Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?

[ViperSSD]

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.

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.

The 2 cycle test is definitely less $ but I also thought that it resulted in a lower rated range. At least, that has been the explanation on why the Taycans normally exceeds its rated range in tests pretty significantly.

 

[Rutrow]

Yet another nice thing about a trip to the Grand Canyon. EA has six 350 kW chargers at the South Rim Visitor Center.

This comment seems as good a place as any for me to rail against DCFC in National parks, State parks, and even Local ones. Parks should be places where we PARK our cars (if that's the only way we can get there) and spend a few hours getting some fresh air, a little exercise, and enjoying the peaceful scenery. Instead of DCFCs, the focus should be on installing dozens of 240v outlets and hundreds of 120v outlets to allow visitors to top up their zero emission vehicles' batteries for free* ( *paid for by the taxpayers who are benefiting from lack of air/noise pollution) while they amble about, taking in the views.

Putting high capacity DCFCs in these areas creates a tempting draw for folks who have no interest in the using the park for its intended purpose. Haven't we all been guilty of searching for the nearest ️ icon on the navigation map without any regard for what area it's in? I'd hate for unnecessary DCFCs exacerbating the traffic problems that our National Parks are suffering from.

Think about what kind of things we normally do when Fast Charging on road trips. The perfect scenario is when the recommended charging stop time matches perfectly the time you'll spend going to the bathroom and grabbing a quick snack and a drink (15 minutes?) National park stops are rarely like that (unless you're an Instagram Model, rushing from spot to spot for "content" ). It's more often a viewpoint trailhead that can easily take an hour or more to round trip back to your parking spot. Seems you'd need to wait at your vehicle at a DCFC to clear out as soon as you reached your intended state of charge, instead of quickly plugging into a Level 1 outlet and going about your day without worrying about needing to make the valuable space available for others. Even if you're thinking about a quick trip into the visitor center, there's probably going to be another stop later that'll take more time.

Charging hubs should be sized for the type of parking the spot expects. Convenience stores, fast food outlets and rest stops are PERFECT for 350kW stations. Sit-down restaurants, shopping malls, theaters, theme parks, etc. are good places for Level 2 or maybe would be a good place to relocate the 50 kW chargers of yesteryear that still have value, but not along road-trip corridors. Hotels, airports, and overnight parking garages and on-street parking in high density residential areas are ideal for Level 1 outlets. It's a waste of money to install $10,000 stalls where a $1,000 240v, or $100 120v outlet is more appropriate. Let's be smart with our EV charging infrastructure dollars.

 

[BS8899]

The 2 cycle test is definitely less $ but I also thought that it resulted in a lower rated range. At least, that has been the explanation on why the Taycans normally exceeds its rated range in tests pretty significantly.

I don't think the issue is cost (of the EPA tests) or the lack of data on range, efficiency, and charging speed/time. There are plenty of data and credible tests done by many reviewers.

The inaction is a lack of resolve by the manufacturers to give realistic achievable range and actual time to on-board usable range at the charging stations. These realistic metrics undercut their marketing messages. Also, if you look at the Lucid trims, the Pure and Touring have smaller batteries, but I don't understand why their charging time is as long as owners of these trims reported. I am not convinced it is a technical limiter. More likely, it is a marketing/price-point artificial limiter. To be fair, many product manufactures (not just EVs) do this kind of things to limit (neuter) the lower trims in order to justify the higher ASP on the higher trims. I understand why they do it, but I am not a fan of it. And I don't have a vote.

My pessimistic view is, the manufacturers won't take any actions to provide more realistic, user-oriented metrics (range, efficiency, charging time, etc.). This forum and many independent reviewers have plenty of data. But there is a lack of resolve to challenge the status quo.

Since I drive long trips in my AGT, I trust my own metrics/metrology. I don't get side-tracked by manufacturers' claims. Reality is not a concept!

 

[illopp00]

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 think they should probably get rid of free charging so people don't try to get all that last 10% juice just because...

 

[BS8899]

I think they should probably get rid of free charging so people don't try to get all that last 10% juice just because...

I agree with the sentiment.

That said, I've encountered a significant of Uber drivers who live in apartments, have no in-home charging, and relies on charging at public stations. Typically, they want to be able to on-board as much energy (range beyond 85% SoC) as possible during their downtime. I think 85% SoC is reasonable. Another possibility is to charge a higher rate beyond 85% SoC.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

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 get your thinking, I just personally think it's actually less practical (just the way by brain works, no disrespect intended). Add 50kWh to a Hummer EV and add 50 kWh to an AGT...they mean totally different things in the real world. Yes, you can do the math yourself in your head, but how valuable is saying "I can add 50 kWh to my battery the fastest?" It's utterly useless if the car is inefficient and poorly designed. So probably some combination of the metrics of speed to charge -- based on kWh, NOT SOC and efficiency would be best.

