While at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, I had a great discussion with Lucid CEO Peter Rawlinson, an engineer of the highest caliber, and someone who — as far as I could tell — has no intentions of bullshitting you about the way cars work. I say this because, when I asked Rawlinson about how his company’s goal of reducing Vehicle Demand Energy (i.e. the amount of energy needed to propel a car down the road) aligns with America’s obsession with pickup trucks, he told me something I wasn’t expecting from the CEO of an Electric Vehicle company.
One thing I love about talking with engineers in the auto industry is that it is borderline impossible for them not to be truthful about science; it literally pains them (I say this as an engineer myself). I recall speaking with Porsche engineers about the Taycan just before it launched, and I remember them admitting that they had chosen to make the vehicle worse in certain areas in order to make it better in others. This idea of compromises is just how engineering works (I often say engineering is the art of compromise-making), but to some of the marketing and public relations professionals out there, the idea of saying their car isn’t perfect in every way is a nightmare. So speaking with engineers is refreshing.
I bring this up because it’s no surprise that the only CEO of an electric vehicle company who I’ve heard actually say something positive about internal combustion engines is none other than Peter Rawlinson, also the Chief Technology Officer of Lucid. He’s friends with Autopian contributor Huibert Mees, and he works with Friend Of The Site Cory Steuben (formerly with Munro and Associates).
Lucid’s Goal Is To Make Vehicles That Require Less Energy To Travel Down The Road
We had a nice chat at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, and while you’ll be able to watch the whole thing in an upcoming video, this little nugget I’m discussing now happened shortly after the cameras shut off. Rawlinson had just explained to Autopian publisher Matt and me how he believes it is critical for electric vehicle manufacturers to find a way to distinguish themselves technologically. He thinks automakesr have to do something beyond just offering some nice styling if they want to really succeed in the EV race, and more than anything Rawlinson thinks the key is range. But not just “Throw a bunch of kWh at the problem”-range; he’s talking about achieving range via a systems-level, “big picture” approach.
What this means is understanding how the various systems in the car are interwoven. Example: If you can use a vortex induction system to optimize airflow across a radiator, you can reduce that radiator’s size, which reduces the frontal area requirement, which reduces drag, which further increases the car’s overall efficiency, which further reduces powertrain heat rejection, which can allow for an even smaller radiator, and on and on.
Rawlinson and his team care about range, sure, but more specifically they are obsessed with miles per kilowatt hour — the number of miles a car can travel per kWh of electricity in its battery pack. Lucid’s goal is to crank out cars that will drive 6 miles per kWh, meaning a little 40 kWh battery will drive 240 miles, thus allowing more families to drive electric using a given number of battery resources.
That’s all well and good, but America loves big-ass trucks. A 6 kWh car is inherently going to be small, and this doesn’t align with Americans’ taste. So what’s the answer? Well, let’s get into that short part of the interview:
“So, is there a concern that Americans really love boxy, big inefficient machines?,” I ask. “And that goes counter to what you’re all about??
But What About America’s Love For Boxy Trucks?
Rawlinson replied: “I think they like big boxy machines, yes. But [the Lucid] Gravity is big, it’s got a lot of interior space, and it’s an SUV. It’s not that boxy, it’s more aerodynamic, I think it’s a compromise.”
A moment passed when Rawlinson seemingly realized that, as compelling as the Gravity is, it won’t satisfy every American’s desire for big trucks.
“But let me tell you the reality is, and it’s me saying this, that it is not possible today with today’s technology to make an affordable pickup truck with anything [other] than internal combustion.”
As the track was rather loud, I asked Rawlinson to repeat that.
“The only way you can make an affordable pickup truck today that works is internal combustion.”
Are Range-Extended EVs A Viable Option?
This led me ponder what Rawlinson’s take is on range-extended EVs like my BMW i3 and the upcoming Ram Ramcharger — this type of vehicle is the reason why I defend PHEVs regularly on this site. Here’s me posing the question in the longest-winded, least elegant way possible:
“I have a question for you then. I have wondered for a while whether it may actually be better for the environment or, you know, if the climate change implications might be improved, if you were to offer —you would never do this, you’re Lucid — But I want to talk about range extended EVs because the concept is great.
I rambled on:
“You can put a 22 kilowatt hour battery in a car that will work for 95% of people. I know that from an optics standpoint, Lucid would never do it. Tesla would never do it. But if the average person can have a battery that’s, you know, a quarter the size — look, the reality is in your Lucid air, people are carrying around 80 kilowatts of extra battery capacity that they’re not using 95% of the time. That’s wasteful. But a small gasoline engine is cleaner.”
Rawlinson responded, thoughtfully:
“I take the point, I take your point, and the reality is, the way I see it is — we’re not gonna do that — we’re gonna move to future EVs that need much less range because we only need—”
I butted in: “You need 80 miles maybe.”
“Yeah, I think you need maybe a bit more than that because regularly you might do a little bit more, but like, you forget to charge it one night.”
He addressed my question about range-extended EVs.
“There’s a great argument for saying that, just have a really small, like a generator onboard generator…just like a 20 horsepower, 30 horsepower thing, like a little suitcase and it’s got a few gallons of gas and it’s just there for occasion. There is an argument.”
Lucid Is Going To Focus On Small Battery-EVs That Still Offer Good Range
“But I, what I wanna do is go to the shorter range EVs, ultra efficient six miles per kilowatt hour, 240 miles range. That is a 40 kilowatt hour pack. And then you put that [battery] underneath the front seat and you’ve got a super affordable family car. The battery doesn’t weigh 650 kg. It weighs 200 kg and then battery chemistry advances [can improve that range even more at a later point].” I’ll describe in a later article some specific mechanisms Lucid is using to reduce Vehicle Demand Energy to get towards that magical 6mi/kWh.
