Jaguar I-Pace Forum banner

Tesla - Oh Dear..

12K views 34 replies 15 participants last post by  Volkswarren 
#1 ·
This guy really loves Tesla and EVs ....

 
#4 ·
Don't feed his clickbait existence by posting this crap.
 
#6 ·
While the video is a bit of a rant he does raise an interesting point...
You paid for the car so does Tesla have the right to downgrade the configuration at their whim while you sleep and therefore have not specifically agreed to.
It could be seen as computer tampering and therefore illegal in many places.

I have to ask if Tesla has the same lawyers as Apple. Apple have similar problems with batteries on some iPhones so they throttled the CPU speed to preserve battery life. Apple got sued as well.
That's life I suppose.
 
#7 ·
I think:

If it has become apparent that some change is needed, to preserve battery life
and it is within the "Warranty "loss"
then no leg to stand on ... and better to have improved software that preserves battery than allow more damage / degradation to be done.

I'm sure it is very annoying for owners though

This may well turn out to be an issue with other Marques too ... most "big battery" EVs are relatively new, so no long term data yet available.

Original Leafs lost, what?, 50% of battery capacity (mostly because they had no active battery management cooling). Did those owners "Class Action" too (IDK)?

I'll take a side bet ... future version of the software reduces the "loss" significantly / somewhat. Tesla have a history of "I want to change from A to A*2 or A/2" and what they do is change to A*5 ... or A/5 ... and then when there is outcry throttle back to the, original intended, A*2 or A/2 and everyone goes "Oh! That's OK then" ... whereas an initial change to A*2 or A/2 would have met with the same outcry.

Staffing levels
Price drop
and so on
 
#8 ·
Jaguar should take heed of this.

There is a rumour put out by a member on the forum that Jaguar are to relax the thermal management on the I-Pace to achieve a gain of 20 to 30 miles in the summer giving a range for most people of 300 miles?

Well, as the norm for drivers on the forum is around 240 to 250 miles, this increase in range would have to be substantially more than that to give 300 miles.

People purchased the I-Pace knowing the range of the car. Jaguar say a realistic range is 230 to 240 miles.

The battery management in the car looks after the battery by putting tight control limits on the temperature range that the battery is allowed to operate at. Tesla uses 18degC up to 55degC as it's acceptable control range. The I-Pace is much tighter than this, though Jaguar has not stated fully what it is. In no way can this control regime be considered "over cooling".

Clearly tighter temperature control of the battery requires more energy to maintain it, and hence a hit on range. The BMS has to work harder if the car is pushed harder, hence the hit on range. My driving style for range has the effect of negating some of the hard work the BMS is put to in trying to maintain a close tolerance battery temperature. Acceleration is one of the biggest killers of range, it consumes vast amounts of energy, and rapidly heats the battery. Keeping your acceleration to a slow rate will negate both these factors and extend range.

For Jaguar to reduce the BMS control could very well open a big can of worms later in the life of the I-Pace.

I would rather stay where I am with the BMS on this issue and accept that the car does what it does.
 
#9 ·
Chewy said:
Jaguar should take heed of this.
Tesla have "relaxed" some things when they found that tolerances were better than expected (or maybe, for sceptical-me!, when there was a marketing need)

e.g. the whole fleet of Cooking Versions was lifted from 5s 0-60 to 4s

If Jaguar find similar they could do likewise. (Or maybe they did the engineering testing right in the first place :) )

Bit the same (to my mind) with the 100kW charging which has been "Imminent" for a while (maybe its actually happening now with SOTA? I've not been playing close attention)

I think 20 - 30 miles would be handy for iPace. My onlookers-view is that folk here are often charging well into Taper (side note: might be there is no Taper at 50kW ... but there will be at 100kW). I only do that in Tesla if I absolutely have no charging opportunity ... my journey is shorter if I charge only up to Taper, driver faster, and charge more at nest charging-stop. Charging into Taper wrecks the journey time (charging below 100kW is similar outcome of course)

So IMHO 100kW + no need to charge into Taper [because of extra 30 mile range] would improve journey time (on "out of range days")
 
#10 ·
Chewy, Thanks for the great Tesla link yesterday, when I got back from the pub last night it really amused me, I think it is something to do with the brutal honesty of the Australians - I love um.
Please don't stop sharing these links, they are great.
Stop _ Stop Stop _ Stop, don't read on if you think it is wrong to post link on the website off topic.

