What's new
By:

Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?

Blue Lectroid

Blue Lectroid

Active Member
Verified Owner
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2024
Messages
242
Reaction score
401
Location
Hunterdon County, New Jersey
Cars
Air GT/Blue/SCruz/19"
I am relatively new to the Forum, so please forgive me if this has been pointed out / discussed before. I have seen a number of threads where owners discuss being disappointed with speed with which their Airs DC fast charge from one percentage to another (e.g. 20% SOC to 80% SOC). In many of these threads the time it takes to do so is compared to that of other brands (principally Tesla and Porsche). Paraphrasing, "It took me 45 minutes to go from 10% to 80% but on my Porsche that takes just 30 minutes." Stuff like that -- the implication being that the Lucid's DC fast charging speed is not all that great.

What I do not remember seeing being discussed is how long it takes to add a certain amount of range, rather than what percentage of the batteries are being filled? Isn't it much more relevant to pose a question like -- "from a given state of charge, how long does it take to add 200 miles of range?" Isn't that the real world relevance?

Interested in if this has been discussed elsewhere and, if not, why?
 
People seem hell bent on charging to 80% to 100% when they pull into a charger whether they need it or not. It’s gas station mentality.

A charging location should be looked at as “how much charge do you need to get to the next charger or destination”. When I drive to SF I usually leave home with 70% or 80%, charge at Kettleman City for 5 to 10 mins and move on. I arrive at SF with a relatively low SoC and then just top the vehicle up at the destination.

People have commented on why I’m in and out so quickly and I usually tell them “ because I don’t need anymore charge to get to my destination”. They seem surprised, while they’re usually in the 90% SoC range.

Dealers don’t do a good enough job of educating owners on charging and I don’t believe Lucid designed the car for you to be sitting at a charger for long periods of time. It seemed designed to pull in with a low SoC, charge fast for 15 mins and move on. Many people don’t seem to grasp that or simply aren’t comfortable running it down to a low SoC.
 
HC_79 said:
People seem hell bent on charging to 80% to 100% when they pull into a charger whether they need it or not. It’s gas station mentality.

A charging location should be looked at as “how much charge do you need to get to the next charger or destination”. When I drive to SF I usually leave home with 70% or 80%, charge at Kettleman City for 5 to 10 mins and move on. I arrive at SF with a relatively low SoC and then just top the vehicle up at the destination.

People have commented on why I’m in and out so quickly and I usually tell them “ because I don’t need anymore charge to get to my destination”. They seem surprised, while they’re usually in the 90% SoC range.

Dealers don’t do a good enough job of educating owners on charging and I don’t believe Lucid designed the car for you to be sitting at a charger for long periods of time. It seemed designed to pull in with a low SoC, charge fast for 15 mins and move on. Many people don’t seem to grasp that or simply aren’t comfortable running it down to a low SoC.
Click to expand...
Brilliant!! You put into words exactly what I was feeling and couldn’t clearly explain. That’s exactly the way I have always approached charging. How much is the minimum I need to get where I need to go? Not “Fill ‘er up, Tony!”
 
This is my first EV and I haven't done a lot of road trips. But I agree with @HC_79. That's pretty much how I approach charging away from home.

The only difference is whether the next stop is the next charger or my destination. I'm much more comfortable with only charging enough to get home than only charging enough to get to the next charger. There's still too many variables in charging infrastructure for me to have confidence that the next charger will be working and/or available when I arrive. If it's not working, that could be a huge problem. And if there's 5 cars already waiting, it might add an extra couple of hours to my trip because those 5 drivers probably want to charge to 100%. Checking the availability and functionality of the charger in advance only goes so far.

To the OP's point though, I agree it's more important to consider the miles added that the rate the battery % increases. But it's also not as objective for comparison purposes. I have found myself doing mental gymnastics at DCFC stations trying to figure out why another car's % is going up so fast and then realize that it's mostly because the battery is smaller so 1 kW for that car moves the needle more than 1 kW does in my car. Then I try to figure out how many miles each kW adds to the range of each car. Again, there's a whole lot of variability in anyone's mi/kWh from day to day and season to season.
 
