Suggestion to make it easier to deal with variable effective range

[Bcovill]

Everyone knows that the EFFECTIVE range of the battery charge displayed is affected by many things: driving speed, weather conditions, car load, electric load (AC, seats, etc.), terrain (mountains?), traffic conditions, etc.

We Lucid drivers are left to factor these things in as we do mental calculations to determine what all drivers really need to know: How far can I go on the current charge?

Arguably your Lucid knows better than any driver how these variables have affected the actual range you have experienced. So why not have this extremely intelligent vehicle do this calculation for us?

Let's have the Lucid display a new field, Effective Range (or Anticipated Range, Estimated Range, etc.). This would have default values for all the variables I listed above (e.g., past 200 miles of driving, etc.) but would allow the driver to alter any of the variables to produce a more accurate Effective Range for the current drive (e.g., a hot afternoon going over mountains, or adding a heavy load for the drive home).

That would help a lot on trips where the other half of the equation is the distance and availability of charging stations, particularly the (free) Electrify America stations.

On a 700-mile trip last week, my spouse (a truly great navigator) was so frustrated by these manual calculations that she said the next trip would be in one of our gas vehicles.

 

[borski]

Everyone knows that the EFFECTIVE range of the battery charge displayed is affected by many things: driving speed, weather conditions, car load, electric load (AC, seats, etc.), terrain (mountains?), traffic conditions, etc.

We Lucid drivers are left to factor these things in as we do mental calculations to determine what all drivers really need to know: How far can I go on the current charge?

Arguably your Lucid knows better than any driver how these variables have affected the actual range you have experienced. So why not have this extremely intelligent vehicle do this calculation for us?

Let's have the Lucid display a new field, Effective Range (or Anticipated Range, Estimated Range, etc.). This would have default values for all the variables I listed above (e.g., past 200 miles of driving, etc.) but would allow the driver to alter any of the variables to produce a more accurate Effective Range for the current drive (e.g., a hot afternoon going over mountains, or adding a heavy load for the drive home).

That would help a lot on trips where the other half of the equation is the distance and availability of charging stations, particularly the (free) Electrify America stations.

On a 700-mile trip last week, my spouse (a truly great navigator) was so frustrated by these manual calculations that she said the next trip would be in one of our gas vehicles.

It does this extremely well when you are navigating somewhere. The “X miles on arrival” works very very well.

The issue is if you aren’t navigating it doesn’t use the same algorithm. I imagine that’s an oversight (or hope it is) and they’ll fix it.

 

[Adnillien]

It does this extremely well when you are navigating somewhere. The “X miles on arrival” works very very well.

The issue is if you aren’t navigating it doesn’t use the same algorithm. I imagine that’s an oversight (or hope it is) and they’ll fix it.

I think that the range prediction while navigating has been improved in 2.1.2/2.1.3. I took a 170 mile round trip drive from Phoenix to Payson with 4000 feet of elevation gain and drop last weekend. The remaining range predicted when I left Phoenix was exactly what I had when I arrived in Payson. The return from Payson to Phoenix, I had one mile more range when I got home than was predicted leaving Payson. Amazingly accurate, especailly with temperatures between 105 and 118.

 

[TCGT]

I can attest to the accuracy of the estimated range, too. On a recent trip (before the new 2.1.3 update) to the Boundary Waters in Minnesota where there are few (and far between) charging options, I was paying close attention to the estimated mileage and found it spot on. This was while driving 65, which seemed to be the sweet spot for accuracy, though I understand the new update continuously updates the range taking into account all the variables you mentioned above.

Side note, the Boundary Waters is one of this countries absolute gems...lakes that border Canada, which were used by trappers (Voyageurs) portaging their canoes and furs. An area that is transitioning from mining to recreation. Put it on your list if you're a nature lover. Lots of outfitters up there that can support a trip of any style.

 

[Sandvinsd]

I have done three short trips since 2.1.3 and the “miles left at arrival” was wrong by 25-40% on each of those trips. Therefore, I would have to conclude the range calculation has NOT improved with the update. Getting ready to take a long trip. Will not be relying on the car’s estimated range as I will be stranded in the middle of the desert if I do. But with the EA infrastructure issues, I generally make many more charging stops as I don’t know if I can charge at the next station. I unfortunately have to treat the car as having the range of a Bolt and not drive the battery down.

