Lease return difficulties

[JoshG]

What Lucid REALLY should be checking on a lease return is the battery health. They should ding lessees who always charged to 100%, figuring it was just a lease and therefore long-term battery degradation would just be someone else's problem.

THAT would be in good service to the second buyer of the car, though I imagine it might require changes in the lease documents to make this clear to initial lessees.

But wouldn't it be smart of Lucid to let lessees know up front that battery health will be checked at the end of the lease and if you did more than just an occasional "100% (distance)" charge, you might be subject to a fee at the end of the lease?

 

[Leftlane]

If you are gonna sell me an electric car and then penalize me because I charge it to 100%, you can go jump in a lake. Can you imagine creating the longest range EV and that bragging point is a major differentiator for you, but then penalizing your customers if they do the very thing that gives them that range?

I charge to 100% any time I need max range. If the car seems to have a problem with that, then the battery warranty can cover it. This kind of nonsense is what turns people off about EVs.

 

[JoshG]

OK, I suspect we're getting into a controversial area that may belong in its own thread... but I'll reply and try to clarify my intent. Penalties may be the wrong approach. My point was, since the car and the app and everything else tells you each time you charge to 100% that it will be affecting long term battery health (range), then should the second buyer of the car be at least be made aware of there being some damage to the battery range/health when they buy? right now, i don't think there's a way for a buyer of a used Lucid to know that info.

I can examine if the tires have excess where when i buy a lease return vehicle. I can see if the seats have excess wear. i just can't see if the battery life will be shortened by the usage and patterns of the previous owner.

Maybe the better approach would be that used-car price should reflect battery health (like is done for mileage) rather than assess penalties on the initial owner.

 

[Pragmatic]

How do we know if the loss of battery capacity is due to frequent DCFC to 100% or bad design?

Lease residuals should reflect the odds that a short-term owner will/might abuse the battery.

I agree used car values should reflect the battery health but a leasee should not be dinged for using what the OEM supplied. Better to have the initial lease estimates account for possible battery abuse.