Out of Spec does something called a 10% challenge. They start DC charging at 10% SOC, charge for 10 minutes, then drive 70 or 75 mph until back to 10% SOC and see how many miles they can go. I think this is an interesting metric on charging speed because it is about miles added in 10 minutes. If I messed up the exact test, I am sure that @Shane_SLC will correct me.
 
Halodde said:
This is my first EV and I haven't done a lot of road trips. But I agree with @HC_79. That's pretty much how I approach charging away from home.

The only difference is whether the next stop is the next charger or my destination. I'm much more comfortable with only charging enough to get home than only charging enough to get to the next charger. There's still too many variables in charging infrastructure for me to have confidence that the next charger will be working and/or available when I arrive. If it's not working, that could be a huge problem. And if there's 5 cars already waiting, it might add an extra couple of hours to my trip because those 5 drivers probably want to charge to 100%. Checking the availability and functionality of the charger in advance only goes so far.

To the OP's point though, I agree it's more important to consider the miles added that the rate the battery % increases. But it's also not as objective for comparison purposes. I have found myself doing mental gymnastics at DCFC stations trying to figure out why another car's % is going up so fast and then realize that it's mostly because the battery is smaller so 1 kW for that car moves the needle more than 1 kW does in my car. Then I try to figure out how many miles each kW adds to the range of each car. Again, there's a whole lot of variability in anyone's mi/kWh from day to day and season to season.
Click to expand...
Exactly…my new Air GT has a 118kWh pack and my previous Tesla M3P had a 78-ish kWh pack (I do not remember the exact number). Obviously I am “filling” a “tank” that’s over 1/3 larger and electrons only can flow so quickly. Couple that with the fact, at least in theory, that the 2025 Air GT is ALSO almost 10% more efficient in using those electrons than the M3P, and you can see why miles of range added per unit of time is a far more important real world yardstick that time from one SOC to another…
 
HC_79 said:
People seem hell bent on charging to 80% to 100% when they pull into a charger whether they need it or not. It’s gas station mentality.

A charging location should be looked at as “how much charge do you need to get to the next charger or destination”. When I drive to SF I usually leave home with 70% or 80%, charge at Kettleman City for 5 to 10 mins and move on. I arrive at SF with a relatively low SoC and then just top the vehicle up at the destination.

People have commented on why I’m in and out so quickly and I usually tell them “ because I don’t need anymore charge to get to my destination”. They seem surprised, while they’re usually in the 90% SoC range.

Dealers don’t do a good enough job of educating owners on charging and I don’t believe Lucid designed the car for you to be sitting at a charger for long periods of time. It seemed designed to pull in with a low SoC, charge fast for 15 mins and move on. Many people don’t seem to grasp that or simply aren’t comfortable running it down to a low SoC.
Click to expand...
This is why I can’t stand the charging threads; I agree with you completely.
 
EA has supposedly started limiting some of their charging stations to 85% SOC. Hopefully this will catch on and maybe all will implement this change soon.
 
I agree with everything said about putting kWh, range added, and % of battery into the equation, BUT.. If you want to use these data for comparison purposes, whether across brands or models, don't you HAVE to use the EPA's miles/kWh in order to have a consistent frame of reference? Tracking these data with your own miles/kWh will be quite valuable for your own edification, but how would comparisons ever work if the differences ranging across the spectrum between the slow-pokes and the speed-demons also come into the equation? Other comparison difficulties, such as temperature, wind, precipitation, elevation, etc. makes it hard enough to draw comparisons, without bringing in real world miles/kWh.
 
I agree that people are often comparing with ICE cars for 'filling up'. However, unlike many folks who travel between cities, my road trips are almost always to national parks or similar places. That means I will need to charge to 80% or beyond to keep enough buffer for driving around. And, then I have to avoid busy charger locations. So, a better charging curve is always a welcome update for my use case. Another important factor is having the ability to skip the next charger compared to a lower range EV. That gives me the freedom to stop wherever I want- say, a nice restaurant for healthy food rather than the taco bell next to EA station in Walmart.
 