It was a great, frank conversation about what Americans want, what technology will get them what they want, and what Lucid wants to do in the future. Lucid wants to drastically reduce Vehicle Demand Energy — the brand wants to get vehicles to 6 mi/kWh so that a smaller battery can allow farther travel. This, fundamentally, is the best thing anyone can do for reducing overall vehicle emissions, and it’s a way for Lucid to stand out in the crowd.
But What If We Made A Small And Slippery Pickup Truck; Wouldn’t That Be Cheap?
Before I conclude this post, I want to be clear about what Rawlinson is and isn’t saying when he states the quote in the headline: “The only way you can make an affordable pickup truck today that works is internal combustion.” Because obviously some Rivian and F-150 Lightning fans might want to have a word. What Rawlison is saying is that the manufacturing costs — independent of government subsidies, though currently even including them likely wouldn’t change this fact — of building a pickup truck with similar capabilities as a modern gasoline pickup truck are too high to compete, price wise, with those gasoline pickup trucks. I implore you to check out my article “EVs Are Just The Wrong Tool For Serious Towing In 2024” to read a bit more about just how the expected use-cases for pickup trucks increases their Vehicle Demand Energy to such a point that they necessitate humongous, pricy battery packs. (The ~215 kWh Chevy Silverado EV, which is the EV pickup truck that comes closest to ICE trucks in towing range, is gets described a “All Battery, No Luxury” for a reason).
Obviously, if we look past use cases like SAE J2807 Davis Dam and instead design a smaller truck to be an around-town cruiser with a softer, slipperier fascia like a Ford Maverick, then maybe you could build a cheap-ish pickup truck, but that’s not what Rawlinson is taking about. If we’re talking about America’s bread-and-butter, the half-ton pickup truck that has to remain competitive with the F-150 and Chevy Silverado and Ram 1500? No, an affordable EV truck in that category just isn’t feasible right now. If you throw the $/kWh into an equation with mi/kWh in strenuous use case, along with customers’ desired range, the math just doesn’t work out.
It’s a bit obvious, especially to the engineer-readers among you. But just wait for the rest of our interview, because it gets really, really geeky.
So why not create an industry standard battery shape that can be swapped out at a fuel station? Instead of different grades of fuel, have different battery densities. And multiple sockets for batteries. If you want to go on a long trip, fill all the sockets with high density batteries. If you just want a city car, fewer batteries and basic density. Then you wouldn’t need home chargers or problems with no chargers at apartments. Heck, then you vehicle will last longer because you don’t have to worry about replacing worn out battery packs.
Shorter time to market. I think standardization will eventually come once battery chemistries have plateaued. Right now being able to bring the latest and greatest density as quick as possible seems to be the game.
One could do it now before battery chemistries plateau by making standardized battery shapes. Then use electronics to manage the battery outputs for the vehicle. Battery chemistry might end up like computers and never plateau. Waiting will just make more cars obsolete. As far as battery shapes, AA batteries have been around forever but with lithium they last longer. I can still use them in older devices that were around before these new chemistries existed. If they had waited to make a standard shape until the chemistries plateaued we wouldn’t have our current batteries.
It’s too soon. Standards emerge after the tech has matured and isn’t a core competitive advantage. Neither of those things are true yet. Power trains and battery packaging are still competitive features, and the tech changes almost every month.
They are doing it in China https://electrek.co/2024/05/08/nio-new-agreement-gac-group-develop-battery-standard-charging-swaps-ev/
NIO already have a battery swapping network in Europe. Look up TeslaBjorn on Youtube, he demoed it a few times.
Not invented here.
Well the first company who tried that was Better Place out in Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company) Still a friend right?
I do think Musk did toy with the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_battery_station
I’m a big fan of battery swapping but manufacturers clearly aren’t as that keeps things that use batteries going longer.
To put the 6mi/kwh into perspective, I have put 4,700mi on my Ford Lightning and average 2.2mi/kWh overall. Expressway trips are usually 1.8-2.0 depending on how fast I drive. Speed absolutely kills efficiency. Towing my 21ft aluminum boat I average 1.0-1.2mi/kWh.
Does this work for everyone? No, but it works for me. I have a sneaky fast rocket ship that rides nice and blends into traffic. I’ve only had to use public chargers three times so far and haven’t had any issues.
Yeah, I love the Lightning but have doubts about EV trucks. I think where it (and the Hybrid ProPower option) shines is as a contractor vehicle that can provide all the power on a job site without needing generators that have to be maintained, fueled, and secured. My Model 3 RWD gets 4.5mi/kWh over 22,000 miles in the 13 months I’ve had it, so I think sedans can hit this target soon.
i know lucid claims that their end game is to sell mainstream cars AND luxury cars. But the financials and low production capacity only support selling luxury vehicles right now. I think Lucid Ceo is too focused on the 6 miles / kwh number. Yeah that could not be done today, but would 5 miles per kwh be so bad?? One thing is for sure the cost of EV drivetrain + battery is too high right now. When prices go down on batteries everyone will be having different conversations.
The Air already gets 5 mi/kwh
If a company were to build a small truck ala Chevy LUV, VW Trug, Subaru Brat, Isuzu Pup, ect., an electric powertrain opens up the possibility of the Lotus Europa as a possible design inspiration. Except instead of an engine in the rear-mid section, you have a bed with a retractable/storable aero cover, because it would be a small, sporty, elctric truck. The batteries can be housed where a transmission tunnel and drive shaft would have been in a RWD front-engined ICE truck, except this would be an EV with AWD from inexpensive hub motors. When the bed is unused, you can keep the aero cover closed and get a Cd value somewhere in the low 0.2X range. If you have a load that the aero cover cannot fit over, then your Cd value will be determined by what is in the truck bed, but for most load-hauling cases could still be in the low 0.3X range(considering the Europa had a 0.29).
