First test drive- First impressions

[DBV]

It literally is the EPA though, and dismissing that doesn’t make it less relevant. The EPA allows for two different kinds of tests; one which is less optimistic, and one which is more optimistic. The American manufacturers tend to pick the optimistic one, and the German manufacturers tend to pick the less optimistic one. That’s the difference.

So, sure - you could argue that one is misrepresenting range by using the optimistic test, but it is well within the law to do that, and is actively encouraged as an option by the EPA. You can still hit that range, you just have to drive like a grandma.

I get that, but still does not make it right.

You need one standard for all. Why would you ever have two? It makes it confusing for the consumers and to me makes it look like some auto manufacturers game the system legally to get the higher range. As more consumers start buying EV’s, it has to be much clearer. You can’t one overly optimistic and the other not. I would rather buy the car that is not overly optimistic.

Never heard of the two systems before, but on ICE cars, I never had these mpg ranges issues, that these EV cars experience, which is drastic between manufactures. Not sure why people want to defend the current system and don’t want to push for one system and something more realistic. Would be better for everyone and clear about the confusing around EV projected ranges.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

I think Lucid has put the knife in range anxiety. using 60% of the battery you get 300 miles pretty much under any conditions, and that gives you over 4 hours of driving....just how hard is your ass? After two hours I need to get out and walk a bit... after one hour I need to pee.

Peter hammers the point in one of his videos ... a small car with a small battery makes sense when you can access a charger as conveniently as one can access a gas pump now. This is definitely coming. Range anxiety is just a media tool to sell soap.

 

[joec]

I get that, but still does not make it right.

You need one standard for all. Why would you ever have two? It makes it confusing for the consumers and to me makes it look like some auto manufacturers game the system legally to get the higher range. As more consumers start buying EV’s, it has to be much clearer. You can’t one overly optimistic and the other not. I would rather buy the car that is not overly optimistic.

Never heard of the two systems before, but on ICE cars, I never had these mpg ranges issues, that these EV cars experience, which is drastic between manufactures. Not sure why people want to defend the current system and don’t want to push for one system and something more realistic. Would be better for everyone and clear about the confusing around EV projected ranges.

The system Lucid and Tesla uses requires 5 tests and thus costs each manufacturer more money. It was the “standard” until traditional manufacturers complained about the cost and the EPA caved and let them do the truncated 3 test average.

ICE manufacturers could care less if their results show more range, because they are in the business of selling ICE cars. They are only moving into the EV space due to regulations. Whereas Tesla, Lucid, etc only make EVs, so they have the extra burden of convincing people to buy EVs, on top of having to establish a brand.

Should there be one standard? Absolutely. Should that standard favor established companies who have little motivation to get people into moving away from internal combustion? I’m not so sure.

As I’ve been saying, people obsess over these numbers. Then they make decisions based on these numbers. Meanwhile, most who take the plunge into an EV despite the numbers soon discover that regardless of the numbers, they have to pee long before they have to stop for a charge. And then they realize that thanks to charging at home, “filling up” is something they think about a few times a year instead of a few times a week.

But until they can experience EV ownership, all they have is that stupid number.

 

[Artemis]

The system Lucid and Tesla uses requires 5 tests and thus costs each manufacturer more money. It was the “standard” until traditional manufacturers complained about the cost and the EPA caved and let them do the truncated 3 test average.

how much does it even cost? surprising that big established companies would complain over a probably small cost, considering the development of a car is hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[joec]

how much does it even cost? surprising that big established companies would complain over a probably small cost, considering the development of a car is hundreds of millions of dollars.

You’d think. But again, because they’re being dragged kicking and screaming into EV production, it’s not completely surprising a test that makes EVs look more attractive would be objectionable to some old-school auto executives. The money could be just their excuse.

 

[Sandvinsd]

it is all a matter of how far can one drive before you need to recharge, and that is a combination of efficiency and battery size. There is no other car out there that can travel farther on a full battery today. Are they more efficient, perhaps, but they won’t go farther. My Leaf is almost as “efficient” as my GT in miles /kW but one has to remember that the GT is about 50% heavier. So I’m reality, the GT is much more efficient as it can push more weight the same number of miles than the Leaf can. I can take long trips in the GT, with a lot of space and hp AND with very fast charging. We can’t take the poor Leaf out of the county And every time one would fast charge it, the charging takes longer due to battery heat.

There is no other car today I would rather have to drive on trips than the Lucid due to those factors.

 

[MoniputerLM]

I think Lucid has put the knife in range anxiety. using 60% of the battery you get 300 miles pretty much under any conditions, and that gives you over 4 hours of driving....just how hard is your ass? After two hours I need to get out and walk a bit... after one hour I need to pee.

