Lucid (Atieva) reveal is December 14th. I'll be there, let you know afterwards.

[green1]

At the time nobody was creating a charging structure for Tesla to participate in. And even now they have the CHAdeMO adapter, and I assume a CCS adapter will be coming. But even then most of the CCS stations that are out there are too slow for what Tesla wants. So again, pretty much nobody is doing what Tesla has done. Sure now there is some talk about it, but even so it seems like the most you will get is 1-4 plugs at each station. Again, just not enough for the volume that Tesla is planning to produce.

I realize why they did it, but I don't see why Lucid should magically have a much harder time doing the same thing, especially when they can actually draw from the deep pockets of other manufacturers to help when Tesla couldn't do that.

The supercharger network is great, but there's no reason that any other company couldn't build an equivalent network in the same amount of time.

 

[BluestarE3]

The supercharger network is great, but there's no reason that any other company couldn't build an equivalent network in the same amount of time.

Other than the will to do so and the financial commitment to make it come to fruition?

 

[GoTslaGo]

I realize why they did it, but I don't see why Lucid should magically have a much harder time doing the same thing, especially when they can actually draw from the deep pockets of other manufacturers to help when Tesla couldn't do that.

The supercharger network is great, but there's no reason that any other company couldn't build an equivalent network in the same amount of time.

But why bother. Just set up a contract with Tesla to use their superchargers and then Lucid can focus on the car and make more profit. Renting the supercharger network would be easier and cheaper than building out a whole network.

 

[PRJIM]

CCS adapter is not possible. Requires additional hardware on the vehicle. What is possible is the Mennekes European DC charging (as used on the european superchargers). This should really be the port design for CCS vs the frankenplug.

 

[green1]

Other than the will to do so and the financial commitment to make it come to fruition?

So you know for a fact that Lucid doesn't have the will to do so? Seems odd for a company that seems to have the will to build a car.

You sound exactly like all the Tesla naysayers a few years back.

I have never said that Lucid WILL be successful, but I think it's preposterous to say that they CAN'T be successful when they aren't planning to do anything more difficult than what Tesla has already done.

 

[jgs]

CCS adapter is not possible. Requires additional hardware on the vehicle.

There's a whole thread on this with a number of posts that contradict this opinion, for example #13:

"... If Tesla makes a CCS adapter, I would expect the PLC being already done on the car side. As long as that is handled, then a very simple physical adapter similar to the J1772 AC adapter should be possible (unlike CHAdeMO which must rely on an active adapter given pin incompatibility). Straubel was quoted as saying the car was compatible with the CCS protocol, when asked in an SAE interview if they will have combo support(although obviously not active right now)..."

I don't have the expertise to evaluate the competing claims but I'm not inclined to take "not possible" on faith.

Edited to add: Even if the "requires additional hardware" thing is correct, I see no reason why it couldn't be done in an active adapter as with CHAdeMO. A cheap dumb one would be preferable, obviously.

 

[3Victoria]

They may have a more difficult time because they will be competing against an established firm. Why would I buy an equivalent car from a start up? They need to distinguish themselves from their competition. The road to succes is difficult, but not impossible, but requires grit, focus, money, and follow through. We hope they succeed.

 

[BluestarE3]

So you know for a fact that Lucid doesn't have the will to do so? Seems odd for a company that seems to have the will to build a car.

Well, GM had the will to design and build the Chevy Bolt EV in a remarkably short period of time. One would think that, with such dedication, they too would invest in a fast charging network (even if it's through a third-party) to ensure the success of their groundbreaking, lower-cost long-range EV. GM definitely has the technical skills, the business alliances and financial resources to do so, and yet...

Yes, I know Lucid is not GM. However, you stated that there's no reason companies other than Tesla couldn't build a Supercharger network of their own in the same amount of time. My quibble isn't with whether or not they (any company) could do so, but rather with whether or not they would. So far, Lucid hasn't said anything, so neither of us know anything "for a fact" about their intentions or level of commitment along those lines. But you'll note that I wasn't referring to Lucid in particular in my response.

I have never said that Lucid WILL be successful, but I think it's preposterous to say that they CAN'T be successful when they aren't planning to do anything more difficult than what Tesla has already done.

And I never said anything in my post, one way or the other, about the prospects of Lucid's success. In fact, I never even mentioned Lucid.

 

[green1]

They may have a more difficult time because they will be competing against an established firm. Why would I buy an equivalent car from a start up? They need to distinguish themselves from their competition. The road to succes is difficult, but not impossible, but requires grit, focus, money, and follow through. We hope they succeed.

Distinguishing themselves from Tesla should be dead simple.

Luxury: Tesla doesn't have it at all, Lucid does
Cost: they have stated they will undercut Tesla
Autonomy: Tesla AP will NEVER be autonomous in it's current form, it's just not possible. Lucid could be.
Range: Tesla stated they won't go above 100kwh, Lucid is offering 130kwh on a smaller (likely more efficient) vehicle.
Reputation: Tesla is one of the slimiest companies on the planet. They flat out lie at every opportunity, they steal already delivered functionality from vehicles after purchase, they actively block 3rd party repair and DIY, there are many people who would gladly deal with ANY other company, including a complete unknown, instead of giving a penny to Tesla to support their dishonest, controlling, and manipulative ways.

