I-Pace range

All Jaguar I-Pace related discussions
emgf
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:31 pm
Location: Paris

Re: I-Pace range

Post by emgf » Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:27 pm

J2T2 wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:23 pm
Jelle v/d Meer wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:33 pm
J2T2 wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:55 am


I guess the bigger issue with UK is the near complete absence of 100kW chargers or reliable fast DC chargers in general.

Same example but now with 50kW chargers instead of 150kW chargers shows equal total time.
9hrs driving + 2x charging 85+5 min = 12hrs total
6hrs driving + 6x charging 55+5 min = 12hrs total
Nail on the head Jelle. Its the 50kW chargers that slow everything down. At 100kW its all faster. Now for the 350kW chargers.....
For the 350 KW chargers you need the Porsche Mission E and it’s 800 Volts battery

6E9CD10C-76FB-43FC-B933-5BC5F1BAA88A.jpeg

SE Yulong White , light oyster interior , 20" Gloss Black , since October 9th 2018 , IMC: S19B_19.40.4-436082 Telematics 16.2


User avatar
anorak
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:56 pm
Location: Cambs. UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by anorak » Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:44 am

We have an interesting trip to make later today - 120 miles travelling almost directly into 40-50mph headwinds, then 120 miles back with the wind behind us.

I'm wondering what the difference in consumption will be if I try to do both legs at about the same average speeds.

A Better Routeplanner suggests I won't even make the first leg unless I drive at less than 58mph! I'm hoping that's being pessimistic. Will report back when (if) we make it.
I Pace EV400 S, Caesium blue, Oyster leather, 18" wheels
MY19, delivered 01/2019
IMC: S19B_19.40.4-436082 || Telematics: 17.2
Now on its 2nd front EPIC


voisin
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by voisin » Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:24 am

oop north wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:57 pm
I would expect temperature to have an impact - the colder it is; the more energy will be used to heat the car interior and battery, which would indicate you need to go a bit faster. David Bricknell (don’t know if on here) has written an e-book on the i3 and another on the iPace - I think I’m the i3 he shows charts indicating that something around 45-55 mph was the optimum speed to maximise range
Thanks oop north I'll look it up!
I-Pace FE, 20” wheels, S18C_18.37.1, telematics 14.2


sciencegeek
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:14 pm
Location: California

Re: I-Pace range

Post by sciencegeek » Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:30 am

anorak wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:44 am
We have an interesting trip to make later today - 120 miles travelling almost directly into 40-50mph headwinds, then 120 miles back with the wind behind us.

I'm wondering what the difference in consumption will be if I try to do both legs at about the same average speeds.

A Better Routeplanner suggests I won't even make the first leg unless I drive at less than 58mph! I'm hoping that's being pessimistic. Will report back when (if) we make it.
How did it go? Did you have to draft behind a truck on the way there?


Captain.Plummet
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:26 pm
Location: UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by Captain.Plummet » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:14 am

TeslaDriver wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:27 am
voisin wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:57 pm
Basically I'm wondering what is the most efficient speed, everything else being equal. According to the chart, it appears to be the slower it is, the more efficient.
Here's my 2p worth:

If you have range enough then just drive. For most people, who can home-charge overnight, I expect that is also "most days"

If you are in range of a Rapid Charger then drive-faster and charge-longer is shorter (overall). I haven't seen a figure for iPace, but for Tesla even at 90 MPH that holds true.

But ... when you get there you need a 100+kW charger. Tesla currently scores better on that count, but Fastned/whatever is coming soon.
Tesla driver’s post makes absolute sense. In real driving conditions there is no point in dreaming about 300 mile range from an I-Pace because it isn’t possible. Better to use the car at sensible road speeds and factor in a charge stop. On a trip to London from the Midlands yesterday driven in ECO mode, within speed limits, including 60 miles of M1 50mph road works the trip totalled 240 miles and I returned home with 38 miles left. The charge stop at a Polar Ultracharger in Hendon lasted 32 minutes and delivered 27kWh. The charge stop could therefore have been as little as 15 minutes but with only a couple of miles left at the end of the trip. On that basis the overall consumption was 100kWh for 278 miles or 2.77kWh per mile, which agreed with the average calculated by the car. On this trip, had the range been better, I would still have made a charge stop. The I-Pace would have had to deliver at least 280 miles range to have given me the range margin that would have coped with an unexpected detour.
Future versions of Jaguar EVs will have better aerodynamics, more efficient motors, improved software and longer range, but the I-Pace of today is what it is, a very comfortable high performance car with range that is not quite as good as the market leader. Interesting that Audi have reduced their range estimate to 200 miles on the basis that they want the car to be used ‘as an Audi should be driven’. Perhaps in choosing to overlook the importance of aerodynamics they are suffering exponentially increasing consumption at speed too. I wonder if that grille on the I-Pace is costing more in terms of drag than it’s worth in brand cosmetics?


