> Lucid Motors has kind of spun out of Tesla. It was started by a former Tesla board member and executive and it is led by Peter Rawlinson, the former chief engineer of the Tesla Model S.
> Several other Tesla engineers and executives have also joined the startup and they are now also adding Hochholdinger to the team
What’s with this recent trend of simply posting quotes from the article in HN? Haven’t we all just finished reading those exact words, what value is this adding to the discussion?
Hot take: Tesla isn't actually a car company, it's a battery company. The Model S and Model 3 are functionally equivalent to Google Nexus devices - their purpose isn't particularly to sell a lot of units, but to provide a proof-of-concept for other companies to emulate. Tesla Motors fails if it dies, but it succeeds if it's killed by other EV companies. Selling cars to consumers is fundamentally less scalable than selling batteries to car manufacturers; you don't need dealerships, you don't need marketing, you don't need a complex supply chain for thousands of complex parts, you just need a couple of huge factories and some proprietary chemistry.
Interesting idea, but scale also brings about commoditization. Proprietary chemistry is not going to protect you. A Tesla branded battery that costs 2x a regular one isn't going to sell well.
Tesla own the Gigafactory but lease the manufacturing equipment from Panasonic on a per-cell-manufactured basis. Tesla have just bought Maxwell, a lithium cell and supercapacitor IP company.
Panasonic effectively make the cells (through quite a convoluted financial arrangement with Tesla), but Tesla make the batteries, which is a crucial distinction. An EV battery pack is inordinately more complex than a bundle of li-ion cells.
Do you have any links on how the batteries are more than complex than a bundle of li-ion cells? Is the complexity in the systems to monitor voltage, temp, resistance and such of each cell and distribute load or outright fuse off weakened cells?
I don't doubt you, but I would love to learn more.
For that analogy to work, wouldn’t Tesla have to be as peerless and revenue-dependent on battery tech as Google is to search and other online services? I read good things about their battery tech but nothing that suggests they have the influence or dominance Google has with search. And the financial statements don’t seem to emphasize battery revenue growth, nevermind the way search revenue has been 90% of Google’s lifeblood for nearly its entire life.
Is this sort of how they're trying to make a Tesla without Musk? By just leaving one by one and recreating the company without Musk, instead of just firing him?
Really curious as to what the motivations might be here for all these people to leave (apart from the monetary benefits of joining another "Tesla" even earlier).
There are a lot of people who might prefer greenfield work vs working in a more established framework - and Tesla with larger production lines and existing vehicles and technology would likely have many more areas of design or development freedom constrained. Improving within a known framework may also engage a different set of skills and sensibilities, and people good at one may not be good at the other. Overall, it's probably better for the world that more and more people who trained under Tesla, are spreading the knowledge of how to build EVs.
Yeah I also buy into this idea, and don't think this should be read into as much as other people ITT are. Even the article doesn't try to stir up much drama, which seems to be unusual for reporting these days.
Yes, and a lot of people realize that starting a company and building a strong team is a good way to get an excellent comp offer, as a group, in an aquihire.
This is a known strategy on HN, recommended by none other than Paul Graham. Reasonable expectation of utility for a talented group or individual.
Musk aside, starting a new EV company is worth up to $1.5 billion in federal tax credits + a few thousand per vehicle sold in state tax credits, so there is that.
Any one that can actually sell cars to the public that is.
There is a good argument to be made that the cap should have been US wide and not per-company, because now it’s incentivizing late-movers who didn’t have to carry the initial higher R&D burden.
There’s even a small chance this might actually be amended by Congress.
But on the flip side, a per company cap diversifies the knowledge and experience and drives increased competition, even if it is late to the game.
It is actually quite a bit more than that, as the figure above only accounts for sales of the first 200k units. The phaseout after that is time-based rather than unit based. The real figure for Tesla (for example) will probably be closer to 2.25 billion.
But all of this goes to the consumer in the form of a demand side tax non-refundable tax credit. It will not help if they fail to get into production due to liquidity problems. Many businesses have failed trying to get to that point.
Most Tesla employees want to work on EVs, and it is a natural inclination for employees to move towards newer, shinier projects and want to switch company at some point.
