Please critique my piece in Barron's

[Tesla2.0]

LMAO Already published then asked to proof-read facts from sources, such is quality attribute of a senior writer.

 

[CLTGT]

LMAO Already published then asked to proof-read facts from sources, such is quality attribute of a senior writer.

That made me laugh as well. I found that approach to be somewhat patronizing.

 

[HC_79]

Just another trash piece. I would like to see these "Dozens" of examples listed out. you bundled different issues into a one liner to clearly make out things are worse than what they are. For example, the car moving forward when in reverse was listed by 1 or 2 owners I believe not "Dozens". Gone are the days of fair and unbiased reporting, you all have an agenda.

Maybe do a report on VW on how atrocious the ID4 software is and how shit Electrify America is but then you may not get invited to to future events that VWAG pays for so you're certainly not going to do that are you?

 

[RM-S8]

rbbarry loved it. Enough said

 

[Drendino]

View attachment 6835
rbbarry loved it. Enough said

 

[stevelitchfieldpark]

I one word to describe the article especially using this forum for your facts : "Garbage"

 

[Adnillien]

I do appreciate your honesty in posting both who you are and the article that you wrote.

I find the use of unnamed experts to be either misleading. “Car-safety experts say the volume of complaints to the forums and to the government are significant for a company that has shipped about 2,500 of its high-price cars through September.” Who were these experts and were they basing their judgement on your exaggerated claim of dozens of complaints instead of a few.

Did you really make a serious attempt to contact owners? “Barron’s was unsuccessful in attempts to reach several writers who posted complaints on forums. The car-safety experts we consulted found the comments credible.” Posting a request to owners one day and publishing an article the next is not a credible attempt to contact owners. Here again we have unnamed experts.

Your article is definitely a hit piece with little balance. You know very well the forum posters are not a representative sample of owners so it is very difficult to draw conclusion from a forum like this one. I suggest researching why Lucid can produce a care with better efficiency than any other automaker for a similar sized sedan. Maybe also research how Lucid was able to produce a battery that will charge faster both in kWs and in miles added per minute than other comparable sedan on the market.

There may be a valid reason that many forum posters are skeptical of Journalists selectively picking posts out of context to use in an article.

 

[stevelitchfieldpark]

You could also do another article saying the Air is cheap looking with plastic knobs that fall off, a CEO that lies and will go bankrupt within a year; all of these statements have been posted here on lucidowners.com

 

[AIR.LUCID]

All:

I just wrote about some issues discussed here. I beg you to point out errors. Good journalists care about quality control in their work.

Bill Alpert
[email protected]

• AUTOS
• FEATURE

Lucid’s High-End EV Is Drawing Safety Complaints. Another Problem for the Stock?​

---

By
Bill Alpert


Updated Nov. 18, 2022 9:35 am ET / Original Nov. 18, 2022 1:00 am ET

The Lucid Air, the object of safety complaints, goes for as much as $179,000. Assembling a prototype at company headquarters in Newark, Calif.​

