TCT
2021-11-23
Looking forward how far LUCID can fly
[财迷]
Lucid Motors Is Set Up To Surpass Tesla
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
4
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":875502486,"tweetId":"875502486","gmtCreate":1637665149003,"gmtModify":1637665149135,"author":{"id":3571881968134546,"idStr":"3571881968134546","authorId":3571881968134546,"authorIdStr":"3571881968134546","name":"TCT","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/817788e0e4214dd64f6bc2d3e0bea2eb","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":35,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Looking forward how far LUCID can fly<span>[财迷] </span></p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Looking forward how far LUCID can fly<span>[财迷] </span></p></body></html>","text":"Looking forward how far LUCID can fly[财迷]","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/875502486","repostId":1170981862,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1170981862","pubTimestamp":1637656549,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1170981862?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-11-23 16:35","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Lucid Motors Is Set Up To Surpass Tesla","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1170981862","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"First-movers are often assumed to carry a lasting advantage. This is not the case and, especially with the EV market, the first-mover advantage is not a powerful long-term asset.Tesla’s success has made Lucid’s challenge far more effective than it otherwise would’ve been, creating a market for the car and the investor interest required to fund the company.Lucid looks to be a far more nimble company than Tesla, allowing it to take the industry’s rapid evolution in stride, with a superior vehicle ","content":"<p>Summary</p>\n<ul>\n <li>First-movers are often assumed to carry a lasting advantage. This is not the case and, especially with the EV market, the first-mover advantage is not a powerful long-term asset.</li>\n <li>Tesla’s success has made Lucid’s challenge far more effective than it otherwise would’ve been, creating a market for the car and the investor interest required to fund the company.</li>\n <li>Lucid looks to be a far more nimble company than Tesla, allowing it to take the industry’s rapid evolution in stride, with a superior vehicle platform.</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/876e502aba19c09f0db1a83835e9bcd9\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"512\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Spencer Platt/Getty Images News</span></p>\n<p>Lucid Motors (LCID) only recently began delivering its first vehicles to customers, yet it has already received the laurels of MotorTrend’s 2022 Car of the Year. The vehicle’sindustry-leading drivetrain technology, great design, and solid build quality earned it that title. Yet, Tesla (TSLA) remains the king of the EV. Of course, one car with limited volume isn’t going to change anything, though that’s not the way things are set to stay.I wrote on Lucid’s growth prospects some time ago, so that’s not the focus of today’s article. Instead, I’m here to discuss why Lucid Motors is well-positioned to surpass Tesla due to a rapidly eroding first-mover advantage. In an article on TeslaI published earlier this year, I discussed how the brand’s cache is already starting to slip. While we can sit here and debate that General Motors (GM) was actually the first EV manufacturer with its EV1 back in the ’90s, I think we all know that Tesla really earned that title. This article will discuss why that may not be such a good thing.</p>\n<p>The First-Mover Fallacy</p>\n<p>Oftentimes, the first-mover in a major new market is identified as said market’s future leader. It’s easy to see why, as they’re often associated with the market that they’ve created. Yet, think web browser and you probably think of Alphabet’s (GOOG) Google Chrome. Think of email, you’re again most likely going to think of a Google product -- this time Gmail. Social media? Facebook (FB). Cell phone? iPhone. You get the idea. What’s one thing all of these different products have in common? None of them were the first to market. Yet, despite this, they’ve all become the pinnacle of each of their respective markets.</p>\n<p>So, the big question is “Why?” Why are none of these transformative first-movers the leaders of their industry? Well, there’s not really one blanket answer.A 2005 publication to The Harvard Business Review discusses the idea of this fallacy.</p>\n<blockquote>\n “But for every academic study proving that first-mover advantages exist, there is a study proving they do not. While some well-known first-movers, such as Gillette in safety razors and Sony in personal stereos, have enjoyed considerable success, others, such as Xerox in fax machines and eToys in Internet retailing, have failed. We have found that the differences in outcome are not random—that first-mover status can confer advantages, but it does not do so categorically. Much depends on the circumstances in which it is sought.”