Lucid probably makes that choice super easy, since you'll be working with familiar faces.
The early employees are likely the best to create a new electric car company, since they were the foundation of the current industry leader.
It's also worth noting that 1) Tesla burns out employees at all levels very quickly with shitty working conditions and 2) Tesla's stock is not doing super well anymore, so total expected comp isn't that great in comparison to other options.
Ex-Tesla employees have flocked to a variety of EV startups (Faraday Future, Elio, Lucid, Rivian, etc.) with varying levels of success for a while now. It's kind of like an incubator for EV engineers.
I agree – I'm just wondering what the draw is. Maybe Tesla has gone into maintenance mode with refinements to their cars, and these folks are fundamentally builders and want to build something radically different.
But when you look at it, they're building another Model S.
Probably more like a natural time to leave - Model 3 is past the initial hell and shipping more regularly, etc. And in this process have learned how to take a vehicle from end to end. So instead of working on a brand new car inside of Tesla, why not do the same thing on their own with a greater ownership stake?
Not always the best decision, but usually the kind of thought process one goes though.
Could also be that despite being past Model 3 production hell, they are still not profitable ($700M loss in Q1 '19), and they are betting the farm on autonomous somehow turning that into a profit? Color me skeptical, but if I was an engineer at Tesla I'd be looking for an exit as well.
OTOH, FCF has turned positive for at least the trailing 12 months, and they are guiding for it to remain positive for the remainder of the year.
For sure, there are many struggles that continue for Tesla, but I'm not sure that a new startup building cars from scratch is a way out of that. It looks like jumping out of the pot and into an inferno to me.
But the sorts of people doing this seem to be the ones that might enjoy the challenge involved.
From my point of view that means it's either pay or people issues. Personally I don't like starting over on APIs etc.. if you ever switched from a company that has a foundation to one that doesn't you end up with employees that say things like - oh darn we actually had a really good X at company Y. At least they can start over and build with fewer mistakes, but hitting the same tasks again is often annoying.
Tesla is renowned for having lousy labor conditions. I'm not sure how much that filters up to upper management, but I could see it being a factor if you want more work/life balance at your job.
I went into a bit more detail in a parent comment, but perhaps they feel Tesla under Musk has lost its way. Too many features, too much luxury, and a CEO that has a huge second love. Many want to change the world with EVs, not work for a messiah figure or a Hooli.
The idea that you could change the world for the better with electric private transport appears be an American trait and Musk is convinced by this, with frequent attacks of mass public transit. A better future doesn’t involve better cars. Cheaper or more efficient use of energy is simply going to increase energy consumption.
I've seen this sentiment a few times on HN, particularly with stories related to Tesla. It's such an extreme leap that I, in full transparency, often wonder if it's being made in good faith.
The US has over 250 million privately owned vehicles that use an internal combustion engine for locomotion. We have 4 million miles of roads and the average commute is 25 minutes. How exactly would you structure a mass public transit system to accommodate this demand?
A bit tangental but I would start with overhauling the U.S' exclusionary housing policies that kneecap mass public transit systems. Unfortunately this is a political problem more than a technical one, not exactly Silicon Valley's wheelhouse.
I’m a huge fan of America. But if you can scale private transit, why can’t you scale public transit? The political will and people are not behind it. Yet. Mass transit isn’t there to replace private transit, it's there to do things that private transit cannot offer. American life is largely constructed around the motor vehicle, it will take a long time to deconstruct that. Which ought to be the real aim, not to make a better horse/donkey/car.
>Energy consumption doesn't matter as much if we can get it from things other than fossil fuel. EVs make that a lot easier.
Yeah it does. Renewables take up tons of acreage and nuclear has issues with waste management, sourcing of raw materials (for developing countries), and being able to adjust to scale with variable power consumption.
>The idea that you could change the world for the better with electric private transport appears be an American trait and Musk is convinced by this,
What has being "American" got to do with anything? Are electric vehicles not useful elsewhere? I'm not American and I think what hes doing is a great idea.
>A better future doesn’t involve better cars. Cheaper or more efficient use of energy is simply going to increase energy consumption.
