Lucid CEO critiques other EV-SUVs

[Rogue]

Saying something is not very good means it's not very good. How can something be good, while not being very good? I think you're splitting that hair pretty finely.

An apple pie can be good. A Dutch apple is very good. Dutch apple pie being very good does not take away from an apple pie being good, nor does it change that it is only good, just not very good.

 

[hmp10]

I had a 2016 model x which I got about 70-75% of predicted range in real world use. For my GT I'm getting 4.9 km/kwh according to my lifetime counter which is about 71% of predicted (21" wheels). I don't bother trying to control for temp or speed or anything else. Just everyday use. Yes, it's the longest range ev out there but the battery is also pretty big for a sedan. In my real world use, I'm disappointed with my range and charging mostly due to expectations built upon reviews that were not applicable to my car, which I didn't know about. It was not openly publicized that dream and GT had different tech and that efficiency and charging would not be equivalent

This is only my opinion, of course

So your 2016 Tesla Model X had "essentially" the same efficiency as your 2022 Lucid Air GT? I'd really like to see the numbers that support that contention.

 

[Batteryman]

That doesn't matter to the topic at hand. I keep repeating myself here, and it's become unproductive, so this will be my last response. I will leave you with this: Lucid sold 6K EVs the previous year. For them to survive, they are going to need a large number of new buyers. To attract those numbers, they must win over customers new to EVs and customers from other EVs. Considering the price point, current EV SUV owners are right in Gravity's target demographic. I joined this forum as one of those prospective customers. As I've said previously, one of the significant reasons Tesla isn't in consideration for me is their CEO's inflammatory comments and antagonistic behavior. What do you suppose someone like me, a current Rivian owner, will think when I read that comment?

Do you believe statements like the one Peter made to start this thread make it more or less likely for someone like me to give Gravity a chance? I gotta tell ya, it is a real turn-off. I was disappointed by Peter's comment. My R1 series vehicle has been the best vehicle I've ever owned. When I read about a CEO who hasn't even released his SUV yet criticizing a proven platform that I like, it makes me much less likely to consider them as a vehicle. I get that a few of you here don't seem to care about or even support these comments, but if you really wanted Lucid to succeed, you would be more angry at this comment than I am.

Peter's comment wasn't the worst thing he could have said, but it was not a good strategy.

Mmmm, a true comment by a CEO makes you not want to buy their vehicle? What else do you expect Peter to do. As you said, sales aren't great. So he needs to cite every advantage that his product has. He wasn't lying. He needs to improve sales so create a buzz about the product. Nothing absolutely wrong in that. Staying silent and expecting people to understand the product is not a good strategy at all, especially when you are a new car company with poor sales, despite having the best product in the category.

 

[Lucken]

Well to use an example of cars. Let's take an EV sedan from driving dynamics.

1. Porsche Taycan - best
2. Lucid Air - very good
3. Model S - good
4. BMW i7 - fair
5. Mercedes EQS - bad

Can we rate the mods similarly?

 

[hydbob]

Can we rate the mods similarly?

Yep it goes like this...

1. @borski - very good
2. Every other mod - good

LOL

 

[Neurio]

Yep it goes like this...

1. @borski - very good
2. Every other mod - good

LOL

I think one might be 'meh' but I won't name names

 

[borski]

Yep it goes like this...

1. @borski - very good
2. Every other mod - good

LOL

I’m flattered by your lies

 

[RockSports]

An apple pie can be good. A Dutch apple is very good. Dutch apple pie being very good does not take away from an apple pie being good, nor does it change that it is only good, just not very good.

But he didn't say the apple pie was good. He said it was NOT VERY GOOD.

Mmmm, a true comment by a CEO makes you not want to buy their vehicle? What else do you expect Peter to do. As you said, sales aren't great. So he needs to cite every advantage that his product has. He wasn't lying. He needs to improve sales so create a buzz about the product. Nothing absolutely wrong in that. Staying silent and expecting people to understand the product is not a good strategy at all, especially when you are a new car company with poor sales, despite having the best product in the category.

It's important to remember that public relations is not about denigrating the competition or staying silent. It's about finding a balanced message highlighting your product's advantages. For instance, a statement like this can be more effective: "While the EV SUV space is full of great vehicles, I believe that the Lucid Gravity will be a standout in the areas of on-road driving feel and performance, range, and cabin utilization." This statement highlights the areas where Gravity is expected to be a class leader while not putting down the other vehicles.

