What's new
By:

Lucid Gravity GT 70MPH Range Test State of Charge Video - 345 Miles

BS8899 said:
I think Gravity has a drag factor of almost 0.3, vs Air's drag factor is just under 0.2. Gravity also has a larger cross-sectional area pushing the air. These factors all add up to be sizable as you go faster.
Click to expand...
Correction: I think Gravity's drag factor is closer to 0.25-0.26. The Rivian R1S is about 0.3.
 
I am also wondering if the cell chemistry is actually quite different, setup for accepting and discharging current faster for better charging, rather than holding energy over wider temperature ranges....
 
Just finished a 140 mile road trip. Mostly highway, generally pretty flat, 55 degrees and clear, moderate HVAC not much traffic, going 3-5 mph over speed limit, didn’t ever go 70+ and used ddpro 95% of trip. Purposely had moderate/conservative drive in “smooth” whole way to see what efficiency would be.

Pretty amazed at 3.36 mi/kWh for the trip.

141.9 miles driven
145.4 miles range consumed

I have seven seat GGT with 21/22.
 
This is proportional, though a bit lower, to what many of us see with the Air. I have a Pure with 19 inch Aeros. Without the covers on the wheels I get about 350 miles of highway range on my 420 mile EPA rated car. It’s a fine result. I get more room, more power, and similar efficiency to a Tesla Model 3.

But Lucid went all in on an efficiency claim people never see in the real world. Marketing pushes companies to this sort of thing, but over the long term, I think Lucid would have had a lot less post purchase disappointment to deal with if they had gone Porsche’s route and underpromised and overdelivered on range.
 
petergottlieb said:
This is proportional, though a bit lower, to what many of us see with the Air. I have a Pure with 19 inch Aeros. Without the covers on the wheels I get about 350 miles of highway range on my 420 mile EPA rated car. It’s a fine result. I get more room, more power, and similar efficiency to a Tesla Model 3.

But Lucid went all in on an efficiency claim people never see in the real world. Marketing pushes companies to this sort of thing, but over the long term, I think Lucid would have had a lot less post purchase disappointment to deal with if they had gone Porsche’s route and underpromised and overdelivered on range.
Click to expand...
My recent experience shows me the Gravity CAN be as efficient as claimed if/when you need it to be. But with typical driving, it’s got similar range loss to other EVs from EV only manufacturers.

It absolutely shines with charging, so to me, that helps offset range loss.

Regardless, I friggin’ LOVE driving the Gravity. I literally look for excuses to on road trips.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
My recent experience shows me the Gravity CAN be as efficient as claimed if/when you need it to be. But with typical driving, it’s got similar range loss to other EVs from EV only manufacturers.

It absolutely shines with charging, so to me, that helps offset range loss.

Regardless, I friggin’ LOVE driving the Gravity. I literally look for excuses to on road trips.
Click to expand...
I think both the Air and Gravity are fine EVs. They are both efficient and innovative. Putting aside the SW and key FOB problems, which are very annoying sagas that have persisted for years now, Lucid's drive trains and efficiency are their major selling points. Gravity's fast charging improvement is plus!

As most owners have experienced, Lucid cars are efficient, but not as efficient as what Lucid implies. On paper, the Lucid Air and Gravity would have 100+ mile range advantage over most of its competitions. Reality is, on US highway road trips (70-75mph at sea-level), Lucid often falls significantly short of those claims (by 20+%). Whilst, Germany cars, like the Taycan ,typical meets/exceeds their claims. Disappointment = Expectations not Met.

I wonder if Lucid is setting the correct expectations for its users/perspective buyers. As an example, 1-1/2 years ago, Lucid did an event driving an Air Pure from their Fremont HQ to Santa Monica on one charge. If you look carefully, you might notice a few nuances...[1] they took the Hwy 101/Hwy 1 (lower speed), 55-60mph) route instead of I-5 (70-75mph traffic), [2] A Lucid Touring joined the caravan en-route (the Touring has slightly less range, probably won't make it all the way from Fremont to Santa Monica), [3] They had a roomful of engineers with telemetry monitoring (and adjusting?) the cars' progress, etc.. It was not your "normal" Bay Area to LA drive! Still, the 400 mile range (on the Pure) was impressive.

Personally, I think stuns like rolling a Lucid downhill from San Mortiz and claiming a world record is "comical" and good entertainment, but has little relevance. I call into question OoS's "validation" of the Air-GT's 510 mile-plus range (@5,000ft elevation) as "typical". Perhaps OoS should repeat this range test at their new SC facility. Let's compare the results!

I am not trying to bash Lucid. I enjoy driving my Air-GT on long trips between my homes in Marin and Phoenix (780 miles, one-way). I accumulated most of my mileage on these long trips on I-10/I-5. My lifetime efficiency number is ~3.65mi/kWh. And I believe Lucid's range (on both the Air and Gravity) are industry-leading, just not by the 100+ miles range over competition as suggested.
 
