Definitely DE to showcase Lucid's cutting edge tech compared to Tesla and other EV's and then one model in 400 mile range instead of two (Touring & Pure), with options to kickstart the production and deliver as many as they can, each quarter. Full hands on deck on these models for a year or so, till production is streamlined, Software is bug free and then get into trims like Sapphire and so on!Maybe? Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
I'm curious, as an exercise, which two variants would you have kept? They need the Pure, right, to have a low-cost entry that appeals to the largest audience possible? But that would never have made headlines. Would have just been a mediocre, slow Model S competitor, with only a few miles more range and slightly cheaper price. (No offense to Pure customers. Just saying, without that 500+ mile range and 800+ hp, they never would have gotten much attention.) So then you keep a higher-end model for the stats. GT? GT-P?
Sapphire and Touring would be the obvious ones to cut, if you ask me. But that would likely have taken me out of the customer pool. I'd argue having a performance brand like Sapphire is important in this class of car (think AMG, etc.) but that likely could have waited.
I wonder what others think. If you had to cut down the Air to two variants, which would you choose?
Lucid didn't have to prove anything after launching Dream edition. Press was all over the car with amazing reviews for its interior and superior drive compared to Tesla. All they had to do was launch a 80-90K car with few luxury options based on what majority of the people will opt based on market survey!
My reasons to book a Pure were to simply put 25-30K miles per year on a car for my business commute. The cheapest 400 mile range EV was Lucid at 77K. Bought a Tesla 3 months ago(7k+ miles clocked) , it should have been Lucid.