Lucid Air over 500 miles on a charge!

[Hmp10]

All he is saying is that they are not facts. They are in fact inferences based on incomplete data.

I understand that the FEV rating is an inference.

I was asking whether Ajdelange doubted the Car & Driver report that, in convoy driving, the Lucid ran out of juice at 456 miles while the Tesla ran out at 355 miles.

The journalist who rode in the convoy might be lying about that mileage. But he is not inferring that mileage.

I understand that the Lucid might have been using a battery pack large enough to get the added mileage without having greater efficiency than the Tesla. I understand that Ajdelange thinks the inference of a 517 mile EPA rating from the FEV test might not be legitimately compared to an inference from an official EPA test.

So, I ask again, do you guys think the Lucid really didn't go a hundred miles further than the Tesla in that convoy test?

If you believe the Tesla went 355 miles and believe the Lucid went 456 miles in the convoy test, the question then becomes -- and the one I am asking -- is why would you accept the EPA rating of the Tesla at 402 miles but not accept the FEV estimate of EPA rating at 517 miles? In both cases, the mileage inferred by the lab tests of each car is 13% greater than the actual mileage attained in the same convoy test.

The Car & Driver report was picked up by Bloomberg News, CNBC, and many other websites. In the past, when a journalist or news outlet posted something that reflected poorly on Tesla range, Elon Musk has come roaring onto Twitter and other outlets to decry the "lies" and threaten legal action.

On a day that the press was broadcasting that a Lucid went 100 miles further than a Tesla in identical conditions, all he did was announce a 5-for-1 stock split.

Sponsored

 

[Hmp10]

Of course the * points us to the catch but it is a small one. You must be enrolled in one of EAs plans which will cost you $4/mo or $1 per charging session.

It's true that EA offers a $4/mo subscription plan for anyone who wants to use their chargers. That plan includes a waiver of the individual session fee for non-subscription users and also gives a discount on the station's normal charge pricing. (For example, the $.99 per kW rate is reduced to $.70 per kW hour with the subscription.)

However, the Lucid website says only that "charging plan enrollment required". It is not clear whether that enrollment requires payment of the usual subscription fee or whether it is only to put the car's and owner's identifying information into the EA database.

Lucid pointed out that you would still have to pay a fee for leaving the car too long at the charger after charging was completed, but they said nothing about having to pay a fee for enrollment. It seems odd they would draw attention to one fee but not mention another.

In any case, I doubt if anyone buying a car in the mid-$100k price range is going to fret too much about a $48-a-year fee to get all the roadside charging you want.

 

[ajdelange]

If you believe the Tesla went 355 miles and believe the Lucid went 456 miles in the convoy test, the question then becomes -- and the one I am asking -- is why would you accept the EPA rating of the Tesla at 402 miles but not accept the FEV estimate of EPA rating at 517 miles? In both cases, the mileage inferred by the lab tests of each car is 13% greater than the actual mileage attained in the same convoy test

I know this is a waste of time and space but the major reason is that I know better than to try to deduce the EPA mileage rating from a single road test or indeed any road test at all. This is why EPA tests aren't done on the road. This S driver got 7 miles less than the average S driver. If we tried to deduce EPA range from his run using what we know about average utilization and this run the "EPA range" of this Tesla is 394 miles.

I think you will just have to accept that there are many things about physics, mechanics, electronics, test conduct/design and data interpretation that you aren't acquainted with and that you won't be able to understand why folks who are would have big problems with your conclusions. You also apparently have more faith in modern journalism than I do (these days I even question stuff in peer reviewed journals).

 

[ajdelange]

In any case, I doubt if anyone buying a car in the mid-$100k price range is going to fret too much about a $48-a-year fee to get all the roadside charging you want.

I think you miss the point. But to set the record straight EA's entry level plan has no monthly fee but you do pay a buck a charge. The point is that a major disincentive to the purchase of a Rivian or Lucid is no access to the Super Charger network. Lucid's plan should do a lot to neutralize that disadvantage at modest cost to them. I get free supercharging in the Tesla network. I estimate the annual value of that as about $120 so that incentive plan isn't costing Tesla much.

 

[Hmp10]

. . . I know better than to try to deduce the EPA mileage rating from a single road test or indeed any road test at all. This is why EPA tests aren't done on the road.

FEV didn't try to deduce the EPA mileage from this or any road tests. It deduced an estimated range of 517 miles using the same lab testing protocols that the EPA uses . . . and you have been questioning the FEV number.

