Lucid Air EV’s Battery Will Be 113.0 KWh
caranddriver.com
caranddriver.com
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?
See it: 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.
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.
Yes. This is discussed in the article.
This should also be applied to all stories about new fission reactor technologies. Comparing a cost that's been validated across many units over decades with the "should cost" for a design that hasn't even had gone critical in a prototype is almost meaningless.
1. Battery capacity: Tesla had 100kw cars 4 years ago. 13% increase - easy, even within Tesla's grasp, they just have not bothered.
2. Efficiency and range - this is just a small improvement on what the Tesla model S has, add more batteries. The Lucid Air is bigger than a model 3 and closer to an S. The S already has 400 miles. Tesla improved on the original 2012 (yes, those are 8 years old!) model S' range by using the more efficient model 3 engines on the S. The S has 100kwh currently.
3. The model 3 has different batteries than the S, apparently they have a bit higher capacity in the 3 than in the S. All Tesla has to do to give the S another boost is switch to using the model 3 batteries, add a few more. The one downside of the 3 batteries is supposed to be they have less max power, so less acceleration? Tesla is going to have 'battery day' soon when they will talk about their next generation batteries, and perhaps talk about S improvements.
4. Manufacturing, and especially getting enough batteries - this is where Tesla is likely really ahead. It's hard to make cars in volume, even expensive ones. But getting enough batteries for a large fleet of cars is the early 21st century unobtanium. Every other car company that ones to make large volume EVs can't do it. Where everyone is at least Japan and Europe and the US. China might be able to pull this off, too soon to say.
However, that competitors are nipping at Tesla's heels is an absolute sea change compared to a few short years ago. They used to not only be ahead in every metric, but also improving faster than their competition further solidifying the lead.
Tesla sets a very high bar, but genuine effort is being made now to compete. It's fantastic, and great news for the EV movement. Reading EV news is finally fun again.
The poster is likely talking about new fission concepts like TerraPower [0] and other Gen IV types. See the Generation IV fast reactors section of [1].
[0] https://www.terrapower.com/about/
[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...
I suppose it depends on whether everyone is gone for the weekend on the day they are supposed to spot the asteroid that would destroy life on Earth in 2431
Sorry, Thursday.
[0] In The Year 2525
There is nothing to indicate that they won't be able to achieve this in production of their low volume luxury vehicle.
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.
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.
One thing we seem to have growing evidence for is that battery cells resting at full charge for long periods of time may have more of an impact on battery lifetime than cycle counts, and so partial cycles of an active vehicle-to-grid system may actually be a smart plan for extending the expected life of EV batteries, given that evidence.
Such systems are still in very early testing/planning, so we'll see as we learn. The fact that it is a possibility, though, greatly changes a lot of the "doomsday predictions" about electricity demand in an all EV tomorrow, so it is worth pointing out as a possibility, even if we aren't certain it is a probability that it will be used widespread.
Our tesla charges in.. our driveway. Our garage is too small to hold a car. When we remodel, I hope to convert our single into a tandem with a lift, holding 3 cars.
The tesla will still be in the driveway, though.
Even where I live - a suburb with homes averaging $2m - there are a metric shit load of cars parked on the street.
Your parent was not saying that it'd be difficult to have a few charging stations on streets, but rather that it would be difficult to add a lot of densely packed chargers on the street.
Today, there just isn't that much use for electricity on the street: traffic lights and the occasional parking meter are pretty much it from what I can tell.
What you're proposing is adding 100's if not 1000's of amps of electricity to the sidewalk. For many, many streets.
The situation is even more dire in the north: while it's not too bad to charge in a garage, particularly if it's insulated, EVs on the street will have to expend a substantial amount of energy keeping their batteries warm during the winter months, meaning that the minimum charging rate for those areas will have to be solidly in the Level 2 range.
All of this work isn't impossible or even conceptually difficult. But it is a lot of work, and it's not as simple as just setting up charging stations and hooking them into the already existing infrastructure.
