smogne41
Active Member
Everyone: "The Prius is a really boring and dorky looking car."
EQS: "hold my beer".
EQS: "hold my beer".
-
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
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Kyle's EQS drive. "I just drove the Lucid Air..... this is world's ahead in terms of luxury" (19:40). He credits Lucid for being more efficient and such, but I still say Lucid missed their window. Kyle raves about the quietness/serenity, chassis dynamics and rear wheel steering (10 degrees std in US). He calls it "fully baked" in terms of integration, screen reponse and other details (unlike Lucid). He's not a fan of the styling and thinks the regen/friction brake blending needs more tuning.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I still say Lucid's success will be determined by choices Lucid makes and how well they execute not by Mercedes competitive products.
The EQS is a generically ugly aerodynamic one bow design on the outside and tacky on the inside. It starts at $102k and ends at $139,950 with all the options/most expensive options checked plus $1,050 destination charge.
At $139k you can get an Air GT with 516 miles of range and 800 horsepower vs 340 miles of range and 516 horsepower for the EQS 580.
For $95k you can get an Air Touring with 620 horsepower and 406 miles of range.
As opposed to the EQS 450 at $102k with 329 horsepower and 350 miles of range.
In the luxury EV game Range is the ultimate luxury. I can change my mind of where I am going, how many out of the way destinations I chose to stop at all without worrying about stopping to charge.
The EQS is a generically ugly aerodynamic one bow design on the outside and tacky on the inside. It starts at $102k and ends at $139,950 with all the options/most expensive options checked plus $1,050 destination charge.
At $139k you can get an Air GT with 516 miles of range and 800 horsepower vs 340 miles of range and 516 horsepower for the EQS 580.
For $95k you can get an Air Touring with 620 horsepower and 406 miles of range.
As opposed to the EQS 450 at $102k with 329 horsepower and 350 miles of range.
In the luxury EV game Range is the ultimate luxury. I can change my mind of where I am going, how many out of the way destinations I chose to stop at all without worrying about stopping to charge.
mltv
Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
This is the Lucid thread not the generic BEV thread but
How many big bucks is Rivian paying?
Interesting information from this article from two days ago:
news.yahoo.com
They are making the cars and about to deliver them but won't reveal how big the battery is?
They are making the vehicles, and don't have the CCS charging software working yet?
They are making vehicles, but are still working on getting the front suspension correct?
Again the car is in production, and they won't reveal how much it weighs? (hint: The EPA documents say it weighs ~5200 pounds.)
Why are they hiding details and being so evasive about a product that is going to start customer deliveries any day now?
The Lucid Air Is So Good It Should Make Tesla Sweat
With the best driving range and fastest charging system of any EV on the market, the Lucid Air is poised to take away the Model S’s crown.
They are making the cars and about to deliver them but won't reveal how big the battery is?
They are making the vehicles, and don't have the CCS charging software working yet?
They are making vehicles, but are still working on getting the front suspension correct?
Again the car is in production, and they won't reveal how much it weighs? (hint: The EPA documents say it weighs ~5200 pounds.)
Why are they hiding details and being so evasive about a product that is going to start customer deliveries any day now?
I assume they’re keeping some details under wraps to maintain the image of outstanding efficiency and advanced technology. If it is revealed that they had to increase the battery size/weight to meet their goals, that would be… less ideal. Such details may come out eventually, but after more impressions are made and orders locked in.
I also had the impression that they were going to deliver some cars, then pause, then resume for a bigger wave. If true, the most die hard customers may get a somewhat pre-release car, but it would buy Lucid a bit more time for the software and suspension tuning and all.
I also had the impression that they were going to deliver some cars, then pause, then resume for a bigger wave. If true, the most die hard customers may get a somewhat pre-release car, but it would buy Lucid a bit more time for the software and suspension tuning and all.
Interesting information from this article from two days ago:
The Lucid Air Is So Good It Should Make Tesla Sweat
With the best driving range and fastest charging system of any EV on the market, the Lucid Air is poised to take away the Model S’s crown.
They are making the cars and about to deliver them but won't reveal how big the battery is?
They are making the vehicles, and don't have the CCS charging software working yet?
They are making vehicles, but are still working on getting the front suspension correct?
Again the car is in production, and they won't reveal how much it weighs? (hint: The EPA documents say it weighs ~5200 pounds.)
Why are they hiding details and being so evasive about a product that is going to start customer deliveries any day now?
We took delivery of a Model S Plaid on August 21 (for which we traded our 2015 Model S P90D). We are also in the early delivery queue for a Lucid Air Dream Performance.
Tesla has not disclosed the size of the Plaid battery pack. I have seen figures of 100, 98, and 96 kWh . . . but nothing from Tesla.
Tesla does not show the weight of the Plaid on its website. The only figures I have seen have come from owners who put the car on a scale.