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
Lucid Group has carved a niche in the luxury end of the electric-vehicle market, with $150,000 sedans that offer the best power, range, and aerodynamics of any car produced. Owners fill online forums with delighted reports of long trips and snapshots of their beautiful, streamlined “Luci.”
The forums and government websites also show dozens of complaints of serious product defects. A year after Lucid (ticker: LCID) started delivering its sole product—the Lucid Air sedan—owners’ forums feature dozens of reports from people who say the cars drove forward when in reverse gear, or lost all power in the middle of the road, to become what one owner called a “5,000 pound brick.” Federal auto-safety regulators have received six complaints of power loss or gear malfunction from Lucid owners since mid-September.
Car-safety experts say the volume of complaints to the forums and to the government are significant for a company that has shipped about 2,500 of its high-price cars through September.
A power blackout in traffic could spell trouble. “If you’re broken down on the interstate where you don’t have room to pull over and get out of traffic, it’s only a matter of time before something bad happens,” says Michael Brooks, the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety. He believes that the federal government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, should investigate the Lucid power-loss complaints.
Lucid didn’t respond to several weeks of queries from Barron’s regarding the problems reported by Air owners. Self-described owners report that the company has replaced failed batteries and electrical components as incidents occur.Barron’s was unsuccessful in attempts to reach several writers who posted complaints on forums. The car-safety experts we consulted found the comments credible.
If the complaints become widely known among prospective buyers, it could affect Lucid’s order book—and orders are a key factor for its stock. At $11.30, the shares are down 80% from their year-ago peak, as the Newark, Calif.–based firm repeatedly cut its production forecast and reported that its order backlog shrank in the September quarter because of cancellations. With September’s 8% sequential drop, to 34,000 cars on order, the number is going in reverse.
The Lucid Air does have a lot going for it. When reviewers test-drove units last year, they raved over the power, range, and luxury—all of which rated higher than those of the top-end Model S from Tesla TSLA –2.48% (TSLA). The $179,000 version of the Air boasts a top range of 520 miles per charge and the highest horsepower of any production car in the world.
User forums, however, are filled with reports of software bugs affecting displays, assisted driving, and charging. Some two dozen writers on the independent social platform Lucidowners.com report a more serious problem: Their new Lucid Airs lost power abruptly—sometimes in busy traffic.
“My plan was a glowing review with a few minor niggles,” said a Lucidowners.com post in September. “Unfortunately, the car was towed to the service center in Riviera Beach last night after it stopped driving in the middle of a six-lane road here in S FL with no warning or error codes.”
Six Lucid owners have reported their power-loss problems on NHTSA’s website. “It seems like this is an obvious safety problem and something that NHTSA needs to look into quickly, before someone stalls and gets themselves killed,” says Brooks of the Center for Auto Safety. His organization has spent five decades securing the passage of lemon laws and the recall of millions of cars prone to exploding gas tanks or air bags.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act doesn’t require many incidents to trigger a recall of a potentially unsafe product. When Lucid issued a voluntary recall for a faulty suspension part in February, it estimated that the component had gone into just 1% of the 203 cars it produced.
Courts have held that anything more than a “de minimis” number of failure incidents can be enough to oblige a safety recall, says Coleman Sachs, a compliance consultant who retired recently after 33 years as a NHTSA attorney and enforcement manager. While Sachs wouldn’t give an opinion on the merits of the complaints on the owners’ forum and NHTSA’s website, he says that their apparent number, in the dozens, seems more than a de minimis proportion of all 2,500 cars produced.
The complaints come as Lucid is facing a safety-related whistle-blower lawsuit filed in June in a California state court. In the suit, Lucid’s former manager of safety recall, Raul Guzman, alleges he was unjustly fired after telling CEO Peter Rawlinson that he believed Lucid was underreporting various defects to federal regulators. The suit doesn’t mention power loss or gear problems. Lucid and Guzman’s lawyers didn’t respond to requests for comment.
NHTSA wouldn’t discuss whether it was looking into the complaints of Lucid owners. A spokesperson said the agency is committed to ensuring the safety of vehicles on America’s roads and “closely monitors consumer complaints, data, and other resources of information to identify potential defect trends.”
Production problems, safety investigations, and recalls aren’t unusual in the auto industry.
“Tesla’s Model S launch was not without its trials and tribulations,” notes Cory Steuben, president of the auto engineering consultants Munro & Associates. But today’s crowded EV market allows Lucid less margin for error than when Tesla launched a decade ago, says Steuben. Lucid must compete against an ever-growing range of EV alternatives from luxury producers like Mercedes-Benz (MBGYY), BMW (BMWYY), Audi, and its parent Porsche (POAHY).
The crowd of well-capitalized competitors in the premium EV niche is a key reason that Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has a sell rating on Lucid stock. He thinks the stock is worth no more than $10—and if Lucid continues to struggle with production volumes, as little as $3.
Lucid investors and customers take comfort in the company’s staying power because its 60% shareholder is Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund. An affiliate of the Saudi fund recently agreed to buy as much as $915 million more in Lucid shares. But with $3.9 billion in cash on its September balance sheet, and analysts like Needham’s Vikram Bagri projecting $4 billion in cash consumption next year, Lucid will probably need more financing. Lucid told investors on its last conference call that it has enough to tide it over into next year’s last quarter.
Write to Bill Alpert at [email protected]

Please take note of the dates of the forum complaints.

