Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?

[Cosmo Cruz]

I'm two years in and averaging 3.3 kWh/mi. with alternating 19" A/S and 21" summer rubber.
All I want it 300 miles of range ... I can't even imagine 2 hours without a piss, let alone 4 or 5 or 6 ...
Pretty darn impressed with what I bought. It's ruined me for cars at any price.

 

[Adnillien]

Charge to 200 miles (from low SoC) AGT/11min, Touring/15min, Pure/17min. In the context of @Adnillien and Rawlinson's tutorials, why are these specs so different?

You are changing the metric from time to charge from 10% to 80% to time to add 200 miles. Time to add 200 miles is a specific amount of energy confounded a bit by the differences in efficiency between the trims.

In the case of 10% to 80% SOC the charging energy needed scales exactly proportional to battery size which is exactly proportional to the power the battery will accept at any given SOC. Hence, that charging times are identical even though the charging power is different. As explained earlier at 30% SOC and 250A of current:
- The GT pack voltage is (3.6*220) or 792V and the charge power is 198kW
- The Touring pack voltage is (3.6V*180) or 648V and the charge power is 162kW.
- The Pure RWD pack voltage is (3.6*160) or 576V and the charge power is 144kW.

I forget the actual efficiency number for each trim but let me approximate and calculate the energy needed for 200 EPA miles.
- GT at 4.6 mi/kWhr needs 43.5 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 38.8%
- Touring at 4.8 mi/kWhr needs 41.7 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 45.3%
- Pure RWD at 5.0 mi/kWhr needs 40kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 48.8%

The charge power above will decrease as SOC increases and it will decrease more for the the lower trims that require a higher finishing SOC. Assuming a constant charge power with the numbers above, the time to charge is:
- GT is 13.2 minutes
- Touring is 15.4 minutes
- Pure RWD is 16.7 minutes

These numbers are not an exact match because I did not integrate the charge curve for each trim but the numbers still demonstrate why there is a difference when the metric is time to add 200 miles versus time to charge from 10% to 80%.

 

[BS8899]

You are changing the metric from time to charge from 10% to 80% to time to add 200 miles. Time to add 200 miles is a specific amount of energy confounded a bit by the differences in efficiency between the trims.

In the case of 10% to 80% SOC the charging energy needed scales exactly proportional to battery size which is exactly proportional to the power the battery will accept at any given SOC. Hence, that charging times are identical even though the charging power is different. As explained earlier at 30% SOC and 250A of current:
- The GT pack voltage is (3.6*220) or 792V and the charge power is 198kW
- The Touring pack voltage is (3.6V*180) or 648V and the charge power is 162kW.
- The Pure RWD pack voltage is (3.6*160) or 576V and the charge power is 144kW.

I forget the actual efficiency number for each trim but let me approximate and calculate the energy needed for 200 EPA miles.
- GT at 4.6 mi/kWhr needs 43.5 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 38.8%
- Touring at 4.8 mi/kWhr needs 41.7 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 45.3%
- Pure RWD at 5.0 mi/kWhr needs 40kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 48.8%

The charge power above will decrease as SOC increases and it will decrease more for the the lower trims that require a higher finishing SOC. Assuming a constant charge power with the numbers above, the time to charge is:
- GT is 13.2 minutes
- Touring is 15.4 minutes
- Pure RWD is 16.7 minutes

These numbers are not an exact match because I did not integrate the charge curve for each trim but the numbers still demonstrate why there is a difference when the metric is time to add 200 miles versus time to charge from 10% to 80%.

Professor @Adnillien is, of course, correct! BTW, these were not my metrics. These were the metrics used by Lucid.

In @Adnillien's analysis, above, one can also see the voltages needed to sustain the charging. at a given SoC My clarification question for @Adnillien is: since the "200 miles metric" means different SoC progression rates on the different trims, would/should the Wunderbox be programmed accordingly in order to track and maximize the charging rate by adjusting the charging voltages on the different trims at different SoCs?

Assuming the Wunderbox is programmed for the different trims to track and maximize the charge rates at any given SoC, one would expect the charging performance (as measured by the time required to charge to 80% SoC) to be similar or better when normalized to the smaller battery sizes. Is this correct? Ask the question differently: since the battery pack modules are identical, are there any technical reasons why the Pure/Touring trims should expect longer charge times (10% to 80% SoC) than the AGT?

 

[ATP2023]

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

They could simply program them so that it wont allow charging about 80-85% if they are getting free charging. To avoid people hogging up the charger.