I have put a link for you here to another Ozzie news reader, some of what she says is not correct but most of it is bang on, follow at your own risk.
 
#11 ·
Chewy said:
Jaguar should take heed of this.

There is a rumour put out by a member on the forum that Jaguar are to relax the thermal management on the I-Pace to achieve a gain of 20 to 30 miles in the summer giving a range for most people of 300 miles?

Well, as the norm for drivers on the forum is around 240 to 250 miles, this increase in range would have to be substantially more than that to give 300 miles.

People purchased the I-Pace knowing the range of the car. Jaguar say a realistic range is 230 to 240 miles.

The battery management in the car looks after the battery by putting tight control limits on the temperature range that the battery is allowed to operate at. Tesla uses 18degC up to 55degC as it's acceptable control range. The I-Pace is much tighter than this, though Jaguar has not stated fully what it is. In no way can this control regime be considered "over cooling".

Clearly tighter temperature control of the battery requires more energy to maintain it, and hence a hit on range. The BMS has to work harder if the car is pushed harder, hence the hit on range. My driving style for range has the effect of negating some of the hard work the BMS is put to in trying to maintain a close tolerance battery temperature. Acceleration is one of the biggest killers of range, it consumes vast amounts of energy, and rapidly heats the battery. Keeping your acceleration to a slow rate will negate both these factors and extend range.

For Jaguar to reduce the BMS control could very well open a big can of worms later in the life of the I-Pace.

I would rather stay where I am with the BMS on this issue and accept that the car does what it does.
Ok but we were promised a 100 KW charging rate and JLR has to deliver it on way or the other , don't you think so ?
 
#13 ·
Paul J. said:
They have. :roll:

First world problems!

Destination charging is your friend. I spent last week on a tour of the UK and planned my hotels stops at places where there were rapid chargers. No need to charge on the move. :cool:
That's what I try and do too. So far so good, another long trip starting today so we will see. :D
 
#15 ·
Chewy said:
Jaguar should take heed of this.

There is a rumour put out by a member on the forum that Jaguar are to relax the thermal management on the I-Pace to achieve a gain of 20 to 30 miles in the summer giving a range for most people of 300 miles?

Well, as the norm for drivers on the forum is around 240 to 250 miles, this increase in range would have to be substantially more than that to give 300 miles.

People purchased the I-Pace knowing the range of the car. Jaguar say a realistic range is 230 to 240 miles.

The battery management in the car looks after the battery by putting tight control limits on the temperature range that the battery is allowed to operate at. Tesla uses 18degC up to 55degC as it's acceptable control range. The I-Pace is much tighter than this, though Jaguar has not stated fully what it is. In no way can this control regime be considered "over cooling".

Clearly tighter temperature control of the battery requires more energy to maintain it, and hence a hit on range. The BMS has to work harder if the car is pushed harder, hence the hit on range. My driving style for range has the effect of negating some of the hard work the BMS is put to in trying to maintain a close tolerance battery temperature. Acceleration is one of the biggest killers of range, it consumes vast amounts of energy, and rapidly heats the battery. Keeping your acceleration to a slow rate will negate both these factors and extend range.

For Jaguar to reduce the BMS control could very well open a big can of worms later in the life of the I-Pace.

I would rather stay where I am with the BMS on this issue and accept that the car does what it does.
Mentioned before but one of the questionnaires on the Advisory Council asked if you'd prefer greater range for reduced performance. I replied absolutely not (unless you could toggle the setting as the user). It may be that to preserve battery life AND increase range then the other variable that gets hit would be power output.
 
#16 ·
alex_haddock said:
Chewy said:
Jaguar should take heed of this.

There is a rumour put out by a member on the forum that Jaguar are to relax the thermal management on the I-Pace to achieve a gain of 20 to 30 miles in the summer giving a range for most people of 300 miles?

Well, as the norm for drivers on the forum is around 240 to 250 miles, this increase in range would have to be substantially more than that to give 300 miles.

People purchased the I-Pace knowing the range of the car. Jaguar say a realistic range is 230 to 240 miles.

The battery management in the car looks after the battery by putting tight control limits on the temperature range that the battery is allowed to operate at. Tesla uses 18degC up to 55degC as it's acceptable control range. The I-Pace is much tighter than this, though Jaguar has not stated fully what it is. In no way can this control regime be considered "over cooling".

