Speculation "Since Last Charge" is confusing and pointless

[GMan]

As the title says, my position is that this metric is pointless. It literally needs to go away or be modified.

I want "Since last charge" to tell me my car's driving efficiency, since my last charge. This is totally reasonable metric to have because I want to manage my car's efficiency by making driving decisions while actually driving it. For example, if I am not getting my desired miles/kWH efficiency, I want to take action to help make that happen (e.g. drive <70, turn A/C temp up 1 or 2 degrees, etc).

However, I have no way of getting an accurate metric of what my current driving performance is because unlike the Trip A and Trip B metrics, "Since Last Charge" includes phantom drain. As a consequence, I have no reliable/accurate feedback loop of my actual driving efficiency performance (e.g miles/kWH). "Since Last Charge" is inherently low and wrong.

Some may argue they want to know/see/measure phantom drain. Great, then there should be an actual metric for that. Phantom drain in kWH per day, week, month, whatever. The key performance metric everyone wants to know is "How many miles can I drive given the rate/efficiency of my driving". How long my car is sitting in the garage, not driving, between charges, is completely irrelevant.

So, why conflate the two (driving efficiency and Phantom drain) into one metric that means neither?

I say, eliminate phantom drain from "Since Last Charge" entirely. Create a separate metric for Phantom drain (for those owners who care), and put that somewhere within the Vehicles screen of the Pilot Panel.

Thoughts?

 

[OCGeoSke]

As the title says, my position is that this metric is pointless. It literally needs to go away or be modified.

I want "Since last charge" to tell me my car's driving efficiency, since my last charge. This is totally reasonable metric to have because I want to manage my car's efficiency by making driving decisions while actually driving it. For example, if I am not getting my desired miles/kWH efficiency, I want to take action to help make that happen (e.g. drive <70, turn A/C temp up 1 or 2 degrees, etc).

However, I have no way of getting an accurate metric of what my current driving performance is because unlike the Trip A and Trip B metrics, "Since Last Charge" includes phantom drain. As a consequence, I have no reliable/accurate feedback loop of my actual driving efficiency performance (e.g miles/kWH). "Since Last Charge" is inherently low and wrong.

Some may argue they want to know/see/measure phantom drain. Great, then there should be an actual metric for that. Phantom drain in kWH per day, week, month, whatever. The key performance metric everyone wants to know is "How many miles can I drive given the rate/efficiency of my driving". How long my car is sitting in the garage, not driving, between charges, is completely irrelevant.

So, why conflate the two (driving efficiency and Phantom drain) into one metric that means neither?

I say, eliminate phantom drain from "Since Last Charge" entirely. Create a separate metric for Phantom drain (for those owners who care), and put that somewhere within the Vehicles screen of the Pilot Panel.

Thoughts?

I use Trip B for this purpose, resetting after each charge. Trip B measures the driving performance, while "Since last charge" minus Trip B is the phantom drain.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Yeah I like Since Last Charge as it allows you to know real world kW usage for the car and not just whenever you reset trip meter. It made me realize if you DC fast charge the car to a high SOC% then don’t drive it very far after, then you’ll get a lot of energy usage from cooling down the pack. I think they could add a display for mi/kWh for current drive, I’d like that, that way I don’t have to go resetting the trip A/B to figure it out.

 

[thecodingart]

Hard disagree here. Since Last Charge provides exactly what I want.

 

[GMan]

Hard disagree here. Since Last Charge provides exactly what I want.

Which is what?

 

[GMan]

I use Trip B for this purpose, resetting after each charge. Trip B measures the driving performance, while "Since last charge" minus Trip B is the phantom drain.

So, instead of "Since Last Charge" automatically tracking your actual performance since your last charge, you would rather have to remember to press reset on Trip B everytime? How would that be better than just having "Since Last Charge" do it for you?

 

[GMan]

Yeah I like Since Last Charge as it allows you to know real world kW usage for the car and not just whenever you reset trip meter. It made me realize if you DC fast charge the car to a high SOC% then don’t drive it very far after, then you’ll get a lot of energy usage from cooling down the pack. I think they could add a display for mi/kWh for current drive, I’d like that, that way I don’t have to go resetting the trip A/B to figure it out.

I recognize there is a use case for understanding phantom drain. But why conflate that with how many miles per kWH your car actually drives (without having to remember to reset Trip B every charge)?

