Beyond the Charging Curve: What Are Your Real-World DCFC Speeds?

[BS8899]

I think best case if this was 0-82 would be around 40 minutes.

Worst case If this was 10-92 it would be an hour lol.

I only charge to 100% when I am at home, with L2 charging, hours before I depart for a long road trip. I never deviated from this practice.
Unfortunately, there is no simple way to definitely identify what SoC I charged to other than the bounds you suggested.
Novato, where this (the screen shot metrics) charging took place, is 20 miles from my Marin County house and is where the only Costco in Marin County is located. I am pretty sure I didn't charge to 100% there. Also, looking at my logs, my subsequent charges on Mar 2, for 24.7kWh (Novato), and then Mar 9 for 41.9 kWh. (Hudson St SF) indicated I was all that time in in Marin/SF area and was not on a road trip.

Actually, I don't think my charging to ~80% SoC taking 50m (inclusive of connection and authentication time) is not so far fetched. The AGT has 40% more battery capacity than the Touring/Pure. While the AGT has a published charging curve and when charged by a 350kW charger in an controlled environment might do 5-80% SoC in 35-37min, recognize that no one claims all EA 350kW chargers can deliver 350kW consistently for any length of time. If you add on top of that what SoC suggests as "overhead non-beneficial kWh" (my terminology), my Novato charging episode is right in that ballpark.

I am not the one who claims my battery/Wunderbox is defective. I think what I experience is the norm.

 

[momo3605]

I only charge to 100% when I am at home, with L2 charging, hours before I depart for a long road trip. I never deviated from this practice.
Unfortunately, there is no simple way to definitely identify what SoC I charged to other than the bounds you suggested.
Novato, where this (the screen shot metrics) charging took place, is 20 miles from my Marin County house and is where the only Costco in Marin County is located. I am pretty sure I didn't charge to 100% there. Also, looking at my logs, my subsequent charges on Mar 2, for 24.7kWh (Novato), and then Mar 9 for 41.9 kWh. (Hudson St SF) indicated I was all that time in in Marin/SF area and was not on a road trip.

Actually, I don't think my charging to ~80% SoC taking 50m (inclusive of connection and authentication time) is not so far fetched. The AGT has 40% more battery capacity than the Touring/Pure. While the AGT has a published charging curve and when charged by a 350kW charger in an controlled environment might do 5-80% SoC in 35-37min, recognize that no one claims all EA 350kW chargers can deliver 350kW consistently for any length of time. If you add on top of that what SoC suggests as "overhead non-beneficial kWh" (my terminology), my Novato charging episode is right in that ballpark.

I am not the one who claims my battery/Wunderbox is defective. I think what I experience is the norm.

Yes, doesn’t appear anything is defective. Your claim was 10-80% was taking 50-60 minutes which does not appear to be accurate though.

 

[BS8899]

Yes, doesn’t appear anything is defective. Your claim was 10-80% was taking 50-60 minutes which does not appear to be accurate though.

I said from the beginning of my original post, the 50-60min is the time I spent stopping at the charging station, which included the overhead time of initiating the charging and terminating the charge (and get back on the road). In other words, when I stopped to charge my car from 5-10% to 80%, authenticate and get the charging started, and then disconnecting and get back on the highway, it is about 50-60m.

As my posted metrics indicate, the actual beneficial charging time was 46m. then you add the 5-7 minute overhead, hence the 50-60m turn around time for the charging stop.

I didn't think or said it was a Lucid problem. BUT, I DO THINK it might be a charging station (in this case, EA) issue because the chargers seldom reach 350kW, there is "balancing" between chargers, and I also experienced EA throttling which takes the charging (on a 350kW charger) to well below 100kW from the beginning. The last episode of this happened to me at the Cabazon Outlet. On top of that, there is the "unbeneficial energy" cited by SoC. Thus, your charge dispensed by the charger, and you paid for, is not 100% in your battery for you to run your EV on the highway.

I also want to be clear that I am NOT against charging stations doing "balancing". Simply put, if you run EA, you cannot afford to facilitate each charger with dedicated a 350kW power feed. Such an installation will be unaffordable expensive and wasteful. But, if you do "balancing", and your charging station is utilized by many travelers, customers will experience charging times longer than the THEORETICAL charging curve with a DEDICATED CHARGER. Your EV will not get the charging speed as shown on a theoretical charging curve with a dedicated charger. period! This is akin to telling everyone they will get EPA mileage efficiency in day-to-day driving. That's just bunk!

To sum it up, in a PERFECT WORLD, Yes, your AGT can charge 10-80% Soc in 35-37m. In a REAL WORLD, plan for a 50-60m stop!

