Lucid Air Named MotorTrend Car of the Year (cnn.com) 143
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The Lucid Air, the first model from California-based electric car start-up company Lucid Motors, has been named MotorTrend's 2022 Car of the Year. It's the first time any automaker has won the award with its first car. MotorTrend's panel of judges lauded the Lucid Air for its extraordinary range and efficiency -- some versions can go up to 520 miles on a single charge -- as well as its performance and luxurious interior.
In its announcement, MotorTrend called the Air "the new [electric vehicle] benchmark." While the judges generally liked the Air's interior design, they did criticize what they saw as an over-reliance on touch screens for many basic controls. The judges praised the car's Lucid-designed stereo-system.
It's not the first time a start-up automaker has won the award. The Tesla Model S won it in 2012. But the Model S was Tesla's second car, after the Tesla Roadster. The Air is Lucid's first car, and it only recently went into production. Despite its high cost, MotorTrend's judges thought the Lucid Air represented a strong value. They tested the Grand Touring version with a starting price around $140,000. Less expensive versions, with prices starting around $77,000, will be available later, but they won't have the driving range and power of the pricier cars. Lucid's CEO, Peter Rawlinson, once worked at Tesla and helped engineer the Model S. In creating the Lucid Air, he has said, efficiency has been a primary focus. The Lucid is actually the most energy efficient electric car sold in America, according to EPA estimates.
It's not the first time a start-up automaker has won the award. The Tesla Model S won it in 2012. But the Model S was Tesla's second car, after the Tesla Roadster. The Air is Lucid's first car, and it only recently went into production. Despite its high cost, MotorTrend's judges thought the Lucid Air represented a strong value. They tested the Grand Touring version with a starting price around $140,000. Less expensive versions, with prices starting around $77,000, will be available later, but they won't have the driving range and power of the pricier cars. Lucid's CEO, Peter Rawlinson, once worked at Tesla and helped engineer the Model S. In creating the Lucid Air, he has said, efficiency has been a primary focus. The Lucid is actually the most energy efficient electric car sold in America, according to EPA estimates.
It's a nice looking car (Score:3)
It's a nice looking car, better in many ways than the Tesla, but it's not clear that it's worth $77k. Unless you really like luxury cars.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's a nice looking car, better in many ways than the Tesla, but it's not clear that it's worth $77k. Unless you really like luxury cars."
I just priced a loaded Infiniti Q50S, early this year... it is over $70K!
I actually think this might be far more compelling. Tesla ruined the S with the stupid square steering wheel, huge center non-integrated screen, and other things. This sucker has a hugely functional dashboard, real steering wheel, nice controls, nicely integrated center console, deep and large
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The model S looks good from some angles, but it also looks bad from some angles. Tesla did better with Lotus. The Lucid Air does look rather mediocre.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks very American. I don't mean that in a bad way, I just mean that American cars tend to look like that. Blunt nose that makes it look quite large and boxy, sweeping curves, and the saloon shape. That shape isn't very popular in Europe anymore, although some of the luxury German brands do it a bit. They tend to look a bit less box shaped though, which leads to poor use of space.
EVs don't need a front grille. Some manufacturers fit fake ones, like BMW with the "kidneys" (they always looked more like a
Re: (Score:2)
"... the ugliest vehicle of all time"
The ugliest vehicle of "all time" is the Tesla truck, even though it hasn't shipped and won't for a long time. It is so ugly it transcends time.
Re: (Score:2)
Free market forces (sorry commies) vs Judges opinions on what they.... think is cool?
In real life one matters and the other doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to bet the "free market forces" are not going to buy many copies of this car. If you want to make a monetary bet on that, let me know.
And they're now worth more than Ford (Score:5, Interesting)
Which should surprise no one [cnbc.com].
I guess if a car company with $232,000 in revenue (that's dollars, not thousands of dollars) in Q3 and who only sold their first car in early October is worth $85 billion then I guess Tesla's valuation makes more sense.
Like do investors think that the traditional car companies will simply stop building cars when the switch to EVs happens?
