Speculation "Since Last Charge" is confusing and pointless

[APSenec]

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

I also like the ‘since last charge‘ feature. I find it a useful reset point to see how my consumption is going, and how far I’ve traveled. also, is it known for sure that “phantom” drains are in this value and not trip A/B?

 

[Adnillien]

I also like the ‘since last charge‘ feature. I find it a useful reset point to see how my consumption is going, and how far I’ve traveled. also, is it known for sure that “phantom” drains are in this value and not trip A/B?

It has not been confirmed by Lucid but is consistent with what owners are seeing.

 

[dscafetta]

This is what we need:
1. Instead of the gauge that goes positive when using electricity to negative when braking, we need an instantaneous Miles/KWh NUMBER displayed to show the instantaneous efficiency. My 2017 KIA has this!
2. We need a Miles/KWh average displayed at all times for the current trip, and since last charge, based on real world ACTUAL driving conditions, and without phantom drain (see #3).
3. We need to ELIMINATE phantom drain. Many competitive customers have told me they see no losses when their car sits in the garage.
4. We need truth in advertising. Hiding behind the "EPA" mileage ratings may not not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical and totally misleading to the buying public. THE MAIN REASON I PURCHASED LUCID was for the RANGE. Now after I own the car I see that a Mercedes 450+ is EPA rated at 350 actually gets 422 (EDMUNDS), and my Touring with 19" wheels is EPA rated at 425 actually gets about 370 (real life experience). WHAT A JOKE (on me).
5. In the mean time I now use the attached spreadsheet to see the real world distance until empty (the Lucid numbers, at least on my car are not based on the actual driving experience). Again, WHAT A JOKE...

LUCID AIR TOURING - RANGE CHART WITH 19" WHEELS

92​

Instant Efficiency

2.4​

2.6​

2.8​

3.0​

3.2​

3.4​

3.6​

3.8​

4.0​

4.2​

4.4​

4.6​

SOC

ACTUAL RANGE REMAINING

100%

221​

239​

258​

276​

294​

313​

331​

350​

368​

386​

405​

423​

95%

210​

227​

245​

262​

280​

297​

315​

332​

350​

367​

385​

402​

90%

199​

215​

232​

248​

265​

282​

298​

315​

331​

348​

364​

381​

85%

188​

203​

219​

235​

250​

266​

282​

297​

313​

328​

344​

360​

80%

177​

191​

206​

221​

236​

250​

265​

280​

294​

309​

324​

339​

75%

166​

179​

193​

207​

221​

235​

248​

262​

276​

290​

304​

317​

70%

155​

167​

180​

193​

206​

219​

232​

245​

258​

270​

283​

296​

65%

144​

155​

167​

179​

191​

203​

215​

227​

239​

251​

263​

275​

60%

132​

144​

155​

166​

177​

188​

199​

210​

221​

232​

243​

254​

55%

121​

132​

142​

152​

162​

172​

182​

192​

202​

213​

223​

233​

50%

110​

120​

129​

138​

147​

156​

166​

175​

184​

193​

202​

212​

45%

99​

108​

116​

124​

132​

141​

149​

157​

166​

174​

182​

190​

40%

88​

96​

103​

110​

118​

125​

132​

140​

147​

155​

162​

169​

35%

77​

84​

90​

97​

103​

109​

116​

122​

129​

135​

142​

148​

30%

66​

72​

77​

83​

88​

94​

99​

105​

110​

116​

121​

127​

25%

55​

60​

64​

69​

74​

78​

83​

87​

92​

97​

101​

106​

20%

44​

48​

52​

55​

59​

63​

66​

70​

74​

77​

81​

85​

15%

33​

36​

39​

41​

44​

47​

50​

52​

55​

58​

61​

63​

10%

22​

24​

26​

28​

29​

31​

33​

35​

37​

39​

40​

42​

5%

11​

12​

13​

14​

15​

16​

17​

17​

18​

19​

20​

21​

 

[Bunnylebowski]

WAKE UP THE PRESIDENT, LUCID LIED! Or maybe there’s different testing that EPA does and 3 cycle and 5 cycle tests produce different results? Did that occur to you? There are other reasons for differences in range than an automaker being unethical. Also speed. Also elevation. Also temperature. Also PSI. I don’t think it’s “unethical” to “hide behind” federally approved vehicle testing rules. What kind of CEO would say “let’s test our car at 80mph in cold weather and make that our official range” number.