 

[momo3605]

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

Free charging is the worst. Recently I’ve been paying attention to other drivers and so many of them show up with 50%-70% state of charge and then charge it to 90% and the leave. Ugh. I even saw some lady charge her IONIQ 5 up to 92%. Then unplug at 30 mins and replug it to charge up to 100%. Literally the worst

 

[Knucklehead]

Free charging is the worst. Recently I’ve been paying attention to other drivers and so many of them show up with 50%-70% state of charge and then charge it to 90% and the leave. Ugh. I even saw some lady charge her IONIQ 5 up to 92%. Then unplug at 30 mins and replug it to charge up to 100%. Literally the worst

This also applies to L2 charging spots. People hog them and charge there when they could charge at home, but don't because it is free. It's horrible.

We have a bank of 6 EVSEs at my office building that have been "free" for probably 10 years. I could hardly ever find a spot and usually 4 or 5 of the cars plugged in were fully charged. They arrive in the morning, and refuse to move when their cars are fully charged. They sit there all day. A-holes. I hate free charging.

About a month ago they replaced them with pay EVSEs. It now costs about as much to charge there as the local EA or SCs chargers. It is much cheaper to charge at home. Guess what happened?

 

[Lucken]

You are changing the metric from time to charge from 10% to 80% to time to add 200 miles. Time to add 200 miles is a specific amount of energy confounded a bit by the differences in efficiency between the trims.

In the case of 10% to 80% SOC the charging energy needed scales exactly proportional to battery size which is exactly proportional to the power the battery will accept at any given SOC. Hence, that charging times are identical even though the charging power is different. As explained earlier at 30% SOC and 250A of current:
- The GT pack voltage is (3.6*220) or 792V and the charge power is 198kW
- The Touring pack voltage is (3.6V*180) or 648V and the charge power is 162kW.
- The Pure RWD pack voltage is (3.6*160) or 576V and the charge power is 144kW.

I forget the actual efficiency number for each trim but let me approximate and calculate the energy needed for 200 EPA miles.
- GT at 4.6 mi/kWhr needs 43.5 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 38.8%
- Touring at 4.8 mi/kWhr needs 41.7 kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 45.3%
- Pure RWD at 5.0 mi/kWhr needs 40kWhr which requires increasing SOC by 48.8%

The charge power above will decrease as SOC increases and it will decrease more for the the lower trims that require a higher finishing SOC. Assuming a constant charge power with the numbers above, the time to charge is:
- GT is 13.2 minutes
- Touring is 15.4 minutes
- Pure RWD is 16.7 minutes

These numbers are not an exact match because I did not integrate the charge curve for each trim but the numbers still demonstrate why there is a difference when the metric is time to add 200 miles versus time to charge from 10% to 80%.

And we’re assuming the Pure AWD is very close to the Touring specs?

 

[momo3605]

This also applies to L2 charging spots. People hog them and charge there when they could charge at home, but don't because it is free. It's horrible.

We have a bank of 6 EVSEs at my office building that have been "free" for probably 10 years. I could hardly ever find a spot and usually 4 or 5 of the cars plugged in were fully charged. They arrive in the morning, and refuse to move when their cars are fully charged. They sit there all day. A-holes. I hate free charging.

About a month ago they replaced them with pay EVSEs. It now costs about as much to charge there as the local EA or SCs chargers. It is much cheaper to charge at home. Guess what happened?

View attachment 25437

Yea that sucks. At my company they use ChargePoint to give you 3 hours of free charging. It’s not a lot admittedly, but it will hard stop after 3 hours and report you if you don’t move your car at the end of the 3 hours. So at least people can cycle through them during the day

 

[BS8899]

And we’re assuming the Pure AWD is very close to the Touring specs?

My take is,

> based on @Adnillien's insights, wherein he established that Lucid Air Trims use the same battery modules on all trims, they should be able to charged at the same rate. Furthermore, according to Lucid's disclosure, the Wunderbocx is CAPABLE of delivering 925V+ to the AGT and ~750V to the other trims.

How the Wunderbox meters its charging voltage/current (i.e., the algorithm) in the different trims ultimately determines the charge rate and charge time of each trim. Is this statement correct?

If so, other than the charging curves which, I assume, embodies the charging algorithm for each trim I haven't seen any other data that tells us how fast each trim charges and the resultant charge times. There are published charging curves for the AGT. I think some reviewers have provided charging curves for the Pure and the Touring. I don't think these curves were done under laboratory controls hence, the results might be affected by other factors.

Assuming the Wunderbox is NOT the limiter on the Purse/Touring trims, I'd think one could calculate the charging speed/ charging time from the information above. Has anyone done that analysis for their Touring/Pure?