Also consider Phil Knox’s aero-modded Toyota T100 with a 0.25 drag coefficient.
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/phil-knox-fleet-34-years-aeromodding-1280.html
I think a bare-bones, no-frills, basic ass work truck with a reliable 200+ mile range could be built as an EV, and sold for under $25k. While not the type of truck discussed in the above article, as it wouldn’t be meant for towing to the specs of an F150 or Silverado, it could possibly compete with an ICE Ford Maverick by being even less expensive, and about as useful for most applications, while having all of the advantages that come with having an electric powertrain.
i’m losing hope that any vehicle at all will be sold under 25k in the next 3 years.
BYD has a decent EV possibly competitive to the Nissan Leaf on range and general practicality, for $11,500USD. It has a 38.9 kWh battery and weighs under 2,800 lbs. But Americans can’t buy it.
Consider that price point as the baseline for what is possible, and how much larger of a budget $20k-25k per vehicle is versus $11.5k. It doesn’t cost much more relative to a basic build cost to have a 200 horsepower drive system/battery than a 20 horsepower one, retaining roughly the same vehicle weight. And if it were compatible with the supercharger network, that would be amazingly useful and not cost much to implement in the vehicle either.
So a low-slung, diminutive, mostly-analogue, sporty vehicle with a truck bed, on firm suspension yet with lots of available travel and about 7-8″ ground clearance with AWD and relatively small wheels. But these wheels are with big, meaty, offroad-ish tires with lots of sidewall. Sub 3,000 lbs and passing US regulations is doable with a 40 kWh pack. It doesn’t need to go faster than 110 mph or so, but that 0-110 mph time could embarrass a whole lot of vehicles that are much more expensive than it. With a focus on aero streamlining and frontal area reduction, that 6 miles/kWh benchmark could probably be reached in the hypothetical vehicle I just described or something close to it.
Perhaps what I described above could be the 2025 Dodge Rampage in an alternate universe?
So onto the sub-$30k version of this, the Dakota. You would scale the length, wheelbase, and width to fit 4’x8′ sheets of plywood in the bed resting over the wheel wells with the tailgate secured, then put in a mission-specific set of tools, or lawn care equipment, and fit these things with the aerocover in use and still get that 200 miles range. Keep it as low as a Miata to the top of the roof, no matter how it’s scaled, but just have that large floor area in the bed to carry some large things. If you need to haul a couch or a water heater or some bicycles, retract the aero cover and open the bed space to the elements, and now you have a deep-walled truck bed keeping most of the load out of the wind. Would get close to 5 miles/kWh using the aerocover, but if a big load in the bed is piled above the roof line, range could be halved.
If Stellantis goes under, BYD could potentially acquire them. Either would be a smart vehicle for BYD to build.
least expensive EV in the USA is barely under 30k. I understand chinese companies are selling evs much cheaper overseas but automakers want to be super protectionist with tariffs so there would need to be massive policy changes to bring these cars the the USA. I don’t see the floor for EVs going down any time soon.
Some people are accusing china of selling these EVs below cost to dump them and starve out the competition. I’ll believe that when there is proof. I’m sure BYD is making money, one thing that is letting BYD sell these so cheap is they are manufacturing every part in house. In many ways BYD is reminding me of the early toyota days.
Part of the problem is that the mass market of truck buyers who “need” towing capacity never tow anything, but they must have the power.
I call BS. Not every Pickup Truck has to be full sized or mid sized. The Footprint rule is mostly irrelevant for BEVs, so there’s nothing stopping automakers from making smaller than mid sized BEV pickups. Smaller pickup means less CDA, less CDA means more efficient, more efficient means you don’t need an absolutely massive battery pack that costs a crap ton.
Read the whole post. That’s all covered.
“But why would I pay the same amount of money for a small BEV pickup when I can just get an F150 and have a much larger vehicle”
-The average American consumer
That’s where advertising comes into play.
Something along the lines of the classic VW Beetle ads would be about right.
you mean what killed the original Ranger, S-10, and retro-sized Tacoma?
I find the irony in a company that’s top of the line car is 250k balking at making a truck because it will cost too much.
This interview coupled with the stock performance in recent days makes me absurdly angry. As it should for anyone who held shares in this company. I don’t need the CEO to tell me it’s hard to make a viable EV pickup. I need them to tell me how they’re going to get there. Between this and Rivian’s CEO dismissing AA and CarPlay, I’m not sure I invested correctly.
“I need them to tell me how they’re going to get there.”
They are not just like no other car company has. It is physically impossible.
But that’s not to say they won’t innovate and they won’t offer vehicles in that space. In 2024, an affordable pickup truck that can compete with today’s ICEs is not possible, and I, for one, would take comfort in the fact that the company’s CTO realize that. Because if he didn’t — YIKES.
I needed something that fits somewhere between Elon’s overpromising and the kind of vague pessimistic resignation I’m getting from this article. This interview isn’t the only reason I feel this way. They’ve failed to take off in markets I would have assumed they were a shoe in to succeed in. If all they’ve got is being a boutique luxury car company that most of their target demographic won’t take chances on, they’re not much better off than most of the other startups. Having a product that has actually sold isn’t a high bar. I feel like they’ve backed into a corner and are stating quite plainly that they won’t leave it.
You shouldn’t be investing in individual stocks anyway.
I don’t think it is possible to change Americans’ minds to have vehicles that have small frontal cross section. EV power density just not there yet, so ICE / PHEV it is. There is no perfect soltuion for now, it is the best solution. Seems North Americans can’t wean off financing vehicles either, so the cycle will continue.
Though with Gravity already have such a large frontal area, they can probably make a Blackwood type truck, but I bet the sales just doesn’t make sense.
It still boggles my mind that a R1T is roughly the size of a Hyundai Santa Cruz.
