The Press Embargo Has Been Lifted

Lucid isn't building its own FSD, they're using Nvidia. The problem seems to be Nvidia has been stating "Level 3" capable driving for the last 2 or 3 iterations of Nvidia Drive and no automaker can seem to get it working. Keep an eye on what Mercedes and Rivian are doing (to name a few) as they're using Nvidia also.
This isn't quite right, and I agree it's confusing (especially with the marketing). Nvidia has followed the old Intel model, which is that they're a hardware provider that also has a whole bunch of sophisticated software that "works best" on their platform. The Nvidia DRIVE platform (hardware and software) is really amazing, but it's not a complete ADAS solution. It's part of the hardware and a lot of the software libraries that you need to start building an high-level ADAS. A third party, or Lucid directly, has to actually decide on things like the sensor package, the AI model design, do the data collection and AI model training, etc. etc. (Mobileye is similar, although they were providing full-function for specific ADAS capabilities to start.)

You probably couldn't do this without a lot of work, but as an abstract concept you could "run" the Waymo Driver software on an Nvidia DRIVE platform and Lucid sensor suite. You could theoretically run the Tesla FSD on the platform. (Waymo is probably too vertically integrated to do this today, and it's also not their business model.)

Describing this diferently, when you buy a desktop computer you might buy a main computer, a monitor you like, a keyboard, mouse, speakers, and an OS that runs on it, and also applications like Microsoft Office. Applying that analogy to the Gravity, Nvidia provides the main computer and the OS with system libraries. Robosense provides the LIDAR. Someone like Murata provides the cameras. But someone still needs to write the "drive without crashing pls" office application.

The Lucid sensor suite with LIDAR and the Nvidia DRIVE compute are probably the best (and probably most expensive) thing you can ship in production today. The problem is nobody has a complete application to run on that computer yet.
 
I'm not sure if it was in an interview or in the test drive I had but I'm sure I heard Lucid designed the HUD as they were promoting that it was one of the largest if not the largest on the market. Not sure if this is 100% but Google seems to think so also.

View attachment 28148
"designed" is a flexible word here. I'm sure they designed the UI and specced the display parameters. I would be shocked if they built the hardware or wrote the eye-tracking and software needed to have proper registration between the driver view and the road. The parts are likely from someone like Panasonic Automotive, but the experience should be all Lucid. Everything is supply chains, all the way down.

(In case it's not clear to anyone what I mean by "registration" -- let's say I want to highlight an obstruction in the HUD, or overlay lane markings. I can't just simply project those on the windshield because where they "look like" they are will vary based on where you're looking from due to the viewing parallax. So I need to know *exactly* where the viewer's eyes are and then adjust where I project on the screen so that the nearby projection is correctly aligned with the faraway object. This is a collection of hard problems.)
 
"The Gravity is big and measures a whopping 198.2 inches in length and 87.2 inches wide. That puts the EV SUV slightly below the Chevrolet Suburban in size."
The Air is almost as big with a length of 195.9 inches and a width of 86.4 inches.
 
Probably not the HUD (the eye-tracking, in particular, is really specialized).
"designed" is a flexible word here. I'm sure they designed the UI and specced the display parameters. I would be shocked if they built the hardware or wrote the eye-tracking and software needed to have proper registration between the driver view and the road. The parts are likely from someone like Panasonic Automotive, but the experience should be all Lucid. Everything is supply chains, all the way down.

(In case it's not clear to anyone what I mean by "registration" -- let's say I want to highlight an obstruction in the HUD, or overlay lane markings. I can't just simply project those on the windshield because where they "look like" they are will vary based on where you're looking from due to the viewing parallax. So I need to know *exactly* where the viewer's eyes are and then adjust where I project on the screen so that the nearby projection is correctly aligned with the faraway object. This is a collection of hard problems.)
I’m so glad you’re here. You are a wealth of useful information, so welcome :)

They did design the HUD in-house. It’s something they’re extremely excited about, precisely because they solved a *lot* of very hard problems. Specifically, there is a brilliant married team of two physics PhDs who led the design: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/3e/68/ce2523aeb458da/WO2024112930A1.pdf

It’s not like any HUD you’ve ever seen before.
 
My massaging seats have never turned off. Which reminds me, there’s no 20-minute limit, it seems.
Damn you!!!! That sounds so nice!!!
IMG_5863.webp
 
The Air is almost as big with a length of 195.9 inches and a width of 86.4 inches.
Yes, but my point was that the reviewer got it wrong - the Suburban is more than two feet longer than Gravity.
 
