- Joined
- Apr 27, 2025
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Cars
- Yes
-
Lucid Gravity Reservation Tracker: Add Your Gravity Reservation
Gravity 75 mph Range
- Thread starter Knucklehead
- Start date
Then it will continue to give EVs a bad rep because as much as trusting the government may be antithetical to you and I, many people *do* trust the government and expect their data to be reasonably accurate. Which it's not with current EPA range in the way most people care about it (road trips at highway speeds).
And really, regardless of how much it should or shouldn't be trusted, there's no reason not to want it to be reasonably accurate.
I generally found EPA MPG to be reasonably accurate on ICE vehicles. Not that it mattered as much on ICE because being a little off usually just means costing a bit more in fuel, not stranding you 30 miles short of the next DCFC. But still, I found MPG to be reasonably accurate in my previous vehicles. Far more than EV range, anyway.
You do know the EPA methodology is based on input from "interested parties". This includes the car makers. Back in the early 2010's (2010-2014) the car makers preferred that efficiency be reported in MPGe. To provide a comparison to ICE vehicles.
Tesla wanted EVs to be shown with a w-hr/mile. Some advocates wanted ICE vehicles to be reported as gallons/100 miles to better emphasize the differences between high fuel economy cars. EPA added kw-hr/100 miles and gallons/100 miles to their published data based on these comments.
Fuel economy has rested with EPA (with input from DOE) since ICE cars economy is calculated by measuring the CO2, CO and HC in the exhaust.
Tesla wanted EVs to be shown with a w-hr/mile. Some advocates wanted ICE vehicles to be reported as gallons/100 miles to better emphasize the differences between high fuel economy cars. EPA added kw-hr/100 miles and gallons/100 miles to their published data based on these comments.
Fuel economy has rested with EPA (with input from DOE) since ICE cars economy is calculated by measuring the CO2, CO and HC in the exhaust.
Not really charge to 50%, but batteries do like living around the middle more than the ends. The 20-80% area is fine. But really, the BMS systems are usually so good now that you could charge to 100% half the time and barely make much difference. (Which really isn't 100% since they block off some buffer.)
What batteries hate more is running down to 0%.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2025
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Cars
- Yes
The Gravity manual says keep it between 30% and 80% except when you need to go out of those bands.
Yes, a joke; however, they're EQUALLY a joke for all makes/models so they do provide some sort of "standard" for comparisons
...sounds like a bit of iPhone battery wisdom
- Joined
- May 7, 2025
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 262
- Cars
- Model X, MachE-GTP
People don't pay attention to the range of ICE vehicles. The oil and car companies have trained us to not with about it and just fill up when we get low with little to no planning.
I also think the common SUV and Luxury buyers couldn't care less about fuel economy and will not obsess over a 10-20% variance.
We are fighting FUD on several fronts:
* EVs aren't as good as real cars
* EVs can't road trip
* EVs pollute more than ICE
* The battery is a ticking firebomb
* Etc etc etc
We all know these to be false, but they are repeated ad nauseum.
This is only going to be solved by a shift in public opinion and acclimation to a growing EV presence.
It's going to need an expansion of residential charging, like curbside outlets e.g. https://www.itselectric.us/ for those that don't have an at-home charge ability.
It's going to need legislation that removes punitive road use taxes that are higher than the lost revenue from gas taxes.
It's going to go hand on hand with decreasing prices of batteries helping the cars get into the perceived affordability without explaining TCO.
And it's going to require people to stop obsessing over the difference between EPA range and real world.
I also think the common SUV and Luxury buyers couldn't care less about fuel economy and will not obsess over a 10-20% variance.
We are fighting FUD on several fronts:
* EVs aren't as good as real cars
* EVs can't road trip
* EVs pollute more than ICE
* The battery is a ticking firebomb
* Etc etc etc
We all know these to be false, but they are repeated ad nauseum.
