The Air, the Gravity . . . and what comes next

hmp10

Active Member

Founding Member
Verified Owner
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
14,407
Location
Naples, FL
Cars
Air DE-P, 2 Gravity DEs
Air DE Number
395
Gravity DE Number
067
238
Referral Code
033M4EXG
In deciding to launch a car company into a world where there was no shortage of product, Atieva enlisted a man, Peter Rawlinson, who understood that it was a pointless exercise unless this new car could offer a combination of power, handling, efficiency, and space utilization that no one else did: not the Germans, not the Japanese, not yet the Chinese, and not the Americans in the guise of the budding EV dominance of Tesla.

And Peter Rawlinson was, perhaps uniquely, the man with the background to do it, having held top-tier engineering jobs at Jaguar, Lotus, and Tesla where he was the engineering brains behind the 2012 Car of the Year -- the original Tesla Model S.

And he succeeded. The Lucid Air quickly racked up glowing reviews and an astonishing array of automotive awards, both domestically and internationally. And, although generally less realized, the Air became and remains the best-selling car in the category of luxury EV sedans. (Four years after purchasing an Air Dream Performance it remains the best overall car I've ever owned, still solid as a rock and with an exterior and interior that looks as if it left the factory last week.)

But Rawlinson had one blindspot about today's auto market, a misread he has since acknowledged: USER SOFTWARE MATTERS.

It might not matter as much to the small market of generally older, tech-oriented early adopters who usually own other vehicles to turn to in a pinch, or to the traditional performance-oriented automotive press -- the groups that made the Air a hit -- but user software quickly grows in importance as you try to expand beyond that market.

And it was there that Lucid missed the turn with the Gravity. The Gravity embodies all the understanding Rawlinson had of balancing driving dynamics with efficiency and space engineering, and it once again slays its competitors in hitting on not just one or two, but all three of those factors. (Even the coming Porsche Cayenne, the Gravity's closest technology rival, misses on the space engineering.) But it also still embodies Rawlinson's blindspot when it comes to user software.

Although the Gravity took the design and layout of the user software suite to new heights while keeping an adept mix of conventional manual controls, it utterly flew off the curve and into the ditch with the execution of that software. Time and OTA updates may ultimately get the Gravity back on the pavement as happened with the Air software. But SUV buyers are a different breed from Air buyers: younger, more "digitally-immersed", and with families and routines, often with no back-up vehicle, that demand reliability from Day One.

And here that software blindspot is wreaking its havoc. The Gravity was probably the most-anticipated SUV of 2025/26. This past January Kyle Conner, who was on the voting panel for the Motor Trend SUV of the Year, was all but saying it would be a shoe-in for SUV of the year. Jason Cammisa, one of the best automotive reviewers around, was saying it could make other vehicle categories -- including even sports cars -- obsolete. But those voices have fallen largely silent. The Gravity didn't even make it to the finalist list for SUV of the Year. Software glitches have dominated the reviews by major automotive journals.

So, we are where we are with the Gravity. But what of the coming Earth, Lucid's final big step into the true mass market? Will this blindspot finally be eliminated? Or will Lucid once again put a top-tier driving machine and superb passenger conveyance on the market with a software suite that tortures driver and occupants from the moment of trying to open the doors and get the car started and then with intermittent, random failures of everything from the audio system to climate controls to window operation?

Everything about Lucid's future now rides on eliminating this blindspot. I pray they come to terms with that before the Earth launch.


P.S. I write this as an old-school driving enthusiast myself, someone who also seriously misunderstood where the auto market, for better or worse, is going in terms of software importance until my experience with the Gravity woke me up. When an automaker decides to turn a car's control suite almost entirely over to a computer, it absolutely has to be done right . . . and done from the start.
 
My no.1 complaint on Lucid Software Software Software. Current generations are looking much into Software then how the car drives and feels. The % of drivers willing to drive are reducing day by day and they dont care how good the car drives. I am in the middle, i want the best driving experience and best software and Lucid delivered the first peace which is really hard to nail down but they are ignorant on the second part which is easier than the first one 😞
 
My no.1 complaint on Lucid Software Software Software. Current generations are looking much into Software then how the car drives and feels. The % of drivers willing to drive are reducing day by day and they dont care how good the car drives. I am in the middle, i want the best driving experience and best software and Lucid delivered the first peace which is really hard to nail down but they are ignorant on the second part which is easier than the first one 😞
I think there's a difference between expecting great software features and software that works. Most Gravity buyers would probably be ok waiting for Netflix or a more advanced ADAS to come as long as the basic/operational/quality of life features work as expected.
 
Great piece by @hmp10, as always 🙂

One thing that called my attention from the beginning (go back and re-watch the Road to Gravity and OOS videos) was that a semi-production ready software wasn't present; they conducted what looked like extensive testing without including the production OS and infotainment. Really looks like it was added last minute. And that leads to today...
 
