Effect of Tire/Wheel Choice on Gravity Range

[hmp10]

For a Gravity Dream Edition, Lucid claims a 370-mile EPA rating for both the mid-size and largest wheel options. I have never believed that and was waiting for our newer Gravity to cross the 2,000-mile mark to do a comparison test between our two Dream Editions. That day was today.

The Cars:

Green Gravity Dream Edition (delivered June 2025)
- 6,384 miles on odometer
- Orion 21/22" wheels (aero inserts installed)
- OEM Michelin Primacy Touring A/S (All-Season) tires
- 7 seats

White Gravity Dream Edition (delivered December 2025)
- 2,101 miles on odometer
- Aether 22/23" wheels (no aero inserts available)
- OEM Pirelli P Zero PZ5 UHP summer tires
- 7 seats

The Conditions:

- All tires at 43 psi
- Temperature 77º at start of drive, rising to 86º
- Sunny and dry
- Both cars in "Smooth" mode at "Low" suspension and "High" Regen settings
- One passenger in each car (near same weight), no cargo
- A/C set to 75º
- Both cars started at 70% SOC

The Route:

- 119 miles round trip
- 48% of route on flat, straight 2-lane rural roads at speeds between 50-65 mph
- 52% of route on I-75 through Florida Everglades -- a flat, straight road with fairly heavy traffic today at speeds between 65-85 mph, with occasional short bursts to 90 mph

(This is a good proxy for the kind of road-tripping we do, mostly along interstate routes with frequent, lengthy side trips on secondary roads.)

The Method:

- One car followed the other, duplicating speed, acceleration, and braking as closely as possible

The Results:

- Green Gravity (mid-size wheels) used 40.1 kWh to go 118.0 miles* . . . or 2.94 mi/kWh
- White Gravity (large wheels) used 41.9 kWh to go 119.0 miles* . . . or 2.84 mi/kWh

Thus a 3-4% range penalty for the larger wheels with summer tires.

This is not something we would consider significant in deciding which car to take on a road trip and would instead decide based on expected weather conditions (all-season vs. summer tires) and which car is throwing up fewer software issues at the time of the trip.
_________________

*There was a slight discrepancy in distance readings, perhaps due to difference in rolling diameter of the tires not accounted for in the Gravity calculations. The Gravity with the mid-size wheels registered 118.0 miles, and the Gravity with the large wheels registered 119.0 miles. The routes were identical, literally within yards of each other.

 

[FirstLucidFL]

I agree with your initial hypothesis. There’s no realistic scenario where the 21/22 and 22/23 wheel setups deliver identical range. My assumption is that Lucid only conducted full EPA testing on the 20/21 configuration to establish the maximum range figure, and separately tested the 22/23 setup since those were the launch wheels. From there, they likely applied one of those certified figures across the intermediate 21/22 setup.
That approach isn’t unusual as most OEMs only certify a single wheel & tire configuration for EPA purposes and then carry that rating across multiple trims.

 

[hmp10]

I agree with your initial hypothesis. There’s no realistic scenario where the 21/22 and 22/23 wheel setups deliver identical range.

Yep, I was pretty sure there would be a difference. What I really wanted to do was quantify it as best I could to see if it were significant enough to affect a decision on which car to use on a road trip. It was not.

 

[Saksak]

For a Gravity Dream Edition, Lucid claims a 370-mile EPA rating for both the mid-size and largest wheel options. I have never believed that and was waiting for our newer Gravity to cross the 2,000-mile mark to do a comparison test between our two Dream Editions. That day was today.

The Cars:

Green Gravity Dream Edition (delivered June 2025)
- 6,384 miles on odometer
- Orion 21/22" wheels (aero inserts installed)
- OEM Michelin Primacy Touring A/S (All-Season) tires
- 7 seats

White Gravity Dream Edition (delivered December 2025)
- 2,101 miles on odometer
- Aether 22/23" wheels (no aero inserts available)
- OEM Pirelli P Zero PZ5 UHP summer tires
- 7 seats

The Conditions:

- All tires at 43 psi
- Temperature 77º at start of drive, rising to 86º
- Sunny and dry
- Both cars in "Smooth" mode at "Low" suspension and "High" Regen settings
- One passenger in each car (near same weight), no cargo
- A/C set to 75º
- Both cars started at 70% SOC

The Route:

- 119 miles round trip
- 48% of route on flat, straight 2-lane rural roads at speeds between 50-65 mph
- 52% of route on I-75 through Florida Everglades -- a flat, straight road with fairly heavy traffic today at speeds between 65-85 mph, with occasional short bursts to 90 mph

(This is a good proxy for the kind of road-tripping we do, mostly along interstate routes with frequent, lengthy side trips on secondary roads.)