voisin
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by voisin » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:33 am

DougTheMac wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:10 pm
(Responding to Voisin before seeing oop north)...
Not such a theoretical question; worth knowing for emergencies, but there isn’t a simple answer. You are correct that the consumption per unit distance (kW-hr/100mi) will increase at both high speeds (aero drag increasing with the square of the speed) and at very low speeds (where the energy required to keep the battery and the cabin at optimum temperature is time dependent and hence inversely proportional to speed). The latter is far from negligible when the ambient temperature is low. The result is a “hockey-stick” curve with a minimum at a speed which will depend on temperature. I made some attempts to measure this, but it is inordinately difficult.
FWIIW, I’d suggest 40-ish mph rather than anorak’s 30mph. I think the curve is fairly flat, and even if the true optimum is 30, the penalty at 40 is small, and easier to keep sane. The optimum speed will be higher when the weather is cold. (As oop north points out.)
But driving technique is more important than absolute speed. Study Chewy’s posts. Accelerate and (regeneratively) brake gently, with lots of anticipation, and try to keep the “power” needle close to vertical (zero) and as steady as possible. Ideally, your regen figure should be near-zero; eg on a downhill slope, let the car get above 40 if it wants to, rather than trying to stop it doing so; and don’t force it to stay at 40 up hill either.
All worth practicing some time when you have the patience, in case you are ever faced with the actual problem!
That makes sense thanks Doug. I'm used to driving smoothly (mostly due to dogs on the back seat, but also practiced with my previous ICE car which displayed consumption on the go and average etc), with i-pace the eco ratings tend to stay on 5 except when I need to rush somewhere then the middle one would go a bit down. Good tip keeping the needle close to zero also when doing uphill and downhill, I'll try that.
I-Pace FE, 20” wheels, S18C_18.37.1, telematics 14.2


voisin
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by voisin » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:43 am

TeslaDriver wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:22 am
Bjørn Nyland has some hypermiling videos, in case of interest
Thanks for the links!
I-Pace FE, 20” wheels, S18C_18.37.1, telematics 14.2


User avatar
anorak
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:56 pm
Location: Cambs. UK

Re: I-Pace range

Post by anorak » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:43 am

sciencegeek wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:30 am
anorak wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:44 am
We have an interesting trip to make later today - 120 miles travelling almost directly into 40-50mph headwinds, then 120 miles back with the wind behind us.

I'm wondering what the difference in consumption will be if I try to do both legs at about the same average speeds.

A Better Routeplanner suggests I won't even make the first leg unless I drive at less than 58mph! I'm hoping that's being pessimistic. Will report back when (if) we make it.
How did it go? Did you have to draft behind a truck on the way there?
Turns out A Better Routeplanner is way off when taking strong winds into account. It's been virtually spot on with other trips without any significant wind.

I did the outbound leg at an average speed of 58mph with consumption of 46kWh/100 miles. Equivalent total range c. 180 miles.
Coming back (with lighter winds of 20mph behind us) average speed was 59mph, consumption 35kWh/100 miles and range 230 miles.

So almost a 30% difference between head and tailwind consumption but the headwind numbers were 50% better than A Better Routeplanner suggested.

I'm sure the wind won't have been a constant 40mph yesterday but it was pretty strong and probably gusting even higher than that.

I'd say if you use the Routeplanner's wind variable then only input around a third of the expected headwind speed. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether there's a tailwind or not, reporting the same numbers with 20mph as with 0mph wind.
I Pace EV400 S, Caesium blue, Oyster leather, 18" wheels
MY19, delivered 01/2019
IMC: S19B_19.40.4-436082 || Telematics: 17.2
Now on its 2nd front EPIC


scm
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:11 pm
Location: Southampton

Re: I-Pace range

Post by scm » Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:12 am

anorak wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:43 am
So almost a 30% difference between head and tailwind consumption but the headwind numbers were 50% better than A Better Routeplanner suggested.
Maybe the i-Pace is more aerodynamic than people give it credit for? ;)


sciencegeek
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:14 pm
Location: California

Re: I-Pace range

Post by sciencegeek » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:59 pm

scm wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:12 am
anorak wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:43 am
So almost a 30% difference between head and tailwind consumption but the headwind numbers were 50% better than A Better Routeplanner suggested.
Maybe the i-Pace is more aerodynamic than people give it credit for? ;)
The faster you drive the more aerodynamic it gets ;)


Post Reply

Return to “Main Jaguar I-Pace chat”