Is something wrong? 90% == 293 miles

[raleighone]

Okay, I just went and did a quick test drive and looked more closely as to this confusion. There is a numerical discrepancy between what Dynamic Range shows on the dash versus when you go into the settings.

I only did a bit over 20 miles and my entire drive the dash DR read 2.8. (Now, per the info in settings, it says "last 10 miles are most heavily weighted" to determine DR so a longer test would help figure this out better--would numbers ever even?) It ticked up .1 and then down .1 over the course of my drive but finished at 2.88. However, when I went to the "Since Last Charge" screen in settings, it showed my last trip as 3.53.

So, I'm guessing this is why some are getting wildly different numbers when they go to the "Since Last Charge" screen. Which one is more accurate? To me, I don't care about what I got after the fact. The one on-screen seems to be the one to really tell me how many miles I'll get. I've got nearly 25,000 miles on my Gravity and drove it all over the country in different conditions and can definitely say, there is ZERO chance of my car getting "over 490 miles" on a full charge unless it's downhill at 30 mph. lol

Any thoughts on this difference in numbers?

 

[Aka-none]

Wow! You've gotta tell us more about what kind of speeds and conditions you're driving in to achieve that range. People's efficiency reports vary a lot, but yours is the highest I've seen, by a significant margin.

Agreed because that’s beating my AGT at 55-60 during a pleasant summer day. My best has been 3.75 over a 300 mile trip

 

[Aka-none]

Okay, I just went and did a quick test drive and looked more closely as to this confusion. There is a numerical discrepancy between what Dynamic Range shows on the dash versus when you go into the settings.

I only did a bit over 20 miles and my entire drive the dash DR read 2.8. (Now, per the info in settings, it says "last 10 miles are most heavily weighted" to determine DR so a longer test would help figure this out better--would numbers ever even?) It ticked up .1 and then down .1 over the course of my drive but finished at 2.88. However, when I went to the "Since Last Charge" screen in settings, it showed my last trip as 3.53.

So, I'm guessing this is why some are getting wildly different numbers when they go to the "Since Last Charge" screen. Which one is more accurate? To me, I don't care about what I got after the fact. The one on-screen seems to be the one to really tell me how many miles I'll get. I've got nearly 25,000 miles on my Gravity and drove it all over the country in different conditions and can definitely say, there is ZERO chance of my car getting "over 490 miles" on a full charge unless it's downhill at 30 mph. lol

Any thoughts on this difference in numbers?

Ever drive a car with a vacuum gauge? That dynamic number is like your vacuum gauge. So can drive at 70 with a high or low vacuum but you will burn more fuel at the low vacuum with o increase in speed, just more fuel. So modulate your go pedal to go the same speed but use a bit less fuel,
But you still calculate your mpg based on the entire tank not that 3 miles you did downhill.

 

[Hammerthyme]

Did Lucid implement the range shown in the car differently between the Air and the Gravity? Air does not do dynamic range as far as I know. I have always seen the same no when I charge to 80%.

The Lucid Air only showed the EPA estimate for reference. Gravity added dynamic efficiency, based on your recent miles driven, so they could provide a dynamic range that was more accurate than what the EPA estimate provides. You can change settings to have Gravity show %SOC, dynamic range, or EPA estimated range. When Air got the UX3 update (v2.11) we were surprised dynamic range didn't come with it. That should be strictly a software thing.

 

[Hammerthyme]

Okay, I just went and did a quick test drive and looked more closely as to this confusion. There is a numerical discrepancy between what Dynamic Range shows on the dash versus when you go into the settings.

I only did a bit over 20 miles and my entire drive the dash DR read 2.8. (Now, per the info in settings, it says "last 10 miles are most heavily weighted" to determine DR so a longer test would help figure this out better--would numbers ever even?) It ticked up .1 and then down .1 over the course of my drive but finished at 2.88. However, when I went to the "Since Last Charge" screen in settings, it showed my last trip as 3.53.

So, I'm guessing this is why some are getting wildly different numbers when they go to the "Since Last Charge" screen. Which one is more accurate? To me, I don't care about what I got after the fact. The one on-screen seems to be the one to really tell me how many miles I'll get. I've got nearly 25,000 miles on my Gravity and drove it all over the country in different conditions and can definitely say, there is ZERO chance of my car getting "over 490 miles" on a full charge unless it's downhill at 30 mph. lol

Any thoughts on this difference in numbers?

The numbers in Setting/Tripometer are simple math, based on driving that has already occurred. Since last charge you drove 33 miles and consumed 11 kWh of electricity; your efficiency is therefore 3.0 miles per kWh.

Dynamic range is calculated from a "dynamic efficiency estimate" multiplied by how many kWh are remaining in the battery pack. That dynamic range efficiency is guesswork, based on what you've been getting recently and, I think, some conservatism on Lucid's part. If the dynamic range is wrong, they'd rather you get unexpectedly more miles than unexpectedly less miles.

On my Gravity the calculated trip efficiency is usually about 0.2 more than what dynamic range estimated.

 

[raleighone]

The numbers in Setting/Tripometer are simple math, based on driving that has already occurred. Since last charge you drove 33 miles and consumed 11 kWh of electricity; your efficiency is therefore 3.0 miles per kWh.

Dynamic range is calculated from a "dynamic efficiency estimate" multiplied by how many kWh are remaining in the battery pack. That dynamic range efficiency is guesswork, based on what you've been getting recently and, I think, some conservatism on Lucid's part. If the dynamic range is wrong, they'd rather you get unexpectedly more miles than unexpectedly less miles.