\n</blockquote>\n<p>I find this last sentence to be particularly powerful, as every industry is vastly different and allows for alternate outcomes. There will always be some level of unpredictability, dumb luck if you will, though The Harvard Business Review identified two factors that seem to reliably indicate whether or not the first-mover advantage will last. “The pace at which the technology of the product in question is evolving and the pace at which the market for that product is expanding” are these two critical factors.</p>\n<p>The rate of innovation in the EV sector is currently one of the most impressive global efforts I’ve ever seen, as is the rate at which the market is expanding.Since 2015, global sales of EVs have grown at an average rate of 50%. Yet, this is heating up. Global EV sales in 2021are expected to rise 83% over last year, increasing the rate of adoption as more options flood the market. In order for first-movers to be successful, there needs to be substantial interest in the market. This plays into Tesla’s hands. However, the extreme level of growth in the market necessitates more competition. This opens the door for others to combat Tesla.</p>\n<p>Let’s come back to the idea of rapid innovation as well. Companies likeNano One(OTCPK:NNOMF) andSES(IVAN), both of which I’ve covered, are looking to introduce industry-shifting innovations. They’re not alone either. CATL, a Chinese battery producer, is on the verge of becoming the country’s second-largest company. CATL is on pace to spend nearly $1 billion on R&D this year, up 115% over the first half of last year. In this market of rapid innovation, it is nigh on impossible for any one company to stay at the forefront.</p>\n<p>The EV industry has failed what The Harvard Business review deemed the two most important litmus tests in determining whether a first-mover truly has any advantage. Not great news for the incumbent leader, Tesla. Though, I argue that there is more that can bring down the power of a first-mover. Complacency can create opportunities for others to thrive. In the next section, I will discuss how Tesla’s complacency, as well as a few other factors, mean that there are more reasons than a highly innovative and quickly-growing market for Tesla to fall.</p>\n<p>Where Tesla’s Faltering</p>\n<p>I think that there’s no question Lucid owes a majority of its early success to Tesla. Tesla essentially created the market for Lucid and, maybe even more importantly, got investors to pay attention to them. All of that attention allowed Lucid Motors to raise $4.4 billion in its SPAC merger with Churchill Capital. That money was enough for Lucid to bring the Air to market, continue development work on its SUV, and expand its production footprint. That’s something that Tesla never had and will be immensely powerful for Lucid Motors. Now, I’m not saying that Lucid has an easy road to mass production, far from it, but there’s no question that it’s easier than Tesla’s was. This is the first stage in which Lucid is benefiting from Tesla’s prior struggles.</p>\n<p>Though, a good start means nothing if the company can’t build on it. This is where I believe that Tesla is simply holding the door open for Lucid Motors. Tesla has seemingly become lazy and no longer has that fire to continue innovating. I can’t say I blame them, they’ve got several years on their closest competition and their cars are some of the best in the category. Well, perhaps before the Air came to market.</p>\n<p>The quality control issues that plagued Tesla in its early days were an issue, though forgivable given the company’s tumultuous path to production. Yet, there are still a number of reports concerning poor build quality. These issues are even present on the company’s $130,000 Model S Plaid. At this point, these issues are inexcusable. Especially on a $130,000 car. Lucid has worked hard to make sure it avoided making the same mistakes, even delaying initial production to do so, and it’s paid off. We’ll have to wait and see if a larger sample size produces the same result but, so far, the quality of the Air looks to be on par with its luxury price tag.</p>\n<p>The other major area that Tesla seems to be lacking in is powertrain development. Having just released a car that goes 0-60 in less than two seconds, this may seem like a bit of an unjustified claim. But that’s not the only way to measure the capability of a powertrain. In an older article, I reviewed the quality of Lucid’s core product offering. That article focused on its powertrain efficiency. The Air is capable of up to 520 miles of range, at an efficiency of 4.64 miles/kWh (the electric equivalent to miles/gallon). Granted, this is for the company’s Grand Touring trim,which costs a whopping $139,000. The base version of the Air, which costs $77,400, has an efficiency of 5.41 miles/kWh, traveling 406 miles on a single charge (using an estimated battery size of75 kWh). Tesla’s Long Range Model S, which travels412 miles on a single charge, is Tesla’s most efficient vehicle with an efficiency of 4.12 miles/kWh. I’m not going to get into the specifics on how this was achieved, as this was all explained in that previous article. For our purposes here, it’s just important to understand that it <i>was</i> done.