Out of Spec - Gravity vs Escalade

[CraZ8]

Lucid approaches EV engineering as a science. GM approaches it as nothing more than just another marketing exercise such as the one that brought us the Cimarron.

OMG someone remembers the Cimerron? The only reason I do is Pop had one but even he joked it was just a gussied up Chevy. Truer words were never spoken. I do believe GM is doing a good job with there Corvette offerings as well as the Gas powered Caddies, but when it comes to electric the Hummer and the other big electric SUVs mis the mark

 

[MorganB]

OoS does a full review of the Escalade IQ.
Comparison of interior space to Gravity starts around the 57 minute mark.

I lost track of how many times he either says "stupid" or "dumb" when referring to the IQ.

Thank you for posting! Nice to see the space comparison.

 

[xponents]

OMG someone remembers the Cimerron? The only reason I do is Pop had one but even he joked it was just a gussied up Chevy. Truer words were never spoken. I do believe GM is doing a good job with there Corvette offerings as well as the Gas powered Caddies, but when it comes to electric the Hummer and the other big electric SUVs mis the mark

Cadillac Chevrolet Cimarron!

 

[I CAIR]

OoS does a full review of the Escalade IQ.
Comparison of interior space to Gravity starts around the 57 minute mark.

I lost track of how many times he either says "stupid" or "dumb" when referring to the IQ.

Speaking of dumb, when the Hummer H2 came out, I wanted it to make a T-Shirt that said "Dumb & Hummer" .

 

[flarbear]

I was a little jealous that Escalade had 10 degrees of rear wheel steering, but it still takes 39'4" to turn it around (Gravity uses 38' with <?5? degrees RWS).

They make a big deal about "arrival mode" which allows you to do kind of a "forward slip", but it doesn't look like a steep enough slide to use for parallel parking, though maybe if you keep going D-R-D-R you could accordion yourself into a space eventually with lots of steering wheel action. Instead their web site shows using it to slide diagonally out of a "straight in" parking space...?

 

[xponents]

Here's another example of GM sizing excess... holy CRAP! This is an even bigger contrast than the Gravity vs the Escalade IQ... even with the suspensions being on different settings, this is still an insane difference considering the R1T has a barely smaller bed!

 

[037]

OoS does a full review of the Escalade IQ.
Comparison of interior space to Gravity starts around the 57 minute mark.

I lost track of how many times he either says "stupid" or "dumb" when referring to the IQ.

I watched Kyle get into the IQ third row and I was laughing out loud as it looked like he needed an ambulance on standby. Jumping over seat belt, knees to face, buttons going dead as vehicle went to sleep, pants down backing out, it was pretty entertaining in a glad I didn’t just spend 160k on this.

 

[hmp10]

I was a little jealous that Escalade had 10 degrees of rear wheel steering, but it still takes 39'4" to turn it around (Gravity uses 38' with <?5? degrees RWS).

As is sometimes said in another context, it's not the size but what you do with it.

You should watch Jason Cammisa discuss the Gravity's paltry 3º of RWS in the "Carmudgeon" podcast. He said that up until now, Porsche was the only automaker who did rear wheel steering right until Gravity came along and lengthened the list to two.

 

[flarbear]

You should watch Jason Cammisa discuss the Gravity's paltry 3º of RWS in the "Carmudgeon" podcast. He said that up until now, Porsche was the only automaker who did rear wheel steering right until Gravity came along and lengthened the list to two.

I've seen that. Other than mentioning that Lucid did it right and that they have a small angle, he didn't really demonstrate or discuss why those 2 facts would be related. He implied that Lucid's system worked because it had a small angle, but there was no meat to that implication. The issue he was criticizing (I think it was comparing to Mercedes?) is that the other system didn't actively turn the rear wheels to their desired angle, but let them drift slowly into position as the car started moving - which meant that the steering response was constantly changing as you started your parking lot maneuver. But you should be able to have active turning and predictability even with a larger angle.

I'd be willing to guess that larger angles might require greater compromises in the rear wheel suspension that might cause problems in tight high speed turns, though. But that wasn't described or discussed.

 

[hmp10]

Okay, for once I watched a Kyle Conner review in its entirety for pretty much the same reason that I can't turn my eyes away from a train wreck:

- $170,000

- 9,300 pounds . . . 4.69 TONS.

- horrible efficiency

- no NACS charge port

- more cramped in feel than a Gravity

- third row only suitable for children

- "almost dangerous" torque steer in some situations

- "not a good drive at all", only makes sense as a highway cruiser . . . except that it would be monstrously expensive to drive on a road trip

- squeaks and rattles in the back, door panels that rattle when the stereo is going

- plastic trim all over the interior

- more NVH than Gravity and other competitors

- only reason to buy one is to revel in American excess.

 

[flarbear]

Here's another example of GM sizing excess... holy CRAP! This is an even bigger contrast than the Gravity vs the Escalade IQ... even with the suspensions being on different settings, this is still an insane difference considering the R1T has a barely smaller bed!

I'm not fond of these apples to oranges differences where the ride heights are set to exaggerate the differences. Minimally they should demonstrate low to low and high to high and maybe limit the low/high cross comparisons to "just for fun" after showing the apples/apples comparisons for information.

