Are We Asking the Wrong Question About Charging?

[ViperSSD]

It does/did. I don't know about the new EPA calculations, but it resulting in a lower range is why manufacturers exceed the range, which is what makes it unrealistic. The 5-cycle EPA test tried to fix that by making it more realistic, but it went too far.

They will eventually find a middle ground (and maybe the new calculation methods already have, I don't know)

I am really pessimistic on this, ICE EPA ratings have the same problem where the cycle can be straight up gamed or in reality just isn't representative of real driving.
That all being said, it would be cool if they showed a range rating and then offered ranges at different external temperatures on the same cycle.

 

[borski]

I don’t know why you keep pcoming back to cost. We’re talking about multi-billion dollar companies. A one-time EPA test whether is $10k or $50k is comparing pennies. Germans are known for underrating everything, from hp, to torque, to acceleration numbers, and even to efficiency. Do you really think they would sacrifice an EPA rated 400 range over a few $k

The 5-cycle test back in 2022 was no more accurate. It was equally inaccurate but in the wrong direction. Sure…it’s improved since then, and now seems to match 70mph sustained driving more accurately, but this is still not real world.

Because:

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.

From earlier in this thread.

 

[momo3605]

Because:

From earlier in this thread.

Yes…that’s why I asking you to think critically about it…why would German OEMs sacrifice a big overrated EPA rating which would help sell more EVs over a tiny one-time EPA test cost?

They have a history of underrating, I don’t know why, maybe it’s an EU regulation thing, or a gentlemen’s agreement, or they want customers to be confident to know they got everything they paid for and more…who knows…but that’s how they’ve always done it.

 

[borski]

Yes…that’s why I asking you to think critically about it…why would German OEMs sacrifice a big overrated EPA rating which would help sell more EVs over a tiny one-time EPA test cost?

They have a history of underrating, I don’t know why, maybe it’s an EU regulation thing, or a gentlemen’s agreement, or they want customers to be confident to know they got everything they paid for and more…who knows…but that’s how they’ve always done it.

I do not believe it is altruistic. The reason to sacrifice the higher mileage would be cost, equipment, having to learn a new process, etc. None of that is necessary if it just checks the same box, and they could save on the bottom line. Bean counters love this.

I don’t know if that’s true for the German manufacturers. But it is at least just as likely.

 

[ViperSSD]

I do not believe it is altruistic. The reason to sacrifice the higher mileage would be cost, equipment, having to learn a new process, etc. None of that is necessary if it just checks the same box, and they could save on the bottom line. Bean counters love this.

I don’t know if that’s true for the German manufacturers. But it is at least just as likely.

For the under-rating thing, it's been true that the German auto manufacturers have under-rated hp, at least for MB and BMW. I don't really understand why, it does make it less marketable so it's either that they want to make sure they hit the number or something I just don't understand.

 

[hmp10]

For the under-rating thing, it's been true that the German auto manufacturers have under-rated hp, at least for MB and BMW. I don't really understand why, it does make it less marketable so it's either that they want to make sure they hit the number or something I just don't understand.

Pure speculation here, but some European countries tax vehicles based on their horsepower. I wonder if some manufacturers lower the numbers to slip the power rating in under the threshold to a lower tax tier?

 

[ViperSSD]

Pure speculation here, but some European countries tax vehicles based on their horsepower. I wonder if some manufacturers lower the numbers to slip the power rating in under the threshold to a lower tax tier?

They usually tax based on displacement, not hp ....at least for the countries I'm familiar with. Im betting if they did it based on hp, they would likely measure it in some manner ....though this might explain it, if they're following a different standard for hp measurements, for example a different octane or air temp.
I may try to dig this up, would be interesting to understand

 

[hmp10]

They usually tax based on displacement, not hp ....at least for the countries I'm familiar with. Im betting if they did it based on hp, they would likely measure it in some manner ....though this might explain it, if they're following a different standard for hp measurements, for example a different octane or air temp.
I may try to dig this up, would be interesting to understand

Yeah, that's why I said I was speculating. Our company used to cover the lease cars for our European employees, but it's been a long time since I had any updates on what different countries were doing on vehicle taxation. What most sticks in my mind is the roadblocks Switzerland threw up to registering cars owned by EU citizens when we transferred them to Switzerland.