Peter hammers the point in one of his videos ... a small car with a small battery makes sense when you can access a charger as conveniently as one can access a gas pump now. This is definitely coming. Range anxiety is just a media tool to sell soap.

But how do you really get the range that Lucid claims? I love driving my DE but I just don't get good range and when traveling I do get charger anxiety. My son drove his older Model S, with not great range, 1200 miles and never had a charger anxiety.

 

[hydbob]

But how do you really get the range that Lucid claims? I love driving my DE but I just don't get good range and when traveling I do get charger anxiety. My son drove his older Model S, with not great range, 1200 miles and never had a charger anxiety.

First you change your wheels to 19". Then you move to a part of the country that doesn't get cold. Last, you drive like @GEWC . Charger anxiety...also move to a place like CA

 

[MoniputerLM]

First you change your wheels to 19". Then you move to a part of the country that doesn't get cold. Last, you drive like @GEWC . Charger anxiety...also move to a place like CA

OK. I have 19" wheels and live in Texas!

 

[Lucken]

I think Lucid has put the knife in range anxiety. using 60% of the battery you get 300 miles pretty much under any conditions, and that gives you over 4 hours of driving....just how hard is your ass? After two hours I need to get out and walk a bit... after one hour I need to pee.

Peter hammers the point in one of his videos ... a small car with a small battery makes sense when you can access a charger as conveniently as one can access a gas pump now. This is definitely coming. Range anxiety is just a media tool to sell soap.

One issue that contributes to range anxiety is one I experienced today, and since I'm on my 4th EV, it certainly wasn't the first time. I pulled into a EA charger and noticed as the charging began, a yellow warning light on my i4's dash. I had to look it up since I'd never seen that one before. It turned out to be a 'charging limited' warning which explained why I was only getting 35kW from a 150kW charger. I always call in issues to EA as a courtesy to the next driver. After running their remote tests, she said there was a 'supply issue' with that charger and she would put in the infamous 'service ticket' for that unit. Of course it would have been easy to move over to the next bank of 2 chargers, but those were out of service too. The one remaining functioning unit was occupied.

I had a similar experience on Thanksgiving Day when I decided to visit a large bank of EA chargers in NJ. I really had no need to charge since I was at about 75% SOC, but we had time to kill. At this location there were approximately 10 chargers, 2 of which were 350kW unit. The bank of 7 150kW chargers, that were all placed in a row, were all inoperable. Every one of them. It was only 2 350s and 1 150 that were working, and they were all occupied.

So it seems to me this is becoming a more frequent issue at EA chargers and this absolutely contributes to range anxiety. There is no way I'd pull into an EA charger with 10% of charge remaining. Unfortunately, some novice owners will learn this lesson to late and simply run out of power.

Efficiency is important.

 

[GEWC]

First you change your wheels to 19". Then you move to a part of the country that doesn't get cold. Last, you drive like @GEWC . Charger anxiety...also move to a place like CA

It think @bunnylebowski is the best example for this, as he has done many road trips. Charger anxiety is partially in your head. There are so many different charger companies out there. Be prepared - have plugshare, EVGo, chargepoint, etc - all the apps available, and plan around them. Charge overnight. Be willing to take a long lunch (or stroll) on a slower charger if needed (enjoy yourself!). Early on there were long waits at many Tesla chargers and several chargers were often broken. Heck, that is still true.

 

[Lucken]

The system Lucid and Tesla uses requires 5 tests and thus costs each manufacturer more money. It was the “standard” until traditional manufacturers complained about the cost and the EPA caved and let them do the truncated 3 test average.

ICE manufacturers could care less if their results show more range, because they are in the business of selling ICE cars. They are only moving into the EV space due to regulations. Whereas Tesla, Lucid, etc only make EVs, so they have the extra burden of convincing people to buy EVs, on top of having to establish a brand.

Should there be one standard? Absolutely. Should that standard favor established companies who have little motivation to get people into moving away from internal combustion? I’m not so sure.

As I’ve been saying, people obsess over these numbers. Then they make decisions based on these numbers. Meanwhile, most who take the plunge into an EV despite the numbers soon discover that regardless of the numbers, they have to pee long before they have to stop for a charge. And then they realize that thanks to charging at home, “filling up” is something they think about a few times a year instead of a few times a week.

But until they can experience EV ownership, all they have is that stupid number.

Joe, I'm not so sure that's the case with some German legacy automakers. BMW & Audi are known for underestimating their actual range. I've seen that in my i4 which significantly outperforms the EPA estimate. I may be wrong, but I thought I'd read that too regarding the Korean brands, Hyundai & Kia. So I'm not sure your statement is entirely correct.

 

[SDHacker]

Not sure why people want to defend the current system and don’t want to push for one system and something more realistic. Would be better for everyone and clear about the confusing around EV projected ranges.