Re:And they're now worth more than Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Like do investors think that the traditional car companies will simply stop building cars when the switch to EVs happens?
Perhaps they remember how Kodak simply stopped producing film after the switch to digital photography happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This might actually be a good thing.
Innovation has stagnated in the UK. We couldn't have had our own Tesla because nobody would have invested the serious money needed to get it off the ground. In the UK investors seem to throw money at these startups, and while most of them fail sometimes they work out very well.
The valuation is obviously based on the potential for Lucid to become a major car manufacturer and for the technology it has to become market leading. Those investors might lose everything, but in o
Re: (Score:3)
You should check your numbers.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10... [techcrunch.com]
Re:And they're now worth more than Ford (Score:5, Informative)
Revenue is not profit.
Newspapers died (Score:3)
Most companies die where they were born. The internet should have been gold for the newspapers. They already had the classified ad business. It should also have been gold for yellow pages. All they had to do was add a web site. Likewise the TV networks. Nokia was an exception, a timber company that did phones, for a while.
But ossified management killed them off. Once they become big and set in their ways they cannot change.
The question is, are the other companies in the car business or the petrol car
Re: Newspapers died (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And the Mach-E is now selling a couple thousand a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional car companies were late to the Tesla electric market. As such, Tesla basically ate them alive, selling everything it could produce at whatever price point they choose to. Basically Tesla expanded into a void (high-performance electric vehicles).
Unfortunately for Lucid, traditional car companies are already crowding the Lucid electric car market. A newcomer has few chances to expand now, as most niches are already filled (from the >100,000 Euro Electric S-Class Mercedes down to the 16k Euro pl
Re: (Score:3)
I guess if a car company with $232,000 in revenue (that's dollars, not thousands of dollars) in Q3 and who only sold their first car in early October is worth $85 billion then I guess Tesla's valuation makes more sense.
Tesla didn't turn a profit until just recently (this year I believe) and that was after the taxpayers footed billions of dollars in subsidies to the company for many years AND they were selling carbon credits to other car companies. I don't know how much in subsidies this company is getting, but if they've already eeked out a profit, they're doing better than Tesla.
They literally just sold their first vehicle in October. They have most certainly not "eeked out a profit".
It is an interesting comparison though. Simply being an electric car company who has sold a car gives you a valuation of about $100 billion. For all it's sales and name recognition Tesla only worth about 10x as much as a generic electric car company with a few token sales.
Re:And they're now worth more than Ford (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason Tesla wasn't turning a profit is because they were growing at an insane pace. Every dollar they made was spent expanding facilities, doing R&D and improving their processes. In reality, they were making shitloads of money.
In terms of subsidies; Tesla got $460-ish million in federal loans under a tech development program in 2010... which it repaid in 2013. Not sure where they got nearly half a billion dollars to repay a load almost a decade early if they weren't making money. For contrast, Ford got nearly $6 billion in loans under that same program. They haven't paid it back yet. Is Ford not making any money, unable to repay its debts?
Regarding the carbon credits; They're technically ZEV credits, which other auto makers could have cashed in on if they didn't drag their feet. They had to either sell X number of zero-emission vehicles per year, or pay a fine. They chose to pay the fines. Tesla, which sells nothing but zero-emissions vehicles, is more than happy to take money directly from their competition. This is literally the entire purpose of the ZEV credit system by the way: To get *someone* to build ZEVs and get them to market.
So no, Lucid is not doing better than Tesla by any metric. Lucid Motors is 14 years old and hasn't produced a single car. By the time Tesla was 14 they had produced over 300,000 vehicles. Lucid is 60% owned by a dubious multi-billion-dollar Saudi Arabian wealth fund and merged with a shell company to get on the stock market without going through the SEC. Lucid's financials stinks on ice to be honest... hopefully they can do what Rivian have and make a deal with a fleet customer or something, but the Lucid Air is aiming for the same upscale/luxury sedan market that literally everyone else is vying for so I don't see that panning out too well for them unless they get their prices way down or make something absolutely sensational.
