What's new
By:

Gravity efficiency is low for me

BS8899 said:
Have you tried driving your R1S in "conserve" mode? My experience with my R1S is, it can gain ~0.25 to 0.3 in efficiency. As you know, the R1S has several different instantiations (vis-a-vis, Quad, Tri, etc.) so the exact topology of the drive train under "Conserve" differ. Nevertheless, Rivian has published a bunch of graphs showing the realizable gains in efficiencies. When I drive on long distance road trips with my Rivian, I use the "Conserve" mode. I don't think it will beat the Gravity's efficiency. But it can get to about 2.5 (70-75 mph), which is not too shabby for a heavy off-road vehicle.
Click to expand...
Ron_Burgundy said:
I have. It’s a 10% gain in rated miles but as with most EVs, whack 20% from that to get it to be accurate. So it’s a 7.5% gain in conserve.

That said, the R1S has a totally different feel in conserve and it puts a bunch of strain on the two wheels that still use regen vs the “disconnected” ones.

Either way, I prefer the Gravity in all ways compared to our R1S but that’s for a different thread. I do find the Rivian has far less bugs.
Click to expand...

Today I drove 150 miles in my 2025 R1T Tri and averaged around 2.5 mi/kWh. The cruise was set to 81 (79 GPS) but I had some thick traffic that added significant regen. Average speed was 75. It was in Conserve, of course.

Just pointing out that my experience is similar. And Gravity should do much, much better.
 
Just tried the TeslaTap on an older Tesla destination charger and it's working on the Gravity.

Only getting 3kw, but I assume that's not because of the TeslaTap. They probably have these dialed down since they have 20+ in this parking garage.
 
Knucklehead said:
Today I drove 150 miles in my 2025 R1T Tri and averaged around 2.5 mi/kWh. The cruise was set to 81 (79 GPS) but I had some thick traffic that added significant regen. Average speed was 75. It was in Conserve, of course.

Just pointing out that my experience is similar. And Gravity should do much, much better.
Click to expand...
I agree Gravity should be better than the Rivian R1S/R1T. That said, most of the Gravity numbers I saw were coming in around 2.8 to3.0. That is 15-20% better than the Rivian. But is still short of Gravity's claims.

Meanwhile, OoS and others are saying the R2S is short of its claims (barely 300 vs a claim of 330 miles range). Allegedly, the R2S is doing similar things with EPA's 5-cycle projections, similar to Lucid and Tesla.

Why can't the EV manufacturers just tell us what the realistic range their vehicles can achieve (vis-a-vis, US hwy 70-75mph)? The achieve RANGE is most relevant when you are driving on long road trips on highways. The EPA 5-cycle tests with an average speed of 48 mph, is not particularly relevant.
 
BS8899 said:
I agree Gravity should be better than the Rivian R1S/R1T. That said, most of the Gravity numbers I saw were coming in around 2.8 to3.0. That is 15-20% better than the Rivian. But is still short of Gravity's claims.

Meanwhile, OoS and others are saying the R2S is short of its claims (barely 300 vs a claim of 330 miles range). Allegedly, the R2S is doing similar things with EPA's 5-cycle projections, similar to Lucid and Tesla.

Why can't the EV manufacturers just tell us what the realistic range their vehicles can achieve (vis-a-vis, US hwy 70-75mph)? The achieve RANGE is most relevant when you are driving on long road trips on highways. The EPA 5-cycle tests with an average speed of 48 mph, is not particularly relevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and so should cell phone makers! Using habits are the driving force for both...
 
BS8899 said:
[…] Why can't the EV manufacturers just tell us what the realistic range their vehicles can achieve (vis-a-vis, US hwy 70-75mph)? The achieve RANGE is most relevant when you are driving on long road trips on highways. The EPA 5-cycle tests with an average speed of 48 mph, is not particularly relevant.
Click to expand...
The EPA needs to address this. All the vehicle manufacturers follow the EPA standards. Even worse, there are multiple EPA standards that manufacturers can choose from, so we can’t even use EPA numbers to compare different vehicles if they used different tests.

The mistake we all make is expecting pure highway driving to come close to EPA, which is ridiculous when we think about it. The EPA range test is a mix of city and highway driving. Why would we expect city+highway range to be the same as pure highway? Apples and oranges.

When predicting range for highway driving at 70-75 mph, disregard the EPA rating - it’s useless. Use independent tests that show the results under pure highway driving conditions.

While we may be disappointed that we aren’t getting EPA range, we have to remember that both the Gravity and Air still boasts the longest range for vehicles in their class. For practical purposes, we are at the point where we need a biological pit stop before EV charging. When we do need to stop and charge, both the Air and Gravity have one of the fastest charging rates (at least, in the USA at appropriate chargers).
 
And that is why I track percent charge rather than miles and tweak my driving to make miles/kw a usable number to calculate current efficiency
And that’s why I’m playing with the raspberry pi so I can run a network inside the car and run homeassistant as I drive
I believe the pi will run off usb-c and I can use an iPad or kindle with VNC or https
All self contained and near enough real time for my purposes
 
Saksak said:
The EPA needs to address this. All the vehicle manufacturers follow the EPA standards. Even worse, there are multiple EPA standards that manufacturers can choose from, so we can’t even use EPA numbers to compare different vehicles if they used different tests.