Also phantom drain is around 1% daily, or less. If you want to get rid of this then Lucid will need to stop doing OTA, updating map data, and also remote diagnostics on your car (which they did on mine and saved me from a breakdown), and turn off the battery management system which will protect the battery long term in variable temperatures.

It’s getting really tiresome all the entitled foot stomping we see in here and elsewhere with some people crying “the car doesn’t get EPA if I don’t drive like the EPA test!!!” Did gas car owners sue their car companies when their MPG was worse when idling or using the air conditioner (real world conditions)?

 

[dscafetta]

Thanks for the reply and your comments. Perhaps you are missing the point. Does Mercedes have a different EPA standard than Lucid? If they are the same, how can you explain that Mercedes gets ~20% GREATER mileage than EPA and Lucid is ~20% LESS?

As consumers we need to rely on SOMETHING to make decisions on our purchases, and It appears that if (like me) you want to get the best range possible you need a Mercedes, BUT... it is glaringly apparent that the EPA ratings do not help.

Just a suggestion: If you are tired of people pointing out the issues with the Lucid range claims and feeling cheated, perhaps you stop watching and responding. The rest of us will keep pushing for honest disclosure...

 

[Bunnylebowski]

MB does 3 cycle EPA test, same as Taycan. That’s why they beat EPA. Lucid and Tesla do 5 cycle which is more involved but doesn’t have 0.7 factor penalty, which is why they do less than EPA depending on the conditions.

 

[dscafetta]

WOW! Thanks for the clarification! So they DO use different standards. SHAME ON THE EPA for allowing the general public to be mislead...

Any idea what the Lucid ranges numbers would be using the 3 cycle EPA test?

 

[xponents]

WOW! Thanks for the clarification! So they DO use different standards. SHAME ON THE EPA for allowing the general public to be mislead...

Any idea what the Lucid ranges numbers would be using the 3 cycle EPA test?

Perhaps around 400 for the Grand Touring based on the 0.7 correction factor? I agree there should be one standard. However, the 400 mile estimate is a bit low(and is almost impossible to achieve), while 520 is achievable by going around 60-65 mph. It should be more like 480-490 though.

 

[joec]

Thanks for the reply and your comments. Perhaps you are missing the point. Does Mercedes have a different EPA standard than Lucid? If they are the same, how can you explain that Mercedes gets ~20% GREATER mileage than EPA and Lucid is ~20% LESS?

As consumers we need to rely on SOMETHING to make decisions on our purchases, and It appears that if (like me) you want to get the best range possible you need a Mercedes, BUT... it is glaringly apparent that the EPA ratings do not help.

Just a suggestion: If you are tired of people pointing out the issues with the Lucid range claims and feeling cheated, perhaps you stop watching and responding. The rest of us will keep pushing for honest disclosure...

The Lucid still gets better range than the Mercedes, even with the better than / worse than EPA discrepancies. The fact remains that an Air can go further than any other sedan on the market.

And yes. There are two different tests the EPA considers valid. Lucid and Tesla do the more expensive one. Almost everyone else does the other.

 

[xponents]

The Lucid still gets better range than the Mercedes, even with the better than / worse than EPA discrepancies. The fact remains that an Air can go further than any other sedan on the market.

And yes. There are two different tests the EPA considers valid. Lucid and Tesla do the more expensive one. Almost everyone else does the other.