=Smidge=
Re:And they're now worth more than Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
"The only reason Tesla wasn't turning a profit is because they were growing at an insane pace. Every dollar they made was spent expanding facilities, doing R&D and improving their processes. In reality, they were making shitloads of money." ... from somewhere else)
Frankly, if you want to "play with the big boys" (there are 20 companies building more than a million cars a year, two of which build over 10 million cars a year), you must invest in production capacity. Lots and lots of production capacity (even if you buy most of the components - like wheels, tires, batteries, electric motors, glass, displays, seats, ABS, airbags,
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the growth as the potential for the technology. The reason Musk keeps predicting full self driving and robotaxis are just around the corner is because if they ever get those things to work they will be dominating multiple markets very quickly. Taxis, road haulage, and supplying tech to other vehicle manufacturers.
The problem is that they are nowhere near delivering it. They might look superficially like they are ahead, but that's only because other manufacturers of driver assistance tech do
Re: (Score:2)
" In reality, they were making shitloads of money."
And spending shitloads of money. Profit is literally the difference in those two numbers. You aren't saying anything, you're just pretending it is different than it is.
Re: (Score:2)
> You aren't saying anything, you're just pretending it is different than it is.
I'm addressing the comparison between Lucid's revenues and Tesla's revenues.
It's only the parent comment that (incorrectly) calls it a profit, and (incorrectly) asserts that Tesla was losing money and relying on "billions of dollars in subsidies."
=Smidge=
Clowns (Score:4, Funny)
> The judges praised the car's Lucid-designed stereo-system.
"What are the engine specs?"
"Beats me, but check out this stereo."
Re: Clowns (Score:2)
It's got what plants crave
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as if there's more to a car than how fast it accelerates.
Who pays $144K for "strong value?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Despite its high cost, MotorTrend's judges thought the Lucid Air represented a strong value."
I don't think it's possible for a $144K car to have "strong value" in the mind of any real owner. Those who buy a car for $144K aren't concerned about value. In fact, every salesman knows that selling a $100K+ car based on it's 'strong value' will dull/cheapen the car in the eyes of potential customers, and this is reflected in the design of most luxury vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Resale value for a "one-of-a-kind" car (well, 2000-of-a-kind). ... cars - they're status symbols and will (hopefully) appreciate in time. For example, some Tesla Roadsters sell for more than their original price (original price quoted by Wikipedia 80-120k, market price 80-140k USD)
This formula works for plenty other "limited production", "limited edition", "special production",
Re: Who pays $144K for "strong value?" (Score:2)
Came here to say something similar. "Strong value" is something that people without $144k to blow think about. It's also kind of meaningless when judging a car that has just hit the market, and part of "value" is its reliability and operational life. If they define "value" as being extra packed with bells and whistles, then that's a different definition than I suspect most people have.
When I was a kid I had a friend whose parents bought this old used Mercedes diesel. We always thought it was funny that the
California (Score:2)
Amazing how many new vehicles are designed in California.
Re: (Score:2)
How many? And why amazing?
Is it amazing how many financial institutions are downtown? How many law offices are in nice buildings? How many grocery stores are near residential neighborhoods?
There are reasons for these things, and many of those are money. And how many new cars are "designed in California" anyway? Can't wait for the Apple car, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss that the American automotive industry has revolved around Michigan for like a century?
I could care less about an Apple car. Just found it interesting that so much automotive design happens in CA.
New vehicles designed in CA:
Tesla
Rivian
Lucid
XOS
Wrightspeed
Coda
Fisker
Phoenix
AC Propulsion
Zap
American Honda
Aptera
Think
Gorilla
I'm sure there are more. And some of these will certainly fail. Nonetheless there is a lot happening around transportation in CA.