Clearly tighter temperature control of the battery requires more energy to maintain it, and hence a hit on range. The BMS has to work harder if the car is pushed harder, hence the hit on range. My driving style for range has the effect of negating some of the hard work the BMS is put to in trying to maintain a close tolerance battery temperature. Acceleration is one of the biggest killers of range, it consumes vast amounts of energy, and rapidly heats the battery. Keeping your acceleration to a slow rate will negate both these factors and extend range.

For Jaguar to reduce the BMS control could very well open a big can of worms later in the life of the I-Pace.

I would rather stay where I am with the BMS on this issue and accept that the car does what it does.
Mentioned before but one of the questionnaires on the Advisory Council asked if you'd prefer greater range for reduced performance. I replied absolutely not (unless you could toggle the setting as the user). It may be that to preserve battery life AND increase range then the other variable that gets hit would be power output.
It's all very well for Chewy to advocate a reduction in range but he is capable of achieving 300 miles, what about us mear mortals who can only get 230? ;) I like the idea of a toggle so that on the very few occasions when I need the maximum possible range I could do so.
 
#17 ·
alex_haddock said:
Mentioned before but one of the questionnaires on the Advisory Council asked if you'd prefer greater range for reduced performance. I replied absolutely not (unless you could toggle the setting as the user). It may be that to preserve battery life AND increase range then the other variable that gets hit would be power output.
Fully with you on that one. The I-Pace is quite capable of adding 20 to 30 miles to its range simply by the way the car is driven. There would be no need to alter the way the battery is managed, just better management of the way the power is put down.

My Tesla had the option of setting "Range Mode", it also had another mode that calmed the performance of the car, where acceleration was slowed to 8 seconds for 0~60mph. These used together would easily increase the range of the car on longer distance trips, but could be turned off when range was not required and performance was returned to "normal". This is what the I-Pace is missing. I have learned to replicate this functionality and gain that range when needed, but still not lose the performance that the car is capable of when needed.
 
#18 ·
Thincat said:
It's all very well for Chewy to advocate a reduction in range but he is capable of achieving 300 miles, what about us mear mortals who can only get 230? ;) I like the idea of a toggle so that on the very few occasions when I need the maximum possible range I could do so.
Ah, your post popped up before mine above :)

I am all for the toggle idea of giving range rather than performance, similar to that provided by Tesla. What I am not so confident about is allowing the battery temperature control have a wider band to achieve it.
 
#20 ·
nipri said:
I am off to Bath this weekend. The hotel I will be staying called Bailbrook House has a Polar Plus Rapid Charge which is perfect.
Wasn't that the old Air Traffic Control College I a previous life? If so, it's a lovely building! Have fun.

I'm also on another road trip this weekend. This time it's a weekend one up north where we're staying a couple of nights. One in Nairn and on on the shores of Loch Ness. It's 460 miles total, so fingers crossed that I've truly sussed our ChargePlace Scotland! Actually will be using one Engenie charger this time but it's the same eVolt as CPS use. Luckily the new style not the old ones, which is why I'm stopping there. The others are all that same new eVolt button the CPS network. They are starting to spring up all over the place. CPS are expanding.
 
#21 ·
Chewy said:
Thincat said:
It's all very well for Chewy to advocate a reduction in range but he is capable of achieving 300 miles, what about us mear mortals who can only get 230? ;) I like the idea of a toggle so that on the very few occasions when I need the maximum possible range I could do so.
Ah, your post popped up before mine above :)

I am all for the toggle idea of giving range rather than performance, similar to that provided by Tesla. What I am not so confident about is allowing the battery temperature control have a wider band to achieve it.
Isn't that Eco mode ?
It's always possible with a future SOTA that JLR could copy what Mercedes are doing, and use 2WD most of the time when the need for power and 4WD is absent.
According to FullyChargedShow that's how they get better MpkWh than the i-Pace in an equivalent car.
 
#22 ·
Terry60 said:
Isn't that Eco mode ?
It's always possible with a future SOTA that JLR could copy what Mercedes are doing, and use 2WD most of the time when the need for power and 4WD is absent.
According to FullyChargedShow that's how they get better MpkWh than the i-Pace in an equivalent car.
No, ECO mode is not the same.

Why do you think 2WD will give better range than 4WD?