To add, the 5 cycle test that Lucid does is actually supposed to mimic following speed limits and is more realistic than the 3 cycle. In the 3 cycle, the vehicles are run on a "treadmill" at a constant speed, they get that range, and then that range is multiplied by 0.7. This is cheaper, and less realistic. In the 5 cycle, there is stopping, acceleration, deceleration, etc. If you follow speed limits, you have a high chance of getting the full mileage you should be according to the EPA.


I will also quote @RichMalden on this subject, he had one of the more informative guides I saw.

Car manufacturers can either use the basic EPA test or the more involved 5 cycle test. For the most part, of all the EV manufacturers, only Tesla and Lucid do the more expensive and involved 5 cycle tests.

The basic test, that most manufacturers use, just run the cars on dynamos at constant speed, no weather, temperature, incline, starting and stopping, etc. This results in a very high MPG. The EPA then requires they multiply that result by .7 to reflect real world factors. This results in the lower number most car manufacturers advertise. Because of this, they often beat their number in the real world.

Tesla and Lucid do a more involved 5 cycle test that is supposed to mimic real world. This allows them to advertise the results without any adjustment. It makes their numbers look much higher and, unfortunately, results in real world numbers that are lower.

The problem is with the EPA test rules. The 5 cycle test doesn't mimic real world as much as they should."

Lucid's defense would just be that they followed the EPA rules.

 

[hydbob]

Just a suggestion: If you are tired of people pointing out the issues with the Lucid range claims and feeling cheated, perhaps you stop watching and responding. The rest of us will keep pushing for honest disclosure...

I'm not sure what you really want to say with this comment considering there is nothing dishonest about publishing EPA numbers. Whether or not that translates into real world usage is a different manner. Several members here have been able to achieve EPA numbers while many have fallen short. There are several factors involved, mainly speed, but weather also plays a big role in how efficient your car will perform.

 

[Redlucid]

I learnt this the most interesting way in my touring, there was drizzle and I was going average 135 km per hour and saw a consumption rate of 3.7 km per kwh.
Coming back in the sunshine and slowing to 120 km/hr, I saw this jump to 5.2 km/kwh. This is with 3 people in the car and 20" wheels.

I am sure I can get the EPA ratings but it was more fun passing Teslas that were stuck doing 100 km/hr. The truth is if you know your range, you can ramp up the speed. The more charging available the more convenient this will be.

 

[Bus Driver]

Any idea what the Lucid ranges numbers would be using the 3 cycle EPA test?

Good question! I’m curious to know this too, but for now it will have to remain an idle thought exercise. I’m pretty sure Lucid wouldn’t be willing to submit their cars to the EPA three-cycle regimen.

 

[borski]

To add, the 5 cycle test that Lucid does is actually supposed to mimic following speed limits and is more realistic than the 3 cycle. In the 3 cycle, the vehicles are run on a "treadmill" at a constant speed, they get that range, and then that range is multiplied by 0.7. This is cheaper, and less realistic. In the 5 cycle, there is stopping, acceleration, deceleration, etc. If you follow speed limits, you have a high chance of getting the full mileage you should be according to the EPA.


I will also quote @RichMalden on this subject, he had one of the more informative guides I saw.

Just to clarify: 2-cycle and 5-cycle. There is no 3-cycle.

But, to make a long story short: the 2-cycle test is cheaper and somewhat less realistic, and underestimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

The 5-cycle test is more realistic, more expensive, and *over*estimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

Both are valid according to the EPA. Yes, I agree it’s confusing to the consumer. I don’t like that.

But it would make very little sense for Lucid to use the 2-cycle test and have it underestimate, given that they wanted to set new range records, and could do so while remaining completely within the letter of the law and using the same test as Tesla and others.

