Lucid Air EV Has a Projected 517 Miles of Range, and We Saw 458 Miles on a Real-World Ride-Along

[TyPope]

Of course Lucid's advantage is temporary, they haven't even got a car of the production line and I doubt their expected first deliveries will be in 2021, more like 2022.

It's "game on" from here on out as to who has the most range.

The benchmark to reach is 1000 miles per charge and my bets are on Tesla to get there first.

I'll bet someone else will get there first but they'll use a crap-ton of batteries and won't be competitive. The telling thing here is that Lucid is getting their 500 mile range with a battery that is under 110 KWH in size. If Tesla was that efficient, the CT would be getting 1,000 miles.

Advertisement

 

[TruckElectric]

I'll bet someone else will get there first but they'll use a crap-ton of batteries and won't be competitive. The telling thing here is that Lucid is getting their 500 mile range with a battery that is under 110 KWH in size. If Tesla was that efficient, the CT would be getting 1,000 miles.

I'm thinking the Tesla Semi would be the one that Tesla wants to get to 1000 miles first. That would really change heavy-duty trucking and spell the end of diesel dominance in that sector.

 

[TruckElectric]

The telling thing here is that Lucid is getting their 500 mile range with a battery that is under 110 KWH in size. If Tesla was that efficient, the CT would be getting 1,000 miles.

I really haven't checked on Lucid's battery size or their specs. That's interesting about the CT range.
Update: I have read so many articles lately I had to go back and reread this one to get the specs!

So why isn't Tesla as efficient as Lucid?

 

[ajdelange]

Why do we think Tesla is less efficient than Lucid? They are both subject to the same laws of physics.

 

[TruckElectric]

"What we do know is that the production vehicle’s battery capacity will be between 110.0 and 130.0 kWh"


I'm thinking the 130.0 kWh is the 500 mile one.

 

[TruckElectric]

Why do we think Tesla is less efficient than Lucid? They are both subject to the same laws of physics.

True but Lucid says "I believe that our 900-volt architecture, our race-proven battery packs, miniaturized motors and power electronics, integrated transmission systems, aerodynamics, chassis and thermal systems, software, and overall system efficiency have now reached a stage where it collectively sets a new standard and delivers a host of 'world's firsts.' "

 

[Crissa]

A percent or less of energy efficiency somewhere matters alot over 500 miles. And there's lots of things you can do to optimize that.

-Crissa

 

[TruckElectric]

Just checked Lucid's website and they are showing to have 400 mile range. Guess they haven't updated it yet.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

When you only use a few tens of miles a day, is it really all that efficient to drag around a battery twenty times larger than the average daily commute?

-Crissa

Probably not. Right now I fill up once a week and cover about 360-400 miles in that time. If I am driving around the city on a 600-mile charge (I can hope) and I only get to use 60% normally, then I still have to charge every week, and when I tow or travel I can use more of the charge or need more of the charge. This is what I have been waiting on the sidelines for and it is finally here. If a person doesn’t need cargo capacity or towing ability, then it may be a waste for them. Not for me.

 

[TyPope]

Why do we think Tesla is less efficient than Lucid? They are both subject to the same laws of physics.

Physics is physics but surely there could be a more efficient motor/battery/circuit than Tesla has made. But, in this instance, Lucid is saying their range at 70 mph is closer to their rated range than Tesla's range at 70 mpg is to their rated range... Thus, they are more efficient.

Truth is, the Tesla goes farther on a smaller battery than Lucid does though all they would say is that their battery was larger than the Tesla's and smaller than 110KWH.

 

[ajdelange]

Physics is physics but surely there could be a more efficient motor/battery/circuit than Tesla has made.

Given that the Tesla power train's components have efficiencies well into the 90's there can, of course, theoretically, be a power train that is more efficient than Tesla's. But as the maximum efficiency is 100% (for most of us anyway - I have seen at least one person on one of these forums whose physics are not thus constrained) there isn't much room left for improvement in that department. Every fraction of a percent helps, of course, and these fractions are still actively pursued. Another approach to system efficiency is to try to put energy that is unavoidably lost to use (use motor loss to heat the cabin) and yet another is to try to get free energy from a source other than the battery (the outside air).

