Long range Air Pure

[Andretex]

Quick question to the Lucid Owners who are in the “inside”.

Lucid Air Pure comes with an 88kwh battery for the single motor version. Given its lighter weight, this version gets approx. 419 miles with 19 inch wheels. Why doesn’t Lucid come out with an Extended range Air Pure and put in the 112kwh battery of the Dream Edition to get 500+ miles on the cheapest model?

 

[Adnillien]

Why doesn’t Lucid come out with an Extended range Air Pure and put in the 112kwh battery of the Dream Edition to get 500+ miles on the cheapest model?

It would no longer be the cheapest mode due to the battery cost.

 

[Andretex]

It would no longer be the cheapest mode due to the battery cost.

other models have two motors (or three for the sapphire). Multiple motors are best for speed. But the Air Pure is meant for slower driving and efficiency. Just asking if there is a technical reason for this.

 

[Adnillien]

other models have two motors (or three for the sapphire). Multiple motors are best for speed. But the Air Pure is meant for slower driving and efficiency. Just asking if there is a technical reason for this.

I doubt that there is a technical reason that this could not be done. It is more of a marketing reason and how the models compare and take sales from one another.

 

[ColonelBadger]

It would probably need a different floor to host the battery. The Pure and Touring have a flatter floor.

 

[hmp10]

It would probably need a different floor to host the battery. The Pure and Touring have a flatter floor.

The Air floorpan can take both 18 battery modules (Pure and Touring) and 22 modules (upper trim levels). The smaller battery pack drops the rear floor height by 3.15" by eliminating four modules in that location. However, both battery packs have an essentially flat floor from side to side. (Here'e the rear cabin of our Dream Performance with the 118-kWh pack -- the same 22 modules but with Samsung batteries instead of the LG Chem batteries in the Grand Touring.)

And here's the platform with the four rear seat modules removed:

 

[Steveinarizona]

other models have two motors (or three for the sapphire). Multiple motors are best for speed. But the Air Pure is meant for slower driving and efficiency. Just asking if there is a technical reason for this.

Not sure I agree with this statement. A car with HP comfortably in the 400s is not one built for slow driving or efficiency (although the word "slower" does apply compared to the other models). My buddy who just got a RWD Pure still marvels at the acceleration. My guess is that a lot of thought goes into features and pricing at the Lucid corporate level. I have never owned a car where one could not quibble with how the manufacturer has chosen to assemble the feature packages. One could disagree with some of those decisions but they have a lot more data than we do.

The big sign in the Scottsdale Fashion Square design studio still only lists the AWD Pure, not the RWD one, although once a customer enters the design studio, the staff is more than willing to try to help them find a RWD model.

 

[Andretex]

Agreed. Let me restate my initial question.

Since the GT is the model with the longest range, wouldn't Lucid get more range on a larger battery on a RWD Pure? My non technical mind thinks that having one motor and less HP should deliver longer range if the battery is the same size as the GT.

Lucid did not do this for a reason, does anyone know why?

 

[joec]

Agreed. Let me restate my initial question.

Since the GT is the model with the longest range, wouldn't Lucid get more range on a larger battery on a RWD Pure? My non technical mind thinks that having one motor and less HP should deliver longer range if the battery is the same size as the GT.

Lucid did not do this for a reason, does anyone know why?

I’m sure they considered it. But it probably doesn’t make financial sense.

Another way to describe the car you want is a single-motor GT. The price would be closer to that, in any case, given the battery pack is by far the most expensive item in the car.

Lucid offered two flavors of Dream Edition. One with more power. One with more range.

The one with more power outsold the one with more range by a massive margin. Think 5 to 1 or more.

The people spoke. Given the choice, they choose more power over more range. Especially given the range is “good enough” for most, even in the Pure.

There are already way too many variants of the Air. Adding another one that is basically a GT with less bling and far less power for what would likely be a higher price than a Touring would lead to few sales and further confusion at time of purchase.

 

[joec]

From a marketing perspective, there’s also value in associating the name “Pure” with that $70k price point. So a “Long Range Pure” that sits at over $100k would eliminate the benefit of that association.

If anything, RWD GT would make more sense. But then you lose the GT’s association with being the “fast” one.

Lose lose.

 

[skndrni]

Agreed. Let me restate my initial question.

Since the GT is the model with the longest range, wouldn't Lucid get more range on a larger battery on a RWD Pure? My non technical mind thinks that having one motor and less HP should deliver longer range if the battery is the same size as the GT.

Lucid did not do this for a reason, does anyone know why?

I’m gonna take a stab at this one. I think 90% of all drivers have a mindset of 300 miles range for a full “tank”. And we also know that 90% of all drivers drive less than 30 miles one way to commute. 400, 500, 600 miles even. It’s an arms race that won’t win market share, only bragging rights. And as far as Lucid is concerned, finding a way to a $50k Model 3 killer should be the engineering priority.

 

[joec]

I’m gonna take a stab at this one. I think 90% of all drivers have a mindset of 300 miles range for a full “tank”. And we also know that 90% of all drivers drive less than 30 miles one way to commute. 400, 500, 600 miles even. It’s an arms race that won’t win market share, only bragging rights. And as far as Lucid is concerned, finding a way to a $50k Model 3 killer should be the engineering priority.