Lucid's in good company... (Score:5, Informative)
2018 Alfa Romeo Giulia / Giulia Quadrifoglio
2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV
2005 Chrysler 300
2002 Ford Thunderbird
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
2000 Lincoln LS
1999 Chrysler 300M
1997 Chevrolet Malibu
1992 Cadillac Seville Touring Sedan
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
1986 Ford Taurus LX
1985 Volkswagen GTI (built at Volkswagen's now-defunct Pennsylvania plant)
1984 Chevrolet Corvette
1983 Renault Alliance (built at AMC's Wisconsin plant)
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1979 Buick Riviera S
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon
1977 Chevrolet Caprice
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
1974 Ford Mustang II
1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
1972 Citroën SM (an imported vehicle that was selected overall "Car of the Year")
1971 Chevrolet Vega
1960 Chevrolet Corvair
Re:Lucid's in good company... (Score:4, Funny)
My goodness, there are maybe five cars on that list worth owning in their day, and only two or three today.
Re: (Score:2)
Which three? I see the 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser and the 1990 Lincoln Town Car, although neither of those are my style of car.
Re: (Score:2)
Giulia, Taurus, GTI, SM, Corvair
Re: (Score:2)
Many of which were quite successful and/or actually a decent value at the time. What is your point?
Re: Lucid's in good company... (Score:2)
Whoa, the PT Cruiser was in that list? I think that tells us the value of such ratings...
Car of the year 2022? (Score:2)
So they intend to build only one?
In my opinion, the Tesla Model 3 should be "The car of the year" - beating Volkswagen Golf in its European home is, frankly, incredible.
Touchscreens are the devil (Score:5, Insightful)
Buttons and dials give feedback and use muscle memory. If I want to put the wipers on (or change their speed), or turn the volume up or down, or the AC up or down then I can reach for that thing, interact with a physical control and receive positive feedback. The likes of Tesla have strip it back to dangerous levels (even removing instrument clusters) so people are forced to look away continuously.
I'd note that some manufacturers have tried to strike an almost as awful middle ground - capacitive buttons with haptic feedback. Volkswagen did this with the ID3 and ID4 and it is mindboggling. It's easy to invoke them by accident or for wet fingers to make them not work at all. Just. Use. Physical. Fucking. Buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
It really is a case of design aesthetics going too far and compromising s
Re:Motortrend's values might not align with yours (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Motortrend's values might not align with yours (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the Lucid Air seems nice. To me, though, it's never "can you make a neat car in small numbers" - a team of talented college students with a bit of funding can do that. It's whether you can mass produce. Mass production eats auto startups alive.
That said, Lucid's majority owner is the Saudi Arabian wealth fund, and they have deep pockets, so they should be able to struggle along as long as they need to.
(I have to admit, I did laugh when someone suggested that the Lucid Air also won the coveted Golden Bone Saw award ;) )
Re: (Score:2)
"... a team of talented college students with a bit of funding can do that."
No. Please stop.
"It's whether you can mass produce. Mass production eats auto startups alive."
Tesla has done a poor job of that, and Lucid has demonstrated it understands that problem. Rivian too. Both of those companies have been FAR more deliberate than Tesla in that regard. What is your point?
It should be noted that your hero, Elon Musk, viewed issues like this with contempt until it became clear how bad Tesla was at it, then
Re: (Score:2)
Stop yourself. The tzero, which formed the tech basis of the Tesla Roadster, was built on a shoestring budget, mainly just by 2 people at AC Propulsion. The first publicly unveiled Tesla Roadster (good enough to show off at auto shows) was built using the $6,35M Series A funding (not all of which went to the vehicle) and a half-dozen people working on it.
Tesla has done a poor job of that
"Company That Makes Far Mor
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:5, Informative)
I'd be more impressed if they made a 25K "econo box" EV than another toy for the super-rich.
It's the way technology works, it starts out so expensive only rich people could afford it, and then slides down to everybody. I'm old enough to remember when the HP-65 calculators came out, with a price tag of $795.
...but, I'll wait, I think.
