Impressions of my first long road trip

[segbrk]

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.

I believe I’ve read somewhere that Smooth already biases towards FWD for efficiency? Sprint is definitely less efficient because it actively conditions the battery for peak output. I agree though that I see no appreciable efficiency difference between Smooth and Swift.

 

[BS8899]

I believe I’ve read somewhere that Smooth already biases towards FWD for efficiency? Sprint is definitely less efficient because it actively conditions the battery for peak output. I agree though that I see no appreciable efficiency difference between Smooth and Swift.

To the extent the front and rear drive motors can be independently optimized, one would think Lucid can implement (or enhance) algorithms between these two motors to maximize efficiency. In the quad-motor Rivians, my understanding is the rea two motors are "disabled" resulting in the ~8% improvement in efficiency. I'd think that most road trips will invoke Adaptive Cruise control. Therefore, a "conserve mode" embedded within adaptive cruise control might give us better efficiency when cruising on the interstates. Not sure if Lucid can implement such an enhancement via OTA.

 

[Adnillien]

I believe I’ve read somewhere that Smooth already biases towards FWD for efficiency? Sprint is definitely less efficient because it actively conditions the battery for peak output. I agree though that I see no appreciable efficiency difference between Smooth and Swift.

Eric Bach told me this at the LA Auto Show. During normal driving and at normal freeway speed the bias is to the front wheels. During higher speeds and and during rapid acceleration, the bias moves to the rear. Lucid is using this technique to improve highway efficiency.

 

[RM-S8]

My lifetime (GT-P) is averaging @ 2.9
Kind of pisses me off. With my style of driving it should be 2.6.

 

[BS8899]

Here are the latest EV Truck efficiencies posted by Out-of-Sec Review. Note that these are 6000lb to 8000lb vehicles with less than aerodynamic efficient bodies doing 70mph. The high-level take: the Rivian and Silverado delivered their EPA range with better-than-projected efficiency. The Ford Lightning and Cybertruck fell a bit short.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************
Out of Spec Motoring conducted a 70 mph range test on several electric trucks, including the Tesla Cybertruck, the Rivian, the Ford F150 Lightning Lariat, and the Silverado 4WT. Here are the results:

1. Silverado: Achieved a range of 434 miles with an efficiency of 2 miles per kilowatt-hour (mi/kWh).
2. Rivian: Covered 345 miles with an efficiency of 2.6 mi/kWh.
3. F150 Lightning: Managed 282 miles with an efficiency of 2.1 mi/kWh.
4. Cybertruck: Traveled 304 miles with an efficiency of 2.5 mi/kWh1.

 

[BS8899]

Here are the latest EV Truck efficiencies posted by Out-of-Sec Review. Note that these are 6000lb to 8000lb vehicles with less than aerodynamic efficient bodies doing 70mph. The high-level take: the Rivian and Silverado delivered their EPA range with better-than-projected efficiency. The Ford Lightning and Cybertruck fell a bit short.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************
Out of Spec Motoring conducted a 70 mph range test on several electric trucks, including the Tesla Cybertruck, the Rivian, the Ford F150 Lightning Lariat, and the Silverado 4WT. Here are the results:

1. Silverado: Achieved a range of 434 miles with an efficiency of 2 miles per kilowatt-hour (mi/kWh).
2. Rivian: Covered 345 miles with an efficiency of 2.6 mi/kWh.
3. F150 Lightning: Managed 282 miles with an efficiency of 2.1 mi/kWh.
4. Cybertruck: Traveled 304 miles with an efficiency of 2.5 mi/kWh1.

Here is CR's report of EVs that fall significantly short of their claimed range. Sadly, Lucid is amongst them.

MSN

 

[BS8899]

Here is CR's report of EVs that fall significantly short of their claimed range. Sadly, Lucid is amongst them.

MSN

also see this link. As @momo3605 and I experienced, Rivian did better than their claimed range whilst Lucid fell short.

CR’s Real-World EV Range Tests Show Which Models Beat EPA Estimates - Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports' real-world electric car range tests show how far an EV can go on a highway road trip before the battery runs out.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[RM-S8]

Why all of this matter?
Aren't we all educated folk?
Not to be stranded in the middle of a desert, because we don't know how to calculate?

 

[DeaneG]

Here is CR's report of EVs that fall significantly short of their claimed range. Sadly, Lucid is amongst them.

MSN

To the best of my knowledge, no EV manufacturer claims a range capability at freeways speeds. They state a figure corresponding to an EPA test protocol.

 

[BS8899]

Why all of this matter?
Aren't we all educated folk?
Not to be stranded in the middle of a desert, because we don't know how to calculate?

No one is arguing that one should get the EPA mileage driving at 75-80 miles an hour. That's not the point. Toa first order, physics should affect all cars in a similar category similarly.

