Gravity 75 mph Range

[Ron_Burgundy]

The Michelin Primacy Tour A/S that come on the 21/22 seem like a good compromise.

I get the argument for three season/summer tires, but it’s a pain to have two sets of wheels and swap them unless you really live in MN or something. The mid-Atlantic gets cold enough to where three seasons lose performance significantly, but there are probably less than 10 days a year where I’d really want winter tires. Even then, it’s not a must.

So, I make the year ‘round compromise of “all season”…

 

[037]

How cold does it get on 17? Summer tires have much higher grip than all-season in wet conditions as long as it's not too cold. High efficiency all-season tires are especially bad in wet conditions.
Here are some Tire Rack test results. The Hankook tires were much worse in wet conditions:
View attachment 31819

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=327

Those are different non SUV Hankooks

 

[Elfin]

Those are different non SUV Hankooks

The point was that tires tuned for efficiency have significantly worse wet weather performance. And that summer tires have excellent wet weather traction as long as it's not too cold.
I doubt the Hankook iON evo AS SUV and Hankook evo iON AS have significantly different compounds. If there was some magic compound with excellent wet traction and efficiency they would have used it on both variants.

 

[037]

The point was that tires tuned for efficiency have significantly worse wet weather performance. And that summer tires have excellent wet weather traction as long as it's not too cold.
I doubt the Hankook iON evo AS SUV and Hankook evo iON AS have significantly different compounds. If there was some magic compound with excellent wet traction and efficiency they would have used it on both variants.

We could definitely continue guessing but the wvo SUV currently have good reviews on TireRack so I am hoping for a decent tire.

It’s used on the Korean EVs as well but then we don’t know if Lucid modifications made it better or worse for rain as they did make it narrower even vs same tire of same size for a different vehicle.

 

[Elfin]

We could definitely continue guessing but the wvo SUV currently have good reviews on TireRack so I am hoping for a decent tire.

It’s used on the Korean EVs as well but then we don’t know if Lucid modifications made it better or worse for rain as they did make it narrower even vs same tire of same size for a different vehicle.

Never said it was a bad tire, in fact there may be no tire that is better than it in every way (i.e. it's Pareto optimal*)
But, I'm willing to bet the PZ5 has better traction in wet conditions in temperatures above 40F.

*Maybe this should be Lucid's slogan instead of "Compromise Nothing" which as an engineer I find offensive.

 

[037]

Never said it was a bad tire, in fact there may be no tire that is better than it in every way (i.e. it's Pareto optimal*)
But, I'm willing to bet the PZ5 has better traction in wet conditions in temperatures above 40F.

*Maybe this should be Lucid's slogan instead of "Compromise Nothing" which as an engineer I find offensive.

No argument that the smallest tire is the weakest for traction and PZ5 being the best.

I am happy to quantify the braking on smallest tire after my GT is delivered. One day.

 

[Steveinarizona]

The Michelin Primacy Tour A/S that come on the 21/22 seem like a good compromise.

I get the argument for three season/summer tires, but it’s a pain to have two sets of wheels and swap them unless you really live in MN or something. The mid-Atlantic gets cold enough to where three seasons lose performance significantly, but there are probably less than 10 days a year where I’d really want winter tires. Even then, it’s not a must.

So, I make the year ‘round compromise of “all season”…

Depends on how and where you are driving. I had these on my Genesis GV60P and I didn't think they performed well on turns and on the twisties. I swapped them out for Michelin Sport 4S tires and now the car feels planted.

But...on the other hand, they are much quieter and will last longer. So it depends upon what you are looking for. If quiet and range are your principal goals, then the Primacy Tour will be a good choice. If you want more performance in an all season tire, you might consider the Pilot Sport A/S tires instead.

 

[Knucklehead]

The point was that tires tuned for efficiency have significantly worse wet weather performance. And that summer tires have excellent wet weather traction as long as it's not too cold.
I doubt the Hankook iON evo AS SUV and Hankook evo iON AS have significantly different compounds. If there was some magic compound with excellent wet traction and efficiency they would have used it on both variants.

Test data I have seen shows that rolling resistance is inversely proportional to wet traction. It's physics. I know you know this, so just putting a fine point on it. Better tire efficiency means less wet traction.

I have mentioned this before, but I had the iON EVO AS SUV tires (same as Gravity) on my Mach-e. I really liked those tires. Wet performance was fine, and twisty performance was fine, but these are not designed for that. And it is obvious. The OEM tires were low rolling resonance tires and yet the Hankooks improved efficiency by 7% on the highway. That's significant. They are also very quiet and comfortable.

