16 ms·

Lucid Air EV’s Battery Will Be 113.0 KWh

81 points by clouddrover 6y ago

gambiting 6y ago
I do remember reading an interview with a guy in charge of the electric Clio development, and he basically said something along the lines of "we could have easily put 2x as large battery in the Clio, but then your average driver would need to drive it for at least 10 years before the car became a net benefit for the environment". These massive batteries have an environmental cost is what he was saying.
- pedrocr 6y ago
  And yet the Zoe (the electric Clio) has gained battery size instead of going lower in price over the years. I wish they'd actually go all in on the ~150km range city focused EVs. Cheaper lower-range cars would fit well a lot of second cars at least in Europe and I suspect in a lot of other places.
- bryanmgreen 6y ago
  I agree that massive batteries have an environmental cost that has nowhere near been researched thoroughly. I too think that they are not advanced enough to be easily be called a "green" option. That said, Lucid is not improving range through battery pack addition, but rather through increased efficiency which reduces the size of the pack, which is promising. From their press release: "Lucid’s (efficiency) breakthrough is not merely just a few percent; we are talking about a significant improvement, which I shall cover further on September 9th."
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Excited to see more competition in the EV space. Still, press releases are free...
dgritsko 6y ago
"...when it comes out in 2021." My rule of thumb when it comes to all breathless headlines around battery technology is that "I'll believe it when I see it". It's one thing to achieve these specs for batteries when n = (small number), but can they be affordably built at scale?
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > I'll believe it when I see it See it: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lucid/air/2021/2021-lucid-air-first-ride-review-range-test/ https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lucid/air/2021/2021-lucid-ai... > can they be affordably built at scale? The Lucid Air is an expensive luxury car. It's affordable in the same way that all luxury cars are affordable: not very. It's not a high volume vehicle. They will be selling a smaller battery version eventually which will be cheaper but still at luxury car prices.
  - zwily 6y ago
    Are they achieving the additional range by just using a bigger battery? Or new tech/chemistry? Removing weight from the rest of the car? Better aerodynamics? If it’s just a bigger battery, it’s not all that interesting. I’m sure Elon could build a prototype S with 1000 miles range if he felt like it. It wouldn’t make sense though.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > Are they achieving the additional range by using a bigger battery? Removing weight from the rest of the car? Better aerodynamics? Yes. This is discussed in the article.
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        It's even in the damn title of the article!
    - mcot2 6y ago
      This is the best interview I have seen with Peter Rawlinson which will address most of your questions. He was a chief engineer at Lotus and also at Tesla for the Model S and he is now CEO of Lucid. He is the real deal. https://youtu.be/RWc2urOyCVw https://youtu.be/RWc2urOyCVw
      - jcheng 6y ago
modzu 6y ago
does anyone know why EVs dont use gears for more efficiency?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mamon 6y ago
  Because it doesn't make sense. Combustion engines have some limitations that require gearbox to mitigate them: https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/transmissions/why-do-we-need-gears/ https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/tra... Electric engines have none of those limitations, so no need for gearbox.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Because they don't need them. Electric motors produce mostly constant torque across all RPMs. That said, there usually is some kind of gearing as I understand it, but a static reduction, not in the way a combustion engine car is.
  - bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
    Yeah but the Taycan has a two speed gear IIRC to get some extra juice out of the lemon, so to speak.
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      Most EV conversions start with a manual transmission car and leave the transmission in, only because it's easier that way. (Just need an adapter plate to replace the ICE rather than replacing the whole gear box, etc.) So in those cases, people do sometimes fiddle with gears while driving, mainly for fun I guess; but most often they just leave it in 3rd and drive that way.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  You don't really need better than single speed for your average EV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36H9BVeMYMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36H9BVeMYMI Although the Porsche Taycan does have a two speed gear box which gives it more top end performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItCGU7BTBv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItCGU7BTBv8
sjwright 6y ago
What’s special about selling a 13% larger battery pack for a much higher price?
- tzs 6y ago
  It's not 13% larger. They purport to be making batteries that are more efficient, so they get 13% more power than Tesla's batter pack with a smaller pack. Here's an article that talks about this some [1]. [1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33797162/2021-lucid-air-517-mile-range-113-kwh-battery/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33797162/2021-lucid-air-5...
  - akimball 6y ago
