What's the Real Agenda?

[no gas]

You made me watch the whole thing, and he disparaged the Tesla CEO for not knowing about the McDonald's toy.

For 10 minutes, the only few relevant words are:

Munro: Ford is either going to stay the same.

Maybe there'll be a couple of upticks or whatever but I think that they'll be the least affected by the by the way 2025.

If Lucid makes it to the end of the year, I'll be extremely surprised.

Okay. I don't think that I think that Rivan will just keep plotting along and they'll go up. No, no problem there.

Question: But does the Lucid Gravity move the needle?

Munro: No, no. Gravity does move needles, but not that “gravity.” [Chuckles]

The interviewer then directs to sales trends in the automobile industry in general.

This 10-minute video is about asking Munro's opinion on sales, but the interviewer failed to expand what is the basis for the opinion.

I watched Muno in the past, and he appreciates good engineering. He did praise Lucid Engineering and even said it's better than Tesla's.

This video is not about engineering but about sales.

Please don't mix up between the engineer in Munro and the salesman in Munro.

What does an engineer know about sales?? Munro should stick to engineering instead of going around giving his amateur opinions on the future sales. Gravity is an engineering masterpiece no matter how you cut it. The efficiency in range and space is unbeatable. Yet, this so called expert engineer, who prides himself in advising other car manufacturers says Gravity won’t sell and is irrelvant. Shows you how biased he is. He hates Lucid, it’s very very clear! He should stick to take downs instead of going a round social media giving his biased opinions.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

There is a deeper, systemic problem here. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be taught in our public schools.
This is why ( politics ).

If people are swayed by one voice, and do not seek out the counter-factual, we all suffer.

 

[no gas]

There is a deeper, systemic problem here. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be taught in our public schools.
This is why ( politics ).

If people are swayed by one voice, and do not seek out the counter-factual, we all suffer.

Also when that one voice is Elon Musk who owns and dominates twitter and news cycles as he is encouraged on by his fanboys as he walks around like an emperor without clothes…..society suffers….terrible how social media is controlling peoples opinions and decisions. But if you don’t fight back, you slowly lose the narrative even if you are right.

 

[Tâm]

Maybe, but if you watch the Throttle House Cybertruck video, they went to a SuperCharger Location that was not online but listed as such. But, yes EA has to get better and it will, slowly.

The video shows that the driver and passenger asked each other which stall to choose, and their decisions were based on randomness.

and not on the:

1) Tesla App
2) Tesla Navigation.

Both of those should answer which stalls to use.

The video should say, let's avoid the non-serviceable bays #9, 7, and 6 because that's what it says on the Tesla app on the phone and the Tesla Navigation in the truck.

 

[no gas]

The video shows that the driver and passenger asked each other which stall to choose, and their decisions were based on randomness.

View attachment 18416




and not on the:

1) Tesla App
2) Tesla Navigation.

Both of those should answer which stalls to use.

The video should say, let's avoid the non-serviceable bays #9, 7, and 6 because that's what it says on the Tesla app on the phone and the Tesla Navigation in the truck.

Throttle house is the new Top Gear for me, hilarious intro’s

 

[Tâm]

What does an engineer know about sales?? Munro should stick to engineering instead of going around giving his amateur opinions on the future sales. Gravity is an engineering masterpiece no matter how you cut it. The efficiency in range and space is unbeatable. Yet, this so called expert engineer, who prides himself in advising other car manufacturers says Gravity won’t sell and is irrelvant. Shows you how biased he is. He hates Lucid, it’s very very clear! He should stick to take downs instead of going a round social media giving his biased opinions.

Look. This interviewer invited Munro, who specializes in breaking down the components and not on sales.

I didn't want to watch it until you said something inconsistent with what he stated: that the Lucid drive unit is very good. Even better than Tesla's.

The video you mentioned has nothing to do with engineering or bad-mouthing about Lucid engineers.

It's about sales.

Anyone can see the sales numbers, so it's not hard.

Lucid sold 6,001 cars last year.

Based on that, He did not say that Gravity won't have any effect. He said:

Gravity does move needles, but not that “gravity.”

That means if Lucid could sell the Gravity double, triple, quadruple... the 6,001 last year, yes, the needle does move but not to the point of profitability.

Gravity will help but not the magic bullet.

 

[hmp10]

Based on that, He did not say that Gravity won't have any effect. He said:

Gravity does move needles, but not that “gravity.”

Huh? You're really stretching here. Your first sentence means the same thing as the following sentence. Munro clearly conveyed the thought that the Gravity won't have any effect on Lucid's future.

By the way, Munro's background as an engineer was at Ford, where he handled connections hardware between components. The depth and breadth of his background in auto engineering is not even remotely in the ballpark of Peter Rawlinson's background as Chief Engineer at Jaguar, Head of Advanced Engineering at Lotus, and Chief Engineer of the Model S.

