Lucid new CEO: Silvio Napoli

[socktucker]

I don't see it that way. The stock price is reflecting the dilution that occurred, not the CEO announcement. And the stock didn't get close to $7.

Anyone who think's the stock is going to pop in any substantial way prior to the Cosmos launch is kidding themselves. Realisticly, there's nothing that Lucid can do to improve the stock price other than showing good financial results, and there's no likelihood of that occurring without a successful Cosmos launch. Positive media coverage when the Cosmos reveal happens may cause a mild bump in the stock price, but that's likely to be temporary.

8.21

 

[TahoeMichael]

8.21

Sure, in an absolute sense that's only $1.21 off $7. But people normally think about stock price moves in percentage terms, and today would had to have seen a decline roughly 3 times larger than what actually occurred for the stock to hit $7.

While I realize that no one really ever knows exactly what moves a stock's price, I continue to think that Q1 results and dilution account for the recent decline, and see little reason to think that the Napoli announcement is driving it.

 

[Need4Sleep]

After reading the comments here and learning about the ceo choice, these are thoughts that haven’t been shared yet: The board selected a bright established guy, outsider at Lucid and not only the ev space, but also the entire automotive industry. Whether right or wrong this implies that they think lucid has the ev, automotive side well enough in hand that he can learn what he needs, but isn’t expected to make or push the boundaries in that area. He is expected to make the organization itself hum, work together so costs can be reduced and revenue growth and profit pushed. Can he do it? I don’t know, but getting the extra funding in the door was probably part of the deal and that was a smart move. Working under a shareholder with the control of the pif can doom a company because what an investor wants and what a company needs to do are not completely aligned and this is probably the amount that gives him the runway he sees he needs.

Saying the line, essentially, ‘what we don’t do is as important as what we focus’ on struck me that there may be more option consolidation in the future of air and gravity, if not outright cancelling the air in the not so distant future. I realize this is complete speculation on my part from what maybe was a throw away line, but out of all the current and future products, the air is the laggard and will remain that way unless a 27 update includes nacs and much faster dc charging.

I doubt they'll cancel the Air. They've used it as their halo platform to show the maximum range and efficiency for its class. The Sapphire served as like a mobile laboratory where the learnings were applied to the Air Pure and also the Gravity program as a whole.

Perhaps the "what we don't do" part can be with respect to doing less on academic or design studies and more on production-intent projects. If it's not production-intent, it could either be put on hold or dropped altogether.

 

[DeaneG]

...Perhaps the "what we don't do" part can be with respect to doing less on academic or design studies and more on production-intent projects. If it's not production-intent, it could either be put on hold or dropped altogether.

In my mind, certainly robotaxi concepts can be left behind.

I also think that V2X hardware and software should be left in the hands of established home energy systems vendors like Sigenergy, dcBel, Enphase, etc. Vehicle manufacturers' responsibility should end at making vehicles that conform to established V2X standards and leave the low-volume / semi-custom remainder of the solution to those who specialize in that business.

 

[Need4Sleep]

In my mind, certainly robotaxi concepts can be left behind.

I also think that V2X hardware and software should be left in the hands of established home energy systems vendors like Sigenergy, dcBel, Enphase, etc. Vehicle manufacturers' responsibility should end at making vehicles that conform to established V2X standards and leave the low-volume / semi-custom remainder of the solution to those who specialize in that business.

to me, it would be dropping research projects such as commercial energy storage, one-off government projects (like a research project with the Department of Defense that was announced a very long time ago), or design studies like the pickup truck images that were going around a while back, or R&D projects like the two-speed gearbox they patented a while back (but we haven't seen or heard anything from it since).

Robotaxi with Uber does seem to be production intent, as the concept was already built on top of the midsize platform. Uber also upped its order from Lucid, so I wouldn't be surprised if the contract will include dedicated robotaxis

 

[socktucker]

Last year they said they weren't going to be a car company anymore, they just wanted to license their tech and software.

Is that still the goal?

 

[erigion]

I doubt they'll cancel the Air. They've used it as their halo platform to show the maximum range and efficiency for its class. The Sapphire served as like a mobile laboratory where the learnings were applied to the Air Pure and also the Gravity program as a whole.

Perhaps the "what we don't do" part can be with respect to doing less on academic or design studies and more on production-intent projects. If it's not production-intent, it could either be put on hold or dropped altogether.

The issue with Air (and honestly even Gravity), is that the architecture is just so different from midsize. Gravity uses 12 ECUs, including the 2 NVIDIA chips to run ADAS features. Midsize uses 3, 2 of which are more powerful NVIDIA chips. Changes made to the Air won't flow to midsize, and vice versa. You even see this with Air/Gravity with the new UI not coming to Air until months and months later. As well as Lucid hinting that Air won't be getting any advanced ADAS. Updating the Air's computer architecture (which isn't swapping the dozen ECUs for 3) to match midsize is going to cost money Lucid doesn't have to spend.

Unless Air sales increase by quite a bit, I wouldn't be surprised if the Air goes the way of the Model S. The luxury sedan market is dying, and the Air just doesn't have enough history for Lucid to keep it around.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Last year they said they weren't going to be a car company anymore, they just wanted to license their tech and software.

Is that still the goal?

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the licensing strategy is put on hold. From what I see, what they have immediately in front of them are the Air, Gravity, midsize, and the robotaxi program, and these are delivering direct results in front of them.

 

[socktucker]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the licensing strategy is put on hold. From what I see, what they have immediately in front of them are the Air, Gravity, midsize, and the robotaxi program, and these are delivering direct results in front of them.

last year they're a software company this year they're a robot taxi company

The Air and Gravity have just caused them to hemhorrage money, maybe the midsize can swing it back the other way.

It just seems odd that they completely dropped and reversed course on their entire playbook from 2025. Haw can anyone take what they say seriously?

 

[Need4Sleep]

The issue with Air (and honestly even Gravity), is that the architecture is just so different from midsize. Gravity uses 12 ECUs, including the 2 NVIDIA chips to run ADAS features. Midsize uses 3, 2 of which are more powerful NVIDIA chips. Changes made to the Air won't flow to midsize, and vice versa. You even see this with Air/Gravity with the new UI not coming to Air until months and months later. As well as Lucid hinting that Air won't be getting any advanced ADAS. Updating the Air's computer architecture (which isn't swapping the dozen ECUs for 3) to match midsize is going to cost money Lucid doesn't have to spend.

Unless Air sales increase by quite a bit, I wouldn't be surprised if the Air goes the way of the Model S. The luxury sedan market is dying, and the Air just doesn't have enough history for Lucid to keep it around.

If anything I wouldn't be surprised if the learnings to reduce ECU count and reduce manufacturing costs go back to the Air and Gravity programs, so it it frees up the budget to add towards more performance, then it would be in a back-and-forth kind of learning cycle

E.g.:
High-performance halo products: Air and Gravity -> Take performance learnings and target to reduce costs -> deploy to midsize -> loop cost reduction learnings to free up budget for more performance in Air and Gravity.

But will we see updates to the Air and Gravity anytime soon? I doubt it, Lucid is full steam ahead with midsize as of now. Maybe after they've released their third midsize model that they can focus on Air and Gravity again.

 

[Need4Sleep]

last year they're a software company this year they're a robot taxi company

The Air and Gravity have just caused them to hemhorrage money, maybe the midsize can swing it back the other way.

It just seems odd that they completely dropped and reversed course on their entire playbook from 2025. Haw can anyone take what they say seriously?

a company can do multiple things simultaneously

 

[socktucker]

a company can do multiple things simultaneously

"Better hope"

-Nathaniel Diaz

 

[Pragmatic]

a company can do multiple things simultaneously

Some companies can do multiple things simultaneously.

 

[borski]

Last year they said they weren't going to be a car company anymore, they just wanted to license their tech and software.

Is that still the goal?

They never said they weren’t going to be a car company. Please do not spread inaccurate information.

 

[BS8899]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the licensing strategy is put on hold. From what I see, what they have immediately in front of them are the Air, Gravity, midsize, and the robotaxi program, and these are delivering direct results in front of them.

Forgive my ignorance,
> how would robo-taxi actually benefit Lucif technollogically and financially?

I live in AZ. I saw experimental EVs (GM) on AZ roads since the mid 1990s. I ama strong believer in EVs. I wired my house for EVs in 1998! Many self-drive cars (Waymo and others) have been on AZ streets for over a decade. I love Waymo. I ride them in AZ when I go to the airport. I ride them in CA (SF) as well.

I was surprised to learn that Waymo only has ~1,200 iPace cars. They are looking to add a few more, (maybe as much as another 2,000), though the iPace is actually discontinued. iPace certainty didn't do anything to save Jaguar's EV ambitions!

In many ways, autonomous cars is a great learning vehicle for car manufacturers. Uber's alliance with Lucid/Gravity is no doubt a great learning experience for Lucid, that is, if they can afford the cost and the diversion of engineering time and resources for the learning.

My view of Waymo/Uber robo-taxi, etc. are all great high-tech toys are great for advancing science. That said, I can see how self-driving Ubers helps Uber financially. It is not obvious to me that it really (cost-benefit-wise) advances Lucid's financial stability. In many ways, I can see robo-taxi (Waymo, Uber) advances the science and technology of self-driving. But, does it really address Lucida's financial needs in the coming 2-3 critical years?

I am NOT suggesting Lucid should not pursue the Uber opportunity. But, in my mind, Lucid must keep focus on flawlessly executing their entry into the mid-size. Failing that, it will be a repeat of the iPace!

 

[tmichael]

Forgive my ignorance,
> how would robo-taxi actually benefit Lucif technollogically and financially?

I live in AZ. I saw experimental EVs (GM) on AZ roads since the mid 1990s. I ama strong believer in EVs. I wired my house for EVs in 1998! Many self-drive cars (Waymo and others) have been on AZ streets for over a decade. I love Waymo. I ride them in AZ when I go to the airport. I ride them in CA (SF) as well.

I was surprised to learn that Waymo only has ~1,200 iPace cars. They are looking to add a few more, (maybe as much as another 2,000), though the iPace is actually discontinued. iPace certainty didn't do anything to save Jaguar's EV ambitions!

In many ways, autonomous cars is a great learning vehicle for car manufacturers. Uber's alliance with Lucid/Gravity is no doubt a great learning experience for Lucid, that is, if they can afford the cost and the diversion of engineering time and resources for the learning.

My view of Waymo/Uber robo-taxi, etc. are all great high-tech toys are great for advancing science. That said, I can see how self-driving Ubers helps Uber financially. It is not obvious to me that it really (cost-benefit-wise) advances Lucid's financial stability. In many ways, I can see robo-taxi (Waymo, Uber) advances the science and technology of self-driving. But, does it really address Lucida's financial needs in the coming 2-3 critical years?

I am NOT suggesting Lucid should not pursue the Uber opportunity. But, in my mind, Lucid must keep focus on flawlessly executing their entry into the mid-size. Failing that, it will be a repeat of the iPace!

Delivering 35,000 cars over the next 6 years will be meaningful for production, as well as getting the car out on the streets and people seeing them, let alone getting rides in them. Hopefully, production isn’t all back-end loaded - they could use some production right now to continue ramp up and gain more manufacturing and assembly experience.along with that free advertising.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Forgive my ignorance,
> how would robo-taxi actually benefit Lucif technollogically and financially?

I live in AZ. I saw experimental EVs (GM) on AZ roads since the mid 1990s. I ama strong believer in EVs. I wired my house for EVs in 1998! Many self-drive cars (Waymo and others) have been on AZ streets for over a decade. I love Waymo. I ride them in AZ when I go to the airport. I ride them in CA (SF) as well.

I was surprised to learn that Waymo only has ~1,200 iPace cars. They are looking to add a few more, (maybe as much as another 2,000), though the iPace is actually discontinued. iPace certainty didn't do anything to save Jaguar's EV ambitions!

In many ways, autonomous cars is a great learning vehicle for car manufacturers. Uber's alliance with Lucid/Gravity is no doubt a great learning experience for Lucid, that is, if they can afford the cost and the diversion of engineering time and resources for the learning.