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:4, Informative)
Since Tesla is constrained by production, not demand, it is going for the highest margin product it can for the capacity it has. Only when the demand above 45K is filled and sated it will reduce the price and introduce cheaper versions. But as soon as the demand slackens at those prices, Tesla will ramp the price down. All the way to 20K in 2026 or 2027.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt you will be able to get a new Tesla in 2026 for $20k. It is almost impossible to get a new ICE car now for that price and I don't see the average new car price dropping all that much in the next 5 years. Inflation alone over the next 5 years will almost guarantee that getting a Tesla for $20k in 2026 is a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:2)
They got a few good reductions in price, some done some planned - but they're not really related to production numbers. Using fewer, larger batteries help with installation work. Using fewer but of more complex shape pieces (like suspension cross-members) is cheaper once the production line is amortized. Having their own battery factory saves them from "tight market mark-ups". ...
Also, the tear down takes into account production costs, not development costs, certification costs, warranty/replacements costs,
Re: (Score:3)
Mass production of large products does not scale as you claim - with a doubling, you might get a 10% - and another doubling might get another 2-3%. It does not fall like chips.
It can be higher or lower. If the increases in production volume allow a change from a mostly hand-labor assembly to a mostly automated assembly, the reduction can be very large.
This article https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] gives industry average of 34% reduction of cost for doubling, looking only at the cost of the factory equipment (that is not counting labor, etc.); but points out that there is large variations about that average.
Re: $140,000.00 car (Score:2)
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:5, Informative)
The earliest electric cars were always more expensive than their IC counterparts, mainly because of the structural advantages that the oil industry used to crush any competition. And I bet old John D Rockefeller was making the same specious (and inaccurate) arguments you make while he was slipping legislators envelopes filled with cash and breaking anti-trust laws with glee.
And by the way, I count at least nine EVs for around $30,000 (which is less than the average price of a new car in the US). The average cruising range is about 350 miles, which is about how far your Honda Accord can go on a tank of gas. Also, ABB has a charger out now that will give you 100 miles of charge in three minutes and a full charge in less than 15. So you can hook up your vehicle, get a Big Gulp and a bag of pork rinds, go to the bathroom and you're ready to get back on the road for another 6 hours, which is how long your F-150 can go between fill-ups.
Motortrend's car of the year was never about affordability. It's about which car is having the biggest impact on the automotive industry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And by the way, I count at least nine EVs for around $30,000 (which is less than the average price of a new car in the US). The average cruising range is about 350 miles, which is about how far your Honda Accord can go on a tank of gas.
Can you point me to these vehicles?. A quick bit of research shows me three cars (Leaf, Mini, Bolt) that when rounded to the nearest $5k would be $30,000. And none of them come close to getting 350 miles per charge. A few Tesla models get 350 miles or more per charge and the cheapest of that lot (by far) is a $50,000 Model 3.
Also, ABB has a charger out now that will give you 100 miles of charge in three minutes and a full charge in less than 15. So you can hook up your vehicle, get a Big Gulp and a bag of pork rinds, go to the bathroom and you're ready to get back on the road for another 6 hours, which is how long your F-150 can go between fill-ups
Any of those ABB chargers actually been deployed in real life? They were just announced as a new product in September. And are 100km in three minutes. And you may want to have t
Re: (Score:2)
15 minutes are "Still not terrible for another six hours of driving, but hedging the facts and framing the situation this way will not help adoption."
But, a sub 10 minutes recharge (IF AVAILABLE WHERE YOU NEED IT) for another three hours of driving is quite good - assuming you spend 3+3 minutes going from and to your car, a 4 minutes actual break is totally normal.
Also, truck drivers are limited at 4h30min of driving and at least a 15 minutes break (45 minutes within a 9 hours actual driving day), so I'd sa
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:4, Informative)
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:4, Informative)
I could point you to Google, but I'll be nice about it.
First, the prices of all cars have gone up since I last looked earlier this year, but here is a list of EVs that are between $30k and $40k. Remember, the average price for a new car is $45,000 as of September 2021. So all of these EVs are below that.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
And yes, the ABB chargers are already being deployed.
Re: (Score:2)
The average new car price is a bit of a joke. It doesn't take too many high priced cars to bring the average price up. Trying to find the median price of a new car is next to impossible though.
