What's new
By:

Lucid Cosmos Specifications

Saksak said:
This has been covered in other threads. The 5-cycle test was developed by the EPA to replace the “inaccurate” 2-cycle test, and there is no discretionary adjustment factor that Lucid (or any other car manufacturer) applies.

We can achieve the EPA rating if we drive like the test conditions, as has been posted by some Gravity owners. The problem is, none of us are interested in range under the 5-cycle test scenario.

Lobby congress/EPA for a pure 70 mph range test.
Click to expand...

I understand all of that and I don't need to lobby for anything. I'm just saying that if Lucid wants to play games with EPA testing to make their EVs look more efficient than they are in the real world then they'll suffer the consequences of their advertising.
 
erigion said:
I understand all of that and I don't need to lobby for anything. I'm just saying that if Lucid wants to play games with EPA testing to make their EVs look more efficient than they are in the real world then they'll suffer the consequences of their advertising.
Click to expand...
it's not Lucid specific, every manufacturer massages their way through EPA/WLTP/CLTC, etc... testing. This is more of a policy and regulation problem than a Lucid problem
 
erigion said:
I understand all of that and I don't need to lobby for anything. I'm just saying that if Lucid wants to play games with EPA testing to make their EVs look more efficient than they are in the real world then they'll suffer the consequences of their advertising.
Click to expand...
Most of us want to know the EV’s range for pure highway driving at highway speeds. It’s unfortunate that the 5-cycle test is a mix of city and highway driving. It’s a terrible predictor of EV range when going from 100% to 0% battery with all of that at 70 mph highway speeds.

This doesn’t mean Lucid is playing games. All the EV manufacturers had a choice. Generate EPA numbers with the legacy 2-cycle test or go with the modern 5-cycle test.

Legacy ICE auto manufactures like BMW, Mercedes, etc. had testing in place with the legacy 2-cycle test, and continue using that testing methodology for their EV’s. All the newer EV companies(Lucid, Tesla, Rivian), with no established testing infrastructure, use the modern methodology instead of the legacy one.

Neither the legacy 2-cycle test nor the modern 5-cycle test is a good predictor of pure highway driving, as both are a mix of city and highway. Yes, it seems that the legacy 2-cycle test being used by the ICE manufacturers is closer to pure highway driving. However, can we blame the newer auto companies for choosing the modern 5-cycle test over the legacy 2-cycle test?

No games are being played. It’s an outcome of EPA testing standards.
 
Last edited:
I can’t see them putting a larger battery than Air Touring into Cosmos. That’s 92 kWh. Air is heavier and Atlas motors are more efficient, so I can see them easily getting at least the same 425 mi claimed range of Air Touring with that. Probably closer to 450.

A thousand years ago, when Peter R. Was still running the company, he made it sound as if the key point for the future of EVs was getting the cost down. And the easiest way to do that was to shrink the battery. So I think Midsize was conceived with the notion of putting a smaller than 92 kWh pack in it. That was how they’d hit their sub $50k price point.

Who knows if that’s out the window at this point. With this new leadership, anything is possible.

But they could easily offer an 82 kWh pack RWD and a 92 kWh “long range” pack with AWD and get the best of both worlds. Entry level, sub $50k, gets 320-350 ish miles. Long range AWD gets 450+ for $65 or $75k.

That would still be impressive compared to the competition. BMW i3 needs a 100+ kWh pack to get its impressive range. None of the longer range EVs out there get Lucid’s efficiency numbers.
 
Saksak said:
This has been covered in other threads. The 5-cycle test was developed by the EPA to replace the “inaccurate” 2-cycle test, and there is no discretionary adjustment factor that Lucid (or any other car manufacturer) applies.

We can achieve the EPA rating if we drive like the test conditions, as has been posted by some Gravity owners. The problem is, none of us are interested in range under the 5-cycle test scenario.

Lobby congress/EPA for a pure 70 mph range test.
Click to expand...
Heck on the epa, I’ll do a “test” for minimal fees. Where’s your car?
 
joec said:
I can’t see them putting a larger battery than Air Touring into Cosmos. That’s 92 kWh. Air is heavier and Atlas motors are more efficient, so I can see them easily getting at least the same 425 mi claimed range of Air Touring with that. Probably closer to 450.

A thousand years ago, when Peter R. Was still running the company, he made it sound as if the key point for the future of EVs was getting the cost down. And the easiest way to do that was to shrink the battery. So I think Midsize was conceived with the notion of putting a smaller than 92 kWh pack in it. That was how they’d hit their sub $50k price point.

Who knows if that’s out the window at this point. With this new leadership, anything is possible.

But they could easily offer an 82 kWh pack RWD and a 92 kWh “long range” pack with AWD and get the best of both worlds. Entry level, sub $50k, gets 320-350 ish miles. Long range AWD gets 450+ for $65 or $75k.