In most major US cities the combined density of traffic lights, street lamps, and parking meters (especially parking meters!) is extremely high; much higher than average in Europe from what I've seen. Plus, most US cities don't have historic preservation laws that apply to "street furniture" like street lamps and parking meters, as opposed to European cities that have already done a lot of work into shaping EV plugs to look more like historic street furniture and fit within preservation law limits. Europe has a slight advantage that their default plug output is closer to "Level 2" than America's paltry "Level 1" wall outlets, but even that advantage isn't as huge as it seems to some of these discussions. (Especially, again, given America wired most streets and parking lots for "Level 2" in the first place because those styles of street lamps were more convenient for more decades.)
It is just as simple as adding plugs to the streets. People keep acting like car chargers are some sort of futuristic new electricity component, but at the end of the day it is a slightly smarter US dryer plug and maybe a meter. Maybe we need to beef up those circuits to support future demands, but just starting with the demand we have today we don't need to worry so much, the capacity is already there, and we know how to scale the infrastructure for demand as we add it, because scaling electricity infrastructure is a well solved problem. So what if it is a "lot of work"? That's not a "huge high-level rework", as suggested above, that's an "expand what's already there, eventually as needed/demanded". We're not moving to some foreign concept of a new energy grid, we are taking the energy grid we have and expanding it as demand happens (again, nowhere conceptually any different than what cities have done since the very first electric street lamp rollouts in the 1910s).
But the issue isn't about tech.
I'm saying the infrastructure problem is that it's a chicken and Egg problem. You need street charging to have affordable EVs happen, you need affordable EVs to have the political pressure to drive city governments to spend millions on chargers. Europe does not have the conservative issue in the way that America does, most political parties dont think that 'global warming' is a hoax too. Even to have a company show up and do it you need those cars to exist..but then America isn't Europe, it's vastly different. There are good reasons why City Cars are successful in Europe and nobody buys them in the US: We have large, long highways, people do not live 'in' metro cities, generally and for those who do, owning a car is a net negative. Much of America is tight suburban housing, so you need large batteries, higher watt charging, and more stations all over. America won't do it for a long time because our country is so vastly different.
We do all of that every day as a matter of "natural" maintenance cycles, most roads last only a few years between necessary resurfacing, normal activities like construction/reconstruction, utility maintenance, etc continually shift/replace/rip up sidewalks as just the organic life cycle of a city.
Of course it sounds daunting to think about doing it all at once in a major upgrade. But we already have continual processes happening that would benefit from adding electric requirements, and in which adding electric requirements isn't much different from existing zoning laws and regulations (modest modifications to existing street lamp requirements and parking space requirements).
> so you need large batteries, higher watt charging, and more stations all over
No, so you/we think you/we need those things. I don't think America's issue is even that political at this point, it's (a sad) mixture of a failure of imagination, the resistive momentum of the status quo, and the love of outliers/passion for the tales of "Spiders McGee" equivalents.
The old weird anecdote that the average person each 3 spiders a year turning out that that mean was hugely biased by a single "Spiders McGee" that supposedly ate 10,000 spiders a year. The median and mode were both zero. The average person, by two of the three average forms ate zero spiders. Whenever we define "average" we need to remember how exactly we count those averages and stop falling in love with excusing weirdos like "Spiders McGee" at the expense of the median/mode.
Right now the EVs sold in America have the battery size to more than meet the median/mode of American travel even taking into account America's love affairs with suburbs and long, high speed highways. The existing distribution of stations can already handle the median/mode of American long distance travel. (In terms of raw highway coverage at least, if not yet some weird idea of theoretical "full capacity", and yes that will only get scaled out as people start to use them.) Even the the current "low watt charging" ("trickle") in most homes can easily meet the median/mode of day-to-day/week-to-week driving of the "average" American.
