Jaguar I-Pace Forum banner

I-Pace range

534K views 2K replies 188 participants last post by  Aurora Blue 
#1 ·
Just to break this out from the videos thread to a more sensible separate one for any more range discussion/debate:

johnd said:
Yes, certainly, what we're talking about is the range of 0-100% available battery capacity, whether that's 84kW, 90kW or whatever. The bit in your previous post that I'm not understanding is:

Tophe74 said:
...100% to 0% 10% then charging back to 100%...
I'm guessing there's a hyphen missing? Maybe you mean 0% to 10% (0%-10%), or maybe typically not wishing to drop below say 5% available capacity, except in event of emergency or miscalculation? In which case, yes I agree completely. So, to rewind my point:

Whatever range 0-100% of available battery capacity equates to, then you might typically only have eg 94-95% of that maximum range as routinely usable range, because (i) a limited charging period might have reached say only 98% rather than 100% AND you might prefer not to drop below 4-5% indicated range when you reach home or your recharging destination.

So, based on the figures currently available, routine range looks like 190-195 miles or thereabouts or say 300-320km in round numbers.
Tophe74 said:
No i mean i use battery from 100% to 0 - 10% almost every days.
There's another (slightly wooden but apparently official) JLR video snippet at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLzxswS1I2A

which seems to say three things:

1. Expected range is 240 miles

2. The car can take as long to charge from 80 to 100% as from 0 to 80%.

3. It can charge on 7kW to 80% in 10 hours and to 100% in 13 hours. (Actually it's a little tricky to tell whether it's a UK or US video, it's flagged as uploaded by JLR USA but perhaps the information is UK sourced?? But I'm guessing it's referring to a 7kW AC charger?)

Fairly obviously, [2] and [3] seem to be at odds with one another. Anyone care to suggest which one is more correct?
 
See less See more
#1,602 ·
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.
 
#1,603 ·
oop north said:
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!
 
#1,604 ·
anorak said:
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?
 
#1,605 ·
TeslaDriver said:
voisin said:
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?
 
#1,606 ·
DougTheMac said:
(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.
 
#1,608 ·
sciencegeek said:
anorak said:
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.
 
#1,611 ·
My record so far at urban speeds (a mixture of 20, 30, 40 and 50) with traffic lights and roundabouts - if I calculated it correctly given 83kWh actual battery the range would be approximately 290 miles! Good weather, music, climate (no A/C), 1 person and two dogs :)

Map Font Rectangle Line Screenshot
 

Attachments

#1,615 ·
Goshdarnit said:
Drove to Glasgow airport and back last night. Took the fun route and drove it like a Jaaaaag. Used 60% SoC in 80 miles of driving! Oops. :) that equates to a range of about 135 miles! Wet roads, 8 degrees, heavy right foot!
:D I bet you were a bit slower on the way home with SWMBO on board :lol:
 
#1,616 ·
Goshdarnit said:
Drove to Glasgow airport and back last night. Took the fun route and drove it like a Jaaaaag. Used 60% SoC in 80 miles of driving! Oops. :) that equates to a range of about 135 miles! Wet roads, 8 degrees, heavy right foot!
I know that feeling but amazed you managed to achieve that in Scotland! I went from 51% to 1% on 60 miles of Autobahn where despite roadworks for 10 miles I got an average speed of 88mph :cool: (dry - at night - 8 degrees)
 
#1,619 ·
Chewy said:
Still looking for someone to put up the lowest GOM reading with 100% SoC 😀
Lowest I've seen was 155 miles @ 100%. That was after a February of 27F/-2.7C weather with mean low temps of -1.3F/-18.5C. Lots of climate control, windscreen warmers, and rear defroster use in all the seats, along with a bunch of unplugged cabin preconditioning.

Its coming back up now that the weather is warmer. I'm seeing 210 again, and like the weather, its getting better every day. ;)
 
#1,620 ·
Chewy said:
Still looking for someone to put up the lowest GOM reading with 100% SoC 😀
Going back to work this week I've decided to make an experiment and drive the i-pace like I would any other car (i.e. not trying to be extra efficient). Aim to keep this up for a week and see the results :)
 
#1,623 ·
Chewy said:
Still looking for someone to put up the lowest GOM reading with 100% SoC 😀
An old thread from back in November
https://www.ipaceforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=615&start=10

I think the "best" was c160mi. Very disappointing. But it was warmer then. Someone did report 100kW-hr/100km (=range of c83km or 52mi) but over a range of 1.1km trying out emergency stops!

On a more serious note:
Has anyone worked out how long a period/distance/no of charges the averaging is carried out?

It would be more useful if you could set your own GoM reading, based on experience. If setting off on a long drive, where you know you're going to be driving gently for range, the fact that you have been thrashing it for the previous week will give you a very pessimistic GoM. It would save a lot of mental gymnastics during the trip if you could tell the car when you start that you expect to get eg 220 mi range or do eg 38kW-hr/100mi.

It doesn't help that you can't get the %SoC displayed without lots of swiping and button-pressing.
 
#1,624 ·
ChrisMc said:
Goshdarnit said:
Drove to Glasgow airport and back last night. Took the fun route and drove it like a Jaaaaag. Used 60% SoC in 80 miles of driving! Oops. :) that equates to a range of about 135 miles! Wet roads, 8 degrees, heavy right foot!
:D I bet you were a bit slower on the way home with SWMBO on board :lol:
Grammar, please: "with HWMBO". :lol:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top