 

[BS8899]

All three charge at the same current (amps) but a different voltage so the Touring/Pure charge at a lower power (kW). The smaller batteries require less energy to charge from 10% to 80% so the charging time is the same for 10% to 80% charge. The smaller batteries received less energy (power*time, kWhr) but same number of electrons since they charge at the same current.

So, if I understand you correctly, NOT ALL Lucid Air variants are charged with the "900+ Architecture", correct? Specifically, the Touring and Pure trims will have lower range (smaller batteries) and slower charging (lower charging voltage), correct?

Thus, this statement, posted on Lucid's website is not correct?

 

[DeaneG]

So, if I understand you correctly, NOT ALL Lucid Air variants are charged with the "900+ Architecture", correct? Specifically, the Touring and Pure trims will have lower range (smaller batteries) and slower charging (lower charging voltage), correct?

Thus, this statement, posted on Lucid's website is not correct?

View attachment 25393

GT and Sapphire are 900V+, Touring and Pure 800V+. The main distinction is that no Lucid vehicles are 400V+ cars.

 

[BS8899]

So, if I understand you correctly, NOT ALL Lucid Air variants are charged with the "900+ Architecture", correct? Specifically, the Touring and Pure trims will have lower range (smaller batteries) and slower charging (lower charging voltage), correct?

Thus, this statement, posted on Lucid's website is not correct?

View attachment 25393

This other chart shows the Touring/Pure trims charges slower (~33% slower) than the AGT for the 200mile charge. To the extent the Touring/Pure battery sizes are smaller, should one expect similar charge time from 10% -80% SoC?


Are all these numbers cosnistent with the Touring/Pure owners' experence?

 

[sdlucid]

So, if I understand you correctly, NOT ALL Lucid Air variants are charged with the "900+ Architecture", correct? Specifically, the Touring and Pure trims will have lower range (smaller batteries) and slower charging (lower charging voltage), correct?

Thus, this statement, posted on Lucid's website is not correct?

View attachment 25393

This article seems to be from an old press release from 2020. I think only a single trim existed during those times?
Anyways, it's usually followed by all automakers in advertising their best numbers and features as if it's a standard feature, but only available in top trim. It's misleading, but yea - fine prints will say the truth.

 

[hmp10]

So, if I understand you correctly, NOT ALL Lucid Air variants are charged with the "900+ Architecture", correct? Specifically, the Touring and Pure trims will have lower range (smaller batteries) and slower charging (lower charging voltage), correct?

Thus, this statement, posted on Lucid's website is not correct?

View attachment 25393

This was a Lucid press release from August 19, 2020. It is in the archived section of their website and not under the current promotional materials on the website. Those archived press releases also contain announcements of people taking positions from which some have long since departed.

This was written at at time long before the Air was in production or orders were even open and when the only Airs being offered for reservation were to have the 112- and 118-kWh battery packs. That's what "Lucid Air to be" means instead of "Lucid Air is . . . ." Also the 3-year unlimited charging program referred to was only available on the early cars.

Posting this as if it were what Lucid is currently claiming about all Lucid Airs is deliberately misleading, and I have a feeling you know it.

 

[BS8899]

GT and Sapphire are 900V+, Touring and Pure 800V+. The main distinction is that no Lucid vehicles are 400V+ cars.

It is quite confsing to me as some reader/owners claim Touring/Pure these variants charge at 600Volts. I don't know what is what. I have an AGT, and I have no horse in this race. I just want to make sure the advertized specs and claims are true and consistent with actual owners' experiences.

 

[BS8899]

This was a Lucid press release from August 19, 2020. It is in the archived section of their website and not under the current promotional materials on the website. Those archived press releases also contain announcements of people taking positions from which some have long since departed.

This was written at at time long before the Air was in production or orders were even open and when the only Airs being offered for reservation were to have the 112- and 118-kWh battery packs. That's what "Lucid Air to be" means instead of "Lucid Air is . . . ." Also the 3-year unlimited charging program referred to was only available on the early cars.

Posting this as if it were what Lucid is currently claiming about all Lucid Airs is deliberately misleading, and I have a feeling you know it.

I understand that the post I clipped was from 2020. But it was implied that AIR has the 900+ vootage charging spec.

Are the Pure and Touring trims NOT AIR?

So, when Lucid introduced the urea nd Touring trims, did they explicit communicate the different charging architecture specs?

I am not making an acccusation. I havean AGT and don't have a horse in this race. But a number of Pure/Touring owners seem surprised by the much slower charging (e.g., 10% to 80% SoC takes 60min).

Is th

 

[BS8899]

I understand that the post I clipped was from 2020. But it was implied that AIR has the 900+ vootage charging spec.

Are the Pure and Touring trims NOT AIR?

So, when Lucid introduced the urea nd Touring trims, did they explicit communicate the different charging architecture specs?

I am not making an acccusation. I havean AGT and don't have a horse in this race. But a number of Pure/Touring owners seem surprised by the much slower charging (e.g., 10% to 80% SoC takes 60min).

Is th

I understand that the post I clipped was from 2020. But it was implied that AIR has the 900+ vootage charging spec.

Are the Pure and Touring trims NOT AIR?

So, when Lucid introduced the urea nd Touring trims, did they explicit communicate the different charging architecture specs?

I am not making an acccusation. I havean AGT and don't have a horse in this race. But a number of Pure/Touring owners seem surprised by the much slower charging (e.g., 10% to 80% SoC takes 60min).

Is th

This is the link to the CURRENT Lucid Air page: https://lucidmotors.com/charging

> if you read it, it NOW says the 900+ charging architecture is OPTIONAL and (in fine print down the page) only on some trims.

> in this forum, other knowledgeable owners have suggested the Pure/Tiuring charging archture is 800+ Volts, or 600+volts. Which one is it? Is it explicitly spec'ed on Lucid's website? What should the Pure/Touring owners expect?

 

[Blue Lectroid]

This other chart shows the Touring/Pure trims charges slower (~33% slower) than the AGT for the 200mile charge. To the extent the Touring/Pure battery sizes are smaller, should one expect similar charge time from 10% -80% SoC?


Are all these numbers cosnistent with the Touring/Pure owners' experence?
View attachment 25394

Remember that this chart is showing the TIME to obtain 200 miles of charge (presumably based on EPA ratings). However, since the Pure and Touring use LESS energy than the GT per mile driven, the time to onboard a specific amount of energy is even greater percentage-wise than the percentage differences in the times above because they use less energy. This is why even though the Sapphire has a slightly larger battery than the GT (120kWh vs. 118kWh), it's time to 200 miles of range added is longer than the GT -- because it is less efficient.

 

[DeaneG]

This is the link to the CURRENT Lucid Air page: https://lucidmotors.com/charging

> if you read it, it NOW says the 900+ charging architecture is OPTIONAL and (in fine print down the page) only on some trims.

> in this forum, other knowledgeable owners have suggested the Pure/Tiuring charging archture is 800+ Volts, or 600+volts. Which one is it? Is it explicitly spec'ed on Lucid's website? What should the Pure/Touring owners expect?

I was wrong; max voltage for Pure/Touring is in the range of 750 volts, not 800+. The car's voltage is a range rather than a fixed number - voltage is at a minimum at 0% and highest at 100% SOC.

But IMO the exact value isn't important. The main thing is that it's not 400-450 volts.

 

[hmp10]

> if you read it, it NOW says the 900+ charging architecture is OPTIONAL and (in fine print down the page) only on some trims.

Right under the headline in the second sentence of this product material it clearly states that the 900+ volt architectural is optional -- meaning not every car will have it. It's putting potential buyers on notice that, if electrical architecture is of concern to them, they need to inquire further. Frankly, I think so few buyers will find this a big consideration that I think Lucid was justified in not tying up a lot of promotional text real estate with getting into the weeds about this.

I'm really struggling to see what you think is misleading about the way Lucid communicates this.

 

[borski]

Each module of 300 cells has 42V.

Dream/GT-P/GT:
42V per module x 22 modules = 924V

Touring/Pure:
42V per module x 18 modules = 756V

Because there are fewer modules in the lower trims (for weight, cost savings because batteries are expensive, the foot garage in the rear seats, and so on), the lower trims run at 756V, and the upper trims run at 924V.

It’s math, not conspiracy or marketing.

Please watch this:

(That should start at 14m 19s)