    Regardless of their claims, I think it likely that their range gain is attributable entirely to reduced drag coefficient.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bryanmgreen 6y ago
The title should be updated as it is misleading in a critical way. The word "big" suggests the size and weight of the battery is bigger, which is not the case. That would be entirely unremarkable. Their quote directly states this: "It's relatively easy to achieve more range by adding progressively more batteries, but gaining 'dumb range' that way increases weight and cost, and reduces interior space." He continued, "Lucid Air has achieved its remarkable range whilst also reducing battery size" A better title: "Lucid Air's EV 113.0 KWh Battery Is More Powerful, Efficient, and Lighter-weight Than Tesla's"
- natch 6y ago
  Let’s not jump the gun though. We still don’t know enough about Tesla’s 2021 and later batteries. Your suggested headline is built around a comparison to missing information. Also Tesla’s best battery will be 200kw, not 113kw... I guess they missed that. And Cybrtrk may be higher than that. But yes reducing size and weight and improving efficiency are all great things! Kudos to them if they can get it into a shipping car at volume.
  - detritus 6y ago
    https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck I had to check - they've not gotten rid of the vowels and a c Having seen what Elon's at least half to blame for naming this year, I could've fully believed he'd gone that route!
    - natch 6y ago
      Could have sworn an earlier version did but maybe it wasn’t official. Thanks for pointing that out. I do like it better with vowels.
- electriclove 6y ago
  It is all just another click bait headline
- speedgoose 6y ago
mattlondon 6y ago
500+ miles range. Nice. At a constant 70mph, that is over 7 hours continuous driving (...although I wonder how much range decreases at that speed?) I do wonder what the magic numbe needs to be before people stop complaining that x00 miles is not enough and that they reguarly drive 19000 mile a day etc.
- pedrocr 6y ago
  I wish we had a standardized test for range at continuous 70/80/90 mph instead of the EPA and WLTP tests. Those are designed for overall efficiency testing when what people really want to know about EV range is how long they can go on road trips. For everything else charging at home every night makes pretty much any EV range enough for the commute and the efficiency is always great compared to gas.
  - epanchin 6y ago
    Continuous 70mph under what conditions? On a flat with no wind isn’t very representative of real road tripping.
    - natch 6y ago
      Agree. It’s an ok way to convey an intuitive feel for the distance, but as the expression goes ymmv. In real road tripping, what matters is having a fantastic charger network with redundancy on major routes and good coverage on minor routes.
    - pedrocr 6y ago
      Hence the need for a test cycle with a standard set of hills/wind/cold to get you a good estimate of what range to count on from adverse to optimal conditions.
  - mcot2 6y ago
    To go even further I think you want to have tests or simulations with specific air resistance as the drag is actually what causes range loss at higher speeds more than anything else. As an example driving 45mph into a strong headwind is also going to be bad for efficiency. I’d actually like to see some tests/simulations that isolate speed (different speeds in a vaccum) and air resistance (constant speed but different air resistance).
mcot2 6y ago
The number of kWh of a pack is kind of a meaningless number for comparisons. A larger pack may actually be worse as it adds weight. They key numbers I want to see are volumetric density (wh/l), gravimetric density (wh/kg), and cost ($/kwh) at the pack level and the cell level. Other key numbers are operating temperature ranges, max charge rate, maximum charging curves, idle energy loss or leakage, and overall efficiency of the vehicle (wh/mi) in many specific testing regimens (different speeds/air resistance, temperatures, and weather conditions.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Right, well you sound like an engineer. Articles like these are targeting retail investors looking to be ahead of the curve.
  - mcot2 6y ago
    Well I am also a retail investor that just made 10x my money with Tesla by understanding the numbers and using the product.
    - recuter 6y ago
      Gentle reminder that the PE Ratio at the moment is: 1100
      - jsight 6y ago
        Noone cares about the current P/E ratio of a stock like this. The numbers that matter are gross margins, net margins, and growth. I have a lot of issues with the valuation based on those numbers as well, but P/E is one of the worst metrics to use right now.
    - arcticfox 6y ago
      As a fellow TSLA retail investor up about 50x on an average cost basis, not 10x, I don't really put much weight in those credentials unfortunately. We could easily get owned here shortly.
WhompingWindows 6y ago
