Lucid CEO critiques other EV-SUVs

[hmp10]

Maybe true, but the first question out of anyone’s mouth upon seeing my Lucid is “what’s the range?”

That's often the first question I get, too. I answer the question very much as @DeaneG does.

 

[BS8899]

I agree with you.

What is Lucid puts out a sticker that says:

Lucid AGT: 470 miles city/380 miles hwy.

Would you buy it?

I agree it is still best in class.

My #1 priority when I bought my AGT was range. I am disappointed in the realizable range, but it is still the best in class.

 

[Bobby]

Lucid AGT: 470 miles city/380 miles hwy.

Would you buy it?

I agree it is still best in class.

My #1 priority when I bought my AGT was range. I am disappointed in the realizable range, but it is still the best in class.

Try this: drive 65 max with gentle acceleration. You will get EPA.

 

[BS8899]

Try this: drive 65 max with gentle acceleration. You will get EPA.

I understand. I drive 101 in Marin. It is rated 55mph. I often drive with an entourage of angry motorists behind me. The nominal speed for everyone ia bout 70mph on 101!

 

[hmp10]

Lucid AGT: 470 miles city/380 miles hwy.

Would you buy it?

Yes, because it's still a considerably better range than either Tesla Model S we have had; than my brother's Model 3 Long Range; and than the Mach-E, the VW ID.4, and the Chevy Bolt that our friends have . . . and by 100 or more miles at highway speeds. (It's also roomier, quieter, better-handling, better-riding, more luxurious, more structurally solid, and more powerful than any of those other cars.)

 

[BS8899]

Yes, because it's still a considerably better range than either Tesla Model S we have had; than my brother's Model 3 Long Range; and than the Mach-E, the VW ID.4, and the Chevy Bolt that our friends have . . . and by 100 or more miles at highway speeds.

My point exactly.

Many non current EV owners will be surprised by having a lower efficiency on highway than in the city. But that's life! Regenerative braking, less aerodynamic drag, reversed the efficacy equation on EVs with respect to ICE cars.

The point I was objecting to and wanted to highlight is the sheepish attitude EV manufacturers are trying to mask the facts. You are dealing with physics! It ain't going to change any time soon. The last guy who changed physics was Einstein. And none of us is Einstein!

Instead of avoiding the subject or misleading the consumers, just step up and explain why EV is still a great solution.

I've equipped my garage with two NEMW 14-50 circuits for EVs since 2009. I bought my Honda PHEV (Clarity) in 2019, my Lucid in 2022, and m Rivian in 2023. I am in no way trying to diss EVs. I am a die-hard belier.

That said, I rather we speak the truth, face the reality, and continued to educate and make EVs better. Not talking about taboo metrics won't make them go away.

 

[HC_79]

How many ICE cars actually meet those EPA ratings? Probably none but it’s generally ignored because there’s a gas station on every corner.

Lucid has done nothing wrong, take issue with the EPA. The fact they allowed 2 different testing methods was a stupid idea to start with!

There is a 70mph road test video on the Lucid Dream and it got 500 miles. Getting close to EPA is achievable under certain conditions just like an ICE vehicle no doubt is. Add a hill to either of those scenarios and they’ll certainly use more energy and gas getting up that hill and therefore not meeting EPA.

 

[segbrk]

The efficiency rating is absolutely the EPA's problem. And guess what? We don't live under a dictatorship. If it's worth arguing on an internet forum about, why not take that time to write your senators/representatives instead. The EPA moves with the speed and intelligence of government. We still have this problem because either nobody knows a better solution, or it just hasn't been passed yet. As EV owners (and some of you, engineers, scientists), come up with a better idea and tell somebody who can do something about it.

 

[BS8899]

How many ICE cars actually meet those EPA ratings? Probably none but it’s generally ignored because there’s a gas station on every corner.

Lucid has done nothing wrong, take issue with the EPA. The fact they allowed 2 different testing methods was a stupid idea to start with!