Adnillien said:
Out of Spec does something called a 10% challenge. They start DC charging at 10% SOC, charge for 10 minutes, then drive 70 or 75 mph until back to 10% SOC and see how many miles they can go. I think this is an interesting metric on charging speed because it is about miles added in 10 minutes. If I messed up the exact test, I am sure that @Shane_SLC will correct me.
Click to expand...
Charging duration is 15 minutes and speed is 80 mph (GPS verified). The rest is correct. 😁

On the topic of this discussion, miles of rated range added per minute an certainly be a useful metric to be aware of, as charging speed alone doesn't tell the whole story. However, as your speed increases, or as other factors such as weather and elevation come into play, the rated range becomes less relevant, and higher charging speeds play a larger role. I, personally, don't see anywhere near the rated range for my car, but I do drive fast and in suboptimal conditions much of the time. For me, better charging speeds and a better curve would be beneficial, but it is debatable how much of a benefit it would even be, and not all Lucid owners travel the same way I do. 🙂
 
Blue Lectroid said:
I am relatively new to the Forum, so please forgive me if this has been pointed out / discussed before. I have seen a number of threads where owners discuss being disappointed with speed with which their Airs DC fast charge from one percentage to another (e.g. 20% SOC to 80% SOC). In many of these threads the time it takes to do so is compared to that of other brands (principally Tesla and Porsche). Paraphrasing, "It took me 45 minutes to go from 10% to 80% but on my Porsche that takes just 30 minutes." Stuff like that -- the implication being that the Lucid's DC fast charging speed is not all that great.

What I do not remember seeing being discussed is how long it takes to add a certain amount of range, rather than what percentage of the batteries are being filled? Isn't it much more relevant to pose a question like -- "from a given state of charge, how long does it take to add 200 miles of range?" Isn't that the real world relevance?

Interested in if this has been discussed elsewhere and, if not, why?
Click to expand...
I agree with your premise. For your framework to be useful, the range used needs to be a practically achievable range, i.e., the convolution of a credible efficiency/range rating, battery size, and charging rate, not an EPA rating that is rarely achievable on actual road tripping. Driving on realively flat country roads in nice weather from Newark to San Luis Obisbo at an avg of 60 mph or so is not representative with most road tripping usage. I drove this same route recently, albeit in my Rivian R1S.

Comparing Tesla/Lucid, both of these brands use a different (less stringent) EPA test cycle and charing curves that are optimize for fast initial peak charging, to other competitors (e.g., Porsche, Ionique, etc.) which use a more stringent EPA test cycle and mostly meet/exceed those efficiency benchmarks, and also have flatter charge curves, you don't get a realisic comparison.

Additionally, if you look at Lucid's charging performance, it varies signficatly between the dfferent trims because of the battery sizes and the battery capacity.

While there were many modulating factors, you see the the aggregation of all of the above factors manifest themselves in the OoS I-90 Surge. What was your conclusion from the OoS surge?

None of these are real mysteries. Many reviewer, review-sites have already looked at these parameters.

If you taake all of these parameters in the proper context, my feeling is that Lucid's higher trims (e.g., the AGT) is still likely the leader in accordance of your metrice. That said, I also think, per your metrics, Lucid's AGT lead over the competition is much less than the claim.

What the informed EV buyer wnat is what is achievable range and how much time (relaistically) they need to spend on charging stops, not just unrealistic marketing metrics.
 
sdlucid said:
I agree that people are often comparing with ICE cars for 'filling up'. However, unlike many folks who travel between cities, my road trips are almost always to national parks or similar places. That means I will need to charge to 80% or beyond to keep enough buffer for driving around. And, then I have to avoid busy charger locations. So, a better charging curve is always a welcome update for my use case. Another important factor is having the ability to skip the next charger compared to a lower range EV. That gives me the freedom to stop wherever I want- say, a nice restaurant for healthy food rather than the taco bell next to EA station in Walmart.
Click to expand...
Yet another nice thing about a trip to the Grand Canyon. EA has six 350 kW chargers at the South Rim Visitor Center.
 
