What's new

EPA ratings supposedly released

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
The AGT was slated to have the best range and now it is not. Given the 131mpge vs the Dreams 125mpge and all the different range discrepancies it appears they have hobbled the AGT in favor of a better Dream all way round.
Frankly, it would be odd for a brand's halo car not to boast the best numbers on a key performance metric. You may well be right that Lucid jiggered the software a bit so that the Dream (Range, at least) edged out the GT on range.

However, it's interesting that they did this by bumping up the Dream range instead of lowering the GT range. (The GT number for all intents and purposes remains the same as the FEV test, as 1 mile of range could easily be in the range of variance between any two tests). What stands out to me is that they suppressed the peak power output of a Dream model from 1,080 hp to 933 hp to bump its range from 503 to 520 miles.

There's more than just software in play here. The Dream Edition rear motor is unique in using special metallurgy that gives it a 15 hp bump and an undisclosed, but more significant, bump in torque over the motor used throughout the rest of the lineup. So Lucid may have had more to play with in manipulating the Dream software to change performance characteristics than they had to play with in changing GT software.

You could look at this two ways. GT buyers have had their expectations of a range topper crushed a bit. Or . . . Dream buyers have lost the ability to get an extra 280 hp over the GT at a very small range penalty (517 vs. 503 miles). They are now forced into a decision whether to take more top power at a significant range penalty or accept considerably less power to edge out the GT range by a meager 4 miles.

At the end of the day, GT and Dream buyers are being confronted with frustrations that 99.9% of car buyers could only dream of having. Buyers of either car are getting a machine at the very cutting edge of EV technology with a level of luxury and features available only in today's best ICE sedans. There are no losers here.
 

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
82
Location
Phoenix
Based on EPA range and energy consumption, the GT has a smaller battery than the Dream. This could be done by either removing one battery module or by software limiting the usable capacity. In addition, I estimate the GT battery to be about 114 kWhr where the Dream battery is 5-6 kWhr larger. Maybe the Lucid'd 113kWhr specification is for the GT rather than the Dream. Here are the calculations

1631890952592.png


Using Lucid's 113 kWhr and 22 modules, each module is 5.1 kWhr. Using the estimated battery calculation above, each module is about 5.4kWhr. Either way the difference in usable battery between the GT and Dream is about 1 battery module. The GT and DreamR range is still about the same becasue the GT has better efficiency. The GT may achieve better efficiency than the Dream from lower resistive losses due to lower currents. Similar to the DreamR versus the DreamP. The GT could also weigh 120-130 pound less than the Dream if one battery module is removed.

The numbers also show a discrepancy between the usable battery between the GT 19" wheels and the GT 21" wheels. If you remove this discrepancy, the range loss for the 21" wheels on the GT is about 40.7 miles which is very close to the range loss on Dream of 39 miles. There is no similar battery discrepancy between the Dream 19 and Dream 21.

1631891039494.png

1631891064338.png


For comparison and validation of the charging losses, here are the Tesla Model S numbers.
1631891084261.png



It will be interesting to see the Touring and Pure EPA numbers. I am guessing that they will only have 16 battery modules instead of 22.
 

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
It will be interesting to see the Touring and Pure EPA numbers. I am guessing that they will only have 16 battery modules instead of 22.
Based on how close Lucid's estimate has been to the actual EPA #s, I'd say we probably already know. A good guess will be within +/- 1 or 2 miles of 406.
 

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
82
Location
Phoenix
Given that the Tesla Model S has 405 miles, I would bet on the touring not being less than 406.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
Based on EPA range and energy consumption, the GT has a smaller battery than the Dream. This could be done by either removing one battery module or by software limiting the usable capacity. In addition, I estimate the GT battery to be about 114 kWhr where the Dream battery is 5-6 kWhr larger. Maybe the Lucid'd 113kWhr specification is for the GT rather than the Dream.
The FEV test achieved a 517-mile range for a Grand Touring with what Lucid said was a 113-kWh battery pack. That equates to 4.6 m/kWh efficiency, the number Rawlinson subsequently touted. The EPA range of 516 suggests just a variance between the two tests rather than the result of any effort Lucid made to change the Grand Touring range, as I can't imagine they would have bothered with software or hardware changes that yielded only a 1 mile difference in range.

So, if there is a difference in the battery packs between the Dream and the GT, it would seem the Dream pack has larger capacity, either in number of cells or in reducing the buffers at the top and/or bottom end of the charge capacity. I have seen the battery skateboards at two Design Studios and pored over the illustrations of the LEAP pack Lucid has posted from time to time. I cannot find any room for additional modules above the 22. If the 22-module pack were capable of providing more safely accessible capacity to the user via reduced buffers, I can't imagine Lucid would not have made use of it to achieve the highest range rating the FEV test could produce last fall ahead of the public stock offering.