My brother watches more of Munro than I do, but we have had quite a few discussions over episodes in which he has gotten technical terminology mixed up and some things just plain wrong. The fact that he is to be seen on camera with a drink in his hand accompanied by halting speech doesn't exactly help his credibility.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

If Lucid were to disappear tomorrow ( I believe a product / company this good is destined for success) I don't care.

I still have the best car ever made, and I know we few, we happy few, will not let it fade away.

 

[Tâm]

Huh? You're really stretching here. Your first sentence means the same thing as the following sentence. Munro clearly conveyed the thought that the Gravity won't have any effect on Lucid's future.

By the way, Munro's background as an engineer was at Ford, where he handled connections hardware between components. His depth and breadth of his background in auto engineering is not even remotely in the ballpark of Peter Rawlinson's background as Chief Engineer at Jaguar, Head of Advanced Engineering at Lotus, and Chief Engineer of the Model S.

In conclusion, after wasting 10 minutes on this video, it's about crystal ball on the sales success. It is not about bad-mouthing on Lucid engineering.

Whether he says the sales of Gravity will move the needle or no, it's about sales and not about the quality of the cat itself.

 

[hydbob]

In conclusion, after wasting 10 minutes on this video, it's about crystal ball on the sales success. It is not about bad-mouthing on Lucid engineering.

Whether he says the sales of Gravity will move the needle or no, it's about sales and not about the quality of the cat itself.

I think that makes it worse, because he has no knowledge about Lucid's financials, nor is his specialty in automotive sales.

 

[hmp10]

In conclusion, after wasting 10 minutes on this video, it's about crystal ball on the sales success. It is not about bad-mouthing on Lucid engineering.

Whether he says the sales of Gravity will move the needle or no, it's about sales and not about the quality of the cat itself.

I never said he bad-mouthed Lucid engineering. In fact, I pointed out he had complimented Lucid's engineering earlier. I said he was bashing Lucid -- meaning the company -- by claiming it would not last until year end, and doing so in a rather derisive manner.

 

[hmp10]

I'm asking myself why I got so hot and bothered by this video.

There are some buyers who won't buy a car because they don't like its styling, and other buyers who are put off by the features, and other buyers who do not think the car is up to snuff technologically, and buyers who worry about reliability or quality, and buyers who can't deal with the price point.

But the one thing that scares buyers off almost universally is a fear that the automaker will not be around for the duration of their anticipated ownership.

What bothered me so much was Munro's pressing of this singular point to the exclusion of any other discussion about the car and the company, the deep pockets behind the brand, the coming product line expansions, and the recent factory construction that no insider would fund if they thought bankruptcy was looming. This was, after all, an interview on an "investing channel" where all those things should have been highly relevant to any responsible analysis. I really don't understand what someone like Munro was even doing there.

It's like interviewing Musk on foreign policy. It's nothing but a stage from which to drive a personal agenda, parlaying supposed expertise in some unrelated area to a pretended expertise in another.

 

[victoryroad]

I'm asking myself why I got so hot and bothered by this video.

There are some buyers who won't buy a car because they don't like its styling, and other buyers who are put off by the features, and other buyers who do not think the car is up to snuff technologically, and buyers who worry about reliability or quality, and buyers who can't deal with the price point.

But the one thing that scares buyers off almost universally is a fear that the automaker will not be around for the duration of their anticipated ownership.

What bothered me so much was Munro's pressing of this singular point to the exclusion of any other discussion about the car and the company, the deep pockets behind the brand, the coming product line expansions, and the recent factory construction that no insider would fund if they thought bankruptcy was looming. This was, after all, an interview on an "investing channel" where all those things should have been highly relevant to any responsible analysis. I really don't understand what someone like Munro was even doing there.

It's like interviewing Musk on foreign policy. It's nothing but a stage from which to drive a personal agenda, parlaying supposed expertise in some unrelated area to a pretended expertise in another.

Yes to all your points and as I noted, his hubris pervades his videos. His hubris and gratuitous opinion are annoying to me.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

I can't reach those grapes. They must be sour.

 

[no gas]

Look. This interviewer invited Munro, who specializes in breaking down the components and not on sales.

I didn't want to watch it until you said something inconsistent with what he stated: that the Lucid drive unit is very good. Even better than Tesla's.

The video you mentioned has nothing to do with engineering or bad-mouthing about Lucid engineers.

It's about sales.

Anyone can see the sales numbers, so it's not hard.

Lucid sold 6,001 cars last year.

Based on that, He did not say that Gravity won't have any effect. He said:

Gravity does move needles, but not that “gravity.”

That means if Lucid could sell the Gravity double, triple, quadruple... the 6,001 last year, yes, the needle does move but not to the point of profitability.