 

[MP3Mike]

CCS adapter is not possible. Requires additional hardware on the vehicle.

Of course it is possible. Why couldn't that hardware be in the adapter? If they absolutely need power for that adapter before negotiations can happen then they just have to stick a battery in it. BFD. (Yeah it makes it more complicated as you have to allow for either charging or replacing the battery, but it certainly doesn't make it impossible.)

You do know that the CHAdeMO adapter has hardware in it that isn't in the car, right?

 

[JeffK]

Autonomy: Tesla AP will NEVER be autonomous in it's current form, it's just not possible. Lucid could be.

Reputation: Tesla is one of the slimiest companies on the planet. They flat out lie at every opportunity, they steal already delivered functionality from vehicles after purchase, they actively block 3rd party repair and DIY, there are many people who would gladly deal with ANY other company, including a complete unknown, instead of giving a penny to Tesla to support their dishonest, controlling, and manipulative ways.

Why do you think these things? Do you have any proof to back these claims up?

 

[PRJIM]

Of course it is possible. Why couldn't that hardware be in the adapter? If they absolutely need power for that adapter before negotiations can happen then they just have to stick a battery in it. BFD. (Yeah it makes it more complicated as you have to allow for either charging or replacing the battery, but it certainly doesn't make it impossible.)

You do know that the CHAdeMO adapter has hardware in it that isn't in the car, right?

The CHAdeMO uses CAN (like the tesla supercharger) CCS uses a special card that communicates via PWM and this is part of the BMS. You cannot build the card into the adapter because it must handshake with the vehicle. On paper anything is possible but in reality this hardware has to be part of the vehicle not the adapter due to communication protocol CCS uses.

ALso there are not enough pins on the vehicle side for it to work with CCS. CHAdeMO communicates over CAN and does not require as many special purpose pins. I guess you could replace with european variant and that would probalby make it work but the Model S chargeport lacks the number of pins needed and must be swapped in order to work with CCS.

 

[MP3Mike]

The CHAdeMO uses CAN (like the tesla supercharger) CCS uses a special card that communicates via PWM and this is part of the BMS. You cannot build the card into the adapter because it must handshake with the vehicle. On paper anything is possible but in reality this hardware has to be part of the vehicle not the adapter due to communication protocol CCS uses.

Why can't the car talk to the adapter via CAN and then the adapter converts it to PWM to talk to the CCS charger? This isn't rocket science.

 

[3Victoria]

Distinguishing themselves from Tesla should be ... ... manipulative ways.

Well, you certainly declared yourself. Why are you even on this board except to troll??

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Well, you certainly declared yourself. Why are you even on this board except to troll??

I'd recommend looking at green1's thread history first.

There's a contingent of members here at TMC who feel that Tesla's tight control over repairs and access to software violates their right to tinker with a product they purchased. At least one other member, wk057, had their firmware altered by Tesla after they discovered and disclosed P100D logos in the software (prior to the release of the P100D).

I make no judgment and take no sides in this argument between Tesla and some customers. I merely wish to point out that there is a conflict between those who wish to hack the Model S/X firmware and Tesla, which wants to prevent this.

 

[PRJIM]

Why can't the car talk to the adapter via CAN and then the adapter converts it to PWM to talk to the CCS charger? This isn't rocket science.

You need a separate PLC for the DC pins. This needs to be integrated with the BMS per the spec. This currently only exists for AC charging in the vehicle. CHAdeMO is compatible with Superchargers/Tesla DC charging because they use the same messaging protocol. Read the spec

 

[green1]

Why do you think these things? Do you have any proof to back these claims up?

Autonomy? it's easy. They simply don't have enough hardware on the car, period. The current hardware MIGHT be able to do what Tesla promised for AP1, but definitely not what they're promising for AP2.0, but then again, they'll just revise their site again and claim they never said it could.

Tesla Lies? Well the example of AP1 is obvious, but really It's an extremely long list. I won't get in to it here, but I do have it well documented.
A quick taste:
- Autopilot (version 1) will allow hands free driving from onramp to offramp
- Summon (ap version 1) will allow the vehicle to check your calendar and meet you at your front door on private property
- Service will include free valet service
... The list just keeps going.

 

[green1]

Well, you certainly declared yourself. Why are you even on this board except to troll??

Because I own a Tesla, and I thought this was a forum for Tesla owners.
I love the car, I hate the company. I'll jump ship in an instant if any other company starts actually competing. That's why I'm following Lucid so closely, I want them to succeed so I can ditch Tesla.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Because I own a Tesla, and I thought this was a forum for Tesla owners.
I love the car, I hate the company. I'll jump ship in an instant if any other company starts actually competing. That's why I'm following Lucid so closely, I want them to succeed so I can ditch Tesla.

You assume, of course, that Lucid will let you "tinker."

 

[green1]

You assume, of course, that Lucid will let you "tinker."

I make no such assumption. But if they don't, they could still be infinitely better than Tesla if they just deliver on some of their promises and don't try to steal functionality after delivery. DIY repair for Tesla is a minor issue for me. The main issue is that they continually lie about what their products will be able to do, what they will cost, what services they provide, etc. And that they don't respect property ownership and try to steal functionality from people after purchase.

Tesla is a slimy, shady business, and I don't do business with companies like that. (It's too bad I didn't know before I bought how bad they truly are)