Lucid Philosophy Spreading?

[hmp10]

I just watched some videos of today's reveal of the Kia EV3 which is already getting rave reviews.

Not only does it seem to put the same emphasis on interior packaging efficiency that Lucid does (and, unlike the Germans, managing to include a frunk), it is turning back toward buttons for certain control functions instead of screens. It virtually duplicates the toggle switch array Lucid uses to control A/C temp and fan speed, and the large multi-function controllers on each side of the steering wheel look very Gravity-esque.

 

[Tesla2.0]

Lucid needs to expedite its lifecycle of prototype product to market. For Hyundai and Kia, it is fast delivery and grabbing market share.

 

[xponents]

I just watched some videos of today's reveal of the Kia EV3 which is already getting rave reviews.

Not only does it seem to put the same emphasis on interior packaging efficiency that Lucid does (and, unlike the Germans, managing to include a frunk), it is turning back toward buttons for certain control functions instead of screens. It virtually duplicates the toggle switch array Lucid uses to control A/C temp and fan speed, and the large multi-function controllers on each side of the steering wheel look very Gravity-esque.

View attachment 20879
View attachment 20880

The interior of the EV9 is almost the exact same as the EV3 in terms of layout. I have been meaning to post a review. On the control layout specifically:

The center controls feel the EXACT same as the Lucid. And I'm not exaggerating when I say exact, it literally feels like they ripped them off an Air! The volume button is ALSO in the same type of location and has the exact same knurling on it. On delivery day, I joked with my brother that they didn't even try to hide their copying of Lucid, lol.

There's also a display to the right of the gauge cluster, it can also control/display the AC settings. This display is poorly placed, as it gets blocked by the steering wheel for the driver. The frunk in our AWD EV9 is useless and we currently store the level 1 cable and the V2L connector in it. To this date, Lucid, Rivian, and some of the GM evs (huge, though) have the only genuinely useful frunk. I think that is one of our main disappointments with this car, actually. Interior packaging is amazing and I cannot heap enough praise on the second row (in terms of legroom as well as features). The third row, especially with our "relaxation package" equipped car (thicker seats robbing 3 inches of legroom from the third row, but adding recliners to the second row) is bad. The cargo space is fine, at least until you look at the Gravity and its third row folding mechanisms.

Both the EV9 and the Gravity have minivan esque shapes that manage to look like a SUV. The key difference between the two is that Lucid uses this to their advantage (they make it feel like an ACTUAL minivan), but the EV9 just uses it to make it feel bigger than a normal SUV. When you compare both of them in terms of packaging, the Kia looks like garbage... which says a lot about how ahead Lucid is versus the other competitors. Kia is doing well in this space, with the Lucid inspired control panel and some packaging, but it STILL isn't a comparison. Have I mentioned that our EV9 had a retail of 74k?

 

[xponents]

The interior of the EV9 is almost the exact same as the EV3 in terms of layout. I have been meaning to post a review. On the control layout specifically:

The center controls feel the EXACT same as the Lucid. And I'm not exaggerating when I say exact, it literally feels like they ripped them off an Air! The volume button is ALSO in the same type of location and has the exact same knurling on it. On delivery day, I joked with my brother that they didn't even try to hide their copying of Lucid, lol.

There's also a display to the right of the gauge cluster, it can also control/display the AC settings. This display is poorly placed, as it gets blocked by the steering wheel for the driver. The frunk in our AWD EV9 is useless and we currently store the level 1 cable and the V2L connector in it. To this date, Lucid, Rivian, and some of the GM evs (huge, though) have the only genuinely useful frunk. I think that is one of our main disappointments with this car, actually. Interior packaging is amazing and I cannot heap enough praise on the second row (in terms of legroom as well as features). The third row, especially with our "relaxation package" equipped car (thicker seats robbing 3 inches of legroom from the third row, but adding recliners to the second row) is bad. The cargo space is fine, at least until you look at the Gravity and its third row folding mechanisms.

Both the EV9 and the Gravity have minivan esque shapes that manage to look like a SUV. The key difference between the two is that Lucid uses this to their advantage (they make it feel like an ACTUAL minivan), but the EV9 just uses it to make it feel bigger than a normal SUV. When you compare both of them in terms of packaging, the Kia looks like garbage... which says a lot about how ahead Lucid is versus the other competitors. Kia is doing well in this space, with the Lucid inspired control panel and some packaging, but it STILL isn't a comparison. Have I mentioned that our EV9 had a retail of 74k?

Here's a partial picture of what the dashboard looks like. Make your own conclusions, but that looks extremely similar to me!

 

[hmp10]

Lucid needs to expedite its lifecycle of prototype product to market. For Hyundai and Kia, it is fast delivery and grabbing market share.

This worries me, too, but I'm not really sure Lucid moves any more slowly through this cycle than other carmakers, especially given how much new powertrain technology they are developing as part of the package.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

It's unfortunate that Peter lost the battle to introduce a high-end eSUV first, but having done so, I think Lucid should have set its sights on a high-end mid-size crossover as its second product launch. That's where the volume will be, and volume is what LCID needs most at this stage in the game.

 

[RM-S8]

It's unfortunate that Peter lost the battle to introduce a high-end eSUV first

I'm your opinion, who was the first one who introduced a high - end one?

 

[hmp10]

It's unfortunate that Peter lost the battle to introduce a high-end eSUV first, but having done so, I think Lucid should have set its sights on a high-end mid-size crossover as its second product launch. That's where the volume will be, and volume is what LCID needs most at this stage in the game.

If price is the determinant of what is a "high-end eSUV", Lucid is certainly not the first. However, in terms of technology -- space utilization, power, efficiency, and handling -- Lucid, while perhaps arriving at the mountain a bit later than others, will land right at the top of it.

I don't think Rawlinson entered any battle to be first to arrive. His goal is to be best to arrive. There's been a lot of grousing about his hefty compensation package in light of Lucid's disappointing early sales (and remember, the Air is outselling the Porsche Taycan and Mercedes EQS in the U.S.). I have long maintained that the Saudis are behind Lucid with the long-term aim of having a key stake in the leading edge of EV technology. By that metric, Rawlinson has delivered in spades . . . and his compensation package is simply the acknowledgement of that.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

I'm your opinion, who was the first one who introduced a high - end one?

Hello. Both you and @hmp10 misunderstood me. I was pointing out that Peter has publicly stated he wanted Lucid's first vehicle to be a high-end eSUV, aka Gravity, but that the investor group insisted that a sedan should be launched first. My comment had nothing to do with comparisons or timing relative to other brands, or even comparisons or timing relative to Lucid's other pipeline models. I apologize if my wording was not clear about that.

 

[hmp10]

Hello. Both you and @hmp10 misunderstood me. I was pointing out that Peter has publicly stated he wanted Lucid's first vehicle to be a high-end eSUV, aka Gravity, but that the investor group insisted that a sedan should be launched first. My comment had nothing to do with comparisons or timing relative to other brands, or even comparisons or timing relative to Lucid's other pipeline models. I apologize if my wording was not clear about that.

Got it, and sorry for misunderstanding you.

I agree that Rawlinson might have preferred to start with an SUV. However, I doubt that even he would have pushed to start with a mid-size crossover for three reasons that Rawlinson himself has mentioned at one time or another.

First, they needed to start with an expensive model that he at least hoped (if somewhat unfulfilled) would generate enough margins to fund ongoing development. In fact, he specifically said he was following in Tesla's footsteps on this score.

Second, it was probably easier to work out the initial engineering intricacies of miniaturizing an ultra-powerful powertrain on a larger platform. Getting the Lucid powertrain to the size and efficiency needed to meet Rawlinson's goals for a Model Y competitor is more like second- or third-generation engineering of the motor and power electronics technologies Lucid first developed for the Air. We are already seeing enough changes in the motors and power electronics of the Gravity to suggest Lucid is already at the second generation of development of these components.

Third, Rawlinson mentioned that there is a direct correlation between start-up costs of a manufacturing operation and the anticipated volume of the target market. For that reason, he said Lucid needed to launch with a relatively low-volume product on which to cut the organization's production teeth. Now that Rawlinson has proven he can deliver on the technology front, the PIF is willing to invest further capital in building production facilities in anticipation of high production volume. I doubt if they would have gone so far until the technology was proven out on a lower-volume product.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

Got it, and sorry for misunderstanding you.

I agree that Rawlinson might have preferred to start with an SUV. However, I doubt that even he would have pushed to start with a mid-size crossover for three reasons that Rawlinson himself has mentioned at one time or another.

First, they needed to start with an expensive model that he at least hoped (if somewhat unfulfilled) would generate enough margins to fund ongoing development. In fact, he specifically said he was following in Tesla's footsteps on this score.

Second, it was probably easier to work out the initial engineering intricacies of miniaturizing an ultra-powerful powertrain on a larger platform. Getting the Lucid powertrain to the size and efficiency needed to meet Rawlinson's goals for a Model Y competitor is more like second- or third-generation engineering of the motor and power electronics technologies Lucid first developed for the Air. We are already seeing enough changes in the motors and power electronics of the Gravity to suggest Lucid is already at the second generation of development of these components.

Third, Rawlinson mentioned that there is a direct correlation between start-up costs of a manufacturing operation and the anticipated volume of the target market. For that reason, he said Lucid needed to launch with a relatively low-volume product on which to cut the organization's production teeth. Now that Rawlinson has proven he can deliver on the technology front, the PIF is willing to invest further capital in building production facilities in anticipation of high production volume. I doubt if they would have gone so far until the technology was proven out on a lower-volume product.

Ha! I was misunderstood on those points, as well. I need to work on my writing style! What I meant was... Rawlinson clearly set the technological benchmark with the Air. Suppose he had been allowed to set that technological benchmark with the Gravity instead of the Air. In that case, I think he would have been able to sell a lot more Gravity's than he has been able to sell Air's. Also, while it is arguably a reasonable move to follow the Air with the Gravity, I don't think it would have been an arguably reasonable move to follow the Gravity with the Air. So, if he had been allowed to launch the Gravity first, I think the better move would have been to follow the Gravity with a high-end mid-size crossover SUV.

 

[hmp10]

Ha! I was misunderstood on those points, as well. I need to work on my writing style!

No, you don't need to work on your writing style. I need to work on my reading skills. As I reread your post you did, in fact, say a mid-size crossover should be a second product, not a first.

But I find it interesting that Lucid is not the only automaker that has sequenced its model lineup with a sedan first followed by a larger SUV: Tesla (which followed with the Model X); Mercedes which launched the EQS Sedan before the EQS SUV; Porsche whose EV sedan came before its EV Tourismo crossover; Genesis; Chevrolet; et al.

I don't know their reasons, but I do know that Lucid wanted to put its technology stake in the ground and anchor its reputation around hitting the market with the longest-range EV on the market, regardless of body style. That was much more likely to succeed with a sedan than with an SUV.

There's another consideration here, albeit one from hindsight. Rawlinson said that it was better to start with a low-volume vehicle for two reasons: capital investment required for mass production is too large for a startup to handle, and new manufacturing processes need to be worked out with the lower line rates of lower-volume products.

It's not exactly a manufacturing process, but we should never forget the absolute disaster that was the first year of Lucid's software. There were far, far too many auto journalists (and owners) who could not get doors to open, who found screen responses balky, who got random warnings, etc. These stories filled the auto press, dominated many YouTube comment sections, and still get mentioned today by the likes of "Edmunds". Even the two Lucid forums were swamped with tales of software malfunctions. I, myself, at one point considered getting rid of a car that I otherwise thought the best vehicle I ever owned. Lucid's reputation was only saved, in my view, by the astonishing range figures the Air put on the board and the miracles of space engineering it pulled off.

If Lucid had begun with a bigger-selling SUV that could not post quite the range figures of the Air, the software fiasco might well have killed the brand at birth. Look no further than what is happening to Fisker.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

No, you don't need to work on your writing style. I need to work on my reading skills. As I reread your post you did, in fact, say a mid-size crossover should be a second product, not a first.