Thus manufacturers go after additional range by reducing drag and increasing battery size. There is quite a bit of room for improvement in battery technology. It is thought that we are only half way to maximum realizable energy density with current battery tech.

 

[TyPope]

I really haven't checked on Lucid's battery size or their specs. That's interesting about the CT range.
Update: I have read so many articles lately I had to go back and reread this one to get the specs!

So why isn't Tesla as efficient as Lucid?

Their "efficiency" is merely how close the numbers are when traveling 70mph compared to the tested numbers. In reality, the Model 3 went further on a smaller battery.

 

[Crissa]

The efficiency varies by speed, and wh per mile varies by more than just motor efficiency.

You can change the sweet spot speed by changing the coils in the motor, but you lose or gain low end torque or change the too speed (like changing sprockets on a bike or gears in a transmission tho the curves are much longer).

You can change the aerodynamics to be better or worse ar certain speeds, too; we talk about it as one number, but it too, is a funky curve with inflection points.

And you can change the load of the onboard electronics and environmental settings, or choose different rolling resistance for the tires.

Just so many things.

-Crissa

 

[ajdelange]

Their "efficiency" is ...

The fact that you put it in quotes indicates that you recognize that this is not the efficiency we have been talking about. That efficiency is the ratio of the power delivered to the road divided by the power taken from the battery (and multiplied by 100 to get a percent). This efficiency depends on the design of the car's drive train components.

To get the "efficiency" you are referring to TeslaFi and Stats divide the "capacity" of the battery by the EPA range of the car by the to come up with a "rated" Wh/mile number. When you make a drive the energy used and miles driven are recorded and Wh/mi calculated. The rated Wh/miles are divided by the recorded Wh/mi, multiplied by 100 and reported as a percent. Example: the "rated" consumption for my car is 256 Wh/mi. On average I use 270 Wh/mi. My efficiency is thus 100*256/270 = 94.8%. This efficiency does NOT depend on the design of the vehiclebut rather on jow, where and when you drive it. If the manufacturer improve his design then he sees better (lower) rated Wh/mi. If he increase his battery size without improving Wh/mi he gets longer EPA range as that is equal to his battery size divided by his rated Wh/mi.

 

[TyPope]

The fact that you put it in quotes indicates that you recognize that this is not the efficiency we have been talking about. That efficiency is the ratio of the power delivered to the road divided by the power taken from the battery (and multiplied by 100 to get a percent). This efficiency depends on the design of the car's drive train components.

To get the "efficiency" you are referring to TeslaFi and Stats divide the "capacity" of the battery by the EPA range of the car by the to come up with a "rated" Wh/mile number. When you make a drive the energy used and miles driven are recorded and Wh/mi calculated. The rated Wh/miles are divided by the recorded Wh/mi, multiplied by 100 and reported as a percent. Example: the "rated" consumption for my car is 256 Wh/mi. On average I use 270 Wh/mi. My efficiency is thus 100*256/270 = 94.8%. This efficiency does NOT depend on the design of the vehiclebut rather on jow, where and when you drive it. If the manufacturer improve his design then he sees better (lower) rated Wh/mi. If he increase his battery size without improving Wh/mi he gets longer EPA range as that is equal to his battery size divided by his rated Wh/mi.

Pretty close to what I was referring to. Lucid did the study and were simply comparing the official test range of the battery (using the standard EPA-like test) to how well the car would perform at 70 mph. They simply divided the tested range by the range they actually got driving 70 to see how efficient their car was... not how efficiently it used it's stored energy but rather how close it would come to it's sticker mileage. The Tesla, though it covered more miles with less battery (which makes it more efficient on an energy standpoint), did not get as close to it's sticker mileage as the Lucid did. Thus, the Lucid is more "efficient" than the Tesla even though it consumed more energy while covering the same distance that the Tesla did. By doing it this way, they could use the headline "More efficient than a Tesla Model 3" and know that most people wouldn't be able to understand what really was being talked about.