BS8899 said:
I think both the Air and Gravity are fine EVs. They are both efficient and innovative. Putting aside the SW and key FOB problems, which are very annoying sagas that have persisted for years now, Lucid's drive trains and efficiency are their major selling points. Gravity's fast charging improvement is plus!

As most owners have experienced, Lucid cars are efficient, but not as efficient as what Lucid implies. On paper, the Lucid Air and Gravity would have 100+ mile range advantage over most of its competitions. Reality is, on US highway road trips (70-75mph at sea-level), Lucid often falls significantly short of those claims (by 20+%). Whilst, Germany cars, like the Taycan ,typical meets/exceeds their claims. Disappointment = Expectations not Met.

I wonder if Lucid is setting the correct expectations for its users/perspective buyers. As an example, 1-1/2 years ago, Lucid did an event driving an Air Pure from their Fremont HQ to Santa Monica on one charge. If you look carefully, you might notice a few nuances...[1] they took the Hwy 101/Hwy 1 (lower speed), 55-60mph) route instead of I-5 (70-75mph traffic), [2] A Lucid Touring joined the caravan en-route (the Touring has slightly less range, probably won't make it all the way from Fremont to Santa Monica), [3] They had a roomful of engineers with telemetry monitoring (and adjusting?) the cars' progress, etc.. It was not your "normal" Bay Area to LA drive! Still, the 400 mile range (on the Pure) was impressive.

Personally, I think stuns like rolling a Lucid downhill from San Mortiz and claiming a world record is "comical" and good entertainment, but has little relevance. I call into question OoS's "validation" of the Air-GT's 510 mile-plus range (@5,000ft elevation) as "typical". Perhaps OoS should repeat this range test at their new SC facility. Let's compare the results!

I am not trying to bash Lucid. I enjoy driving my Air-GT on long trips between my homes in Marin and Phoenix (780 miles, one-way). I accumulated most of my mileage on these long trips on I-10/I-5. My lifetime efficiency number is ~3.65mi/kWh. And I believe Lucid's range (on both the Air and Gravity) are industry-leading, just not by the 100+ miles range over competition as suggested.
Click to expand...
It all boils down to how you drive it. That’s the summary of the entire thing. The motors are more efficient than pretty much anything out there. But how much mileage you get depends on how you drive it, and a bunch of other factors.

The EPA is an average of many factors. You will not have the average of all factors every time you drive. Therefore, it is an estimate. You can hit or exceed that estimate in certain conditions. You can fall short of that estimate in other conditions. It is not a minimum range, but an average range.

Want to exceed it? You can do that; drive downhill from San Mortiz.

Want to fall short of it? Drive at 90 on a track.

Want to match it? Drive at or slightly below the maximum speed limit on most highways in the country (65mph) with relatively little elevation change in mild weather.
 
So I just drove to the SC in Roswell GA to get the firmware update and back home to Huntsville Alabama. I posted my numbers below, 1st Pic half for halfway (arriving at the SC) and 2nd Pic for the return back home, all in the trip A. I stopped to charge on the way back at a Buccee's (about 50 miles form SC) to about 80% and got home with 40%. About 80% of this drive was backroads averaging about 50-60 mph and the highway stints averaging about 70-85 with some small bursts here and there that may or may not have exceeded those numbers. Just driving typical for me, not trying to conserve range or excessive hot dogging.
My Gravity GT has the mid size wheel/tires, 3 rows (so 386 miles EPA rated) and I took my inserts off. Morning weather was in low 50s and trip back was low 70s, car is garaged, so battery was not that cold to start. Had 100% charge to start. Got to SC with 44% battery. So take what you will from all this. The Gravity got me to the Atlanta area with MUCH more range left than my Taycan and my wife's EV9 does. It has so many options to charge at and got me to 80% in 20 mins on a Mercedes 400kw charger from about 24%. This vehicle just kicks ass in this regard. I'm not worried if I can't get 386 miles, as long as it keeps doing what it is doing now!


IMG_0607.webp


IMG_0607.webp
IMG_0608.webp
 
9point81 said:
So I just drove to the SC in Roswell GA to get the firmware update and back home to Huntsville Alabama. I posted my numbers below, 1st Pic half for halfway (arriving at the SC) and 2nd Pic for the return back home, all in the trip A. I stopped to charge on the way back at a Buccee's (about 50 miles form SC) to about 80% and got home with 40%. About 80% of this drive was backroads averaging about 50-60 mph and the highway stints averaging about 70-85 with some small bursts here and there that may or may not have exceeded those numbers. Just driving typical for me, not trying to conserve range or excessive hot dogging.
My Gravity GT has the mid size wheel/tires, 3 rows (so 386 miles EPA rated) and I took my inserts off. Morning weather was in low 50s and trip back was low 70s, car is garaged, so battery was not that cold to start. Had 100% charge to start. Got to SC with 44% battery. So take what you will from all this. The Gravity got me to the Atlanta area with MUCH more range left than my Taycan and my wife's EV9 does. It has so many options to charge at and got me to 80% in 20 mins on a Mercedes 400kw charger from about 24%. This vehicle just kicks ass in this regard. I'm not worried if I can't get 386 miles, as long as it keeps doing what it is doing now!


