Average mi/kwh

[joec]

Say you go to the grocery and buy a 5 lb bag of potatoes. You get home and weigh it: 3.8 lbs.

You log onto the Potato Owners' Forum--the gist of the discussion is that it doesn't matter which potatoes you buy, no one sells 5 lb bags of potatoes that actually weigh 5 lbs.

Conclusion of the posters: "the potatoes taste great, so consider yourself lucky. If you don't like overpaying, don't buy potatoes".

OK.....

Verizon offers "unlimited" data.

2 TB Hard drives actually only format to around 1.8 TB of usable space.

Netflix tells me my plan is 15.49 per month. My bill actually comes out to $16.09

There are about a gazillion examples of what gets advertised vs reality. Surely this is not a new concept for you?

Lucid never said "You will definitely get 520 miles every time you charge up your Dream Edition." They said "Up to 520 miles of EPA range. Actual results may vary." They used the exact same test everyone else uses, played by the same rules, and got that number. But that's all it is. A number. It is meant mainly for comparison to other vehicles, not as a guide to exactly how far you can drive your specific car on a charge.

Is the EPA testing methodology flawed? Perhaps. But that's an entirely different question. Some folks here seem to be implying Lucid is somehow lying by simply reporting the results of the test.

 

[GEWC]

Verizon offers "unlimited" data.

2 TB Hard drives actually only format to around 1.8 TB of usable space.

Netflix tells me my plan is 15.49 per month. My bill actually comes out to $16.09

There are about a gazillion examples of what gets advertised vs reality. Surely this is not a new concept for you?

Lucid never said "You will definitely get 520 miles every time you charge up your Dream Edition." They said "Up to 520 miles of EPA range. Actual results may vary." They used the exact same test everyone else uses, played by the same rules, and got that number. But that's all it is. A number. It is meant mainly for comparison to other vehicles, not as a guide to exactly how far you can drive your specific car on a charge.

Is the EPA testing methodology flawed? Perhaps. But that's an entirely different question. Some folks here seem to be implying Lucid is somehow lying by simply reporting the results of the test.

Hear hear.

 

[njg-agt]

@SDHacker We seem to agree that in this test measuring for less than 100=>0% battery range is different from measuring for 80ish=>somethingless% battery range. There are undoubtedly other variables that were not controlled for too... and the other reports of low efficiency no doubt also have many more uncontrolled variables. As the saying goes: YMWV - Your Mileage Will Vary.

 

[njg-agt]

@joec Beware, "TB" is often in one case in multiples of 1000 bytes = 1KB and the other case in multiples of 1024 bytes = 1KB... (K=1000 vs K=1024)... I don't think that particular one is creeping into this issue though.

 

[SaratogaLefty]

Something I noticed upon looking more closely at the spread sheet is the Trip A information shows the kwh used rounded. For instance if the actual miles traveled is correct and the resulting mi/kwh is also correct you can calculate the actual kwh used more accurately. Then for example, dividing the total miles by the mi/kwh shown for GEWC you find that the kwh used was actually 9.6, not 10. Same for the other cars. For our "short" 43 mile trip this does make a difference. The 19" wheels with "All Season" tires clearly achieved better range than the 21" wheels with the "sticky" tires which was not a surprise. Lastly, with her extensive "one pedal" driving experience, GEWC is clearly better at modulating her speed to maximize range. So we did achieve results that are consistent with Lucid recommendations that if range is your most important consideration get the 19" wheels and if maximum handling is your most important consideration get the 21" wheels and performance tires. This was a first effort by our small sample team and I for one am pleased with the results. My DEP with 21" wheels is supposed to get 451 miles of range from its 118kwh battery, or 3.8 mi/kwh and I actually got 3.6 mi/kwh. I can chalk that up most likely to the uphill portions using more power than was gained through High Regen on the downhill portions or perhaps I just need to learn to drive more efficiently. In any case, I am more in the Hydbob camp and really enjoy driving the car hard and fast. We are talking about doing another run hopefully with more participants in the near future for a longer and perhaps less hilly second experiment.

 

[joec]

@joec Beware, "TB" is often in one case in multiples of 1000 bytes = 1KB and the other case in multiples of 1024 bytes = 1KB... (K=1000 vs K=1024)... I don't think that particular one is creeping into this issue though.

True, but the effect is the same. People think they are buying 2TB of storage, then get upset at the inconsistency of the calculation.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Honest question: has ANYONE on this forum driven an Air GT or DER on 19” wheels non-stop on a pre-conditioned/just charged battery from 100% to 0% SOC? A lot of the range “disappointment” on here just sounds like making guess-work of your 80% - 20% drive. We have enough users getting above 4 mi/kWh to make these whole “Lucid doesn’t come anywhere close to EPA” claims not accurate.

 

[milgauss]

Lucid tech was out today (starting a separate thread with all my notes-- customer service was phenomenal):

* Tech's group has performed testing that shows that cars are calculating the INCORRECT VALUES FOR MI/KWH.
* "Since Last Charge" is especially wrong
* Trip A and B (if cleared immediately after charging) are better, but still not completely correct
* The mis-calculations are not consistent between cars
* They pulled all my car's data and everything was clean
* Tech says it will be addressed via OTA and to not worry about it as everything in my car's data looked good

Given this, I am going to ignore range till this is resolved. This does mean that those getting over 4.0 mi/kwh may actually be getting lower, and those of us in the high 2's/low 3's might actually be getting closer to 4. This is great news to me!

