Impressions of my first long road trip

[xponents]

The compressor is the energy hog with A/C, not the fans. I don't have figures, but ventilated seats should be negligible as well.

The AC uses the compressor which I’d assume would compromise efficiency more than the seat fans.

Got it, thank you both. I assume the Air does not use actual air-conditioned seats (I think it sucks air instead of blowing air?), which would support your findings.

 

[Adnillien]

The compressor is the energy hog with A/C, not the fans. I don't have figures, but ventilated seats should be negligible as well.

Lucid does not give us any details on energy usage of different items but in the tech talks there is a 10kW medium power inverter powering the HVAC systems for cooling and heating. This includes HVAC for cabin, battery and motors and inverter. Hence they can take a lot of energy. I believe the interior fans are all low voltage and typically fans use very little energy.

 

[HariK]

My experience on 8k mile trip CA to Montreal and back in pure 19inch awd was overall average 3.7 miles per KWh average speed 65mph ac set to 75 fan speed 7 in hot weather and 68 and seat warmer in cold weather. I like to stop every 2.5hrs to 3hrs which is max 200 miles and charge for 15 to 20 minimum 45 minutes max when at lunch or dinner.

 

[skndrni]

You lost me at low efficiency. With a lifetime average of 4.1, ‘low efficiency’ is not a term I’d use to describe my Pure AWD. It’s significantly better than my prior EVs. The charging curve I’d agree could be improved and is not the best I’ve experienced.

I think mine is broken. My “lifetime” is 2 months and barely a tick over 3.1… I guess I gotta learn how to drive it like a grownup

 

[Daniel2022AT]

My lifetime in my Touring is 2.9. Barely any better than my 7000lbs Rivian. I think 3miles/kw average on a GT is at least somewhat reasonable from a range perspective. But even car and driver was only able to get 270 miles out of their touring in highway driving. So 3 miles/kw seems to be about right for average drivers.

Even OP says he was only able to muster 3.3 with slow freeway driving and turning off the heater.

It takes some technique to get 4.2 mi/kWh. But it is easily learned.

 

[dwfallin]

Be curious what the outside temps were? That seems to have the biggest effect on my touring (20” wheels) efficiency - once it goes below 55 or so, efficiency drops quickly below 3.4 even at legal speeds (normally around 3.6-3.7 up to 77mph)

 

[BS8899]

My lifetime in my Touring is 2.9. Barely any better than my 7000lbs Rivian. I think 3miles/kw average on a GT is at least somewhat reasonable from a range perspective. But even car and driver was only able to get 270 miles out of their touring in highway driving. So 3 miles/kw seems to be about right for average drivers.

Even OP says he was only able to muster 3.3 with slow freeway driving and turning off the heater.

Like you, I have a Rivian (R1S) and a Lucid AGT (19"). My long trips are ~780 miles (Phoenix to Marin County. ) My observations:

> Rivian's EPA mileage rating is more conservative than that of Lucid's. In highway and city driving, I consistently do better than Rivian's claims. R1S with large battery pack is EPA rated @ 320 miles (quad motor).
> Lucid's mileage claim (AGT/19" has EPA rating of 516miles) is overly optimistic for highway driving. At 75-80mph on I-10/I-5, it is less than 400 miles. (starting with 100% SoC) vs EPA range for my AGT is 516 miles.
> Yes, speed is a big factor. Driving @ 65mph can result in significant improvement.
> I can do the 780 mile (I-10/I-5) drive with 2 charging stops on the Lucid AGT. It adds ~1:15 hrs of charging stop time compared to my ICE hybrids.
> for the Rivian, I need 3 charging stops. Adds ~ 2hrs to the 780 mile trip when compared to ICE hybrids, approx. 45min more than the AGT. Rivian also has the "conserve mode", utilizing only FWD on the quad motor power train. It gives you another 25+miles or so of additional range.

My "lifetime" (~8,500 miles) efficiency on my AGT is 3.5 miles/kWh. On the highway driving 75-80, mph, it is closer to 2.9m miles/kWh. In cities, ~3.7 miles/kWh. Efficiency on the Rivian is ~2.5 miles/kWh (conserve mode).

I think driving @ 72-73mph is probably the "sweet-spot" vis-a-vis, overall travel time (balancing charging time/# charges/time to cover the distance).