The sheer storage capacity of the battery is less interesting than the cost. Getting below $100/KWh will reduce EV price to FAR below ICE vehicles; while BEV's are already at parity with ICE on total cost of ownership, BEV's are going to continue the long descent to MUCH cheaper, and $100 is going to be an important milestone. I think new ICE vehicles are going to be banned in most major economies by 2030, so really, ICE is having its last decade of relevance in new vehicles. Given vehicle replacement cycle is around ~20 years, by 2050 the ICE vehicle stock will be reduced to 99% specialty machines like classic cars, motorcycles, and various heavy equipment for industry.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  I have been a TSLA investor for a few years, I believe in electric vehicles. At 100$/KWh we're talking 5000$ for a 50KWh battery back, which is plenty enough for most people. This could allow us to see $15K-20K electric cars in just a few years, maybe before 2025, which is awesome. Very soon buying a gasoline vehicle, in a modern economy, will have people giving you weird looks. What does have me a little worried though is that most of the world doesn't live in a wealthy city. As electric cars rise, gasoline prices will come down, which will keep gasoline attractive for a while, particularly in poorer countries. Failing ICE vehicle companies will try to sell their gas vehicles to these poor countries as well, and our used cars might end up there too. In other words, poorer countries could keep gasoline cars going for another 30 years after they've been banned here. What are we going to do about that? We're all breathing the same air.
  - AgloeDreams 6y ago
    Bigger problem: More than half of Americans do not have a garage to park their car in to charge. Fast charging is great for road trips but it's got nothing on gas fill ups..yet.
    - iamgopal 6y ago
      Or electricity distribution infra not large enough to move that much energy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
abledon 6y ago
Lets just see what they announce on Battery Day... that nano-tech teaser image...
ogre_codes 6y ago
> The vehicle is more efficient than the Model S Long Range Plus, which has a 100.0-kWh capacity and 402 miles of range. It always makes me cringe when I see headlines which compare potential products to a shipping product. It shouldn't be surprising that a future product is better than a currently shipping one. A year ago Lucid was bragging that they would have a 400 mile range. Now Telsa is shipping a car with a 400 mile range. So Lucid has to up their game.
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  Whats interesting is that they are focusing on the current Model S and zero mention of the 3, which has a significantly better efficiency due (in addition to the smaller size, admit-ably) to the fact that the newer 3 design, powertrain, and chassis was a rework that is far superior to the, basically, 9 year old, Startup-developed, Model S. Next-Gen Model S will bring not just larger packs but Model 3 lessons in weight and their claims probably wont pan out, even if true.
  - tyfon 6y ago
    The current Model S is actually on par with the model 3 in terms of battery and drivetrain. They continuously update it. They stuck the Model 3 motor type into the front of the Model S and primarily uses that for driving. You get to use the less efficient induction motor in the back for high accelerations. The chemistry in the battery is also the same but in a slightly different format. I have a Model X and it's also updated in this fashion. They have come a long way since the 2012 Model S. I suspect they will come out with a 100 kWh Model 3/Y though and it seems that the efficiency/range should be compared to these as you say instead of the big cars.
slg 6y ago
The first sentence of the article: >After surprising many with the Air's 517 miles of EPA-estimated range... A few paragraphs later in the article: >During a real-world ride along with Lucid in one of the company's prototypes traveling at 70 miles per hour on the highway, the Air achieved 458 miles before depleting its battery. The automaker still needs to deliver a production vehicle to the EPA before it has an official EPA number. It expects to do so in early 2021 when the Air goes into production. Isn't that opening incredibly misleading? The car does in fact not have 517 miles of EPA-estimated range. The company is projecting 517 miles of range once the EPA tests it, which has not happened yet. So why are they calling the 517 number "EPA-estimated"?
- conception 6y ago
  EPA test is not a real world test. It’s a specific format.
  - slg 6y ago
    The EPA is a government agency not a test. Calling it "EPA-estimated" implies the EPA is the one who did the estimating and not that it is a projection of what the car will get on the EPA's test.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      The EPA doesn't even do the range testing themselves. Manufacturers do the test based on EPA specifications and report the results. And FWIW, BEV's rarely get the "EPA-estimated" results except in ideal conditions. 55 mph, windows up, warm day (cold temperatures = denser air = more wind resistance), climate controls off. My Model 3 Performance is rated for 299 miles. Based on a 150 mile trip in 35F weather at 75 mph with the heater running I took last year, my "real world" range is as low as 240 miles.
      - sgerenser 6y ago
        Cold conditions reduce range mainly due to use of cabin heat and battery temperature (which may even require wasting power on battery heating), not denser air. But the general point still stands.
zackmorris 6y ago
I procrastinated for an hour and did some quick research to see how much the drag coefficient and rolling resistance affect fuel economy: https://www.nap.edu/read/11620/chapter/5#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/11620/chapter/5#39 Specifically a) city (top) and b) highway (bottom): https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309094216/xhtml/images/p2000f633g40001.jpg https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309094216/xhtml/images/p2000f6... For an internal combustion, midsize passenger car, including standby, here are the losses: City: Engine + driveline + standby: 85% Aero: 3% Rolling: 4% Braking: 6% Accessories: 2% --- 100% Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 78% Aero: 11% Rolling: 7% Braking: 2% Accessories: 2% --- 100% Looks like Tesla motors are 93-97% efficient: https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-tesla-model-sx-upgrading-to-more-efficient-electric-motors