 

[Rogue]

I said from the beginning of my original post, the 50-60min is the time I spent stopping at the charging station, which included the overhead time of initiating the charging and terminating the charge (and get back on the road). In other words, when I stopped to charge my car from 5-10% to 80%, authenticate and get the charging started, and then disconnecting and get back on the highway, it is about 50-60m.

As my posted metrics indicate, the actual beneficial charging time was 46m. then you add the 5-7 minute overhead, hence the 50-60m turn around time for the charging stop.

I didn't think or said it was a Lucid problem. BUT, I DO THINK it might be a charging station (in this case, EA) issue because the chargers seldom reach 350kW, there is "balancing" between chargers, and I also experienced EA throttling which takes the charging (on a 350kW charger) to well below 100kW from the beginning. The last episode of this happened to me at the Cabazon Outlet. On top of that, there is the "unbeneficial energy" cited by SoC. Thus, your charge dispensed by the charger, and you paid for, is not 100% in your battery for you to run your EV on the highway.

I also want to be clear that I am NOT against charging stations doing "balancing". Simply put, if you run EA, you cannot afford to facilitate each charger with dedicated a 350kW power feed. Such an installation will be unaffordable expensive and wasteful. But, if you do "balancing", and your charging station is utilized by many travelers, customers will experience charging times longer than the THEORETICAL charging curve with a DEDICATED CHARGER. Your EV will not get the charging speed as shown on a theoretical charging curve with a dedicated charger. period! This is akin to telling everyone they will get EPA mileage efficiency in day-to-day driving. That's just bunk!

To sum it up, in a PERFECT WORLD, Yes, your AGT can charge 10-80% Soc in 35-37m. In a REAL WORLD, plan for a 50-60m stop!

This feels like an end of thread shift from the car to the station as primary fault. What has been significant back and forth over conflating charging speeds/time with the entire stop. To top it off, others and maybe yourself (can't keep track of all the names) have lamented about how your charging is different than those of us with DEs or GT-Ps or Sapphires...

I don't begrudge you the point of charging may take a little longer than expectation.

However, EA has improved drastically in the last 6-9 months. I consistently see 300+ kWh to match my expected charging curve in the Lucid. I have had issues with EVGos and ChargePoints with initiating charging and trying to pay for 5-10 minutes.

My point is the blanket statement of 50-60 minutes for a stop is purely conjecture entirely dependent on distance from interstate, arrival SoC, departure SoC, preconditioning, operator speed, etc. Most of the handshake is authentication, so I suspect payment by credit card or by app executes much, much quicker.

If you are going to talk about charging curve as the topic of this thread, then that needs to be viewed in isolation for factors the car controls. Otherwise, folks reading this are misled by the claims made otherwise.

 

[BS8899]

This feels like an end of thread shift from the car to the station as primary fault. What has been significant back and forth over conflating charging speeds/time with the entire stop. To top it off, others and maybe yourself (can't keep track of all the names) have lamented about how your charging is different than those of us with DEs or GT-Ps or Sapphires...

I don't begrudge you the point of charging may take a little longer than expectation.

However, EA has improved drastically in the last 6-9 months. I consistently see 300+ kWh to match my expected charging curve in the Lucid. I have had issues with EVGos and ChargePoints with initiating charging and trying to pay for 5-10 minutes.

My point is the blanket statement of 50-60 minutes for a stop is purely conjecture entirely dependent on distance from interstate, arrival SoC, departure SoC, preconditioning, operator speed, etc. Most of the handshake is authentication, so I suspect payment by credit card or by app executes much, much quicker.

If you are going to talk about charging curve as the topic of this thread, then that needs to be viewed in isolation for factors the car controls. Otherwise, folks reading this are misled by the claims made otherwise.

Perhaps you haven't read the tread and my responses carefully. Let me try to clarify:

Unlike geeks/engineers/Tech marketing guys, the general public doesn't cares about what is the efficiency in miles/kWh, what shape is your charting curve, and what is your efficiency in mi/kWh. Those are all metrics for the engineers and marketeer to tout and declare they have the most efficient and fastest charging car in the world. I am an engineer. I spent my career building and marketing successful high tech products and technologies.

If you want to reach the general car buying public beyond the self-gratifying geek world, you need to translate the metrics to be meaningful to the masses. In the case of a car, it is: How fast does it go? How far does it go before it needs to be recharged? How long does it take to recharge this EV? Can I go on road trips with it? How much does it cost? How much is the insurance and repairs? How does it look (minivan or SUV)? etc..

Therefore, in the context of this thread, Lucid touts its leadership in range and efficiency. We need to bottom out on:
> How long does it take to charge this EV on a road trip?

