I do such routes frequently. I-80 across WY. I-80 across NV. I-70+I-15 across UT. The speed limit never drops below 75 for more than a few miles (road construction notwithstanding).
I-10, I-20, I-95, I-65 to name a few. They definitely have stretches where there are 300 miles or more (depending on construction or traffic) where the speed limit is 70 or more, with maybe occasional dips to 65. In the south, southeast and east of US, you will find these roads for those long stretches where you move at speed.
Yep. If there's major cities you drive thru, they often lower speed limits and add time. But my common routes have almost none. WY has none on I-80 west of Cheyenne (350 mi). 75-80 the entire way. Same with I-80 in NV until you get to Reno at the end. All 75-80 speed limits. And I-70/I-15 in UT until it drops to 70 thru St George at the end (minus one canyon stretch on I-70 that drops to 60 MPH).
Makes total sense to me as I have been through the southeast. It’s just tough to understand what folks here are expecting. Like, what would “good” be for a 75mph test with no elevation, ideal conditions, etc? 15% range loss? I just don’t know, so that’s why I am asking.
Speed limit is very different than actual achieved average speed over a distance....Again do the simple math from the Google Nav...
So I don't need to do that. I have driven those interstates many times over the decades. I average about 80mph (gas or EV). I have done many areas of it where I set cruise control or just drive at 80 or more for hours. You said there was nowhere in the US where you could go 80 for 300 miles. I know for fact there are bc I have driven them. I don't use Google nav to show me that. I can verify with my own experience.
From here in Tahoe City, there's a 55 mph speed limit drive of 13 miles out to Highway 80 at Truckee. From Truckee to Salt Lake City is ~550 miles, and averaging 75 mph on that trip is no problem. The only slowdown is if you hit Reno/Sparks during a busy time of day. That said, I agree with you that it's hard to maintain a very high average speed. But I do think the 75 mph range tests are still useful information, because they give people a worst case efficiency to plan trips against.
I drive SF to Tahoe City very frequently, probably averaging 3 times a month. Being able to one-shot the trip home is one of the most appealing features of the Gravity for me. When I looked at which EVs to consider, I screened out vehicles that didn't have the range sufficient for the altitude climb in cold weather after a 10% battery degradation. The list of options is pretty small. I know that more and more vehicles are becoming capable of short charging stops, but it's nice to not have to stop at all if I don't want to.
I understand why Lucid wants to market amazingly long range, but it's clear that they are taking advantage of the EPA process to overstate their efficiency. They're hardly the only company to do that. Tesla also developed a reputation for misleading EPA numbers as people did real-world range tests. I personally wish that the EPA rules were reformed to give manufacturers less wiggle room to fudge the numbers.
Hang on, nobody's "fudging the numbers." The EPA has created a confusing process, but in short, there are two options for which test to use. The EPA actually recommends the 5-cycle test that Lucid and Tesla use, as it was developed specifically as an attempt to be more accurate. The German and Korean manufacturers use the older 2-cycle test, largely because it is cheaper; not out of a sense of honesty or benevolence.
There is a thing called regulatory capture. No idea if that is occurring in this situation. But it does happen, and Tesla certainly had a lot of influence in this topic...
Fair enough, "fudge the numbers" isn't the right description. But I do think EV manufacturers are aware that they've picked the EPA process that gives them the largest possible range to publicize, and that publishing such a number is going to lead to more questions about why "real world" range tests don't measure up versus other manufacturers which publish more conservative ranges.
Which is why, IMHO, none of this really matters. It's nice data points to know, but none of us are driving like Tom or Kyle to get every last mile out of our cars. We just need enough range to make the trips comfortable and efficient and easy. Gravity seems to be able to deliver that for most at 350 miles or so and yes, they most definitely shouldn't advertise the 450 if it's not achievable under anything but perfect conditions and low speed, but I think we can sum all this up with our Gravitys have enough range and charging speed to keep us happy for our road tripping needs. If they can just get the bugs sorted and the promised features released (which I'm confident they will), we will be good to go!So, in this 75mph test, how does OOS (or anyone) keep everything else equal? That is, ideal temp, elevation, load, etc. If the expectation is all else is equal, it feels as if this can be done with math except the outcome (efficiency) is the variable for which you’re trying to solve - and it won’t stay constant because of the conditions above.
So….3.3 mi/kwh is rated range based on the dynamic calculation in car for my 21/22, 7 seater. Which means “usable” battery (per Lucid’s calcs) is 116.9. Folks will say “but there’s buffer” - yes, but I wouldn’t rely on buffer. Ever. Plus it’s not really known and inflates range and may not be the same for all Gravity (should be, but…). You can create a huge graph and then wear it on your wrist like the cheat sheet QBs use in the NFL.
So if you get 3mi/kWh, you get 351 miles and 2.75 gets 321, 2.5 gets 292, etc - Aren’t these enough for guidelines? Getting 2.5 would be pretty bad and result in 75% rated range. But still…
I don’t quite understand why you want a precise test of someone else’s Gravity which may be spec’d the same, but won’t be driven under the same conditions.
I guess it’s all just extra data points…
For sure. I just hoped that Lucid's reputation for world-class efficiency and range would produce less loss vs EPA than other EV makers (like the Porsche Taycan).
Sure, it doesn't matter whether the range tests are reported in miles or MPK (mi/kWh). We can easily translate MPK to miles simply by multiplying by usable kWh.
Depends on which distance. A full day with getting on/off the interstate multiple times?...yes, that will drag the average down.
I wonder,
I agree...who cares about the theoretical max range of a vehicle's battery pack...rather see hard data from 80%-->20% range (or 85-> 15% or whatever) for a more real world owner comparison standard test
If you live in California, you might not care so much about the actual range as there are plenty of HVDC charger around. Such is not the case elsewhere.
