What's new
By:

No more Model S/X production

Tesla adopted an unconventional approach with the S & X models, which ultimately proved detrimental to their success in the latter years. Most automakers utilize its premium offerings to introduce the latest technology. This strategy is effective because consumers in that segment are more inclined to pay a premium to access cutting edge features immediately, rather than waiting for years. This technology was then often integrated into lower end models, while the premium models received more advanced and innovative features.

A prime example of this approach is ADAS. Initially, things like auto steering & lane centering capabilities were exclusively available in the top tier models. Over time, these features have become common in most lower trims.

Tesla’s decision to prioritize the 3 & Y models over the S & X was an oversight. The S & X should have served as a testing ground for an 800V platform, new efficient motors, & faster charging capabilities, etc. These advancements could then have been gradually incorporated into the 3 & Y models, but this approach never materialized. Ultimately, Tesla’s decision to cease production of the S & X was a result of their diminishing interest in these models. They stopped selling because Tesla stopped caring.
 
borski said:

Tesla is (still) trying to deceive investors into thinking it has SF robotaxis

Tesla once again suggested to investors that it has robotaxis operating in San Francisco, even though it does not have permits to do so.
electrek.co electrek.co

Yeah.
Click to expand...
1769721380655.gif
 
HC_79 said:
Tesla adopted an unconventional approach with the S & X models, which ultimately proved detrimental to their success in the latter years. Most automakers utilize its premium offerings to introduce the latest technology. This strategy is effective because consumers in that segment are more inclined to pay a premium to access cutting edge features immediately, rather than waiting for years. This technology was then often integrated into lower end models, while the premium models received more advanced and innovative features.

A prime example of this approach is ADAS. Initially, things like auto steering & lane centering capabilities were exclusively available in the top tier models. Over time, these features have become common in most lower trims.

Tesla’s decision to prioritize the 3 & Y models over the S & X was an oversight. The S & X should have served as a testing ground for an 800V platform, new efficient motors, & faster charging capabilities, etc. These advancements could then have been gradually incorporated into the 3 & Y models, but this approach never materialized. Ultimately, Tesla’s decision to cease production of the S & X was a result of their diminishing interest in these models. They stopped selling because Tesla stopped caring.
Click to expand...
I agree somewhat on the addition of new tech on higher end models. I purchased higher end Mercedes somewhat due to them having good highway based ADAS. The problem with Tesla was that their FSD very much needed massive data to train its ADAS model. If they had kept that in S/X only, that would have greatly limited the number of cars out there with earlier versions of FSD out there to provide that data. Making it available on cheaper cars, giving out trial subscriptions, etc. to get as many users out there as possible driving with FSD to feed that data.

I agree that Tesla could have used S/X to develop other luxury or higher tech battery, motor technologies but Tesla and Musk appear to be totally focused on FSD at all costs.
 
Bdr100 said:
I agree somewhat on the addition of new tech on higher end models. I purchased higher end Mercedes somewhat due to them having good highway based ADAS. The problem with Tesla was that their FSD very much needed massive data to train its ADAS model. If they had kept that in S/X only, that would have greatly limited the number of cars out there with earlier versions of FSD out there to provide that data. Making it available on cheaper cars, giving out trial subscriptions, etc. to get as many users out there as possible driving with FSD to feed that data.

I agree that Tesla could have used S/X to develop other luxury or higher tech battery, motor technologies but Tesla and Musk appear to be totally focused on FSD at all costs.
Click to expand...
I think this is a case of both @Bdr100 and @HC_79 being spot on correct. The thing is Tesla could have used Models S & X as testbeds / entry points for many luxury market and/or performance oriented technologies and improvements while still using the high volume Models 3 & Y as data trainers for FSD. They did the second part. They completely ignored the first part and THAT is why S & X were relegated to aging ungracefully. They could have improved the quality of materials in the interior. They could have added luxury features like massage, chromatic roof panels, integrated refrigeration, and so on. They didn't. Competitors (including Lucid) did. Sales reflected this error of omission.
 