The EPA very explicitly describes the testing scenarios on their website:

1. A vehicle with a fully charged battery is driven continuously over the EPA city cycle until the battery is depleted and the vehicle can drive no further. The distance driven is recorded. This is repeated, again starting with a full charge, over the EPA highway cycle, again recording the distance driven when the battery is depleted. This “single cycle” test consists of multiple repeat drives of the city or highway cycle. (Borski note: This is the “2-cycle test”)
2. Automakers also have the option of doing a multi-cycle test, which consists of four city cycles, two highway cycles, and two constant speed cycles.* (Borski note: this is the “5 cycle” test, which looks like it might actually be 8 cycles?)
3. All testing is done in a laboratory on a dynamometer.
4. The city and highway driving ranges determined from this testing are adjusted to account for real-world factors that are not represented on the laboratory test procedures. These factors include such things the impact of air conditioning, of cold temperatures, and of high speed and aggressive driving behavior. Although the regulations allow some optional approaches, the most common approach is to use a factor of 0.7 to adjust all the test parameters, including range. For example:
   • An EV achieves 200 miles on the highway laboratory test. Real-world highway driving range → 200 x 0.7 = 140 miles to account for aggressive driving and HVAC use.
5. The adjusted city and highway range values are weighted together by 55% and 45%, respectively, to determine the combined city and highway driving range that appears on the EPA fuel economy label. For example:
   • Assume an adjusted city range of 168 miles and an adjusted highway range of 140 (from example above). The official combined range value → (0.55 x 168) + (0.45 x 140) = 155 miles (values are rounded to the nearest whole number).

For more information you can also read the federal regulations here and here.

In summary:
When many automakers run the two cycles, they get the EPA range number for the car's window sticker based on 55 percent city driving and 45 percent highway driving. The blended calculation is then reduced by 30 percent for the sticker. Some automakers even reduce the range figure further for the window sticker to make it even more applicable to real-world driving.

Tesla and Lucid run all five cycles, makes its calculations, and then the number could be reduced by just 23 or 24 percent for the window sticker. The additional tests include a high-speed test, an air conditioning test loop, and a cold test cycle. All of these extra tests cover a short distance and have low average speeds, so Lucid and Tesla’s greatly increased efficiency at low speeds (with an optimal efficiency at about 28mph for the Lucid) helps them out a lot on the 5-cycle tests.

A good video about the cycles and how Tesla does it is here. Wish there were one for Lucid but should be the same, since all manufacturers have to follow the same rules.

Is this a good enough explanation? Should we pin this somewhere? @Bobby if you feel I described it well enough, maybe add it to the FAQ?

I would *love* to never see another one of these threads again (not because there’s anything wrong with questioning it, but because this topic has already been beaten to death multiple times).

 

[xponents]

Just to clarify: 2-cycle and 5-cycle. There is no 3-cycle.

But, to make a long story short: the 2-cycle test is cheaper and somewhat less realistic, and underestimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

The 5-cycle test is more realistic, more expensive, and *over*estimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

Both are valid according to the EPA. Yes, I agree it’s confusing to the consumer. I don’t like that.

But it would make very little sense for Lucid to use the 2-cycle test and have it underestimate, given that they wanted to set new range records, and could do so while remaining completely within the letter of the law and using the same test as Tesla and others.

The EPA very explicitly describes the testing scenarios on their website:

1. A vehicle with a fully charged battery is driven continuously over the EPA city cycle until the battery is depleted and the vehicle can drive no further. The distance driven is recorded. This is repeated, again starting with a full charge, over the EPA highway cycle, again recording the distance driven when the battery is depleted. This “single cycle” test consists of multiple repeat drives of the city or highway cycle. (Borski note: This is the “2-cycle test”)
2. Automakers also have the option of doing a multi-cycle test, which consists of four city cycles, two highway cycles, and two constant speed cycles.* (Borski note: this is the “5 cycle” test, which looks like it might actually be 8 cycles?)
3. All testing is done in a laboratory on a dynamometer.
4. The city and highway driving ranges determined from this testing are adjusted to account for real-world factors that are not represented on the laboratory test procedures. These factors include such things the impact of air conditioning, of cold temperatures, and of high speed and aggressive driving behavior. Although the regulations allow some optional approaches, the most common approach is to use a factor of 0.7 to adjust all the test parameters, including range. For example:
   • An EV achieves 200 miles on the highway laboratory test. Real-world highway driving range → 200 x 0.7 = 140 miles to account for aggressive driving and HVAC use.
5. The adjusted city and highway range values are weighted together by 55% and 45%, respectively, to determine the combined city and highway driving range that appears on the EPA fuel economy label. For example:
   • Assume an adjusted city range of 168 miles and an adjusted highway range of 140 (from example above). The official combined range value → (0.55 x 168) + (0.45 x 140) = 155 miles (values are rounded to the nearest whole number).