That would still be impressive compared to the competition. BMW i3 needs a 100+ kWh pack to get its impressive range. None of the longer range EVs out there get Lucid’s efficiency numbers.
Click to expand...
Every difficult individual I’ve spoken with doesn’t care how big the battery is. They want to be able to “fill” it in about the same time as a gas tank
 
joec said:
I can’t see them putting a larger battery than Air Touring into Cosmos. That’s 92 kWh. Air is heavier and Atlas motors are more efficient, so I can see them easily getting at least the same 425 mi claimed range of Air Touring with that. Probably closer to 450.

A thousand years ago, when Peter R. Was still running the company, he made it sound as if the key point for the future of EVs was getting the cost down. And the easiest way to do that was to shrink the battery. So I think Midsize was conceived with the notion of putting a smaller than 92 kWh pack in it. That was how they’d hit their sub $50k price point.

Who knows if that’s out the window at this point. With this new leadership, anything is possible.

But they could easily offer an 82 kWh pack RWD and a 92 kWh “long range” pack with AWD and get the best of both worlds. Entry level, sub $50k, gets 320-350 ish miles. Long range AWD gets 450+ for $65 or $75k.

That would still be impressive compared to the competition. BMW i3 needs a 100+ kWh pack to get its impressive range. None of the longer range EVs out there get Lucid’s efficiency numbers.
Click to expand...
With how far midsize is in development and how close the initial start-of-production target was when the new leadership came in, I don't think it's possible to do significant changes to the battery pack. At this point so many design decisions have been locked in
 
Aka-none said:
Every difficult individual I’ve spoken with doesn’t care how big the battery is. They want to be able to “fill” it in about the same time as a gas tank
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But that’s why those cars are more expensive than Lucid’s stated goal of hitting $50k as a starting price.

And a smaller pack can be “filled” as fast as a larger one, despite the lower voltage, simply because it’s smaller.

The 10-80% numbers on the GT and Touring are similar.
 
We saw two prototypes driving at the same time in the latest Lucid Flys video. I'd say all the essential hardware stuff is nailed down. Software tuning is probably still happening, as they can adjust a lot of the car behavior through that. We got an insight into that when Kyle Connor rode along with Lucid's braking specialist at the Minnesota testing grounds.
 
Need4Sleep said:
With how far midsize is in development and how close the initial start-of-production target was when the new leadership came in, I don't think it's possible to do significant changes to the battery pack. At this point so many design decisions have been locked in
Click to expand...
They could have always had two pack sizes in mind. Or they could have designed it to be flexible, given they weren’t sure of the efficiency of Atlas at the time of development.

Something like the number of battery modules is a decision made when laying out the actual trims, not pre-prototype. They likely have a max number of modules they can squeeze in, but haven’t necessarily arrived at a final actual size yet.
 
joec said:
They could have always had two pack sizes in mind. Or they could have designed it to be flexible, given they weren’t sure of the efficiency of Atlas at the time of development.

Something like the number of battery modules is a decision made when laying out the actual trims, not pre-prototype. They likely have a max number of modules they can squeeze in, but haven’t necessarily arrived at a final actual size yet.
Click to expand...

To build on this, my speculation is that we could be in for a surprise for the battery options for midsize. I wouldn't be surprised if we see LFP for Pure-level trims and traditional nickel-based chemistries for higher trims. One thing to note is that for traditional nickel batteries, typically the expectation is to charge to 80%. I've seen an interesting perspective that by the time you hit 80% on nickel batteries, you're already within striking distance of doing the standard 100% charge on LFP. I think in general, regular buyers (non-hardcore EV enthusiasts) don't want to sweat about battery care, so they would be open to going for LFP. And since LFP is cheaper than nickel, that'll help Lucid achieve competitive starting prices

this video by a BMS engineer breaks it down quite well:

Also, with the scale Lucid wants to achieve for midsize, I wouldn't be surprised if the battery pack has a fixed number of cells (for tooling and assembly commonality), and the leading difference in battery pack size would be based on chemistry (i.e. LFP vs nickel). Again, I've said I'm speculating, so I can easily be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Well the benefit on going to market is later is they have less guessing to do on competition. The benchmark is a known quantity (Model Y), and the newer stuff is either going to be more premium and expensive like the IX3 ( i just configured a US Spec one on the website with minimal options at $70K) and its516 big battery or is not going to need much work to beat like the EX60 and R2.

I think a GT trim with an 89 or 92kwhr pack like the Air or Gravity Touring for 419 mi range and a small pack with 350....Just keep in mind even though the Cosmos is smaller vehicle it's still not near the Air in efficiency....
 