If "Since Last Drive" indicated 3.8 kWH (without Phantom Drain) and there was a separate metric that read something like "Phantom Drain 5 kWH in the last 7 days of 75 kWH charged", wouldn't that allow you to understand your energy loss?

If you don't charge everyday, the SLD number will decline everyday, so in order to understand energy loss, wouldn't you be running the calculation everyday of
Trip B m/kWh - SLD m/kWh = phantom drain in m/kWH, and then
Phantom Drain (in m/kWH) * miles driven since last charge = kWH of energy loss since last charge.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use case here, so any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[Snafu]

This is only slightly off-topic, because I would definitely like to see the mi/kW back on the dashboard itself for the actual driving miles as my trip progresses instead of needing to open the Trip screen (although I guess I never thought about if the calculation may have included any phantom drain). Is there a place where you can see the "lifetime efficiency" if you zoned out and accidentally reset the Trip B? I no longer have a grand total of kW for the batteries, the current odometer miles, and the resulting "lifetime efficiency". It was at 3.8, but now it's just since the stupid reset.

 

[Bobby]

This is only slightly off-topic, because I would definitely like to see the mi/kW back on the dashboard itself for the actual driving miles as my trip progresses instead of needing to open the Trip screen (although I guess I never thought about if the calculation may have included any phantom drain). Is there a place where you can see the "lifetime efficiency" if you zoned out and accidentally reset the Trip B? I no longer have a grand total of kW for the batteries, the current odometer miles, and the resulting "lifetime efficiency". It was at 3.8, but now it's just since the stupid reset.

This is a wishlist item on www.luciduodates.com.

 

[E LUCID 8]

I have the same numbers on since last charge, trip A and trip B 3.3 m/kw

 

[GMan]

This is only slightly off-topic, because I would definitely like to see the mi/kW back on the dashboard itself for the actual driving miles as my trip progresses instead of needing to open the Trip screen (although I guess I never thought about if the calculation may have included any phantom drain). Is there a place where you can see the "lifetime efficiency" if you zoned out and accidentally reset the Trip B? I no longer have a grand total of kW for the batteries, the current odometer miles, and the resulting "lifetime efficiency". It was at 3.8, but now it's just since the stupid reset.

And this is my exact point. Who would actually think that phantom drain is in "Since Last Charge"? No one at all unless they learned on this fantastic LucidOwners site. Especially since Trip "A" and Trip "B" do NOT include phantom drain. This inconsistency adds further to the confusion because those values and "Since Last Charge" are not comparable.

But the BIG issue here is the BRAND IMPACT of Lucid owners not knowing that Phantom Drain is embedded within "Since Last Charge" and so when asked "What mileage are you getting on your Lucid ?" by non-Lucid owners people may (do?) commonly communicate the WRONG information, which is undermining the Brand (@mcr16 would like you to be aware of this opinion). Because the the "Since Last Charge "is UNDERSTATING the actual CAR Operating Performance.

The Lucid brand should not be (self)penalized by reporting a lower m/kWH than the car is actually operating at because it includes phantom drain. It is my opinion that prospective buyers don't care about phantom drain in their buying decisions. They care when you respond with, 4.0 m/kWH of driving performance, not 1.6 m/KWH because I charged my car on Sunday night but haven't driven it until Friday night, so Phantom Drain has rendered useless the m/kWH metric, and worse, that value may be circulated as some sort of fact of the car's performance.

If people would like to track Phantom Drain, can we not pull that out of car operating performance and put as a separate metric?

 

[Snafu]

And this is my exact point. Who would actually think that phantom drain is in "Since Last Charge"? No one at all unless they learned on this fantastic LucidOwners site. Especially since Trip "A" and Trip "B" do NOT include phantom drain. This inconsistency adds further to the confusion because those values and "Since Last Charge" are not comparable.

But the BIG issue here is the BRAND IMPACT of Lucid owners not knowing that Phantom Drain is embedded within "Since Last Charge" and so when asked "What mileage are you getting on your Lucid ?" by non-Lucid owners people may (do?) commonly communicate the WRONG information, which is undermining the Brand (@mcr16 would like you to be aware of this opinion). Because the the "Since Last Charge "is UNDERSTATING the actual CAR Operating Performance.

