Can we try to re-align the discussion/debate on this thread? It is getting rambling. I will try to assimilate some common threads and see if there are any actionable items.
I believe we all have the same objectives:
> to be able to charge our EVs at DCFC stations at the fastest possible rate.
However, not all Lucids are equipped the same. Different models/model years have different charging curves hence, different charging rates.
Other factors , such as pre-conditioning, road-tripping just prior to arriving at a DCFC, climate, DCFC equipment and power sharing, are all modulating factors.
As a starting point: let's agree that, in a lab environment, with a dedicated DCFC, and the vehicle is fully preconditioned, we expect the Lucid to charge in accordance with the charging curve. Let's not debate that point. The corollary is, if your car deviates substantially from its associated charging curve, you might have a battery or Wunderbox problem.
As to pre-condition vs no pre-condition:
> first, let's agree that the charging rate is subject to thermodynamics. Every time you try to counter thermodynamics, you lose. Getting the temperature to an optimal charging temperature (say 85F) maximizes the charging process.
> Does that mean one must activate precondition process for 30min before commence charging? I think the answers is, it depends: [1] you can activate "Preconditioning". It will consume battery. How long it takes depends on the weather, and the battery's temperature. Thus, if my car was sitting around in cold weather and I just roll it into a DCFC station, I should precondition before I charge. Else, it will take longer, perhaps significantly longer. Yes, preconditioning before charging will make the charging go faster, but it will cost you several kWh of energy.
>Conversely, if I were driving on the highway @70-75mph for the last 2 hours, my battery is probably already at an elevated temperature and may or may not need preconditioning. If I've been driving on the highway and my battery is already warm, does activating preconditioning "waste energy"? My qualified answer is "probably no". Yes, the preconditioning heater uses a fair amount of power, but I assume preconditioning is thermostatically controlled. As such, if your car battery is already close to the optimal charging temperature with the highway driving, turning on preconditioning will only consume a small amount of energy to get you to the optimal temperature.
I believe all the above points are straight forward.
What is less understood about DCFC charging speed:
> the charging speed of an EV depends on the model and the model year (thus the applicable charging curve). Hence, if you want an accurate quantitative answer, you need to understand your vehicle's charging characteristics.
> the charging curves are (presumably) generated under ideal laboratory conditions (temperature, environment, dedicate DCFC, preconditioning, etc.). Chances are, you will experience lower, perhaps significantly lower charging performance than the ideal.
> Do all DCFCs dispense the rated power? No, it depends on the equipment, the DCFC equipment configuration (e.g., balancing, station's max power limits, temperature, how many cars are charging (and at what stage of charging), etc.. It is a complex, dynamic, and multi-variable problem. I don't think any casual observer can figure it out. However, one thing is for certain, your charging time will be longer, sometimes significantly longer than the theoretical charging curve implies. In many ways, it is akin to never getting the EPA rated efficiency and range on your car.
As for me, I have a 2022 AGT. I drive long road trips regularly. I charge my Lucid AGT at EA (because I have free charging for 3 years). I typically charge from 5-10% to 80% SoC on the road. The theoretical charging curve for my car is ~30min for such charging. My actual experience is between 50-60min, including the time for DCFC protocol/initiation. I see no tangible difference (when it comes to total charge time) between 150kW and 350kW DCFCs. the EA 150 KW chargers often (slightly) exceed their rated output (say 160-165kWh) and the 350kW chargers often fall well below its peak rating (say 260kW to 300 kW). I am not a big fan of EA, but at the same time, I don't want anyone to think the realizable peak charge rate on the 350kW charger means they are "defective". The REALIZABLE charge rate is a convolution of the DCFC's capability, the vehicle's charging curve, the SoC , how many cars are at that station, what is the max power capability of that station etc. etc.. And a different, day, different station, different initial SoC, different weather, produce a different experience. My feeble mind won't be able to figure it out.
> I have no experience for DCFC charging on my Lucid except on EA. I charge my Rivian R1S mostly on Rivian's RAN (Rivian Adventure Network) stations. These chargers are rated at 300kW. They often deliver to 250kW and higher when you are below 40% SoC. My Rivian battery is 17% larger than my Lucid AGT battery. The charge time (10% to 80%), on Rivian RAN chargers, is about the same as my Lucid, 50-60m.
What is productive:
> on road tripping usage where you are looking to import "range" (as opposed to a bragging-right peak charging rate), a flatter charging curve (as in many German and Korean cars) is more important. It is the area under the charging curve, not the peak, that delivers the range. I don't know if Lucid can rebalance their existing car's charging curves to improve the "flatness". I know Lucid's marketing likes to toute the peak charge rate, but for pedestrian road tripper like me, it has no real value. If technically possible. perhaps Lucid can have two user select modes, Peak Charging Speed, and Road Tripping Charging (flatter charging curve).
> As an experiment, I might alter my routine on my next road trip in my Lucid to start at 100% SoC (from home) and, en route, charge from 10% to 65% and make one to two more stops and see if could cut 30min off my road trip.