It'll be very useful in parking lots to know where that front bumper curb is in relation to your front wheels, and those little air dams that some people keep breaking off.
One of the reviews said that the car has "curb rash detection" so you might not even need that view to prevent curb damage. They didn't get into enough details to say whether it would just cover the footprint of the wheels or whether the air dams and fender are also detected.
 
One of the reviews said that the car has "curb rash detection" so you might not even need that view to prevent curb damage. They didn't get into enough details to say whether it would just cover the footprint of the wheels or whether the air dams and fender are also detected.
I would think that's the same curb rash assist as the Air's.
The main thing the see-through 360 display would fix for me is pulling into a parking space that has a concrete stop bumper at the front. I don't want to peel off my air dams with the concrete stop, but also don't want to be that person that leaves two feet between the front of the car and the front of the parking space!
 
The problem seems to be Nvidia has been stating "Level 3" capable driving for the last 2 or 3 iterations of Nvidia Drive and no automaker can seem to get it working. Keep an eye on what Mercedes and Rivian are doing (to name a few) as they're using Nvidia also.

Mercedes has been running Nvidia-hardware Drive Pilot Level 3 since 2022, first in Europe, then later in California and Nevada. The problem with Mercedes Drive Pilot L3 is that it's so restrictive and too slow (37mph) in the US, but that has increased to 59mph in Germany this year.

In China, Nvida ZEEKR Level 3 G-Pilot H9 was unveiled for sale in late 2025.

 
I know computer and software types like to think theirs is the only technology that matters these days, but they've yet to figure out how to make a vehicle move without a motor or an air conditioner to cool without a compressor or an airplane take to the skies without an engine.

Here is what the Oxford dictionary says technology is:

- the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry
- machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge
- the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

It is arrogant and insulting to Lucid's engineers to make fun of a reviewer for saying Lucid is a technology company. Lucid's engineers are in the top tier of the complex automotive technologies in which they work, and they have attained results in areas such as efficiency, power density, and charging speeds beyond most of the competition from more established companies.

Who knows what's errogant and insulting?.. Some people would say that calling opinions different than yours "errogant and insulting" is errogant and insulting. Or assuming a person's type without knowing them 🤷‍♂️. And actually it was not a reviewer but a Lucid exec himself who called it a tech company. I absolutely agree with you on characterization of Lucid engineers. However none of this makes lucid a technology company in an accepted sense. And if you go by Oxford or Wikipedia definition of technology, then every company that innovates - is a technology one. Take Nike for example, they innovate a lot and use new technology and production solutions to create innovative and sometimes groundbreaking footwear. Would you call Nike a tech company? If so, then Lucid is one too. I still maintain that Lucid is a great automotive and EV making company, but not a tech one.
 
Who knows what's errogant and insulting?.. Some people would say that calling opinions different than yours "errogant and insulting" is errogant and insulting. Or assuming a person's type without knowing them 🤷‍♂️. And actually it was not a reviewer but a Lucid exec himself who called it a tech company. I absolutely agree with you on characterization of Lucid engineers. However none of this makes lucid a technology company in an accepted sense. And if you go by Oxford or Wikipedia definition of technology, then every company that innovates - is a technology one. Take Nike for example, they innovate a lot and use new technology and production solutions to create innovative and sometimes groundbreaking footwear. Would you call Nike a tech company? If so, then Lucid is one too. I still maintain that Lucid is a great automotive and EV making company, but not a tech one.

So what makes companies such as Meta or Palantir technology companies when, by your lights, nothing outside the information or software space is? The fact that their technology centers around computer science? And what makes your extremely narrow definition of technology the "accepted sense"? The fact that it is your definition, even though clearly out of square with long-standing definitions of the word "technology"?

And what makes Tesla a "technology company" and Lucid not, even though the growing consensus is that Lucid has stolen a march on Tesla with powertrain engineering? The fact that Tesla has user software you like better?

Get real. Computing and software is but one branch on a large tree of technologies.

As for your stretch to use Nike to push your point into the realm of the absurd, there is a difference between using technology -- something I am doing sitting at this keyboard right now -- and developing technology, something Lucid is doing in spades.
 
So what makes companies such as Meta or Palantir technology companies when, by your lights, nothing outside the information or software space is? The fact that their technology centers around computer science? And what makes your extremely narrow definition of technology the "accepted sense"? The fact that it is your definition, even though clearly out of square with long-standing definitions of the word "technology"?