Again, factors outside of Lucid's control also affect the charging speed (DCFC power/voltage/utility balancing etc., parasitic charging overheads, etc.). Thus, what the owners experience at the charging station is an amalgamation of all of the above.

Feel free to correct any of my mis-statements.

 

[BS8899]

My take is,

> based on @Adnillien's insights, wherein he established that Lucid Air Trims use the same battery modules on all trims, they should be able to charged at the same rate. Furthermore, according to Lucid's disclosure, the Wunderbocx is CAPABLE of delivering 925V+ to the AGT and ~750V to the other trims.

How the Wunderbox meters its charging voltage/current (i.e., the algorithm) in the different trims ultimately determines the charge rate and charge time of each trim. Is this statement correct?

If so, other than the charging curves which, I assume, embodies the charging algorithm for each trim I haven't seen any other data that tells us how fast each trim charges and the resultant charge times. There are published charging curves for the AGT. I think some reviewers have provided charging curves for the Pure and the Touring. I don't think these curves were done under laboratory controls hence, the results might be affected by other factors.

Assuming the Wunderbox is NOT the limiter on the Purse/Touring trims, I'd think one could calculate the charging speed/ charging time from the information above. Has anyone done that analysis for their Touring/Pure?

Again, factors outside of Lucid's control also affect the charging speed (DCFC power/voltage/utility balancing etc., parasitic charging overheads, etc.). Thus, what the owners experience at the charging station is an amalgamation of all of the above.

Feel free to correct any of my mis-statements.

This link chronicles charging a Air Pure from ~5% SoC and compiled the data into a charging curve, DCFC charging power vs SoC. Reported chrage time seems quite respectable.

 

[Knucklehead]

My take is,

> based on @Adnillien's insights, wherein he established that Lucid Air Trims use the same battery modules on all trims, they should be able to charged at the same rate. Furthermore, according to Lucid's disclosure, the Wunderbocx is CAPABLE of delivering 925V+ to the AGT and ~750V to the other trims.

How the Wunderbox meters its charging voltage/current (i.e., the algorithm) in the different trims ultimately determines the charge rate and charge time of each trim. Is this statement correct?

If so, other than the charging curves which, I assume, embodies the charging algorithm for each trim I haven't seen any other data that tells us how fast each trim charges and the resultant charge times. There are published charging curves for the AGT. I think some reviewers have provided charging curves for the Pure and the Touring. I don't think these curves were done under laboratory controls hence, the results might be affected by other factors.

Assuming the Wunderbox is NOT the limiter on the Purse/Touring trims, I'd think one could calculate the charging speed/ charging time from the information above. Has anyone done that analysis for their Touring/Pure?

Again, factors outside of Lucid's control also affect the charging speed (DCFC power/voltage/utility balancing etc., parasitic charging overheads, etc.). Thus, what the owners experience at the charging station is an amalgamation of all of the above.

Feel free to correct any of my mis-statements.

I think it can be summarized into two factors: battery voltage, and battery temperature.

If the charger it not capable of delivering the battery pack voltage, it must be converted into the voltage of the pack. This is what happens at 400V chargers like the Tesla V3 chargers. There are some others out there, but hopefully they are rare. I don't know how rare they are, actually. But the Wunderbox converts the voltage and can only manage 50 kW in that case.

I do not believe the Wunderbox limits the charge when the voltage is high enough, and then the charging speed is directly related to Voltage x Current. Lower Voltage means less power can be delivered, so smaller packs charge at a lower power level.

Battery temperature is a potential limiter in every BEV. If the battery is too cold, it cannot charge as fast. If it is too hot, it cannot charge as fast. The car will precondition the battery, but it has to be told to do that. But if the battery is in the "safe" temperature range, the car will charge at full speed (assuming the voltage is provided, of course) within the safe charging curve established by Lucid.

Others have explained this much better than I have previously in this thread, so I am only trying to help. Previous responses have been very good.

 

[Science]

Mea culpa. Well, mea almost culpa.

We're new to Lucid...about 2 months in. We are aware of the early day reports of nightmares with Electrify America (EA)/Lucid charging. We always charge at home garage to 80%.

We decided to charge at EA while we had 50% charge just to try it and use it before we needed it. So, the almost mea culpa is we used a charger when we didn't need it. Free was not part of the motivation, though. Yeah, economic theory suggests: make a resource "free" and it will be abused.

We are happy to report that it was plug and play. First time...plugged it in and it started charging. No questions, no glitches. The in-car app told us where to go and reported three open slots. When we arrived, there were three open slots.

