EPA vs real world range: maybe Gravity isn't so bad after all

[prgarg]

It's a tricky situation for Lucid... If they don't advertise the EPA range, they are at a disadvantage vs the other brands doing so; if they do, it leads to owners' disappointment and bad reviews on YouTube

 

[Brou]

Um, no they are not. Neither of them are claiming that their test is 'an EPA test'. Both of them are quite clear about it, and about what exactly they are testing, and the are doing it BECAUSE everyone knows that the EPA rated range/efficiency is useless to actual customers.

The only reason they mention EPA is to point out how useless/wrong the EPA rated range is for road trips - which is mostly the only time customers actually need to know what the full range is.

OOS is literally saying in the description that they're comparing their 70 mph hwy range test against the EPAs mixed city/hwy range results. In their words. "a full 70 mph steady- state highway range test to see how close it could get to Lucid's 450-mile EPA range claim!"

Car and Driver writes: "In our 75-mph highway range test, the iX3 managed 330 miles, 62 short of its EPA estimate. That’s a little disappointing but not entirely surprising"

They're both being dishonest and claiming to be disappointed by their skewed results. C&D claiming "62 short of its EPA estimate" when they know the EPA estimate is an entirely different test than the one they conducted is the same as OOS comparing their hwy results to a mix city/hwy estimate.

 

[exxxviii]

It's a tricky situation for Lucid... If they don't advertise the EPA range, they are at a disadvantage vs the other brands doing so; if they do, it leads to owners' disappointment and bad reviews on YouTube

It is definitely a marketing and brand placement decision... The EPA protocol allows automakers to add a "voluntary adjustment factor" on top of the standard adjustment factors determined by the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test. So, it looks like a lot of automakers choose to de-rate their EPA outcomes by 10% to 20%. This plays well in the court of public opinion when reviewers like OOS, C&D, MotorTrend, SoC, Consumer Reports, etc. are delighted to report their highway range tests that exceed the car's EPA range. On the other hand, it lowers the range they can brag about in their own marketing materials.

It looks like Lucid wants to focus its marketing on efficiency supremacy and high range, so it chooses not to de-rate (or de-rate very little) the range from its EPA testing. That enables Lucid to publish a higher range to brag about. But then the outside reviewers get much lower results in their highway range tests and they bash.

 

[Aka-none]

It's a tricky situation for Lucid... If they don't advertise the EPA range, they are at a disadvantage vs the other brands doing so; if they do, it leads to owners' disappointment and bad reviews on YouTube

Why? It’s the same methodology they are used to.

But yes it does make sense to have a different method for ev’s

 

[Aka-none]

It is definitely a marketing and brand placement decision... The EPA protocol allows automakers to add a "voluntary adjustment factor" on top of the standard adjustment factors determined by the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test. So, it looks like a lot of automakers choose to de-rate their EPA outcomes by 10% to 20%. This plays well in the court of public opinion when reviewers like OOS, C&D, MotorTrend, SoC, Consumer Reports, etc. are delighted to report their highway range tests that exceed the car's EPA range. On the other hand, it lowers the range they can brag about in their own marketing materials.

It looks like Lucid wants to focus its marketing on efficiency supremacy and high range, so it chooses not to de-rate (or de-rate very little) the range from its EPA testing. That enables Lucid to publish a higher range to brag about. But then the outside reviewers get much lower results in their highway range tests and they bash.

So about like the on time records for airlines

Hmmm

 

[TahoeMichael]

Not sure why the media reviews EV’s with the largest tires available? I think this review was based on an iX3 with 22 inch tires, which really hurt range. As someone who wants the most range possible, I would like to see reviews with the tires that offer the most potential range.

Yeah, I'm like you and value range over the aesthetics of large wheels. So I also like to see a range test with the more efficient wheels. But of course a lot of people seem to want the large wheels, since that's what they're going to buy.

