We got an up-close look at Gravity with Lucid Motors’ SVP of Design and Brand, Derek Jenkins
This week, Lucid Motors invited Electrek to an exclusive ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the opening of Phase 2 of its AMP-1 facility in Casa Grande, Arizona. Part of the festivities included a factory tour, an interview with CEO and CTO Peter Rawlinson, and our best look at Lucid’s upcoming Gravity SUV to date. Senior Vice President of Design and Brand Derek Jenkins walked me around Gravity and shared some insights into what went into this unique electric SUV.
Yesterday’s visit to AMP-1 was filled with excitement as local politicians joined CEO and CTO Peter Rawlinson on stage to cut the ribbon on Phase 2 – a 3 million-square-foot expansion that moves all of Lucid’s production and storage into one facility, adds a stamping machine, and includes a second body shop where Gravity – the American automaker’s second flagship model will be built.
Gravity has been a long time coming, as we first caught wind of the SUV in 2020 during the premiere of the Air sedan when Lucid briefly teased it. Not different from CEO Peter Rawlinson’s mention yesterday of a “mid-size” Tesla Model 3 and Model Y competitor in the works as Lucid’s third model.
Details of Gravity picked up in November 2022, when we saw some interior images ahead of the start of reservations. A year later, Gravity was officially unveiled with a slew of exciting design upgrades, a 440-mile range, and a front end that has earned the new term “frunking.”
Now, with the next phase of Lucid’s AMP-1 facility open for business, Gravity will soon begin scaled production. On-site in Arizona, I had the opportunity to kick the tires on the SUV and interview Lucid’s SVP of design and brand, Derek Jenkins.
Gravity is Lucid’s next chapter en route to “mid-size”
Gravity is still very much a higher-end luxury SUV competing with the likes of Mercedes-Benz, but this EV represents more than just Lucid’s next fancy model. It’s a culmination of design elements that counter the nuances and other lessons learned when building the Air.
Furthermore, Gravity offers a premium-level “yin” to the Air’s “yang,” as a bookend to the ultra-luxe EVs and a segue into Lucid’s more affordable “mid-size” and beyond – if it can stay afloat long enough to reach that milestone. That said, a lot is riding on the success of Gravity, but Lucid’s team is confident that consumers will… gravitate toward it.
We’ve already covered the SUV’s specs up and down since last year, so it was refreshing to see, touch, and even climb into the third row of Gravity and get design insight directly from one of the top minds behind it – Derek Jenkins:
Gravity had its own unique set of attributes and challenges over Air to really create the next generation of SUV and excel at all of our unique attributes of aerodynamics, efficiency, space utility, flexibility, road worthiness, and degree of off-road capability.
Jenkins assured us that Gravity will be the most aerodynamic SUV when it comes to market. While Gravity shares several design elements with the Air, Lucid has introduced some new and exciting components you may or may not have noticed. Of course, you’ve noticed the frunk seat, but the SUV’s cockpit is a completely new approach compared to the sedan.
Whereas the driver’s display sits within the dashboard in the Air, about 35% of it can be blocked from view by the steering wheel. Jenkins told us that really bothered him, so they moved the curved display up below the sight line and into full view and implemented a different steering wheel that is shorter but still rounded at the bottom you can observe in the images above.
When production begins later this year, Lucid Gravity will join a short but growing list of larger electric SUVs promising 6-7 seats by way of the third row. For some vehicles, the third row is a gimmick that can barely hold children; for others like the Kia EV9 for example, it’s still tight but doable. Jenkins told us that space optimization and delivering modular cargo space in addition to a third row were vital when designing Gravity:
The A-post is really far forward, the driver and passenger are pushed forward, and that’s what enables this really large cargo and people area. As we connected more and more with, not only Lucid owners but family SUV owners, second row, third row spaciousness as well as cargo flexibility and overall cargo is paramount. It literally trumps everything.
So we spent so much time optimizing the package, learned a lot from Air and stretched it. You end up with this very long sleek cabin, short nose, and as you come toward the back of the car, there is a lot of taper in the cabin while still preserving really really good third row headroom. Making a proper third row was a big big part of this.
The Air sedan is already touting the largest frunk in the business, and the Lucid Gravity takes flexible cargo to another echelon. The rear well stowage inside the trunk is enormous, and the ability to fold down the passenger cabin’s seats entirely flat is a huge bonus.
Derek told me he could fit an 8.5-foot surfboard in the trunk diagonally, and Peter Rawlinson told me he hopes future owners use it to transport 2x4s some day. We’ll see about that, but there is no denying the space optimization in Gravity throughout. Have a look:
Those second-row seats fold flat as well. Lastly, while sitting in the Lucid Gravity with Derek, I asked what he thinks US consumers will be most excited about when they get to see this SUV up close like I did:
I think it’s two things. First, I think the cockpit will be a fresh experience for most people because it’s different from most of our mainstream competitors and I think the steering configuration is unique. I also think the cargo experience is going to be awesome. Not just for micro cargo, but also frunk, trunk, seat flexibility, and then human space.
Being able to have a car with this level of performance, agility, capability on-road and off-road, and yet still be just under the Cadillac Escalade in terms of overall interior volume, which is just crazy. That car is four feet longer than this thing. It not only has to look great and drive great, but it has to do the job. i think people are going to be astounded here because thaty’s what’s important in the segment.
Our next step will be to get behind the wheel of the Lucid Gravity and see what it delivers from a performance standpoint. That opportunity is already in the works, so expect a full report very soon.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024