They threw the kitchen sink at the Cybertruck; steer - by-wire, 800V, 48V, new construction, upgraded 4680s, rear steer. Of course, the only customer noticeable thing was the steer by wire with the yoke wheel thing. The rest the other competitors already had or things were not material (ie 48V, truck still 1.5x promised original price, no price or capability advantage over the competition).
 
illopp00 said:
They threw the kitchen sink at the Cybertruck; steer - by-wire, 800V, 48V, new construction, upgraded 4680s, rear steer. Of course, the only customer noticeable thing was the steer by wire with the yoke wheel thing. The rest the other competitors already had or things were not material (ie 48V, truck still 1.5x promised original price, no price or capability advantage over the competition).
Click to expand...
Yes, but no one wanted the car to look like an actual kitchen sink 😂
 
Smorgasbord said:
Tesla didn't "waste time" with 3 and Y - they made a ton of money, established themselves as a world-wide high-volume automotive producer: Both of which turned out to be needed for the next step. That Tesla is already running taxi services with Model Y shows the value in that, even if somewhat accidental in terms of development.
Click to expand...
its too late I already said checkmate
 
BTW, here's RJ Scaringe's take on moving downmarket (R2 way more important than R1), software-defined vehicles, and autonomy:

Swisher will insert her Elon hate every chance she gets, but RJ is too smart to take the bait. That said, he has a very similar view to Musk, and I hope he's successful, too.

One tidbit was that Rivian put lidar on the Gen-2 R1 vehicles not to enable autonomy, but to gather data ("ground truth") for future autonomy. Another is what Tesla doesn't talk about, which is the change everyone has made in autonomy from separate AI-perception code bases paired with human-coded driving policy, to an all-AI codebase. Tesla literally had to start over, and my guess is that was about the time Karpathy left Tesla.
 
HC_79 said:
A prime example of this approach is ADAS. Initially, things like auto steering & lane centering capabilities were exclusively available in the top tier models. Over time, these features have become common in most lower trims.
Click to expand...
Note that Rivian looks to be doing the same - R2 will have more autonomous features than R1. We'll see how much they "back-port" to the higher end models.

Lucid is likely in the same boat with Earth promised to have Nvidia integration for L2++ driving, and we'll have to see if Lucid redoes hardware in future Gravitys to support that as well.

But, in both cases, these features are coming to the mid-market, higher volume, models first.

Mercedes used to do the "S-Class gets the new stuff first," too, but now with the CLA even Mercedes is breaking that mold.
 
Takeshi said:
Why does this post about Tesla Model S and X get more attention then any of the other Lucid announcements on a Lucid forum?

Are we that ANTI-ELON / TESLA here lol!?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am. Musk openly and repeatedly promotes an ideology that caused some of my ancestors to flee Germany. If they hadn't, I probably wouldnt be here commenting. I wont willingly do anything that puts a dollar in his pocket.
 
Smorgasbord said:
Lucid is likely in the same boat with Earth promised to have Nvidia integration for L2++ driving, and we'll have to see if Lucid redoes hardware in future Gravitys to support that as well.
Click to expand...
Gravity will have L2++ by year end. Earth is promising L4
 
AnthonySF said:
Let’s keep in mind this is a Lucid forum where we discuss, Lucid, an automotive brand. Cars, autonomous driving, the company etc…not a therapy session to vent.
Click to expand...

While this forum focuses on Lucid products and Lucid ownership, there have been some other very interesting and informative threads on the broader car industry, the EV climate in general, evolving technologies in several fields, and things even further afield from Lucid specifically.

Check out the "General Discussions" section of the forum which contains 602 threads.

The forum certainly has room to discuss what's going on with Tesla -- the company that started many Lucid owners on their EV journey and through which passed much of the talent that has come and gone at Lucid, including Peter Rawlinson, the man who launched Lucid cars and largely created the original Model S.
 
A lot of the criticism of the robotaxis and robots needing remote control seems a bit short sighted. Of course they will need a lot of data of these things operating in the way that we want them to. Remote operation seems like a reasonable way of getting that data.

It also seems outlandish that Tesla can gather enough data in a reasonable timeframe from these limited uses. If I owned Tesla stock, and I don’t, I would want to see A LOT more remotely operated vehicles. And that seems like an unwise investment considering Nvidia seems to be catching up via synthetic data. And the future Tesla is aiming toward is one where everyone has this tech and they aren’t special.
 
hmp10 said:
While this forum focuses on Lucid products and Lucid ownership, there have been some other very interesting and informative threads on the broader car industry, the EV climate in general, evolving technologies in several fields, and things even further afield from Lucid specifically.

Check out the "General Discussions" section of the forum which contains 602 threads.

The forum certainly has room to discuss what's going on with Tesla -- the company that started many Lucid owners on their EV journey and through which passed much of the talent that has come and gone at Lucid, including Peter Rawlinson, the man who launched Lucid cars and largely created the original Model S.
Click to expand...
And most of us were Tesla owners. Or still are.
 
HC_79 said:
Gravity will have L2++ by year end. Earth is promising L4
Click to expand...
I sure hope that’s true, but I suspect not.
Gravity doesn’t have the Nvidia hardware that the Mercedes CLA has. I think that Earth will get the Nvidia AGX system for L2.
L4 requires the halo thingy.

I could be wrong, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top