For more information you can also read the federal regulations here and here.

In summary:
When many automakers run the two cycles, they get the EPA range number for the car's window sticker based on 55 percent city driving and 45 percent highway driving. The blended calculation is then reduced by 30 percent for the sticker. Some automakers even reduce the range figure further for the window sticker to make it even more applicable to real-world driving.

Tesla and Lucid run all five cycles, makes its calculations, and then the number could be reduced by just 23 or 24 percent for the window sticker. The additional tests include a high-speed test, an air conditioning test loop, and a cold test cycle. All of these extra tests cover a short distance and have low average speeds, so Lucid and Tesla’s greatly increased efficiency at low speeds (with an optimal efficiency at about 28mph for the Lucid) helps them out a lot on the 5-cycle tests.

A good video about the cycles and how Tesla does it is here. Wish there were one for Lucid but should be the same, since all manufacturers have to follow the same rules.

Is this a good enough explanation? Should we pin this somewhere? @Bobby if you feel I described it well enough, maybe add it to the FAQ?

I would *love* to never see another one of these threads again (not because there’s anything wrong with questioning it, but because this topic has already been beaten to death multiple times).

It easily passes the "I am not reading all that sh*t" test, so it definitely deserves a pin/FAQ.(i did read it lol)

 

[xponents]

Just to clarify: 2-cycle and 5-cycle. There is no 3-cycle.

But, to make a long story short: the 2-cycle test is cheaper and somewhat less realistic, and underestimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

The 5-cycle test is more realistic, more expensive, and *over*estimates the real-world range by a bit, on average.

Both are valid according to the EPA. Yes, I agree it’s confusing to the consumer. I don’t like that.

But it would make very little sense for Lucid to use the 2-cycle test and have it underestimate, given that they wanted to set new range records, and could do so while remaining completely within the letter of the law and using the same test as Tesla and others.

The EPA very explicitly describes the testing scenarios on their website:

1. A vehicle with a fully charged battery is driven continuously over the EPA city cycle until the battery is depleted and the vehicle can drive no further. The distance driven is recorded. This is repeated, again starting with a full charge, over the EPA highway cycle, again recording the distance driven when the battery is depleted. This “single cycle” test consists of multiple repeat drives of the city or highway cycle. (Borski note: This is the “2-cycle test”)
2. Automakers also have the option of doing a multi-cycle test, which consists of four city cycles, two highway cycles, and two constant speed cycles.* (Borski note: this is the “5 cycle” test, which looks like it might actually be 8 cycles?)
3. All testing is done in a laboratory on a dynamometer.
4. The city and highway driving ranges determined from this testing are adjusted to account for real-world factors that are not represented on the laboratory test procedures. These factors include such things the impact of air conditioning, of cold temperatures, and of high speed and aggressive driving behavior. Although the regulations allow some optional approaches, the most common approach is to use a factor of 0.7 to adjust all the test parameters, including range. For example:
   • An EV achieves 200 miles on the highway laboratory test. Real-world highway driving range → 200 x 0.7 = 140 miles to account for aggressive driving and HVAC use.
5. The adjusted city and highway range values are weighted together by 55% and 45%, respectively, to determine the combined city and highway driving range that appears on the EPA fuel economy label. For example:
   • Assume an adjusted city range of 168 miles and an adjusted highway range of 140 (from example above). The official combined range value → (0.55 x 168) + (0.45 x 140) = 155 miles (values are rounded to the nearest whole number).

For more information you can also read the federal regulations here and here.