 

[Tesla2.0]

I have done three short trips since 2.1.3 and the “miles left at arrival” was wrong by 25-40% on each of those trips. Therefore, I would have to conclude the range calculation has NOT improved with the update. Getting ready to take a long trip. Will not be relying on the car’s estimated range as I will be stranded in the middle of the desert if I do. But with the EA infrastructure issues, I generally make many more charging stops as I don’t know if I can charge at the next station. I unfortunately have to treat the car as having the range of a Bolt and not drive the battery down.

But you won’t have to charge like Bolt 50kW, will be a lot of quick and go and peace of mind.

 

[Rogue]

I have done three short trips since 2.1.3 and the “miles left at arrival” was wrong by 25-40% on each of those trips. Therefore, I would have to conclude the range calculation has NOT improved with the update. Getting ready to take a long trip. Will not be relying on the car’s estimated range as I will be stranded in the middle of the desert if I do. But with the EA infrastructure issues, I generally make many more charging stops as I don’t know if I can charge at the next station. I unfortunately have to treat the car as having the range of a Bolt and not drive the battery down.

Short distances should be expected to have error. The longer trips do better for the car to eliminate any punches or account for aggressive driving. We just did a 200 mile trip, or something thereof, from Huntsville, AL to Mobile, AL. Accuracy was dead on until I found a "lead car" to hit speed traps for a stretch to Greenville, AL to charge.

Honestly, I wonder if the car builds a driver profile because it does not drop much despite my more aggressive driving.

Side note: Absolute trash that stop. Stations along this route seem to differ from our usual experience of mostly functioning locations at EA stops. Signet surge, broken handles, and limited charging by stations...

 

[borski]

Driving down to San Diego so far it’s been within one mile, literally.

Also, I have a new rule: if the local EAs have <7 on PlugShare, I just go to an EVGo or Shell Recharge or Chargepoint and pay. Zero issues so far, and zero EA charges this trip so far. It’s great.

Currently plugged in without preconditioning in San Diego at an EVGo and pulling 280kW.

All the EVGo’s here are 8-10 and all the EAs are 3-5. Easy choice, and still cheaper than gas

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Driving down to San Diego so far it’s been within one mile, literally.

Also, I have a new rule: if the local EAs have <7 on PlugShare, I just go to an EVGo or Shell Recharge or Chargepoint and pay. Zero issues so far, and zero EA charges this trip so far. It’s great.

Currently plugged in without preconditioning in San Diego at an EVGo and pulling 280kW.

All the EVGo’s here are 8-10 and all the EAs are 3-5. Easy choice, and still cheaper than gas

This is the way. It’s better to pay and worry less. Every trip now I look for alternatives to EA and have had zero troubles. Also for miles remaining, while I find that is sometimes accurate, but sometimes not, if you look in the actual navigation at predicted SOC% on arrival, that has been accurate for me within 1% every time lately. Also I can’t remember where but somebody made a Siri shortcut where you say “ GT range” and it does it really well based on your current mi/kWh.

 

[borski]

This is the way. It’s better to pay and worry less. Every trip now I look for alternatives to EA and have had zero troubles. Also for miles remaining, while I find that is sometimes accurate, but sometimes not, if you look in the actual navigation at predicted SOC% on arrival, that has been accurate for me within 1% every time lately. Also I can’t remember where but somebody made a Siri shortcut where you say “ GT range” and it does it really well based on your current mi/kWh.

That navigation predicted SOC% on arrival is what I'm talking about being within 1 mile. The general range is very off, and still based on EPA.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Oh I see, you meant predicted miles on arrival and SOC% was accurate, but when you plug in and are not using navigation if your display is in miles, that estimation is based on EPA and usually incorrect. It’s funny I thought the estimated miles on arrival was off just like the miles remaining if you’re not using navigation, but that may not be the case. I never have the car set to display miles remaining but instead SOC% so I rarely factor miles remaining into route planning.

 

[ChipEdwards]

It does this extremely well when you are navigating somewhere. The “X miles on arrival” works very very well.

The issue is if you aren’t navigating it doesn’t use the same algorithm. I imagine that’s an oversight (or hope it is) and they’ll fix it.

