If this electric car has an interior that is on par with, or better than, the low end BMW/Audi/Merc models (3series/A4/C) then I am very, very interested.
Setting aside the design aesthetic of the tesla, which is minimal and modern, the actual quality and finish of the tesla is stupefying. It's unbelievably bad. I sat in a mazda recently that was much better by every measure.
Whenever I sit (on the passenger seat) in an S class or a 7 Series I find the interior so outdated. Wooden panels, leather, chrome, sometimes even gilded. It's too bling bling for me. That style is more suitable for the Queen's carriage than for my ride. On the other hand, the tech side of an S Class or a 7 Series is too underwhelming.
The style of German luxury cars is really a question of acquired taste. For many of us, plastic does just fine.
I rode in a Mexican Nissan Tsuru (no, autocorrect, not Taurus) last week.
It was approximately the least luxurious sedan you could conceivably purchase, comparable to my old Jeep CJ5. All metal and plastic. Fabric seats. Manual windows, locks, transmission. I was shocked that it had a radio and AC.
But it felt like a vehicle that would last decades in that climate with a screwdriver and a wrench. It was simply and purely a car, in a way that was refreshing. I might buy a car like that, especially if they made a more rugged version with a cruise control.
The 0-star crash rating, lack of airbags, and lack of rear shoulder belts and rear headrests don't need to be emulated, though.
> On the other hand, the tech side of an S Class or a 7 Series is too underwhelming
I hope by that you meant they are using engines which run on overprocessed dinosaurs ?
Besides that, I guess techwise both the S Class and 7 series have more than anyone would want. For eg the S Class (or maybe the 7 or both) has had steering correction for crosswinds for a couple of years now ! Besides other things like night vision, automatic breaking etc etc
They are not self driving for sure but I believe many S Class or 7 series owners/leas holders don't drive themselves. They pay someone else to drive them around most of the times.
The S Class also has very basic "autopilot" that's been getting more advanced for years now (not sure about the 7)
The 7 can detect and compensate for a flat tire during driving.
I think the parent post was confusing multimedia with technology.
And honestly the hardware for multimedia in Teslas is already outdated. Tesla is updating their platform at a much higher cadence than most cars, but they still haven't escaped the impedance mismatch between multimedia hardware which gets outdated in a year, and cars, which are outdated over much longer periods.
That's why to me a high quality BT or well placed wired input is all that matters
> I think the parent post was confusing multimedia with technology.
I see... that makes sense.
I have been in a Tesla (not as the driver though, it was a taxi !!!) and that screen garnered the same reaction from me as I reacted to the 12" iPad. The touch interface did seem to be well implemented.
From a pure interaction perspective I still find the new BMW iDrive interface with the physical command dial to be quite practical, especially in the left hand drive versions. The screens are not as enormous as Tesla but they are still serviceable.
I totally get the point with updated BT and wirings. I recently bought an very cheap BT 4.0 receiver to plug into the AUX socket and stream audio from my phone. There is a significant difference between the audio quality produced by BT streaming compared to playing CD in the head unit.
Probably not that many of you actually. When given the choices between more "noble" materials versus plastic at close prices, the market always sides so heavily against plastic that the competing product dies unless it sells for a LOT cheaper than the one with noble materials.
For eg: iPhone 5c vs classic iPhone 5. You can't sell a plastic phone for the price of an iPhone. Plastic is synonymous with cheap and if it's not cheap then no one is buying it.
For the same reason Tesla cars make a lot of people cringe at the price tags asked.
On the one hand, it's cool that Tesla have made electric cars appealing to the high-end market, because that's the only market that can really afford them at the moment, which lets them bootstrap and iterate downmarket to achieve their stated goal of helping the world transition to carbon free power.
But I hope they don't get too caught up in high-end details like fancy leathers, because unlike the cost of the battery, those aren't on a steady downward trajectory, and therefore distract from making a mass market car.
Yeah, it's obvious the money did not go into the interior. The fit and finish isn't up to par with other high end manufacturers...yet. It also doesn't handle nearly as well as a comparably priced M5 vs p85d, for example. But, most people are buying the Tesla for completely different reasons.
> also doesn't handle nearly as well as a comparably priced M5 vs p85d, for example
M5: 4288 lbs, 550 bhp, 400 mm six-piston fixed-caliper compound disc brakes, custom Bavarian elastokinematic suspension honed on German race tracks for decades.
