What's new
By:
Filters

Tesla class action for range

I'm not surprised but also no optimistic Tesla will be adequately punished- considering all the other stuff they pull. I hope the NHSTA has the guts to take on Tesla, they should not be scared of backlash from tesla famboys and investors.
 
Volund said:
So glad I have the Lucid
Click to expand...

Lucid had a choice to make regarding how it publicized its range: use the 5-cycle EPA protocol that Tesla uses, or use the 2-cycle protocol that some German manufacturers use and that produces a more accurate estimate of road trip range.

Our Lucid Dream Performance gets about 78% of its 451-mile EPA range (21" wheels) in steady-state 80mph driving in temperate-hot weather. This yields about 351 miles of real-world range on road trips. This almost exactly matches the 348-mile EPA rating of our Tesla Model S Plaid (21" wheels) in the same conditions. The Tesla gets about 73% of its rated range in the same driving conditions, resulting in a real-world range of 254 miles.

Lucid was confronted with a marketing choice, and let's get real here. No matter how much Rawlinson talked about having German luxury sedans in Lucid's sights, he and everyone else knew that Lucid would instantly and endlessly be compared to Tesla's large sedan.

So the choice was (1) beat Tesla in advertised range by using the same testing protocol or (2) use the more-accurate 2-cycle protocol and beat Tesla by actually attaining the Lucid's advertised range in real-world road tripping.

Lucid chose to fluff their numbers the same way Tesla did. As a Lucid car owner, I'm not happy they did. As a Lucid stockholder, I sympathize with their choice.

At the end of the day, we can get farther on a single charge on a road trip in our Lucid than in any other similarly-sized EV by at least a 100 miles -- in a car this is more powerful than all but one and better than all in the balance of ride, handling, and comfort.
 
With my Model S, I almost never got rated range. With a Model 3, I got rated range. It's too early to tell for me with a Lucid since mine hasn't been delivered, and although I'd like to know how well it will do on long trips, it's not likely to have a real world effect. The longest trip I've taken since I've had any EV has been from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, and it's one that Lucid has tested regularly, and they told me that it will do it on a single charge. More realistically, I'll stop for lunch and later for a restroom break regardless. I've learned that it makes trips a lot more relaxing, and driving nonstop and eating later is no quicker than eating in the middle.

With a Tesla, it meant trips taking about as long with either car. The difference has been on the return trip, since it won't start off with a full charge unless I stay somewhere with charging. With a Lucid, assuming that real world charging is as fast as what I've been seeing on websites, I should be able to get by with doing the same, and will have the option of stopping for lunch somewhere where there's no charging and still have no issues, especially since I'd be a lot less picky about which restroom to use if I want to take a 15 minute break, and can pick one with charging.

As far as cost, I have solar at home and that part won't matter. For the first three years, it won't matter on road trips either. After that, I doubt that it will add up to much.

As far as accuracy, I read about a recent test in the past few days, and it found that Tesla was way below rated range, but the test was done entirely at 70 mph. It didn't reflect mixed usage, so there's no way anybody can claim that Tesla's EPA rated range is supposed to match that. I never achieved rated range with ICEVs either. In theory, the more efficient an EV is in local driving, the worse it will do when comparing rated range to achieved range on that sort of test.

As long as companies are sticking to the rules, and I have a rough basis for comparison, I'm not bothered. If I can reasonably believe that a Lucid will get my farther than a Tesla, and it's reasonably close to the proportional rated increase, I'm fine. And since rated range wasn't supposed to be a range estimate for a road trip, I care more about what the car can show me on a trip computer for a planned route. And as long as I can make any trip I want without stopping any longer than I'd be stopped anyway, it's not going to be an issue. The Lucid is the least likely car to give me a problem with that, even if the numbers are inflated a bit, as long as it's being compared to equally inflated numbers.

That being said, I have seen some videos and read about people getting close enough to rated range when testing a Lucid for range.
 
hmp10 said:
Lucid had a choice to make regarding how it publicized its range: use the 5-cycle EPA protocol that Tesla uses, or use the 2-cycle protocol that some German manufacturers use and that produces a more accurate estimate of road trip range.

