Rivian's losses compared to Lucid's

[socktucker]

The eventual obsolescence of a product can be approximately thought of as happening at a fixed point in time, arising because of outside competition beyond a manufacturer's control. If the start of volume shipping is delayed, accumulated revenue is lost from the meaty center part of a product lifecycle. Not to mention reduced sales overall due to a damaged product reputation. It's extremely costly.

And still can’t order a Gravity today right? Not a good look. Did they talk about that?

 

[socktucker]

Agree. If they fumble the midsize launch, I hate to say it, but I don’t think they’d recover from it. The midsize launch really has no room for error at this point.

I would be surprised if we ever see that thing at least in the USA. Not sure they can recover their reputation here.

 

[The_Don]

And still can’t order a Gravity today right? Not a good look. Did they talk about that?

Unfortunately no.

 

[socktucker]

Unfortunately no.

Then they put out a tweet highlighting revenue growth without mentioning that is the same as losing money for them. That type of gaslighting is not going to go well for investors. Tomorrow should be interesting.

 

[gaskiller]

Well, you can say the same thing about BMW. Mercedes, RangeRover, etc..

I am doubtful if the Lucid mid-size deviates substantially from the Gravity/Air ethos.

Personally, I like the Rivian look. It is distinct and comical. Is it as aerodynamic as Lucid's? Obviously not. But my Rivian consistently meets/exceeds on efficiency rating in highway driving, whilst my Lucid consistently misses its efficiency/range claims (by about 25%) when driven on the exactly the same routes. As I stated in my earlier post, yes, the Lucid is more efficient, but not as efficient as they claim. The Rivian delivers what they promised. Again, the Lucid is more refined. But the lingering SW problems, lagging in features, door lock/unlock, sparse service network and costly ASP/maintenance/insurance are real issues when tackling the mid-size market.

What im saying is the R2 design is lazy, its like a shrunken R1S

 

[gaskiller]

I’m not sure they break it out, but I would love to know how much the botched rollout of the Gravity cost. It HAD to be fixed but there is no way that wasn’t a wild unexpected expense.

They delayed the Gravity so much that they lost the few thousand 7.5k EV credit that they could have gotten. Own goal!

 

[BS8899]

Problem with Rivian is the lazy midsize design- very inefficient, mini-me of the R1S. Looks like they hardly put any effort into the exterior design. Interior of Rivian R1S is too plasticky and the ride is very bad compared to the Gravity. Only upside is off-roading, but who does that?

When I drove the Rivian, I felt like i was riding a horse. But probably that is good if you off-road.

Lucid vehicles are definetly more luxurious and drive much better. Depends of what you want out of the vehicle.

Let's calibrate when we say Lucid are most efficient, fastest in charging (900V architecture) etc..

First, I agree the Lucid power train engineering is better than most (if not all) of their competitors. That said, in actual everyday usage of the product, does it offer the user tangible performance and cost-of-ownership gains over its competitors.

If you look at the recent Kyle Conner race from Maine to Florida-keys, over 2,000+ miles, 33+ hours of non-stop driving and multiple charging stops, the two Lucid Gravities won, and the Tesla was close behind. That said, in spite of Gravity's "compromise nothing" specs, (best efficiency, 900V charging, low drag, etc.) the Gravity's winning margin was only about 6-7% (elapsed time) over the next 3 EVs, including the R1S, which Kyle called a "brick" because of its inefficiency, poor aerodynamics, and 400V charging architecture. That said, no one is disputing the Gravity won. But, IMO, the "winning margin" was amazing narrow, and inconsequential to most mid-segment consumers.

Now, rationalize these findings in the context of the mid-market segment. Specs aside, @ $40,000-$55,000 price point, can Lucid deliver a profitable product that is price and performance competitive with other manufactures (Hyundai/Kia, Volvo, Rivian, Tesla, BMW, etc.). All of these Lucid competitors will be earlier to market with their mid-market offerings by 1 year or more. And all of these competitors have more extensive service networks than Lucid.

Yes, Lucid will likely have the best specs. But I think Lucid will have a rough time staking out a profitable foothold with its mid-market offering.

 

[Ktw13]

Let's calibrate when we say Lucid are most efficient, fastest in charging (900V architecture) etc..

First, I agree the Lucid power train engineering is better than most (if not all) of their competitors. That said, in actual everyday usage of the product, does it offer the user tangible performance and cost-of-ownership gains over its competitors.

If you look at the recent Kyle Conner race from Maine to Florida-keys, over 2,000+ miles, 33+ hours of non-stop driving and multiple charging stops, the two Lucid Gravities won, and the Tesla was close behind. That said, in spite of Gravity's "compromise nothing" specs, (best efficiency, 900V charging, low drag, etc.) the Gravity's winning margin was only about 6-7% (elapsed time) over the next 3 EVs, including the R1S, which Kyle called a "brick" because of its inefficiency, poor aerodynamics, and 400V charging architecture. That said, no one is disputing the Gravity won. But, IMO, the "winning margin" was amazing narrow, and inconsequential to most mid-segment consumers.