P85D: 4936 lbs, 557 bhp, 355 mm four-piston fixed-calliper regular disc brakes, standard suspension setup you find in a Ford Crown Victoria.
It's not a surprise that a heavier car with the same power and significantly worse brakes and suspension handles significantly worse.
But as you say, no-one is buying a Model S to go play on racetracks. Especially since we know it can't do a full lap of the Nürburgring Nordschliefe without overheating and reducing power output.
When people talk about handling in these contexts, I always wonder what they mean. Unless you take your car to the track, all your driving is either on residential roads, where you obviously (hopefully) won't be going fast, or on freeways, which are just long stretches of straightforward road.
I've been a driver for twenty years and I have never felt like I cared about 'handling'. When car reviewers talk about it I always picture a 45 year old man-child white-knuckling the wheel at the local intersection while revving his 325i, eyes darting between soccer moms and pensioners in the cars around him and imagining himself to be Ayrton Senna. Though that is probably uncharitable :)
I have owned many different cars between a top-end BMW and a beater Hyundai. The BMW is certainly a more enjoyable ride, but 'handling' was never a concern, except perhaps in a very occasional circumstance that might have gotten me arrested.
Interesting - you state that you really do not need handling because you are either driving slowly on residential roads or you are driving on 'freeways' that are built properly and therefore do not need cars with this mystery 'handling' ingredient.
This is true, and the U.S. road network evolved this way, with cars evolving to suit the 'freeway' or the little road to get to the 'freeway'.
In Europe we have an entirely different type of road network, ours does have fast motorways and dual carriageways where 'handling is not needed'. However, the bulk of the network is the older type of network where this handling thing does matter. In fact, we kind of chuckle with embarrassment at the sight of U.S. cars and their crude engineering. In a narrow country lane when the 325i meets the U.S. soccer-mom lard-mobile, you know that the guy in the 325i will be the one flicking into reverse and backing up to a passing point.
Listen, I'm no track day enthusiast, but that is pretty uncharitable.
At worst, "handling" is the difference between a car that's fun to drive and one that bores me. At best, it's the difference between smashing into the truck that stops suddenly at highway speeds and making it onto the shoulder.
I drive a small family car and I know that with worse handling we'd all have been to the hospital at least twice.
In the east we have high speed roads that aren't long stretches of straight. For example, the parkways around New York (Taconic, Sprain Brook, Northern/Southern State, Cross Island, Merritt) are 2 lane 65 mph highways with no shoulders and narrow, winding lanes. The drivers also tend to be aggressive and not give you a lot of space. Handling matters on those roads. Lots of rural highways in New England are also high speed, narrow, single lane winding affairs through wooded mountains. I don't think those roads are unique to New England, but that's where I have experience with them.
If your experience with driving is sitting in traffic or driving around suburban streets, you're right, handling (mostly) doesn't matter.
It's true, I drive exclusively in and around the city. That said... even on winding roads like that, I can't see it pushing the limits of 'handling' of any car that I've owned, unless I was really pushing it in a way that would be irresponsible on a public road.
But I admit I might feel differently if I had to navigate roads like that on a daily basis.
> the actual quality and finish of the tesla is stupefying. It's unbelievably bad. I sat in a mazda recently that was much better by every measure.
I’ve yet to see one up close in person. When you rag on the interior fit and finish, are you talking about things like the quality of plastics used, gaps between panels, tactile feel of buttons, and so on? In other words, I’m assuming your complaint isn’t purely an aesthetic one (“I don’t like how it looks”), but rather an objective criticism on materials and engineering.
Here’s a litmus test: How’s the stitching on door panels and seats?
Never rode in one, but seen one in a Tesla shop - I was shocked at the low-quality plastic in the panels. Also, I don't think they use Italian leather and there is no good quality ebony wood to be found in it.
Why would you want wood in a car? It's heavy and a pain in the ass to manufacture. Also... it's the 21st century and Tesla aren't trying to compete with Bentley.
But these are not cheap cars. They are not competing with Toyotas, they are in the same price range as BMW Series 7 and Mercedes S-Class, executive-type limousine. So they need to be in the same range as the interior comfort.
People are happy paying now limousine-class prices for £20-30,000 range quality and comfort, just because of the novelty and image that a Tesla projects. But how much longer can they sell in the image without reinforcing the image with the styling, comfort and quality that is to be expected of a £60,000 car ?