In summary:
When many automakers run the two cycles, they get the EPA range number for the car's window sticker based on 55 percent city driving and 45 percent highway driving. The blended calculation is then reduced by 30 percent for the sticker. Some automakers even reduce the range figure further for the window sticker to make it even more applicable to real-world driving.

Tesla and Lucid run all five cycles, makes its calculations, and then the number could be reduced by just 23 or 24 percent for the window sticker. The additional tests include a high-speed test, an air conditioning test loop, and a cold test cycle. All of these extra tests cover a short distance and have low average speeds, so Lucid and Tesla’s greatly increased efficiency at low speeds (with an optimal efficiency at about 28mph for the Lucid) helps them out a lot on the 5-cycle tests.

A good video about the cycles and how Tesla does it is here. Wish there were one for Lucid but should be the same, since all manufacturers have to follow the same rules.

Is this a good enough explanation? Should we pin this somewhere? @Bobby if you feel I described it well enough, maybe add it to the FAQ?

I would *love* to never see another one of these threads again (not because there’s anything wrong with questioning it, but because this topic has already been beaten to death multiple times).

TL;DR, 5 cycle is more realistic, more expensive, and more involved for the manufacturer. Lucid would be put at a marketing disadvantage vs Tesla had they used the 2 cycle EPA test. Cars using the 5 cycle EPA test(Tesla, lucid, etc) have achievable range if you stick to the speed limit, but as drag increases with the cube of speed, more speed will dramatically decrease your range. Cars using the 2 cycle EPA test(porsche, rivian, etc) almost always exceed their range ratings. To achieve maximum range on your Lucid, try to aim for 55-65 on highway speeds. Also use Highway Assist/Adaptive Cruise to maintain a constant speed, which will help efficiency. Also be mindful of elevation changes, rain(decreases mileage), and other factors. ABRP is a great app to compute all of these road factors. Scientifically, the best speed for your Lucid is around 28 mph.

Note for people comparing with tesla: Tesla petitioned the EPA for a higher correction factor(0.75 instead of 0.7 I believe?) while Lucid uses the standard factor of 0.7. If you are comparing with Tesla range, use 550 as your range for the Lucid Air GT/DE-R.(https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/)(550 is from previous Rawlinson interview in 2020 where he stated they would use Teslas correction factor, they ended up not using it)

 

[Instinctive]

The big problem here is it's still pretty new so it's confusing. I'm here and able to explain what I've learned, but when my spouse hears "well it won't really get 400+ when we drive to OKC because we'll be at highway speeds" (from me) they're pretty annoyed. Unlike our ICE vehicles, it is weird to get worse mileage on the highway than in the city, and I do agree with some of the sentiment that the company itself should be offering some "normal" scenarios of adjusted range, so that if we ask a salesperson at the Lucid studio how far we can expect to go at highway speeds, the answer isn't that the car is rated at 425.

 

[new owner]

It’s simpler for me
Have 7500 miles on my Air GT
4.0 efficiency total for all my miles thus far x 112kw battery =448 range . ( Not 516) I drive my style which is sometimes aggressive and sometimes not
When I drive a long distance trip which is not too often I charge when Convenient which obviously has to be before I go 448 miles
Not sure I can drive that far in a single session anymore
448 then is really 420 or so because charging is still not perfected out there away from home and need a reserve for sure
Still if you usually charge at home this only comes up for long trips so need to dwell on it because it’s an awesome ride

 

[quantum]

This is what we need:
1. Instead of the gauge that goes positive when using electricity to negative when braking, we need an instantaneous Miles/KWh NUMBER displayed to show the instantaneous efficiency. My 2017 KIA has this!
2. We need a Miles/KWh average displayed at all times for the current trip, and since last charge, based on real world ACTUAL driving conditions, and without phantom drain (see #3).
3. We need to ELIMINATE phantom drain. Many competitive customers have told me they see no losses when their car sits in the garage.
4. We need truth in advertising. Hiding behind the "EPA" mileage ratings may not not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical and totally misleading to the buying public. THE MAIN REASON I PURCHASED LUCID was for the RANGE. Now after I own the car I see that a Mercedes 450+ is EPA rated at 350 actually gets 422 (EDMUNDS), and my Touring with 19" wheels is EPA rated at 425 actually gets about 370 (real life experience). WHAT A JOKE (on me).
5. In the mean time I now use the attached spreadsheet to see the real world distance until empty (the Lucid numbers, at least on my car are not based on the actual driving experience). Again, WHAT A JOKE...