I would hazard to guess that for a lot of new car buyers spending $30000+ on a new car (even if it is electric) is going to be a hard sell.
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but with the startups they start high to recoup costs then come out with something cheaper later. It's how Tesla did things, starting out with a sports car for the very rich but years later it's now in the price of a mid-range sedan with all the options.
If you're only going to sell 1000 in your first year, which one would you want to sell?
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:4)
It's how Tesla did things
In 2008.
With basically zero competition. The time when you could build a company by selling 1000 cars has passed.
We are now in the "gotta reach millions sold annually, and soon, just to stay competitive" [cnbc.com] time.
They are going for 30k annually. [electrek.co]
Meaning that only the pump-and-dump shorters [cnbc.com] will be profiting on their sales.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people expect big projects that require massive investment and infrastructure like this are supposed to happen in 24 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the first production cars are stupidly expensive. The Lucid Air Pure which should be available next fall is not badly priced considering what you get.
That is why I put my money down on one in June of this year. I'm making a better investment than those who put money down on the mythical $35K model 3 and never got a delivery while the tax credit was available. Even if Lucid suddenly produced 200,000 cars by next summer, the run out period of the tax credit would still cover my purchase.
I look forward
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $140,000.00 car (Score:5, Informative)
Lithium is fairly common on earth but does not tend to be found in high concentrations. There is no shortage if the price is high enough. LiPo batteries are less than 10% lithium by mass.
For reference abundance of elements on earth [wikipedia.org](open table using show)
Other common elements in batteries are nickel 1.8% EM(% of Earths Mass), manganese 0.17% EM, cobalt 0.088% EM
Lithium is 0.00011% EM 1.1ppm, it is the 37th most abundant element on earth by mass and 25th by number of atoms.
For comparison
Carbon is 0.073% EM and not at all uncommon but is much more commonly found in high concentrations than some more common elements.
Tin is 0.000025% EM 0.25ppm
Lead is 0.000023% EM 0.23ppm
Gold is 0.000016% EM 0.16ppm
To summarise Lithium is not(and is not going to be) the reason batteries can't be made cheaply, other materials make up more than 90% of the battery by mass and cost way more than the lithium part.
As far as peak lithium and copper is concerned be aware that these are elements and unlike natural gas or oil do not get used up. They can be recycled and will be if the price to do so is lower than the price to mine more. So the concept of peak with regards to these elements does not make much sense to me. Although some helium does escape earths atmosphere it is also being created by radioactive decay so...
The price of batteries per kWh has been getting lower very rapidly, in the last 3 decades Lithium batteries have become 98% cheaper and the price continues to fall. They continue to halve in price every 6 to 8 years see https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
I think it is very likely that within 8 years electric vehicles will be cheaper than equivalent ICE vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
Price parity will happen when producing EVs to scale creates savings and making ICE becomes more expensive due to scale getting smaller.
"Statu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike gasoline, lithium in the battery packs are not burnt and lost for ever.
That's true but lithium is consumed in ways very similar to gasoline. First is that lithium is consumed in being put in vehicles, the more vehicles on the road the more lithium needs to be dug up to fill that demand. With more than a billion cars on the road today that is going to take a lot of lithium before we get to where we filled that demand. Second, there are losses in the recycling, some of that lithium ends up in the waste stream and needs replacing. Again with over a billion of cars on the road
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure, the material is not burned like gasoline but it is being consumed." - consumed implies it can't be used again, you mean "used"
Re: (Score:2)
consumed implies it can't be used again, you mean "used"
No, I meant consumed, that it cannot be used again.
At least not used again without going through a process that takes more energy and effort than getting unused lithium. If it takes more effort to get recycled lithium than new lithium then it is effectively consumed, not to be used again. That wasted lithium will be dumped in a landfill and given enough time it might end up as a salt in the sea to be reused. But after that long of time and being so far removed from the battery it's not "recycled" any mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For that price, it could at least look like the Karma
Re:$140,000.00 car (Score:5, Interesting)
it'll save the world
It appears that Lucid is copying the Tesla playbook: start at the high end of the market, and sell expensive cars; by doing this, learn important lessons on how to build cars, and then later come out with a less-expensive car. Possibly iterate several times on this cycle, over time producing ever less-expensive cars.