Our Lucid Dream Performance gets about 78% of its 451-mile EPA range (21" wheels) in steady-state 80mph driving in temperate-hot weather. This yields about 351 miles of real-world range on road trips. This almost exactly matches the 348-mile EPA rating of our Tesla Model S Plaid (21" wheels) in the same conditions. The Tesla gets about 73% of its rated range in the same driving conditions, resulting in a real-world range of 254 miles.

Lucid was confronted with a marketing choice, and let's get real here. No matter how much Rawlinson talked about having German luxury sedans in Lucid's sights, he and everyone else knew that Lucid would instantly and endlessly be compared to Tesla's large sedan.

So the choice was (1) beat Tesla in advertised range by using the same testing protocol or (2) use the more-accurate 2-cycle protocol and beat Tesla by actually attaining the Lucid's advertised range in real-world road tripping.

Lucid chose to fluff their numbers the same way Tesla did. As a Lucid car owner, I'm not happy they did. As a Lucid stockholder, I sympathize with their choice.

At the end of the day, we can get farther on a single charge on a road trip in our Lucid than in any other similarly-sized EV by at least a 100 miles -- in a car this is more powerful than all but one and better than all in the balance of ride, handling, and comfort.
Click to expand...
Tom on his state of charge you tube channel goes over this. He tested a 516 miles Lucid and got 500 miles. In Tesla a 417 model S got him 375 miles. If you’re concerned about mileage then use % of battery used. It more accurate then the estimate mileage left. Tom explains all this on his channel state of charge.
 
tomcrown said:
Tom on his state of charge you tube channel goes over this. He tested a 516 miles Lucid and got 500 miles. In Tesla a 417 model S got him 375 miles. If you’re concerned about mileage then use % of battery used. It more accurate then the estimate mileage left. Tom explains all this on his channel state of charge.
Click to expand...

State of Charge does its range testing at 70 mph. The average speed on U.S. interstates is almost 80 mph, which is thus a more realistic speed for assessing road trip mileage. As energy usage increases exponentially with speed, most people shouldn’t expect anything close to EPA range on road trips at realistic speeds.

But that wasn’t the point of my post. It was about Lucid’s marketing choice about which EPA testing protocol to use.

I’ve been driving EVs for eight years and have long known to use SOC percentage readouts instead of remaining range for more accurate trip planning.
 
tomcrown said:
Tom on his state of charge you tube channel goes over this. He tested a 516 miles Lucid and got 500 miles. In Tesla a 417 model S got him 375 miles. If you’re concerned about mileage then use % of battery used. It more accurate then the estimate mileage left. Tom explains all this on his channel state of charge.
Click to expand...

For Tesla, I always thought that instead of the current three options for what to display, there should be a fourth one that's the calculated estimated range. It could either go by the specific trip in the navigator or estimate from past usage. It would be far more accurate than the EPA estimate. And I don't know who if anybody would use the Ideal Range setting in a Tesla. Showing me the percentage wouldn't be much better than what I'd think just by looking at the battery icon.

It sounds like with Lucid, it would be accurate enough for my needs. I tend to care more about the displayed rated range when, for example, I have 20 miles left to go and might feel comfortable if I have 50 miles left, or the next charger is 100 miles away and I have 150 miles vs 110. Some will mean looking for a contingency or different place to charge. And with Lucid, I might over time get a feel for margin of comfort. But with Lucid, I'd have a different concern, which is that picking a charging stop 300 miles away wouldn't be possible based on looking at available chargers and expecting one to be free. So I'd care more about how many stations are within a realistic range once I get close, in case it makes more sense to skip one and drive to the next one close to my route. Also CCS locations tend to have much fewer chargers per location, creating more of a need to know about multiple options in an area.
 
Haggy said:
If I can reasonably believe that a Lucid will get my farther than a Tesla . . . .
Click to expand...

You can reasonably believe that. We have a 2021 Tesla Model S Plaid and a 2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition Performance. Both ride on 21" wheels. We have done fairly well controlled range tests on both cars, driving 80mph on a flat, straight, interstate (Interstate 75 through the Everglades, aka Alligator Alley) in light traffic on dry, temperate days and using mile markers for accurate distance calculations. The Tesla gets 73% of its rated range, and the Lucid gets 78% of its rated range. This translates in 352 miles for the Lucid and 254 for the Tesla.

