-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
All discussion of Lucid Motors
- Thread starter Right_Said_Fred
- Start date
Precisely. Even though Lucid is targeting the wrong company (Tesla) but all this glossy presentation makes people stop and think about the expensive race cars from last era that they are driving. I believe, Roadster, Lucid, Taycan will pretty much end the high performance car line up from Ferrari, Lamborghini and other exotic brands. We will have to wait and see where Plaid S ends being.
Lucid should really have from get go compared their car to gas cars (Ferrari etc) and shown how much value they are giving versus their gas competitors. The customer is out there to buy a nice car not necessarily an EV. By comparing themselves to Tesla, they are limiting themselves to people who know about EV and they would by and large would still stick with Tesla.
Maybe their Saudi funding has something got to do with this. The marketing may be wasn't allowed to go all out and show how Lucid compares performance ICE cars. After all the unsaid objective of Saudis is to bring Tesla down.
dc_h
Active Member
They may be copying Norway, but less enthusiastically. They know oil's day in the sun is ending and better hedge their winnings now. They can replace in country oil use with solar and export oil at $10 a barrel more profitably then using the oil in country. Solar is very cheap in SA. They should be the last man standing for global oil production. National security for Russia and the US is the only thing keeping us in this game after 2025 and that will be over by 2030.The saudis poured $2 billion into Lucid.....kinda ironic that they make their money from Oil funding an EV company
I couldn't watch the whole commercial. I got soooo tired of hearing "compared to our nearest competitor", when you know they meant Tesla. I hope they are successful, but they need to get past their Tesla-envy.
I like how analysts assume companies like Lucid will execute perfectly in their quest to unseat Tesla, while at the same time ripping on Tesla for every hiccup they encounter.
larmor
Active Member
More exotic and more econo EVs are good, because the market is large. I agree with the above, Lucid should have squarely compared with mercedes s-class, etc. They will get most of their customers from that segment, and most mercedes buyers, from my observation, do not switch to tesla.
larmor
Active Member
So that's why they have people in the back seats lying on their backs and calling that a feature.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
It looks narrower in this pic, though perspective is distorting things. There doesn't seem to be a foot difference in terms of filling the parking space width. BTW, 77" is Model S with mirrors folded, not without mirrors. S Class is 75".
Lucid clearly went for a longer passenger space, but apparently less cross-section. Height is also a less than Model S (though taller than Taycan).
Is Wikipedia wrong or is there something really wonky with the Lucid Air?
Let me quote Wikipedia: "Width 65.47 in (1,663 mm) (ex. mirrors)"
That is a lot thinner than the e-Golf, it's more the size of the 1960's 911 Porsche. As in you are going to be hard pressed to fit 3 small 8 year girls in a row in the back seat.
Looking at the pictures at Lucid's site with almost exactly the same length as a Model S, and only 84% of the width it's profile should look all wierd? Not that the designer seems to have been awake anyway IMHO. The lines just look really wierd. The BYD Han looks similar, but at least looks good on the outside.
Let me quote Wikipedia: "Width 65.47 in (1,663 mm) (ex. mirrors)"
That is a lot thinner than the e-Golf, it's more the size of the 1960's 911 Porsche. As in you are going to be hard pressed to fit 3 small 8 year girls in a row in the back seat.
Looking at the pictures at Lucid's site with almost exactly the same length as a Model S, and only 84% of the width it's profile should look all wierd? Not that the designer seems to have been awake anyway IMHO. The lines just look really wierd. The BYD Han looks similar, but at least looks good on the outside.
I would like to explore the pros/cons of higher voltage, especially in conjunction with tab-less cells
I am sure tab-less cells solve a lot of problems
- High voltage isn't needed with tab-less cells.
- Or high voltages works best with tab-less cells.
Seems to me "wonder box" may be an adaption of HDVC technology.
So I am still of the option that Tesla might be able to use some of the Lucid design ideas, or at least the should consider them.
High voltage is one idea, it allows thinner cables and possibly smaller motors.... there is always a design trade off and I think that is more wear and tear.... but it is no coincidence that the 2 high voltage cars we have seen to date are expensive high end performance cars.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019-2020 Investors' Roundtable
@MP3Mike @callmesam
Tell that to them then.
31:25 "they have chargers that can deliver up to 1000v, that enables us to put a lot of power into the car and charge very very fast"
58:30 "why did we choose a 900 volt architecture? And what are our long term charging infrastructure plans" ... "our world leading efficiency of above 4.5 miles per kWh makes charging faster and reduces the cost of a mile driven" ... "really fast charging. Our 900 plus high voltage architecture enables us, amongst other benefits, to take advantage of the 350 KW charging infrastructure"
I didn't make it up, I just reported what they said. So please don't shoot the messenger with a bunch of disagrees.
I'm not saying this is some sort of threat to TSLA, I'm just saying this is what Lucid says the bar to meet will be in 2021. I fully expect TSLA to stay a leader.
