How Much Range Are You Actually Getting?

[milgauss]

I took a scenic drive today with my daughter. (AGT, 19", windows halfway down the whole time, half highway speed, 45% 50-55, a few stops) Started out charged to 501 miles, ended at 374 having gone 114.4 miles. Averaged 4.2 mi/kwh. It was actually 4.4 until I had to go over the mountain at the end. Not too bad. I might try the same trip in reverse next time to see what happens. Also, my strong regen was not working. I was only getting standard on the high setting. I'm hoping a reboot will fix that.

Do you know if you are on software version 1.2.1 or a prior version?

 

[Adnillien]

I don't understand the Edmund's data:

View attachment 1859

If the EPA is 27 kWh/100 mi with a range of 520 miles, that would require a 140.4 kWh battery.

Edmund's test showed 28.3 kWh/100 mi which would need a 143 kWh battery to get 505 total miles.

Not sure how a 118 kWh battery delivers 140+ kWh?

Those EPA numbers include charging losses. That is the difference between the 118 kWhr battery and the 140kWhr that went into charging it.

 

[milgauss]

Those EPA numbers include charging losses. That is the difference between the 118 kWhr battery and the 140kWhr that went into charging it.

Is it possible that the Lucid is calculating kWh as the power required to recharge vs the kWh actually used? If so, it would make some of the results make more sense, especially if some of our cars are waking up and consuming a lot more power during charging. Maybe? I don't know, my head hurts.

 

[SDHacker]

I don't understand the Edmund's data:

WOW!!! Lucid has achieved 100% charging efficiency according to your arithmetic. This was discussed when Tom did his fast charge test and the Tesla fanboys were making the exact same claim you just made. Tesla owners had no idea how much electricity was being pumped into their cars because the superchargers don't display that info and the car only showed what was going into the battery - not what was lost to heat, fans, AC to cool the batteries, etc.. And, Tesla was nice enough to only charge customers for what went into the battery. I don't know if EA charges the customer for the electricity required to cool their charging cable too.

The EPA figure is derived from charging the battery from 0 to 100 including the electricity that went into what I mentioned above along with inevitable charging inefficiency. So, yes, it takes 140 to charge the 118 battery. The 22 is lost to charging inefficiencies and supporting functions. This is true for all EVs. The percentage lost just changes a little.

 

[hydbob]

Is it possible that the Lucid is calculating kWh as the power required to recharge vs the kWh actually used? If so, it would make some of the results make more sense, especially if some of our cars are waking up and consuming a lot more power during charging. Maybe? I don't know, my head hurts.

From what we've been able to see, the way lucid does their calculation is distance/total energy consumed to move that distance. It will include any drainage overnight, all the power used to heat/cool/massage/run radio etc. So if you traveled 4 miles, used up 1 kwh to move that mile but also used 39 kwh by sitting idle, it'll show up at 0.1 mi/kwh

 

[milgauss]

This was discussed when Tom did his fast charge test and the Tesla fanboys were making the exact same claim you just made.

I'm not sure what claim you think I am trying to make. Several of us are trying to figure out why the efficiency we are experiencing seems off.

Things might make more sense if Lucid's display calcs are using 140 kWh vs 118 kWh (132 kWh vs 112 kWh for the GT)? That still doesn't explain why the % remaining in the display doesn't line up. The % is more in line with using kWh consumed divided by 112 kWh.

To be clear: I am not trying to push any sort of agenda. I am trying to understand why mine and several other Lucid's "appear" to be underperforming.

 

[Adnillien]

From what we've been able to see, the way lucid does their calculation is distance/total energy consumed to move that distance. It will include any drainage overnight, all the power used to heat/cool/massage/run radio etc. So if you traveled 4 miles, used up 1 kwh to move that mile but also used 39 kwh by sitting idle, it'll show up at 0.1 mi/kwh

It appears to me that Lucid is estimating energy used by estimating changes in the battery state of charge. SOC is estimated from the battery voltage and temperature and may have some errors. This explains why the mi/kWhr change after the car is sitting since any non-driving loads are included. It usually goes down but I have seen it increase very slightly when the car sits for a short period of time. It also implies that this number is only accurate if you drive for a long distance.

If the battery management system has any sort of self calibration to the voltage charge curves of the battery, this may also explain the so called break in period that some have reported.