Now, rationalize these findings in the context of the mid-market segment. Specs aside, @ $40,000-$55,000 price point, can Lucid deliver a profitable product that is price and performance competitive with other manufactures (Hyundai/Kia, Volvo, Rivian, Tesla, BMW, etc.). All of these Lucid competitors will be earlier to market with their mid-market offerings by 1 year or more. And all of these competitors have more extensive service networks than Lucid.

Yes, Lucid will likely have the best specs. But I think Lucid will have a rough time staking out a profitable foothold with its mid-market offering.

As more 400kw charger roles out, Lucid advantage will be more apparent as time goes.

 

[socktucker]

As more 400kw charger roles out, Lucid advantage will be more apparent as time goes.

I always get stuck charging at 150kw anyways

 

[gaskiller]

Let's calibrate when we say Lucid are most efficient, fastest in charging (900V architecture) etc..

First, I agree the Lucid power train engineering is better than most (if not all) of their competitors. That said, in actual everyday usage of the product, does it offer the user tangible performance and cost-of-ownership gains over its competitors.

If you look at the recent Kyle Conner race from Maine to Florida-keys, over 2,000+ miles, 33+ hours of non-stop driving and multiple charging stops, the two Lucid Gravities won, and the Tesla was close behind. That said, in spite of Gravity's "compromise nothing" specs, (best efficiency, 900V charging, low drag, etc.) the Gravity's winning margin was only about 6-7% (elapsed time) over the next 3 EVs, including the R1S, which Kyle called a "brick" because of its inefficiency, poor aerodynamics, and 400V charging architecture. That said, no one is disputing the Gravity won. But, IMO, the "winning margin" was amazing narrow, and inconsequential to most mid-segment consumers.

Now, rationalize these findings in the context of the mid-market segment. Specs aside, @ $40,000-$55,000 price point, can Lucid deliver a profitable product that is price and performance competitive with other manufactures (Hyundai/Kia, Volvo, Rivian, Tesla, BMW, etc.). All of these Lucid competitors will be earlier to market with their mid-market offerings by 1 year or more. And all of these competitors have more extensive service networks than Lucid.

Yes, Lucid will likely have the best specs. But I think Lucid will have a rough time staking out a profitable foothold with its mid-market offering.

Lucid Air beats all other EVs in its class……I have no doubt they will be very competitive. Midsize sales will be limited by service center availability, but they are planning to open more service. You forget that Lucid vehicles have the best driving dynamics.

 

[DeaneG]

...Midsize sales will be limited by service center availability, but they are planning to open more service. You forget that Lucid vehicles have the best driving dynamics.

The Polestar 3 drives extremely well too, IMO nicer than our Air, but they bungled the launch with terrible software, mediocre range, and an unreliable onboard charger.

 

[BS8899]

Lucid Air beats all other EVs in its class……I have no doubt they will be very competitive. Midsize sales will be limited by service center availability, but they are planning to open more service. You forget that Lucid vehicles have the best driving dynamics.

When it comes to the mid-size market, I think most buyers are focused on value, reliability, and cost of ownership. Superior Drive dynamics, "Compromise Nothing", where Lucid excels, are bonuses, not the base requirements. Lucid reminds me of Jaguar, Range Rover!

I rented a Range Rover (base model) on one of my trips 4 years ago. That car drove like a piece of crap. I will never buy one! Perhaps the high-end Range Rovers are much better.

For Lucid to have a fighting chance in the mid-size market (i.e., Lucid becomes profitable), Lucid must address issues such as SW functionality and stability, vehicle depreciation, and service center accessibility. Events like FOB/entry problems are deal killers! Most mid-size car buyers rely on their cars to go to/from work. They don't have the luxury of having 4 other cars in their garages. To date, Lucid is a "does-not-meet" in these categories. Whilst their competitors are much farther up the learning curve on these important metrics, and the competitors will be earlier to market with mid-size.

I don't know how much the recent layoffs at Lucid compromise these metrics. Superficially, it seems like Lucid is going in the opposite direction (e.g., trimming Service Center staff).

 

[FooFighter]

The Polestar 3 drives extremely well too, IMO nicer than our Air, but they bungled the launch with terrible software, mediocre range, and an unreliable onboard charger.

Agreed. I test drove the Polestar 3 and almost pulled the trigger on a lease. It is solid like a tank and super quiet. The Bowers & Wilkins sound system was the best car stereo I’ve ever heard. The dealer’s willingness to negotiate also helped. Then I read a lot more of its issues in FB groups and forums and decided to get an Air. Also I wanted a short lease. The shortest lease for the Polestar was a 27-month lease.