@MP3Mike @callmesam
Tell that to them then.
I didn't make it up, I just reported what they said. So please don't shoot the messenger with a bunch of disagrees.
I'm not saying this is some sort of threat to TSLA, I'm just saying this is what Lucid says the bar to meet will be in 2021. I fully expect TSLA to stay a leader.
Last edited:
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
I won't disagree, but this was hashed out pretty well when Porsche was pimping the Taycan's 800v architecture. Sadly, I don't feel like searching for the relevant posts, but the short of it is that higher voltage is no panacea. Even if you don't get the technical side: if it were, Tesla would've done it a long time ago.
Even their claim of higher efficiency I don't think will hold up based on the same reasoning: if it were that easy* then Tesla would already have done it. If it were a legacy manufacturer I'd just figure they were lying about the efficiency, but I'll give Lucid the benefit of the doubt and suggest they do have higher efficiency. The question then becomes: what did they give up? In engineering there's a saying that goes something like this: "good, fast or cheap, pick two." In this case I'd hazard that it broke down to "efficient, cheap, reliable" and they gave up on cheap and compromised on reliable whereas Tesla went for reliable and compromised on efficient and cheap. And if anyone can hone all three it will be the company that has the expertise and experience. Lucid may get there, but they simply lack the practical experience and going from "good design" to "good manufacturing" is not easy.
* yeah, I get that Lucid has very competent engineers who worked really hard on their drive train. Tesla has those as well.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You stated it as a fact and did not show a source. They don't say charging twice as fast, they use vague terms, "charge very very fast". I guess two "very's" became "twice as fast"? Unless they have solved cell level charge acceptance rate the higher voltage will have only a minor impact on charge speed. I expect they are counting on using a faster charging cell chemistry if they plan on getting near their advertised charging power levels, along with a larger pack which inherently will charge at higher power. New versions of NMC might do it, which is what I think Tesla might be revealing on BD.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
whats' the accepted wh/mile of a Model S? What's the accepted max charge rate of a Model S?
I was thinking off the cuff something like 333 wh/mile (3 miles per kWh) and 250KW.
Lucid claims 4.5 miles per kWh so that is a 1.5 multiplier if I didn't get the Model S wrong and 350KW vs 250KW is a 1.4 multiplier. Basically if the two multipliers together come up to near 2 my statement stands. If I was wrong with that summation do the math and tell me how much faster you think it would be charging based on the video and numbers given.
The statement in the video is concerning 300 miles range in 20 minutes so not to full charge and you can compare that to Model S behavior as well.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Porsche also claimed, I didn't believe them, and was proven right not to, I expect the same with Lucid. In any case the main point is that increasing voltage does not allow substantially faster charge times, changing the cell chemistry and/or structure does. I expect if they had breakthrough cell improvement that allowed double the charge acceptance rate that's what they would have said instead of making misleading claims about higher voltage.
The bold part is the important part. They had to up the voltage to take advantage of the CCS chargers. At 400v CCS is limited to ~200kW, but on an empty 400v battery that is more like ~150kW. The Tesla V3 Superchargers can output more current such that they get 250kW at the lower voltages even on an empty battery. (At full voltage a V3 charger would be capable of putting out ~333kW.)
But you did. They never said double the speed.
They also never said that they were going to get 350kW. If my calculations are correct they will likely get closer to 333kW when empty, and ramp up to a maximum of 350kW at about 20% SoC.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
whats' the accepted wh/mile of a Model S? What's the accepted max charge rate of a Model S?
I was thinking off the cuff something like 333 wh/mile (3 miles per kWh) and 250KW.
Lucid claims 4.5 miles per kWh so that is a 1.5 multiplier if I didn't get the Model S wrong and 350KW vs 250KW is a 1.4 multiplier. Basically if the two multipliers together come up to near 2 my statement stands. If I was wrong with that summation do the math and tell me how much faster you think it would be charging based on the video and numbers given.
The statement in the video is concerning 300 miles range in 20 minutes so not to full charge and you can compare that to Model S behavior as well.
I’m not shooting the messenger.
If you repeat what they said without challenging it, that means you agree with them.
Then, I disagree with you.
Let's do the math on that:
- 300 miles / 507 mile range = 59%
- 59% of 113kWh = 66.6kWh
- 66.6kWh in 20 minutes = an average charge rate of ~200kW.
On the Model S Tesla claims to add 163 miles in 15 minutes:
- 163 miles / 402 mile range = 40.5%
- 40.5% of 100kWh = 40.5kWh
- 40.5kWh in 15 minutes = an average charge rate of ~162kW.
So where is that twice as fast again?
If we just look at the miles per kWh: 4.5 vs 4.02, so Lucid is claiming to be ~12% more efficient. Of course their car is smaller, which is where most of it comes from instead of a more efficient drive-train.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing
Not Available
[SoCal] 2021 Tesla Model 3 Long Range All-Wheel Drive