BS8899 said:
Comparing Tesla/Lucid, both of these brands use a different (less stringent) EPA test cycle
Click to expand...
It is *more* stringent. It is also more expensive. The intent was for it to be more representative of real-world use, not to be more favorable to the manufacturers.

The *new* EPA ratings are supposedly more accurate; I’m hopeful Gravity (and others) meet them more regularly, but that remains to be seen.
 
One thing to point out here is how the Air can only charge at 50 kW when connected to a 400V charger.

The Gravity has a solution for that issue, although they have not revealed what that is. They are probably using the rear motor similar to how Hyundai does it. I am hoping we see 150 kW+ on 400V chargers in the Gravity.

Meanwhile, if you need a fast charge, make sure it is a 1000V charger. The Tesla SC V3 chargers are 400V, so those will be slow for the Air.

Personally, I don't like the miles added approach. It rolls too many variables into a metric that is supposed to be about charging speed. For example, range is heavily dependent on how you drive and the weather. WTH does adding 100 miles in 10 minutes mean when you have not considered your driving speed and the weather? Nothing. I prefer actual amount of energy delivered in a period of time, and then I do the math to see what that means for how I plan to drive the car. Just my two cents.
 
I guess I don't worry enough. I typically wait until less than 10% to stop to charge when road tripping and add just enough to get to next stop or destination with ~10%. Have only been burned once. A month after getting the car (my first EV) I stopped in Kingston NY with 30 miles range left. It was 17 degrees F outside and 4am. EA station was not working. EA directed me to across the bridge to a station in Red Hook. Turned out to be a Tesla station. I then used Plug Share to find a 50kw ChargePoint 3 miles up the road. Got there with around 10 mile of range.
Charged 30 minutes (25kw) so I'd have enough to get to the next higher speed station in Albany (40 miles away).
Still don't stop until less than 10% charge, still only charge enough to get to next stop. Life is too short to worry about charging.
 
borski said:
It is *more* stringent. It is also more expensive. The intent was for it to be more representative of real-world use, not to be more favorable to the manufacturers.

The *new* EPA ratings are supposedly more accurate; I’m hopeful Gravity (and others) meet them more regularly, but that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
What is "more expesive"? The one-time EPA test?

If so, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Are you saying, Lucid (and Tesla), used the less strigent (lowr cost) EPA test cycle, just to save money? It is a "one-time" expense, right?

Doesn't pass my smell test!
 
BS8899 said:
What is "more expesive"? The one-time EPA test?

If so, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Are you saying, Lucid (and Tesla), used the less strigent (lowr cost) EPA test cycle, just to save money? It is a "one-time" expense, right?

Doesn't pass my smell test!
Click to expand...
The 5-cycle EPA test, which both Lucid and Tesla use, is more stringent, by definition. There are more cycles, more tests, and more time is needed to perform the testing. It was intended to be more realistic for everyday range; that obviously didn’t work out.

There is a new 5-cycle EPA methodology (or at least calculation) that is supposedly more accurate; that’s why the Air range has changed from launch.

The 2-cycle test, which the Korean and German manufacturers use, is less stringent. Fewer cycles, less time, etc. It is also much less expensive.

I know nothing about your olfactory senses and can’t comment on them. :P

But I can guarantee that at least the two major Korean manufacturers use the 2-cycle test because it is cheaper and they don’t want to spend more money on what they see as “a checkbox.” It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to be “more realistic” or “help the consumer.” My source is inside the manufacturer and I will not disclose.

You don’t have to believe me; that’s fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LucidDropkick
Beyond the Charging Curve: What Are Your Real-World DCFC Speeds?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
2K
borski
borski
C
Think there's any chance Lucid will improve the charging curve in future OTA updates?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
AwesoM
AwesoM
S
Charging Speeds on Lucid Air Touring
Replies
6
Views
2K
Andretex
Andretex
Cuestix
Optimal Power Output for Lucid Connected Home Charging Station?
Replies
4
Views
1K
lucidtouringman
lucidtouringman
Shane_SLC
Possible heat-related charging issue?
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Adnillien
Adnillien
Back
Top