We're letting visions of some "perfect" EV that can travel 500 miles on a charge, recharge in 3 minutes, in any random American neighborhood gas station cloud the reality that statistically no one needs 500 miles on a charge, recharging a full 500 miles in anything less than 30 minutes, or recharging "everywhere" that traditional gas is sold. The vast majority of American trips are 40 miles or less. Trips of 300 miles or more in a single run are already suggested to take half-hour breaks every so often to stretch/eat/relieve bladders and avoid driving problems such as driving when too tired, driving without enough human fuel, driving while damaging bladders and important muscle groups. Even just trickle charging at boring American wall outlet power at home or at work or at anywhere else our car is parked for long stretches of time (and by far most cars spend a lot more time parked than driving) greatly changes the economic game versus traditional much more "centralized" models of gas stations.
Sure, nearly every American we all have our tales of those 12 hour straight drives with nothing but the wind to our backs, the snacks in packs, the bottles we eventually grossly pee in, but those trips as oddly romanticly as we recall them are outliers. We shouldn't be using such visions as such big forces in our cost analysis of what constitutes a viable EV today, shouldn't just keep relying on "well I might want to do that once or twice a year" as some sort of resolute line in a sand driving us to large batteries with capacity rarely used, higher watt charging for charge times rarely needed, and more stations "all over" for trips rarely taken.
If America "won't do it for a long time", it isn't because the country is vastly "different", it's because the country is so vastly and weirdly disillusioned, drastically underestimating the economic distinction/difference of trickle/at home charging, and in love with its own weird stories of being "different" over practical reality where it isn't as different as it thinks it is statistically or that cannot be improved.
(America once had the greatest passenger rail network in the world. That was a story that Americans told ourselves made us great. It was told just as romanticly as we culturally give to our tellings of those 12 hour highway trips in cars. A lot of the suburbs that "require owning a car" were still planned and started being built when it was expected they'd be served by rail/light rail/trolley. We've forgotten, but the bones are still there.)
https://pod-point.com/guides/vehicles/porsche/2020/taycan
The charging rates are getting faster to fit more use cases. It's already pretty good.
1) is an optional extra when ordering the car
2) as far as I know, there's only a handful of these 200kW chargers in all of UK, nearly every motorway and public rapid charger are "only" 50kW, so it will take about an hour to get your battery to 80%
This is a problem which solves itself during the buildout phase: BEVs are less attractive to people without a garage, but for people with a garage, it's a no-brainer once they're cheaper than ICE.
Those people will want to charge during the day as well, and legislate for charge points in the downtown areas. Malls and other outlying work areas will want to add charge points as well: Malls in particular, anything which induces customers to spend longer at the mall is attractive.
A bit of government funding to induce cheapskate office parks to put in electric chargers isn't out of the question.
By the time we need them on city streets, it will happen.
Why would they though? In my experience owners of electric cars who can charge at home don't bother charging during the day while out and about, because....why would they? They start the day, every day, every morning, with a fresh 300 mile range car. Charging while out at work or in town is a faff, and usually a lot more expensive so....they just charge at home. It's people who can't charge at home who mostly rely on public chargers and charger at their place of work. They have to have a solid and consistent place to charge their vehicles, just like we have petrol stations now.
Granted, they might not care as much. But we might want them to care, and I would expect the overnight price of power to climb steadily as our production mix shifts toward solar power.
More than half of the US live in parts of the country where solar is high-performance, and it only gets cheaper from here.
THe problem is how do you charge people for the power? For dedicated parking stalls, that could be covered by a blanket fee or giving the owner a key to the charger. For public shared parking that's more going to look like ChargePoint etc.
People need to remember, the range is best case range and full charge. This is subject to driving conditions and especially the effect of weather. Lower pack sizes do not charge nearly as quick and this too will hinder acceptance as some will see charge times as a detriment. Wide spread acceptance means more people with a BEV and no home to charge at which means charge times are a real concern
So, don't let manufacturers off the hook. Telsa set a bar for range in 2013 that most are barely crossing in range and upped it with the TM3 and TMY. Mercedes and BMW both have offerings coming in with more than 300 miles range. Let us count this low 200 club as we did the sub 100 range, a good first EV for the manufacturer but not what is expected from true BEVs; remember many of the sub 300 club were petrol platforms adapted to electric.