https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-tesla-model-sx-upgrading-t... And regenerative braking is 80% * 80% = 64% efficient, or 36% costly (about 1/3 as much energy wasted): https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative-braking https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative... I'll just run the math for an electric car with a 95% efficient electric motor, assuming 0% driveline losses with direct drive and no transmission, with no standby losses: City: Engine + driveline + standby: 5% Aero: 3% Rolling: 4% Braking: 2% Accessories: 2% --- 16% (already 6.25 times more efficient by going electric) Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 5% Aero: 11% Rolling: 7% Braking: 1% Accessories: 2% --- 26% (already 3.85 times more efficient by going electric) Rescaled to 100% by multiplying each term by (100/total): City: Engine + driveline + standby: 31% Aero: 19% Rolling: 25% Braking: 13% Accessories: 12% (rounded down to make 100% total) --- 100% Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 19% Aero: 42% Rolling: 27% Braking: 4% Accessories: 8% --- 100% So we can see that city driving is dominated by engine efficiency and highway driving is dominated by aerodynamic efficiency. But both lose about 25% (1/4 of the energy!) to rolling resistance. Googling "mileage loss percentage due to drag coefficient" and "mileage loss percentage due to rolling resistance": http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-economy.html http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-ec... For passenger cars this means that aerodynamics is responsible for a much higher proportion of the fuel used in the highway cycle than the city cycle: 50% for highway; versus 20% for city. This means that if you make a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag your highway fuel economy will improve by approximately 5%, and your city fuel economy by approximately 2%. https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle%20Research%20&%20Test%20Center%20%28VRTC%29/ca/Tires/811154.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle%20Research%20&%2... A 10 percent decrease in tire rolling resistance resulted in an approximately 1.1-percent increase in fuel economy for the vehicle. This result was within the range predicted by technical literature. Converting these for electric in city and highway by multiplying by 6.25 and 3.85 respectively: City: Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 13% Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 7% Highway: Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 31% Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 4% Comparing drag coeficents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Ty... Lucid Air: 0.21 Tesla Roadster: 0.35 Tesla Model S: 0.24 Tesla Model 3: 0.23 Tesla Model X: 0.25 So the Lucid Air has about a 10% better drag coefficient than the Tesla model 3, which gives it (at most) 13-31% better range city-highway. I think this is a liberal estimate, and that drag coefficients will never be below about 0.20, so improvements here will probably be marginal from here on out. It seems to me that a better return on investment might be to fix tires. Someone needs to think outside the box on this and create a tire that acts stiff at high speed, but still grips while cornering and braking. Eliminating this resistance would add 100 miles to electric car range. I ran this math from a first order perspective, to give an idea of relative costs. I'm sure it's off (since drag is nonlinear), but it helps visualize where the energy goes. Seeing that accessories use as much or more energy than regenerative braking was eye-opening for me. Oh and you don't even want to know about bicycles. The upright position is the worst possible, and wastes most of the rider's energy. I wish recumbants were safer and more affordable, although this matters less each year with improvements in electric assist, mostly from reduced cost and better batteries.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Do the EPA estimates account for weather changes (hot and cold weather, as opposed to moderate temperatures)? How trustworthy is the 500 mile claim?
lr 6y ago
Given the number of job openings (491) for the company, who actually works there now? By that I mean, how can they already have a car, or know these kinds of specs, when there are that many positions to be filled...
nharada 6y ago
I wonder if this will become the new high end luxury EV, at least until Tesla does a refresh of the S. My impression is that right now the current Model S isn't really that popular because the 3 is functionally similar at a much lower price point, but clearly that segment of the market willing to pay 120k+ for a top tier vehicle exists because they paid it when the S was the only game in town.
- Zanni 6y ago
  I have a Model S and a Model 3, and I actually prefer the 3 (though I generally prefer sportier cars to luxury cars). The smaller size makes it more nimble, the lack of air suspension gives better road feel, the horizontal orientation of the central screen seems more effective, and I don't miss the dash at all. The only things I do miss from the Model S are the much more comfortable steering wheel, AM radio (weirdly missing on the Model 3), and a hatchback. If I were looking for a new EV today, I'd probably be looking at a Model Y.
  - odysseus 6y ago
    What is more comfortable about the Model S steering wheel?
    - Zanni 6y ago
      The Model S steering wheel has a nicer surface texture, a rounder cross-section that feels more comfortable in my hand, and is (slightly) padded. The Model 3 steering wheel is hard plastic, and the cross-section is a narrow ellipse that creates a hard edge.