This is only going to be solved by a shift in public opinion and acclimation to a growing EV presence.
It's going to need an expansion of residential charging, like curbside outlets e.g. https://www.itselectric.us/ for those that don't have an at-home charge ability.
It's going to need legislation that removes punitive road use taxes that are higher than the lost revenue from gas taxes.
It's going to go hand on hand with decreasing prices of batteries helping the cars get into the perceived affordability without explaining TCO.
And it's going to require people to stop obsessing over the difference between EPA range and real world.
The oil and car companies haven't trained anyone to do that, common sense did. Of course people are just gonna fill up at a gas station, because it takes 2 minutes instead of an hour. Gas pump flow rate in the US is 10 gallon/minute. Usually in and out with a full tank in <3 minutes. But try filling an EV to 100% and you'll probably be there close to an hour. Has nothing to do with "training", it's just reality.
They rarely are though. Remember that it's not just state gas taxes paying for roads, it's federal gas taxes too. And those federal gas taxes just get allocated back to states for road projects. When you add the two together, state EV fees rarely exceed the average gas taxes paid for the similar size/type vehicle driving the average miles/yr. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
Expecting EPA range numbers to be reasonably accurate for the type of driving people care about EV range for (highway road trips) isn't an "obsession", it's simply common sense. Especially if you care about EV adoption. If you don't care about the bad rep they give to EVs by misleading and disappointing people, well, so be it. But don't be surprised when it builds a bad rep and fewer people buy them.
EV range is entirely different than MPG. The former is about the fear of getting stranded and being limited on where you can drive, because DCFC is relatively sparse. The latter is about the cost.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 7, 2025
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 262
- Cars
- Model X, MachE-GTP
But for the vast majority of the driving people do, they charge at home and are never waiting for the charge to complete. 10 seconds to plug/unplug.
Even with the relatively slow charge rate of my Model X, on long trips (I've done many cross country trips in all seasons) most of my charging time coincides with restroom and meal breaks.
The trend is to decrease charging time and Lucid has reached a range/charging speed balance that supports long distance travel very well.
[, post: 292739, member: 13186"]
EV range is entirely different than MPG.
[/QUOTE]
Most people lose range anxiety pretty quickly through experience. But it's a huge barrier for adoption.
Yes and no. If you are comparing to a 30MPG car, the volume-weighted average $0.5264 combined tax yields roughly 12000 miles for $200. Some states are more, some less.
But that's charged on every EV, including motorcycles.
I have a friend in WA state that has a Model 3 and an EV motorcycle. Her effective rate is significantly higher than gas tax would have been.
Yes, home refueling is much faster/easier in an EV vs ICE, while public refueling is much slower/harder than an EV vs ICE.
30 MPG is high for the US fleet. The new light-duty vehicle avg is 27 now, but new cars are only a slice of the cars on the road. The avg US car is 12 years old, and avg MPG was 24 back then. Avg annual miles are usually reported closer to 13,400 too. Should probably add about more 30% to that $200 number to get a better average, but yeah, not too far off.
The motorcycle effect is a result of having to use fleet averages for EV fees due to lack of a practical usage index (like gasoline). For every vehicle that comes out behind using fleet averages instead, there's a vehicle that comes out ahead (an EV pickup, an EV that drives 20,000+ miles, etc). It would be nice if there were a feasible usage-based index like gasoline, but most ideas for one have significant drawbacks.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 185
- Cars
- Polestar 3 LRDM LE
While accurate in the specific moment, this kind of analysis leaves out so many variables. On a road trip it is fairly close to accurate because the route is long and well defined and the gas stations are right next to the route.
But, for everyday driving, you have to plan out where and when to stop for gas or make a separate trip to the gas station. "Oh crap, I came back from the store last night with a very low tank and now I have to get gas before I can do all my errands today." It doesn't matter if it only takes a handful of minutes at the pump when you have to think about your remaining range on every single trip you take and you have to drive several minutes to the station. It starts adding up. I recently got an ICE rental while my car was in service and it was very annoying every day how I had to keep a mental note of my gas level.