I sent customer care a question asking how the efficiency number is determined. I will let you know what I hear.

 

[milgauss]

From what we've been able to see, the way lucid does their calculation is distance/total energy consumed to move that distance. It will include any drainage overnight, all the power used to heat/cool/massage/run radio etc. So if you traveled 4 miles, used up 1 kwh to move that mile but also used 39 kwh by sitting idle, it'll show up at 0.1 mi/kwh

Or, is it showing its calculation using the kWh needed to replace the kWh used in your example above? In other words, the EPA says the GT is 28 kWh per 100 miles. That would mean approx. 1.2 kWh is needed to replace every 1kWh of battery used. Hope that made sense...

 

[KySerenity]

The best test I could have done was from 100% to 3%. I went 337 miles which put me at 74.7% of EPA on the DEP w/21".

Conditions that day was pouring rain for the first hour followed by mid 50s to mid 70s the rest of the trip. The car was also laden down with 2 adults and 2 kids including 2 car seats with 3 suitcases and a ice chest filled to the brim with food/drinks/ice. It was a real world as I could manage. When the roads were dry, I averaged high 70s. During the rain it was slower, probably high 60s mph. This was before ACC was available.

Kudos to @hydbob!!

This is the kind of range test that needs to be documented. It seems unusual that both InsideEvs and Edmunds both obtained 500 miles on a full charge. I cannot believe Lucid sent them a “special” car to inflate the results.

Without using miles/kw, we need reporting of extended roads trips like that documented by @hydbob. Ultimately, this should provide the truth. Once the answer becomes clear, it will help highlight vehicles with possible problems (@Bill55 ?).

 

[milgauss]

I sent customer care a question asking how the efficiency number is determined. I will let you know what I hear.

Awesome, much appreciated. I guess the question comes down to if they divide by the battery's capacity to get the % (e.g. 112 kWh) or by the amount of energy needed to charge the battery (131 kWh for a GT with 21").

 

[milgauss]

Kudos to @hydbob!!

This is the kind of range test that needs to be documented. It seems unusual that both InsideEvs and Edmunds both obtained 500 miles on a full charge. I cannot believe Lucid sent them a “special” car to inflate the results.

I reported a trip further up the thread that was 215 miles. Just because it got way worse numbers than @hydbob's, I think it's still valid. I am thrilled that the correct mileage is actually achievable, but many of us are not seeing it. I have never seen my car get above 3.1 kWh / mi and I have been driving it like a grandma.

 

[hydbob]

I reported a trip further up the thread that was 215 miles. Just because it got way worse numbers than @hydbob's, I think it's still valid. I am thrilled that the correct mileage is actually achievable, but many of us are not seeing it. I have never seen my car get above 3.1 kWh / mi and I have been driving it like a grandma.

Yea, car is coming back from the same trip but different conditions, way hotter compared to the last trip made in December. I'll post the consumption this time around as well as a comparison, it didn't get driven from 100-3% but it was the exact same trip just 4 months apart and about 3k miles more "broken" in on the car.

 

[digiboxer]

This sounds a lot like my "requirements"....My alma mater is 150+ miles from home. I want to drive down, tailgate, watch the game and get back home without recharging late at night. I ordered a Touring relying on 406 miles of range--by the math, a 33% cushion, right?

Not so fast--it sounds like that cushion could evaporate depending on outside temp, A/C, heating, wind direct, wind speed, hilliness of the roads, MPH, number of passengers , weight of the cooler....

This might all make engineering sense to some, but it also makes the car impractical for me...it's the reason I passed on the early Model X. The fact that other EVs underperform the estimates is no comfort. I've got 2 high-end ICE cars that will accomplish the mission regardless of all of the variables.

The survey above is a tiny sample size, but still--85% of the respondents are getting less than 80% of the published range. If these stats don't improve I have to pass.

 

[milgauss]

The survey above is a tiny sample size, but still--85% of the respondents are getting less than 80% of the published range. If these stats don't improve I have to pass.

Based on what I am getting, I would be very nervous of doing 300 miles even with the GT's longer 469 mile epa. My requirement was almost identical to yours, and I thought it would be a no brainer for the Lucid. Maybe I should have known this or researched more ahead of time. I was going completely off the You Tube videos of people getting over 500 miles. I love the car, but this has been a real bummer.

 

[Bus Driver]

@Digiboxder.