 

[Neurio]

You could also do another article saying the Air is cheap looking with plastic knobs that fall off, a CEO that lies and will go bankrupt within a year; all of these statements have been posted here on lucidowners.com

Shh! Don't give him ideas

 

[victoryroad]

Thank you for asking for our perspective. Have you confirmed each source and all the "data" upon which you have based your report? Please validate all of your sources and statistics with documentation that you can include. As written your article will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the stock price and those contemplating the purchase of a Lucid because Barrons is an influential publication. I would appreciate it if you would be precise with your statements, report facts, and not rely upon unnamed sources. I have owned a Lucid Air Grand Touring for six weeks and it is a marvel of engineering and is a solid, safe, and reliable vehicle after 2500 miles. I trust that your journalism will inform people objectively and reliably and not be based on conjecture or opinion as it is written but on facts.

 

[noobzilla]

I guess I thought journalists always "fact checked" their information??

That was a long time ago.

 

[noobzilla]

If you were paid and tasked to specifically look for the negatives only, you did a decent job. The title did say "safety complaints" so I get that's the focus. Would still be helpful to add from both sides of the spectrum to add color to the article.

 

[SaratogaLefty]

That was a long time ago.

Yeah I was being sarcastic. I'm really disappointed that Barron's would publish an article this weak on facts!!

 

[sansonoma]

I think this article is unfortunate. The article does make a good point that even though Tesla did not release the best products in its early years. those were forgiven as developmental. Lucid, other the other hand, will be given less slack in the current crowded EV milieu. Good point. However, the article creates a false image of the Lucid product line as one plagued with problems and unresponsive management.

My experience is to the contrary. The car (well, mine) is superior in almost every way to the Model S. It works as advertised. It's a joy to drive and own. The service is awesome and quick. My 2022 Model S, in contrast, WOULD and DID stop in the middle of the highway without warning. This is well reported elsewhere, so why did the article not mention it? In addition, the responsiveness of Lucid's management to handle issues as they arrive and the response to owner's issues regarding software was, and remains, stellar. In contrast, Tesla is almost legendary for being a very difficult corporation if you want to complain about it. The point is not to say the LUCID has no issues, it IS to say the article, by cherry-picking its facts, and letting bias dominate it by ignoring Tesla's problems, make this article difficult to see as anything but the author's biased opinion.

 

[CLTGT]

The article, the person who wrote it and the fact Barton’s would actually release it speaks volumes to the current condition of our media and press.

There are so many generalizations and just plain unsubstantiated facts that it begs the question. Is it really the public’s job to prove the press wrong or is it the media’s job to print only what they can prove to be true? It actually depends on what country you are in. You can get away with this garbage in the US as the burden of proof is on us to prove him wrong, exactly the opposite in most other countries.

The author has a history of being sued due to exactly that. He makes claims that are laborious to prove wrong. He does not have the burden to prove himself correct or to ensure that there are no material omissions of known facts.

Barton’s gives him quite a bit of rope, but it is very difficult for the press/media to hang themselves in the US, not to mention the fact the respect from other members is not reliant on good reporting any longer, but merely on the shock value one can obtain to telling the truth they want you to read while leaving out any glaring omissions that don’t support their position.

Sorry for the rant, but I have some very personal history with some of the press. They may not all be hacks, but articles like this do not help their reputation of garner one iota of respect.

 

[CLTGT]

I also have no respect or admiration for the fact he posted this here. He did it after it was published. That tells me he was looking for the negative response and not honestly requesting feedback. Sounds a bit narcissistic if you ask me…What is the real motive behind asking for feedback on a piece already released to the public?

Barton’s has been put in the “do not renew” list for me and my various companies.

 

[Balin]

Just another trash piece. I would like to see these "Dozens" of examples listed out. you bundled different issues into a one liner to clearly make out things are worse than what they are. For example, the car moving forward when in reverse was listed by 1 or 2 owners I believe not "Dozens". Gone are the days of fair and unbiased reporting, you all have an agenda.