 

[doubletwist]

OOS is literally saying in the description that they're comparing their 70 mph hwy range test against the EPAs mixed city/hwy range results. In their words. "a full 70 mph steady- state highway range test to see how close it could get to Lucid's 450-mile EPA range claim!"

Car and Driver writes: "In our 75-mph highway range test, the iX3 managed 330 miles, 62 short of its EPA estimate. That’s a little disappointing but not entirely surprising"

They're both being dishonest and claiming to be disappointed by their skewed results. C&D claiming "62 short of its EPA estimate" when they know the EPA estimate is an entirely different test than the one they conducted is the same as OOS comparing their hwy results to a mix city/hwy estimate.

I haven't figured out if you're being intentionally obtuse (aka trolling), or just really don't understand what they're saying. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about what OOS/C&D are saying or doing.

 

[TahoeMichael]

There's still plenty of valid blame for the EPA. First off, they shouldn't apply/require the old ICE methodology to EVs at all. That's the real problem. EPA methodology for ICE is fine. It's designed for ICE and it provides information pertinent to what people care about. The vast majority of consumers care about ICE MPG for cost purposes (fuel cost to drive). EPA cares about it for environmental purposes/policy.

NONE of that applies to EVs (or at least very little). What people care about for EVs is highway range, because DCFC charging is sparse and time-consuming and thus a concern (especially for newbies). Hardly anyone cares about city or combined range (most charge at home and have no concern about local range). It's HIGHWAY, HIGHWAY, HIGHWAY.

Applying ICE methodology to EVs never made any sense. It's comparing apples and oranges.

I'm going to quibble with that a little. EVs have been attractive to buy for people with a parking space where they can home charge, and those people are going to care more about highway range. But if we want to see EV adoption continuing to expand, there are going to be more and more people who don't have a convenient way to charge at home. Some of that can be addressed by policy changes (e.g. requiring apartment complexes to install chargers, installing curb-side chargers in residential neighborhoods, etc), but that category of EV owner is going to have an experience more like an ICE driver who needs to plan to go to a gas station, and then urban range will dictate how many days between hitting a charging station.

 

[Need4Sleep]

I'm going to quibble with that a little. EVs have been attractive to buy for people with a parking space where they can home charge, and those people are going to care more about highway range. But if we want to see EV adoption continuing to expand, there are going to be more and more people who don't have a convenient way to charge at home. Some of that can be addressed by policy changes (e.g. requiring apartment complexes to install chargers, installing curb-side chargers in residential neighborhoods, etc), but that category of EV owner is going to have an experience more like an ICE driver who needs to plan to go to a gas station, and then urban range will dictate how many days between hitting a charging station.

On the bright side, I've noticed that more recent apartment complexes do have provisions for owners to install their own chargers. Either that, or there are communal chargers.

I think the bigger challenge is the policy push to retrofit chargers to older apartment buildings.

 

[BS8899]

I'm going to quibble with that a little. EVs have been attractive to buy for people with a parking space where they can home charge, and those people are going to care more about highway range. But if we want to see EV adoption continuing to expand, there are going to be more and more people who don't have a convenient way to charge at home. Some of that can be addressed by policy changes (e.g. requiring apartment complexes to install chargers, installing curb-side chargers in residential neighborhoods, etc), but that category of EV owner is going to have an experience more like an ICE driver who needs to plan to go to a gas station, and then urban range will dictate how many days between hitting a charging station.

It is one thing to market a sleek sedan and a luxury SUV at $100k+/- ASP, it is a totally different take when you need to succeed in a larger market, $50,000 or less mid-size, with good specs and range, and be profitable.

Most of the Air/Gravity buyers have multiple cars and "don't mind" or at least "tolerate" extended or poor service. that won't work in the $50,000 (minus) market.

But Lucid needs to be relevant in the $50,000 market in order to have the volume to survive.

That, I think, is why the stock is @ $3.31 today!

 

[exxxviii]

So about like the on time records for airlines

Hmmm

Exactly perfect comparison. Airlines chasing an on time metric inflate flight times.