81 points by clouddrover 6y ago

I do remember reading an interview with a guy in charge of the electric Clio development, and he basically said something along the lines of "we could have easily put 2x as large battery in the Clio, but then your average driver would need to drive it for at least 10 years before the car became a net benefit for the environment". These massive batteries have an environmental cost is what he was saying.

pedrocr 6y ago
And yet the Zoe (the electric Clio) has gained battery size instead of going lower in price over the years. I wish they'd actually go all in on the ~150km range city focused EVs. Cheaper lower-range cars would fit well a lot of second cars at least in Europe and I suspect in a lot of other places.
bryanmgreen 6y ago
I agree that massive batteries have an environmental cost that has nowhere near been researched thoroughly. I too think that they are not advanced enough to be easily be called a "green" option. That said, Lucid is not improving range through battery pack addition, but rather through increased efficiency which reduces the size of the pack, which is promising. From their press release: "Lucid’s (efficiency) breakthrough is not merely just a few percent; we are talking about a significant improvement, which I shall cover further on September 9th."

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Excited to see more competition in the EV space. Still, press releases are free...

dgritsko 6y ago

"...when it comes out in 2021." My rule of thumb when it comes to all breathless headlines around battery technology is that "I'll believe it when I see it". It's one thing to achieve these specs for batteries when n = (small number), but can they be affordably built at scale?

clouddrover 6y ago
> I'll believe it when I see it See it: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lucid/air/2021/2021-lucid-air-first-ride-review-range-test/ https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lucid/air/2021/2021-lucid-ai... > can they be affordably built at scale? The Lucid Air is an expensive luxury car. It's affordable in the same way that all luxury cars are affordable: not very. It's not a high volume vehicle. They will be selling a smaller battery version eventually which will be cheaper but still at luxury car prices.
- zwily 6y ago
  Are they achieving the additional range by just using a bigger battery? Or new tech/chemistry? Removing weight from the rest of the car? Better aerodynamics? If it’s just a bigger battery, it’s not all that interesting. I’m sure Elon could build a prototype S with 1000 miles range if he felt like it. It wouldn’t make sense though.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > Are they achieving the additional range by using a bigger battery? Removing weight from the rest of the car? Better aerodynamics? Yes. This is discussed in the article.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      It's even in the damn title of the article!
  - mcot2 6y ago
    This is the best interview I have seen with Peter Rawlinson which will address most of your questions. He was a chief engineer at Lotus and also at Tesla for the Model S and he is now CEO of Lucid. He is the real deal. https://youtu.be/RWc2urOyCVw https://youtu.be/RWc2urOyCVw
    - jcheng 6y ago

modzu 6y ago

does anyone know why EVs dont use gears for more efficiency?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mamon 6y ago
Because it doesn't make sense. Combustion engines have some limitations that require gearbox to mitigate them: https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/transmissions/why-do-we-need-gears/ https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/tra... Electric engines have none of those limitations, so no need for gearbox.
cmrdporcupine 6y ago
Because they don't need them. Electric motors produce mostly constant torque across all RPMs. That said, there usually is some kind of gearing as I understand it, but a static reduction, not in the way a combustion engine car is.
- bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
  Yeah but the Taycan has a two speed gear IIRC to get some extra juice out of the lemon, so to speak.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    Most EV conversions start with a manual transmission car and leave the transmission in, only because it's easier that way. (Just need an adapter plate to replace the ICE rather than replacing the whole gear box, etc.) So in those cases, people do sometimes fiddle with gears while driving, mainly for fun I guess; but most often they just leave it in 3rd and drive that way.
clouddrover 6y ago
You don't really need better than single speed for your average EV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36H9BVeMYMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36H9BVeMYMI Although the Porsche Taycan does have a two speed gear box which gives it more top end performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItCGU7BTBv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItCGU7BTBv8

sjwright 6y ago

What’s special about selling a 13% larger battery pack for a much higher price?

tzs 6y ago
It's not 13% larger. They purport to be making batteries that are more efficient, so they get 13% more power than Tesla's batter pack with a smaller pack. Here's an article that talks about this some [1]. [1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33797162/2021-lucid-air-517-mile-range-113-kwh-battery/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33797162/2021-lucid-air-5...
- akimball 6y ago
  Regardless of their claims, I think it likely that their range gain is attributable entirely to reduced drag coefficient.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