That’s because they aren’t the same size. An R1T is bigger than most midsized trucks except for the Gladiator and the Tacoma CC with the Long Bed
Here’s how you do it:
Make
Smaller
Trucks
Make some even smaller than the Maverick – because even that’s still pretty big.
Think Courier
Think Ranchero
Those are the trucks that will satisfy 90% of the need.
(unless you’re the shareholders who are earning $20K off each SuperDuty your investment cranks out)
Yup. Think Model 3 electric performance/range with Maverick/El Camino like design. Sure, maybe it won’t have quite the range of a Model 3, but it shouldn’t be all that far off. And sure, it won’t tow as much as a Ferd F-950, but that’s not the point.
Maybe us commenters are all idiots and this theorized model would be a sales failure. But we were clamoring for a Maverick-like vehicle for years, and it’s been doing fantastically.
Simone has already done the work for Tesla on that.
Truckla: https://youtu.be/jKv_N0IDS2A?si=aYTJheK4FisBEulq
Low cost, features, reliability. Choose two.
The other side of this that nobody wants to talk about is speed.
If I keep my 2.7L F150 around 80-90kmh, it stays at 8L/100km. 100-110 is more like 9.5/100km. Pushing past 120 130, fuel consumption goes way up, much faster than it would for a sedan with similar weight and power. Even with active grill shutters and chin spoiler, you’re still pushing a big brick through the air. If you can keep your speed reasonable, you are really doing yourself a service.
Something like a slippery EV Maverick seems relatively attainable with today’s tech.
I have also long been an advocate for a ‘light duty’ hybrid F150, something that competes with the base 2.7 (or even slots in below it) vs the 3.5 Powerboost which is more of a range-topping flagship.
As far as full size trucks go, the F150 is just so compelling because of the massive weight savings of the aluminum body. I wish it was affordable to bring that same tech to smaller vehicles.
Except that instead of making the trucks affordable as they used to be, they’re making bank on the internal combustion ones. Gotta have that King Ranch Longhorn special with automated sidesteps and origami tailgates.
A Maverick PHEV would be great, but how much would they charge for it if the AWD hybrid is up over $30k? Over $40k? I guess that’s Rav4 Prime territory but still not cheap for what starts as a cheap truck, and then you’re starting to get into Ranger or F150 territory.
I understand the point he is trying to make. If the CAFE standards did what they were suppose to, and the chicken tax was eliminated, we would have a better fleet of trucks on the road. There would be cheaper options up and down the segment and better options for the majority of truck buyers.
Separate CAFE categories for trucks and passenger cars no longer makes sense in a world where the vast majority of trucks are being sold and used as passenger cars
You’ve got it backwards. The majority of vehicles being sold and used as passenger cars are trucks *because* of the separate CAFE categories. The compromises required to make a car that could meet the car CAFE rules made them too expensive, unappealing, or both. Adjust the CAFE ‘footprint’ of that same platform to turn it into a ‘crossover SUV’ though, it works just fine.
People were not clamoring for more CUV’s, its just what they were offered.
If you think the concepts of “let’s force the car companies to make more efficient cars by law!” and “why are cars getting simultaneously more expensive, less reliable, and more boring?” are unrelated, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I don’t have it backwards at all. The separate categories were created back when trucks were used mostly for work, but now that trucks have mostly replaced cars, time to hold trucks to the same standard as cars. It absolutely has killed off certain types of cars at least, station wagons being the big one, same footprint as sedans, but heavier, so generally worse fuel economy. But, put a station wagon body on a truck platform, call it an SUV, and it’s fine
I agree that separate standards for ‘cars’ and ‘light trucks’ that are in reality both being used for the same thing doesn’t make logical sense, but that’s missing my point; the ‘car’ CAFE standards have been increased in stringency so much that it is not possible for manufacturers to make a product in that category that is competitive in the market – it is better for them to make the changes required to make the vehicle fit into the ‘light truck’ regulatory category (i.e. make nothing but CUV’s) which are achievable in a product that people can afford to buy and has the features they desire/require.
Look at the delta between ‘car’ and ‘truck’ CAFE requirements at the 41 ft^2 footprint rule – car = 58 mpg, truck = 48 mpg for 2024. A Maverick hybrid can achieve the latter, only just, but the Focus upon which it is based can’t pull another 10 mpg out of its hat just from improved aerodynamics and slightly lower ride height. So in practice the standards have effectively outlawed cars, despite the fact they’d be better for the environment, etc. (just not as much better as the regulations are trying to force them to be).
If that isn’t what the regulators intended, so be it – the law of unintended consequences tends to rear its ugly head when an industry shifts from being market driven to regulation driven.
Hybrid technology invalidates that, it’s possible to build large sedans that easily get over 50mpg and sell for over ten grand less than the “average” msrp of a new car, make everything hybrid and it becomes a non-issue. Cars will always get better fuel economy due to better aerodynamics and lighter weight than comparable light trucks
I keep telling that guy from Lucid to explore other options of financial funding.
Like going on Shark Tank.
Seriously. /s
I think the main problem is that these six-figure vehicles will all be financially totaled in 10 years (if you’re lucky) when the battery needs to be replaced. What are lower income people going to drive when every $15k vehicle needs a $25k battery?
I see the U.S. turning into Cuba, where every old gasoline powered car will be patched together and driven forever because new EV’s simply won’t survive long enough to feed a used car market.
You know how old mechanics used to, “I can’t fix anything with a damn computer. You’ll have to take it to the dealership.” And young mechanics would have to ask YouTube what to do with carbs and points and timing lights. It’s possible that you’re becoming an old mechanic.
Most people aren’t buying six figure EVs. I’d say all of the $80k+ ICE trucks have the exact same argument for being mechanically totaled with faulty electronics, sensors, etc.
ALL vehicles are getting more disposable, ICE and EV.