View attachment 33735

View attachment 33735View attachment 33736
Click to expand...
Agree 100% on charging. I stopped at a BP Pulse today for some 400kw juice and it was just absurdly fast. I have a pic somewhere as I love how it shows the charge curve. Absolutely zero range anxiety with this car.
 
BS8899 said:
I think both the Air and Gravity are fine EVs. They are both efficient and innovative. Putting aside the SW and key FOB problems, which are very annoying sagas that have persisted for years now, Lucid's drive trains and efficiency are their major selling points. Gravity's fast charging improvement is plus!

As most owners have experienced, Lucid cars are efficient, but not as efficient as what Lucid implies. On paper, the Lucid Air and Gravity would have 100+ mile range advantage over most of its competitions. Reality is, on US highway road trips (70-75mph at sea-level), Lucid often falls significantly short of those claims (by 20+%). Whilst, Germany cars, like the Taycan ,typical meets/exceeds their claims. Disappointment = Expectations not Met.

I wonder if Lucid is setting the correct expectations for its users/perspective buyers. As an example, 1-1/2 years ago, Lucid did an event driving an Air Pure from their Fremont HQ to Santa Monica on one charge. If you look carefully, you might notice a few nuances...[1] they took the Hwy 101/Hwy 1 (lower speed), 55-60mph) route instead of I-5 (70-75mph traffic), [2] A Lucid Touring joined the caravan en-route (the Touring has slightly less range, probably won't make it all the way from Fremont to Santa Monica), [3] They had a roomful of engineers with telemetry monitoring (and adjusting?) the cars' progress, etc.. It was not your "normal" Bay Area to LA drive! Still, the 400 mile range (on the Pure) was impressive.

Personally, I think stuns like rolling a Lucid downhill from San Mortiz and claiming a world record is "comical" and good entertainment, but has little relevance. I call into question OoS's "validation" of the Air-GT's 510 mile-plus range (@5,000ft elevation) as "typical". Perhaps OoS should repeat this range test at their new SC facility. Let's compare the results!

I am not trying to bash Lucid. I enjoy driving my Air-GT on long trips between my homes in Marin and Phoenix (780 miles, one-way). I accumulated most of my mileage on these long trips on I-10/I-5. My lifetime efficiency number is ~3.65mi/kWh. And I believe Lucid's range (on both the Air and Gravity) are industry-leading, just not by the 100+ miles range over competition as suggested.
Click to expand...
OoS just completed range test of the Lucid Sapphire. The Sapphire has a EPA rated range of 427 miles. OoS's testing showed the Sapphire only achieved 340 miles!!


OoS used the same methodology as before where they tested a Air-GT and achieved over 500 mile range.

So, why are these two tests results so different?

Aside from the Sapphire vs the Air-GT, one BIG differences was, the Air-GT was tested in Colorado (~5,000ft elevation) whereas the Sapphire testing was done in South Carolina ("sea-level").


I think these results call into question the applicability (with respect to driving at sea-level) of all of OoS's prior range testing (different EVs tested) done at the Colorado site!
 
This is from Motortend on the 22/23s they tested with and Summers...probably much warmer and if overcast it's pretty good.

Practical Matters
The Gravity’s 123-kWh battery is bigger than those offered in the BMW iX, Cadillac Vistiq, and Mercedes-AMG EQE SUV, but smaller than the 140-kWh battery powering the Rivian R1S Quad Max. The Gravity Grand Touring yielded 335 miles of range during our steady state, 70-mph MotorTrend Road Trip Range test, which fell short of the 386-mile range estimated by the EPA. But it’s ahead of its Rivian equivalent, the three-motor, 850-horsepower R1S Tri Max, which produced 311 miles of range in our test. The Gravity also absorbs electrons from a DC fast charger at a rate that enables practical road-trip usability. We measured 194 miles of range added in only 15 minutes, putting it on par with the quickest-charging SUVs sold today.
 
BS8899 said:
OoS just completed range test of the Lucid Sapphire. The Sapphire has a EPA rated range of 427 miles. OoS's testing showed the Sapphire only achieved 340 miles!!


OoS used the same methodology as before where they tested a Air-GT and achieved over 500 mile range.