I hear you loud and clear. After being blinded, no, bowled over, by the Lucid Air’s charms on my 30 minute test drive, I am now having second thoughts.

First, real world reports from real world owners regarding the Lucid Air’s real world range are starting to filter in, and the results haven’t been encouraging. It seems like the gap between Lucid’s EPA rated range and actual, usable range is about the same as it is with the two Tesla Model Xs and the one Tesla Model S we now own. I was really hoping that Lucid would do better.

Second, autosteer is not available on the Lucid, and no one seems to know when it will be. That’s a pity. I’ve come to rely hugely on Tesla’s autosteer feature. That, combined with Tesla’s adaptive cruise control, has made Southern California’s stop and go freeway traffic a lot more tolerable.

Seems like I’ll be waiting a while longer yet before confirming my Lucid order.

 

[digiboxer]

I hope I don't get eggs thrown at me here for sounding "political"....but at times I think the EPA bloats the milage figures to make EVs more attractive to consumers

 

[SDHacker]

I'm not sure what claim you think I am trying to make

This:
"If the EPA is 27 kWh/100 mi with a range of 520 miles, that would require a 140.4 kWh battery.

Edmund's test showed 28.3 kWh/100 mi which would need a 143 kWh battery to get 505 total miles.

Not sure how a 118 kWh battery delivers 140+ kWh?"

You are claiming that if it takes 140 kwh to charge a battery, it must be a 140 kwh capacity battery which means it has 100% efficiency in charging. That isn't what Edmunds and the EPA are saying. You are correct that it takes 140 kwh to charge the 118 kwh battery. You aren't accounting for losses incurred in charging. When the EPA got 520 miles, they then divided 140 by 520 to get .2692 and multiplied by 100 and rounded to get 27 kwh per 100 miles. This is a very fair way of calculating mileage by cost. But that 140 is what needed to be input to fully charge the 118 kwh battery...it is not the capacity. It's the capacity plus the losses incurred during charging. Something I haven't seen discussed is that it seems the Wunderbox and 924V architecture may be a little less efficient than 400V systems in charging and that could be due to losses incurred in stepping voltage up to 924.

What I bolded of your text - the inverse should have been stated - it takes 140+ kwh to fully charge a Lucid 118 kwh battery. That is the fundamental misunderstanding you have stated. No one can charge a 118 kwh battery from 0 to 100% inputting only 118 kwh.

I don't dispute that owners are not achieving anywhere close to the efficiency we expect. I'm concerned too. My hope is that after you've put in a few thousand miles, the efficiency improves. This is why I'm really interested in @Sandvinsd 6000 mile roadtrip and if he experiences any improvements during the second half of his trip.

 

[milgauss]

I was actually trying to claim that I didn't understand the Edmund's data. You know, like I said in the opening of my post.

 

[hydbob]

I think the biggest misconception that I've seen here is that the Lucid will achieve EPA number because they are more efficient. Achieving EPA is near impossible (especially when using the 5 cycle test) and out of all the EVs tested, the Air got the closest to EPA rating that any other EV. The big caveat though is that is ONLY travelling 70, in as close to ideal conditions as possible i.e. no elevation change, as little stop and go as possible, as close to optimum temp as possible, no AC running, no prolonged stops, etc.

Everyone's driving conditions are going to be different, and realistically EVs in the near future are all going to perform the same with the same inefficiencies. Just need to ask yourself if you can make it work for you or not.

 

[digiboxer]

I think the biggest misconception that I've seen here is that the Lucid will achieve EPA number because they are more efficient. Achieving EPA is near impossible (especially when using the 5 cycle test) and out of all the EVs tested, the Air got the closest to EPA rating that any other EV. The big caveat though is that is ONLY travelling 70, in as close to ideal conditions as possible i.e. no elevation change, as little stop and go as possible, as close to optimum temp as possible, no AC running, no prolonged stops, etc.

Everyone's driving conditions are going to be different, and realistically EVs in the near future are all going to perform the same with the same inefficiencies. Just need to ask yourself if you can make it work for you or not.

Well said---but for those of us who have never owned an EV, the lesson that's coming through loud and clear is that variations in driving conditions have a drastically greater impact on EV mileage than on ICE mileage.

Given all the fanfare to the contrary on the net and YouTube, I'm grateful to be learning this reality here.