Gravity will help but not the magic bullet.

Not the impression that I got, he just completely dismissed the Gravity outright. He clearly is biased against Lucid. He keeps praising Tesla at every opportunity ( with a few negatives to give the opinion he is balanced ) but dismisses Lucid Gravity-a game changer in the EV world. And frankly, he shouldn't be even talking about sales.....what clue does he have about sales/marketing?

I mean come on, the Gravity is an amazing feat of engineering- the range, the low CD, huge frunk, interior space- all in a package much smaller than any other manufacturer can come up with. Lucid didn't just modify the Air platform, the created a whole new one. Who does that these days??? Munro hardly gives any credit to what Lucid has achieved. Give credit where it;s due, if he can't do that, he has no business going around social media promoting himself. I stopped listening to him.

 

[borski]

The video shows that the driver and passenger asked each other which stall to choose, and their decisions were based on randomness.

View attachment 18416




and not on the:

1) Tesla App
2) Tesla Navigation.

Both of those should answer which stalls to use.

The video should say, let's avoid the non-serviceable bays #9, 7, and 6 because that's what it says on the Tesla app on the phone and the Tesla Navigation in the truck.

That’s not quite right. Nothing told them which bays were working or not, nor did it tell them the entire station was being serviced - they mention that in their narrative.

 

[Steveinarizona]

I didn't watch it but I think there are people who don't believe that good products always win over bad ones.

That means I don't think his praise about Lucid drive unit has changed. He still thinks it's much better than Tesla's.

However, history reminded that good products didn't always mean marketing survival: AC Tesla was better than DC Edison but Edison got rich and Tesla died in poverty.

Good cars like Tucker and DeLorean went out of business...

I was with you until the last sentence. The DeLorean look great but was a disaster as a vehicle. Maybe as a time machine it worked but its acceleration was pathetic. Here is TopGear on it:

1. 
   
   
   
   
   If you’ve ever watched Back To The Future and thought the dramatic run-up needed to get Doc Brown’s DeLorean time machine up to the magic 88mph was a bit Hollywood, then you need to hear just how pathetically slow the DeLorean really was.
   The Northern Irish-built sports car was designed to have a high-revving Wankel rotary engine in the middle, before plans then changed to a Ford V6 engine. This was too unreliable – dammit, America – so DeLorean changed tack and went for a Citroen V6 that wasn’t powerful enough. Dammit, France.
   Plans to turbocharge the Citroen’s weak engine were dropped, and DeLorean eventually settled on a truly rubbish joint-venture V6 designed by Peugeot, Renault and Volvo. The 2.8-litre motor generated just 130bhp, and wouldn’t fit in the mid-engine bay, so the car had to be reconfigured for a rear-mounted powerplant. This would have made for scary handling, if the 10.5 second 0-60mph time hadn’t caused rivers to nod off before they got to a bend, let alone the space-time continuum.
   
   
   
   
   https://www.topgear.com/car-news/list/top-gears-top-9-really-slow-sports-cars
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[hmp10]

I was with you until the last sentence. The DeLorean look great but was a disaster as a vehicle. Maybe as a time machine it worked but its acceleration was pathetic.

I remembered the DeLorean as slow (top speed tested to 110 mph), a fingerprint magnet, and prone to rust spots. I did not remember it as that ponderous off the line, though. I just sat here while my cell phone stopwatch ticked off 10.5 seconds. Jeez . . . I could have bought groceries.

 

[xponents]

I remembered the DeLorean as slow (top speed tested to 110 mph), a fingerprint magnet, and prone to rust spots. I did not remember it as that ponderous off the line, though. I just sat here while my cell phone stopwatch ticked off 10.5 seconds. Jeez . . . I could have bought groceries.

The Tucker was definitely a great, misunderstood, and beautifully engineered car, but the Delorean left much to be desired. Also, am I right in saying that 10.5 was a fairly average to good time for that era?

 

[hmp10]

The Tucker was definitely a great, misunderstood, and beautifully engineered car, but the Delorean left much to be desired. Also, am I right in saying that 10.5 was a fairly average to good time for that era?

Buicks and Pontiacs were better than halving that time in the 1980's:

1986 Buick Regal Grand National -- 4.9 seconds
1987 Buick GNX -- 4.7 seconds
1989 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (turbo V-6) -- 4.6 seconds

So were a lot of others:

1987 Porsche 959 -- 3.6 seconds.
1989 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 -- 4.5 seconds
1986 Porsche 911 Turbo -- 4.6 seconds
1989 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 -- 4.8 seconds
1987 Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet -- 4.9 seconds
1981 Ferrari 512BB -- 5.0 seconds
1985 Ferrari Testarossa -- 5.0 seconds
1985 Ferrari 288GTO -- 5.0 seconds