The mistake we all make is expecting pure highway driving to come close to EPA, which is ridiculous when we think about it. The EPA range test is a mix of city and highway driving. Why would we expect city+highway range to be the same as pure highway? Apples and oranges.

When predicting range for highway driving at 70-75 mph, disregard the EPA rating - it’s useless. Use independent tests that show the results under pure highway driving conditions.

While we may be disappointed that we aren’t getting EPA range, we have to remember that both the Gravity and Air still boasts the longest range for vehicles in their class. For practical purposes, we are at the point where we need a biological pit stop before EV charging. When we do need to stop and charge, both the Air and Gravity have one of the fastest charging rates (at least, in the USA at appropriate chargers).
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with your points.

Abstracting your points;

> if human physiology is the limiting factor, a 3hr span@70-75mph, or 250mile range with fast charging would-be optimal, correct?!
> yet, EV manufactures are angling for 350+ miles range and manipulating EPA methodology and data to make their point.

I think blaming EPA is a cop-out!

to me, 250 miles range with highway speed and fast charging (say, 10-80% in 15min) is key!
 
You need to add into the mix that out West outside of urban areas the distances between recharging stations can add another 50-100 miles to needed range. I've had situations where I needed to stop for biological needs and the Gravity couldn't be recharged for quite a few miles. I'd prefer that than being out of electrons without a recharger in sight.
 
audiobear said:
You need to add into the mix that out West outside of urban areas the distances between recharging stations can add another 50-100 miles to needed range. I've had situations where I needed to stop for biological needs and the Gravity couldn't be recharged for quite a few miles. I'd prefer that than being out of electrons without a recharger in sight.
Click to expand...
I am "out West"!

While I grew up on the "East Coast", I lived in Oregon, California, and Arizona for the past 46 years!

Yes, the distance in the US WEST is further than on the East Coast. But 250 miles is still reasonable range unless you are in Montana or Wyoming.
 
I completely agree with you that the Gravity, and especially the Air, have more than enough range. This isn't a range problem as much as it is a lack of infrastructure issue. Once you get off interstates you can find places in CA, AZ, NV and UT at least, there may be others, where the distances between stations can be pretty big. If a station where you planned a stop isn't functioning, which happens when you're off the beaten track, that extra range really comes in handy.
 
BS8899 said:
I agree Gravity should be better than the Rivian R1S/R1T. That said, most of the Gravity numbers I saw were coming in around 2.8 to3.0. That is 15-20% better than the Rivian. But is still short of Gravity's claims.

Meanwhile, OoS and others are saying the R2S is short of its claims (barely 300 vs a claim of 330 miles range). Allegedly, the R2S is doing similar things with EPA's 5-cycle projections, similar to Lucid and Tesla.

Why can't the EV manufacturers just tell us what the realistic range their vehicles can achieve (vis-a-vis, US hwy 70-75mph)? The achieve RANGE is most relevant when you are driving on long road trips on highways. The EPA 5-cycle tests with an average speed of 48 mph, is not particularly relevant.
Click to expand...
Well, I could 100% get a 3.20+ going 72mph on a highway. I’ve done it a bunch. But it has to be fairly flat, good temps, weather, etc. Seems like 3.30 is where rated = dynamic in my 21/22” with seven 7 seats.

LucidTrackerApp says the “fleet average” is 2.73. Yes, I know it’s a small sample, but is 1,000 miles of driving a day, on average. Mine is personally about 3.00.

I am really content with the efficiency and find it’s far better than our R1S which is closer to 2.30. Again, depends on day, time, etc.

Manufacturers know 300+ miles is important to folks. IDK. Anyone buying an EV should know to whack the stated range by 20% at this point.
 
I'm at 2.70, lots of highway driving at 75-80, Touring 7-seater with 22/23 wheels. Wish it were higher, only because my dynamic range displayed is bringing back a bit of range anxiety (I'm sure I'll get over it), but we have no actual need for the larger GT battery pack and charge only once-twice a week anyway.

Our Kia EV9 was at 2.4 with the same driving patterns, which was surprisingly decent given its fairly boxy shape, and it had an extra 10kwh in the pack which evened the difference out.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Well, I could 100% get a 3.20+ going 72mph on a highway. I’ve done it a bunch. But it has to be fairly flat, good temps, weather, etc. Seems like 3.30 is where rated = dynamic in my 21/22” with seven 7 seats.

LucidTrackerApp says the “fleet average” is 2.73. Yes, I know it’s a small sample, but is 1,000 miles of driving a day, on average. Mine is personally about 3.00.

I am really content with the efficiency and find it’s far better than our R1S which is closer to 2.30. Again, depends on day, time, etc.