Regarding EVs though, you’re assuming battery prices remain constant with the technology we have today. In reality, there really aren’t that many dead EVs to resurrect compared to number of ICE vehicles out there, so lack of supply has kept battery prices high. Battery costs will continue to drop, and as more EVs are crashed or reach end of life, there will be more batteries on the used market that can be refurbished. Most EV battery packs “fail” with only some of the cells fully dying. Replacing those failed cells with either new or good used cells can resurrect the pack. There are some small places doing this already with Leaf and Tesla battery packs, but I expect the industry will grow as more EVs reach end of life.
The Leaf is especially interesting as Nissan has improved the battery pack chemistries and capacities over the years while keeping the pack form factor almost constant. Some people have put newer batteries from wrecked current generation cars into the older cars and are getting amazing range increases.
Also, many battery packs that are no longer suitable for vehicle use can still be used for energy storage (think server UPS applications or home standby power), which is its own industry that’s slowly growing.
I totally get your argument of mechanically totaling a vehicle (Hoovie’s Garage basically built his YouTube channel on that premise), but I think that’s a problem that will resolve itself with time and enough demand to bring down repair costs.
Current guidance is closer to 20 years and 200-300K miles. $25K is on the high end of projected replacement costs.
Funny that you chose numbers on the end of the spectrum that would boost your argument.
I’m glad to see vehicle demand energy taken seriously, the introduction of a roughly 3,000lb, $30,000 electric sedan/hatch with decent range and a normal seating position is, to me, the turning point. I couldn’t take the segment seriously when every “breakthrough” was just a bigger battery and a proportionally inflated price tag.
Isn’t Shanghai GM still targeting a $14,000 price for the pickup version of the Baojun Yep?
Yeah, it’s more of a small open air trunk than a proper bed, but it does meet the most basic definition of a pickup, it is electric, and it is affordable, so, on a technicality
The real catch is that it is impossible to build an affordable electric pickup that passes FMVSS and meets the parts content requirements to avoid US tariffs. But even building affordable ICE pickups that get through all of that is a challenge
Oooo… we’re now talking seriously about vehicle demand energy and overall system efficiency?
Careful David, that’s a deep, dark hole. And lurking at the bottom is a hydrogen-powered beastie that no one (other than Toyota) wants to take seriously.
Toyota can’t even take hydrogen seriously seeing as how hydrogen stations are shutting down in California. I had a few coworkers with a Mirai that were desperate to get rid of it when the lease was over.
LOL at thinking hydrogen has good overall system efficiency. The inefficiency of generating the hydrogen in a truly green way at scale absolutely kills it compared to any other system. That’s why hydrogen is DOA.
That and the absolutely horrible volumetric energy density that nobody knows how to even slightly solve in any practical way. As in, a little better than an electric battery, but with worse efficiency and higher cost!
ROFL at thinking it doesn’t. Generation efficiency is indeed low, using current methods that were never intended for commercial scale production. But this is more than compensated for by the absolutely insane energy density, 3x that of gasoline and 300x that of say, a Formula E battery. This means your overall packaging and vehicle weight can be much smaller and much lighter than an EV of comparable range and power, which burns far less joules on the parasitic effects of dragging a giant-ass battery around. Which is the whole point of the article, keep up sport.
Lucid clearly has the right perspective on what is needed most for improving environmental impact. Whether it’s right for the market remains to be seen, but the last minute increases in popularity of the Chevy Bolt before GM axed it certainly indicates to me that the type of vehicle they are talking about has a higher demand than some are willing to admit. Especially if it is truly affordable (and charging infrastructure continues to improve significantly-standard EV caveat there, haha).
I think at this stage of Lucid’s life, they are still into selling high margin vehicles to the well off first.. They did comment a smaller / more affordable model coming first.
Bolt is a nice idea, but remember GM has more manufacturing capability than Lucid if not magnitudes more.
So if towing is such a huge issue why was the topic of self powered trailers not breeched? Do those right and one need not have a truck at all.
not being too cheeky (or leggy), but for my own future usage, wouldn’t it be “not broached”? or are they synonymous variants of the same verb?
I stand corrected (probably)
Maybe because he’s talking to the CEO of Lucid. Who do not make trailers.
Which could be a whole new product line by itself.
Campsite electrical deficiency is the answer. Those outlets are worn. Since campers also don’t use the entire capacity of the outlet continuously, that’s workable. But putting a large continuous load on a worn outlet makes for a dangerous situation.
How is that any different from an EV tow vehicle?
Would you not run into the same issue with self powered trailers but also not implement even more areas for issues? If you want electric powered trailers that have their own motors to move now you are just moving the weight and power onto the trailer which to mean seems can cause some major issues especially for the vehicle towing wouldn’t you almost essentially be pushing your tow vehicle now?
The trailer shouldn’t be pushing anything. It would put out just enough power to take almost all the load off the tow vehicle with enough left to ensure control. It shouldn’t be too different from existing e-AWD systems that use individual motors front and rear. Those are synched too.
Ideally it would even steer itself in conjunction with the tow vehicle when reversing.
It’s the same issue, you’re just pushing it into something else.
The issue is towing kills EV range and a vehicle with enough battery to compensate is prohibitively expensive and insanely heavy as well as a grossly inefficient use of batteries. If those batteries are on the trailer they’re only consuming energy while doing useful work, not being dragged around. They also can be purchased separately from the tow vehicle.
The issue addressed in the article is that it is too expensive to make an EV truck fill all the use cases that current ICE trucks do.
So, pushing the battery to the trailer to cover the towing use case is still making towing with an EV truck expensive. The cost is just pushed into the trailer. Nothing is gained or won, just shifted. Except, you would have to have batteries in all of your trailers, so maybe even more expensive than having it in the EV itself.
Whether purchased separately, or stored in a trailer or the truck. You still don’t end up with an affordable solution to match all current ICE truck use cases. That’s what his whole comment is about.