Our Plaid has already received an over-the-air update to its suspension to try (only partially successfully) to deal with the front end's going light under hard acceleration. (Some reviewers have called it torque steer. It is not. It's the result of too much rearward weight transfer under hard acceleration, not torque applied unequally to the left and right front wheels.)
We were unable to either view, sit in, or test drive a Plaid before ordering. In fact, our car arrived at the Service Center on August 14. We drove up to look at it, found it on the lot, and verified it was ours by the VIN. We went into the Service Center, showed them our order documents with the VIN, and asked if we could sit in the car. They said no. We asked if they could at least open it so that we could look at the interior, as it was difficult to make out details of the black interior with the tinted windows. Again we were told no. However, Tesla did require us to pay for the car via an ACH transfer 24 hours before delivery. In short, we had to pay in full for a car of which we had not even been able to open a door, much less test drive.
Lucid is not one whit more secretive or guarded than Tesla when it comes to certain specs, but at least Lucid has let some buyers have test drives before they have to pay for their cars, and they have let the press have test drives, including a two-day solo test drive by "Motor Trend" and an 8-hour test drive by "Road & Track". Did Tesla do the same thing with the Plaid?
I have no reason to doubt Lucid's claims about the capacity of its battery pack, but in any case I am not really concerned about the size of the Lucid battery pack, but rather about range and efficiency. The EPA data are clear: the Air has considerably longer range than the Tesla; and the Air is more efficient. In EPA testing, the Plaid with 21" wheels used 33 kWh to go 100 miles. The Dream Performance with 21" wheels used 30 kWh to go that same 100 miles. Thus the Air Dream P is about 9% more efficient than the Plaid. Given that the Air weighs several hundred pounds more and has 91 more horsepower, the efficiency advantage of the Air is even more notable.
We like Teslas. We are on our second one, and I bought my brother a 2018 Model 3 (which he loves). But I see neither point nor reason in attempts to dismiss the significance of what Lucid brings to the table in terms of EV efficiency.
But Tesla doesn't disclose the size of the pack on any of their models. Why will Lucid tell us the pack size for the Air GT but not the Air Dream Edition? Are they afraid of what people might think if they found out the pack is 25% bigger than the one in the Air GT? (Which is what the EPA documents seem to suggest, but of course they don't have to give you access to all of it.)
Actually, yes they do, right on the Model S page in the specs section: Model S
If you are concerned about range then you are concerned about pack size... (Range is a combination of pack size and efficiency.)
The battery packs of both the Dream Edition and the Grand Touring contain 22 modules of 300 21700 form factor cells each, for a total of 6600 cells. The difference in the packs is that the Dream Edition uses cells with a proprietary chemistry that Lucid co-developed with Samsung SDI, and the Grand Touring uses cells sourced from LG Chem. Any difference in energy storage capacity is from the differences in the cells, not in the physical size of the packs. The differences in energy capacity of Samsung and LG Chem cells is slight, which is why Rawlinson suggested the Dream pack might have a slightly higher capacity than the Grand Touring's 112 kWh, but nothing significant.
This whole thing about a 140-kWh battery pack based on EPA documents was something that Warren Redlich, an inveterate Lucid basher who has claimed that Lucid's factory and Design Studios are empty shells meant to support a huge stock fraud, got started by claiming the MPGe ratings from the EPA generate a calculation that shows the Lucid pack must have a much larger capacity that Lucid claims.
The problem is that Redlich and his acolytes overlooked something rather important. The EPA rates MPGe based on the amount of energy it takes to recharge a fully discharged pack back up to 100%. This makes sense, as that is the electricity for which an owner would have to pay to do the same thing. HOWEVER, the amount of energy it takes to recharge a battery pack is not the amount of energy the pack can store. There are significant losses in the inverters, the cabling, the pack busbars, and other components. Thus, using the EPA MPGe rating to infer total pack capacity is useless unless all the data on charging losses throughout the system are taken into account -- and no one doing this calculation on the internet has that data.
No, actually I'm not. While I understand that range is related to pack size, I don't actually care about pack size, at least up to a point. A larger pack might add a little weight, but my experience with two Teslas has taught me that weight that low in the chassis brings certain advantages. And even though it might take more electricity, and thus cost a bit more, to charge a larger battery pack, the greater efficiency of the Lucid offsets that.
In the case of our Plaid and our Licid Dream, the extra ~100 miles of EPA range (348 vs. 451 miles with the 21" wheels) is worth the extra pounds the larger Lucid pack adds, especially as the Lucid is still 9% more efficient.
What is going to be really interesting is how close the Lucid's EPA range aligns with real-world long-distance driving. We've already done some range testing of the Plaid by driving it on a dry 85-degree day on Alligator Alley (a flat, straight, lightly-traveled stretch of Interstate 75 through the Florida Everglades) with the cruise control set at 80 mph. Using the mile markers to measure distance, we got just over 70% of the EPA rating. This was better than the 60% we saw in the same conditions with our outgoing P90D.