But I find it interesting that Lucid is not the only automaker that has sequenced its model lineup with a sedan first followed by a larger SUV: Tesla (which followed with the Model X); Mercedes which launched the EQS Sedan before the EQS SUV; Porsche whose EV sedan came before its EV Tourismo crossover; Genesis; Chevrolet; et al.

I don't know their reasons, but I do know that Lucid wanted to put its technology stake in the ground and anchor its reputation around hitting the market with the longest-range EV on the market, regardless of body style. That was much more likely to succeed with a sedan than with an SUV.

There's another consideration here, albeit one from hindsight. Rawlinson said that it was better to start with a low-volume vehicle for two reasons: capital investment required for mass production is too large for a startup to handle, and new manufacturing processes need to be worked out with the lower line rates of lower-volume products.

It's not exactly a manufacturing process, but we should never forget the absolute disaster that was the first year of Lucid's software. There were far, far too many auto journalists (and owners) who could not get doors to open, who found screen responses balky, who got random warnings, etc. These stories filled the auto press, dominated many YouTube comment sections, and still get mentioned today by the likes of "Edmunds". Even the two Lucid forums were swamped with tales of software malfunctions. I, myself, at one point considered getting rid of a car that I otherwise thought the best vehicle I ever owned. Lucid's reputation was only saved, in my view, by the astonishing range figures the Air put on the board and the miracles of space engineering it pulled off.

If Lucid had begun with a bigger-selling SUV that could not post quite the range figures of the Air, the software fiasco might well have killed the brand at birth. Look no further than what is happening to Fisker.

That's all VERY interesting. I knew that the Air got off to a rocky start from a software perspective, but I didn't realize that it was THAT rocky. Yikes! Thanks for staying the course!

 

[Steveinarizona]

It's unfortunate that Peter lost the battle to introduce a high-end eSUV first, but having done so, I think Lucid should have set its sights on a high-end mid-size crossover as its second product launch. That's where the volume will be, and volume is what LCID needs most at this stage in the game.

That does seem to be one of the two sweet spots. I took a look, e.g., at the 2023 sales of BMW and Mercedes and the bulk of the sales were in the compact space (X3, GLC) or midsized space (X5 or GLE):

2023 U.S SUV Sales Figures By Model (With Rankings)

Automotive Sales Data and Statistics

www.goodcarbadcar.net

A few companies have tried to find a middle spot between the two (Acura; VW) by enlarging the smaller vehicle.

It would be nice to do this type of comparison for EVs but the volume won't support any meaningful conclusions as of now.

 

[xponents]

That's all VERY interesting. I knew that the Air got off to a rocky start from a software perspective, but I didn't realize that it was THAT rocky. Yikes! Thanks for staying the course!

It indeed was that terrible. It took almost 30 seconds for the car to start up, screens crashing... just a mess in every way possible. Our very first interaction with the Air in the studio was terrible for this reason as well. I think that's one of the reasons a lot of us feel grateful despite Lucid's currently "slow" update pace.

 

[hmp10]

. . . I didn't realize that it was THAT rocky.

Yep. I perhaps had more software woes than some other owners, but mine included:

- doors refusing to open
- A/C shutting down in the middle of a drive
- car refusing to engage forward or reverse
- screens blacking out mid-drive
- Alexa behaving badly on a good day and not at all on a bad day
- bass disappearing from sound system
- intermittent ear-splitting screeches from a right rear speaker (that actually forced all occupants out of the car)

This went on non-stop for the first ten months I owned an Air -- December 2021 to October 2022, when the introduction of UX 2.0 put Lucid on a path to resolution. (Today, I like the Air's total control suite -- the combination of screens and tactile buttons -- considerably more than our Tesla's.)

The early Airs were really only suited for early-adopters who were used to and tolerant of such new product woes. It would have been disastrous for Lucid if too many of its early cars got into the hands of more mainstream buyers.

 

[joec]

No, you don't need to work on your writing style. I need to work on my reading skills. As I reread your post you did, in fact, say a mid-size crossover should be a second product, not a first.

But I find it interesting that Lucid is not the only automaker that has sequenced its model lineup with a sedan first followed by a larger SUV: Tesla (which followed with the Model X); Mercedes which launched the EQS Sedan before the EQS SUV; Porsche whose EV sedan came before its EV Tourismo crossover; Genesis; Chevrolet; et al.

I don't know their reasons, but I do know that Lucid wanted to put its technology stake in the ground and anchor its reputation around hitting the market with the longest-range EV on the market, regardless of body style. That was much more likely to succeed with a sedan than with an SUV.

There's another consideration here, albeit one from hindsight. Rawlinson said that it was better to start with a low-volume vehicle for two reasons: capital investment required for mass production is too large for a startup to handle, and new manufacturing processes need to be worked out with the lower line rates of lower-volume products.

It's not exactly a manufacturing process, but we should never forget the absolute disaster that was the first year of Lucid's software. There were far, far too many auto journalists (and owners) who could not get doors to open, who found screen responses balky, who got random warnings, etc. These stories filled the auto press, dominated many YouTube comment sections, and still get mentioned today by the likes of "Edmunds". Even the two Lucid forums were swamped with tales of software malfunctions. I, myself, at one point considered getting rid of a car that I otherwise thought the best vehicle I ever owned. Lucid's reputation was only saved, in my view, by the astonishing range figures the Air put on the board and the miracles of space engineering it pulled off.

If Lucid had begun with a bigger-selling SUV that could not post quite the range figures of the Air, the software fiasco might well have killed the brand at birth. Look no further than what is happening to Fisker.

Lucid is not ready for mid-size yet, from an infrastructure standpoint.

Think service centers. Training service technicians. Retail. Yes, software. These things take years to build.

If Lucid were actually selling hundreds of thousands of cars per year, they'd be screwed trying to maintain their customer service. Thus, Gravity, which will be a mere 6x max increase in sales. Buys them another two years to expand their operations smoothly.

Also, if they released mid-size now and they DIDN'T see a big boost in sales, then what? They have no story for how to grow. At least with Gravity, a slight uptick in sales (and the promise of the more affordable mid-range on the road map) is much easier for investors to digest.

Slow and steady wins the race.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

Lucid is not ready for mid-size yet, from an infrastructure standpoint.

Think service centers. Training service technicians. Retail. Yes, software. These things take years to build.

If Lucid were actually selling hundreds of thousands of cars per year, they'd be screwed trying to maintain their customer service. Thus, Gravity, which will be a mere 6x max increase in sales. Buys them another two years to expand their operations smoothly.

Also, if they released mid-size now and they DIDN'T see a big boost in sales, then what? They have no story for how to grow. At least with Gravity, a slight uptick in sales (and the promise of the more affordable mid-range on the road map) is much easier for investors to digest.

Slow and steady wins the race.

Makes sense!

 

[hmp10]

The early Airs were really only suited for early-adopters who were used to and tolerant of such new product woes. It would have been disastrous for Lucid if too many of its early cars got into the hands of more mainstream buyers.

I just re-read this sentence in the context of being anxious to get near the head of the line for a Gravity Dream Edition. Hmmm . . . .

 

[xponents]

I just re-read this sentence in the context of being anxious to get near the head of the line for a Gravity Dream Edition. Hmmm . . . .

I see what you mean. That would almost certainly be a disaster.

Rivian's are slowly becoming almost commonplace among my town. Lucids are meanwhile only seen about once a month (sadly). However... [most] SUV customers are not really "enthusiasts" (I know it's an incorrect usage of the word, but I couldnt think of a better word). By "enthusiasts," I mean that they would be somewhat more tolerant regarding the software issues due to the amazing hardware (as the early Air was). If the Gravity was to go first instead of the Air, and it had the same great hardware but terrible software, I think that the more commonplace SUV customers would not tolerate it with even half the patience that early Air owners did.

I'm sure my thoughts are coming out as a huge jumble of words, but hopefully you all get the gist. I assume this is what you meant by that, right?