By doubting the FEV range of the Lucid while accepting the EPA range of the Tesla, you seem to be suggesting FEV did not accurately duplicate EPA testing procedures, despite their claiming that they did.

If, in fact, FEV used the same testing protocols as the EPA, you still haven't explained why their findings are likely invalid. FEV is a major testing facility that routinely does range testing for an array of automotive manufacturers. Their track record has been that, once those cars go to the EPA for official range testing, the EPA numbers land on or very close to the FEV predictions.

So . . . why do you think FEV's prediction of EPA range is off for the Lucid when it has not been off for other cars they tested in the same lab using the same protocols?

Do you think Lucid somehow pressured FEV to test their car using some more favorable method than FEV would have used for another manufacturer?

 

[ajdelange]

So . . . why do you think FEV's prediction of EPA range is off for the Lucid when it has not been off for other cars they tested in the same lab using the same protocols?

I think it is off because all estimates are off. The question is how much. Show me some scatter plots or at least give me some r and CV values for their testing programs and we can talk about it. Also convince me that the battery size in the production vehicle is the same size as the one used in the test. Get me the test report.

Once again, try to understand that you are treading in a domain that is terra incognita to you. If I had taken the data you have offered and gone to my boss and told him the EPA range for this car is 517 miles based on it I would have been fired.

 

[Hmp10]

Yes, all EPA estimates are off. Very few drivers get EPA range in real world driving. Some come close, as you have stated you have in your car. I don't, nor does my brother, nor do many others who drive EVs.

I have not assumed at any point that a Lucid driver will actually realize either FEV or EPA range estimates in the car. What I have been wondering is why you think the FEV testing is any further off the mark than EPA testing is, as they use the same testing procedures.

I don't really know what the point would be for Lucid to submit a car for range testing with a different battery capacity than is going to be in the production version in just a few months. Particularly given that Lucid has sought and relished the publicity surrounding the FEV rating, you don't have to be an engineer to know how colossally stupid it would be to put a car through testing with more battery capacity than the production version Lucid will submit to the EPA for testing.

 

[ajdelange]

What I have been wondering is why you think the FEV testing is any further off the mark than EPA testing is, as they use the same testing procedures.

The value determined in the test accepted by the EPA cannot be off by definition. It may not be very reflective of the actual performance of the car in actual driving conditions but it is not 351 ± some tolerance. It is 351 miles even though the average driver will only get 80% of that in winter and 90% of it in summer.

So now let's consider your FEV test and lets repeat it. Do you think a second test will give the same result as the first given that it is perfomed using the "same testing procedure" on the same machine? You might think so as a layman but as someone with fairly extensive experience in test and measurement (but never with a dynamometer) I can assure you that it will not be (unless dynamometers are some how different from any other piece of test equipment I have encountered). Now let's assume that we take the same car and ship it to another laboratory instructing them to test it using the "same testing procedure" which laboratory has a different make of dynamometer. The test values will again be different. These intra and inter laboratory variations are normal and accepted. Things can be done to try to compensate for them but they are a fact of life. The underlying reason is that the "same testing procedure" really isn't the same despite every effort to make it so.

Now when it comes to the EPA testing there is an additional factor. For EPA to accept the result they have to approve the test. I mentioned several times before that as the car isn't actually moving the inertial and drag loads have to be emulated by programming the machine to apply additional torque. If you run a preliminary test at FEV and then the EPA comes in and says "We don't like your second drag coefficient" you will have to change the second drag coefficient and this changes the test results. The EPA approved test does not use the "same testing procedure". Besides that if you, in the time period between the preliminary test and the official EPA run change anything effecting the drag and or weight (e.g. add, remove or alter an external mirror) then the drag and weight coefficients in the preliminary test and the official test are different.

I don't really know what the point would be for Lucid to submit a car for range testing with a different battery capacity than is going to be in the production version in just a few months.

I can think of many. A likely one is that they discover something unexpected such as that the car with the N kWh battery gives much greater range than they expected. They now have the choice of crowing about that and changing their advertising and ordering pages to reflect this new range or quietly reducing the size of the battery to that which gives the advertised performance and saving themselves a nice piece of change or some combination of the two. Their web page still says 400 so I suspect that this may be what is going on but of course have no one but William (of Occam) to help me verify this.

