Why is No One Talking About All of the Improvements to the 2025 GT?!?

[Neurio]

Can anyone explain to me why the 2025 Air GT in OOS 10% challenge only averages 2.9 miles/kw in their 80mph range test? This basically matches the model S and Taycan. Luckily it does well on this test due to beastly sized battery, but the efficiency is a bit disappointing

Because they're driving 80 and no one can defy the laws of physics?

 

[momo3605]

Because they're driving 80 and no one can defy the laws of physics?

I mean…I thought there Lucid Air was the most efficient luxury sport sedan? Shouldn’t Lucid do better at 80 than Tesla or Porsche? Both have those cars have way lower efficiency ratings

 

[BS8899]

Because they're driving 80 and no one can defy the laws of physics?

Ummm....were the Model S and the Taycan also tested at 80mph? The Model S and the Taycan both have higher drag coefficient, correct?

If so, @momo3605's point has validity, correct? Physics should work the same for all 3 cars, right?

 

[Adnillien]

Can anyone explain to me why the 2025 Air GT in OOS 10% challenge only averages 2.9 miles/kw in their 80mph range test? This basically matches the model S and Taycan. Luckily it does well on this test due to beastly sized battery, but the efficiency is a bit disappointing

Maybe the Air is more or just as efficient at 2.9 mi/kWhr and 155 miles traveled, the 2023 Air is 3.1mi/kWhr and 144 miles traveled
Taycan is 2.7 mi/kWhr and 193 miles traveled
Model S is 2.9 mu/kWhr and 132 miles traveled

This efficiency number is based on miles driven divided by power delivered from the charger. The test starts by preconditioning the battery, start charging at 10%, charge 15 minutes, drive 80 mph until half the added range is used, turn around, start preconditioning and drive back to the charger. Hence, the energy used to precondition is included in this as well as any energy used to cool the battery during charging. Cars that charge faster will use more energy to cool the battery during charging. The bottom line is that this in not the usual efficiency number that we think of because it is confounded my many other variables. I don't think that @momo3605 efficiency numbers really have any meaning in this context. It does well in the test because of fast charging and efficient driving, not its battery size which is not really a factor in the test.

 

[momo3605]

the 2023 Air is 3.1mi/kWhr and 144 miles traveled

Yea this was interesting too. Could be statistical noise, environmental factors, etc…but definitely curious that the new model went backwards in raw efficiency terms.

Preconditioning should be a super minor variable. If you’re driving along at 80mph, your battery is already pretty warm. And faster charging does not have any relation to the temps. That entirely depends on the cell chemistry. For instance Rivian batteries actually have a super low preconditioning temp, while Teslas have a blazing hot ideal preconditioning temp (for similar peak rates). I’m not sure if Lucid shares any metrics around this.

 

[hydbob]

Yea this was interesting too. Could be statistical noise, environmental factors, etc…but definitely curious that the new model went backwards in raw efficiency terms.

Preconditioning should be a super minor variable. If you’re driving along at 80mph, your battery is already pretty warm. And faster charging does not have any relation to the temps. That entirely depends on the cell chemistry. For instance Rivian batteries actually have a super low preconditioning temp, while Teslas have a blazing hot ideal preconditioning temp (for similar peak rates). I’m not sure if Lucid shares any metrics around this.

It's not minimal. Lucid turns on preconditioning to drain the batteries for any HV pack repairs...

 

[momo3605]

It's not minimal. Lucid turns on preconditioning to drain the batteries for any HV pack repairs...

Ok…and how is that relevant?

 

[Adnillien]

And faster charging does not have any relation to the temps.

Please tell me how you are violating the laws of physics. All battery cells have a relationship between temperature and charging speed.

 

[momo3605]

Please tell me how you are violating the laws of physics. All battery cells have a relationship between temperature and charging speed.

I just told you…Rivian ideal preconditioning temp is 72F. In most cases it doesn’t even need to heat up, it needs to cool down to fast charge. Same with the IONIQ 5

 

[Adnillien]

I just told you…Rivian ideal preconditioning temp is 72F. In most cases it doesn’t even need to heat up, it needs to cool down to fast charge. Same with the IONIQ 5

You are completely missing the point. Faster charging requires more cooling to keep the battery temperature down to continue fast charging. Battery temperature is very relevant to charging speed. I am not sure hwy you insist that it is not. The energy used for cooling the battery during DC fast charging is very important for the 105 challenge. Of course, Rivian is not known for charging speed so may be it a less significant for Rivian.

 

[momo3605]

You are completely missing the point. Faster charging requires more cooling to keep the battery temperature down to continue fast charging. Battery temperature is very relevant to charging speed. I am not sure hwy you insist that it is not. The energy used for cooling the battery during DC fast charging is very important for the 105 challenge. Of course, Rivian is not known for charging speed so may be it a less significant for Rivian.

And my point is that you You don’t know how much heating or cooling is needed for preconditioning. Especially if you’re cruising along for 2 hours at 80mph. You’re likely already preconditioned. Neither of us knows the effect. IONIQ 5 charges faster than the Lucid yet has a low temp as well.