 

[BS8899]

I get your thinking, I just personally think it's actually less practical (just the way by brain works, no disrespect intended). Add 50kWh to a Hummer EV and add 50 kWh to an AGT...they mean totally different things in the real world. Yes, you can do the math yourself in your head, but how valuable is saying "I can add 50 kWh to my battery the fastest?" It's utterly useless if the car is inefficient and poorly designed. So probably some combination of the metrics of speed to charge -- based on kWh, NOT SOC and efficiency would be best.

Yes, it is how much RANGE you add, not how many kWh or how much SoC added.
I made the same point in an earlier post....no one liked my post!

 

[Knucklehead]

I get your thinking, I just personally think it's actually less practical (just the way by brain works, no disrespect intended). Add 50kWh to a Hummer EV and add 50 kWh to an AGT...they mean totally different things in the real world. Yes, you can do the math yourself in your head, but how valuable is saying "I can add 50 kWh to my battery the fastest?" It's utterly useless if the car is inefficient and poorly designed. So probably some combination of the metrics of speed to charge -- based on kWh, NOT SOC and efficiency would be best.

All true, except I don't think the "miles added" approach is accurate. It is misleading. If I can add 50% to my HVB in 20 minutes, and I can drive 200 miles on 50%, then I know I added 200 miles. But should the car or some other system tell me that? How does it know I can go 200 miles with just half the HVB? What if I decide to drive 95 mph? What if it is snowing? What if?

It is like relying on the range shown on the display. We all know that is often way off. The only way it can be somewhat accurate is if it uses the navigation route you have programmed into the car, and it knows the elevation you will be going through, and it knows the weather on your route, and it has a historical reference regarding the speed you typically drive. Can a DCFC do that? And can the car do that if it does not have a route programmed?

For me the bottom line is the power I can get out of the DCFC, and the amount of kWh I can stuff into my vehicle in 20-30 minutes. That is about as long as I want to stop, unless I am having a beer with lunch.

 

[coma24]

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?

What you're describing is precisely how Lucid has been positioning charging discussions for quite some time. "Think more along the lines of how many miles per minute, instead of how long to get to 80% SOC." This is one of the less obvious benefits of a) a large battery capacity, and b) high efficiency (miles per kwh)

 

[joec]

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?

Because people here can be incredibly pedantic about things that don't really matter in the real world to the vast majority of humans. They are looking for something to complain about, not necessarily debating real-world problems.

You haven't been here long, but surely you've been here long enough to know that complaining is some of our forum members' favorite leisure activity.

That, and acting butt-hurt if anyone points out that they are complaining about things that don't necessarily make a whole lot of practical sense. Do that, and you'll get labeled a "fanboy."

All kidding aside, I agree with you that how many miles you add per minute is a much more valuable statistic than how many percentage points you add per minute. Others will disagree, and that's fine. But as far as I know, we haven't had any real comparison of different brands from that angle. Probably because Lucid would likely do better in those comparisons.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

This comment seems as good a place as any for me to rail against DCFC in National parks, State parks, and even Local ones. Parks should be places where we PARK our cars (if that's the only way we can get there) and spend a few hours getting some fresh air, a little exercise, and enjoying the peaceful scenery. Instead of DCFCs, the focus should be on installing dozens of 240v outlets and hundreds of 120v outlets to allow visitors to top up their zero emission vehicles' batteries for free* ( *paid for by the taxpayers who are benefiting from lack of air/noise pollution) while they amble about, taking in the views.

Putting high capacity DCFCs in these areas creates a tempting draw for folks who have no interest in the using the park for its intended purpose. Haven't we all been guilty of searching for the nearest ️ icon on the navigation map without any regard for what area it's in? I'd hate for unnecessary DCFCs exacerbating the traffic problems that our National Parks are suffering from.

Think about what kind of things we normally do when Fast Charging on road trips. The perfect scenario is when the recommended charging stop time matches perfectly the time you'll spend going to the bathroom and grabbing a quick snack and a drink (15 minutes?) National park stops are rarely like that (unless you're an Instagram Model, rushing from spot to spot for "content" ). It's more often a viewpoint trailhead that can easily take an hour or more to round trip back to your parking spot. Seems you'd need to wait at your vehicle at a DCFC to clear out as soon as you reached your intended state of charge, instead of quickly plugging into a Level 1 outlet and going about your day without worrying about needing to make the valuable space available for others. Even if you're thinking about a quick trip into the visitor center, there's probably going to be another stop later that'll take more time.