My view of Waymo/Uber robo-taxi, etc. are all great high-tech toys are great for advancing science. That said, I can see how self-driving Ubers helps Uber financially. It is not obvious to me that it really (cost-benefit-wise) advances Lucid's financial stability. In many ways, I can see robo-taxi (Waymo, Uber) advances the science and technology of self-driving. But, does it really address Lucida's financial needs in the coming 2-3 critical years?

I am NOT suggesting Lucid should not pursue the Uber opportunity. But, in my mind, Lucid must keep focus on flawlessly executing their entry into the mid-size. Failing that, it will be a repeat of the iPace!

Sorry, I should've looped the robotaxi initiative as under the midsize umbrella, since Lucid's investor presentation showed that the midsize platform is also to be used by robotaxi.

Back to your point, in the immediate future, Uber's paying Lucid, and that'll help their financial standpoint since Lucid will be selling more units. From what I recall, Lucid is on track to deliver Gravity-based robotaxis to the Uber/Nuro collab later this year, so that's more revenue that will occur within 2026.

Technology-wise, like what you said, the learnings can then be re-applied back to Lucid.

Taking a shot-in-the-dark here, but I think the development of a dedicated robotaxi can also help Lucid get more orders from potential fleet operators. Kind of like how Rivian made the delivery van initially for Amazon, but is now expanding its customer base beyond Amazon. Personally, I'm still skeptical on the whole robotaxi idea, I'm willing to admit that I've yet to see a robotaxi in person because I live in Canada. But that looks to change soon given Waymo's expansion goals.

 

[hmp10]

Last year they said they weren't going to be a car company anymore, they just wanted to license their tech and software.

Lotta CapEx spent on factories in the past few years for a company that doesn't want to be a car company any longer.

And Lucid has been talking the licensing game since early days with Rawlinson at the helm, and it's gone nowhere. No takers from the major auto houses. Aston Martin deal dead. Genesis convertible talk never grew legs.

Service Centers imploding under load from an SUV that was supposed to bring Lucid to a larger market but was released prematurely with horrendous and continuing software issues.

Stock at $8.21.

I read this thread in search of a few flickers of hope for keeping one of the world's best auto engineering and design houses alive. But the sounds of the ventilator and heart monitor are distracting.

 

[BS8899]

Delivering 35,000 cars over the next 6 years will be meaningful for production, as well as getting the car out on the streets and people seeing them, let alone getting rides in them. Hopefully, production isn’t all back-end loaded - they could use some production right now to continue ramp up and gain more manufacturing and assembly experience.along with that free advertising.

I don't doubt the benefit Uber gets. On a recent (6+mo ago) ride on an Uber from SFO to Marin, the Uber driver told me Uber takes more than 65% of the fare. The car owner/driver get sthe 35% but have to pay for all the expenses including bridge toll etc.. I don't doubt that an autonomous Uber would be beneficial to Uber.

Yes, Lucid might sell more cars. But I was stunned to learn that Waymo, as successful as they have been, only has 1,200 iPace.


35,000 Gravities would be nice. But, is it real? How does it juxtapose with Waymo's actual data? Does it jive with reality? What resources does Lucid have to commit to make this real (for Uber)? Does it take away from Lucid's core business requirements?

I am, in no way, pu-pu'ing on the Uber opportunity. I am asking the question in the context of whether Lucid is actually resourced to deliver the Uber vision AND, at the same time, prevail in the mid-size market.

 

[The_Don]

Totally get why a lot of folks are losing hope here, but as mentioned above, it's important to remember that Lucid's stock was never going to look good until they started ramping up sales significantly and they started approaching profitability.

Gravity production only recently started ramping in Q4 and it's frankly too early to tell how much demand there is for it. As we know by looking at Rivian, which is doing better than Lucid but still struggling financially, even if Lucid starts selling 50k-60k vehicles, that will not be enough.

That takes us to midsize. They were never going to achieve profitability until midsize production and sales fully ramped. We don't even know what the midsize will look like yet, let alone it's specs. Any stock movement is just noise at this point as Lucid's story has not fundamentally changed much in the past couple of years.

With this new funding and expectations that margins will improve over the next few quarters, Lucid probably has enough cash until late 2027 or early 2028. In other words they have time for their story to fully play out.