I can't come up with a better explanation for the efficiency differences the EPA found between the Dream and the GT, but differences in battery pack sizes or capacities don't seem to me to be the answer. I still think it might lie elsewhere in the powertrain, perhaps relating to the different, more powerful rear motor used exclusively in the Dream.

It will be interesting to see the Touring and Pure EPA numbers. I am guessing that they will only have 16 battery modules instead of 22.
Someone at Lucid told me the the Touring and Pure would have an 18-module pack, resulting from the removal of the 4 modules under the rear footwells. If the module count were reduced to 16, that would be a 27% reduction in capacity. If the Touring and Pure, in fact, come in at around 406 miles of EPA range, that would mean only a 21% reduction in range from the GT . . . thus a real leap in efficiency over the GT. I'm no engineer, but would that be likely?
 
Last edited:

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
It seems a weight reduction of 4 packs would increase efficiency, but by how much? Do we have any idea what these packs weigh?
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
"Forbes" just published an article that says the Lucid Air uses up to a 118-kWh battery pack. They don't give the source of this information, but it does suggest that Lucid found someplace to put an additional module for the Dream Edition, as that squares almost exactly with adding the 5.14 kWh capacity of each module to the original 113-kWh pack.


From the story:

"Lucid uses the same cylindrical battery cell format as Tesla and equips its models with packs ranging up to 118 kilowatt-hours total capacity. The Tesla Model S Long Range uses an estimated 100-kWh battery pack while Mercedes said the EQS is equipped with a 107.8-kWh pack.

"Where Lucid excels is in the efficiency with which it transforms the electrons in the battery to power for driving the wheels.

"Despite its hefty horsepower and all-wheel drive, both big energy consumers, the Lucid Air Dream Range uses 27 kilowatt-hours of power per 100 miles. The Tesla Model S Long Range, in comparison, has been rated by the EPA at 28 kWh per 100 miles. Lucid Air’s least efficient model, the Dream Performance with 21-inch tires, is rated at 30 kWh/100 miles. The EPA’s least efficient rating at 48 kWh per 100 miles is held by Porsche’s $185,000 EV, the Taycan Turbo S."
 
Last edited:

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
82
Location
Phoenix
If the module count were reduced to 16, that would be a 27% reduction in capacity. If the Touring and Pure, in fact, come in at around 406 miles of EPA range, that would mean only a 21% reduction in range from the GT . . . thus a real leap in efficiency over the GT. I'm no engineer, but would that be likely?
Keep in mind that the Dream R is about 8% more efficient than the Dream P, the GT is about 5% more efficient than the Dream R. Between the weight reduction and reduced losses from lower performance, it seems possible to reduce capacity by 27% and only reduce range by 21%.

Do we have any idea what these packs weigh?
I really do not know, but I was thinking that they are about 100 pounds each. 2200 pounds for batteries and 3000 pounds for the rest of the car is my SWAG.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
I really do not know, but I was thinking that they are about 100 pounds each. 2200 pounds for batteries and 3000 pounds for the rest of the car is my SWAG.
According to the internet, 2170 cells weigh from 60-69 grams. Each module has 300 cells. Assuming 65 grams per cell means the batteries in a module weight about 43 pounds. I have no idea what weight is added by the rest of the module structure.

On anther note, your speculation that Lucid was using different battery packs between the Grand Touring and the Dream was spot on. See my post #28.

______________________

Update: I called Lucid Sales to see what they could tell me. They had not heard anything about a 118-kWh battery pack, but they said they aren't getting a lot of information from Engineering right now.
 
Last edited:

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
According to the internet, 2170 cells weigh from 60-69 grams. Each module has 300 cells. Assuming 65 grams per cell means the batteries in a module weight about 43 pounds. I have no idea what weight is added by the rest of the module structure.

On anther note, your speculation that Lucid was using different battery packs between the Grand Touring and the Dream was spot on. See my post #28.

______________________

Update: I called Lucid Sales to see what they could tell me. They had not heard anything about a 118-kWh battery pack, but they said they aren't getting a lot of information from Engineering right now.
My concern about it all is the Dream, for now, is limited to the 577. So really your halo car is the production AGT. Most consumers aren't aware the LUCID Air even exists. You can tell by sudden interest after EPA range announcement. Only way you're getting a Dream at this point is if someone backs out.