No consumer likes the current system and no one here is defending the current system. Not only can manufacturers choose between two tests, there are "adjustment" factors that can be applied (and Tesla takes full advantage of them).

I think Lucid has put the knife in range anxiety. using 60% of the battery you get 300 miles pretty much under any conditions, and that gives you over 4 hours of driving....just how hard is your ass? After two hours I need to get out and walk a bit... after one hour I need to pee.

There's the range that minimizes the need to charge to get to a destination and there is range while at the destination with no charger convenient to you. When you travel away from the interstates/metropolitan areas and get to a destination that doesn't have DCFC nearby and only primitive campgrounds so no 240V RV park availability, you only have what you came in with to explore over multiple days and get back out. With an ICE vehicle, you could probably find a station within 50 miles - you just paid $1 or more a gallon out in the boonies over town prices. With an EV, you really need to plan around that range.

 

[digiboxer]

The system Lucid and Tesla uses requires 5 tests and thus costs each manufacturer more money. It was the “standard” until traditional manufacturers complained about the cost and the EPA caved and let them do the truncated 3 test average.

ICE manufacturers could care less if their results show more range, because they are in the business of selling ICE cars. They are only moving into the EV space due to regulations. Whereas Tesla, Lucid, etc only make EVs, so they have the extra burden of convincing people to buy EVs, on top of having to establish a brand.

Should there be one standard? Absolutely. Should that standard favor established companies who have little motivation to get people into moving away from internal combustion? I’m not so sure.

As I’ve been saying, people obsess over these numbers. Then they make decisions based on these numbers. Meanwhile, most who take the plunge into an EV despite the numbers soon discover that regardless of the numbers, they have to pee long before they have to stop for a charge. And then they realize that thanks to charging at home, “filling up” is something they think about a few times a year instead of a few times a week.

But until they can experience EV ownership, all they have is that stupid number.

I wouldn't say ICE companies "could(n't) care less...." They are subject to State and Fed mandates to constantly improve the MPG efficiency of their fleets

 

[Volund]

First you change your wheels to 19". Then you move to a part of the country that doesn't get cold. Last, you drive like @GEWC . Charger anxiety...also move to a place like CA

This, was getting a range of 3.8 before the colder 15 degree temps, and now I'm at 3.0 average

 

[DJL]

This, was getting a range of 3.8 before the colder 15 degree temps, and now I'm at 3.0 average

Sounds about right. Plus, I have removed the aero inserts on the 4 wheels.

 

[borski]

I get that, but still does not make it right.

You need one standard for all. Why would you ever have two? It makes it confusing for the consumers and to me makes it look like some auto manufacturers game the system legally to get the higher range. As more consumers start buying EV’s, it has to be much clearer. You can’t one overly optimistic and the other not. I would rather buy the car that is not overly optimistic.

Never heard of the two systems before, but on ICE cars, I never had these mpg ranges issues, that these EV cars experience, which is drastic between manufactures. Not sure why people want to defend the current system and don’t want to push for one system and something more realistic. Would be better for everyone and clear about the confusing around EV projected ranges.

I actually agree with you, and am not "defending the system." I wish there were only one test so that we could compare Apples to Apples. For that, the EPA would need to change their regulations / guidance.

Until they do, though, I see no reason for Lucid (or any other manufacturer) not to use the test that benefits them. If I were in their place, I'd do the same, especially as a startup manufacturer, and especially when the brand that everyone compares them to (Tesla) uses the 5-cycle test instead of the 2-cycle test. If they want to compete, they need to be able to make it easy for consumers to compare them to their most popular competitor.

 

[chcho]

One thing I realized in the very short time I've driven my AGT is that it's so hard driving the car efficiently. The efficiency and the drive experience end up working against each other. You end up accelerating a little harder off the line and passing people a little faster than you normally would because the car is so smooth and power so seamless. This variable is another reason why the standardized tests run by Edmunds and IEV are the best data points for comparing efficiency.

 

[Lucken]

One thing I realized in the very short time I've driven my AGT is that it's so hard driving the car efficiently. The efficiency and the drive experience end up working against each other. You end up accelerating a little harder off the line and passing people a little faster than you normally would because the car is so smooth and power so seamless. This variable is another reason why the standardized tests run by Edmunds and IEV are the best data points for comparing efficiency.

You may be new to the world of EVs, and not to take anything away from the Lucid, but this describes many EVs. Incredible smoothness, instant torque and seamless power. I’ve been raving about this since my first EV, a MS, and it holds true with my current i4.

With that said, it’s still very easy to enjoy an EV without head snapping every time you hit the go pedal...especially when you’ve been driving them for over 6 years. For me the utter silence when accelerating is still something I get a kick out of.