What's new
By:

Insanely good efficiency. Why?

E

EZEVDriver

Active Member

Verified Owner
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
219
Reaction score
212
Location
OC
Cars
Air Touring, Model X
Referral Code
T8ABP862
IMG_1362.webp

Ok, so it was under ideal conditions. No wind, 60-70 degree weather. Good traffic patterns, but no long stretches at 25-55. OC to LAX roundtrip, so 90% freeway traffic. 2023 Air Touring, 19 wheels. 69mph setting in ADAS. Light use of AC, but two suitcases and two passengers on the way back. (Ignore my Trip B, which I accidentally reset at 6k miles, so it's not a true lifetime measure. Oops.

But, still, it's not supposed to be this good. I've never seen it this good, although once I got 4.6 roundtrip to Santa Clarita. Any ideas why? Software updates? Ideal conditions only?
 
Nice efficiency. But how can your "since last charge" and "Trip A" have different efficiencies? You went the same distance and used the same amount of juice?
 
"Since last charge" includes power loss during the charging process.Trip A starts when you unplug and start your trip.
 
EZEVDriver said:
"Since last charge" includes power loss during the charging process.Trip A starts when you unplug and start your trip.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is more because (speculation) the trip a/b only measures energy usage while in gear, but SLC is from the moment of unplugging (both in & out of gear)... so stop, put it in park, open the trunk & pick up the passenger and boom, you have significantly different usage, which when rounded for display looks like the same number, but could be almost 1kw different.
 
EZEVDriver said:
View attachment 36076
Ok, so it was under ideal conditions. No wind, 60-70 degree weather. Good traffic patterns, but no long stretches at 25-55. OC to LAX roundtrip, so 90% freeway traffic. 2023 Air Touring, 19 wheels. 69mph setting in ADAS. Light use of AC, but two suitcases and two passengers on the way back. (Ignore my Trip B, which I accidentally reset at 6k miles, so it's not a true lifetime measure. Oops.

But, still, it's not supposed to be this good. I've never seen it this good, although once I got 4.6 roundtrip to Santa Clarita. Any ideas why? Software updates? Ideal conditions only?
Click to expand...

Makes no sense to me. At 100.7 miles and 4.88 mi/kwh, your 21 kWh usage would be 20.64 kWh, so that math works. Besides, rounding on the 21 kWh could only account for a difference of .2285 miles/kWh. Given that there's no elevation change between OC & LAX, I can see no reason why your mlies/kWh would be so much higher than you would expect. I could only guess that it's a software calculation error. - I originally followed that last sentence with a few snarky software comments, but then thought it best to delete them. :-)
 
EZEVDriver said:
Ignore my Trip B, which I accidentally reset at 6k miles, so it's not a true lifetime measure. Oops.
Click to expand...
Yup, having destructive change (reset, option value changes, etc) that are not guarded by a "really?" confirmation is pretty much a classic anti-pattern, especially when even getting too close to the screen (but not touching) can trigger the action (as well as the whole idea of a touch screen mounted on a moving object with a actuator (us) that is also moving (bump!)). Sorta like that old problem of "Ya know what I hate? I really hate it when I grab my earlobe with a pair of vice grips and pull really hard... I really hate it when I do that..." How many of these stories about <this & that> changed <some setting> when in fact it was just a silent "touch astray" to blame...
 
And SLC has a calc of 21.425kw... one rounds up to 21 & one rounds down to 21... it all works... too bad we don't get 2 digits of precision in these displays...
 
njg-agt said:
And SLC has a calc of 21.425kw... one rounds up to 21 & one rounds down to 21... it all works... too bad we don't get 2 digits of precision in these displays...
Click to expand...
Can't justify the bump from history via rounding on the 21 kWh. At 100.7 miles, 21.4999 kWh (rounds to 21) comes out at 4.68 miles/kWh, and 20.5 kWh (rounds to 21) comes out at 4.91 miles/lWh.
 
Buffalo Bob said:
Makes no sense to me. At 100.7 miles and 4.88 mi/kwh, your 21 kWh usage would be 20.64 kWh, so that math works. Besides, rounding on the 21 kWh could only account for a difference of .2285 miles/kWh. Given that there's no elevation change between OC & LAX, I can see no reason why your mlies/kWh would be so much higher than you would expect. I could only guess that it's a software calculation error. - I originally followed that last sentence with a few snarky software comments, but then thought it best to delete them. :-)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I assume there's a rounding issue in the calculation. Just took a screenshot, but both Trip A and Since Last Charge kws could be rounded, so Since Last Charge may equal 21.426 kwhs and Trip A may equal 20.6 (or thereabouts). Then the numbers work, even though they both display 21 kwhs. Maybe we should ask Lucid to add consistent precision to the display on miles, kwh, and mi/kwh.
 
Buffalo Bob said:
Makes no sense to me. At 100.7 miles and 4.88 mi/kwh, your 21 kWh usage would be 20.64 kWh, so that math works. Besides, rounding on the 21 kWh could only account for a difference of .2285 miles/kWh. Given that there's no elevation change between OC & LAX, I can see no reason why your mlies/kWh would be so much higher than you would expect. I could only guess that it's a software calculation error. - I originally followed that last sentence with a few snarky software comments, but then thought it best to delete them. :-)
Click to expand...
I've been getting really good efficiency in the past couple of months. Obviously, it's no longer summer and we almost never heat in the SoCal winter. I've been gettng 4.1-4.5 between charges (Trip A). So, it's really good, but not sooo crazy. What's crazy is that the efficiency is consistently higher now than it has been for prior winters. I was hoping someone would say "me, too," but not yet. The car had one other oddity. The original range was listed as 445, not 425 as was the then-EPA-rating. After almost three years, a full battery lists 422 miles range, which can't be true. So maybe some recalibration is causing exceptionally high mi/kwh now that is specific to this car.

And thanks for deleting snark. I have a very fragile ego. :)
 
EZEVDriver said:
I've been getting really good efficiency in the past couple of months. Obviously, it's no longer summer and we almost never heat in the SoCal winter. I've been gettng 4.1-4.5 between charges (Trip A). So, it's really good, but not sooo crazy. What's crazy is that the efficiency is consistently higher now than it has been for prior winters. I was hoping someone would say "me, too," but not yet. The car had one other oddity. The original range was listed as 445, not 425 as was the then-EPA-rating. After almost three years, a full battery lists 422 miles range, which can't be true. So maybe some recalibration is causing exceptionally high mi/kwh now that is specific to this car.
Click to expand...

As you may know, my Air Pure AWD is exactly the same car as your Touring, although mine is software limited to a lower HP rating. I found it interesting that your Trip B's14k miles at 3.74 miles/kWh is very close to mine. (Interesting how, unlike ICE cars, there seems to be an insignificant 'mileage' impact from higher performance unless you actually tap into it. I don't know about you, but I never get anywhere close to tapping the acceleration my car is capable of, and I seldom drive more than a few miles above the speed limit.) Anyway, I have noticed a recent noteworthy (although sporadic) improvement to my miles/kWh as well, with little to explain it. My guess is that some of the improvement is legit, and some is a change in the way these data are calculated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top