Is Lucid nerfing power output?

[exxxviii]

Ok, but this doesnt rule out software limiting torque output?

Correct, it only rules out tire traction limitations as an acceleration constraint.

They could be capping max torque or delaying arrival of max torque, which would limit acceleration. For most BEVs, the acceleration is very linear from 0 MPH until around 45-50 MPH. Then the rate of acceleration will start to curve downward more as torque declines while drag continues to increase. You can easily see if Lucid is limiting early torque delivery by a non-linear acceleration graph in the early MPH ranges.

 

[knewman]

I wish we could get the Sapphire wheels/tires/suspension on the AGT. I don't really need tri-motor power, but would love stickier/wider tires and a tighter suspension for the twisties. I've gotten my AGT to slide more times than I care to admit on the stock summers.

You can purchase the Michelin PS4s spec'd on the Sapphire for your GT. Better, non-EV rubber will make more of a difference than anything.

 

[037]

In general, smaller rim diameter should help. Going to a 19" or 18" lightweight wheel with more sidewall flex should help acceleration/rotational intertia. The higher the diameter, usually the worse performance. Only problem is you need to clear the brakes..

Correct, it only rules out tire traction limitations as an acceleration constraint.

They could be capping max torque or delaying arrival of max torque, which would limit acceleration. For most BEVs, the acceleration is very linear from 0 MPH until around 45-50 MPH. Then the rate of acceleration will start to curve downward more as torque declines while drag continues to increase. You can easily see if Lucid is limiting early torque delivery by a non-linear acceleration graph in the early MPH ranges.

Here are some graphs for your maths

 

[037]

You can purchase the Michelin PS4s spec'd on the Sapphire for your GT. Better, non-EV rubber will make more of a difference than anything.

F1 Assymetric 6 rated better than PS4, using them now on 22/23 in 275/295 and moving to 315 in September

 

[The_Don]

You can purchase the Michelin PS4s spec'd on the Sapphire for your GT. Better, non-EV rubber will make more of a difference than anything.

I thought the Sapphire switched to Trofeos?

Edit: In either case, I'm on a lease that's ending in January. I wish it came stock!

 

[exxxviii]

Here are some graphs for your maths

Those are great... which model is that Dream Edition, Grand Touring, or Touring. A while ago I made a little table comparing all the cars I have been shopping. The interesting thing about the Gravitys is their high motor RPM and low gear ration which allows both high top speed and high acceleration. But you can see the impacts of the motor configurations in this table and how that affects acceleration.

Depending which model you tested, you would expect to see acceleration fall off around 50-60 MPH, which seems to show on the quarter run. Also, the acceleration line is kind of jaggedy, but it does not look like they are limiting torque early on.

 

[knewman]

I thought the Sapphire switched to Trofeos?

Edit: In either case, I'm on a lease that's ending in January. I wish it came stock!

Certainly possible that they did switch. My point is, changing the tire compound is cheap and will make more of a difference than chucking the entire suspension.

 

[tmichael]

Engineers do. It is not exact, but it gives you insights into a theoretical boundary. Alternatively, you could look at lateral acceleration as another proxy. C&D tested the gravity at 0.90g lateral acceleration. Again, more traction than acceleration Gs. The car simply does not have the torque to do it any faster. Tires are not the limitation.

So, basically my 7 passenger "SUV" corners around .90g with street tires.

What a wonderful world we live in!

Dream Ahead!

 

[037]

So, basically my 7 passenger "SUV" corners around .90g with street tires.

What a wonderful world we live in!

Dream Ahead!

Only the summer tires…the other two tires suck for anything requiring hard braking or cornering.

 

[037]

Those are great... which model is that Dream Edition, Grand Touring, or Touring. A while ago I made a little table comparing all the cars I have been shopping. The interesting thing about the Gravitys is their high motor RPM and low gear ration which allows both high top speed and high acceleration. But you can see the impacts of the motor configurations in this table and how that affects acceleration.

Depending which model you tested, you would expect to see acceleration fall off around 50-60 MPH, which seems to show on the quarter run. Also, the acceleration line is kind of jaggedy, but it does not look like they are limiting torque early on.
View attachment 40048

My data is for a GT, Dream runs mid 10s

 

[037]

More data, if you like to dig into splits

 

[exxxviii]

More data, if you like to dig into splits

Here are a couple fun little charts interpolated from your data and interpreted from the Gravity motor and transmission specs.