If the EPA rating has any value, it must. at a minimum, serve as a "Figure-of-Merit" that allows the buyer to compare vehicles, not absolute results. Yet, the real-life data suggest that some manufacturers do "better than EPA" and some do "significantly less" (say 25+% less). I don't know if the EPA testing script is deficient, some manufacturers are playing games, or both.

The manufacturers often manipulate benchmarks to exaggerate their performance (e.g., gaming performance on PCs, graphics cards, refrigerator power consumption, etc.). I wonder how useful this "Figure of merit" is when a product's real-life performance is 20-25% off the claimed benchmark.

 

[kort6776]

Here is CR's report of EVs that fall significantly short of their claimed range. Sadly, Lucid is amongst them.

MSN

you need to understand how the range Lucid claims is derived.
to keep it short it is at slower speeds on flat roads on perfect weather days.
the real world is that at "normal highway speeds" 70-80 mph you will lose almost 20-25% of the claimed range, more if it is cold, rainy snowy and even more if you are in a hilly area,
as you learn your car you will be able to guess what is your real range based on your driving.

 

[BS8899]

you need to understand how the range Lucid claims is derived.
to keep it short it is at slower speeds on flat roads on perfect weather days.
the real world is that at "normal highway speeds" 70-80 mph you will lose almost 20-25% of the claimed range, more if it is cold, rainy snowy and even more if you are in a hilly area,
as you learn your car you will be able to guess what is your real range based on your driving.

No one is debating that the tests were done under "ideal" conditions. But, for a benchmark to be relevant, cross-comparisons between different products must apply. Otherwise, what's the point? When different manufacturers have significant deviations in real life from the EPA rating, it calls into question the efficacy of the benchmark (and how different manufacturers implement them/or tune their products to the benchmarks).


The point I am making is, "Does the EPA range benchmark mean anything if repeated tests (using the EPA conditions) deviate significantly from the published results and the amount of deviation is different from one manufacturer to another".

I have no delusion that I will get 516 miles range on my Lucid AGT driving on I-10 @75-80 miles. But, as you saw on previous postings, both @momo3605 got similar experiences on our Lucids (lower) and on our Rivians (higher). Consumers Report had similar results. If a benchmark is highly sensitive to the specific car, then it is no longer a viable benchmark for cross-comparison.

When I bought my AGT (EPA=516 miles), I was doing regular trips from Phoenix to LA, almost exactly 400 miles door-to-door. I don't drive at excessive speeds. My highway speed is typically 75 mph. I have never been able to make it without recharging. It calls into question either the EPA methodology or Lucid's implementation (tuning) of their range rating.

 

[kort6776]

No one is debating that the tests were done under "ideal" conditions. But, for a benchmark to be relevant, cross-comparisons between different products must apply. Otherwise, what's the point? When different manufacturers have significant deviations in real life from the EPA rating, it calls into question the efficacy of the benchmark (and how different manufacturers implement them/or tune their products to the benchmarks).


The point I am making is, "Does the EPA range benchmark mean anything if repeated tests (using the EPA conditions) deviate significantly from the published results and the amount of deviation is different from one manufacturer to another".

I have no delusion that I will get 516 miles range on my Lucid AGT driving on I-10 @75-80 miles. But, as you saw on previous postings, both @momo3605 got similar experiences on our Lucids (lower) and on our Rivians (higher). Consumers Report had similar results. If a benchmark is highly sensitive to the specific car, then it is no longer a viable benchmark for cross-comparison.

When I bought my AGT (EPA=516 miles), I was doing regular trips from Phoenix to LA, almost exactly 400 miles door-to-door. I don't drive at excessive speeds. My highway speed is typically 75 mph. I have never been able to make it without recharging. It calls into question either the EPA methodology or Lucid's implementation (tuning) of their range rating.

it is the epa methodology, there are actually two benchmarks that a manufacturer can use, I cannot tell you the specifics but Lucid chose the more lenient one which really doesn't reflect the real world.

 

[RM-S8]

When I bought my AGT (EPA=516 miles), I was doing regular trips from Phoenix to LA, almost exactly 400 miles door-to-door. I don't drive at excessive speeds. My highway speed is typically 75 mph. I have never been able to make it without recharging. It calls into question either the EPA methodology or Lucid's implementation (tuning) of their range rating.

Just curious,
knowing this, would you purchase the Lucid again?

 

[segbrk]

it is the epa methodology, there are actually two benchmarks that a manufacturer can use, I cannot tell you the specifics but Lucid chose the more lenient one which really doesn't reflect the real world.

By which you mean Lucid chose the much longer, more thorough multi-cycle test (as did Tesla). @BS8899 is right that it's hard to compare this with numbers from manufacturers who did the "single-cycle" test. I'm not sure which version Rivian used. The multi-cycle test is not exactly more lenient, it's designed to be more accurate. The single-cycle test just has an automatic penalty applied because it's less accurate, which happens to make it closer to how people actually drive.