Maybe do a report on VW on how atrocious the ID4 software is and how shit Electrify America is but then you may not get invited to to future events that VWAG pays for so you're certainly not going to do that are

I do appreciate your honesty in posting both who you are and the article that you wrote.

I find the use of unnamed experts to be either misleading. “Car-safety experts say the volume of complaints to the forums and to the government are significant for a company that has shipped about 2,500 of its high-price cars through September.” Who were these experts and were they basing their judgement on your exaggerated claim of dozens of complaints instead of a few.

Did you really make a serious attempt to contact owners? “Barron’s was unsuccessful in attempts to reach several writers who posted complaints on forums. The car-safety experts we consulted found the comments credible.” Posting a request to owners one day and publishing an article the next is not a credible attempt to contact owners. Here again we have unnamed experts.

Your article is definitely a hit piece with little balance. You know very well the forum posters are not a representative sample of owners so it is very difficult to draw conclusion from a forum like this one. I suggest researching why Lucid can produce a care with better efficiency than any other automaker for a similar sized sedan. Maybe also research how Lucid was able to produce a battery that will charge faster both in kWs and in miles added per minute than other comparable sedan on the market.

There may be a valid reason that many forum posters are skeptical of Journalists selectively picking posts out of context to use in an article.

As one of two (I believe) owners reporting on this forum the issue of the car trying to move forward while in reverse, I can confirm there was no attempt to contact me for this article. While it was somewhat disconcerting at the time, it was not unsafe and appeared to be very specific to the vehicle being stopped on an incline. I have not noticed any further reports of a similar issue and have not had the problem again.

 

[Drendino]

The article, the person who wrote it and the face Barton’s would actually release it speaks volumes to the current condition of our media and press.

There are so many generalizations and just plain unsubstantiated facts that it begs the question. Is it really the public’s job to prove the press wrong or is it the media’s job to print only what they can prove to be true? It actually depends on what country you are in. You can get away with this garbage in the US as the burden of proof is on us to prove him wrong, exactly the opposite in most other countries.

The author has a history of being sued due to exactly that. He makes claims that are laborious to prove wrong. He does not have the burden to prove himself wrong or to ensure that theater are on material omissions of known facts.

Barton’s gives him quite a bit of rope, but it is very difficult for the press/media to gang themselves in the US, not to mention the fact the respect from other members is not reliant on good reporting any longer, but merely on the shock value one can obtain to telling the truth they want you to read while leaving out any glaring omissions that don’t support their position.

Sorry for the rant, but I have some very personale history with some of the press. They may not all be hacks, but articles like this do not help their reputation of garner one iota of respect.

You make a good point, the problem is not just with the author, it’s the entire organization. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when it was in the hands of his editor, who signed off on unsubstantiated heresay, with little to no primary sources and hyperbole throughout. I’m glad I don’t take investment advice from Barron’s.

 

[Mawashi Geri]

The article, the person who wrote it and the fact Barton’s would actually release it speaks volumes to the current condition of our media and press.

There are so many generalizations and just plain unsubstantiated facts that it begs the question. Is it really the public’s job to prove the press wrong or is it the media’s job to print only what they can prove to be true? It actually depends on what country you are in. You can get away with this garbage in the US as the burden of proof is on us to prove him wrong, exactly the opposite in most other countries.

The author has a history of being sued due to exactly that. He makes claims that are laborious to prove wrong. He does not have the burden to prove himself correct or to ensure that there are no material omissions of known facts.

Barton’s gives him quite a bit of rope, but it is very difficult for the press/media to hang themselves in the US, not to mention the fact the respect from other members is not reliant on good reporting any longer, but merely on the shock value one can obtain to telling the truth they want you to read while leaving out any glaring omissions that don’t support their position.

Sorry for the rant, but I have some very personal history with some of the press. They may not all be hacks, but articles like this do not help their reputation of garner one iota of respect.

May not all be Hacks…….. my vast experience with them is the same but I must admit that I have called them out on blaring incorrect journalism and made them correct it. Problem is once their damage is done that is how the public perceives it. This is sore subject for me. They should be held accountable for all damage that they do. We are seeing some big payouts but I digress and must keep on topic. I was surprised that Barons allowed the article to be posted. Very embellished.