</p>\n<p>Now, it’s easy to point to Tesla’s batteries and say that they’re the most advanced in the world. I wouldn’t argue with you there, though I’m not sure that’ll be the case for very long. It’s already becoming far less obvious than it once was, as improvements become increasingly more iterative and less significant. Essentially, Tesla’s stuck making small incremental changes while its competitors, which once were far behind, have had the chance to catch up. The company hopes that its new 4680 cells will give it the next big leap, but I think they’re moving in the wrong direction. Below is a visual representation, a top-down view of what a Tesla battery pack looks like.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dfb24c19eee013cc09407af804bcfc65\" tg-width=\"757\" tg-height=\"521\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Source: Author’s Creation</span></p>\n<p>All of the red space you see is wasted space. Trying to fit a bunch of cylinders in a rectangular container is always going to be inefficient. Hence, from a volumetric density perspective, the prismatic cell architecture is superior. In vehicles, where space is a premium, volumetric density is a critical performance benchmark. Though, I think that this speaks to a larger issue in Tesla’s battery cell development. Ina previous article, I discussed how Tesla’s batteries are becoming a liability. The company’s unwillingness to consider lithium metal batteries as the next generation of lithium-ion batteries could see the company’s battery advantage completely erode by the end of the decade.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d9f51e943a3340831639c2db1513cc4a\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"486\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Source:C&EN</span></p>\n<p>The fact that Lucid isn’t reliant upon their own battery technology means that it is far more nimble during this time of significant battery iteration. As noted in the above section, the EV industry is likely to be driven by a series of disruptive technologies through the foreseeable future, and a company that is easily able to consistently pivot to these disruptive technologies has a better chance of staying on top of the market. To give Tesla credit, its cells are some of the best on the market. However, it’s hard to stay at the top of two different fields, car design and battery design, and the desire to do so often results in failure. The fact that Lucid walloped Tesla in drivetrain efficiency speaks to the fact that Tesla is no longer engineering the best electric vehicles and all signs point to Tesla’s battery advantage dwindling.</p>\n<p>Investor Takeaway</p>\n<p>Look, I don’t think that Tesla, or Lucid Motors for that matter, should be valued close to where they are today but the fact of the matter is that they are. If Lucid will ultimately be the stronger of the two, take that as you will. I won’t pretend that I can predict the flow of the market with companies like Tesla and Lucid, which trade so far removed from any fundamentals, but I do think that time will prove that Lucid is the better of the two companies.</p>\n<p>Ignoring share prices, Lucid Motors is gearing up for some pretty extreme growth. The company has a lot of cash on hand and is using it to invest in growing its production and product offerings. Similar to Tesla, Lucid plans to introduce mass-market vehicles after its niche offerings begin generating capital and brand awareness. As the disclosure below notes, I own shares of Lucid Motors. This may seem strange, as I just said that their fundamentals don’t come close to justifying their valuation. Though, when shares were under $20, it was far more appealing. To be completely honest, at this stage, I’m just holding to see where it goes.</p>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Lucid Motors Is Set Up To Surpass Tesla</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nLucid Motors Is Set Up To Surpass Tesla\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-11-23 16:35 GMT+8 <a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4471273-lucid-motors-lcid-stock-surpass-tesla><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nFirst-movers are often assumed to carry a lasting advantage. This is not the case and, especially with the EV market, the first-mover advantage is not a powerful long-term asset.\nTesla’s ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4471273-lucid-motors-lcid-stock-surpass-tesla\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4471273-lucid-motors-lcid-stock-surpass-tesla","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1170981862","content_text":"Summary\n\nFirst-movers are often assumed to carry a lasting advantage. This is not the case and, especially with the EV market, the first-mover advantage is not a powerful long-term asset.\nTesla’s success has made Lucid’s challenge far more effective than it otherwise would’ve been, creating a market for the car and the investor interest required to fund the company.\nLucid looks to be a far more nimble company than Tesla, allowing it to take the industry’s rapid evolution in stride, with a superior vehicle platform.