He hasn't looked at it like the others with teardowns etc. I'm surprised he hasn't picked up a Lucid unless he's worried it will show up his fave company, Tesla.
The priority for Lucid was clearly engineering with the software being an afterthought. You can fix software after the fact but if you've got a solid platform from the engineering standpoint it can last for years and save the company huge $$$ in the future as well. It seems from an efficiency and engineering standpoint, Lucid is a serious competitor that should make the competition worried.There is no doubt that the people behind the car and company are brilliant. Makes it even more baffling that they can't/haven't included some seemingly simple things like lane centering and Android auto
I get it, sacrifices need to be made to get a product launched and if I was in that position when the mandate is to focus on efficiency etc. then I would choose to throw resources into engineering over software as well, especially when it can be fixed after the fact.. Having said that though, Lucid is coming up to its one year anniversary and the current state of the software needs to show some drastic improvement when it comes to reliability and speed sooner rather than later. If Lucid ticks over the one year anniversary and the software hasn't seen a major update then I think people have every right to start screaming at them for the price point of the car. We know a speedier version is in the works so hopefully its a few weeks away and not months still. I'm suspecting AA, Apple CarPlay and the speedier OS may all be bundled into one big update.
And they need to stop making cars that die in the middle of a freeway!There is no doubt that the people behind the car and company are brilliant. Makes it even more baffling that they can't/haven't included some seemingly simple things like lane centering and Android auto
You mean "that can't shift into Neutral"?
I don’t think it’s a case of Lucid not wanting to license it but pride getting in the way with competitors. Tesla was open to licensing and they were shunned to a point where I think old auto thought they’d go away so don’t help them survive. Lucid is going to be in the same boat so unless a new car company wants to start up I don’t see any existing licensing the platform because it will show failure on their part.
Any car that stops working leaving the driver stranded!
Agreed - clearly certain features need to be better explained at walk through time, especially for those new to the setup.
Tesla was forced to because of the dumpster fire that was the Tesla Roadster. Musk didn't really want to do it. The $500 million from the Dept of Energy kept them afloat and financed a lot of the development of the Model S, but they had to generate revenue. So the battery development with Daimler gave them revenue and credibility, otherwise they would have gone under. Musk has admitted as much, saying that they would have gone bankrupt without the Smart forTwo deal. Then the Toyota partnership gave them a huge boost in learning how to actually build a car, so their engineers came back actually knowing a little about how to build and, more importantly, manufacture, a car. That was also in exchange for their battery technology. Lucid already has those things, so not sure what any deal would bring to the table. The one interesting possibility would be a partnership in building the low cost vehicle, which could be useful to them in bringing that to the market much faster than their current plan.
We already know when he does get one he will say the doors could be made more cheaply and why waste all that money on high end suspension parts. Remember when he complained that he couldn't plug a Mach E into a Chademo plug? He's just another Tesla fanboy and it only got worse after Musk gave him that interview. Not one negative word about the 4680 cell disaster in both concept and execution. The 4680 pack teardown showed an unmitigated disaster but they say not a word against it.
It’s why I am still at the table.