There is a 70mph road test video on the Lucid Dream and it got 500 miles. Getting close to EPA is achievable under certain conditions just like an ICE vehicle no doubt is. Add a hill to either of those scenarios and they’ll certainly use more energy and gas getting up that hill and therefore not meeting EPA.

are talking about the Rawlinson video where he and a journalist drove two separate Lucids from Freemont to LA?

They didn't drive on I-5 or 101 at 75mph for that trip, correct?

 

[BS8899]

The efficiency rating is absolutely the EPA's problem. And guess what? We don't live under a dictatorship. If it's worth arguing on an internet forum about, why not take that time to write your senators/representatives instead. The EPA moves with the speed and intelligence of government. We still have this problem because either nobody knows a better solution, or it just hasn't been passed yet. As EV owners (and some of you, engineers, scientists), come up with a better idea and tell somebody who can do something about it.

The factors that affect EV highway efficiency are the same for all EVs. It is physics. It is not Lucid-specific.

Consumers will (has) figure it out sooner or later.

Why not take the lead and set the pace with new benchmarks and let the other Ev manufacturers follow?

 

[Joe]

Ok thread has gone far off from original topic. Please search previous EPA talk or start a new thread regarding EPA/efficiency.

 

[BS8899]

are talking about the Rawlinson video where he and a journalist drove two separate Lucids from Freemont to LA?

They didn't drive on I-5 or 101 at 75mph for that trip, correct?

BTW, I plan to take the leisurely Marin to OC route in October. But I will be doing it in my Rivian (because I will be taking 6 people). I will be doing it in 2 days, about 10 hours on the road. And I DO expect better mileage than if I drove I-5. It will take 9-10 hours on Hwy 1 instead of 5 hrs on I-5. But i expect better mileage.

 

[HC_79]

are talking about the Rawlinson video where he and a journalist drove two separate Lucids from Freemont to LA?

They didn't drive on I-5 or 101 at 75mph for that trip, correct?

No, I’m talking about the test InsideEV’s does with many EV’s. It’s independent.

 

[RockSports]

Presumably Peter Rawlinson has seen and reviewed the data from a real Gravity prototype. So he may know what he is talking about but context is always important and he hasn't seen what all the competitors are planning to do in the same time period.

I'm sure he knows what Gravity does relative to the competition. The central issue is that many of the reasons he would give why gravity is better would not matter to someone else, and that person might value a set of priorities that the R1S executes better. Since "better" is subjective based on an individual's needs and wants, you cannot declare one vehicle better simply because it excels in the areas you care about.

I can't tell someone looking for the family truckster that his EV9 is garbage because my R1 can beat it in a drag race. He doesn't care about drag racing times. I cannot tell them the Lucid is the poor choice because it cannot rock crawl. The Gravity buyer isn't looking to do that. Everything is a trade-off off and being better at one thing usually leads to being disadvantaged in another.

 

[BS8899]

Try this: drive 65 max with gentle acceleration. You will get EPA.

I know you've done this drive and I have no reason to doubt you. That said, driving 65mph max on I-10 from Phoenix to LA is probably not a realistic proposition as you will be holding up traffic. In reality, the part of the physics that determine energy consumption vs speed is the same between ICE and EVs. EVs, like the Lucid and Tesla, should already be more aerodynamic than many ICE cars. In summer driving from Phoenix to LA, air conditioning is a bigger factor on energy consumption on EVs. My "guesstimate" is, it will contribute about 10% (or more) of the energy consumption on such a trip. Now, if you reduce it to dollars and cents EV vs ICE (assume 28mph on hwy for ICE), EVs (EA @ $0.56/kWh) will not be much cheaper than gas. In reality, I think vendors like EA will charge whatever the market will bear.

I drove at night (started @1AM). There wasn't much traffic and little need to accelerate and decelerate. I was on cruise control the entire drive @75mph. The night temperature was "cool" (85F) so AC wasn't max'ed out. It is hard for me to see how I can do a lot better on my AGT driving I-10. It will be worse if I drove during the day time (AC and traffic interruptions).