\n\nSpencer Platt/Getty Images News\nLucid Motors (LCID) only recently began delivering its first vehicles to customers, yet it has already received the laurels of MotorTrend’s 2022 Car of the Year. The vehicle’sindustry-leading drivetrain technology, great design, and solid build quality earned it that title. Yet, Tesla (TSLA) remains the king of the EV. Of course, one car with limited volume isn’t going to change anything, though that’s not the way things are set to stay.I wrote on Lucid’s growth prospects some time ago, so that’s not the focus of today’s article. Instead, I’m here to discuss why Lucid Motors is well-positioned to surpass Tesla due to a rapidly eroding first-mover advantage. In an article on TeslaI published earlier this year, I discussed how the brand’s cache is already starting to slip. While we can sit here and debate that General Motors (GM) was actually the first EV manufacturer with its EV1 back in the ’90s, I think we all know that Tesla really earned that title. This article will discuss why that may not be such a good thing.\nThe First-Mover Fallacy\nOftentimes, the first-mover in a major new market is identified as said market’s future leader. It’s easy to see why, as they’re often associated with the market that they’ve created. Yet, think web browser and you probably think of Alphabet’s (GOOG) Google Chrome. Think of email, you’re again most likely going to think of a Google product -- this time Gmail. Social media? Facebook (FB). Cell phone? iPhone. You get the idea. What’s one thing all of these different products have in common? None of them were the first to market. Yet, despite this, they’ve all become the pinnacle of each of their respective markets.\nSo, the big question is “Why?” Why are none of these transformative first-movers the leaders of their industry? Well, there’s not really one blanket answer.A 2005 publication to The Harvard Business Review discusses the idea of this fallacy.\n\n “But for every academic study proving that first-mover advantages exist, there is a study proving they do not. While some well-known first-movers, such as Gillette in safety razors and Sony in personal stereos, have enjoyed considerable success, others, such as Xerox in fax machines and eToys in Internet retailing, have failed. We have found that the differences in outcome are not random—that first-mover status can confer advantages, but it does not do so categorically. Much depends on the circumstances in which it is sought.”\n\nI find this last sentence to be particularly powerful, as every industry is vastly different and allows for alternate outcomes. There will always be some level of unpredictability, dumb luck if you will, though The Harvard Business Review identified two factors that seem to reliably indicate whether or not the first-mover advantage will last. “The pace at which the technology of the product in question is evolving and the pace at which the market for that product is expanding” are these two critical factors.\nThe rate of innovation in the EV sector is currently one of the most impressive global efforts I’ve ever seen, as is the rate at which the market is expanding.Since 2015, global sales of EVs have grown at an average rate of 50%. Yet, this is heating up. Global EV sales in 2021are expected to rise 83% over last year, increasing the rate of adoption as more options flood the market. In order for first-movers to be successful, there needs to be substantial interest in the market. This plays into Tesla’s hands. However, the extreme level of growth in the market necessitates more competition. This opens the door for others to combat Tesla.\nLet’s come back to the idea of rapid innovation as well. Companies likeNano One(OTCPK:NNOMF) andSES(IVAN), both of which I’ve covered, are looking to introduce industry-shifting innovations. They’re not alone either. CATL, a Chinese battery producer, is on the verge of becoming the country’s second-largest company. CATL is on pace to spend nearly $1 billion on R&D this year, up 115% over the first half of last year. In this market of rapid innovation, it is nigh on impossible for any one company to stay at the forefront.\nThe EV industry has failed what The Harvard Business review deemed the two most important litmus tests in determining whether a first-mover truly has any advantage. Not great news for the incumbent leader, Tesla. Though, I argue that there is more that can bring down the power of a first-mover. Complacency can create opportunities for others to thrive. In the next section, I will discuss how Tesla’s complacency, as well as a few other factors, mean that there are more reasons than a highly innovative and quickly-growing market for Tesla to fall.\nWhere Tesla’s Faltering\nI think that there’s no question Lucid owes a majority of its early success to Tesla. Tesla essentially created the market for Lucid and, maybe even more importantly, got investors to pay attention to them. All of that attention allowed Lucid Motors to raise $4.4 billion in its SPAC merger with Churchill Capital. That money was enough for Lucid to bring the Air to market, continue development work on its SUV, and expand its production footprint. That’s something that Tesla never had and will be immensely powerful for Lucid Motors. Now, I’m not saying that Lucid has an easy road to mass production, far from it, but there’s no question that it’s easier than Tesla’s was. This is the first stage in which Lucid is benefiting from Tesla’s prior struggles.\nThough, a good start means nothing if the company can’t build on it. This is where I believe that Tesla is simply holding the door open for Lucid Motors. Tesla has seemingly become lazy and no longer has that fire to continue innovating. I can’t say I blame them, they’ve got several years on their closest competition and their cars are some of the best in the category. Well, perhaps before the Air came to market.