On my Gravity the calculated trip efficiency is usually about 0.2 more than what dynamic range estimated.

I get all that...but still trying to get my head around OP's "over 490 miles." Wherever they are getting those numbers, I can't believe they are accurate, at lease compared to my car.

I think people here comparing numbers are possibly using two different sources that may not be the same...and thus the confusion.

 

[dbsb3233]

I get all that...but still trying to get my head around OP's "over 490 miles." Wherever they are getting those numbers, I can't believe they are accurate, at lease compared to my car.

I think people here comparing numbers are possibly using two different sources that may not be the same...and thus the confusion.

Yeah, unless his average drive speed is 30 MPH with virtually nothing over 60, those 3.8 and 4.2 figures seem way out of whack. (Unless he has it on km instead of miles. )

Like others said, the trip meter is real. It's what actual happened. The Dynamic range number is just an estimated projection, assuming similar driving and conditions to recent miles. Always take it with a grain of salt.

The one that I'm unclear on is the Efficiency (mi/kWh) number. I don't know how long it measures. Maybe that's the average of the last 10 miles, as referenced above? It has to have a modestly long horizon or else it would jump around much faster than it does, especially measured in 100ths.

And it really doesn't seem very accurate.

 

[The_Don]

I have a gravity grand touring and I'm at ~300 miles of dynamic range on a full charge

 

[The_Don]

Forgot to add important context: I'm on the smallest wheels, but I swapped in max performance summer tires. That probably gives you an idea of the kind of driving I'm doing...

 

[joec]

Dynamic Range is a bit of a mystery to me. I find both the efficiency number and the miles remaining to be lower than what I can actually get. Certainly lower than what my efficiency since last charge suggests.

And it's not all that dynamic, either. It's not just the past ten or twenty minutes of your driving. It seems to take a while to have a positive influence on it.

So I generally ignore it.

The calculation from the native nav seems to be pretty good, as far as I can tell. Which is the most important thing. If it tells me I'll reach my destination at 17%, I will usually end up getting there at 17% or 16%. And it updates while I drive, so if I'm being heavy footed, I'll get a realistic view of the damage I'm doing to my efficiency.


As far as Gravity and efficiency goes: I agree with many here who struggle to get over the 3.0 mark. Granted, I have the mid-sized wheels, and I only have a Touring. But I'm seeing 2.6 at best when I'm driving relatively tamely. I have gotten over 3.2 a few times, but only when stuck in super slow, steady traffic.

 

[joec]

My Air Touring, on the other hand, had a lifetime average over 3.2. And that's with me making no effort at all to drive slow, with the exception of longer road trips.

I got over 4.0 several times in that car. The weight and extra drag really hurt the Gravity quite a bit. It would be less of a problem if Lucid did what every one else does, and stuffed a giant battery into Gravity. But the Touring's battery is actually SMALLER than the Air Touring's battery. So it does do better than most in the category, as far as range per kilowatt hour.

 

[illopp00]

I've never reset Trip B. Over the 10 months we've owned our Gravity GT we've averaged 2.98 miles/kWh. Ours is the 5-seater with 21"/22" wheels, so I think EPA is 407. Taking our average of 2.98 times the 123 kwH battery pack, we're looking at 367 miles of range. Kind of disappointing, to be honest, but it is what it is. We don't drive it hard, but do a lot of short trips, mostly rural roads and highways, with occasional long road trips at 70mph.

Note: The tire pressure display on the dash always read 42 psi. When I put an actual tire gauge on them, they were mostly 38 psi. Not sure how much of a difference that might make.

Yeah I've found the tire pressure calculation is off by a couple PSI. But I went down the rabbit hole with the accuracy of tire pressure monitors, or the feedback on the electronic air compressor I have and adjusted my pressures up by about 2 PSI from the displays. It definitely will help efficiency a bit. But speed and HVAC is the biggest effect.

 

[joec]

Yeah I've found the tire pressure calculation is off by a couple PSI. But I went down the rabbit hole with the accuracy of tire pressure monitors, or the feedback on the electronic air compressor I have and adjusted my pressures up by about 2 PSI from the displays. It definitely will help efficiency a bit. But speed and HVAC is the biggest effect.

PSI sensors in tires are not accurate. They just aren't. Cheap, $2 parts that were added to cars for regulatory reasons. Meant more to tell you when pressure is dangerously low, not to give you an accurate number.

Measure with your air compressor and trust that. And always measure cold.

 

[illopp00]

PSI sensors in tires are not accurate. They just aren't. Cheap, $2 parts that were added to cars for regulatory reasons. Meant more to tell you when pressure is dangerously low, not to give you an accurate number.

Measure with your air compressor and trust that. And always measure cold.

I am not convinced they are even pressure sensors in the Gravity, they are inferred calculations from wheel speed sensors, over a trip I go from 42 cold to 48 on the highway. Which is why it says drive 20mph to get a reading. I believe some of it based on tire temperatures increasing. But the point is it's very easy to be driving on 2-5 PSI low tires without knowing it unless you are very sensitive to how it feels.

 

[dbsb3233]

My Air Touring, on the other hand, had a lifetime average over 3.2. And that's with me making no effort at all to drive slow, with the exception of longer road trips.

I got over 4.0 several times in that car. The weight and extra drag really hurt the Gravity quite a bit. It would be less of a problem if Lucid did what every one else does, and stuffed a giant battery into Gravity. But the Touring's battery is actually SMALLER than the Air Touring's battery. So it does do better than most in the category, as far as range per kilowatt hour.

The Air better get a lot higher efficiency number than the Gravity. Shouldn't even be close.