LUCID AIR TOURING - RANGE CHART WITH 19" WHEELS

92​

Instant Efficiency

2.4​

2.6​

2.8​

3.0​

3.2​

3.4​

3.6​

3.8​

4.0​

4.2​

4.4​

4.6​

SOC

ACTUAL RANGE REMAINING

100%

221​

239​

258​

276​

294​

313​

331​

350​

368​

386​

405​

423​

95%

210​

227​

245​

262​

280​

297​

315​

332​

350​

367​

385​

402​

90%

199​

215​

232​

248​

265​

282​

298​

315​

331​

348​

364​

381​

85%

188​

203​

219​

235​

250​

266​

282​

297​

313​

328​

344​

360​

80%

177​

191​

206​

221​

236​

250​

265​

280​

294​

309​

324​

339​

75%

166​

179​

193​

207​

221​

235​

248​

262​

276​

290​

304​

317​

70%

155​

167​

180​

193​

206​

219​

232​

245​

258​

270​

283​

296​

65%

144​

155​

167​

179​

191​

203​

215​

227​

239​

251​

263​

275​

60%

132​

144​

155​

166​

177​

188​

199​

210​

221​

232​

243​

254​

55%

121​

132​

142​

152​

162​

172​

182​

192​

202​

213​

223​

233​

50%

110​

120​

129​

138​

147​

156​

166​

175​

184​

193​

202​

212​

45%

99​

108​

116​

124​

132​

141​

149​

157​

166​

174​

182​

190​

40%

88​

96​

103​

110​

118​

125​

132​

140​

147​

155​

162​

169​

35%

77​

84​

90​

97​

103​

109​

116​

122​

129​

135​

142​

148​

30%

66​

72​

77​

83​

88​

94​

99​

105​

110​

116​

121​

127​

25%

55​

60​

64​

69​

74​

78​

83​

87​

92​

97​

101​

106​

20%

44​

48​

52​

55​

59​

63​

66​

70​

74​

77​

81​

85​

15%

33​

36​

39​

41​

44​

47​

50​

52​

55​

58​

61​

63​

10%

22​

24​

26​

28​

29​

31​

33​

35​

37​

39​

40​

42​

5%

11​

12​

13​

14​

15​

16​

17​

17​

18​

19​

20​

21​

No car gets the EPA tested range in real world driving. I wouldn't say Lucid lied. They quote EPA range, which is perfectly legal and fine. Blame the EPA for their ridiculous testing procedures. And Edmunds, they dont have a clue what they are doing when testing cars. Corvette vs Lucid???? Really? Edmunds are a bunch of amateurs trying to get views to get popularity. I don't trust any of their testing!

 

[joec]

I know for the folks who have never owned an EV this whole process is scary and strange. But I assure you, once you’ve taken a few road trips and learn what your specific car tends to get with your specific driving style and the conditions where you live, it becomes second nature.

I spend five to ten minutes mapping out my charging plan before I leave. I make sure I have a plan B if something doesn’t go according to plan. Then I forget all about it. When I’m driving, I watch my efficiency and battery percentage to be sure I’m on track. If not, I go to plan B.

You’ve done a variation of this a thousand times with your ICE car. You just don’t realize it because gas stations are easier to find, generally.

If where you want to go is a desert for EV charging, then yeah. An EV might not be the best option for you.

I still maintain that even if I wanted to take one or two trips a year to places with no charging infrastructure, the daily benefit of owning an EV would outweigh that drawback. I’d just rent a car for those two trips and still come out ahead with the reduced maintenance costs, electricity vs gas, etc.