Hammerthyme said:
We saw two prototypes driving at the same time in the latest Lucid Flys video. I'd say all the essential hardware stuff is nailed down. Software tuning is probably still happening, as they can adjust a lot of the car behavior through that. We got an insight into that when Kyle Connor rode along with Lucid's braking specialist at the Minnesota testing grounds.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Minnesota testing grounds! Where might this super secret place be, potentially so very close to me.
 
Baudette Minnesota... It was in this YouTube video, about 4 months ago. I was impressed with how much effort went into making the Gravity brake well and predictably in three performance modes, with and without traction control.

Lucid Gravity Extreme Winter Testing!
 
EPA testing was set up years ago for a specific mode of transportation. Yes they have made some incremental changes like MPG equivalent. It is time to completely overhaul the system to accommodate new technology and new ways of using transportation. I don't anyone who travels 80mph on freeways ( at least that are 65 posted), but apparently all the influencers do based on their videos. Give us a enhanced City/Highway variation - roundtripping range and an urban range. That would do.
 
erigion said:
Considering what Lucid advertises about the Gravity and what it does in the real world, I would take their claims about the efficiency of the Cosmos with a grain of salt. Just like how the CEO of Rivian (possibly) said the R2 would be able to match the efficiency of the Model Y, which is clearly not true based on initial testing, these executives all want to advertise that they can beat the class leader/best seller.

Lucid should not be using the 5-cycle EPA test. Or they should not use such a low adjustment factor so they can advertise a higher range. One of the last things this company needs are early adopters of the Cosmos going around and saying their 380 mile EV (or whatever it actually ends up being) can only get 320 or 330. If one of the pillars of your company's advertising is efficiency/range then the last thing you want are your customers saying about your mass market model is that the range sucks or it can't actually hit the range you advertise even if the actual efficiency ends up being better than the Model Y.
Click to expand...
There are other threads for complaining about the EPA. This is not that thread. Please keep this one on topic.
 
erigion said:
I understand all of that and I don't need to lobby for anything. I'm just saying that if Lucid wants to play games with EPA testing to make their EVs look more efficient than they are in the real world then they'll suffer the consequences of their advertising.
Click to expand...
They are not playing games. They are literally following the letter of the law and regulations.

That is pretty much the definition of not playing games.

You know how, at the beginning of the “Game of Life,” some players pick the college path and some pick the “get started now” path? This is not a dissimilar choice; both valid, both legal, neither “gaming” any system.
 
Macgreiner said:
EPA testing was set up years ago for a specific mode of transportation. Yes they have made some incremental changes like MPG equivalent. It is time to completely overhaul the system to accommodate new technology and new ways of using transportation. I don't anyone who travels 80mph on freeways ( at least that are 65 posted), but apparently all the influencers do based on their videos. Give us an enhanced City/Highway variation - roundtripping range and an urban range. That would do.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand people to think that many drivers don’t hit 80 for long stretches.
I’ve mentioned before I don’t treat my Air particularly special, I just use it and get a guaranteed 330 miles year around in Wisconsin, rural area.
Summer I’m running 21’s 285/265’s sticky tires and winter I run 19’s
I’ve put about 12k miles in say 10 months and on trips where it’s just a long road yeah it’s possible the traffic was doing 80ish
 
Aka-none said:
I think you misunderstand people to think that many drivers don’t hit 80 for long stretches.
I’ve mentioned before I don’t treat my Air particularly special, I just use it and get a guaranteed 330 miles year around in Wisconsin, rural area.
Summer I’m running 21’s 285/265’s sticky tires and winter I run 19’s
I’ve put about 12k miles in say 10 months and on trips where it’s just a long road yeah it’s possible the traffic was doing 80ish
Click to expand...
I believe you are missing the point.

Driving 80mph is legal in only 5 states, yet you would ask a federal agency to offer range estimates for drivers who elect to break the law? It is immaterial that people do it, just that the Agency cannot publish data condoning it.

How does that make any sense at all?
 
rodairio said:
I hope you are wrong on this. R2's "330" mile range is just not good enough for winter climates. That is for road tires. . . Replace with all terrain and you are down to 307 miles. Now factor in highway speeds, which is the only speed that matters for real world range and you are well under 300 miles. Now add winter conditions and you may be lucky to break 200 miles, particularly if hauling a family. In my own opinion, that is just not enough to be a reliable road trip vehicle, and this is not the vehicle category in which it is an "extra" vehicle, it has to be a workhorse. Lets hope Cosmos shoots for a brand consistent 400 miles or so.
Click to expand...
Don't forget driving up/down the mountains. Going from 100 feet elevation to 8K+ could use 200 miles off the battery (especially in winter) to go 90-10 miles. Going down I use 30 miles on the battery. One reason I leased my 2024 Lucid Air Pure as I knew up the mountains is extremely taxing on range. If you only get range in the low 300s (worse after several years of leasing or ownership due to battery loosing range on 100% charge) when you get to the mountains you are looking for a charger, which may not be in a convenient location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top