Contrasted with the apple pie example above, my statement says that while all the cars are good, my car is better. Saying all the cars are not very good isn't the same thing. It's a bad public relations statement, and it turns people off. If a CEO can't figure out how to make a statement that extols the virtues of their company without being hostile towards the competition, they aren't a very good CEO. Stuff like that is fundamental public relations that you learn with a bachelor's in any business field.

 

[RockSports]

Well to use an example of cars. Let's take an EV sedan from driving dynamics.

1. Porsche Taycan - best
2. Lucid Air - very good
3. Model S - good
4. BMW i7 - fair
5. Mercedes EQS - bad

It seems there's a stark contrast between your ranking and Peter's claim. You've ranked the EV sedans, indicating some are good and some are not very good. However, Peter's claim is that all besides his are not very good, which would place them at least at #4 in your ranking system. "Not very good" at it's most generous would be fair according to the scale you provided here. It is also worth noting that your comparison is based on a single metric. Single metric comparisons are fairer for all products than blanket statements like the one Peter made.

Had Peter specified and said that in these specific areas, none of the other SUVs are as good as the Gravity it would have been a more charitable statement. Instead, Peter declared all his competitors #4 or lower on the ranking chart you provided overall, using his blanket statement. Getting into the minutia of what not very good means is besides the point anyway. I'll tell you what, how about we leave it at this? Peter's statement was an example of a not very good public relations statement. Now we can both be happy because I can apply my meaning to that statement and you can apply yours.

 

[Ughwhy]

No I meant the Rubicon trail. It's a famous off roading trail. https://www.rubicontrailfoundation.org/. If you are familiar with the Jeep Rubicon, that's what it's named after and the Rubicon trail is considered a benchmark for off-road capable vehicles. The R1S completed the trail in a stock configuration the only thing they added was a winch and rock sliders.

While doing part (most?) of the Rubicon is certainly an achievement, there are many, many (almost all) SUV's that are not capable of doing the Rubicon in stock form. That doesn't mean those other SUV's were not a success as SUV's. I don't think the goal of Gravity is to be able to do the Rubicon, otherwise the design would be very different.

I've mountain biked parts of the Rubicon trail several times and its amazing how much debris litters the side of the trail showing the damage the trail has wrecked on vehicles attempting it. Its really a trail for people who are rock-crawling enthusiasts and don't mind damaging their vehicles. For that reason, I've never attempted it in any of my (modified) Land Cruisers or my current Grenadier, even though they were capable. It's just not the kind of off-roading I like to do.

The though of high-centering an electric vehicle on a boulder is freighting to me. I'd be very worried about damaging the battery packs.

 

[RockSports]

While doing part (most?) of the Rubicon is certainly an achievement, there are many, many (almost all) SUV's that are not capable of doing the Rubicon in stock form. That doesn't mean those other SUV's were not a success as SUV's. I don't think the goal of Gravity is to be able to do the Rubicon, otherwise the design would be very different.

I've mountain biked parts of the Rubicon trail several times and its amazing how much debris litters the side of the trail showing the damage the trail has wrecked on vehicles attempting it. Its really a trail for people who are rock-crawling enthusiasts and don't mind damaging their vehicles. For that reason, I've never attempted it in any of my (modified) Land Cruisers or my current Grenadier, even though they were capable. It's just not the kind of off-roading I like to do.

The though of high-centering an electric vehicle on a boulder is freighting to me. I'd be very worried about damaging the battery packs.

Solid metal shielding underneath, unless you're bashing it hardcore, I wouldn't worry about it failing. I wasn't trying to say that all other SUVs are inferior because they cannot do the Rubicon trail. That would be a silly statement, of course, most SUVs aren't as rugged as the R1S because most people don't need or want to pay for that capability. Those sort of comments are why I take issue with what Peter said. He declared all other EV SUVs not as good as his because of features he found important. Some people are off-roaders or live in rugged areas, and an R1S would be a much superior vehicle for them just like there are people who would be much better served with the Gravity. If the software winds up being decent Gravity would be a better fit for me, which is why I'm here.

 

[Bill55]

I'll be two years into my GT ownership before Android Auto arrives. In the meantime, our Volvo's built in Google maps with EV charge planning, Google Assistant, Waze, Pocketcasts have been incomparably better than what the Air provides. It's night and day.

For this reason, and my perception that software isn't a priority at Lucid, I'll be looking at other SUV alternatives when the time comes.

I don't expect the Gravity software to be anything like the Air. There is 25x the processing power in the Gravity. I expect the Gravity software to be significantly better than the Air. Unfortunately, I do not expect many of the improvements to make it to my #40 DE. I expect the Gravity software and updates to be independent of the Air, or a very significant fork.