[Oops, update - obviously my take is skewed towards the experience of a homeowner - people without a nightly place to plug in do have a daily issue that I don't address...]
Meanwhile, in an EV [update - for a homeowner], for 90+% of people for 90+% of their day to day errands, none of that ever happens. You just drive. You never plan your gas needs. Your gas needs never "just come up" when you are in a hurry. None of that mental toll happens.
Yes, for some small percentage of people, they might exceed an EVs daily range on a regular basis, and for some small percentage of daily uses someone who never exceeds their EVs range for daily use might run enough errands on one particular day that they also exceed the range. But, the "wisdom" above optimizes a very small amount (a few minutes) for a relatively rare case (road trips) and completely de-optimizes the standard (every day) use case.
For each "Hah! I was on and off the highway in under 10 minutes" victory claim for an ICE on a road trip you have to add 10 minutes of time out of your life for every single time you needed gas. It quickly becomes a net negative for your life even though that one use case that everyone loves to tout gives a slim victory (in today's world of 80% charging in 15-20 minutes).
Basically, newer EVs occasionally take 20-25 minutes to restore energy on a road trip and 0 minutes every other day of their ownership.
ICEs take 10 minutes (including on/off times and getting the pump set up and someone in the car needing to take a bio break) on a road trip and 10-15 minutes every few days otherwise.
How is the ICE in the lead there? It's not even close. EVs completely win on this front.
And, in my case, I want to take a break every 200-300-or-so miles anyway and it would be nice to get a 30-45 minute meal while I'm doing that. The current crop of cars are *TOO FAST* in charging for that lifestyle. Why are the narrow opinions of iron-butt-ers and their "every single day I take a 1000 mile road trip without any other car ownership experience and doesn't everyone do that?" lives the measure of how convenient it is to keep your ride powered up?
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 185
- Cars
- Polestar 3 LRDM LE
I had to update my previous post because I realized I hadn't taken apartment dwellers and other people with no home charging infrastructure into account.
For the near future, that continues to be a problem. But hopefully apartment complexes, condo structures, and public spaces will start to make charging a part of the idle time of more EV owners.
For the near future, that continues to be a problem. But hopefully apartment complexes, condo structures, and public spaces will start to make charging a part of the idle time of more EV owners.
Curbside charging infrastructure has begun to appear in a few places, and I hope it grows rapidly. It's also one of the reasons why I think the left rear of the vehicle for a charging port is a bad idea. At least in this country, it's the right side of the vehicle that's close to the curb, and that's where charging ports should go. Tesla made a decision based (reportedly) off where the power outlet was in Elon Musk's garage in Tesla's early days, and not because it was a well considered decision for what would be most useful for consumers. The supercharger network is great, but we shouldn't get overly locked into to a left side charging port.
It's sad that charge port location isn't standardized. The short cables on V3 superchargers are so nice. The long V4 cables are horrible, they've even added an extra handle on some of the stalls now because they're so awkward.
Of for sure, home charging is one of the greatest benefits of EVs. I'd say it's the #1 tangible benefit. Not only is it super convenient, it's also much cheaper because residential rates are usually 70-80% cheaper than DCFC. That helps offset the more expensive price of buying an EV.
One note on your road trip estimates - it's usually the gas stations that are right next to the highway, while DCFC often isn't (although sometimes). On average the "churn" time is typically longer to drive to and get a session started for DCFC, not the other way around. That's on top of the much longer charging time. 20-25 minutes is common for newer EVs for just the charging time, but then add the to/from time off the interstate, occasional restarts, moving to a 2nd charger, etc to that.