Particularly given that Lucid has sought and relished the publicity surrounding the FEV rating you don't have to be an engineer to know how colossally stupid it would be to put a car through testing with more battery capacity than the production version Lucid will submit to the EPA for testing.

Looks as if that is exactly what they are going to do and it looks like a pretty darn good strategy to me!

 

[Hmp10]

Their web page still says 400 so I suspect that this may be what is going on but of course have no one but William (of Occam) to help me verify this.

With one minor exception, Lucid's main webpage has not been changed in the past couple of years. I've discussed this with them, as people are posting on the internet about the car based on information on the webpage that is long since out of date. They told me that things were moving rapidly as test data was coming in and final design decisions were coming together, so they made a decision not to keep the webpage updated. They are going to put up an entirely new webpage on September 9 that will contain the final specs of the car, options, and ordering configurations.

They have been doing some updates on a webpage appendix: lucid motors.com/stories. That is where they are posting new information about the Cd, the ADAS system, the anticipated mileage, marketing plans, etc.

The "over 400 miles" of range has been on the webpage since the days of the alpha car in 2016, back when they were thinking it was going to take a 130-kWh battery pack to reach that range. That car had induction motors on both axles, a 400-volt architecture, different gearboxes, and different inverters than the current iteration.

 

[ajdelange]

They are going to put up an entirely new webpage on September 9 that will contain the final specs of the car, options, and ordering configurations.

That would seem to be a more appropriate time to speculate about what will ultimately wind up in your driveway than now.

 

[Hmp10]

That would seem to be a more appropriate time to speculate about what will ultimately wind up in your driveway than now.

The same could be said about this entire forum and everyone on it, as Rivian has not released as much information as Lucid has thus far and has not specified its options or opened up its configurator, either.

Lucid has released details of its ADAS sensor array, the names of the suppliers of hardware, digital maps, etc., and the schedule for going from Level 2 to Level 3.

Lucid has released specifics about its charging capabilities and arrangements with Electrify America.

Lucid has released its Cd, including the type and size of wheels and tires used in the test.

Lucid has released an independent lab test of range. (You may think those results too unreliable to have any significance, but Rivian is still at the "400+" stage with its communications with no independent testing having been revealed.)

Lucid has released the locations of its first eight Design Studios where the cars can be seen and driven.

 

[ajdelange]

Yes, it could. I could do without the revelations that the CT is going to have 4 motors, 1000 mile range and a battery that lasts for a million miles. Little wonder that these people keep things close to their chests.

 

[Hmp10]

Lucid Motors just revealed that the Lucid Air will have a 113-kWh battery pack as its largest pack. That is the pack that was used in the FEV range test.

 

[ajdelange]

I was asking whether Ajdelange doubted the Car & Driver report that, in convoy driving, the Lucid ran out of juice at 456 miles while the Tesla ran out at 355 miles.

Now that we have a firmer number (and I agree than 113 is "considerably less" than 130) we can boil away a little of the uncertainty. If we accept that the Lucid has a 113 kWh battery and the Tesla a 100 kWh battery then the expected range of the Tesla with that same battery is, based on the road test alone, 355*113/100 = 401.15 to be compared to the Lucid test car's 456. But questions remain: what does 113 mean and what does 100 mean? Everyone knows the Tesla has a 100 kWh battery but nobody seems to know whether that is discharge capacity or charge capacity. The 100 kWh battery in my car has a discharge capacity of 91 kWh. If we use that number then we have 355*113/91 = 440.824 mi for the Tesla with a 113 kWh battery. Are we comparing apples to apples in this? Who knows because we don't know what Rawlinson means when he says 113 kW hr. We know Mr. Rawlinson is not reluctant to use some hyperbole in his pronouncements and as he is trying to emphasize, in this case, the smallness of his battery, in fact where "adventure" is RJ's rallying cry miniaturization of drive train components (leading to more room for load) seems to be Rawlinson's, it's not unreasonable to assume that he is talking discharge capacity. The reader can decide. In any case the original thesis: the Lucid goes further than the Tesla because it has a bigger battery is confirmed. It is interesting that Rawlinson refers to this approach as a source of "dumb range".

 

[Hmp10]

Recent drag tests (results soon to be released) reportedly show the Lucid to be quicker than the Porsche Taycan Turbo S and the Tesla Model S Performance Raven.

The S Performance has an EPA range of 348 miles, not 402. That might be the more appropriate comparison.

Sponsored