Yes, but this is where chasing 500 miles of range on a halo car like the Air comes in. If you want your $50k Model Y killer to be able to go 300 miles on a charge, it’s going to have to be as efficient as possible. Because it’s going to have a battery pack slightly more than half the size of the one in Air. Every mile they eke out via advances in aerodynamics and motor efficiency gets them closer to that goal.

It’s not just bragging rights. It’s R & D.

 

[joec]

People complain all the time that Apple keeps making their laptops and iPads thinner and thinner. “Why don’t they just make it thicker and have more battery?” Because you don’t get technology like Apple Watch and Vision Pro into such small form factors if you don’t spend decades obsessing over efficiency and miniaturization.

Design and engineering thrive when they are given constraints.

 

[skndrni]

Yes, but this is where chasing 500 miles of range on a halo car like the Air comes in. If you want your $50k Model Y killer to be able to go 300 miles on a charge, it’s going to have to be as efficient as possible. Because it’s going to have a battery pack slightly more than half the size of the one in Air. Every mile they eke out via advances in aerodynamics and motor efficiency gets them closer to that goal.

It’s not just bragging rights. It’s R & D.

A well considered point of view. Still, I respectfully disagree. I think efficiencies from weight, powertrain and aerodynamic perspectives would be evolutionary, e.g. can’t expect a new paint job to break 6.0 mi/kwh. So we’re talking revolutionary change and rethinking the entire architecture. We’re in 3rd model year of their first model line, so I think too soon to radically change and potentially discard economies of scale.

Speaking of scale, scaling down to meet pricing and mass market demand will fuel Lucid’s growth, despite the next model being larger and more expensive. All in all, striving to reach even longer ranges when it already beats everything out there, making a niche product even longer range and more expensive, doesn’t seem like the move to me.

Economics > R&D

 

[segbrk]

A well considered point of view. Still, I respectfully disagree. I think efficiencies from weight, powertrain and aerodynamic perspectives would be evolutionary, e.g. can’t expect a new paint job to break 6.0 mi/kwh. So we’re talking revolutionary change and rethinking the entire architecture. We’re in 3rd model year of their first model line, so I think too soon to radically change and potentially discard economies of scale.

Speaking of scale, scaling down to meet pricing and mass market demand will fuel Lucid’s growth, despite the next model being larger and more expensive. All in all, striving to reach even longer ranges when it already beats everything out there, making a niche product even longer range and more expensive, doesn’t seem like the move to me.

Economics > R&D

This doesn’t make sense. Making small changes is exactly what just pushed the Air to 5 mi/kWh (according to Rawlinson). Small changes over time got us a Sapphire. Small changes over time made the Gravity’s range possible despite being heavier. Keep making these small changes and all Lucid has to do to hit that 6 mi/kWh for Midsize is… make it smaller. That’s the revolution. Smaller and lighter. And we know that’s already in progress, so I’m not sure what the problem is. The periodic improvements we see to efficiency aren’t just because they can. What we’re seeing is the research you want, on making a more economical vehicle (or from the Sapphire, or from the Gravity), just spilling over into the flagship model as well.

 

[borski]

This doesn’t make sense. Making small changes is exactly what just pushed the Air to 5 mi/kWh (according to Rawlinson). Small changes over time got us a Sapphire. Small changes over time made the Gravity’s range possible despite being heavier. Keep making these small changes and all Lucid has to do to hit that 6 mi/kWh for Midsize is… make it smaller. That’s the revolution. Smaller and lighter. And we know that’s already in progress, so I’m not sure what the problem is. The periodic improvements we see to efficiency aren’t just because they can. What we’re seeing is the research you want, on making a more economical vehicle (or from the Sapphire, or from the Gravity), just spilling over into the flagship model as well.

Precisely this. I’m all for revolutionary improvements, and it isn’t like they aren’t working on those; but everyone is, and they take forever, and they’re unpredictable - we don’t know when, if, how, or who will revolutionize the industry and give us the “next big iteration.” By definition, that means Lucid should strive for that, but also can’t sit on their hands waiting for it to happen.

In the meantime, regular iteration and trying to squeeze every last possible unit of efficiency out of the powertrain has led to many, many wins.

 

[HariK]

I guess they could offer GT without a glass roof. It will send a mixed marketing message if there is a 520 mile range Pure.

 

[joec]

I guess they could offer GT without a glass roof. It will send a mixed marketing message if there is a 520 mile range Pure.

They already offer a GT without a glass roof.

 

[HariK]

They already offer a GT without a glass roof.

Ah. That is a good move. I think the current mix is good for the large sedans. Pure RWD only, Touring cheapest AWD optional glass roof, GT optional glass roof and super high end fast cars. I wonder how ioniq 6 sedan is selling vs ioniq 5 SUV. Model 3 is selling much less than model Y.

 

[Steveinarizona]

I wonder how ioniq 6 sedan is selling vs ioniq 5 SUV. Model 3 is selling much less than model Y.

Around where I live and drive I see far more Ioniq 5s than 6s. But the 5 has been on the market a lot longer so it isn't a fair comparison.