Manufacturers know 300+ miles is important to folks. IDK. Anyone buying an EV should know to whack the stated range by 20% at this point.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much of the LucidTrackerApp is also tilted towards Dream Edition vehicles, which I've learned and accepted that we get 0.2–0.3 fewer miles/kWh than even the GT.
 
allenmhc said:
I wonder how much of the LucidTrackerApp is also tilted towards Dream Edition vehicles, which I've learned and accepted that we get 0.2–0.3 fewer miles/kWh than even the GT.
Click to expand...
Great question. The app shows 121 GGT, 34 DE and 14 GT. Have no idea how many of those are actually syncing information regularly. No idea what wheel specs are except I guess GDE, right?

@HC_79 Is there a way to know more about the “fleet”? Again, realize it’s a small sample, but I still think it’s informative. Thanks for all you’ve done with the app!
 
BS8899 said:
Why can't the EV manufacturers just tell us what the realistic range their vehicles can achieve (vis-a-vis, US hwy 70-75mph)?
Click to expand...
Where? Alaska or CA?
When? What season?
At what elevation?
Etc.

We have standardized testing from the EPA specifically because it accounts for all of the factors associated with range. That there are two tests and that they aren’t accurate for your purposes (and maybe even most people’s, though I don’t have data for that) is beside the point.

Your issue is that you wish the EPA had more “realistic” standardized testing algorithms, and that there was one instead of two. I agree.

But no car company can or will tell you anything other than EPA, because that is, literally, the regulation.
 
Saksak said:
While we may be disappointed that we aren’t getting EPA range, we have to remember that both the Gravity and Air still boasts the longest range for vehicles in their class. For practical purposes, we are at the point where we need a biological pit stop before EV charging.
Click to expand...
This. People love to get worked up about not “hitting the number” but there is not another vehicle that gets longer range.

I seriously don’t understand why this isn’t more widely accepted; we compare vehicles based on their realistic range. EPA testing is not a direct proxy for that, but it is directly correlated, in that an EPA test that is higher will, on average, remain higher than another car tested under the same test that was lower. It doesn’t arbitrarily change across vehicles, aside from the two types of tests.

And even then, you can still compare them because we know the realistic numbers / percentages.

Should the EPA do this for you? Totally.

But that they don’t is well known, and not any manufacturers’ fault, and you should lobby them to fix it. Write to your representatives.

But can we please, please stop beating this horse <3
 
BS8899 said:
Not disagreeing with your points.

> yet, EV manufactures are angling for 350+ miles range and manipulating EPA methodology and data to make their point.
Click to expand...
No, they literally aren’t. Please stop repeating this. It isn’t true.

They are literally following the EPA methodology to the letter. They are not manipulating their algorithm at all. They are following it directly.

If they weren’t, it would not be approved.

BS8899 said:
I think blaming EPA is a cop-out!
Click to expand...
They are the ones who set the rules. They are literally the only ones who can change them.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Great question. The app shows 121 GGT, 34 DE and 14 GT. Have no idea how many of those are actually syncing information regularly. No idea what wheel specs are except I guess GDE, right?

@HC_79 Is there a way to know more about the “fleet”? Again, realize it’s a small sample, but I still think it’s informative. Thanks for all you’ve done with the app!
Click to expand...
allenmhc said:
I wonder how much of the LucidTrackerApp is also tilted towards Dream Edition vehicles, which I've learned and accepted that we get 0.2–0.3 fewer miles/kWh than even the GT.
Click to expand...
The efficiency numbers only come from vehicles enrolled in LucidTracker+ as it needs the 20 second polling while the car is in motion to calculate the stats. Sample size is therefore lower than vehicles just enrolled in the regular auto-sync.

LucidTracker+ subscribers feed into both the Leaderboards and LucidTracker+ Leaderboards
Auto-Synced users only feed into the Leaderboards
 
dbsb3233 said:
I don't think Tesla even lets you turn regen off (just down some), so yeah, not nearly the big difference we see in the Gravity when turning it off.

Especially since the Gravity regen is so strong (compared to my other EV experiences, anyway). Even Standard feels quite strong to me. It feels like an 8 (on a 1-10 scale), with High only about 1 notch above that. I don't detect much difference between Standard and High. Both are strong.

I would love for Lucid to do an upgrade that offers another Regen setting. Something maybe 30% lighter, which to me would still be a 5 although they'd probably call it Low. I like regen but something more medium would help make the transitions a lot smoother, especially when canceling out of ACC.

And since Lucid doesn't apply blended regen to the brake pedal, we don't want regen that's too light (where we'd be using friction brakes a lot). Needs to be strong enough to do all normal slowing. But current Standard still has more than enough for that, with room to spare. If I lift completely up on the acc pedal when doing 45 MPH, it's slowing way harder than any normal driving I would do. 30% less would still be plenty to use nothing but the acc pedal (until the final 5 MPH or so).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what GM does with their Ultium system but I had a single motor FWD Equinox LT where I was getting around 4.3 mi/kWh over 500 miles in North Carolina.

I tried having the One Pedal mode set to "Off" for a couple days. Their system uses blended braking with regen and I saw about the same efficiency as having One Pedal mode "On." Made the days spent driving a little more interesting as I'm not a One Pedal fanatic and could switch between modes and not really have a penalty.

I usually leave my GGT on "Standard," just have to ease the foot off the accelerator a little earlier than the High setting. I rarely see above 3 mi/kWh myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top