On other road trips in the Lucid with less consistent conditions and averaging around 80mph, we always plan for a charging stop somewhere around the three-hour mark, which puts us around 240 miles further down the road and is about all our bladders can stand without a break. We usually charge up to about 95% on such trips and have never arrived at the next charger with less than 28% charge left on the battery.

I have to confess that, after being caught in heavy traffic, I sometimes take the opportunity once the road opens up to make up some time with a few sustained blasts of real speed. As much as I love EVs, I would not road trip in one if I had to worry about hyper-miling. More than any other EV, Lucid frees you from that constraint.
 
Electric powertrain has opposite effect as ICE. In ICE, you get better mileage when you drive in highway speed; in EV, it is exactly the opposite. I just wish EPA would standardize range test for every auto maker and TEST RANGE THEMSELVES, so we won’t get misrepresented by this huge discrepancy gap. School teachers don’t give students answers and let everyone grade quizzes themselves right? That fully trust automakers to test range themselves simply defeat the purpose.

Porsche Taycan, MB EQS and BMW EVs can beat EPA while I see the best I did on AGT 21” 469mi range, I get 395mi on ~60mph test (85%). Rivian R1S, it is suppose be 2.14mi/kWh EPA, I can drive freeway get 1.6~2.1mi/kWh w AC on or 2.1~2.6 mi/kWh on slow congested city streets @ 30mph.

EPA range to me is merely a suggestion, but it affects marketing and car sales numbers. IMO, Lucid is slightly on high end vs. real world conditions, but Tesla is just blatantly misrepresenting for the times I drove them.
 
Tesla2.0 said:
Electric powertrain has opposite effect as ICE. In ICE, you get better mileage when you drive in highway speed; in EV, it is exactly the opposite. I just wish EPA would standardize range test for every auto maker and TEST RANGE THEMSELVES, so we won’t get misrepresented by this huge discrepancy gap. School teachers don’t give students answers and let everyone grade quizzes themselves right? That fully trust automakers to test range themselves simply defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly why you should expect high speed highway driving to fall short of EPA estimates, which factor that it with higher ranges of local street driving. Indeed, the more efficient the car is at lower speeds, the less the EPA rating would be accurate for highway speeds. If you take out the part that boosts the average, you get less than average.
 
Regarding average interstate highway speeds, east of the Mississippi, this week (Midwest to Florida) I have empirically determined (I-65, I-24, I-75), the left lane travels at 80mph, traffic willing. This increases to 85mph in urban areas with a greater prevalence of impatient drivers. However, about 1/3 of the time semis are blocking the left lane traveling no more than about 74mph. The middle lane travels 70-74mph, sometimes muddled up by semis going less, the right lane travels 68mph entirely due to truck traffic.

It is very difficult to travel long distances at high speeds due to the high amount of truck traffic in this country and trucks dueling it out trying to pass each other at speeds around 72-74mph clogging up the high speed lanes.

Traffic congestion around major cities like Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, causes average speeds of 40-60 mph which is common for a 50-100 mile radius. This significantly lowers average trip speed. Road construction projects and lane closures also result in vast stretches of speeds below 65mph. EVs perform well at slower speeds so all of this traffic congestion improves EV efficiency relative to ICE vehicles.

An efficiency test at 80mph would be mostly irrelevant for the territory I just traveled.
 
Tesla2.0 said:
Porsche Taycan, MB EQS and BMW EVs can beat EPA while I see the best I did on AGT 21” 469mi range, I get 395mi on ~60mph test (85%). Rivian R1S, it is suppose be 2.14mi/kWh EPA, I can drive freeway get 1.6~2.1mi/kWh w AC on or 2.1~2.6 mi/kWh on slow congested city streets @ 30mph.
Click to expand...
BMW has always sandbagged its HP and torque and I suspect it is doing the same thing for its EVs. Its ICE cars typically deliver the listed HP at the wheels which is unlikely unless one is sandbagging. I think it is a smart approach as it makes the customer believe he's achieving something and prevents folks from complaining that the car didn't meet specs.
 
Tesla2.0 said:
School teachers don’t give students answers and let everyone grade quizzes themselves right?
Click to expand...
Off topic, but this actually does happen nowadays(to review answers and go over the work).
No idea how anybody hasn't been caught cheating yet..
 