Charging hubs should be sized for the type of parking the spot expects. Convenience stores, fast food outlets and rest stops are PERFECT for 350kW stations. Sit-down restaurants, shopping malls, theaters, theme parks, etc. are good places for Level 2 or maybe would be a good place to relocate the 50 kW chargers of yesteryear that still have value, but not along road-trip corridors. Hotels, airports, and overnight parking garages and on-street parking in high density residential areas are ideal for Level 1 outlets. It's a waste of money to install $10,000 stalls where a $1,000 240v, or $100 120v outlet is more appropriate. Let's be smart with our EV charging infrastructure dollars.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but the Grand Canyon is an unusual situation. It's fairly remote, and even the roadways and communities leading to and from it have very limited charging infrastructures, so these charging stations provide a huge relief. Also, the chargers are located adjacent to visitor information centers and viewpoints which can be easily visited within the typical charging cycle. Interestingly, charging at the south rim does not give us the range we need to drive to the north rim and back, and the north rim is only about 10 miles away as the crow flies. That because the drive around from point to point is about four hours and 220 miles each way! Yikes!

 

[Blue Lectroid]

What you're describing is precisely how Lucid has been positioning charging discussions for quite some time. "Think more along the lines of how many miles per minute, instead of how long to get to 80% SOC." This is one of the less obvious benefits of a) a large battery capacity, and b) high efficiency (miles per kwh)

I know that, and you know that, but boy oh boy, some folks here have strong feelings otherwise! I get that there is HUGE variability in the way folks drive, and thus the distance they can go on a kWh, but the point is that no matter how you drive, you’re going to need to charge less often AND spend less time at charging stations because of the combination of battery capacity and efficiency than you will in any other EV at present…

 

[Adnillien]

But as far as I know, we haven't had any real comparison of different brands from that angle. Probably because Lucid would likely do better in those comparisons.

OOS has done this comparison and Lucid does very well but does not top the chart.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

OOS has done this comparison and Lucid does very well but does not top the chart.

View attachment 25364

That’s the 2023 AGT and battery chemistry, capacity and thermal management have all been improved pretty significantly with the 2025 AGT…so comparing the 2023 AGT to the much improved 2025 Taycan is not really a fair comparison…

 

[joec]

That’s the 2023 AGT and battery chemistry, capacity and thermal management have all been improved pretty significantly with the 2025 AGT…so comparing the 2023 AGT to the much improved 2025 Taycan is not really a fair comparison…

At least it's the correct comparison, though. I hope OOS will update their chart with some more tests from the 2025 GT they had up until recently. Unless they didn't bother testing that car.

 

[Adnillien]

At least it's the correct comparison, though. I hope OOS will update their chart with some more tests from the 2025 GT they had up until recently. Unless they didn't bother testing that car.

I believe that OOS did test the 2025. I am curious about the improvement.

 

[hmp10]

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.

EA could really help this situation by making sure their damn chargers are working when you arrive at them and don’t need to put in enough charge to risk their next station being out of service or jammed with people waiting for the one or two working stalls.

Setting charge limits on a service that doesn’t work half the time at any level of charge is a bit ironic.

 

[Knucklehead]

OOS has done this comparison and Lucid does very well but does not top the chart.

I love this. Can you provide a link to the source?

 

[DeaneG]

I love this. Can you provide a link to the source?

Post in thread 'Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?'

Yesterday at 9:40 AM

10% challenge — Out of Spec Studios

outofspecstudios.com

• DeaneG

 

[Knucklehead]

Post in thread 'Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?'

Yesterday at 9:40 AM

10% challenge — Out of Spec Studios

outofspecstudios.com

• DeaneG

OOS has done this comparison and Lucid does very well but does not top the chart.

View attachment 25364

I don't think Gravity will do better than the Taycan. Gravity will match (maybe beat) charging speed, but it is a much bigger vehicle, and I am sure at 80 mph it will not be as efficient. This is just a guess, and I would love to see Gravity take 1st place, but I doubt it can. Too much relies on efficiency at 80 mph.

It is very possible the 2025 Air will be able to beat the Taycan, though. The latest OOS range test at 70 mph indicates very high efficiency at speed.

This OOS test is really great, because it combines all the important factors related to travel into one measurement. And it is tested at a reasonable travel speed. Love it.