Although the Gravity took the design and layout of the user software suite to new heights while keeping an adept mix of conventional manual controls, it utterly flew off the curve and into the ditch with the execution of that software. Time and OTA updates may ultimately get the Gravity back on the pavement as happened with the Air software. But SUV buyers are a different breed from Air buyers: younger, more "digitally-immersed", and with families and routines, often with no back-up vehicle, that demand reliability from Day One.
Reading the posts above feels like holding up a mirror to what many of us have been quietly wrestling with. Lucid’s engineering DNA is undeniable. The Lucid Air proved that a small company could out-engineer giants. The Gravity shows that the magic of packaging, efficiency, and dynamics is alive and well. But the world has changed, and the software expectations of modern buyers are unrecognizable from a decade ago.

Here is the truth: when a vehicle is positioned as a family SUV, the standards shift dramatically. Families do not have the bandwidth for “quirks,” workarounds, patience of saints, or philosophical acceptance of “it is what it is.” Real life does not pause for a reboot, a frozen screen, a confused door handle, or a window channel playing percussion at highway speed. People may love engineering brilliance, but they live with software.

A spouse dealing with a malfunctioning window, a child freezing in the back because climate control is improvising, or a parent on the side of the road trying to coax a screen back to life… these are not mere annoyances. They are the moments that define the ownership experience. These are the moments that make or break a family’s trust in a vehicle.

Lucid’s former leadership succeeded in delivering groundbreaking hardware, but the market has evolved. Buyers today are more digitally immersed than ever. Most owners are not interested in shaving tenths of a second off a lap time. They just want a car that does not freeze, beep, or improvise its own settings during a school run. They care that it starts consistently, opens its doors, keeps a temperature, and does not surprise the family with “personality events” during a morning commute. Reliability in software is not optional for this segment. It is foundational.

This is why so many of us feel both admiration and frustration. Admiration for the extraordinary engineering. Frustration that such brilliance is sometimes overshadowed by software that undermines the experience.

Now, with new leadership and a pivotal next chapter ahead, Lucid has a real opportunity and frankly a necessity to reset priorities. The Earth will not be evaluated by enthusiasts. It will be judged by families, commuters, and first-time EV buyers. They will not tolerate “quirky but promising” or “should get better with updates.” They expect excellence from day one.

Calling this out is not negativity. It is honesty born from belief. Every person here wants Lucid to succeed. People do not spend six figures and join owners’ forums because they enjoy complaining. They do it because they believed in the mission and want to see it reach its potential. The hardware is world-class. The potential is immense. Now the software must rise to the same level.

Until then, this community will keep doing what it does best: supporting each other, comparing notes, solving problems together, and adding a little humor to whatever personality trait our Gravities decide to express next. 😄 But make no mistake, Lucid can be better than this, and for its future, it must be.

So yes, this is a gentle nudge, perhaps even a quiet plea for Lucid to wake up to the importance of software quality and daily reliability.
 
While I agree it needs work, it is a at least 80% a narrative generated by media to pile onto criticism in absence of other things to criticize. And yes basic stuff like fobs and handles need to work, AC settings should persist etc. What doesn't exist is an objective and non-biased 3rd party assessment RELATIVE to the market (I personally don't consider most of youtube influencers credible to actual car buyers' requirements, and dealer sold cars are not even trying to do anything showing software capabilities), competition and actual needs for assessing infotainment. I was hoping CNET was able to do this, or even that huge DCAR ADAS test they did against like 25 cars in the Chinese market. You will find out quickly about bias, narrative and other shenanigans. If you ran any automaker against this I don't think Lucid is as far behind as one expects. Now is it critical if they really want to steal mid-size sales from Model Y and 3, absolutely.
 
For sh*ts and giggles I ran a prompt of deep research on perplexity summarizing journal review complaints and forum complaints on a bunch of brands....

And again, I will say the strategy of putting stuff to market before its fully baked and having customers beta test I don't think works well anymore (and it doesn't scale for service to basically need an IT department to diagnose and troubleshoot vehicle software). Tesla used the main chance to do this on a large scale...
 

Attachments

And yes basic stuff like fobs and handles need to work, AC settings should persist etc
Yeah just stuff like getting in and driving the car comfortably “need work” but I’d say your avatar consumer doesn’t give a shit about .1 km/wh gains with 19” tires as much as they want a car that you can get in and drive reliably.
 
Affluent buyers value well-engineered vehicles from brands like Lucid, Porsche, Ferrari, Bugatti, BMW, etc. They may overlook imperfections when no true alternative exists—making this an ideal moment for Lucid to stand out.

In contrast, the midsize market around the $50,000 range has no tolerance for hardware or software issues. The hope is that lessons from the Air and Gravity models will serve as a real-world beta test, leading to a flawless midsize offering.
 