The Method:

- One car followed the other, duplicating speed, acceleration, and braking as closely as possible

The Results:

- Green Gravity (mid-size wheels) used 40.1 kWh to go 118.0 miles* . . . or 2.94 mi/kWh
- White Gravity (large wheels) used 41.9 kWh to go 119.0 miles* . . . or 2.84 mi/kWh

Thus a 3-4% range penalty for the larger wheels with summer tires.

This is not something we would consider significant in deciding which car to take on a road trip and would instead decide based on expected weather conditions (all-season vs. summer tires) and which car is throwing up fewer software issues at the time of the trip.
_________________

*There was a slight discrepancy in distance readings, perhaps due to difference in rolling diameter of the tires not accounted for in the Gravity calculations. The Gravity with the mid-size wheels registered 118.0 miles, and the Gravity with the large wheels registered 119.0 miles. The routes were identical, literally within yards of each other.

Great test. Which car was leading and which was following? Could drafting have had an effect?

Your data gives a range of 345 mile (93% of EPA) for the mid tires and 333 miles (90% of EPA) for the large tires. That’s pretty good considering your speeds, especially the bursts to 90. I wonder if you could hit rated by going no faster than 65 mph.

Is the rated range of 370 programmed into both of your cars (charge tab -> usage -> settings -> info button next to range display option)? I have the GDE 7-seater with the small wheels (hankook) and mine is rated at 420 miles.

It’s hard to believe that the small tires make that big of a difference. It’s too bad we live on opposite coasts. It would have been great to compare all three tires sizes.

 

[tmichael]

I wonder if you could hit rated by going no faster than 65 mph.

... said no one who bought a car with over 800HP!

Would've been a great "Gravity in the wild picture" of two Gravity moving down the highway!

Thanks for the great comparison - makes me feel better on 22/23s - not that I have ever felt that bad...

Dream Ahead! What great mechanical masterpieces - when the software is running correctly!

 

[PGT]

Did one car always lead and the other always followed or back and forth? The calculated delta is certainly covered by the aero advantage of drafting

 

[hmp10]

Did one car always lead and the other always followed or back and forth? The calculated delta is certainly covered by the aero advantage of drafting

The green Gravity was in the lead but was almost always following other traffic itself, so any drafting benefits would have redounded to it in roughly equal measure. Also, because of drafting I stayed a fair way back from the lead car until I had to pull a bit closer because other cars kept dropping into the gap.

Great test. Which car was leading and which was following? Could drafting have had an effect?

Your data gives a range of 345 mile (93% of EPA) for the mid tires and 333 miles (90% of EPA) for the large tires. That’s pretty good considering your speeds, especially the bursts to 90. I wonder if you could hit rated by going no faster than 65 mph.

Is the rated range of 370 programmed into both of your cars (charge tab -> usage -> settings -> info button next to range display option)? I have the GDE 7-seater with the small wheels (hankook) and mine is rated at 420 miles.

It’s hard to believe that the small tires make that big of a difference. It’s too bad we live on opposite coasts. It would have been great to compare all three tires sizes.

Note that close to half this drive was on rural 2-lane roads where our speed seldom went above 65mph. It was a good proxy for the kind of road tripping we most often do, but it wasn't a good test of sustained freeway-speed range such as Tom Moloughney, Car & Driver, Edmunds, et al. do. In other words, it was really a better test for comparing one tire/wheel set against another in the kind of driving we do on trips than for comparing range to EPA claims.

When we do drive extended periods on interstates at sustained speeds of 80-85mph, the dynamic range readout tends to settle around 2.6-2.7 mi/kWh with the mid-size wheels and about one to two tenths lower on the large wheels. But we wanted to do a more controlled test where each car was driving at the same speeds on the same roads in the same traffic and weather conditions. If the dynamic range numbers from the car readouts can be relied upon, it suggests that the range penalty at higher sustained speeds for the larger wheel/tire combo roughly doubles from our test. Since the mid-size wheels are an aero design and the large wheels aren't, that might not be too surprising, as aerodynamic drag increasingly dominates range loss as speed rises. But these measures are too crude to support anything more than wild speculation on my part.

 

[dbsb3233]

I wouldn't expect a huge difference between the 21/22 and 22/23. 3-4% is actually more significant than I was expecting.

Those interested in maximizing range (like me) likely went with the 20/21s. It may not extrapolate directly, but that would be around 7% more range on the 20/21s vs the 22/23s. That's ~30 miles.

In my 450 EPA trim, I've been averaging 3.08 MPK. But no road trips yet. That's around home, with maybe 30% highway (75 MPH). And that's in Colorado, with an avg driving temp of probably 55F since I got the car in Dec. That *should* take a jump in summer temps.

