both big Rivian fans. They like the adventure aspect of it. While that is cool, I've always been of the opinion that it will ultimately handicap their growth. Because they are tied to that brand, they now cannot (a) create true driver's cars because of inherent compromises with design to achieve the "rugged" look, (b) enter the robotaxi market because of weak efficiency and (c) truly compete in the luxury market.

I thought the investor day did a good job of demonstrating that Lucid can enter any market. I have no doubt that any "rugged" Lucid midsize can compete well with Rivian's R2. I don't, however, think Rivian can make an R2 that competes with Lucid's Cosmos midsize.

 

[Adnillien]

I think that Cosmos will eat directly into Model Y sales. I think it will be dramatic. My concern is different. If Cosmos will mostly be built at AMP-2 in Saudi Arabia, will they be able to ship volume to the US market? I hope that AMP-1 also tools up for Cosmos while making some Air and all the Gravity.

AMP-1 is tooling up for midsize. Below is the body in white expansion for midsize. Midsize can share the other parts of the factory with Air and Gravity.