As it turn out, the different variants of the Lucid have different battery size, charging rates, and, depending on the charging vendor, their facilitation. Is it EA? Tesla? EVGo? Costco? etc..

Intuitively, an uninformed buyer might think a 350kW charger will be substantially faster than a 150kW charger. But it isn't, not even close to that (i.e., .2X charging speed). What about a 300kW vs a 350kW charger? Is the 350kW charge just faster? What about charging on the Tesla network? Is it faster than EA? Currently, Tesla has more chargers deployed than all the other vendors combined. Therefore, the charging problem is solved? Hardly!! There are also secondary issues with charging such as balancing, non-beneficial energy consumption etc..

In short, we need to reduce it to: where should I charge my car? How long will it take to charge? How much does it cost to charge?

You said I am propagating an arbitrary metric of "every charging stop needs 50-60min". If you actually follow the thread, you wouldn't have come to that understanding.

My metric of 50-60m charging stops was very specific to the Lucid AGT (2022, 112kW battery) charging at EA stations, using 350kW or 150kW chargers. The metric is for charging from 10% SoC to 80% SoC. This metric is probably most applicable for long road trips requiring multiple charging stops comprehending the car's charging characteristics and the current charging network. It is by no means arbitrary and is well supported by data. But it is not a sacred metric either. For example, on the recent OoS I-90 Surge, a better strategy would be to charge for shorter time but more frequently. For a different EV or different trips, a different charging vendor, obviously it will be different.

The same methodology outlined in this thread can be applied to other models of Lucids (which have different charging characteristics) and others EVs, and with other charging partners.

All of these said, in the end, to consumer messaging needs to be even simpler than the metric I outlined. But for long road trips with the fewest charging stops, what we discussed in this thread is a credible metric.

 

[borski]

Perhaps you haven't read the tread and my responses carefully. Let me try to clarify:

Unlike geeks/engineers/Tech marketing guys, the general public doesn't cares about what is the efficiency in miles/kWh, what shape is your charting curve, and what is your efficiency in mi/kWh. Those are all metrics for the engineers and marketeer to tout and declare they have the most efficient and fastest charging car in the world. I am an engineer. I spent my career building and marketing successful high tech products and technologies.

If you want to reach the general car buying public beyond the self-gratifying geek world, you need to translate the metrics to be meaningful to the masses. In the case of a car, it is: How fast does it go? How far does it go before it needs to be recharged? How long does it take to recharge this EV? Can I go on road trips with it? How much does it cost? How much is the insurance and repairs? How does it look (minivan or SUV)? etc..

Therefore, in the context of this thread, Lucid touts its leadership in range and efficiency. We need to bottom out on:
> How long does it take to charge this EV on a road trip?

As it turn out, the different variants of the Lucid have different battery size, charging rates, and, depending on the charging vendor, their facilitation. Is it EA? Tesla? EVGo? Costco? etc..

Intuitively, an uninformed buyer might think a 350kW charger will be substantially faster than a 150kW charger. But it isn't, not even close to that (i.e., .2X charging speed). What about a 300kW vs a 350kW charger? Is the 350kW charge just faster? What about charging on the Tesla network? Is it faster than EA? Currently, Tesla has more chargers deployed than all the other vendors combined. Therefore, the charging problem is solved? Hardly!! There are also secondary issues with charging such as balancing, non-beneficial energy consumption etc..

In short, we need to reduce it to: where should I charge my car? How long will it take to charge? How much does it cost to charge?

You said I am propagating an arbitrary metric of "every charging stop needs 50-60min". If you actually follow the thread, you wouldn't have come to that understanding.

My metric of 50-60m charging stops was very specific to the Lucid AGT (2022, 112kW battery) charging at EA stations, using 350kW or 150kW chargers. The metric is for charging from 10% SoC to 80% SoC. This metric is probably most applicable for long road trips requiring multiple charging stops comprehending the car's charging characteristics and the current charging network. It is by no means arbitrary and is well supported by data. But it is not a sacred metric either. For example, on the recent OoS I-90 Surge, a better strategy would be to charge for shorter time but more frequently. For a different EV or different trips, a different charging vendor, obviously it will be different.

The same methodology outlined in this thread can be applied to other models of Lucids (which have different charging characteristics) and others EVs, and with other charging partners.

All of these said, in the end, to consumer messaging needs to be even simpler than the metric I outlined. But for long road trips with the fewest charging stops, what we discussed in this thread is a credible metric.

Bottom line: you were having a conversation the rest of us weren’t having. That’s fine. But that’s a different conversation than what we were discussing, which is peak speeds and/or charging curves.

That may not be the conversation you wanted to have, or that you think is important, but that is the conversation we were having.

Thank you for clarifying that isn’t the conversation you were having, so that people reading this thread aren’t misled.