Why do you assume your vision is what everyone wants or should want? Musk is doing something he believes in rather than simply talk about it. Why the needless hate?
The view is US centric but how many completely new subways did Europe build ? And how long did it take ?
You cant retrofit subways to existing cities and the only country that does not care about spending billions and human lives is China.
You can, but it’s painful. Amsterdam has just completed a new subway line that crosses under the entire city. It took about 15 years of construction (after 15 years of political discussion and planning), cost about 3,1 billion Euro and damaged some historical buildings because Amsterdam is essentially built on a swamp (no humans were harmed though). Still, this is a city that’s many years older than even the oldest city in the US. It can be done.
How many million people lived in London, Paris, Moscow or Tokyo when they started building their respective subways?
The answer is 2.5 million, 3.3 million, 3.8 million, and 8 million, respectively. And all of those were started before 1930, so it was actually possible with the technology 100 years ago.
It's kind of interesting to look at the marketing photographs on their site. Very keyed to the masculine eye. Photo next to a military cargo aircraft's landing gear. Two beautiful women in and next to the car, but only as passengers. They come with the car, but they won't be driving it.
The thing is, once the Pickup is “pencils down” on the design, Tesla will be free to circle back to an interior refresh on Model S and X. (1) This will coincide roughly with when Tesla claims their self driving taxi network product will come online.
Once Model Y and Model 3 are globally available at scale, those lines cover the budget market.
Tesla will be free to jack up the S and X prices into the mid $100s and spend that money on interiors. People will use ride sharing revenues to help cover the higher monthly payment.
Even if the autonomy part is delayed, this next generation of interiors, led by Lucid, is supporting Lyft and Uber drivers to make those higher payments, with premium vehicle ride share rates.
(1) Semi won’t need consumer design resources. And 3 and Y can be in design freeze for a while. Those teams will be 100% about production efficiency for a decade or so. So after Pickup, what else can Franz work on besides Roadster and S & X interior luxury? Franz had a fun to his head when designing the first Model S. With the freedom to start over and the needs of of autonomous taxi services at front of mind, I think Franz could do a lot. And depending on how Pickup goes we might see a more radical styling on the Model S. The 3/Y can be the conservative models, S/X inevitably have to be about passion.
Employees leave companies for numerous reasons all the time in all industries. Better pay, better quality of life, better opportunities, lower stress, novelty, innovation - there are many reasons. I think Tesla just has a microscope over it at all times which makes it seem worse than other companies.
The thing I like the most about Tesla is the cars look futuristic without going _too far_. I feel like every other luxury EV company just goes off the deep end. The 3 and the modern S are the perfect design imo.
I think they went overboard with the "everything must happen via the center console" interface strategy. From an aesthetic perspective, it is Very Pretty, but it's kind of hard to accept that the way to open a glove compartment is a button, on a screen, two feet and some menus away from the compartment itself.
It’s not primarily an aesthetic choice it is about part count more than anything. The LCD is 10 parts and a lot of wiring. The same stuff in a trad vehicle is a thousand parts and all the same wiring and probably a display or two. It’s just more expensive to make.
That doesn't hold up, at least with my example. The glovebox latch on most vehicles is a couple of bits of stamped metal and a spring. By making it electrically actuated, Telsa necessitated adding a branch to the wiring harness, along with extra crimps and connectors to keep track of, and an actuator. This is all in addition to the latch mechanicals that would have been present already.
Now factor in assembly time. Now factor in some fixed cost from the more complex supply chain. Now factor in floor space in Fremont,
which will determine whether a new line can be built without a capital expenditure for property.
I definitely agree there. Dials and knobs are great because you can operate them without looking away from the road. However, I can see why they went down that path - if everything is done via the screen, they can add features via an OTA update.
I like the 3 except for the giant panel in the middle of the car that functions as speedometer and all other instrumentation at the same time. You have to look away from the road and gorilla finger your way through things to change anything while driving. It seems unsafe to me.
I think the 3 and the s look nice but the x is just plain horrible. It looks like someone stopped designing it half way through and then just threw a spoiler on it and called it a day.
(The first ipace and etron were also delivered to people who hated the style of the x, but otherwise liked it.