When I bought my AGT (EPA=516 miles), I was doing regular trips from Phoenix to LA, almost exactly 400 miles door-to-door. I don't drive at excessive speeds. My highway speed is typically 75 mph. I have never been able to make it without recharging. It calls into question either the EPA methodology or Lucid's implementation (tuning) of their range rating.

The EPA tells Lucid what speeds to test at. I believe their current "highway speed" for 2024 is 65, which is actually higher than last year? So with the exponential increase in power usage, getting significantly lower than 516 at 75mph makes a lot of sense.

Yes, the EPA tests should use a higher speed. That's not Lucid lying to you or fudging numbers, that's the EPA running at the speed of government. On the other hand, when was the last time you verified an ICE's range? I'm pretty sure I never got the stated range in my previous car, because I just drove and filled up and didn't care. At this point, and especially in the next few years as we get tens of thousands more charging stations, does it really matter?

 

[momo3605]

On the other hand, when was the last time you verified an ICE's range?

I did it all the time. All of my ICE cars have beaten their city EPA estimates. Hybrids were an exception (but I didn’t own any)…for a long time they had the same problem that lucid and Tesla have now. Was very hard to hit the epa estimates, though I believe that’s not as much of an issue now.

The multi-cycle test is not exactly more lenient, it's designed to be more accurate.

What accuracy when both Tesla and Lucid have the most optimistic EPA range estimates in the industry?

 

[hydbob]

I did it all the time. All of my ICE cars have beaten their city EPA estimates. Hybrids were an exception (but I didn’t own any)…for a long time they had the same problem that lucid and Tesla have now. Was very hard to hit the epa estimates, though I believe that’s not as much of an issue now.



What accuracy when both Tesla and Lucid have the most optimistic EPA range estimates in the industry?

It's accurate if you matc the conditions. Either way, we've been through this so many times already, here's a summary:

EPA tests are unrealistic
There are two tests, a 3 cycle and 5 cycle
Lucid uses a 5 cycle
Lucid is not blowing smoke, they are just following the 5 cycle test and using that as their range
Blame the EPA testing for not being realistic

 

[segbrk]

What accuracy when both Tesla and Lucid have the most optimistic EPA range estimates in the industry?

Like I said, the shorter test just has a fixed penalty. It’s not more accurate, it doesn’t have more or better data, it doesn’t have different test conditions, it just assumes it will be inaccurate.

 

[BS8899]

Like I said, the shorter test just has a fixed penalty. It’s not more accurate, it doesn’t have more or better data, it doesn’t have different test conditions, it just assumes it will be inaccurate.

According to the EPA website, their tests comprehend running at 80mph. As such, I presume the manufacturers are aware of the efficiency deviations at higher speeds when compared with the aggregated EPA rating (be it 3 or 5 cycles).

Now, let's look at an independent (Out-of-Spec Review) of efficiency @70mph vs the claimed EPA range.

70 mph range test — Out of Spec Studios

outofspecstudios.com

Since you are all smart people and you can read the data. Suffice to say,

> if you exclude the Chevy Boly and Nissan Leaf,
....Lucid and Tesla have the most negative deviations
.....Rivian, is pretty much in line with its claimed EPA rating (sans the MAX Pack)
...the German automakers (MB, Porsche) beats their EPA ratings handily

You can draw your conclusions!

 

[Neurio]

According to the EPA website, their tests comprehend running at 80mph. As such, I presume the manufacturers are aware of the efficiency deviations at higher speeds when compared with the aggregated EPA rating (be it 3 or 5 cycles).

Now, let's look at an independent (Out-of-Spec Review) of efficiency @70mph vs the claimed EPA range.

70 mph range test — Out of Spec Studios

outofspecstudios.com

Since you are all smart people and you can read the data. Suffice to say,

> if you exclude the Chevy Boly and Nissan Leaf,
....Lucid and Tesla have the most negative deviations
.....Rivian, is pretty much in line with its claimed EPA rating (sans the MAX Pack)
...the German automakers (MB, Porsche) beats their EPA ratings handily

You can draw your conclusions!

The conclusion is something that has been discussed on this forum many times:

The 5 cycle tests overestimates real world range. It's a marketing gimmick to advertise the highest possible range. The 3 cycle test has a fudge factor that is decided on by the manufacturer. Some use a smaller fudge factor to underestimate their real range (ie Porsche) and others use a more realistic fudge factor to give a range that is more in line with reality.

Unfortunately, there isn't one standard test by the EPA for unclear reasons. It would certainly level the playing field. That being said, Tom Moloughney, did get pretty damn close to EPA range on his DE 70 mph test. And as others have shown, if you drive closer to 65 mph, your range will be in line with the EPA estimate.