And what makes Tesla a "technology company" and Lucid not, even though the growing consensus is that Lucid has stolen a march on Tesla with powertrain engineering? The fact that Tesla has user software you like better?

Get real. Computing and software is but one branch on a large tree of technologies.

As for your stretch to use Nike to push your point into the realm of the absurd, there is a difference between using technology -- something I am doing sitting at this keyboard right now -- and developing technology, something Lucid is doing in spades.
Well, certainly I won't get down to calling names or invoking absurdity. But you probably don't follow sportswear industry too closely. Here are some links to new technologies proudly developed by Nike: https://www.nike.com/a/air-max-dn-release-info; https://www.flexdog.com/magazine/the-next-era-of-air-max-nike-introduces-revolutionary-technology; https://www.nike.com/a/nike-aerogami. Still Nike remains a sportswear company, as Lucid is an EV making or automotive company ;)
 
Well, certainly I won't get down to calling names or invoking absurdity. But you probably don't follow sportswear industry too closely. Here are some links to new technologies proudly developed by Nike: https://www.nike.com/a/air-max-dn-release-info; https://www.flexdog.com/magazine/the-next-era-of-air-max-nike-introduces-revolutionary-technology; https://www.nike.com/a/nike-aerogami. Still Nike remains a sportswear company, as Lucid is an EV making or automotive company ;)

So nothing can be a technology company unless their core business is computing and software. Because computing and software is the only technology. In the "accepted sense".

Got it.
 
Mercedes has been running Nvidia-hardware Drive Pilot Level 3 since 2022, first in Europe, then later in California and Nevada. The problem with Mercedes Drive Pilot L3 is that it's so restrictive and too slow (37mph) in the US, but that has increased to 59mph in Germany this year.
It would be impossible for me to overstate how cautious and risk-averse traditional automotive manufactures are regarding safety features. The requirements for how reliable the systems are, as well as the requirements on how they are developed, are quite extreme (and it's unclear if Tesla follows them; most are voluntary). The most relevant standard here is ISO 26262 which covers "functional safety" (essentially, the parameters of a system during unintended behavior, for example due to failure or logic error), and defines a matrix of safety levels based on the severity of a hazard (e.g. dent the vehicle, possible injuries, car asplode), likelihood (e.g. can't happen to every day), and avoidability (can the driver do something about it and react in time).

The safety levels that are typically most meaningful are "B" and "D", which I will describe as "really, really safe" and "quite unbelievably safe". Use cases you might find in the literature for software systems are that your backup camera system must achieve an ASIL-B level (among other expectations). Do you ever join a Zoom and your camera freezes for a bit? Annoying. When that happens in your car, you could back over a child -- but you could also turn around and look behind the car, and have the screen blanked by another system if it isn't updating. An ASIL-D example might be your brake controller. That has to work, all the time, period. I think the reason why is obvious.

Making one relatively well-defined system meet these safety requirements is literally years of validation and paperwork. Now think of a theoretical full level 3 ADAS system. Can you even start to fully define what the parameters of "intended behavior" are? That's the sort of validation Mercedes is looking for in their driving system, and that's why the parameters for use are so narrow. More vertically integrated companies (Tesla, perhaps Lucid, and I don't know Waymo's standards) are likely taking a different approach, but the parts they are building on top of are definitely working to these same standards.
 
More vertically integrated companies (Tesla, perhaps Lucid, and I don't know Waymo's standards) are likely taking a different approach, but the parts they are building on top of are definitely working to these same standards.
To clarify, that's not to diminish what these companies (and other similar ones) are doing -- this is a fundamentally unscoped problem that is being solved. Above all of them, what Waymo has accomplished is truly shocking, and a testament to the power of being about to throw hundreds of engineers for close to 20 years at a complex set of problems. Lots has been written about this elsewhere, but highway driving is fundamentally "easy" compared to the problem of "where do I drop someone off at a shopping center with a busy parking lot, and how do I get there". There are uncountable edge cases in the best of conditions, even before you consider the nuisance of having to interact with humans.

What Tesla has built is also amazing, but not even remotely at the same scale. It's incredibly useful in a variety of conditions (especially highways) and I depend on it almost daily, but it is absolutely terrifying in less controlled conditions and I can't imagine using it in any sort of unsupervised way (again, except tightly controlled conditions) in the next decade. Even the "FSD Beta" is not solving the same problem.
 
Back
Top