 

[Knucklehead]

In my area of the country, highway driving at around 80 is faster than a lot of the traffic, but also slower than a good number of people. I cruise at 79 and get passed regularly.

It is very frustrating when there is such a huge disparity between the EPA range and the true highway range of a BEV. I know the educated won't be surprised with the range hit at higher speeds, but it shouldn't be so hard to figure that out BEFORE purchasing a new vehicle. Basically, we all have to wait for the C&D 75 mph test, and hope that test is a realistic one. There are disparities in that test with what is being reported here as well.

This also does not bode well for the Gravity, IMO. If the Gravity is planned to have 400 miles of range, is that with a 120 kWh battery? And is that 120 kWh the usable capacity? And is it realistic to expect better efficiency in a Gravity at 80 mph when compared to an Air? No, absolutely not. 120 kWh x 3 mi/kWh is 360 miles. I seriously doubt the Gravity will be able to hit 3 mi/kWh at 80 mph. I am sure it will do better than my Mach-e, well at least I hope it will. So maybe 2.6 mi/kWh? Now we are at around 312 miles of highway range. But that is assuming 100% to 0%, and nobody does that.

I love this technology, but highway travel really isn't what a BEV is good at. At least if you want to drive the same way as many of us have always driven. And I do. I don't want to slow down at all.

 

[new owner]

The Math for range is not static or fixed ( the variables are obvious)
For my situation and climate I rely on the following math:

Air GT with 19's and inserts
Avg Mi/Kwhr 3.6 over 11,500 mi mixed use

112x3.6 at 100% charge 403mi ( when leaving home on long trip) x .8 ( never go below 20% unless no choice) 323 mi to drive before a stop
Charge to 85% on the road trips thus
95kw ( 85%) x 3.6 342 range but 274 mi to 20%

More than enough before a needed stop for me assuming a charge is nearby which is getting easier for when I drive
If going to another home with a charger than can use full range

 

[Lucken]

I love this technology, but highway travel really isn't what a BEV is good at. At least if you want to drive the same way as many of us have always driven. And I do. I don't want to slow down at all.

It’s not that highway travel isn’t what a BEV is ‘good’ at, it’s just that some additional planning is required for long trips. I occasionally make a 100 mile one way trip from L.I. to NJ. I never broke a sweat doing that in my i4 and arrived home with plenty of range to spare. That same trip in my Air Pure is an absolute laugher.

So the question becomes how long are your highway trips? If they’re very long, you simply need to plan your trip with charging stops along the way. One thing is certain, the Lucid, any Lucid will do better than your Mustang. If you’re not the kind of person who enjoys or wants to do this kind of pre-planning, then an EV is not for you for this type of use case.

 

[new owner]

Most of my trips are from Boston to Long Island NY
I charge once at my destination and arrive home with 20-30 % to spare ( leave home at 100%)
The Air GT is perfect for these kinds of round trips with a single charging stop of 20-30 min
Bonus is that there is a Lucid service on Long Island( ( Plainview) and Boston ( Natick ) in case need something like a battery or whatever.

 

[Knucklehead]

It’s not that highway travel isn’t what a BEV is ‘good’ at, it’s just that some additional planning is required for long trips. I occasionally make a 100 mile one way trip from L.I. to NJ. I never broke a sweat doing that in my i4 and arrived home with plenty of range to spare. That same trip in my Air Pure is an absolute laugher.

So the question becomes how long are your highway trips? If they’re very long, you simply need to plan your trip with charging stops along the way. One thing is certain, the Lucid, any Lucid will do better than your Mustang. If you’re not the kind of person who enjoys or wants to do this kind of pre-planning, then an EV is not for you for this type of use case.

I agree with you. It will be hard for most people to accept the limitations. We are early adopters, but those who are not, will not be happy. Like my wife.

I guess my main point is there is a need for better information about highway range before people purchase. I have heard many ideas regarding how that should work, but some sort of standard 75 or 80 mph test would be very helpful. And of course, there is the impact of weather. I am not sure you can address all the variables that impact range, but at least speed should be attempted.