One virtue of this: expensive cars have smaller production runs, so the scope of mistakes is limited. If you only sell 2000 cars (like the Tesla Roadster) then any "recall" you might have is only 2000 cars. Then, later, when you try for a larger volume, you have more experience and your chances are better of avoiding expensive mistakes.
The biggest problem Lucid has is that Tesla already did it first. Tesla had no competition... if you wanted an electric car that didn't suck, only a Tesla would do. Now Lucid is competing with Tesla, who has many advantages since they have been doing this for quite a few years.
I predict Lucid will not be the next Tesla, nor will it "save the world", but it will be a modest success. Lucid can carve out a small niche as the most luxurious top-end electric car. Some people don't like how stark the minimalist Tesla styling is; other people want to buy something different from the mainstream (and Tesla is now the mainstream for electric). IMHO there's nothing wrong with selling a luxury electric car to rich people... it won't save the world, but if someone who was never going to buy a Tesla buys a Lucid Air instead of a luxury gas car, that's a positive thing. (A small positive thing in the grand scheme of the world, but still positive.)
IMHO Lucid's biggest mistake is not licensing the Tesla charging standard. Elon Musk says he wants to help other companies that are saving the planet from carbon dioxide emissions and Tesla will license out its technologies. Suppose you buy this expensive, luxurious car, with its amazing abilities to fast-charge... then you have to charge at Electrify America stations? What will you do if both of the fast chargers at an EA station are in use? Or one is out of order and the other is in use? You will wait, like a peasant, that's what. Will rich people be happy about this? Lucid should have gone for "we make the best car and it uses the best charging network". Maybe they can fix the problem with a charging adapter.
P.S. MKBHD had a challenge (a sort of road rally) with a gas car, a Tesla, and a Ford Mach E. The Mach E had horrible problems with charging; it finished the challenge many hours behind the other cars and did not successfully complete the whole challenge. This video is cued at the part describing the charging misadventures. If the Mach E had been a Lucid Air it would have been a similar bad experience.
https://youtu.be/vXzuFprlyrw?t=295 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't justify a market cap for this company greater than Ford and equal to General Motors.
Of course I agree. A modest success that might carve out a small niche should not be valued like it will be the next Tesla.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/is-lucid-group-stock-overvalued [nasdaq.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"...like it will be the next Tesla."
More Tesla? Can you only talk about Tesla? You know whose market cap is not justified? Tesla's.
Investors are dumb, they overvalue promising new BEV companies. It will shake out, Tesla will eventually come down reflective of the poor quality, overpriced products that it sells.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody can buy an ordinary Tesla (Score:2)
But only the most discerning can buy a Lucid. With only 2000 made they are a collectors item.
Re: (Score:2)
But only the most discerning can buy a Lucid. With only 2000 made they are a collectors item.
Exactly what I was saying. Some people will buy a Lucid simply because it's not a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
And some people will buy a Lucid simply because they already have a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everyone gets what you are saying. Tesla blah Tesla blah Tesla Tesla.
In a few years, literally everyone will be choosing a car "because it's not a Tesla". No great insight, though not for the reasons you think. Tesla's are shitty cars backed by enormous VC and propaganda. You are a victim, please stop victimizing others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Mach E had been a Lucid Air it would have been a similar bad experience.
In fairness, the Lucid Air having a much higher range would have given a better experience. But it would still be possible for a Lucid Air to plan a charging stop and find it is busy or out of order.
Tesla's car navigation has a real-time update of how many chargers are available at a charging station, and most stations have 8 or more chargers so wait times are low. The Mach E navigation took it to stations that had no charging
Re: (Score:2)
"...if the Lucid Air has the same problem, that's a poor experience for an expensive car."
If the Tesla had the same problem, that's a poor experience for an expensive car which would have no excuse.