 

[RajD]

When it comes to the mid-size market, I think most buyers are focused on value, reliability, and cost of ownership. Superior Drive dynamics, "Compromise Nothing", where Lucid excels, are bonuses, not the base requirements. Lucid reminds me of Jaguar, Range Rover!

I rented a Range Rover (base model) on one of my trips 4 years ago. That car drove like a piece of crap. I will never buy one! Perhaps the high-end Range Rovers are much better.

For Lucid to have a fighting chance in the mid-size market (i.e., Lucid becomes profitable), Lucid must address issues such as SW functionality and stability, vehicle depreciation, and service center accessibility. Events like FOB/entry problems are deal killers! Most mid-size car buyers rely on their cars to go to/from work. They don't have the luxury of having 4 other cars in their garages. To date, Lucid is a "does-not-meet" in these categories. Whilst their competitors are much farther up the learning curve on these important metrics, and the competitors will be earlier to market with mid-size.

I don't know how much the recent layoffs at Lucid compromise these metrics. Superficially, it seems like Lucid is going in the opposite direction (e.g., trimming Service Center staff).

Lucid can’t do much about EV vehicle depreciation. That is industry wide and pretty severe all around. Even for Tesla and Rivian. Sure they can improve it modestly but it won’t dramatically change.

I think software will be very dialed in for midsize since their keeping same stack as Gravity. Agree it needs to be a reliable solution for that customer to choose it.

I also don’t think that driving dynamics are a secondary concern at all. $45k-$55k is still not cheap. There are choices and customers will be discerning and not just looking for a people mover. Range and efficiency also matter to that price
Level , and Lucid should outcompete others there. Let’s see what March 12th reveals!

 

[tmichael]

I think on paper the new iX3 will be a very direct competitor to midsize. High range, nice looking, well engineered and a storied company, with sales and service outlets everywhere. If Lucid can't compete (it doesn't have to beat it, just meet it), it will whither as a car manufacturer and become a Lotus-like vehicle, a niche with Air and Gravity and selling motors and powertrain control software to other car companies.

But, I am optimistic! I don't need the company to make 300,000 cars a year, I just want it to be a player in the luxury sector of the EV industry. Oh, and I would like the stock to go up 25X.

 

[Northpointe]

Tesla (meaning Elon) is no longer interested in making cars. If Lucid and Rivian fail, that’s game over in US for EVs. The “traditional” car makers, US and Japanese, and to a certain extent, Koreans, are only pretending they are making EVs for this market. Just to hedge the bets. This country decided in just one single year the EVs are anti-American. We are handing the next gen car makers to China. Way to go. If the European new generation of EVs fail (BMW iX3, MB GLS electrified, Volvo EX60), then the EV market literally belongs to the China. They are smart, patient, and deep pocketed. They can wait and chip at market share, navigating tariffs and all. In less than a hundred years, China cars will be the only game in town, obviously I will be dead before then, so…

Virtually all car makers acknowledge that the future of motor vehicles lies with electrification. The uncertainty centers primarily around adoption rates and timing. The United States is lagging due to a lack of leadership and foresight. But those are likely temporary conditions. That doesn’t mean that Lucid will be able to whether the storm, but I wouldn’t consider the company as a proxy for the future of the EV industry.

 

[nashvillelucid]

Tomorrow should be interesting.

Isn’t the stock market just so fun? Lucid currently up 3.48%. I read the evercore note last night (which wasn’t bearish) and just assumed the stock would be flat or down until they do the big cash raise/dilution event. And now it’s up on more “prudent” (the word they used on the call) expectations.

 

[tmichael]

Robust!!

 

[Buffalo Bob]

What's interesting to me is that Rivian is currently trading at an $18.8B Market Cap, and a 4.11 Price to Book Value ratio, while Lucid is currently trading at an $3.2B Market Cap, and 1.8 Price to Book Value ratio. How does it make sense that Rivian's Market Cap is almost 6x Lucid's Market Cap? As for Lucid's Price to Book Value ratio, my guess is that they are way ahead of Rivian in terms of volume manufacturing infrastructure, yet they are still less than half of Rivian's. What does all that say about upside/downside potential between the two at current valuations?

If you want to see some really eye-opening numbers, look at those data points for Tesla.

 

[socktucker]

K

Isn’t the stock market just so fun? Lucid currently up 3.48%. I read the evercore note last night (which wasn’t bearish) and just assumed the stock would be flat or down until they do the big cash raise/dilution event. And now it’s up on more “prudent” (the word they used on the call) expectations.

3% is meaningless when that is 30 cents...

It will go lower and then go private. They have no momentum, no clear plan, and whiffed the Gravity launch. They're 0 for 2 and only a fool would assume they're going to nail it the 3rd time.