Because there is a lack of information, one of the reasons I am on this forum is because I am a potential Lucid buyer, and I am reading all the threads about real world range. Highway range, specifically. It is not encouraging. But I do agree with you that Lucid leads the industry in range - with one caveat: the Rivian Max Pack. On the highway, it probably beats all the Airs except the GT. Or at least it is close. 142 kWh can move you quite a ways. (I also wish Rivian had used a 180 kWh battery as they originally announced. Huge disappointment for me.)

 

[momo3605]

I agree with you. It will be hard for most people to accept the limitations. We are early adopters, but those who are not, will not be happy. Like my wife.

I guess my main point is there is a need for better information about highway range before people purchase. I have heard many ideas regarding how that should work, but some sort of standard 75 or 80 mph test would be very helpful. And of course, there is the impact of weather. I am not sure you can address all the variables that impact range, but at least speed should be attempted.

Because there is a lack of information, one of the reasons I am on this forum is because I am a potential Lucid buyer, and I am reading all the threads about real world range. Highway range, specifically. It is not encouraging. But I do agree with you that Lucid leads the industry in range - with one caveat: the Rivian Max Pack. On the highway, it probably beats all the Airs except the GT. Or at least it is close. 142 kWh can move you quite a ways. (I also wish Rivian had used a 180 kWh battery as they originally announced. Huge disappointment for me.)

If you drive 65 or 70mph, you'll probably get more range in the Air GT. If you drive 75 or 80, i bet RIvian max pack will get more range.

 

[segbrk]

I agree with you. It will be hard for most people to accept the limitations. We are early adopters, but those who are not, will not be happy. Like my wife.

Life will be easier for later adopters in a couple years when there are tens of thousands more charging stations in the US. All this range anxiety and need for planning is just because there isn’t a charger every mile along every highway like there are gas stations. Improving efficiency and energy density are secondary issues at this point.
That said, most people aren’t road tripping anyway. It seems that the number of people anxious about EV range is by far greater than the number of people who out-drive an EV’s range in a day more than once a year.

 

[Adnillien]

If you drive 65 or 70mph, you'll probably get more range in the Air GT. If you drive 75 or 80, i bet RIvian max pack will get more range.

It is primarily the frontal resistance that causes efficiency to decrease at higher speeds. The Rivian has a worse coefficient of drag and a larger frontal area. Physics tells us that speed will have a greater impact on Rivian's efficiency than on Lucid Air's. This is not a knock on Rivian, it will be true for Gravity also.

 

[momo3605]

It is primarily the frontal resistance that causes efficiency to decrease at higher speeds. The Rivian has a worse coefficient of drag and a larger frontal area. Physics tells us that speed will have a greater impact on Rivian's efficiency than on Lucid Air's. This is not a knock on Rivian, it will be true for Gravity also.

I don't know why but it seems like with the lucid unless you drive 65-70mph, the efficiency just plummets like a rock. This isn't my experience with the rivian. It's a lot more gradual. And still not far off EPA at higher speeds. Same goes for the Taycans, they do quite well at 75-80mph.

 

[xponents]

I don't know why but it seems like with the lucid unless you drive 65-70mph, the efficiency just plummets like a rock. This isn't my experience with the rivian. It's a lot more gradual. And still not far off EPA at higher speeds. Same goes for the Taycans, they do quite well at 75-80mph.

The taycan situation I can answer with a fact, as the taycan uses a two speed transmission that boosts efficiency on the highway as opposed to Lucid's (and rivian's) single speed "transmissions."

 

[BS8899]

I don't know why but it seems like with the lucid unless you drive 65-70mph, the efficiency just plummets like a rock. This isn't my experience with the rivian. It's a lot more gradual. And still not far off EPA at higher speeds. Same goes for the Taycans, they do quite well at 75-80mph.

While I agree with @momo3605's "empirical observations" vis-a-vis, Lucid's efficiency drop-off at higher seems greater than Rivian's, @Andillinen's comments RE: physics applies to both is also correct. That said, there are other relevant factors:

[1] as I mentioned. Rivian's "Conserve Mode" in its quad motor power train and the "all-purpose mode" (see below) in the dual motor version provide additional efficiency improvements. My quad-motor "Conserve Mode" adds about 25-mile range, which is an 8% improvement from the baseline. I have no data on the dual motor's "all-purpose mode". It shows Rivian is aware of the range-anxieties and has implemented improvement modes. I am unaware of equivalent "range-extending" modes in the Lucid. I always drive my long trips in Lucid's "Smooth" mode. Not sure what others on this forum do. You don't need the exaggerated modes to do 80 mph on the highway!