Powered trailers are not intended to be THE solution, only A solution.
Most people who buys a truck for * lifestyle* and tows once in a blue moon, (e.g. most pickup truck buyers) and is OK renting that super occasional use trailer this solution best for them. The truck is already massive so not owning a trailer that gets tripped over 99.999% of the time makes sense for a lot of folks anyway.
Probably a legislation grey zone that no VC wants to touch with a 10 feet pole?
Musk would do it.
I think self-powered trailers are a pretty dumb idea for practical reasons.
First, they do not obviate the need for a relatively large and capable towing vehicle; they reduce the need for larger batteries onboard the tow vehicle, but stability and braking are as much of a problem as ever. Actually worse of a problem once you put an extra 1000lb of batteries in the trailer.
Second, they do not do a good job of saving net co2 emissions, which is generally the goal of electrification. You have all of the considerable upfront emissions of a tow vehicle with a large battery, but you don’t get to use the batteries except when towing.
Third, the same thing applies for cost that applies for emissions. Expensive. You can spend $15k on batteries for the tow vehicle, or you can spend $10k on batterie for the tow vehicle AND $5k on batteries for the trailer, coming out to…….. $15k, right back where we started.
Fourth, nobody wants to have to pay for a really expensive trailer, and nobody wants to have to maintain a trailer that needs charging, and most trailers do not get enough miles to justify the purchase price or maintenance of such a trailer.
Fifth, when you’re actually on the roadtrip that you need the batteries for, it is going to be significantly difficult to charge the trailer. Charging tow vehicles is already very difficult, just imagine if you had to tow the trailer too.
Basically, what are the advantages of putting the batteries on the trailer instead of in the tow vehicle? Making the tow vehicle smaller/lighter? It seems like that would be better solved with a range extender battery pack to sit in the back of the pickup only when you need it, and then you avoid the considerable cost and difficulties of a second propulsion system and a second charging system.
That, and the fact that self-powered trailers are illegal in the US for the forseeable future.
“First”: This assumes the tow vehicle is doing the majority of the work, both towing and braking. I don’t believe this has to be the case. The trailer should be able to use regenerative braking just as the tow vehicle can, including I think directional braking to maximize stability. Ideally the batteries would be linked between the trailer and the tow vehicle to transfer power as needed.
That also assumes 1000lbs of trailer battery does not offset 1000 lbs of tow battery. EV trucks have huge batteries in part because they’re expected to be able to tow but if the trailer is hauling those batteries the tow vehicle can make do with less battery.
“Second”: Unless now you can get away with a much smaller and lighter vehicle. A LOT of pickup trucks are sold on the idea of towing even if they never actually are used to tow anything. If buyers could be assured that when that magic day happened they could tow an RV with an i3 or some such there would be a lot less of a *need* for a giant vehicle to never tow a trailer.
“Third”: A powered trailer can be useful for more than towing. It can be a mobile powerwall too that frees up the EV. Ideally it could even be a giant powered wheelbarrow operated by hand. Or just to be able to easily manuver a load a couple of feet without needing to hook up a giant truck.
“Fourth”: If that were true we would not be having this discussion. People tow enough (or at least THINK they tow enough) that this is an issue. Powered trailers would be one way to alleviate those concerns
“Fifth”: The powered trailer is intended to preserve the long range of the towing vehicle. If that vehicle HAS to charge every 80-100 miles towing a regular trailer how is that better? Especially if you can’t depend on a working charger to be there? The powered trailer at the very least gives you the option of topping off every 80-100 miles rather than forcing you to do so. Charging a trailer and a tow vehicle might even be EASIER if there are multiple chargers available. Just charge both simultaneously on separate chargers. If only one charger is available charge then sequentially or if the batteries are interconnected both the tow and trailer get charged off the same cable. If no charger is available you’re in exactly the same position as you’d have been in as with a regular trailer.
“Basically, what are the advantages of putting the batteries on the trailer instead of in the tow vehicle? Making the tow vehicle smaller/lighter?”
Absolutely! For someone who tows infrequently the trailer could even be a semi permanent home battery that also happens to be useful on home depot runs and work sites.
“It seems like that would be better solved with a range extender battery pack to sit in the back of the pickup only when you need it, and then you avoid the considerable cost and difficulties of a second propulsion system and a second charging system.”
Which is a good idea too but that was already brought up by DT. AFAIK much of the cost of an EV is the battery, safety, etc. Motors and charging systems should be relatively cheap. I also don’t think you need anywhere near as powerful a motor on a trailer as you do on the tow vehicle. All it needs to do is keep up.
“That, and the fact that self-powered trailers are illegal in the US for the forseeable future.”
I think because up till now safe control of the trailer was too difficult. I think that the same systems that enable multi motor EVs can be adapted to make a safe self powered trailer.
The problem with self powered trailers is really oke or cost. Adding in a battery pack that can self propel a mid sized travel trailer, an enclosed car hauler or other trailer would add $2k+ to the cost of a trailer. Trailers are effective because they are cheap. I can tow 2500 lb of cargo in a $1000 trailer behind a $25,000 Subaru Impreza. Which is more than I can put into the bed of any 1/2 ton truck, and all of those start in the $35000 range and quickly jump over $50k if decently equipped. Adding a $20,000 battery and motor system just isn’t practical.
Furthermore,people who really tow a lot usually tow 2 or more trailers. My father has four, two of which are towed multiple times a month and the other two are seasonal. He would have to spend $80-$100k extra to make his trailers comparable with an EV. Probably more because two of the trailers are 9000 lb bricks when loaded, meaning they would need even bigger, more expensive batteries.
I’m a huge fan of ICE for “real truck work”. Which I define as towing heavy loads. Need to pick up a load of mulch or rocker rock?