The Lucid brand should not be (self)penalized by reporting a lower m/kWH than the car is actually operating at because it includes phantom drain. It is my opinion that prospective buyers don't care about phantom drain in their buying decisions. They care when you respond with, 4.0 m/kWH of driving performance, not 1.6 m/KWH because I charged my car on Sunday night but haven't driven it until Friday night, so Phantom Drain has rendered useless the m/kWH metric, and worse, that value may be circulated as some sort of fact of the car's performance.

If people would like to track Phantom Drain, can we not pull that out of car operating performance and put as a separate metric?

I'm not quite as hung up on it, other than it being nice to know what the phantom drain is. For me it would be comparable to filling your tank with gas and then spending z-time idling - your odometer says you traveled x-miles and you put y-gallons of gas in the tank. Any time not spent in transit will skew your "efficiency" calculations. When I unplug the car in the morning, I can see how many kW were received before the charge ended and I may begin my drive at 79% instead of 80%. For someone who doesn't drive the car every day, I agree this would really add up over time in charging costs (and "wasted energy"), but for my use of the car the overall range means I don't sweat finding a charger, which was one of the main reasons for purchasing the car - the test drive showed it was worth the extra $$ (for me). With so many possible variables on any given day driving the car (rain, headwinds, heat, cold, altitude, load), I find that merely comparing the mi/kW for my same routes under different conditions is very informative. Enjoy the drive!

 

[LucidJazz]

This is what I got with my latest charge.

 

[Bobby]

The discrepancy has been discussed several times on the forum.
Post in thread 'EPA efficiency rating confusion'
https://lucidowners.com/threads/epa-efficiency-rating-confusion.5577/post-134071

 

[dscafetta]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

 

[Bobby]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

There are many cases of people achieving the EPA rating and higher here on the forum.

The FAQs you mentioned have a huge amount of information on range and achieving your best possible amounts. There is no “fix“ for anything you mentioned because nothing is broken.

 

[MorganB]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The EPA is a federally regulated test. There is no deception on the part of Lucid or any auto manufacturer. If you find EPA ratings confusing or misleading you should voice your opinions with your congressman.

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

This would be nice to have. I'm sure it will come in a future update.

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

That seems like quite a bit of drain. Are you keeping your fobs far away from the car or in a faraday pouch?

 

[Neurio]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

What size wheels do you have? There are many factors that affect efficiency (search the forum or look at Bobby's website FAQ). I'm on 21s and got 3.7 mi/kWh when I kept HA at 70. Otherwise, when I drive how I want, I usually get 2.9-3.1 mi/kWh.

 

[elusive7]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

Like others have said, lucid has done nothing wrong here. I've achieved as high as 5 mi/kW on my Touring before as well.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Well said. The real issue for me is that I purchased a Touring with a 92KWh battery, and it is SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RANGE OF 425 miles. 425/92=4.62miles/KWh. There is no way anyone has ever achieved this range, even going downhill BOTH ways! Please stop hiding behind the "EPA rating". The cars need to be sold and advertised with REAL RANGE expectations. I could have saved a ton of money had I known my range would be more in the Tesla range (and also got a car with real dream drive that works).

The instantaneous and average miles/KWh needs to be displayed AT ALL TIMES, on the dash board. There is a lot of wasted and/or redundant space that could be utilized, and this is a BASIC function that needs to show up. Right now the average is buried several screens deep to make it hard to find, but I am now averaging about 3.5 miles/KWh. That's 322 miles per charge. Only about 76% of what is advertised! I AM an old man, and I drive like one, so I would expect to get MUCH better efficiency. How could the EPA be SOOOOO WRONG?

Lastly, vampire losses as my car sits in my garage of about 3 miles/day is absolutely unacceptable, and I can't even get a call back from customer service. I know there are posted FAQs, but they are not helpful when they don't walk you through the steps to fix this. HELP!

One year ago today, on July 11 2022 road trip from Providence to Portland Maine and back, drove faster than EPA on 19” Pzero, got 4.0 mi/kWh over 400 miles. Also note the mi/kWh display on the cockpit. Many of us have asked for them to put this back, I hope they will, but I’m the meantime, don’t worry about it. What you’ll find with this car is the best efficiency is on the highway, less so in stop and go traffic because the car harnesses a lot of power to get up to speed. By comparison, the Kona EV I had as a rental got 4.3 mi/kWh, largely because it had very little power and a smaller less heavy battery. Everything else about that car was terrible. Also, in reference to what you said above, I also got 4.5 mi/kWh to Boston Logan airport from Providence driving similar to EPA on 19” wheels.