Everything creaks and rattles, the windows squeak when you roll them with any sort of moisture present, the speaker bass farts and rattles the interior, there is noise from inside the front axel that requires periodic maintenance (look it up on Tesla forums), etc. etc. No comparison to Mercedes, for example.
But the drive is amazing, so in the end, it's all worth it. Tesla should really concentrate on the interior because it nailed the drive itself.
> Setting aside the design aesthetic of the tesla, which is minimal and modern, the actual quality and finish of the tesla is stupefying. It's unbelievably bad.
i agree completely. i have mentioned this to people, but i get weird looks from people awed by tesla. i have sat in one and even rode along a friend's test ride. the door handle jiggles. when the door closes, it doesn't have that firm "i'm a car door, and i just closed" feel and sound. the leather isn't that great and the seat backs and trim is sort of tacky. there's a lot of plastic pieces that jiggle around.
my kia optima sxl is finished much, much better than any tesla i have sat in.
i have asked the question: can tesla really beat in just a few years some of these other car manufacturers who have been making cars and iterating on designs for decades in quality and robustness? i think the answer is that, no they haven't, but people are continually wooed by thinking tesla is the greatest car because it's electric and has a gigantic screen. (i for one feel like the screen is poorly designed with respect to how it's mounted. it looks like someone just tacked on a giant monitor to a dash.)
I am german and have seen a lot of Audis, BMWs on the inside and recently had a test drive with a Model S because i contemplated getting one, but the interior quality at that price point is kind of a deal breaker, even though the electric drive is amazing. I don't even like the giant touchscreen too much, i think it does not work very well in a car, the knobs and buttons in in combination with touch screens in the german brands work better imo. In general if you compare the Tesla to a new Audi Q7/A4/A5/TT-S with their Virtual Cockpit and overall interior quality, the Tesla feels downright cheap, more like a Hyundai/Mazda than any of the german high end brands. Parts of the Tesla i love, but for this amount of money i'd still rather get something else.
If I get the last picture of the article right the car would size-wise compare more to the middle class cars you mentioned than to S-class or 7 series. So that comparison seems not too bad. However if the price point is above 100k then most people won't have really to decide between an A4 and this Lucid. Although a C63 and M3 are also considerably more expensive, so this will most likely also find it's customers.
I don't want 1000 hp in a car. I'd be happy with say 200 hp and go for extreme range instead. I have no problem with a car that takes 12 seconds to accelerate to 60 MPH. I would not mind paying say $75000 for such car but but it doesn't exist. Is this caused by the cost of the electric powertrain? Are they forced to go upmarket?
With an electric drivetrain, it's easy to go for high power. As the battery capacity increases, so does the maximum available current. This means that maximum power scales with maximum range from the battery perspective. Then (and I am simplifying this), higher current motor controller, a bigger motor (they are not a big component anyway) and slightly chunkier drivetrain to handle the torque. You don't have the same limitations of a high powered ICE with regards to cooling and packaging.
I can't imagine that the difference between a 200kW and an 800kW drivetrain is more than ~5% of the cost of the car.
I guess the same. On top of that I think that the top power output doesn't correlate a lot to the actual range, since that amount of power will not be used for an extended timeframe. I guess even if you have 1000HP you will on average drive around with less than 50HP due to speed limits and traffic jams. The smaller sized motor(s) might have a higher efficiency with that load than the bigger sized one(s) and of course the parts might be lighter, which will really yield more range. But marketing 10 times the power is probably easier than 30% more range.
No it doesn't it's the complete opposite the battery capacity decreases with the max current draw from each cell...
If you have a battery with high capacity it would have a very small sustained draw and vise versa.
The chemistry that allows for dense storage doesn't allow for high capacity and vise versa.
Some of the new chems that are specially designed for EV's try to marry the best of both worlds but in both cases you can have a considerably higher capacity or considerably more power if you use chem that was optimised for either.
Yes, changing chemistries does change the energy/power density ratio. However I was referring to within a single chemistry. Hence why the higher capacity Teslas have higher performance too.
An ICE doesn't get faster if you put a bigger fuel tank in.
This doesn't make sense. By that logic, a lithium battery the size of a house wouldn't be able to power an LED.
If you have two lithium batteries which are identical with the exception that one is double the capacity, the larger battery will be able to provide double the current at the same voltage and thus double the power. Lithium batteries are rated for current draw as a multiple of their capacity.