[2] (without data) I think many Lucid owners love the thrill of the acceleration ability of the car. As such, they are "lead-footed" in how they drive, i.e., for the thrill of it! Such behavior is probably not friendly when it comes to efficiency and range.

In short, I think Rivian is more conservative in its range specification and implemented modes/algorithms to maximize their efficiency. Not sure if Lucid (the car company and the drivers) has these genes in their DNA.

For both the Lucid and the Rivian (large pack), I don't see their achievable efficiencies as "range anxiety" per se. Doing most of my driving along I-10 and I-5, I seldom encounter freezing weather and there are plenty of charging stations along the route. With careful planning, I don't worry about getting stranded. My main objective is to minimize the number of charging stops. I am comfortable going below 10% SoC before I charge, as long as I know there are chargers en route.
_______________________
GreenCarReport's description of the dual-motor R1S's "all-purpose mode"

Unlike the Quad-Motor setup, the Rivian Dual-Motor does not have a Conserve mode. Instead, the default All-Purpose mode decouples the rear axle to run as a front-wheel-drive truck for greater efficiency in most scenarios. But the rear axle powers on-demand as well, not just with a button push

 

[momo3605]

While I agree with @momo3605's "empirical observations" vis-a-vis, Lucid's efficiency drop-off at higher seems greater than Rivian's, @Andillinen's comments RE: physics applies to both is also correct. That said, there are other relevant factors:

[1] as I mentioned. Rivian's "Conserve Mode" in its quad motor power train and the "all-purpose mode" (see below) in the dual motor version provide additional efficiency improvements. My quad-motor "Conserve Mode" adds about 25-mile range, which is an 8% improvement from the baseline. I have no data on the dual motor's "all-purpose mode". It shows Rivian is aware of the range-anxieties and has implemented improvement modes. I am unaware of equivalent "range-extending" modes in the Lucid. I always drive my long trips in Lucid's "Smooth" mode. Not sure what others on this forum do. You don't need the exaggerated modes to do 80 mph on the highway!

[2] (without data) I think many Lucid owners love the thrill of the acceleration ability of the car. As such, they are "lead-footed" in how they drive, i.e., for the thrill of it! Such behavior is probably not friendly when it comes to efficiency and range.

In short, I think Rivian is more conservative in its range specification and implemented modes/algorithms to maximize their efficiency. Not sure if Lucid (the car company and the drivers) has these genes in their DNA.

For both the Lucid and the Rivian (large pack), I don't see their achievable efficiencies as "range anxiety" per se. Doing most of my driving along I-10 and I-5, I seldom encounter freezing weather and there are plenty of charging stations along the route. With careful planning, I don't worry about getting stranded. My main objective is to minimize the number of charging stops. I am comfortable going below 10% SoC before I charge, as long as I know there are chargers en route.
_______________________
GreenCarReport's description of the dual-motor R1S's "all-purpose mode"

Unlike the Quad-Motor setup, the Rivian Dual-Motor does not have a Conserve mode. Instead, the default All-Purpose mode decouples the rear axle to run as a front-wheel-drive truck for greater efficiency in most scenarios. But the rear axle powers on-demand as well, not just with a button push

My understanding is "conserve" isn't an option on the dual-motors because it automatically does it like your last sentence says. Apples to Apples for freeway is to compare QM Conserve with DM All-Purpose.

Lucid also does not have any range extending mode. I do try to use smooth, but i suspect there is no difference in efficiency in any of the modes. I don't really have a way to test this though since traffic varies so wildly in my area. It would be hard to simulate the exact same speed over the course of 10 miles or something.

 

[BS8899]

My understanding is "conserve" isn't an option on the dual-motors because it automatically does it like your last sentence says. Apples to Apples for freeway is to compare QM Conserve with DM All-Purpose

Yes, as I noted in my text and quoted the GreenCarReport, there is no "conserve mode" per se with the dual motor. It is automatic. This automatic "mode" is intended to maximize efficiency (without having to select a "mode").