I just feel it is a bait and switch. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. That could have been left for next model year release.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
The Dream Edition has always been limited. It was originally called the Launch Edition, which was planned for only 255 cars (hence the original deposit of $25,500 to reserve one). They bumped the number up to 500 when it was renamed the Dream Edition. Another 77 cars were added to the run to be given to directors, senior company executives, and key PIPE investors.

I talked to Zak Edson, the head of Lucid Retail Operations, about this car. He said that Lucid's long-term plans for an ultra-performance sports sedan rest with the tri-motor Air that is in development. The Dream Edition was really meant as a spare-no-expense engineering exercise by Peter Rawlinson to see just how far they could push the limits with a dual-motor car.

I think the Dream Edition was meant to plant a flag for the brand as a high-tech, ultra-performance car company right at launch, but it was never envisioned as the anchor car for the top end of their lineup. That will be the tri-motor Air and, with it brewing in the wings, I seriously doubt if Lucid will bring the Dream into wider production at a later date.
 

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
The Dream Edition has always been limited. It was originally called the Launch Edition, which was planned for only 255 cars (hence the original deposit of $25,500 to reserve one). They bumped the number up to 500 when it was renamed the Dream Edition. Another 77 cars were added to the run to be given to directors, senior company executives, and key PIPE investors.

I talked to Zak Edson, the head of Lucid Retail Operations, about this car. He said that Lucid's long-term plans for an ultra-performance sports sedan rest with the tri-motor Air that is in development. The Dream Edition was really meant as a spare-no-expense engineering exercise by Peter Rawlinson to see just how far they could push the limits with a dual-motor car.

I think the Dream Edition was meant to plant a flag for the brand as a high-tech, ultra-performance car company right at launch, but it was never envisioned as the anchor car for the top end of their lineup. That will be the tri-motor Air and, with it brewing in the wings, I seriously doubt if Lucid will bring the Dream into wider production at a later date.
Sure, I'm not an exec at LUCID, but as a consumer and someone with AGT reserved, the R and P should have been shelved. It's 4 miles above AGT but 17 miles above long advertised range. I think thunder would have been just as great with 1,111hp and single offering. Lucid STILL had the AGT crushing the competition. Four additional miles aren't worth $30,000.

It will be interesting to see how many Dream R Editions are delivered.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
Despite Rawlinson's denials, I think it's pretty clear that he and Elon Musk have bones to pick with each other. Every time Lucid announced something, Musk came out with a claim to be one step ahead or started to go fuzzy with information.

Lucid announced an FEV test of 517 miles for the Air. Musk immediately announced a 520-mile Model S (which he found he couldn't deliver).

Lucid announced a Cd of 0.21. Musk immediately claimed a 0.208 (that has not been independently verified nor the testing procedures revealed).

Lucid announced acceleration under 2.5 seconds. Musk announced acceleration under 2.0 seconds (although it took three of his motors to do it).

Lucid announced a roomy backseat. Musk started pushing seats around in the Model S (after 9 years of miserable rear seating with no center armrest or cupholders).

Lucid announced a 113-kWh battery pack. Musk quit revealing Tesla pack sizes and removed references from the model nomenclature.

I think what Lucid does in trying to make its mark in the marketplace has a lot more to do with what Tesla does -- or might try to do -- than anyone at Lucid wants to admit. And I think this has a lot to do with why Lucid has kept the engineering books open on the Air as late into the game as they have.
 

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
That's dead on. It is however a circular firing squad. Both companies need to be focused on their ICE competitors. They both have to convince people to buy the "start up" tech over the traditional Mercedes, GM, Audi, Ford and so on. One of my colleagues I tried to convince to buy an EV, says he won't because he has to have the "engine sound." Tesla doesn't advertise, so the owners have to do the convincing. Lucid has an opportunity to sell a lot of cars. I'm still waiting on answer on Sirius XM and whether I can directly connect my Astell & Kern to the car to take advantage of the sound system. Bluetooth won't cut the mustard. Streaming requires subscription...
 

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
At my age I doubt I could hear the difference between A&K and Bluetooth. The realities of physiology. ;)
 

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
At my age I doubt I could hear the difference between A&K and Bluetooth. The realities of physiology. ;)
I anxiously await the opportunity to compare Bluetooth vs. same hi-res MQA file on Tidal on the system. Dolby Atmos multi channel, not sure how that will work over Bluetooth.

Here's an opportunity for LUCID UX. Upon delivery I'm driving from Millbrae, CA to Indianapolis. Route has multiple areas with NO cell signal
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
I'm wondering if the apps for streaming services with Dolby Atmos are going to come installed in the car.
 
Top