Gravity 75 mph Range

[Ron_Burgundy]

This is the opposite of what the rep described at the factory when I recently test drove the Gravity. "If you're just doing 20-30 mile round trips," he said, "wait for 10 or 15 of those before you charge."

Disclosure: not an owner (yet).

Manuel says keep it plugged in, but I will look again. I am leasing so I don’t really care!

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

It's ultimately the fault of the EPA failing to develop new methodology for EVs. It's still based on ICE, where it fits quite well for that. But EVs don't act the same way. Driver priorities are quite different as well. With most EV drivers charging overnight at home, city range is usually irrelevant. But because of often sparse DCFC coverage (plus it taking way longer and being way more limited), range is a HUGE factor for road trips. The singular headline number for EV range should be reported as 100% highway-only, because that's where it matters. Instead, it uses the "combined" methodology that's heavily city-biased.

In ICE cars, highway efficiency is often better than city. While in an EV, highway efficiency is not only lower, it's a LOT lower.

The EPA needs to create an entirely different methodology for EVs. (And ditch the stupid MPGe while they're at it.)

FWIW - I average about 2.90 in highway and 3.11 in city. So yes, better in city, but not awful on highway. And that’s going fast, accelerating, etc. Again, 3.30 is Lucid’s perfect rating on my Gravity.

People just don’t realize how inefficient ICE cars are in certain scenarios because you can get gas anywhere.

With Gravity, I have ZERO range anxiety. Part of it is driving an EV for 12+ years. The other huge piece is Tesla SCs are everywhere I go, and in rare instances, I have to slum it at EA. Final piece is Gravity is most efficient EV I’ve ever driven. I didn’t have an Air as we aren’t a sedan family.

 

[dbsb3233]

Lucid does recommend keeping car plugged in at all times when not in use.

It says that for "long" periods without use (so that phantom drain doesn't drain the battery too far). I don't think that's intended to mean normal use, but rather weeks of no use (like a long vacation or something).

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

It says that for "long" periods without use (so that phantom drain doesn't drain the battery too far). I don't think that's intended to mean normal use, but rather weeks of no use (like a long vacation or something).

No idea where I read that as I looked through the manual again. I don’t think it matters either way. The battery software should be able to take care of the battery.

 

[dbsb3233]

FWIW - I average about 2.90 in highway and 3.11 in city. So yes, better in city, but not awful on highway. And that’s going fast, accelerating, etc. Again, 3.30 is Lucid’s perfect rating on my Gravity.

People just don’t realize how inefficient ICE cars are in certain scenarios because you can get gas anywhere.

With Gravity, I have ZERO range anxiety. Part of it is driving an EV for 12+ years. The other huge piece is Tesla SCs are everywhere I go, and in rare instances, I have to slum it at EA. Final piece is Gravity is most efficient EV I’ve ever driven. I didn’t have an Air as we aren’t a sedan family.

Oh yeah, I'm used to having to make all the downward adjustments too. But my point is that the EPA range number is doing a disservice to not only EV owners but also potential EV buyers by producing a headline number that's usually not realistic (where it matters) and thereby setting people up for disappointment. Nearly every EV newbie has the same "WTF!" moment when they first take their new EV on a long road trip (when they already have natural range anxiety). And that's not good.

They should use a methodology that sets the right expectations for the use case where range matters.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Oh yeah, I'm used to having to make all the downward adjustments too. But my point is that the EPA range number is doing a disservice to not only EV owners but also potential EV buyers by producing a headline number that's usually not realistic (where it matters) and thereby setting people up for disappointment. Nearly every EV newbie has the same "WTF!" moment when they first take their new EV on a long road trip (when they already have natural range anxiety). And that's not good.

They should use a methodology that sets the right expectations for the use case where range matters.

Totally agree but also don’t think the government should be involved in EVs or ICE cars at all. If there were a for profit/private entity doing the testing, the numbers would be accurate or they’d go out of business. EPA numbers are a joke.

 

[dbsb3233]

Totally agree but also don’t think the government should be involved in EVs or ICE cars at all. If there were a for profit/private entity doing the testing, the numbers would be accurate or they’d go out of business. EPA numbers are a joke.

I agree with that statement for so many things in general. But the EPA isn't actually doing the testing. Manufacturers do their own testing. The EPA just sets the methodology and standards, which probably makes sense. Otherwise you risk manufacturers just making up whatever wild number they want to try and sell cars. I think it's reasonable for government to establish methodology and standards for something like this. But I'd probably move it out of the EPA and over to some consumer protection agency instead.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I agree with that statement for so many things in general. But the EPA isn't actually doing the testing. Manufacturers do their own testing. The EPA just sets the methodology and standards, which probably makes sense. Otherwise you risk manufacturers just making up whatever wild number they want to try and sell cars. I think it's reasonable for government to establish methodology and standards for something like this. But I'd probably move it out of the EPA and over to some consumer protection agency instead.

Maybe it could be something like IIHS. Not perfect, but clearly manufacturers can’t be trusted to test and neither can government.

 

[bassem]

Maybe it could be something like IIHS. Not perfect, but clearly manufacturers can’t be trusted to test and neither can government.

Why not crowd source it ?
Publish manufacturer numbers and allow drivers to publish their own numbers with transparency on the factors that led to those numbers.
This would allow the numbers to speak for themselves. With an actual average of composite.

 

[dbsb3233]

Maybe it could be something like IIHS. Not perfect, but clearly manufacturers can’t be trusted to test and neither can government.

You can't really force a 3rd party to do it either though. The testing isn't really the problem now, just the methodology. Probably needs to be an arm of the FTC that comes up with a new methodology for EV range so there's consistency and an appropriate measure focused on consumer priorities.