bryanmgreen 6y ago

The title should be updated as it is misleading in a critical way. The word "big" suggests the size and weight of the battery is bigger, which is not the case. That would be entirely unremarkable. Their quote directly states this: "It's relatively easy to achieve more range by adding progressively more batteries, but gaining 'dumb range' that way increases weight and cost, and reduces interior space." He continued, "Lucid Air has achieved its remarkable range whilst also reducing battery size" A better title: "Lucid Air's EV 113.0 KWh Battery Is More Powerful, Efficient, and Lighter-weight Than Tesla's"

natch 6y ago
Let’s not jump the gun though. We still don’t know enough about Tesla’s 2021 and later batteries. Your suggested headline is built around a comparison to missing information. Also Tesla’s best battery will be 200kw, not 113kw... I guess they missed that. And Cybrtrk may be higher than that. But yes reducing size and weight and improving efficiency are all great things! Kudos to them if they can get it into a shipping car at volume.
- detritus 6y ago
  https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck I had to check - they've not gotten rid of the vowels and a c Having seen what Elon's at least half to blame for naming this year, I could've fully believed he'd gone that route!
  - natch 6y ago
    Could have sworn an earlier version did but maybe it wasn’t official. Thanks for pointing that out. I do like it better with vowels.
electriclove 6y ago
It is all just another click bait headline
speedgoose 6y ago

mattlondon 6y ago

500+ miles range. Nice. At a constant 70mph, that is over 7 hours continuous driving (...although I wonder how much range decreases at that speed?) I do wonder what the magic numbe needs to be before people stop complaining that x00 miles is not enough and that they reguarly drive 19000 mile a day etc.

pedrocr 6y ago
I wish we had a standardized test for range at continuous 70/80/90 mph instead of the EPA and WLTP tests. Those are designed for overall efficiency testing when what people really want to know about EV range is how long they can go on road trips. For everything else charging at home every night makes pretty much any EV range enough for the commute and the efficiency is always great compared to gas.
- epanchin 6y ago
  Continuous 70mph under what conditions? On a flat with no wind isn’t very representative of real road tripping.
  - natch 6y ago
    Agree. It’s an ok way to convey an intuitive feel for the distance, but as the expression goes ymmv. In real road tripping, what matters is having a fantastic charger network with redundancy on major routes and good coverage on minor routes.
  - pedrocr 6y ago
    Hence the need for a test cycle with a standard set of hills/wind/cold to get you a good estimate of what range to count on from adverse to optimal conditions.
- mcot2 6y ago
  To go even further I think you want to have tests or simulations with specific air resistance as the drag is actually what causes range loss at higher speeds more than anything else. As an example driving 45mph into a strong headwind is also going to be bad for efficiency. I’d actually like to see some tests/simulations that isolate speed (different speeds in a vaccum) and air resistance (constant speed but different air resistance).

mcot2 6y ago

The number of kWh of a pack is kind of a meaningless number for comparisons. A larger pack may actually be worse as it adds weight. They key numbers I want to see are volumetric density (wh/l), gravimetric density (wh/kg), and cost ($/kwh) at the pack level and the cell level. Other key numbers are operating temperature ranges, max charge rate, maximum charging curves, idle energy loss or leakage, and overall efficiency of the vehicle (wh/mi) in many specific testing regimens (different speeds/air resistance, temperatures, and weather conditions.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Right, well you sound like an engineer. Articles like these are targeting retail investors looking to be ahead of the curve.
- mcot2 6y ago
  Well I am also a retail investor that just made 10x my money with Tesla by understanding the numbers and using the product.
  - recuter 6y ago
    Gentle reminder that the PE Ratio at the moment is: 1100
    - jsight 6y ago
      Noone cares about the current P/E ratio of a stock like this. The numbers that matter are gross margins, net margins, and growth. I have a lot of issues with the valuation based on those numbers as well, but P/E is one of the worst metrics to use right now.
  - arcticfox 6y ago
    As a fellow TSLA retail investor up about 50x on an average cost basis, not 10x, I don't really put much weight in those credentials unfortunately. We could easily get owned here shortly.