Embodied energy is a significant fraction of total emissions in a vehicle. It's unclear whether early retirement of existing ICE vehicles is a win; I'm sure someone has done the analysis, and I'm kind of hoping someone will jump in and provide a link to it.
Economics is an imperfect proxy for this, but not uncorrelated: if it makes sense in dollar accounting to sell the ICE fleet to developing nations to be used up, that suggests (but does not prove) that it makes sense in carbon accounting as well.
Local power grid makes a difference but not by much. The worst case for an EV is still better than the best hybrids.
LFP cells with volume discounts were already sold for less than $100/KWh for a few years. Not much changed.
Cheapest EVs in developed countries have passed the $20k barrier, but I don't see everybody falling for EVs.
The type of people who are happy to have just anything to drive buy into something like https://runhorse2020.en.made-in-china.com/product/uwcniFmDXJ...
But even they switch to cheapest, crappiest IC sedans starting at $7k in China (say thanks to $500 per ton steel)
> Cheapest EVs in developed countries have passed the $20k barrier, but I don't see everybody falling for EVs.
AFAIK most of the EVs with a 200+ mile range are above 30K, even after incentives. Some of them are not that amazing either. It will take some time for the prices to come down more and for the offerings to improve. I rode in an VW E-Golf when I ordered an Uber the other day. The acceleration was great and it was a nice looking vehicle, but the base model is 32K and the range is just 125 miles.
Not sure what you mean here, EVs are easily the fastest growing auto-segment.
Massive EV sales growth is why all the auto makers are pushing hard on their EV efforts. EVs aren't matching ICE vehicles in volume yet, but they are grabbing big market share where they offer competitive products.
Look how quickly manufacturers jumped on making electric truck announcements once Tesla made it clear the Cybertruck was coming. From the looks of it, electric trucks are going to be big.
Given that it grown from near zero after Tesla in markets which had zero EVs before, triple digit growth is not something extraordinary.
In countries which already had some EV presence, hasn't been so spectacular.
Given how much more difficult it is to scale car production than phone production, it is quite obvious that double digit growth is as high as it is going to get. But with even that growth rate, the market for new cars is going to look very different in ten years time.
1. 170wh/kg cells were on the market for a few years (held them in my own hands,) and, allegedly, 200wh/kg cells are to come.
2. The lower gravimetric cell energy density is compensated by lower cooling requirements, higher volumetric density, and bigger maximum cell sizes.
3. LFP survive fast charging, and deep charge/discharge much better, and have more much better cycle life than anything else. This reduces the need in overprovisioning dramatically.
All of this translate in quite good battery pack specs, and much lower cost.
In comparison, I can order 18650 LiIons with 50% higher energy density right now, in pretty much any quantity or balance of discharge rate vs. capacity I want. BMCs are cheap and easily available. No supply chain worries. If I need to export I just buy in the destination country and build packs there.
Just a tiny reminder
power plants are generally more efficient than small combustion engines but all other things in chain must apply. Mix in nuclear and solar and things change of course.
However comparing the efficiency of the controller / motor to engine / transmission is apple to oranges, the battery / controller / motor in a EV is just the last part of a long transmission stretching from the engine in the power plant:
I don't have the numbers because I'm lazy, but I remember reading that it takes more energy to bring one liter of gaz in a car tank, if you consider the full chain, than the energy required to drive a EV on the same distance. So even before you start to turn on the cars, an EV has used less energy.
There are embedded emissions in manufacturing, and yes, embedded emissions are higher for EV's because of battery manufacturing complexity.
But, most of a car's lifetime emissions are in the operation, not the manufacturing. And that's where EV's shine. Plus, this has only been getting more true as the grid has been getting greener -- in the last two years, most new generating capacity that has come online has been renewable.
A few of those people, though, do not look at the ICE pipeline nearly as closely, and promptly forget how oil is extracted, refined and transported around the world.
The comparison should be fair.
Spoiler alert: Oil doesn't end up looking so nice.