\nThe quality control issues that plagued Tesla in its early days were an issue, though forgivable given the company’s tumultuous path to production. Yet, there are still a number of reports concerning poor build quality. These issues are even present on the company’s $130,000 Model S Plaid. At this point, these issues are inexcusable. Especially on a $130,000 car. Lucid has worked hard to make sure it avoided making the same mistakes, even delaying initial production to do so, and it’s paid off. We’ll have to wait and see if a larger sample size produces the same result but, so far, the quality of the Air looks to be on par with its luxury price tag.\nThe other major area that Tesla seems to be lacking in is powertrain development. Having just released a car that goes 0-60 in less than two seconds, this may seem like a bit of an unjustified claim. But that’s not the only way to measure the capability of a powertrain. In an older article, I reviewed the quality of Lucid’s core product offering. That article focused on its powertrain efficiency. The Air is capable of up to 520 miles of range, at an efficiency of 4.64 miles/kWh (the electric equivalent to miles/gallon). Granted, this is for the company’s Grand Touring trim,which costs a whopping $139,000. The base version of the Air, which costs $77,400, has an efficiency of 5.41 miles/kWh, traveling 406 miles on a single charge (using an estimated battery size of75 kWh). Tesla’s Long Range Model S, which travels412 miles on a single charge, is Tesla’s most efficient vehicle with an efficiency of 4.12 miles/kWh. I’m not going to get into the specifics on how this was achieved, as this was all explained in that previous article. For our purposes here, it’s just important to understand that it was done.\nNow, it’s easy to point to Tesla’s batteries and say that they’re the most advanced in the world. I wouldn’t argue with you there, though I’m not sure that’ll be the case for very long. It’s already becoming far less obvious than it once was, as improvements become increasingly more iterative and less significant. Essentially, Tesla’s stuck making small incremental changes while its competitors, which once were far behind, have had the chance to catch up. The company hopes that its new 4680 cells will give it the next big leap, but I think they’re moving in the wrong direction. Below is a visual representation, a top-down view of what a Tesla battery pack looks like.\nSource: Author’s Creation\nAll of the red space you see is wasted space. Trying to fit a bunch of cylinders in a rectangular container is always going to be inefficient. Hence, from a volumetric density perspective, the prismatic cell architecture is superior. In vehicles, where space is a premium, volumetric density is a critical performance benchmark. Though, I think that this speaks to a larger issue in Tesla’s battery cell development. Ina previous article, I discussed how Tesla’s batteries are becoming a liability. The company’s unwillingness to consider lithium metal batteries as the next generation of lithium-ion batteries could see the company’s battery advantage completely erode by the end of the decade.\nSource:C&EN\nThe fact that Lucid isn’t reliant upon their own battery technology means that it is far more nimble during this time of significant battery iteration. As noted in the above section, the EV industry is likely to be driven by a series of disruptive technologies through the foreseeable future, and a company that is easily able to consistently pivot to these disruptive technologies has a better chance of staying on top of the market. To give Tesla credit, its cells are some of the best on the market. However, it’s hard to stay at the top of two different fields, car design and battery design, and the desire to do so often results in failure. The fact that Lucid walloped Tesla in drivetrain efficiency speaks to the fact that Tesla is no longer engineering the best electric vehicles and all signs point to Tesla’s battery advantage dwindling.\nInvestor Takeaway\nLook, I don’t think that Tesla, or Lucid Motors for that matter, should be valued close to where they are today but the fact of the matter is that they are. If Lucid will ultimately be the stronger of the two, take that as you will. I won’t pretend that I can predict the flow of the market with companies like Tesla and Lucid, which trade so far removed from any fundamentals, but I do think that time will prove that Lucid is the better of the two companies.\nIgnoring share prices, Lucid Motors is gearing up for some pretty extreme growth. The company has a lot of cash on hand and is using it to invest in growing its production and product offerings. Similar to Tesla, Lucid plans to introduce mass-market vehicles after its niche offerings begin generating capital and brand awareness. As the disclosure below notes, I own shares of Lucid Motors. This may seem strange, as I just said that their fundamentals don’t come close to justifying their valuation. Though, when shares were under $20, it was far more appealing. To be completely honest, at this stage, I’m just holding to see where it goes.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1053,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":37,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/875502486"}
精彩评论