Buy a $1000 trailer. Need to move a 30 foot RV or tow a racecar? Buy a truck.
But a 2.0 4cyl paired with a 40kw battery and 200hp electric motor is my dream truck. It would provide about 80-100 miles of all electric when unloading, but still allow real towing work in excess of 100 miles when needed. You don’t even need to size the ICE for the Davise Dam test. You just need to work out how much battery assistance the ICE needs and building that buffer when in tow mode. Truck gets 35kw of its 40kw battery in normal mode, but in Tow mode or when the trailer lights are plugged in it automatically gets more conservative, allowing say 15kW of battery to be used by driver but reserving 15kw on the bottom for the Davis Dam or Ike Gauntlet situation and 10kw on the top for regenerative braking.
I have long thought that EVs are great for family cars, and even today, 7 seat variants are coming out with improvements to battery technology. But I have also long thought that I would not buy an electric f150 because it cannot do what I would need an f150 to do, which is tow large trailers long distances.
Which is a great argument for ICE tow vehicles and REX tow vehicles but does not address the problems faced by EV tow vehicles. Powered trailers are simply one such possible solution. Keep in mind though such a trailer can be useful for more than towing.
That I guess is my point and the point of the CEO. EV tow vehicles are not ready to go mainstream in a cost competitive way without subsidies. A more expensive trailer that includes batteries for an EV truck will cost more money than a “normal” trailer that an ICE truck could pull easily.
It’s okay if we don’t make Trucks EV right now. The near term goal shouldn’t be to make as many vehicles as possible EV, it should be to maximize the number of miles driven EV. Battery technology supports that goal, and in 10 years, maybe battery technology will support an EV truck that is cost competitive with almost no compromise. But until the technology jumps a few generations, and the charging network is built out to support that much energy draw from towing, it just doesn’t make sense.
A PHEV capable of towing 10000 lb would be able to be made in a cost competitive way while still providing Electric miles for all daily driving. An EV truck capable of towing 10000lb will cost $30k more and only be able to go 100 miles per charge when towing. Phev trucks are what the market would support today and be cost competitive while allowing most miles to be EV.
For the record I think a REXEV tow vehicle is a fine idea. I’d even go so far as to suggest the REX be on the trailer to meet legislative demands.
And I’m not suggesting powered trailers are any kind of pancea. My point was that ALL options should be on the table and discussed. Since the topic was the shortcomings of EVs as tow vehicles I think powered trailers and other solutions should be part of that discussion as well as ICE.
If a powered trailer is a stupid idea I want to hear why from that CEO who may have very good reasons our commentariat have not brought up. Or not, it could be a case of “not invented here”, myopia, or I just don’t wanna do it *reasons*.
Remember how manufacturers dismissed EVs as an impractical pipe dream until Tesla came along. Even then it took over a decade of sales till most of those same manufacturers got around to making EVs of their own. So I suspect there is at least as much “not invented here”, myopia, or I just don’t wanna do it *reasons* as anything when it comes to powered trailers.
A lot of good replies to this question, but one not thought of:
Right now, adding batteries/bigger batteries to a driven vehicle is only upping the suspension. Adding batteries to a trailer is changing the suspension entirely, creating a heavier trailer to start (let alone load), and it pushes up the required tow ratings of the vehicle. Considering there are currently HD trucks that can pull Commercial License required loads, and a lot of trailers are already high weight ratings axles, you would push a 7k axle to 10-12k, meaning it should be a higher license driver.
Impress me with better aero on basic trailer designs…open structural beams is not aerodynamic in any way.
I don’t agree. A trailer with 1000lbs of battery and motor will bounce the same as a trailer with 1000 lbs of mulch. An unpowered trailer with 5000 lbs of mulch should bounce the same as a powered trailer with 1000 lbs of battery + motor and 4000 lbs of mulch. If the suspension is designed for 5000 lbs it shouldn’t really matter what the weight is.
The difference is the unpowered trailer puts all the stress of towing on the tow vehicle (with the possible exception of braking). A powered trailer can shoulder a lot of that burden thus reducing, not increasing the burden. A powered trailer should be able to brake better as well since it would likely have finer control including active steering control. That would really help backing up too.
Now that your trailer can only handle 4000 pounds of mulch, you need to make another trip for the rest.
So rent a bigger trailer.
For every travel trailer that is stored properly and towed twice a year, there are 100 daily-towed landscaping trailers treated roughly during the day and stored out in the open with little care at night.
It also wouldn’t make much sense to put electric drive on boat trailers required to be submerged in salt water as part of normal use.
“For every travel trailer that is stored properly and towed twice a year, there are 100 daily-towed landscaping trailers treated roughly during the day and stored out in the open with little care at night”
How many of those landscape trailers are hauling 5000 lbs hundreds of miles a day though?
Most landscaper trailers I see are hauling light bulky tools with the heaviest thing being a big lawnmower for the school district. Pretty sure most of those trips are local(ish) so I think a regular trailer, even on an EV would be fine.
“It also wouldn’t make much sense to put electric drive on boat trailers required to be submerged in salt water as part of normal use.”
Why not? Electric motors, drive systems and batteries can certainly be made saltwater proof. After all ocean dwelling submarines have been electric for over a century.
Yes, but height is a big issue on boat trailers. You want the hull to sit as low in the trailer as possible both for more stable towing on the road and for easier launching in the water. The axles usually aren’t straight across. They usually have a V in the middle to allow the boat to sit even an inch or two lower. Assuming hub motors, you’d need to stuff all the batteries / and electronics at the front of the trailer. That’s a bad place to add weight because it all adds to the tongue weight since it sits ahead of the axle(s).
Landscapers around here are dragging those big industrial stand-up riding mowers or zero-turns and often bobcats. I know my little backyard riding mower weighs ~800 pounds, so those things must weigh quite a bit more. Bobcats will weigh a lot more. They’re probably covering ~100 miles a day.