We'll do the same testing with the Lucid Dream when we get it (as you can find an 85-degree day pretty much any time for the year down here if you're willing to wait a few days.)
But the MPGe isn't how they came up with the numbers. The EPA document states 118kWh vs. 112kWh:
But the details in the document tell a different story:
That shows a nominal voltage of 800 or 924 depending on which number you believe in their report, Ah of 150, and a Wh/Kg of 171.
Lucid doesn't provide the weight of the pack, so we can't use the Wh/Kg to estimate pack size, so that leaves one method:
- Based on the voltage*Ah, 800v: 120kWh
- Based on the voltage*Ah, 924v: 138.6kWh
So it seems that the Dream Edition pack is most likely only ~7% larger than the GT pack.
I can't blame Redlich for using the official numbers that Lucid reported to the EPA, hopefully they get better at filling out the forms more accurately. (924v is most likely the maximum voltage rather than the nominal.)
For comparison here are the numbers for the Plaid:
That shows a nominal voltage of 410, Ah of 256, and a Wh/Kg of 186.
There are two ways we can calculate the capacity:
- Based on the Wh/Kg: 99.8kWh (The weight of the pack is listed 537Kg.)
- Based on the voltage*Ah: 104.9kWh
They report it takes 116 kWh to fully charge the pack. (Between 10-15% energy loss during charging depending on which pack size you use.)
Yes, I can't wait to see the similar numbers for the Lucid.
How is Lucid getting better efficiency? So far I see that the Lucid is dimensionally smaller to reduce the frontal area:
2021 Lucid Air
195.9" L x 76.3" W x 55.5" H
2021 Tesla Model S Plaid/Dimensions
196″ L x 77″ W x 57″ H
I wonder if the ground clearance is also less but I cannot find a number. Lucid tires are narrower by 10mm front and 20mm rear than the Plaid. With my Plaid I have been getting 310Wh/mile with the 19" wheels.
In this video Kyle drove the Plaid and he said is really loud compared to the Lucid and EQS with the EQS being the more refined. He said that Plaid is more quiet than the Model 3 and the Y:
So why did you post earlier that the Lucid battery pack was 25% larger than 112 kWh? 118 kWh would be about 5% larger, which is about what Rawlinson suggested when he said it wasn't "decisively" larger.
There is a lot more to Lucid's efficiency than exterior dimensions.
For starters, they use a 924-volt architecture as compared to Tesla's 386 volts (usually rounded up to 400 in press talk), which reduces internal current and thus heat and thus resistance by a significant amount. They have run cooling channels inside the stator, thus allowing greater heat extraction from the motor interior. The use silicon carbide MOSFETs in the inverter, which run cooler and allow much faster cycling.
For perhaps the best discussion of Lucid efficiency, check out this interview by Tom Moloughney with Erich Bach, Lucid's Chief Engineer (who was at Tesla along with Peter Rawlinson during the development of the Model S). The interview begins at 3:01:
I saw that video a couple of days ago and found Conner's observations a bit unexpected, but interesting.
Our Plaid (with 21" wheels) is noticeably quieter than our 2015 P90D (with 19" wheels), and the ride is more compliant -- showing what a long way Tesla has come with suspension tuning and interior acoustics over the past few years. Although I have made four visits to Florida's two Lucid showrooms to sit in the cars, I haven't been able to put one on the street yet, of course.
What really surprised me about the video were his observations of how lacking the Plaid was in the handling and braking department when challenged by mountain roads. Granted, we don't have anything like such roads in south Florida, but on the few curves we can find, the car seems very responsive. I agree with Conner that the yoke steering takes away a lot of the fun and confidence of throwing the car around, but calling the Plaid a "one-trick pony" with only is explosive acceleration going for it seemed a bit extreme.
In a recent podcast, Conner said he hoped a Lucid Air owner would lend him a car for a more thorough assessment than he has been able to do with Lucid's brief press loaners. I contacted him, and he plans to test drive our Dream Edition Performance when it arrives. (His parents live near us, so he knows the limits of what the roads here can reveal.)
The new Model S is actually ~450 volts. (And the older ones, other than the small packs, were 403 volts.) And Tesla has been using silicon carbide MOSFETs for a long time. (They started in the Model 3.)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The higher voltage allows smaller conductors or less heating with larger conductors but it's only significant at high current draws. No one is drawing high currents consistently on long trips. "Greater heat extraction from the motor interior" does not improve efficiency it just gets rid of waste heat a bit better, which again is only significant at high current draws. None of this is actually helping Lucid efficiency over Tesla in a meaningful way.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Charge acceptance rate is limited by the cell C rating not conductors. Higher voltage, i.e. more cells in series, does not change cell C rating. If at some point higher C rated cells are used then conductors become the limiting factor and the higher voltage would be an advantage. I don't think we're there yet.
I agree that the higher voltage yields the most benefit with charging speed. However, it does lower internal resistance, and therefore cooling requirements, throughout the system during operation.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing