msaunders9430
Active Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 511
Additional video from Out of Spec Dave at NYC event.
Edmunds measures something similar with their “time to add 100 miles range”. Not quite as good as the 10% challenge in some ways, but still useful. This is how 1400 mph held for four minutes would stack up against the current leaderboard (Air GT is in 18th):Better yet, measure the area under the curve, charge for 15 minutes starting at 10% SoC and drive 80mph until SoC is 10% (aka 10% challenge.)
I doubt the Gravity will be better than the Air (in perfect conditions, supposedly Gravity charging will be more consistent). Something is weird with Edmund's results though. I wonder if they're preconditioning. The Air is #3 in Out of Spec's test and they averaged 186kW over 15 minutes (2023 Air) but Edmunds only averaged 147kW over 11 minutes.Edmunds measures something similar with their “time to add 100 miles range”. Not quite as good as the 10% challenge in some ways, but still useful. This is how 1400 mph held for four minutes would stack up against the current leaderboard (Air GT is in 18th):
Drive in movie? What’s that? Where’s that?What's amazing to me is I completely agree with you, and what a huge win it has been, for being something of a random middle-of-the-night Peter-ism. There are plenty of times that sort of 'midnight crazy thought' doesn't work, but when it does it's just *chef's kiss*
It's so dumb, lol, but the media simply cannot stop talking about it, and I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't try it for a drive-in movie.![]()
From what I have heard from the Lucid charging team is that the Panasonic cells in Gravity allow much faster charging than the LG cells in the Air. I do expect Gravity to do better in the 10% challenge.I doubt the Gravity will be better than the Air (in perfect conditions, supposedly Gravity charging will be more consistent). Something is weird with Edmund's results though. I wonder if they're preconditioning. The Air is #3 in Out of Spec's test and they averaged 186kW over 15 minutes (2023 Air) but Edmunds only averaged 147kW over 11 minutes.
Edmund's test also must be at much lower speeds. They got 309Wh/mi for the brick shaped Ioniq 5 whereas out of spec got 520Wh/mi.
View attachment 27847
20% worse Cd and 20% more frontal area = 40% more drag so it's going to be tough. In the latest video from Out of Spec Kyle says he was told it would similar to a Taycan AWD. Taycan RWD does 193mi and Air does 155mi so it does sound like it should be a little better than Air which would be amazing.From what I have heard from the Lucid charging team is that the Panasonic cells in Gravity allow much faster charging than the LG cells in the Air. I do expect Gravity to do better in the 10% challenge.
My math says the Gravity will get 155 miles in the 10% challenge on a V3 Tesla supercharger (limited to 220 kW) if the car’s on the smaller wheels. Or 183 miles on a 400 KW charger. We’ll know soon, though both will take a hit if they use the car they currently have (it’s on the big rims).20% worse Cd and 20% more frontal area = 40% more drag so it's going to be tough. In the latest video from Out of Spec Kyle says he was told it would similar to a Taycan AWD. Taycan RWD does 193mi and Air does 155mi so it does sound like it should be a little better than Air which would be amazing.
That's impossible. The Air charges 54.2kWh in 15 minutes in the 10% challenge which is an average of 217kw, basically equal to the 225kW chart rate of the Gravity on a Supercharger. The Gravity will be much less efficient than the Air at 80mph.My math says the Gravity will get 155 miles in the 10% challenge on a V3 Tesla supercharger (limited to 220 kW) if the car’s on the smaller wheels. Or 183 miles on a 400 KW charger. We’ll know soon, though both will take a hit if they use the car they currently have (it’s on the big rims).
The Gravity has both improved cell chemistry and an updated battery cooling system to let it hold high charge rates for longer.
Drive in movie? What’s that? Where’s that?![]()
You sure?The Gravity will be much less efficient than the Air at 80mph.
Fair, but let’s see. Your math for drag likely assumes a bigger frontal area than the Gravity has when it lowers, plus I expect the Gravity has a more efficient driveline at speed. The EPA numbers suggest it’s closer to 16% less efficient than the Air GT, which if offset by slightly faster charging would suggest ~11% less range. So by that method 138 miles for 15 minutes charge on a V3 supercharger rather than 155. Hopefully Kyle tests that as it’s one the numbers I’m most interested in.That's impossible. The Air charges 54.2kWh in 15 minutes in the 10% challenge which is an average of 217kw, basically equal to the 225kW chart rate of the Gravity on a Supercharger. The Gravity will be much less efficient than the Air at 80mph.
Keep in mind energy out of charger is not equal to energy into the battery, there are losses.
Yes, very. Would love to be wrong though!You sure?![]()
I agree it will be less efficient. The jury is still out on whether it will be much less efficient though, I’d argue.Yes, very. Would love to be wrong though!
Note that the Air was tested on a cool day, 48 degrees. So the 2025 Air GT was getting 2.86 miles per KWh, while the 2023 Air GT got 3.09 miles per KWh in 80 degree weather. So there’s at least a 7.5% swing because the test was done at the “wrong” temperature or some other unknown variable, and it’s unlikely 80 degrees is the perfect temperature either. So while I’d agree it’s impossible to match the Air GT’s efficiency at 80 MPH I’d disagree that it’s impossible for it to match its performance on this test. We’ll see where this lands, but my money is on you being pleasantly surprised even if it doesn’t exceed 155 miles. If they even run that test, that is.Yes, very. Would love to be wrong though!
From the new OOS video: ~260mi EPA range in 15 minutes on 400kW charger. ~180mi in 15 minutes on a Supercharger. This is starting at 0% so it should be a little less starting at 10%.Note that the Air was tested on a cool day, 48 degrees. So the 2025 Air GT was getting 2.86 miles per KWh, while the 2023 Air GT got 3.09 miles per KWh in 80 degree weather. So there’s at least a 7.5% swing because the test was done at the “wrong” temperature or some other unknown variable, and it’s unlikely 80 degrees is the perfect temperature either. So while I’d agree it’s impossible to match the Air GT’s efficiency at 80 MPH I’d disagree that it’s impossible for it to match its performance on this test. We’ll see where this lands, but my money is on you being pleasantly surprised even if it doesn’t exceed 155 miles. If they even run that test, that is.
Though in the video Emad Dlala does say 70mph range will be similar to EPA range... That would be VERY impressive. My estimate might be low.From the new OOS video: ~260mi EPA range in 15 minutes on 400kW charger. ~180mi in 15 minutes on a Supercharger. This is starting at 0% so it should be a little less starting at 10%.
So now the question is the ratio between EPA miles and 80mph miles. I'm thinking 3:2 best case. My official guess for 10% challenge is 160mi (400kW) and 115mi (SC)