It's only at the EPA now because the government wanted a way to measure emissions for each car model. A byproduct of that was the MPG number. That became a useful number for car buyers... not because most cared about emissions, but because they cared about fuel costs (especially in the 70's with the Arab Oil Embargos). The EPA becoming the MPG police for consumers was accidental.

Then when EVs came along, the EPA felt compelled to produce an MPG counterpart, so they came up with the silly MPGe number that means nothing to anyone. But yet again, what consumers DID care about with EVs was range, so the EPA extrapolated MPGe into range (based on ICE assumptions and priorities).

So we went from emission measurements (appropriate from the EPA) morphing into MPG morphing into MPGe morphing into range. It's no wonder it's so messed up.

 

[dbsb3233]

Why not crowd source it ?
Publish manufacturer numbers and allow drivers to publish their own numbers with transparency on the factors that led to those numbers.
This would allow the numbers to speak for themselves. With an actual average of composite.

That can always happen on the side, and often for via forums and threads like this. But that doesn't get the visibility that most consumers would see. That comes from the official number that the manufacturer reports following the government methodology. The govt simply needs to create a new methodology suited to EVs and consumer priorities.

 

[Elfin]

My Tesla seems to be able to predict real world energy consumption with incredible accuracy. The EPA should just license or figure out that technology and force every manufacturer to supply their vehicle parameters for the model. Then they could have a set of standard drive cycles to input into the model or allow people to use their own personal drive cycles to see which car is best for their needs.

 

[dbsb3233]

My Tesla seems to be able to predict real world energy consumption with incredible accuracy. The EPA should just license or figure out that technology and force every manufacturer to supply their vehicle parameters for the model. Then they could have a set of standard drive cycles to input into the model or allow people to use their own personal drive cycles to see which car is best for their needs.

Those more accurate predictions in the car are typically based on a nav route being activated. Once an EV knows all those parameters (speed, elevation gain/loss, temperature, maybe even wind, as well as a car history of your driving), it can do a far more accurate calculation.

And even the basic range display on the dash (Guess-O-Meter) has the benefit of knowing your driving history to make a (somewhat) more accurate prediction than a model's EPA range.

EPA range knows none of that.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I’d argue range matters most in roadtrips and that’s when the nav in the car can most accurately predict it. I don’t care if it doesn’t know how far I can go on daily drives around the town, but I do on a roadtrip.

This is also why I find the terrible charger info IN the Gravity to be annoying. It’s not helpful, so I have to use Waze. One day, CarPlay will work.

 

[Elfin]

Those more accurate predictions in the car are typically based on a nav route being activated. Once an EV knows all those parameters (speed, elevation gain/loss, temperature, maybe even wind, as well as a car history of your driving), it can do a far more accurate calculation.

And even the basic range display on the dash (Guess-O-Meter) has the benefit of knowing your driving history to make a (somewhat) more accurate prediction than a model's EPA range.

EPA range knows none of that.

That's my point, EPA range uses an extremely simplistic model of the car and then does dumb things like round to nearest 500lbs, then has manufacturers multiply in a fudge factor... etc.
Using a model like what's in Teslas and then inputting how the average driver drives would be far more useful than what they do now.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

That's my point, EPA range uses an extremely simplistic model of the car and then does dumb things like round to nearest 500lbs, then has manufacturers multiply in a fudge factor... etc.
Using a model like what's in Teslas and then inputting how the average driver drives would be far more useful than what they do now.

Right. But that goes back to my comment about the government. There’s absolutely no incentive for the government to “get it right” or refine their calcs…everything is “good enough”…

I don’t want to get into politics though. Ultimately, I think they will not update mileage ratings as they just don’t need to.

 

[dbsb3233]

That's my point, EPA range uses an extremely simplistic model of the car and then does dumb things like round to nearest 500lbs, then has manufacturers multiply in a fudge factor... etc.
Using a model like what's in Teslas and then inputting how the average driver drives would be far more useful than what they do now.

Right, but that does no good to someone shopping for an EV. Or in setting the right expectation for a newbies that just bought a car expecting to be able to drive it 300 miles between DCFC stops. It's too late then, buying it and getting in to see it will really only do far less.

EPA range is about setting reasonable expectations for buyers.

 

[dbsb3233]

I’d argue range matters most in roadtrips and that’s when the nav in the car can most accurately predict it. I don’t care if it doesn’t know how far I can go on daily drives around the town, but I do on a roadtrip.

This is also why I find the terrible charger info IN the Gravity to be annoying. It’s not helpful, so I have to use Waze. One day, CarPlay will work.

Right, which is why I say EPA range needs to be based on highway-only. City driving is usually near home where there's plenty of range added at home overnight.

The problem is after buying that 300 EPA EV and seeing it will really only do 80% of that at highway speeds (minus safety buffer, minus 80% practical DCFC max). Leading to that "WTF is wrong with this damn thing, they misrepresented it as 300! EVs suck!".

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Right, which is why I say EPA range needs to be based on highway-only. City driving is usually near home where there's plenty of range added at home overnight.

The problem is after buying that 300 EPA EV and seeing it will really only do 80% of that at highway speeds (minus safety buffer, minus 80% practical DCFC max). Leading to that "WTF is wrong with this damn thing, they misrepresented it as 300! EVs suck!".

If you’re THAT out of it that you buy an EV and do zero research about it, that’s on you. IMHO. Also, ICE cars rarely get their EPA estimate. IDK. I have little sympathy for folks who are like “I had no idea” when such and such happens with an EV. Or any car or major purchase.

 

[037]

No idea where I read that as I looked through the manual again. I don’t think it matters either way. The battery software should be able to take care of the battery.

Page number included