 

[hydbob]

Lucid tech was out today (starting a separate thread with all my notes-- customer service was phenomenal):

* Tech's group has performed testing that shows that cars are calculating the INCORRECT VALUES FOR MI/KWH.
* "Since Last Charge" is especially wrong
* Trip A and B (if cleared immediately after charging) are better, but still not completely correct
* The mis-calculations are not consistent between cars
* They pulled all my car's data and everything was clean
* Tech says it will be addressed via OTA and to not worry about it as everything in my car's data looked good

Given this, I am going to ignore range till this is resolved. This does mean that those getting over 4.0 mi/kwh may actually be getting lower, and those of us in the high 2's/low 3's might actually be getting closer to 4. This is great news to me!

You can still figure it out, just keep the display as % and use that with miles driven to arrive at the approximate mi/kwh

 

[milgauss]

You can still figure it out, just keep the display as % and use that with miles driven to arrive at the approximate mi/kwh

Assuming the % displayed is correct and also not incorrectly calculated.

 

[Bbq9]

OMG so true that statement is me. Exactly my point don’t charge me for 520 Miles and keep touting that efficiency of 4.1 Mi/KWH Without at least having an asterisk besides it .

What is making me buy it is that I have yet to hear one person say they hate how the Car Drives. Hopefully mine will be perfect and 520 Miles be damned.

we have plenty of people who are achieving EPA or near EPA. some are actually exceeding EPA

and as I and others have said, achieving 80% of EPA makes absolutely no difference to how I drive / feel.
if DRIVING is important... buy it ... if range is specifically important, don't buy.

I LOVE the car. my WIFE loves the car.

my 11 year old daughter prefers our 1993 ford ranger

 

[milgauss]

We have enough users getting above 4 mi/kWh to make these whole “Lucid doesn’t come anywhere close to EPA” claims not accurate.

That is sorta like saying, "my car doesn't leak; therefore, all Lucid's do not leak." I have never disputed that a properly functioning vehicle performs correctly relative to EPA. What I have been trying to figure out is why do some cars seem to be lower performing than others? Turns out, there is a difference... the calculations are wrong.

(EDIT: I am going to end all my posts with, "UPDATE: still love the car" )

 

[SaratogaLefty]

So here is the reality for me. When we did this range test drive I purposely took my wife along and drove very sedately to see what range my car could really get. Before the test my car was consistently in the 2.7 mi/kwh range. But I was driving the car the way I like to drive it; accelerating quickly on the onramps to the freeway; driving quickly on curvy roads; blowing away the Audi R8 or Porsche 911 Turbo who came up at the light and signaled they wanted to go! Now I think I need to find a balance so I don't wind up with a significant citation.

 

[hydbob]

Assuming the % displayed is correct and also not incorrectly calculated.

True...so the only way to really know is go 100-0 SOC and see how many miles you traveled lol

 

[milgauss]

True...so the only way to really know is go 100-0 SOC and see how many miles you traveled lol

I think another possible way would be to record how many kwh the EA charger says it delivered. Then, use the EPA's kwh per 100 miles number (which includes the charging loss). For now, I am just going to assume my car is working perfectly .

 

[Sam6062]

we have plenty of people who are achieving EPA or near EPA. some are actually exceeding EPA

and as I and others have said, achieving 80% of EPA makes absolutely no difference to how I drive / feel.
if DRIVING is important... buy it ... if range is specifically important, don't buy.

I LOVE the car. my WIFE loves the car.

my 11 year old daughter prefers our 1993 ford ranger

LOL@ Ford Ranger. Thanks for that input.

 

[njg-agt]

@milgauss I thought there are charging overheads that mean the #kwh delivered to the battery are less than those metered/reported out... knowing which #s are real seems to be at the center of this whole issue... and a bit definitual too... ;-)

 

[milgauss]

@milgauss I thought there are charging overheads that mean the #kwh delivered to the battery are less than those metered/reported out... knowing which #s are real seems to be at the center of this whole issue... and a bit definitual too... ;-)

I think it would work like this:

EPA for GT w/ 21" is 28 kwh per 100 miles-- for 469 total EPA miles, that multiplies out to be a 131 kwh battery so there is approx. 15% in charging losses for the GT's sctual 112 kwh battery). You could then take whatever the EA charger says you charged, the number of miles you drove, and the 15% charging loss to calculate out a mi/kwh. Or, wait for the OTA lol.

 

[hydbob]

I think it would work like this:

EPA for GT w/ 21" is 28 kwh per 100 miles-- for 469 total EPA miles, that multiplies out to be a 131 kwh battery so there is approx. 15% in charging losses for the GT's sctual 112 kwh battery). You could then take whatever the EA charger says you charged, the number of miles you drove, and the 15% charging loss to calculate out a mi/kwh. Or, wait for the OTA lol.

What fun would that be? We need at least another 5 pages of going back and forth about this issue

 

[Adnillien]

I think it would work like this:

EPA for GT w/ 21" is 28 kwh per 100 miles-- for 469 total EPA miles, that multiplies out to be a 131 kwh battery so there is approx. 15% in charging losses for the GT's sctual 112 kwh battery). You could then take whatever the EA charger says you charged, the number of miles you drove, and the 15% charging loss to calculate out a mi/kwh. Or, wait for the OTA lol.

Except the EPA charging losses are based on level 2 charging, not DC fast charging. Hence, the charging losses will be different.