The only thing that we do know, is that the efficiency at 80mph is 2.9 miles/kw…which i found surprisingly low. Lower than the 2023 even

 

[hydbob]

Ok…and how is that relevant?

because you stated it was a minor variable but it is not. It is a major drain on the battery in Lucid's case.

 

[momo3605]

because you stated it was a minor variable but it is not. It is a major drain on the battery in Lucid's case.

Fair…but I don’t think you can discount the effect it has on the other cars. It could be a bigger drain on the Tesla or the Taycan. But we don’t know. It may have an effect sure, but all the cars are subject to the same conditions

 

[Lucken]

Maybe the Air is more or just as efficient at 2.9 mi/kWhr and 155 miles traveled, the 2023 Air is 3.1mi/kWhr and 144 miles traveled
Taycan is 2.7 mi/kWhr and 193 miles traveled
Model S is 2.9 mu/kWhr and 132 miles traveled

This efficiency number is based on miles driven divided by power delivered from the charger. The test starts by preconditioning the battery, start charging at 10%, charge 15 minutes, drive 80 mph until half the added range is used, turn around, start preconditioning and drive back to the charger. Hence, the energy used to precondition is included in this as well as any energy used to cool the battery during charging. Cars that charge faster will use more energy to cool the battery during charging. The bottom line is that this in not the usual efficiency number that we think of because it is confounded my many other variables. I don't think that @momo3605 efficiency numbers really have any meaning in this context. It does well in the test because of fast charging and efficient driving, not its battery size which is not really a factor in the test.

So unless I’m missing something or the tests were not conducted similarly, it would seem the 23 Air at 3.1 had better efficiency than the 25 Air at 2.9. I don’t know enough about the variables or consistencies in these tests to judge whether it’s even fair to compare these numbers.

This is why I made the point that despite the advertised improvements in the 25 Airs that were designed to contribute toward better efficiency, the only way to objectively tell what the bottom line result is, would be to do an A/B with a pre-25 and 25 Air. Such a test, under the same ambient weather conditions, ideally back to back by the same driver using the same driving techniques, would be the best way to see what the efficiency improvement actually is.

Up to now, IMO, comparison reports are anecdotal and this can lead to a poor S/N ratio.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

I remember hearing somewhere in the many, many hours of OOS Air content the OOS guys explaining the reasons for the bad test results of the ‘25. It had something to do with the way they charged the car IIRC. I am not sure that the result of the ‘25 was a valid comparison as a result.

Unfortunately, I’ve watched far too many hours of OOS content to remember where this remark was made or exactly what it was…

 

[Adnillien]

And my point is that you You don’t know how much heating or cooling is needed for preconditioning. Especially if you’re cruising along for 2 hours at 80mph. You’re likely already preconditioned. Neither of us knows the effect. IONIQ 5 charges faster than the Lucid yet has a low temp as well.

The only thing that we do know, is that the efficiency at 80mph is 2.9 miles/kw…which i found surprisingly low. Lower than the 2023 even

There is a lot more energy used for cooling during fast charging than for pre-conditioning. Losses from both pre-copnditioing and cooling during fast charging are included in the efficiency number. Hence, it is not a relevant efficiency number.

 

[rfc805]

Sure, efficiency varies greatly at speed. Lucid seems to have optimized the car very carefully at 70mph. At 80mph, it falls far out of its optimal performance.

 

[BS8899]

There is a lot more energy used for cooling during fast charging than for pre-conditioning. Losses from both pre-copnditioing and cooling during fast charging are included in the efficiency number. Hence, it is not a relevant efficiency number.

Yes, there is indeed significant amount of energy overhead during DCFC charging. I think there are some quantification of this in SoC's website (State-of-Charge). The exact amount of overhead is clearly dependent on the ambient temperature, length of the charging cycle, etc.. My recollection is, this "parasitic" energy (my lexicon) it can be in the 10% range using DGFC. This parasitic waste also impacts the effective charging time at DCFC. My experience is, it can add another 7-10min to your 37min charging time (10% to 80%). Don't take my word for it. Go browse the SoC website.

On top of that, preconditioning (using the battery) is another "overhead" that can muddle the efficiency numbers.

So, my question for @Adnillien:

> in order to get to an unadulterated efficiency number, should the vehicle be charged/ran/recharged with L2-charging at moderate temperatures?

 

[borski]

Have you guys considered driving the car, instead of obsessing over what number its efficiency hits? Asking for a friend.

 

[Bobby]

Sure, efficiency varies greatly at speed. Lucid seems to have optimized the car very carefully at 70mph. At 80mph, it falls far out of its optimal performance.

That's because drag increases much faster than speed itself. Generally speaking, drag force is proportional to the square of speed. The increase in drag on the vehicle is about 31% when going from 70 to 80 mph. So it has nothing to do with Lucid's optimization, it has to do with the laws of physics.