And there’s been a movie made on this little BP incident:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
Thats just two out of many.
Honestly, IMO, the “entire pipeline” puts EV so far ahead it’s ridiculous.
Without talking about what the ICE exhaust pollution is doing to the bodies and brains of people in dense urban environments.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lucid-motors-evs/lucid-sa...
100$/kwh probably has already happened. It's hard to confirm this but I suspect that Tesla is making a nice profit on their cars at this point mainly due to them pushing hard to get production cost down. At this point, they are supply limited so they have little reasons to eat up their profit margins. Competition will fix that.
I'd say the next benchmarks here are going to be 400wh/kg (3-4 years out according to Musk) and energy prices for clean energy bids dropping below 1 $ cent per kwh. Basically, we are talking about reductions in sales price and operational cost for most vehicles. At some point the math stops being interesting because we're merely debating by how many of orders of magnitude ICE is more expensive. The cross over point for some forms of commercial transport was probably a few years go; judging from how hot the market for e.g. electrical deliver vans or city buses are.
For the same reason why they provide (in one way or another) parking spots - because otherwise people can't get to the work place, and because it'll be another way to earn some money.
But even if not, shopping centers have a strong motivation to provide charging ports - if you don't have another good option, are you going to shop at the cheap mall, or at the slightly more expensive one where you can also spend some more money to charge your car? Assuming today's top technology will be common by then, you can expect to get hundreds of kilometers of range range during a 30 minute shopping trip.
Cities could also start adding charging stations to light posts, or install dedicated chargers, in the 15 years until then.
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"
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.
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!
The vehicle has a coefficient of drag of 0.21 (versus the Model S Cd of 0.24). Curb weight of the vehicle is apprarently 4630 lbs, lower than Tesla Model S (4,880) perhaps due to reduced weight of the drive-train or other components.
The right way to describe the battery is that it is higher capacity. It may also have a higher charge/discharge rate, or a higher energy density, but they have not made any specific claims here, just rather generic boasting.
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.
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.
>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"?
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.
And the 70mph does have a MASSIVE difference. Anecdotally, going from 65mph to 75mph in my Tesla absolutely destroys my range (last time I checked, the extra 10mph there would reduce my range by about 60 miles).
But that can be misleading in the real world. If you care about "time efficiency" as in "what speed should I drive to complete a long distance trip in the least amount of time", the most efficient speed for Teslas is something like 90mph! That's because the Tesla superchargers are so fast that they make up for the loss in efficiency from going much faster.
This is a good video on someone that actually did the testing to figure that out:
If you buy a separate standalone charger, you can get that to around 45mph of charge speed, but I tell everyone considering it to wait a bit before getting it because the vast majority of people won't need the extra charging speed.
EDIT: I was VERY wrong about the charge rate of the default plug.
But even still most owners get a higher power plug installed as in the US our standard plugs are pretty low power and limited. We need higher power outlets for all kinds of things like water heaters, dryers, ovens, and EVs.
Also keep in mind that it's extremely rare to need a "full charge", you only need to charge what you used from the last time you drove, so unless you routinely drive 100+ miles a day, the standard outlet will probably be enough.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/wal...
You don't get 11mph of charge unless you use a 240V-15A outlet. The 11mph you quoted assumes a 240V outlet.
In practice, as you state, even with 5mph of range, taking multiple days to charge isn't actually an issue since you aren't fully filling up your car from empty every day.
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.
Articles like these are targeting retail investors looking to be ahead of the curve.
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.
There are EVs with inferior cell gravimetric power density, who in the end manage to have superior pack gravimetric density, and superior mass fraction (cell weight/car weight) than Model S.
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.
This isn't a given. Money-efficiency in the UK at least is only good if you charge at home. If you pay on-street prices for electricity, you can easily spending more per mile than a gas car.
Eg. An electric car might do 330 Wh/mile. A recharge on the road would cost £3 (connection fee) + £0.30 per kWh. That means if you top up 25 kWh, you'll end up paying £10.50, and able to travel 76 miles, or £0.138 per mile. A typical 2018 gas car gets 50.8 imperial mpg costing £0.108 per mile at todays gas prices in London.