I was thinking about this while I waled the dog today. I can think of two viable self-powered trailer scenarios. Travel trailer would be one. They can use the onboard batteries to power all appliances and systems if camping off-grid. If you’re going to park it at a campsite with hookups, the only advantage is in the towing.
The second case where I think it could work well would be enclosed construction trailers. They can use the trailer’s battery to run tools or even to keep the trailer cooled or heated. But I don’t know if that’s even much benefit anymore. Most contractors use battery powered tools, and a drill from a good brand can easily last all day on a battery. Even table saws and circular saws are now cordless.
Efficiency has a big impact on how frequent you need to charge or the amount of energy you need to put back after your commute. Driving from work to my home with a 100% battery in my Bolt EUV, I will arrive above 90% but in my Polestar 2 is around 84%, same drive and the Polestar has a bigger battery. It adds up pretty fast in your electric bill.
Is the same comparison with different gas vehicles but people usually dont talk about it on electric cars, people think they are all efficient but its not.
I reserved a Bolt EUV rental last week, but they gave me a Polestar 2 at the counter because the Bolts were still charging, and I absolutely fell in love with it. Weird to have such differences when they are both rated at the same consumption (115mpge).
Lol be careful, this is how I ended up with one. Was just so…simple? To operate, and have fun with. Honestly, it’s the only car I’ve driven in quite a while that just gets out of my way and lets me do my thing. I don’t think it’s particularly the best at anything, but I love that I don’t need to fight it.
Also literally everyone loves the gold seatbelts on the performance pack haha.
That said, if you’re buying a city car, the bolt is almost certainly the better option. It’s got better sightlines and parking, and the efficiency really does add up, as mrbrown mentioned. I public charge, which kinda sucks, but it’s not a huge deal.
I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t already been looking an pre-owned models locally. Thankfully Polestar’s incentives are god awful so I don’t pull the trigger (6.5% lol)
Can I ask which model you have and avg mi/kwh? I’ve been considering swapping wheels to a 19in version with more coverage for aero and sidewall (tough as the pp brakes get in the way). Haven’t seen major efficiency gains from forum results, but also very few seem to have done it.
2021 P2 Launch Edition with Performance. 38kwh/100mi on average, its bad compared to a 2024 P2 DM with 19 in that I got as loaner, the average was 28kwh/100mi.
I’m concerned that even Lucid, the best in the world right now at offering vehicles with reasonable range, is looking to pivot to small short range stuff.
Who honestly thinks that what the EV market needs now is another 250 mile range crossover?
You missed the points of affordable and efficient. Another 250 mile range crossover that gets 3 miles/kWh from an 80 kWh battery and costs $40-50k is blech, but if someone made a 250 mile range crossover with 5 miles/kWh from a 50 kWh battery and cost $30k or less with the smaller battery pack, that would be a huge deal (and I would probably be looking for a test drive). I don’t see Lucid in particular doing this, but hopefully someone will.
I’d much rather see them devote that emphasis on efficiency to making vehicles with truly long range.
That’s basically what they’ve been doing. The tech to make an affordable ev with acceptable range is the same as an expensive EV with exceptional range- Which has been Lucid’s focus.
To this point, most EVs have been expensive and only acceptable. I think we can mostly blame cheap credit and poor product planning for that. The same reasons Stellantis finds themselves with a surplus of Grand Wagoneers, Maseratis and $50,000 Hornets.
If they’re keeping it under wraps so be it, but it was concerning to me to only hear the CEO talk about the cheap path.
Perhaps that emphasis was intentional by DT when writing the article and Lucid really does have a large battery vehicle getting 6 mi/kWh under development (700 miles of range or so). If so, all is good.
I’m just disappointed/concerned that range development has seemingly stagnated while EV mandates loom closer and closer. Lucid was and is the best hope for changing that.
I think it’s basically the same thing. They just don’t talk about it as much because inexpensive vehicles with medium ranges cover 99% of use cases. But, that same technology can be used for more expensive vehicles with ranges for the 1% that road trip for 400 miles. The only difference is the size of the battery. And, if there aren’t supply constraints it makes sense to target higher volume lower cost cars and leverage that into options/models with extended ranges.
It’s really similar to ICE trucks. Manufacturers focus on efficiency. Then, they offer a second fuel tank for those that want to white knuckle from coast to coast with nothing more than a big gulp of Mountain Dew and a large bladder.
I can see Lucid doing the heavy work and using the developments to partner with a larger player who uses their tech and engineering to build small efficient cars. Kinda the same idea as VW partnering with Rivian.
I’m going to run my Fiesta ST as long as I can because I adore it, but my next car after that is hopefully an EV equivalent, and 250 mile range for under $30k would do me quite nicely. The FiST has never been more than 150 miles from my house in six years. But, yeah, a crossover at $50k does absolutely nothing to help me.
The high-end EV market is a crowded place selling to a small audience.
The buyers who cannot easily afford the price of something like a Lucid, certainly can’t afford to stretch things to buy one because they need to be conscious of depreciation and certainly can’t afford to lose that much money every year on a luxury BEV.
Tesla started with the Model S expensive luxury sedan before they released a more mass-market EV. Lucid needs to do something similar because the volume just isn’t there for them in their present segment.
Is that Peter talking, or the $1.5B from the Saudis Lucid got yesterday?
My takeaway from this is that Captain Obvious runs Lucid
Every engineer is Captain Obvious. It’s just what they view as obvious is not always to the public.
^Well put, XXLTall.
So true; I forget this often
I really appreciate a CEO who makes sober fact/physics-based assessments, even if obvious to some, over a CEO who consistently makes outlandish and impossible claims; year after year.
This is why I like Lucid, in spite of their shitty financial backing. It’s an EV company run by adults.
Yep