WSJ Article on Loss per Car

A pretty gloomy article. Will the twin arrivals of the Pure RWD and the Gravity turn the sales picture around significantly?
I’m not sure. What I do know is that these higher interest rates are going to remain higher for an extended period of time. This along with the looming recession makes for a very bad economic situation if you’re an up and coming EV company. This is just my opinion of course. Great car and tech, but demand just isn’t there right now. Hopefully the Gravity will appeal to a broader share of the market. Problem is that’s a while away.
 
I feel like I got a tremendous deal. Thanks Lucid.
 
I think the company's future is riding on the Gravity. If demand is high, and they can get production ramped up quickly enough to meet the demand, I think they can make it.

In hindsight they probably should have started with the Gravity. Rivian should have started with the R1S. But who knows? The Air is an awesome vehicle.
 
The loss per car calculations are baking in R&D + scaling costs to my understanding — which is ridiculous.

These calculations aren’t raw material costs and factory line costs.
Exactly, shws you have manipulative these articles are. Also includes depreciation. And to think people read the WSJ for financial advice. WSJ also published an article saying Tesla in talks with Saudi for manufacturing plant. That was a big fat lie.Never trust anything put out by wall street. They have their motives. Unfortunately lot of people believe them They shorted EV's, so they push negative articles. It is time options trading should be made illegal. You like the stock you buy, you dont like, dont buy or sell. Simple! Having options means these wall street liars can make a lot of money with a small drop and hence push these articles. The SEC is useless!!
 
What would be the cost of a Ford model T at the equivalent point in time, when the cost of developing the infrastructure, etc., is divided by unit ? The complexity is about the same...

ok maybe the Lucid is harder to make than a model T....

so, at the equivalent point in time, what was the unit cost of a Tesla ? (that would be the roadster?).

ok, maybe the Lucid is harder to make than the roadster...

ok, at the equivalent point in time, what was the unit cost of the Space Shuttle ?

humm... maybe the Lucid is harder to make than the Space Shuttle...
 
I think the company's future is riding on the Gravity. If demand is high, and they can get production ramped up quickly enough to meet the demand, I think they can make it.

In hindsight they probably should have started with the Gravity. Rivian should have started with the R1S. But who knows? The Air is an awesome vehicle.
I think Lucid’s strategy was correct. Start with the lower volume model, work out the kinks in the supply chain and software, then launch the medium volume model, then launch the high volume model. Low sales of the Air right now is actually kind of irrelevant in the big picture. The problem is that it is taking way too long for Gravity to be launched. A year from now is really disappointing. Unless Lucid can generate significant international sales of the Air, it will be a very very long and quiet 2024 until Gravity hits.
 
I’m not sure. What I do know is that these higher interest rates are going to remain higher for an extended period of time. This along with the looming recession makes for a very bad economic situation if you’re an up and coming EV company. This is just my opinion of course. Great car and tech, but demand just isn’t there right now. Hopefully the Gravity will appeal to a broader share of the market. Problem is that’s a while away.
100% spot on it’s going to be a tough road to survive for many companies. Interest rates are the biggest hang up.
 
I wonder how the 0% money factor funds on current Lucid leases are figured i in this financial equation? The Air Pure is less expensive to lease than a 5 series BMW today. I doubt they can continue this for long.
 
The loss per car calculations are baking in R&D + scaling costs to my understanding — which is ridiculous.

These calculations aren’t raw material costs and factory line costs.
I watched people use the same stupid logic when Tesla was up and coming, as if the cost of making solar panels, future software development, plans for the Model 3, tooling factories for future cars and everything else that cost money was part of the cost of making a Model S. Tesla was quite open on the fact that their plan all along was to make enough money from the Model S to pay the bills, and interest on loans, etc. as they spent far more than they were expecting to take in, with the spending being unrelated to future models.

Also, a lot of things with fixed costs for Lucid, such as software development, get divided across the number of cars sold. And I would expect a great deal of the same software to carry over into the Gravity and future models. The same fundamental issues are there for fixed costs for running the factory, etc. It would make sense to attribute that to a loss per vehicle only if the plan and expectation were for volume to stay low.
 
Back
Top