If you plan to drive the Gravity very aggressively, you will slide a little more with the Hankooks. It is actually fun to slide, IMO, but you won't beat your competitor who is using performance tires.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Providing data for a 193 mile drive. Starting elevation is about 250ft, ending elevation is 2,600ft. Most of the climb is last 45 miles, but lots of up and down before that. All highway but for first couple of miles and last 10 miles. I went about 75mph entire time on highway.

Temp was about 75, no wind, sunny. All numbers from the Lucid energy in car app.

Started with 308 miles of rated range ,80% for my 21/22s A/S.

“Consumed” 249 miles of range and had 2.76 miles/kWh consumption. Interestingly, 35.3 miles of consumption were from “elevation”.

As a comparison, my wife did the same trip today, same conditions, in our 2022 X, started with 293 miles of range and ended with 85 miles of range. So 208 miles of consumption on 20” all season Michelins for the X versus my 249. She also drives just as fast (or faster!). Not sure what the X numbers really indicate or if it’s apples to apples, but thoughts folks here would be interested.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I should add one more comp. Don’t know total mile consumption, but our R1S Quad G1 on the same trip gets about 1.64 miles/kWh…Now, to be fair, those were with all terrain tires.

 

[TahoeMichael]

Providing data for a 193 mile drive. Starting elevation is about 250ft, ending elevation is 2,600ft. Most of the climb is last 45 miles, but lots of up and down before that. All highway but for first couple of miles and last 10 miles. I went about 75mph entire time on highway.

Temp was about 75, no wind, sunny. All numbers from the Lucid energy in car app.

Started with 308 miles of rated range ,80% for my 21/22s A/S.

“Consumed” 249 miles of range and had 2.76 miles/kWh consumption. Interestingly, 35.3 miles of consumption were from “elevation”.

As a comparison, my wife did the same trip today, same conditions, in our 2022 X, started with 293 miles of range and ended with 85 miles of range. So 208 miles of consumption on 20” all season Michelins for the X versus my 249. She also drives just as fast (or faster!). Not sure what the X numbers really indicate or if it’s apples to apples, but thoughts folks here would be interested.

At 2.76 miles/kWh, that's 340 miles for the 123 kWh battery. Not too bad for a heavy foot and and a climb with a lot of up and down elevation. Your profile doesn't say, was that a GT or a Dream?

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

At 2.76 miles/kWh, that's 340 miles for the 123 kWh battery. Not too bad for a heavy foot and and a climb with a lot of up and down elevation. Your profile doesn't say, was that a GT or a Dream?

GGT. Have GDE ordered too.

 

[Elfin]

Providing data for a 193 mile drive. Starting elevation is about 250ft, ending elevation is 2,600ft. Most of the climb is last 45 miles, but lots of up and down before that. All highway but for first couple of miles and last 10 miles. I went about 75mph entire time on highway.

Temp was about 75, no wind, sunny. All numbers from the Lucid energy in car app.

Started with 308 miles of rated range ,80% for my 21/22s A/S.

“Consumed” 249 miles of range and had 2.76 miles/kWh consumption. Interestingly, 35.3 miles of consumption were from “elevation”.

As a comparison, my wife did the same trip today, same conditions, in our 2022 X, started with 293 miles of range and ended with 85 miles of range. So 208 miles of consumption on 20” all season Michelins for the X versus my 249. She also drives just as fast (or faster!). Not sure what the X numbers really indicate or if it’s apples to apples, but thoughts folks here would be interested.

Wow, those are some good numbers for the X. What Wh/mi is that? Maybe she had traffic?
I'm surprised because the X is rated at ~10% more efficient and it got closer to its rating. I would expect them to get the same efficiency since they're the same size, weight, and aero.

 

[dbsb3233]

Providing data for a 193 mile drive. Starting elevation is about 250ft, ending elevation is 2,600ft. Most of the climb is last 45 miles, but lots of up and down before that. All highway but for first couple of miles and last 10 miles. I went about 75mph entire time on highway.

Temp was about 75, no wind, sunny. All numbers from the Lucid energy in car app.

Started with 308 miles of rated range ,80% for my 21/22s A/S.

“Consumed” 249 miles of range and had 2.76 miles/kWh consumption. Interestingly, 35.3 miles of consumption were from “elevation”.

As a comparison, my wife did the same trip today, same conditions, in our 2022 X, started with 293 miles of range and ended with 85 miles of range. So 208 miles of consumption on 20” all season Michelins for the X versus my 249. She also drives just as fast (or faster!). Not sure what the X numbers really indicate or if it’s apples to apples, but thoughts folks here would be interested.