So, why are these two tests results so different?

Aside from the Sapphire vs the Air-GT, one BIG differences was, the Air-GT was tested in Colorado (~5,000ft elevation) whereas the Sapphire testing was done in South Carolina ("sea-level").


I think these results call into question the applicability (with respect to driving at sea-level) of all of OoS's prior range testing (different EVs tested) done at the Colorado site!
Click to expand...
Yes its the equivalent of air resistance at either 64 or 67mph, I can't quite remember my math from air density. Nothing special about that result, State of Charge did 360 from a Pure RWD in the East coast test so those results check out, although he stopped at 0% and not when the car couldn't maintain 70mph. The easiest solution for OoS would be just to recorrect their test name to whatever MPH equivalent their testing is done. That being said 65mph is a lot closer to the EPA test speeds.
 
minivanasatruck said:
It seemed almost impossible on how the Cayenne almost 6% more efficient when everything (weight, size, wheels) is about the same. Rear drive train issues and BMS calibration could explain so much. It remains to be seen how widespread of a an issue this is.
Click to expand...
I await Tom's updated video when he gets the car with the better RDU.
 
Smorgasbord said:
Looking at Gravity's EPA numbers:
• Lose 13 miles just by adding the third row seats:
Remember, EPA ratings do not include passengers/passenger weight. The general rule of thumb is that economy decreases by about 1–2% for every 100 pounds of added weight. So that's like 3%, or about 150 lbs. OK, makes sense.

• Lose 47 miles with wheel/tire change from 20/21 to 21/22:
Probably mostly tires here. The 20/21s are 265/50R20 (Front) / 285/45R21 (Rear) Hankook Ion EVO AS (All Season). Here's TireRack's page on them: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/hankook-ion-evo-as
And here's TireRack's review (Great range, good in snow, iffy wet handling):
Saying:

The larger 21/22s are: 265/45R21 (Front) / 285/40R22 (Rear) Michelin Primacy Tour A/S (All Season). Here's TireRack's page on them:
Considered "Ultra High All Season Performance"
Here's TireRack's review:

So, the Michelins are better in the dry and wet, Hankooks better in the snow.
Both tires good on noise, the Hankooks have that EV range optimizing design.

Makes the decision tough for me. Dry is most important given I live in NorCal, but we have wet winters. We don't do much snow (just a trip or two to Tahoe), so that isn't as important.
Click to expand...
Set the Hankooks to 42 lbs... they rode great to New Mexico. No worries when you hit potholes like with the little low pro rubber band tires.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Same for me re: band of mi/kwh. I am getting about 340 miles of real range in my 7 seat, 21/22 tire config.

As I’ve mentioned before, just having the car in “swift” or “sprint” makes it less efficient no matter how you drive.
Click to expand...
I was drafting semi trucks and getting 3.4 in the efficiency thingy. 2.7 to 3.2 without drafting depending on traffic and speed of course.
 
JeffSter said:
I was drafting semi trucks and getting 3.4 in the efficiency thingy. 2.7 to 3.2 without drafting depending on traffic and speed of course.
Click to expand...
I didn’t draft or pay much attention except I only went 5mph over speed limit with a max of 68mph, so 3mph in some places. And I used DDPro as it’s more efficient. I was the guy I hate to be behind! But my efficiency was super high. Got MORE than rated range.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
It seems that anything greater than 70 sees a very meaningful drop off in range. No matter what EV you’re driving. If you’re going downhill for 350 miles, it might be attainable!
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that aerodynamic drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the speed. A linear increase in speed results in a quadratic increase of drag, hence much worse efficiency. Also, the EPA number is an ESTIMATE garnered from testing on a dynamometer, not a guarantee. I'm sure the dyno could be programmed to simulate the effects of "average" elevation, speed, weight, etc. changes, but I very seriously doubt that that is done. Besides, who drives in a way to mimic the EPA dynamometer? I thought so...
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Just finished a 140 mile road trip. Mostly highway, generally pretty flat, 55 degrees and clear, moderate HVAC not much traffic, going 3-5 mph over speed limit, didn’t ever go 70+ and used ddpro 95% of trip. Purposely had moderate/conservative drive in “smooth” whole way to see what efficiency would be.

Pretty amazed at 3.36 mi/kWh for the trip.

141.9 miles driven
145.4 miles range consumed

I have seven seat GGT with 21/22.
Click to expand...
...And doing the simple arithmetic that amounts to 406.56 miles range. Right about where Lucid estimates for your car.
 
JeffSter said:
Set the Hankooks to 42 lbs... they rode great to New Mexico. No worries when you hit potholes like with the little low pro rubber band tires.
Click to expand...
Hey, Jeffster, where in New Mexico? I'm in the mountains east of ABQ and waiting for my GGT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top