It's nothing to do with the size of the battery it's with the chemistry and yes a batter the size of a house might very well not be able to power a single LED because of its internal resistence.
Lithium batteries are rated for current draw based on their chemistry please do some basic reasearch.
And no if you have 2 identical 18650 they'll have the same density and sustained and peak current draw if not they are not identical.
Cell size, chemistry, internal resistance, breakage and short currents etc are all variables based on the exact make of the battery.
There is little to none correlation between range and maximum power (in fact there might be a very slight negative correlation in favor of higher power cars). There's no tradeoff to be made here.
Interesting. I was sure that a more powerful motor and powertrain would be heavier and more expensive to manufacture. Looks like I need to study more on this.
Horsepower isn't a good measure of how fast it takes to accelerate, that's the power to weight ratio. The Nissan Leaf does 0-60 in 11.5 seconds and has a 107hp drivetrain.
Unfortunately the range is around 1/4 of what you want. The battery pack retails for $5k, so let's say it costs another $15k for 400 mile total range (assuming nothing else changes, e.g. extra weight). Would you pay $50k for one with a 400 mile range?
That's my take as well. 12 seconds might be a bit leisurely but 8 would be more than enough. I'll never need 2.5 0-60 in a car. I'd much rather have more range. Range and lack of ubiquitous quick "refueling" are the two issues that keeps me away from electric cars.
What's the differentiating factor between them and Tesla? Why would I buy an Air, when it seems to be similarly specced to (and less attractive than) a model S, from a far better know company?
If they are guessing at NEDC measurements then they are claiming 19 miles more than a Model S of the same battery size, and 250 more horsepower. If they expect 400 miles EPA rated range, then they are expecting 30% more range than a P100D. Which, frankly, is ridiculous. They're also claiming full autonamous hardware and coming software, which is highly suspect. I also am wary of the fact that so much of the car looks explicitly like a Tesla. Center console screen, model 3 roof, Tesla-like nose, Tesla-like wheels, Tesla door handles, even a Tesla-like font.
That said they do apparently have a lot invested. The car is clearly intended to be a step above a model S. They have executive features, more power, and a more detailed interior (although, no leather?).
Do people really find Tesla cars attractive? I get a solid 'engineered, not designed' vibe from them. I don't think in 20 years time they'll be considered classics. This thing is pretty nice looking, but it's not fair to judge a real car vs. photos.
A Model S is pleasing, not beautiful. It reminds me a bit of Mazda's design language, or some of the more Aston-y Fords. It's not a pinup, but it's a nice car to look at.
OTOH, I'm pretty certain a <2015 Model S in working condition in 2035 will be about as rare as a genuine Lancia Stratos is today. They're just not built for longevity, and have a completely proprietary repair tooling and electronics setup. I doubt we'll e.g. ever see a Haynes manual for one.
I'm not a fan of this exterior design. It looks like a movie prop from a Robo-cop movie. I still think "executives" will go for a P100D Tesla rather than a Lucid, even if the rear seats are more comfortable. Come to think of it, if you are an executive that rides in the back with a drive, you're likely in a Bentley, Mercedes C class or 7 series, not a Tesla.
As with Tesla, I skimmed for the price, and once I saw it, closed the window. I never cease to be amazed that there are enough people who will spend $100K on a car to make these businesses work.
I continue to be astounded to see companies chase each other off the cliff repeating one of the most destructive marketing techniques ever invented: Promoting imaginary non-existing products.
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in FOUR YEARS".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in THREE YEARS".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in TWO YEARS".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in ONE YEAR".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in TWO YEARS".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in THREE YEARS".
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in... Shit! We have no buyers".
People want to solve problems today. They don't go to Home Depot to buy a drill bit for a hole they need to drill in four years. Or two. They need to drill a hole now.
The constant announcement of vapor products only serves to either tell the audience you are clueless and have no product anywhere near a reasonable horizon or --not sure which is worst-- push people into making a decision in favor of a competitor.
Cars are a displacement market. This is a market where a purchasing decision means a long term loss of the opportunity by all competitors. Once someone buys a car they stop looking for 2 to 10 years.
In a displacement market, spooking your prospects into making a decision in favor of a competitor generally means you slit your own throat. You thought you were being hip and cool while making amazing advanced announcements of a vapor product and, instead, you convinced prospects that you and your product are not real. The next move is natural: If they have a reasonably immediate need they lose all trust and hope on you and buy the competitor's product.