WhompingWindows 6y ago

The sheer storage capacity of the battery is less interesting than the cost. Getting below $100/KWh will reduce EV price to FAR below ICE vehicles; while BEV's are already at parity with ICE on total cost of ownership, BEV's are going to continue the long descent to MUCH cheaper, and $100 is going to be an important milestone. I think new ICE vehicles are going to be banned in most major economies by 2030, so really, ICE is having its last decade of relevance in new vehicles. Given vehicle replacement cycle is around ~20 years, by 2050 the ICE vehicle stock will be reduced to 99% specialty machines like classic cars, motorcycles, and various heavy equipment for industry.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
I have been a TSLA investor for a few years, I believe in electric vehicles. At 100$/KWh we're talking 5000$ for a 50KWh battery back, which is plenty enough for most people. This could allow us to see $15K-20K electric cars in just a few years, maybe before 2025, which is awesome. Very soon buying a gasoline vehicle, in a modern economy, will have people giving you weird looks. What does have me a little worried though is that most of the world doesn't live in a wealthy city. As electric cars rise, gasoline prices will come down, which will keep gasoline attractive for a while, particularly in poorer countries. Failing ICE vehicle companies will try to sell their gas vehicles to these poor countries as well, and our used cars might end up there too. In other words, poorer countries could keep gasoline cars going for another 30 years after they've been banned here. What are we going to do about that? We're all breathing the same air.
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  Bigger problem: More than half of Americans do not have a garage to park their car in to charge. Fast charging is great for road trips but it's got nothing on gas fill ups..yet.
  - iamgopal 6y ago
    Or electricity distribution infra not large enough to move that much energy.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

abledon 6y ago

Lets just see what they announce on Battery Day... that nano-tech teaser image...

ogre_codes 6y ago

> The vehicle is more efficient than the Model S Long Range Plus, which has a 100.0-kWh capacity and 402 miles of range. It always makes me cringe when I see headlines which compare potential products to a shipping product. It shouldn't be surprising that a future product is better than a currently shipping one. A year ago Lucid was bragging that they would have a 400 mile range. Now Telsa is shipping a car with a 400 mile range. So Lucid has to up their game.

AgloeDreams 6y ago
Whats interesting is that they are focusing on the current Model S and zero mention of the 3, which has a significantly better efficiency due (in addition to the smaller size, admit-ably) to the fact that the newer 3 design, powertrain, and chassis was a rework that is far superior to the, basically, 9 year old, Startup-developed, Model S. Next-Gen Model S will bring not just larger packs but Model 3 lessons in weight and their claims probably wont pan out, even if true.
- tyfon 6y ago
  The current Model S is actually on par with the model 3 in terms of battery and drivetrain. They continuously update it. They stuck the Model 3 motor type into the front of the Model S and primarily uses that for driving. You get to use the less efficient induction motor in the back for high accelerations. The chemistry in the battery is also the same but in a slightly different format. I have a Model X and it's also updated in this fashion. They have come a long way since the 2012 Model S. I suspect they will come out with a 100 kWh Model 3/Y though and it seems that the efficiency/range should be compared to these as you say instead of the big cars.

slg 6y ago

The first sentence of the article: >After surprising many with the Air's 517 miles of EPA-estimated range... A few paragraphs later in the article: >During a real-world ride along with Lucid in one of the company's prototypes traveling at 70 miles per hour on the highway, the Air achieved 458 miles before depleting its battery. The automaker still needs to deliver a production vehicle to the EPA before it has an official EPA number. It expects to do so in early 2021 when the Air goes into production. Isn't that opening incredibly misleading? The car does in fact not have 517 miles of EPA-estimated range. The company is projecting 517 miles of range once the EPA tests it, which has not happened yet. So why are they calling the 517 number "EPA-estimated"?

conception 6y ago
EPA test is not a real world test. It’s a specific format.
- slg 6y ago
  The EPA is a government agency not a test. Calling it "EPA-estimated" implies the EPA is the one who did the estimating and not that it is a projection of what the car will get on the EPA's test.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    The EPA doesn't even do the range testing themselves. Manufacturers do the test based on EPA specifications and report the results. And FWIW, BEV's rarely get the "EPA-estimated" results except in ideal conditions. 55 mph, windows up, warm day (cold temperatures = denser air = more wind resistance), climate controls off. My Model 3 Performance is rated for 299 miles. Based on a 150 mile trip in 35F weather at 75 mph with the heater running I took last year, my "real world" range is as low as 240 miles.
    - sgerenser 6y ago
      Cold conditions reduce range mainly due to use of cabin heat and battery temperature (which may even require wasting power on battery heating), not denser air. But the general point still stands.