I won't do my first road trip in it until summer (we still have free EA in our Macan until then so we're still taking it). I know we won't get close to the 450 EPA, but I'm hoping for 375-400 in summer. Of course, subtract safety buffers and 80% DCFCs along the way and that becomes 260 fast. So an extra 30 miles in the 200's becomes more significant since it's incremental (12% more practical range).

450 would take a 3.8 MPK. I'd be surprised if anyone is seeing anything close to that for a longer-term average.

 

[DeaneG]

So far over 532 miles in my new Gravity, I've averaged 3.11 mi/kWh.
Pretty good for such a large vehicle - by comparison, our tiny XC40 EV gets about 2.8 mI/kWh.

 

[hmp10]

I wouldn't expect a huge difference between the 21/22 and 22/23. 3-4% is actually more significant than I was expecting.

It didn't surprise me. There are several significant differences in the two wheel/tire options:

- The mid-size wheel is an aero design, and the large size is a very open design which tends to create drag.
- The Pirellis are ultra-high-performance summer tires which typically use grippier compounds and have higher rolling resistances than all-season tires.
- While nominally the same width, the Pirelli is a very square-shouldered tire. The width of the actual rubber patch on the pavement is more than an inch wider on the rear Pirelli and almost an inch wider on the front than on the mid-size Michelins. That's a much larger contact patch.

Just look at the much larger difference in the Hankook all-seasons on the small wheel option of the Gravity compared to the mid-size all-seasons. Those, too, are tires with the same width on aero wheels. Tire/wheel combos really do make a difference in many performance dimensions.

 

[Kairide]

Those interested in maximizing range (like me) likely went with the 20/21s.

I’m there too, I went for the 20/21 for better range, better comfort and cheaper replacements. A lot of customers (looking at you Tesla owners) get the bigger wheels and then complain about how harsh the ride is. Smaller sidewalls subjectively look better, but they ride like crap and getting replacements can be a hassle and expensive.

 

[hmp10]

Smaller sidewalls subjectively look better, but they ride like crap and getting replacements can be a hassle and expensive.

This is where Lucid's suspension engineering chops really come through. We detect very little difference in ride harshness between the mid-size and large wheels. It's there, but of no real consequence -- and we drive almost always in Swift or Sprint mode except on long road trips. A bit more noticeable is the tire noise difference, but much of that comes down to the choice of Michelin Primacy Tourings on the mid-size -- a tire known for its quietness. And even there, the Gravity's sound isolation with the acoustic glass and the suspension damping helps even things out.

 

[DeaneG]

My 20/21's ride like butter.

 

[dbsb3233]

This is where Lucid's suspension engineering chops really come through. We detect very little difference in ride harshness between the mid-size and large wheels. It's there, but of no real consequence -- and we drive almost always in Swift or Sprint mode except on long road trips. A bit more noticeable is the tire noise difference, but much of that comes down to the choice of Michelin Primacy Tourings on the mid-size -- a tire known for its quietness. And even there, the Gravity's sound isolation with the acoustic glass and the suspension damping helps even things out.

It surprised me that my Gravity suspension isn't smoother. It's good, but not great. I feel the bumps and cracks more than I expected. Our Macan EV is smoother. (I do have the dynamic handling package too.)

 

[037]

I wouldn’t mind comparing efficiency with my new 295/285 on 22” setup on a very in-efficient Michelin All Season 4 ultra high performance tire.

Next to GT on large wheel below

 

[dbsb3233]

I wouldn’t mind comparing efficiency with my new 295/285 on 22” setup on a very in-efficient Michelin All Season 4 ultra high performance tire.

Next to GT on large wheel below

The wheels look nice, but I gotta say I cringe every time I see a Gravity sitting that low. Always looks like it's gonna scrape the tires.

 

[037]

The wheels look nice, but I gotta say I cringe every time I see a Gravity sitting that low. Always looks like it's gonna scrape the tires.

I didn’t change the diameter so it’s never going to scrape while standing still. Can’t drive it in lowest ever but you can be sure people will open doors straight into curbs at any height…

 

[Jackles]

I’m surprised the size doesn’t affect the range even more. I was expecting 10-20% loss of range with the 22/23 vs 21/22.

 

[037]

On my previous 265/285 tire I followed behind a 20/21 5 seater and landed in the 22/23 tire efficiency almost perfectly. Just a 50 mile test with the 7 seater on custom 22s and Michelin AS4.

 

[hmp10]

I’m surprised the size doesn’t affect the range even more. I was expecting 10-20% loss of range with the 22/23 vs 21/22.

Some months before the Gravity was released, Kyle Conner (I think it was) interviewed Derek Jenkins about the Gravity design. Conner asked Jenkins about why the 22/23" wheels didn't have aero inserts. Jenkins replied that their testing had shown relatively little range loss over the smaller aero wheels, so they decided to favor the more aggressive look of the open wheels. I was skeptical of Jenkins' claim at the time, but now I see that he was probably shooting straight.