I dids not freak out because I only got 330 miles from 100% to 10%. I expected that. But that's a long way from 516 miles (100% to 0%). If I use the drag and efficiency equation and simply use the Speed-squared multiplier to scale it from 75 mph to 65mph, the 330miles would translate to ~440 miles (100% - 9%) or ~480-490 mile range. This makes it closer to the 516 mile range claim. Separately, I think my numbers are reasonably consistent with Kyle's 70mph (100% to 0%) tests. (Out-of-Spec Review).

I think it is perfectly reasonable if Lucid (and other EV manufacturers) to spec range for EPA and 70mph or 75mph highway. I think buyers will be surprised by how much it dropped (as traditional ICE driver might expect the opposite). I think a solid 330 miles (100%-10%) is a respectable and more importantly, a realistic and defensible number to address range anxiety.

Separately, I think Lucid/Tesla should try to understand why their numbers are so much more exaggerated than the German EV makers. I am not sure it is just a 2-cycle/5-cycle deal. If indeed is just the EPA test cycles, perhaps the EV manufactures should agree to standardize.

 

[hmp10]

Separately, I think Lucid/Tesla should try to understand why their numbers are so much more exaggerated than the German EV makers. I am not sure it is just a 2-cycle/5-cycle deal. If indeed is just the EPA test cycles, perhaps the EV manufactures should agree to standardize.

In general, I have found Rawlinson -- and Lucid -- to be very candid in what they claim. For example, Rawlinson has been very clear that he thinks Level 4 and even some features of Level 3 ADAS to be much farther off than some manufacturers claim. While Tesla has been selling full self-driving for years -- something that still eludes them -- Lucid has stated that its current Dream Drive Pro will not progress much beyond Level 2+ without further technology breakthroughs. They future-proofed the hardware as much as feasible but have acknowledged that the software will remain a real slog.

Lucid had an interesting choice to make when deciding to use the 2-cycle or 5-cycle EPA protocol. They could have used the 2-cycle method that the Germans use and still beat the German range numbers. However, for all Rawlinson's claims that it was the German luxury sedans that were in his sights, he and everyone else knew that the entire industry and consumers would instantly benchmark the Lucid against the Tesla Model S for several reasons: (1) Tesla was synonymous with EVs in the minds of many consumers, (2) Tesla was the current range leader, and (3) the Model S had been Rawlinson's own earlier engineering baby. So, in order to put the spotlight on the cutting-edge energy efficiency that was Lucid's intended claim to fame, Rawlinson chose the EPA protocol that Tesla used and that would produce a range number better than Tesla's, as he knew the vast majority of buyers would use range as a proxy for efficiency.

Given that Lucid was a newcomer trying to clear a path into public awareness, it was an understandable decision to use the 5-cycle EPA protocol. It would have been suicide for Rawlinson to enter the market with a lower range claim than Tesla. Lucid could not go down its own path to forge an all-new way to measure range. They had to choose one of the two ways that federal law specifies for all cars sold in the U.S.

 

[Rogue]

Not sure what we classify as an SUV, but anything that is not a sedan, coupe, or truck is a SUV in my eyes. With that disclaimer aside, I have driven the EV6, Ioniq 5, and ID.4. Never had a chance to sit in an R1S, so I am not including it despite seeing reviews and one in person from the outside (massive vehicle). I have seen the Gravity in person at the LA Auto Show, so I feel I can speak confidently in comparisons.

The Gravity lacks a frunk with the same dimensions as the Air though still a decent size. However, the three cars I have mentioned have frunks that are non-existent or practically non-existent. Space wise all the trunks were nowhere close.

Three row seating did not exist for any of the cars. Length difference is only about 13"and 17" using the Air length + 2". My seating length (excluding feet) at 5'9" is more than either length, so there's considerably more to the story than just adding extra length and keeping a much larger trunk.

General interior space feels cramped relative to the Lucid for the three brands I've sat in. Upholstery is bulky. Back leg room is cramped (again relative to the Lucid).

Range is self-explanatory and been beaten into a pulp already in the thread. 440 miles of range is class leading, and with reasonable driving (from my perspective), I have achieved 500 miles in the GT on 19" and expect the same achievements in the Gravity when absolutely needed.