See you in a decade.
This, BTW, is very common in engineer-driven companies.
I know. I was the moron making these incredibly dumb decisions for my own business twenty years ago. I can't even described the amount of business I lost because I convinced myself that talking about what's coming "real soon" was actually of interest to my prospects. It wasn't. They bought the competitor's product and I lost them for a decade or for a lifetime. They got tired of hearing me go on about a nonexistent mythical product. Some of these losses represented company-changing multi-million-dollar multi-year lifetime opportunities. Gone. Shitty way to learn a lesson.
It's a very different thing if a company like BMW says "We are building a pure electric and here's the i3 and i8, two of our experiments" vs. a Joe-Blow-Startup without a factory or scale saying "...coming soon". BMW can survive this because it has a reputation and a following.
Some people (my wife) would rather buy an electric BMW to replace her current IC BMW. She is happy to wait. She trusts and likes BWM and knows they can deliver. She likes Tesla, but BWM saying "we are almost there" along with their reputation is likely to keep her from buying a Tesla.
On the other hand such loyalty does not exist with an unknown startup. The effect is to eventually see the continuing announcements of vapor as a signal that they are never going to be a viable option. And they are gone.
OK smart-ass. How do you do it then?
Simple. Develop a product. Finish it. Get it to the point where you can deliver a good reliable product. At that point, not before, announce it and open the doors.
As much fanfare as you want. Market as far and wide as your budget and skills allow.
The key is: The product has to be real and you have to be able to take orders AND deliver now, not in two years.
Lucid Motors has been blabbering incessantly about a car for quite some time now. And their "important announcement" is:
"Look at us! We are going to have THIS disruptive product in TWO YEARS".
>Simple. Develop a product. Finish it. Get it to the point where you can deliver a good reliable product. At that point, not before, announce it and open the doors.
Who's paying for all this development? Why would investors give you money when they've never heard of you, and you have nobody to show that's willing to buy your product?
If someone continues to announce vapor year after year their prospects don't magically phase change from vapor to solid. They are not real prospects. They are mythical prospects excited about an equally mythical imaginary product they can never buy.
Want to show an investor people want to buy your product? Show them the money you collected for your product.
> Why would investors give you money when they've never heard of you
Investors need to hear from you and your future plans. Potential customers should only hear about products they can buy, not vapor-ware. Investors will give you money for a vision and even an imperfect prototype.
You assume Lucid Motors goal is to promote car sales in 3 years. But maybe Lucid Motors goal is just to geht more funding or justify the funding they already received.
I'm curious whether there will be a sea change in the auto industry. This seams similar to the situation 100 or so years ago with the carriage manufacturers vs the start up auto companies.
That depends what you mean. Most of the major auto manufacturers have an electric vehicle available already (i3, Leaf, Bolt, Soul EV, etc.) or in the works for release in the next few years. The issue is that their entire production line, supplier relationships, sales models, etc. have been optimized for ICE vehicles for decades, so converting to all-electric vehicles while still producing and supporting ICE vehicles is organizationally very challenging.
However, as evidenced by Google's recently stated exit from building its own vehicle, actually bringing a new consumer car to market in any kind of decent volume is really, really, hard. I'd put my money on a slow conversion from ICE to EV with the existing manufacturers over the next 20 years, and smaller entrants popping up and going bust every couple years. Remember the Fisker Karma? And also remember how Tesla almost went broke multiple times? Long-term success for startups in the auto industry is rare.
> actually bringing a new consumer car to market in any kind of decent volume is really, really, hard.
Or they just figure that making battery cars is not going to be a high-margin business (Apart from waymo, they dont seem to have plans for a bigger car), unlike self-driving software which is what Google is doing well.
Good point. But to be fair, regular mass market cars are a very low margin (percentage-wise) business today as well, at least on the sales side. EVs just cut down on the long-tail profits to be had from ongoing maintenance and parts replacement.
It turned out that rumour about Google's car wasn't true. Instead, they spun their self-driving car business into its own company under Alphabet. It's now called Waymo.
Setting aside the design aesthetic of the tesla, which is minimal and modern, the actual quality and finish of the tesla is stupefying. It's unbelievably bad. I sat in a mazda recently that was much better by every measure.