I assume you mean using the native Lucid nav. I am always navigation but usually with Waze to avoid accident snafoos, cops and the other wonderful warnings Waze gives. I might run two apps if the Lucid Nav app is reliably displaying remaining miles at destination

 

[Bobby]

Everyone knows that the EFFECTIVE range of the battery charge displayed is affected by many things: driving speed, weather conditions, car load, electric load (AC, seats, etc.), terrain (mountains?), traffic conditions, etc.

We Lucid drivers are left to factor these things in as we do mental calculations to determine what all drivers really need to know: How far can I go on the current charge?

Arguably your Lucid knows better than any driver how these variables have affected the actual range you have experienced. So why not have this extremely intelligent vehicle do this calculation for us?

Let's have the Lucid display a new field, Effective Range (or Anticipated Range, Estimated Range, etc.). This would have default values for all the variables I listed above (e.g., past 200 miles of driving, etc.) but would allow the driver to alter any of the variables to produce a more accurate Effective Range for the current drive (e.g., a hot afternoon going over mountains, or adding a heavy load for the drive home).

That would help a lot on trips where the other half of the equation is the distance and availability of charging stations, particularly the (free) Electrify America stations.

On a 700-mile trip last week, my spouse (a truly great navigator) was so frustrated by these manual calculations that she said the next trip would be in one of our gas vehicles.

This has been on the wishlist since the beginning.

 

[borski]

I assume you mean using the native Lucid nav. I am always navigation but usually with Waze to avoid accident snafoos, cops and the other wonderful warnings Waze gives. I might run two apps if the Lucid Nav app is reliably displaying remaining miles at destination

Yes, I mean the native Lucid nav. That is accurate for arrival SOC%.

The display of percentage / miles left *at present* when not using native nav is still based on EPA.

I also use Waze for its warnings, but switch to the native nav if I am running low and really need to know if I’ll make it somewhere, or if I’m going to a charger, since it will now automatically precondition.

 

[geosynch]

I'm also annoyed with the guess-o-meter in the main screen. And agree the estimate while using nav is pretty good. Why the difference? Jeeze peeps. THere should only be _one_ range estimate, not two.

While I'm at it, here is a short coming of the nav's guess-o-meter. It isn't topography aware. C'mon Lucid. You can do this.

I drive my car from the SF Bay Area to LA a lot. More than once a month. Since the 2.1.3 update, the nav guess-o-meter has been pretty good, but I can see the estimate at arrival change as I go up and down the Grapevine. For example, if I have the destination set for my daughter's house and it predicts 70 miles remaining on arrival, that 70 miles will drop to ~50 as I go up the Grapvine. Now, I'll get most of that back as I go down the other side, but that's not the point.

I had topography aware range estimates in my BMW i3 over 5 years ago. C'mon Lucid. You can do this.

 

[joec]

I'm also annoyed with the guess-o-meter in the main screen. And agree the estimate while using nav is pretty good. Why the difference? Jeeze peeps. THere should only be _one_ range estimate, not two.

While I'm at it, here is a short coming of the nav's guess-o-meter. It isn't topography aware. C'mon Lucid. You can do this.

I drive my car from the SF Bay Area to LA a lot. More than once a month. Since the 2.1.3 update, the nav guess-o-meter has been pretty good, but I can see the estimate at arrival change as I go up and down the Grapevine. For example, if I have the destination set for my daughter's house and it predicts 70 miles remaining on arrival, that 70 miles will drop to ~50 as I go up the Grapvine. Now, I'll get most of that back as I go down the other side, but that's not the point.

I had topography aware range estimates in my BMW i3 over 5 years ago. C'mon Lucid. You can do this.

Number of global employees at BMW as of 2022: 149,475
Number of global employees at Lucid Motors as of 2023: ~7,200

Number of years BMW had been producing cars on the road when your car got topographic-aware range estimates 5 years ago: 102
Number of years Lucid has been producing cars on the road as of today: 1.75.

Obviously, I'm being facetious, but I think you could cut them a bit of slack, no?

 

[geosynch]

No.

Range is a key parameter of an EV. I cut them slack when their range estimate was a linear interpolation of the EPA rating based off the batteries current state of charge. But the moment they updated a range estimate to pass off as real, I stopped cutting them slack on this item.

It's not that hard of a calculation -- energy is mgh where m is the mass of the car (known, less occupants, but the mass of the car alone is close enough), g is gravity and is, for all practical purposes constant everywhere on Earth and h is the max elevation along route (available in any topo map) less the current elevation (from GPS).