Affluent buyers value well-engineered vehicles from brands like Lucid, Porsche, Ferrari, Bugatti, BMW, etc. They may overlook imperfections when no true alternative exists—making this an ideal moment for Lucid to stand out.

In contrast, the midsize market around the $50,000 range has no tolerance for hardware or software issues. The hope is that lessons from the Air and Gravity models will serve as a real-world beta test, leading to a flawless midsize offering.
I concur.

A month ago, I test drove the Gravity for approximately 45 minutes (reservation before mine was a no-show). It was such a joy to drive!!!
Although not ideal, I am willing to stomach a few software issues only because the Gravity's driving dynamics are so impeccably dialed in.

Last week, while away in Canada for Thanksgiving, I rented a 2023 Quad-Motor R1S on Turo for 4 days. It drove terribly; too bouncy and floaty for my taste. I wasn't impressed. Even my standard X5 xDrive40i has much better driving dynamics. The R1S software worked great though.

All that said, I cannot wait for my Gravity (prod start 12/28/2025), with all its software quirks.
 
I was shocked when Lucid made the same mistake with Gravity that they did with Air and delivered (a different code base) of faulty software.

Unfortunately I don't think they'll deliver a better one for their next vehicle. As delivering the best driving dynamics is in their DNA, so is delivering bad software.

Give ALL the software engineers in the company discounted/free vehicles. They have to LIVE with the software they write.
 
I was shocked when Lucid made the same mistake with Gravity that they did with Air and delivered (a different code base) of faulty software.

Unfortunately I don't think they'll deliver a better one for their next vehicle. As delivering the best driving dynamics is in their DNA, so is delivering bad software.

Give ALL the software engineers in the company discounted/free vehicles. They have to LIVE with the software they write.
Here's an idea. Go back to 50% buttons and switches or 25%. My wife would love that and her friends as well. At least until Lucid is able to make a car with software that does not frustrate.
 
Here's an idea. Go back to 50% buttons and switches or 25%. My wife would love that and her friends as well. At least until Lucid is able to make a car with software that does not frustrate.
Would love to have button on the steering wheel for heated steering wheel. Windshield wiper on the stalk where the intermittent can be manually adjusted. Button on the door to close outside mirrors. Button on the door to change profiles. You get the idea.
 
Would love to have button on the steering wheel for heated steering wheel. Windshield wiper on the stalk where the intermittent can be manually adjusted. Button on the door to close outside mirrors. Button on the door to change profiles. You get the idea.
I get what you are saying, but I think that ship has kinda sailed. I do like that the Gravity has a few key buttons that are frequent use, and the vents are manual. In the Taycan/Macan (and I expect Cayenne EV) you get software buttons for all the things for AC, including the vents and I absolutely did not like that. I feel Lucid hit the sweet spot, but a button for heated steering wheel would be nice...
 
I get what you are saying, but I think that ship has kinda sailed. I do like that the Gravity has a few key buttons that are frequent use, and the vents are manual. In the Taycan/Macan (and I expect Cayenne EV) you get software buttons for all the things for AC, including the vents and I absolutely did not like that. I feel Lucid hit the sweet spot, but a button for heated steering wheel would be nice...
Also, physical buttons today activate software commands any way, so the only benefit would be avoiding the "disappearing buttons", but not the bugs
 
I have only had my GGT for one week but based on my limited use agree with most of what is said above. Hardware is spot on and fantastic. Software is the main issue. But we need to separate that issue into how it is designed (or intended to be designed) and how it works now with the various bugs. I really like the software layout, ability to put what I want on upper screen and something different or complementary on lower. Menus are intuitive and easy to navigate, usually without having to dig deep into submenus. Yes, I would prefer a few more hard buttons but recognize reducing buttons and relying on software is the future and a consequence of heavily software defined user experience. At least we have hard controls for seats, vents, some AC controls - unlike Tesla, Rivian and a lot of other competition. The software on my Mercedes is much less flexible and harder to navigate BUT it has NO bugs.

The problem with Gravity software is not its basic design but the bugs. Stamp out these bugs and enable the design to work as intended, and they will have a winner.

I totally agree with the comments that most people in market for mid size, mid priced Lucid will not have the patience for early adopter issues. There is a reason most of these people in market to spend around $50,000 for car are more likely to buy a new Acura, Toyota or Lexus as opposed to a used Jaguar or Porsche. They car much more about reliability than driving dynamics. For many of these people, this will be their only car and they are not retired, upper level executives, etc. with ability to take the car to SC on regular basis. “Sorry boss, going to be late for work again today cause I have to take car in for service again.”
 
The programmable buttons are one of my favorite features. It seems they can update them to do almost any of the primary desired functions, my wife has it set to seat heating, and I used the steering wheel one to cycle through radio, usb and other music modes.
 
Back
Top