Overall, unless you can charge at home, an electric car will cost you more per mile for fuel/electricity alone.
Tesla charges around £0.24 per kWh in the UK, and there is no connection fee. In that case for 25 kWh you'd be paying £6, which would get you 100 miles of range. Or £6 / 100 = £0.06 per mile.
£0.06 per mile vs £0.108 per mile. That's way cheaper for the Tesla.
Some of the other fast charging networks are indeed more expensive than Tesla, but they are also getting cheaper. Plus if you charge at the L2 chargers, like a lot of people generally do for charging at work, it's even cheaper.
Ideally we'd just move to a carbon tax, to punish EVs a little bit and ICEs a ton, but I suspect that governments are going to aggressively pursue taxing EV miles in the near future once penetration hits double digits.
Governments are currently attempting to incentivize EVs, but as soon as the shift is happening rapidly and looks inevitable, they absolutely will start to see the money left on the table that they once took.
Of course this is more a European thing (and Australian where I'm from). US gas taxes are famously low.
A brand new Model 3 will do 310 miles of range. Only you're not supposed to use the top 10% or bottom 10% unless you absolutely have to, to avoid damaging the battery. So now it's 248 miles of range. Unless it's extremely cold or hot, or you have a heavy foot, or you have a roof rack, or it's uphill... Where 200 miles might be more accurate.
My 18-month old Model 3 will do 301 miles, which means best-case 240 miles reality unless I want to damage the pack (more).
I actually love my Tesla, and the pack degradation is fine, and there are lots of other benefits....
But when someone says "500 miles range" I'm going to read that as "probably ~350 miles real range after a year of ownership and if it's cold or something".
I know Chevy bolts have extra capacity so you aren’t causing permanent conditioning at low capacity. Never heard of not driving when at full. Only not to fast charge above 80%, which the car and charging stations manage for you.
And as for cold weather, yes you do lose some range, but in warm weather you gain range. I get close to 280 on my bolt (rated 238) in the summers.
This isn't much different from ICE cars mileage estimates. Getting the actual mileage out of my Subaru is possible if I'm very careful with the gas-pedal, don't have a bike on the back of the car, etc etc. If I drive at 70 miles an hour for the whole tank, my range drops by 15-20%.
At least 50% of the time i've tried to DC fast charge, stations just don't work. In fact, there is a station near me that has 2 of 4 chargers not working for the past 2 months. (I've called and used the phone app to report problems)
For the "same price as Tesla" EV competitors, you get an admittedly slightly nicer car, with the massive downside of charging infra. And it's just too much money for me to spend to not be able to be confident on a roadtrip.
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/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-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...
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-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&%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#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.
Having a higher PSI rating and an air pump + brake-controlled deflate valve could do this.
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."
Combustion engines have some limitations that require gearbox to mitigate them:
https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/tra...
Electric engines have none of those limitations, so no need for gearbox.
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.
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.
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
(A dual motor design could simulate the benefits of two gears by having different final drive ratios for each axle.)
What most don't have is gearboxes to change the ratio. The exception is the Porsche Taycan with 2 gears in gearboxes, the second gear slightly improves the acceleration at high speeds and improves the efficiency at high speeds. Accelerating super fast when you are already above the speed limit is not very useful for most people so most electric cars have no gearboxes, despite the slightly better efficiency. It's too complex and expensive. An electric engine has a lot of torque, you need a really good and expensive gearbox to handle it. It makes sense on a Porsche, but not on a Zoé.
Tesla has another alternative on the cars with two motors. They don't have the same gear ratios. The rear motor is used more at low speeds and the front one is used more at high speeds. It's a bit less fast than the Porsche solution but much simpler and cheaper.
In both cases, having different gears indeed improve the efficiency. I think the Tesla solution is very clever but requires two motors, so it's not perfect either. Most eletric cars have a single motor.
Here's an article that talks about this some [1].
[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33797162/2021-lucid-air-5...