The larger luxury market is funny this way - range will not be everything)
There has been Chinese money backing lucid motors since their early stages. I've seen several articles over the past few years. Seemingly, they are working with a Chinese bus company as well...
There often is an advantage to being a second mover. I am sure Tesla made a lot of expensive mistakes that a newcomer can avoid and save a lot of money.
The same would apply for SpaceX. They could study a lot of the successful and unsuccessful things other rocket makers had made and then do better.
The examples you cite are Internet companies. Internet companies are peculiar because they exploit the economies of scale of the Internet to primarily offer services, not goods (read physical products).
If being last mover offered an advantage to players selling goods, then Windows Phone ought to have trounced Apple iPhone and Google Android since they were a late entrant in the smartphone movement when the paradigm shifted from physical keyboards to touchscreens.
This implies clarity. I personally think Tesla vehicles may fit the needs of a small percentage of the population (kind of like the new Mac Pro), but are overkill for everyone else, and the excitement in EV's is changing the world for future generations. This requires a car you can sell to everyone, not just those who would drop $80k on a car (or even $40k). I believe the core of what Tesla could be, a great EV, is obfuscated by things like AutoPilot. Interestingly enough, that's where most of the issues and headlines are as well.
Except Lucid's first car is an over top luxury car that even has an option for exec stye seats in the back for those that have a driver. Their car is a Mac Pro and Tesla is just the 5K iMac.
Having taken a first look at images of the car on their site, I'll say one thing: Lucid has managed a much higher level of aesthetic refinement in their design than Tesla.
I'm a huge fan of Tesla overall, and especially their engineering. Unfortunately, despite the pedigree of their design team, I find the aesthetics wanting. In comparison, the Lucid "Air" (as their model is known), seems to rival the best German manufacturers for aesthetics. It has the crispness and ease of a design from a mature luxury car company. So hats off to that achievement, whatever their market or price point.
Tesla's sheet metal and interiors are somewhat clumsy in comparison. (It's never a good sign when your car looks best in the curve-hiding color black.)
As usual, a matter of taste. I find the design over-the-top especially with the massive shiny rims (and good luck with ride comfort). Tesla intentionally aims to be futuristic-but-not-too-much to appeal to a wider audience.
Great point about the wider appeal of the Tesla design language. Also, I'll amend my statement in regards to the Lucid's nose, which looks awkward in some angles. Cars are best viewed in person, of course. :)
I agree. On one hand, Autopilot hardware is holding back Tesla from making its cars significantly cheaper, while on the other, the best hardware they've put in their cars is still nowhere near powerful enough for a sufficiently safe level of "self-driving".
I do think Tesla's attention to detail in regards to crash safety and safety against battery fires is also quite important, and they should keep doing those things for all of their cars, but I don't think those alone require Tesla to make $35,000+ cars. I think they could build a good enough EV for $25,000 right now, and even a cheaper one in a few years. In fact, they should strive for that more than anything else (including AutoPilot).
I'm not saying Tesla should end-up building $8,000 EVs - what I'm saying is their threshold should be much lower than it is right now if they still want to remain relevant in the new EV world. Sure, you could argue that Porsche doesn't sell a ton of cars a year, yet everyone knows it, but it's not "relevant" to most people.
I see it as kind of like the iphone. Way too much capability for everyone. The car makes no noise and goes 0-60 under 5 seconds, and it will do the accelerator and the steering wheel when things get boring, and it avoids other cars, and has a giant screen with real maps ...
..and then everybody adapts and they add those features to their list of "normal"
I can buy a <$100 unlocked phone that does pretty much everything my $1500 iPhone XS Max can do; even the homeless have smart phones. I think we're a long way away from when the poorest in society are driving an EV, let alone one with Tesla functionality.
This requires a car you can sell to everyone, not just those who would drop $80k on a car (or even $40k).
From the article: "In 2017, Lucid Motors announced an aggressive $60,000 base price for its luxury all-electric sedan, the Lucid Air, with a range of 240 miles and some other interesting specs."
> Several other Tesla engineers and executives have also joined the startup and they are now also adding Hochholdinger to the team