Send me the code... I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

 

[joec]

No.

Range is a key parameter of an EV. I cut them slack when their range estimate was a linear interpolation of the EPA rating based off the batteries current state of charge. But the moment they updated a range estimate to pass off as real, I stopped cutting them slack on this item.

It's not that hard of a calculation -- energy is mgh where m is the mass of the car (known, less occupants, but the mass of the car alone is close enough), g is gravity and is, for all practical purposes constant everywhere on Earth and h is the max elevation along route (available in any topo map) less the current elevation (from GPS).

Send me the code... I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

Only someone who has no idea how to code would say "Send me the code. I'd be happy to take a crack at it."

You have no idea how their entire stack is architected. You have no clue what the dependencies are for the various systems throughout the car. You have no idea if their current mapping software is even aware of elevation. Which means you have no idea where you'd be pulling that info from.

You also have zero insight into their current backlog, what the current sprint is hoping to accomplish, how many people you could devote to the project, what their targets are for the next quarter, and on and on and on. Thus you have no idea how easy/hard this would be to get done.

What you don't know about this project could easily fill a 747. But sure. Go ahead and assume you could get it done in an afternoon.

Look, we all have our pet peeves when it comes to the software. Every change they make is at the expense of something else. Management is prioritizing and moving forward as they see fit. They know exactly what people are requesting and have at least some idea what the priorities should be. Those priorities come from a whole host of places, including not just customers, but management, government regulators, marketing, investors, and on and on.

Patience is a virtue.

 

[geosynch]

Only someone who has no idea how to code would say "Send me the code. I'd be happy to take a crack at it."

You have no idea how their entire stack is architected. You have no clue what the dependencies are for the various systems throughout the car. You have no idea if their current mapping software is even aware of elevation. Which means you have no idea where you'd be pulling that info from.

You also have zero insight into their current backlog, what the current sprint is hoping to accomplish, how many people you could devote to the project, what their targets are for the next quarter, and on and on and on. Thus you have no idea how easy/hard this would be to get done.

What you don't know about this project could easily fill a 747. But sure. Go ahead and assume you could get it done in an afternoon.

Look, we all have our pet peeves when it comes to the software. Every change they make is at the expense of something else. Management is prioritizing and moving forward as they see fit. They know exactly what people are requesting and have at least some idea what the priorities should be. Those priorities come from a whole host of places, including not just customers, but management, government regulators, marketing, investors, and on and on.

Patience is a virtue.

Before I retired, I was the program manager for a NASA spacecraft. And not only did I have an entire software team in my org, some of them work now at Lucid. I happen to know exactly what the situation is at Lucid.

Not once did I say I could do it in an afternoon. I think you need to take your condescending tone down a notch and give the guy on the street a bit of credit.

 

[MHDave]

It's not that hard of a calculation -- energy is mgh where m is the mass of the car (known, less occupants, but the mass of the car alone is close enough), g is gravity and is, for all practical purposes constant everywhere on Earth and h is the max elevation along route (available in any topo map) less the current elevation (from GPS).

Hmmm. So, starting at say 9900' current elevation, highest point 10000', and destination elevation 0' (you didn't mention destination), and the reverse trip 0->10000->9900, you'd use the same energy? I'd be surprised, but then again you know rocket launches. I'd probably gone for an integral calculation over the road elevation changes for the trip. And with the weight of the car being roughly 6000 lbs, wouldn't four adults plus luggage make for more than a 10% difference in mass? I was thinking, though, that in many of the previous discussions on this topic, people have reported that wind speed and direction, road conditions, use of HVAC played a significant factor. Oh, and tires and tire air pressure and effect on rolling resistance. Seemed to be more of a multivariate problem to me.
As previously mentioned, the ABetterRoutePlanner site seems to do its calculations on range based on many of these factors and include battery degradation. As previously discussed, it would be great to have more accurate and dynamic range information available for road trips. But for me, the more significant concern is around being able to find working and available charging infrastructure along my long distance route such that I can travel more miles in a day, spend less time cursing about people who need to charge to 100% or leave their cars fully charged and taking up a charging spot or finding out of service units. Now if you have a nice algorithm in mind to handle that aspect of range planning, send me the code and I'll do a code review.