Be curious to see what that is the other direction too, dropping 2300'.

2.76 MPK seems fair at mostly 75 MPH for +2300'. But I hope that jumps to at least 3.3 MPK going the other direction. I'd be a little disappointed if it's below 3.0 average at highway speeds.

This is the 450 EPA GGT, right? That would be 3.65 overall (450/123). I know highway speed will be below EPA, but I hopefully only 10-20% below, not worse.

 

[RandomDesign]

This is the 450 EPA GGT, right?

He said the 21/22 wheels so a 407mi EPA range.

 

[dbsb3233]

He said the 21/22 wheels so a 407mi EPA range.

I knew bigger rims lose range, but I didn't realize each size had it's own EPA.

10% range loss is a BIG hit just going from 20/21 to 21/22! Glad I stuck with the 20/21s on my order.

But if EPA is 407, then the 2.76 MPK sounds more reasonable.

 

[Elfin]

He said the 21/22 wheels so a 407mi EPA range.

Unless he has a third row, then it's 387 (because they round the weight 500lbs...)
All the numbers are kinda fake. It will be interesting to see somewhat controlled real world testing.

Note that this is wall to wheel efficiency. To get 407mi you would need to get 30kWh/100mi (3.3mi/kWh) battery to wheel

 

[RandomDesign]

Unless he has a third row, then it's 387 (because they round the weight 500lbs...)
All the numbers are kinda fake. It will be interesting to see somewhat controlled real world testing.
Note that this is wall to wheel efficiency. To get 407mi you would need to get 30kWh/100mi (3.3mi/kWh) battery to wheel

Ah, true! I wasn't thinking about the loss in the 7 row too.

 

[dbsb3233]

Unless he has a third row, then it's 387 (because they round the weight 500lbs...)
All the numbers are kinda fake. It will be interesting to see somewhat controlled real world testing.
View attachment 31965
Note that this is wall to wheel efficiency. To get 407mi you would need to get 30kWh/100mi (3.3mi/kWh) battery to wheel

I finally found those on the Lucid website, doing different build configurations. 3rd row seats cost 13 miles (~3%), larger wheels cost 43 miles (~10%), while both combined cost 64 miles (14%).

One of the biggest reasons I'm willing to pay $100k+ for a Gravity is to get mega range in a vehicle of this size/form/luxury. We road trip a lot (7-8 trips/year averaging 2000 miles each). It's usually just 2 of us so we don't need the 3rd row (but all the extra storage space will be great!). Sacrificing significant range for a bigger wheel seems crazy to me. I never found the look of bigger wheels to be much improvement anyway. In fact I'd rather have smaller wheels. More sidewall usually mean a softer ride.

I want as much of that 450 as I can get. Hoping for a realistic 400 at highway speeds (280 from 10-80%). We've done a ton of road trips stopping every 100-150 miles to charge, which is doable, but 400+ means we can do a full day in almost the same time as an ICE drive (750 miles in just 2 refueling stops).

 

[TahoeMichael]

I knew bigger rims lose range, but I didn't realize each size had it's own EPA.

10% range loss is a BIG hit just going from 20/21 to 21/22! Glad I stuck with the 20/21s on my order.

But if EPA is 407, then the 2.76 MPK sounds

I finally found those on the Lucid website, doing different build configurations. 3rd row seats cost 13 miles (~3%), larger wheels cost 43 miles (~10%), while both combined cost 64 miles (14%).

One of the biggest reasons I'm willing to pay $100k+ for a Gravity is to get mega range in a vehicle of this size/form/luxury. We road trip a lot (7-8 trips/year averaging 2000 miles each). It's usually just 2 of us so we don't need the 3rd row (but all the extra storage space will be great!). Sacrificing significant range for a bigger wheel seems crazy to me. I never found the look of bigger wheels to be much improvement anyway. In fact I'd rather have smaller wheels. More sidewall usually mean a softer ride.

I want as much of that 450 as I can get. Hoping for a realistic 400 at highway speeds (280 from 10-80%). We've done a ton of road trips stopping every 100-150 miles to charge, which is doable, but 400+ means we can do a full day in almost the same time as an ICE drive (750 miles in just 2 refueling stops).

Yeah, the combo of long range and fast charging is a major appeal for me as well. For similar reasons. If I had to sacrifice great driving dynamics to keep the range/charging, I would. But I'm happy that tradeoff isn't needed!