And then adjust for the difference in miles. We'll typically add 150-200 miles on a 60% charge (20-80%) on a DCFC. But in an ICE, we're adding probably 300 miles in a fraction of that time. Meaning we have to do it twice as often in the EV. Not only way slower, but twice as many of them in a full drive day.
But for some people (like us), the pros outweigh those cons. We road trip 7-8 times a year, 1600+ miles each time. And both of our vehicles are now EVs. We're also retired, where losing a few hours in a drive day isn't of as much consequence as someone on a tighter schedule. We're good fits for it all, but many people aren't. Even with unlimited time to travel, we're still getting a Gravity, in part to minimize those DCFC stops. Our most frequent drive (~800 miles) took 5 30-minute charges in our Mach-E. In the Gravity we should be able to do that in just 2 because of it's unprecedented range. It's almost ICE-like.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 481
- Cars
- S75D
It feels silly to be justifying EV ownership on an EV owners' forum site, but just adding $.02 re: road tripping:
Admittedly road tripping is a <2% use case for most people but most EVs clearly lose out vs. ICE for longer trips, for the many reasons listed above by others. The disadvantage is particularly pronounced for some EVs that don't have Supercharger access, slower charging speeds, and lower range. My 8-year-old Tesla S75 is still a really enjoyable car but for road trips, it is a dog. My real-world range is well under 200 miles - it might be 120 for practical purposes, esp in the cold. If I don't have destination charging or if I'm going to a weird or remote location, I have to worry not only about getting there, but getting there with enough juice to get to the next charger on the way back (not to mention possible phantom drain). Charging is slow because of the age of my technology. Some places, like ski resorts in WV where I have to go over mountains in the cold and where charging infrastructure is poor, are simply unreachable in my Tesla. I bet it'd be even worse if I had a 6 year old, I dunno, EV6.
That said, I am hoping that Gravity becomes the road trip use case dragon slayer from the EV side. The combination of a) Access to the extensive Supercharger network, b) insane charging speeds at that network, and c) range and efficiency, really might make the Gravity functionally equivalent to an ICE car for most road tripping in most of the country.
Obviously, not having to gas up for >98% of my driving is a HUGE benefit vs. ICE. When I occasionally have to stop at a gas station because I'm driving my wife's car, I feel gross. What is this smelly place I have to come to just to be able to get to work?
Admittedly road tripping is a <2% use case for most people but most EVs clearly lose out vs. ICE for longer trips, for the many reasons listed above by others. The disadvantage is particularly pronounced for some EVs that don't have Supercharger access, slower charging speeds, and lower range. My 8-year-old Tesla S75 is still a really enjoyable car but for road trips, it is a dog. My real-world range is well under 200 miles - it might be 120 for practical purposes, esp in the cold. If I don't have destination charging or if I'm going to a weird or remote location, I have to worry not only about getting there, but getting there with enough juice to get to the next charger on the way back (not to mention possible phantom drain). Charging is slow because of the age of my technology. Some places, like ski resorts in WV where I have to go over mountains in the cold and where charging infrastructure is poor, are simply unreachable in my Tesla. I bet it'd be even worse if I had a 6 year old, I dunno, EV6.
That said, I am hoping that Gravity becomes the road trip use case dragon slayer from the EV side. The combination of a) Access to the extensive Supercharger network, b) insane charging speeds at that network, and c) range and efficiency, really might make the Gravity functionally equivalent to an ICE car for most road tripping in most of the country.
Obviously, not having to gas up for >98% of my driving is a HUGE benefit vs. ICE. When I occasionally have to stop at a gas station because I'm driving my wife's car, I feel gross. What is this smelly place I have to come to just to be able to get to work?
Yeah, most people don't want to turn a 12 hour drive into a 14 hour drive.
Curious why you don't take the Macan?
There seem to be two factions here. People who road trip a lot and people who don't. One third of my energy use is DCFC and I'm annoyed by the charging speed of my 2018 Model 3 (and it's still significantly better than most EVs.)