Charging times have not been published for the Gravity, but I expect similar times to the GT-P, Dream, Sapphire, and 24' GT. The numbers for the three vehicles I test drove are not top of the mind, but I think it safe to assume nowhere close to equivalent.

The Lucid team should be proud of their accomplishments. Calling a spade a spade in an interview is fair game. If no one is doing what you are doing in the SUV space, then it is up to your competitors to step up. Peter's statement is as mild and offending as bland porridge.

To put all this back in frame of reference of Peter's comparison points, I am pasting the quote from the article:
“Yes, there are many EV SUVs out there, but none of them are very good. I’m sorry, they’re not. None of them have anything like the dynamic performance of Gravity. None of them have the range, the practicality, the interior space, or the compactness and versatility that Gravity offers.” - Peter Rawlinson, CEO and CTO of Lucid

If you want true ridiculous and outlandish quotes as an example, look no further than Nvidia:
"The more you buy, the more you save... That's called CEO math. It's not accurate, but it is correct." - Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia.

 

[RockSports]

Not sure what we classify as an SUV, but anything that is not a sedan, coupe, or truck is a SUV in my eyes. With that disclaimer aside, I have driven the EV6, Ioniq 5, and ID.4. Never had a chance to sit in an R1S, so I am not including it despite seeing reviews and one in person from the outside (massive vehicle). I have seen the Gravity in person at the LA Auto Show, so I feel I can speak confidently in comparisons.

The Gravity lacks a frunk with the same dimensions as the Air though still a decent size. However, the three cars I have mentioned have frunks that are non-existent or practically non-existent. Space wise all the trunks were nowhere close.

Three row seating did not exist for any of the cars. Length difference is only about 13"and 17" using the Air length + 2". My seating length (excluding feet) at 5'9" is more than either length, so there's considerably more to the story than just adding extra length and keeping a much larger trunk.

General interior space feels cramped relative to the Lucid for the three brands I've sat in. Upholstery is bulky. Back leg room is cramped (again relative to the Lucid).

Range is self-explanatory and been beaten into a pulp already in the thread. 440 miles of range is class leading, and with reasonable driving (from my perspective), I have achieved 500 miles in the GT on 19" and expect the same achievements in the Gravity when absolutely needed.

Charging times have not been published for the Gravity, but I expect similar times to the GT-P, Dream, Sapphire, and 24' GT. The numbers for the three vehicles I test drove are not top of the mind, but I think it safe to assume nowhere close to equivalent.

The Lucid team should be proud of their accomplishments. Calling a spade a spade in an interview is fair game. If no one is doing what you are doing in the SUV space, then it is up to your competitors to step up. Peter's statement is as mild and offending as bland porridge.

To put all this back in frame of reference of Peter's comparison points, I am pasting the quote from the article:
“Yes, there are many EV SUVs out there, but none of them are very good. I’m sorry, they’re not. None of them have anything like the dynamic performance of Gravity. None of them have the range, the practicality, the interior space, or the compactness and versatility that Gravity offers.” - Peter Rawlinson, CEO and CTO of Lucid

If you want true ridiculous and outlandish quotes as an example, look no further than Nvidia:
"The more you buy, the more you save... That's called CEO math. It's not accurate, but it is correct." - Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia.

I've said why this is a stupid quote numerous times. None of those reasons have been changed by your post. The bolded comment is inappropriate and unfounded.

 

[chinesejpl]

@BS8899 I totally agree with you and what you have presented. I initially purchased my gt 1.5y ago mostly bc of videos demonstrating its efficiency so I was very disappointed when I learned it was essentially the same as my Tesla! Subsequently I find out that my car has a different battery and motors than the dream edition that was tested on video that achieved very close to EPA. I've also been disappointed with the charging curve of the car as, again, the videos I was basing my purchase on were done on dream edition cars which charge differently. All in all, I share your comments on wishing that lucid didn't overstate their features although had they been more honest I may not have purchased the car so maybe their marketing worked as intended but it has left me feeling a little duped

 

[RM-S8]

I've said why this is a stupid quote numerous times. None of those reasons have been changed by your post. The bolded comment is inappropriate and unfounded.

Your bolded comments, will you be able to challenge them?