The first chart is the acceleration rate as a function of speed. The 0-10 MPH segment is off, but that is most likely because it has rollout removed, and that inflates the calculated acceleration rate. If you add back the 0.1 to 0.2 seconds for rollout, it looks a little more normal. The gist is that the rate of acceleration is probably flat until around 50 MPH.

Your 0-60 ft split is an outlier from other data points, but that is probably because it includes rollout. That segment only averages 0.53 Gs.

Then this chart is the estimation of torque and horsepower as a function of speed. The key inflection point is 49 MPH, where Horsepower reaches its peak but Torque slopes downward.

So, basically my 7 passenger "SUV" corners around .90g with street tires.

What a wonderful world we live in!

Haha, yep. The performance is utterly psychotic.

 

[037]

60ft data to correct whatever was assumed

 

[exxxviii]

60ft data to correct whatever was assumed

That is not what I expected to see at all. It looks like the first chart is saying it reached 60' at 21.84 MPH. Doing the math two different ways, that is 0.53 g, much lower than what is showing on the acceleration line in the chart above. I thought that the 1.87 second split actually included rollout. The earlier table is showing 10-30 MPH much quicker than 0-21.84 MPH. Ditto 0-10 MPH, that is much quicker as well.

Those 0-60 ft splits do not appear to be consistent with the other data from the app.

The one key observation from the chart itself is that rate of acceleration appears to be dead-flat from near-0 to the right side. You only see a very short jerk torque transition (ft/sec^3) at the very start of the run.

This table shows the Gs for each split from your original table way above. As you can see, the 0-60ft is a major anomaly. That segment should have had a split in the 0.9g range. There is no way it could have taken 1.87 seconds to get to 60' at 21.84 MPH if it only took 1.58 seconds to get to 30 MPH.

 

[037]

That is not what I expected to see at all. It looks like the first chart is saying it reached 60' at 21.84 MPH. Doing the math two different ways, that is 0.53 g, much lower than what is showing on the acceleration line in the chart above. I thought that the 1.87 second split actually included rollout. The earlier table is showing 10-30 MPH much quicker than 0-21.84 MPH. Ditto 0-10 MPH, that is much quicker as well.

Those 0-60 ft splits do not appear to be consistent with the other data from the app.

The one key observation from the chart itself is that rate of acceleration appears to be dead-flat from near-0 to the right side. You only see a very short jerk torque transition (ft/sec^3) at the very start of the run.

This table shows the Gs for each split from your original table way above. As you can see, the 0-60ft is a major anomaly. That segment should have had a split in the 0.9g range. There is no way it could have taken 1.87 seconds to get to 60' at 21.84 MPH if it only took 1.58 seconds to get to 30 MPH.
View attachment 40056

Gravity has a very gentle launch for the amount of power that it has. I have done a 1.82 second 60ft in a vehicle with half the power at 4700lb.

 

[exxxviii]

Gravity has a very gentle launch for the amount of power that it has. I have done a 1.82 second 60ft in a vehicle with half the power at 4700lb.

It’s not a question of soft launch. Those two 60’ data points are wrong. They do not match other surrounding data points. The split times shown at the bottom do not match the acceleration graph at the top.

 

[037]

It’s not a question of soft launch. Those two 60’ data points are wrong. They do not match other surrounding data points. The split times shown at the bottom do not match the acceleration graph at the top.

Ok…blaming the data when your math doesn’t math…I guess I can provide some track slips too.

 

[037]

Island Dragway, NJ from May 4, 2026

 

[exxxviii]

Ok…blaming the data when your math doesn’t math…I guess I can provide some track slips too.

No. Math and physics are quite simple. In that table you posted above, the 60’ time and the 0-30 times are incompatible. The 60’ split is at 21 MPH, right? They both cannot be true. Unless I am misreading something, and feel free to clarify what is presented, one of those two is wrong. The fact that the 10 MPH, 30 MPH, 50 MPH, etc. data points all align, the 60’ split is wrong. It is simply impossible. Your unrelated track slips are irrelevant.

 

[exxxviii]

Ok…blaming the data when your math doesn’t math…I guess I can provide some track slips too.

I figured it out. Your app is showing the incorrect trap speed at 60'. It should be around 44 MPH. This is the corrected table ignoring the bad trap speed. The app has a defect. Bad data, not bad math. The math always maths.