Daniel2022AT said:
An efficiency test at 80mph would be mostly irrelevant for the territory I just traveled.
Click to expand...
It would be for me. Speed limits here are 65, with traffic moving 70 when there's no congestion. If I go to Los Angeles from the Bay Area, there's a long section in the middle where it goes up to 70. So it's about 75 except for trucks, or heavy traffic so that both lanes in sections like that get jammed up, or a passing truck slows everything down.

With trucks, if I stay in the right lane, I can do a sustained speed of about 60. I found out the hard way. I thought I had plenty of range on a Tesla so I ignored a charging stop on the route, which was supposed to be a few minutes long. Eventually, it told me to drive 65. When I ignored that, it eventually told me to drive 60, so I stayed in the truck lane until I took an exit where the speed limit was lower, and I got to a Supercharger with range to spare. These days, there are so many more Supercharger stations that it wouldn't have mattered.

I still don't know what it will be like finding stations for a Lucid.
 
JillyBean said:
None of these ev’s reach the stated range, even Lucid.


www.lucid-forum.com

Unrealistic range by Lucid

www.lucid-forum.com www.lucid-forum.com
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between the car not quite getting its EPA range and what Tesla has done in this case. They went out of their way to lie to their customers, both with their algorithms for calculating range, and with customer support deflecting the issue. I remember when Model 3 suddenly got a "bump" in its advertised range, though nothing had changed. They claimed software had made the car more efficient. But all the software did was further obfuscate the car's actual efficiency with some clever math.
 
joec said:
There's a big difference between the car not quite getting its EPA range and what Tesla has done in this case. They went out of their way to lie to their customers, both with their algorithms for calculating range, and with customer support deflecting the issue. I remember when Model 3 suddenly got a "bump" in its advertised range, though nothing had changed. They claimed software had made the car more efficient. But all the software did was further obfuscate the car's actual efficiency with some clever math.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. When they did that, some people saw their rated range increase by a fair amount, but mine increased by a few miles. It wasn't just a blanket increase. If anything, I would have complained that my rated range didn't increase by the amount that Musk said, but I was entitled only what I paid for. I did manage to get around rated range with my Model 3, which is mostly my wife's driving. Over time, mostly with the car sitting in the garage with an 80% doing nothing because of Covid-19, the range dropped substantially for no reason, so it's still getting around the range that the car claims to have.

People who are seeing the biggest discrepancies are in cold climates, and they have a point, but it's not something that EPA range estimates are supposed to account for. On the other hand, with an ICEV, it sort of does, in the sense that the cars are heated with waste heat so the numbers effectively reflect use with heat on. Maybe the EPA needs to reconsider testing methods and have a different set of tests for cold climates. Or they could have companies report how many miles of range are lost per hour at given temperatures with heat on.

Part of it might be that with EV sales concentrated in specific areas, it's less likely for typical buyers to have typical weather. I see far more Lucids on the road than I expected given how many were made. I doubt that's the case in Minnesota.
 
joec said:
There's a big difference between the car not quite getting its EPA range and what Tesla has done in this case. They went out of their way to lie to their customers, both with their algorithms for calculating range, and with customer support deflecting the issue. I remember when Model 3 suddenly got a "bump" in its advertised range, though nothing had changed. They claimed software had made the car more efficient. But all the software did was further obfuscate the car's actual efficiency with some clever math.
Click to expand...

Unlike Lucid is not doing algorithmic calculation. But rather linear EPA extrapolation. Dull, questionable, but at least straight honestly. But I agree EPA test should be standardized.

I see more resignation announcement in Tesla camp as people knows hyping exaggeration can only go so far when hammer is coming down. Timing is questionable. I don’t believe their CFO just leave because Tesla has worked him to the bone like they did to Shanghai Gigafactory workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
Tesla fixes their range!
Replies
5
Views
1K
creair
C
Bobby
I'm Considering a Class Action Suit
Replies
14
Views
4K
Cosmo Cruz
Cosmo Cruz
R
Start of Model S and X Discontinuation?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Sandvinsd
Sandvinsd
vahidk
  • Locked
Legal Action wrt to Range
Replies
14
Views
7K
Spin Doctor
Spin Doctor
Bunnylebowski
Ass Action vs Class Action.
Replies
6
Views
5K
hydbob
hydbob
Back
Top