Of course, the Lucid didn't have this problem, because it wasn't in the test. Doesn't stop you from suggesting that the test somehow exposes Lucid as inferior to Tesla. Tesla Tesla Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lucid can carve out a small niche as the most luxurious top-end electric car."
The Mercedes Benz EQS is sold now, starting at > $100,000.
The electric Rolls Royce is on the way.
So, there is not a lot of space in the luxury market in the future - on the other hand, people buy luxury cars either for perceived prestige points, or for "I really hate this nitpick on this $200,000 car so I'll buy that $250,000 car instead".
I think anybody trying to hit the "midrange luxury" market now will have the fate of the
Re: (Score:2)
"It appears that Lucid is copying the Tesla playbook: start at the high end of the market, and sell expensive cars..."
It is not copying from "the Tesla playbook", Tesla has done nothing to understand this other than reading from any number of countless textbooks that explains this strategy. There is a reason companies do this, Tesla did not pioneer it.
It is tiring to see Tesla bias reflecting in literally everything.
"The biggest problem Lucid has is that Tesla already did it first."
Here's the Tesla bias ag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But... there was a market for 5 computers in the world
(falsified quote attributed to Thomas Watson Jr, IBM Chairman: https://geekhistory.com/conten... [geekhistory.com])
Re: (Score:3)
A BEV also has zero local tailpipe emissions (of all that stuff other than CO2). That's a useful trait for something running around in a nonattainment area for ozone, and an area of high air toxics, as is the case in most of California south of Redding. An ICE vehicle, even if running on completely renewable fuel, still emits those other pollutants. So BEVs (and FCEV, though hydrogen is a poor conduit for energy transmission compared to wires) have much value besides their effect on CO2. Maybe not in Wyomin
Re: (Score:2)
Additional: here's the EV-equivalent-MPG graphic I was actually looking for. Too bad it stops at 2014; things have improved since then in a lot of places.
https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs... [knightlab.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Can anyone explain to me just how much of a problem these tailpipe emissions are when we have quite effective engine control systems and catalytic converters to mitigate these emissions?"
Some people use "chip tuning" to increase performance - and incidentally, increasing pollution too, both in higher fuel consumption and in more pollution per fuel consumed.
Also, as cars get older, they pollute more.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't quantify the problem in any way.
How much soot, carbon monoxide, NOx, or whatever else that concerns people in tailpipe exhaust is there in the average ICE vehicle exhaust? How does this compare to natural sources of these gases? We know this same stuff is produced by natural wildfires, volcanoes, and more so it would be helpful to see how much human activity contributes. Even if people were to allow their vehicle to age without upkeep to emissions mitigation then how bad does this get? How
Re: (Score:2)
Test for yourself. Lock yourself in a garage with your fossil vehicle of choice, turn the engine on and see how long you can stay in the same enclosed room as a running engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Test for yourself. Lock yourself in a garage with your fossil vehicle of choice, turn the engine on and see how long you can stay in the same enclosed room as a running engine.
Forever? :)
Re: (Score:3)
"That means nuclear fission power."
The Unicorn Farts harvesting technology is closer to mass adoption though.
Leaving jokes aside. there are a few misconceptions in your post:
While an electrical grid to battery charge to motive power is inefficient (85+% times 60% times 90%), it's still a lot more efficient than CO2 from air to hydrocarbons to ICE (ICE by themselves in automotive have some 25% efficiency, big naval diesels reach some 50%, gas turbines 30%, gas turbines plus steam from exhaust 60%). Basically
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving jokes aside. there are a few misconceptions in your post:
There are not any misconceptions in my post, you are bringing up things I didn't even mention. You also did not answer how we are to get the required energy, material, and infrastructure for battery electric vehicles to replace the ICE.
The conversion losses you mention make many assumptions on how hydrocarbon fuels would be synthesized, and that people give a shit about the lack of efficiency. They don't care because the thermodynamic losses don't always correlate to lost money. How much will this fuel c
Re: (Score:2)
Not an argument. (Score:2)
You not providing an actual argument tells me that you don't have one. If you had an actual argument then you had every opportunity to make it.