But, we're not hogs. You know: little pigs get fat, big hogs get slaughtered. We unplugged after 10 minutes and drove off.

The downside and why this post may belong in this thread. The car would not charge more than five miles per minute. The station was rated for 350 kW but compared to our Brand X electric vehicle, the charge was a trickle. Note that we started at 52% charge in the car. We haven't tried starting at a lower baseline.

All in all the experience was good: Found the charger, found an empty slot and plugged it in. Nice!

 

[DeaneG]

...The car would not charge more than five miles per minute. The station was rated for 350 kW but compared to our Brand X electric vehicle, the charge was a trickle. Note that we started at 52% charge in the car. We haven't tried starting at a lower baseline...

How many kW?

 

[Science]

How many kW?

The unit was rated at 350 kW. Sorry, I didn't track energy (kWh) or actual rate of the session (kW).

 

[DeaneG]

The unit was rated at 350 kW. Sorry, I didn't track energy (kWh) or actual rate of the session (kW).

It's easiest to tell what's going on by looking at the current kWh being delivered, and comparing that to the expected charge curve for your car.

 

[Knucklehead]

It's easiest to tell what's going on by looking at the current kWh being delivered, and comparing that to the expected charge curve for your car.

Does Lucid show the power requested during a DCFC session?

If so, you can compare that to power delivered to see if the charger is limiting, or if the car is limiting the power.

 

[DeaneG]

Does Lucid show the power requested during a DCFC session?

Not yet.

 

[BS8899]

I'm two years in and averaging 3.3 kWh/mi. with alternating 19" A/S and 21" summer rubber.
All I want it 300 miles of range ... I can't even imagine 2 hours without a piss, let alone 4 or 5 or 6 ...
Pretty darn impressed with what I bought. It's ruined me for cars at any price.

Don't worry, we are talking EPA miles under ideal conditions. Your mileage will vary. In actual driving, expect about 75% of the rated mileage in good warm weather, 75mph or less, no elevation changes. Signficantly less when you drive fast and in cold weather. I am sure it won't delay your bathroom breaks!

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Don't worry, we are talking EPA miles under ideal conditions. Your mileage will vary. In actual driving, expect about 75% of the rated mileage in good warm weather, 75mph or less, no elevation changes. Signficantly less when you drive fast and in cold weather. I am sure it won't delay your bathroom breaks!

It’s early days yet with just over 350 miles on my 2025 AGT. All but 50 miles have been in the rain with temps between 30 and 40 degrees (the other 50 miles were today in mid-50’s temps with no climate on) with a roughly 50/50 mix highway (70 mph) / around town and I am averaging 3.7 miles / kWh. I fully expect to achieve EPA or better under the ideal conditions you describe.

Sure, when I exercise the fun pedal heavily, that will drop…but I really wonder just how hard many in this Forum routinely push their cars when I hear things like 75% of EPA in good weather, flat roads and under 75mph is considered good range.

I’ve been driving EVs exclusively for fourteen years now and I’m definitely NOT a hyper-miler or even an overly sedate driver and I’ve never found it terribly difficult to get excellent range (EPA or better). This is based on two Chevy Volts (2011 & 2016) a 2018 Tesla M3P, an 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 and these early days in pretty crappy weather with my 2025 AGT.

 

[BS8899]

It’s early days yet with just over 350 miles on my 2025 AGT. All but 50 miles have been in the rain with temps between 30 and 40 degrees (the other 50 miles were today in mid-50’s temps with no climate on) with a roughly 50/50 mix highway (70 mph) / around town and I am averaging 3.7 miles / kWh. I fully expect to achieve EPA or better under the ideal conditions you describe.

Sure, when I exercise the fun pedal heavily, that will drop…but I really wonder just how hard many in this Forum routinely push their cars when I hear things like 75% of EPA in good weather, flat roads and under 75mph is considered good range.

I’ve been driving EVs exclusively for fourteen years now and I’m definitely NOT a hyper-miler or even an overly sedate driver and I’ve never found it terribly difficult to get excellent range (EPA or better). This is based on two Chevy Volts (2011 & 2016) a 2018 Tesla M3P, an 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 and these early days in pretty crappy weather with my 2025 AGT.

3.6 to 3.7 miles/kWh is the average amongst owners who responded to the surrvey in this forum. I don't doubt you CAN get the EPA mileage if you drive 60mph on a (relatively) flat road with no elevation change in good weather. But, that's not how most of us encounter in real-life. As many have noted, crapy weather (here) means colder temperatures, with wind etc., not just cloudy weather and rain. The 250 AGT might indeed perform a little better.