 

[hmp10]

I've seen that. Other than mentioning that Lucid did it right and that they have a small angle, he didn't really demonstrate or discuss why those 2 facts would be related. He implied that Lucid's system worked because it had a small angle, but there was no meat to that implication. The issue he was criticizing (I think it was comparing to Mercedes?) is that the other system didn't actively turn the rear wheels to their desired angle, but let them drift slowly into position as the car started moving - which meant that the steering response was constantly changing as you started your parking lot maneuver. But you should be able to have active turning and predictability even with a larger angle.

I'd be willing to guess that larger angles might require greater compromises in the rear wheel suspension that might cause problems in tight high speed turns, though. But that wasn't described or discussed.

Cammisa pointed out three reasons:

- separate actuators allow each wheel to be steered independently instead of locked together by the steering rack most other RWS cars use

- the actuators respond almost instantly to commands, avoiding the lag common to most other systems

- Lucid chassis programming is state of the art.

 

[TakeDuo]

I'm not fond of these apples to oranges differences where the ride heights are set to exaggerate the differences. Minimally they should demonstrate low to low and high to high and maybe limit the low/high cross comparisons to "just for fun" after showing the apples/apples comparisons for information.

If it wasn’t so lopsided on purpose, we probably wouldn’t be discussing it here. Or discussing OoS or Kyle. He’s great at what he does.

 

[flarbear]

Cammisa pointed out three reasons:

- separate actuators allow each wheel to be steered independently instead of locked together by the steering rack most other RWS cars use

- the actuators respond almost instantly to commands, avoiding the lag common to most other systems

- Lucid chassis programming is state of the art.

I remember those too now, but none of them really speak to why limiting the deflection improves the feature.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Okay, for once I watched a Kyle Conner review in its entirety for pretty much the same reason that I can't turn my eyes away from a train wreck:

- $170,000

- 9,300 pounds . . . 4.69 TONS.

- horrible efficiency

- no NACS charge port

- more cramped in feel than a Gravity

- third row only suitable for children

- "almost dangerous" torque steer in some situations

- "not a good drive at all", only makes sense as a highway cruiser . . . except that it would be monstrously expensive to drive on a road trip

- squeaks and rattles in the back, door panels that rattle when the stereo is going

- plastic trim all over the interior

- more NVH than Gravity and other competitors

- only reason to buy one is to revel in American excess.

And real American Excess is single-handedly destroying the planet...monster vehicles like this should simply not exist. Waste of resources, dangerous...I could go on...

 

[Knucklehead]

And real American Excess is single-handedly destroying the planet...monster vehicles like this should simply not exist. Waste of resources, dangerous...I could go on...

Please don't.

 

[Bus Driver]

There's a "huge" difference in design philosophy, and maybe target demographic.

A sizeable minority on the Facebook Lucid Owners Group are whinging about the Gravity’s looks, talking about “it looks too much like a minivan!” A few are threatening to cancel their order.

If the Gravity fails, it will just be another indication that enough American drivers place a higher premium on looks than on driving dynamics.

 

[hmp10]

Please don't.

Leaving environmental discussions out of it, I just don't get these gargantuan vehicles.

- If you need maximum cargo or passenger space, minivans offer more. And they bring the added advantages of better handling, easier ingress and egress, and lower fuel costs.

- Recent data show a correlation between the growing size of pickups and SUVs and the number of injuries and deaths of children in driveways.

- Their truck-based platforms make a controlled, compliant ride very difficult to attain and require suspension engineering that negatively impacts handling.

- Their weight works against every element of vehicle dynamics: acceleration, braking, lateral grip, transient maneuvers.

- They are difficult to park and make parking difficult for adjacent vehicles.

- They block the road and traffic views of other drivers on par with many commercial vehicles.

I can't think of another vehicle class that exacts so much cost from owners (and from other drivers on the road) to confer so little benefit.

 

[hmp10]

I remember those too now, but none of them really speak to why limiting the deflection improves the feature.

I suspect Lucid didn't think of it as limiting deflection, but instead asked the question of how much do you need to accomplish the goal.

Remember that Mercedes originally engineered the EQS SUV rear-wheel steering to deflect to both 4º and 10º. To get the 10º deflection, they floated a proposal to charge a monthly subscription fee. There was such an outcry from the press and potential customers that Mercedes dropped that plan and just made the 10º deflection standard. This left me suspecting that 4º was the engineering answer, and 10º was a marketing party trick.

 

[msaunders9430]

Leaving environmental discussions out of it, I just don't get these gargantuan vehicles.

- If you need maximum cargo or passenger space, minivans offer more. And they bring the added advantages of better handling, easier ingress and egress, and lower fuel costs.

- Recent data show a correlation between the growing size of pickups and SUVs and the number of injuries and deaths of children in driveways.

- Their truck-based platforms make a controlled, compliant ride very difficult to attain and require suspension engineering that negatively impacts handling.

- Their weight works against every element of vehicle dynamics: acceleration, braking, lateral grip, transient maneuvers.

- They are difficult to park and make parking difficult for adjacent vehicles.

- They block the road and traffic views of other drivers on par with many commercial vehicles.

I can't think of another vehicle class that exacts so much cost from owners (and from other drivers on the road) to confer so little benefit.

Related to point #2, it will be interesting to see how the new rule proposed by the NHTSA to protect pedestrians on plays out.

NHTSA Proposes New Vehicle Safety Standard to Better Protect Pedestrians | NHTSA

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced would require manufacturers to add pedestrian safety design to reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries.

www.nhtsa.gov