zackmorris 6y ago

I procrastinated for an hour and did some quick research to see how much the drag coefficient and rolling resistance affect fuel economy: https://www.nap.edu/read/11620/chapter/5#39 https://www.nap.edu/read/11620/chapter/5#39 Specifically a) city (top) and b) highway (bottom): https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309094216/xhtml/images/p2000f633g40001.jpg https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309094216/xhtml/images/p2000f6... For an internal combustion, midsize passenger car, including standby, here are the losses: City: Engine + driveline + standby: 85% Aero: 3% Rolling: 4% Braking: 6% Accessories: 2% --- 100% Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 78% Aero: 11% Rolling: 7% Braking: 2% Accessories: 2% --- 100% Looks like Tesla motors are 93-97% efficient: https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-tesla-model-sx-upgrading-to-more-efficient-electric-motors https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-tesla-model-sx-upgrading-t... And regenerative braking is 80% * 80% = 64% efficient, or 36% costly (about 1/3 as much energy wasted): https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative-braking https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative... I'll just run the math for an electric car with a 95% efficient electric motor, assuming 0% driveline losses with direct drive and no transmission, with no standby losses: City: Engine + driveline + standby: 5% Aero: 3% Rolling: 4% Braking: 2% Accessories: 2% --- 16% (already 6.25 times more efficient by going electric) Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 5% Aero: 11% Rolling: 7% Braking: 1% Accessories: 2% --- 26% (already 3.85 times more efficient by going electric) Rescaled to 100% by multiplying each term by (100/total): City: Engine + driveline + standby: 31% Aero: 19% Rolling: 25% Braking: 13% Accessories: 12% (rounded down to make 100% total) --- 100% Highway: Engine + driveline + standby: 19% Aero: 42% Rolling: 27% Braking: 4% Accessories: 8% --- 100% So we can see that city driving is dominated by engine efficiency and highway driving is dominated by aerodynamic efficiency. But both lose about 25% (1/4 of the energy!) to rolling resistance. Googling "mileage loss percentage due to drag coefficient" and "mileage loss percentage due to rolling resistance": http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-economy.html http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-ec... For passenger cars this means that aerodynamics is responsible for a much higher proportion of the fuel used in the highway cycle than the city cycle: 50% for highway; versus 20% for city. This means that if you make a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag your highway fuel economy will improve by approximately 5%, and your city fuel economy by approximately 2%. https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle%20Research%20&%20Test%20Center%20%28VRTC%29/ca/Tires/811154.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle%20Research%20&%2... A 10 percent decrease in tire rolling resistance resulted in an approximately 1.1-percent increase in fuel economy for the vehicle. This result was within the range predicted by technical literature. Converting these for electric in city and highway by multiplying by 6.25 and 3.85 respectively: City: Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 13% Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 7% Highway: Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 31% Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 4% Comparing drag coeficents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Ty... Lucid Air: 0.21 Tesla Roadster: 0.35 Tesla Model S: 0.24 Tesla Model 3: 0.23 Tesla Model X: 0.25 So the Lucid Air has about a 10% better drag coefficient than the Tesla model 3, which gives it (at most) 13-31% better range city-highway. I think this is a liberal estimate, and that drag coefficients will never be below about 0.20, so improvements here will probably be marginal from here on out. It seems to me that a better return on investment might be to fix tires. Someone needs to think outside the box on this and create a tire that acts stiff at high speed, but still grips while cornering and braking. Eliminating this resistance would add 100 miles to electric car range. I ran this math from a first order perspective, to give an idea of relative costs. I'm sure it's off (since drag is nonlinear), but it helps visualize where the energy goes. Seeing that accessories use as much or more energy than regenerative braking was eye-opening for me. Oh and you don't even want to know about bicycles. The upright position is the worst possible, and wastes most of the rider's energy. I wish recumbants were safer and more affordable, although this matters less each year with improvements in electric assist, mostly from reduced cost and better batteries.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Do the EPA estimates account for weather changes (hot and cold weather, as opposed to moderate temperatures)? How trustworthy is the 500 mile claim?

lr 6y ago

Given the number of job openings (491) for the company, who actually works there now? By that I mean, how can they already have a car, or know these kinds of specs, when there are that many positions to be filled...

nharada 6y ago

I wonder if this will become the new high end luxury EV, at least until Tesla does a refresh of the S. My impression is that right now the current Model S isn't really that popular because the 3 is functionally similar at a much lower price point, but clearly that segment of the market willing to pay 120k+ for a top tier vehicle exists because they paid it when the S was the only game in town.

Zanni 6y ago
I have a Model S and a Model 3, and I actually prefer the 3 (though I generally prefer sportier cars to luxury cars). The smaller size makes it more nimble, the lack of air suspension gives better road feel, the horizontal orientation of the central screen seems more effective, and I don't miss the dash at all. The only things I do miss from the Model S are the much more comfortable steering wheel, AM radio (weirdly missing on the Model 3), and a hatchback. If I were looking for a new EV today, I'd probably be looking at a Model Y.
- odysseus 6y ago
  What is more comfortable about the Model S steering wheel?
  - Zanni 6y ago
    The Model S steering wheel has a nicer surface texture, a rounder cross-section that feels more comfortable in my hand, and is (slightly) padded. The Model 3 steering wheel is hard plastic, and the cross-section is a narrow ellipse that creates a hard edge.