The I-Pace has two highly efficient PM motors fitted. These give better than 95% efficiency from 18mph up to 85mph [or thereabouts]. The car still requires the same force to move it whether it comes from one or two equally efficient motors, so no gain in turning one off. Don't believe everything that "fully charged" tells you. Tesla turn one motor off when cruising because they have a less efficient motors and get better efficiency by transferring all the load to a single motor where they can be more efficiency under higher loading. With the newer tm3 and up and coming Raven version of the MS and MX, they have one PM motor and one Asynchronous motor. They can turn off the less efficient motor when it's power is not needed to improve range, but they are still using the same energy to move the car.
 
#23 ·
Chewy said:
My Tesla had the option of setting "Range Mode"
Jaguar could probably improve on this. Range Mode only makes a tangible difference on Teslas that have dual motors (of different sizes). The Big Motor can be turned off to cruise, more efficiently, on smaller motor at 70-ish MPH. (I know you know that Chewy :) so this just by way of "background")

Put your foot down and the big motor is brought to life. Not quite sure why this wouldn't be "default" at 70 MPH, rather than needing to explicitly select Range Mode?

However, Range Mode also throttles Climate and some other bits and bobs, and I am not sure that that energy-saved (on a 70 MPH journey) is worth saving. The Range Mode setting is all-or-nothing (but I do understand that "a whole raft of adjustments" is not going to be a solution for the majority of owners)

it also had another mode that calmed the performance of the car, where acceleration was slowed to 8 seconds for 0~60mph
When i was in short trousers sub-10s 0-60 was "awesome" and the stuff of wall posters !! Now even the most lowly EV can do that easily ...

Tesla "Chill mode" prevents whiplash for passengers :) but there is no kick-down so if you need full-power to avoid an incident it isn't available. Chill Mode was an SOTA after-thought ... but if it also had Kick Down then it would be perfect.

It hadn't occurred to me, until this thread, that Range might be influenced by BMS temperature range ... I think that would be very worthwhile.

Rapid D/C charging (100+kW) is "counted" by Tesla. After a certain number the 100+kW charge rate is throttled (not by much, initially, and successively more, but I don't think it slows more than, say, 10% ... maybe it (also?) tapers a bit sooner too.) Anyway, its a compromise. If using it for journeys when-needed, and getting "counted", might be acceptable? Would only actually need it on a leg that was touch-and-go ... so not even all long journeys. Whereas every time I stop at a Supercharger that's a "high speed D/C charge" on my counter ...

Some of this is a hidden-snag for 2nd hand buyers. "How many rapid D/C charges have you had" ... "How many Wide-temperature BMS journeys"

With an EV you can't just have a mate follow you on the test drive to see if clouds of black smoke come out of the exhaust every time you change gear ... a la ICE :)
 
#24 ·
Chewy said:
Terry60 said:
Isn't that Eco mode ?
It's always possible with a future SOTA that JLR could copy what Mercedes are doing, and use 2WD most of the time when the need for power and 4WD is absent.
According to FullyChargedShow that's how they get better MpkWh than the i-Pace in an equivalent car.
No, ECO mode is not the same.

Why do you think 2WD will give better range than 4WD?

The I-Pace has two highly efficient PM motors fitted. These give better than 95% efficiency from 18mph up to 85mph [or thereabouts]. The car still requires the same force to move it whether it comes from one or two equally efficient motors, so no gain in turning one off. Don't believe everything that "fully charged" tells you. Tesla turn one motor off when cruising because they have a less efficient motors and get better efficiency by transferring all the load to a single motor where they can be more efficiency under higher loading. With the newer tm3 and up and coming Raven version of the MS and MX, they have one PM motor and one Asynchronous motor. They can turn off the less efficient motor when it's power is not needed to improve range, but they are still using the same energy to move the car.
You'd think it would be simple arithmetic; mass of car, speed, rolling resistance, aceleration, etc, but in that case, similar cars would be equally efficient.
I don't know what your prejudice against Fully Charged Show is, but they were merely the conduit for information coming from Mercedes, who claim that their better MpkWh figures are down to the way they manage the use of their motors (including not using them both all the time), and I guess they would know better than us.
 
#25 ·
Let me rephrase that...

Why do you think 2WD will give better range than 4WD with the I-Pace?

I don't think Mercedes give " better MpkWh" than Tesla, nor Kia, nor Hyundai, nor Nissan, nor Jaguar, nor MG, and probably even than Audi.

They may get better figures in their own car by running one rather than two motors, but Tesla can achieve the same and "better".

It's car companies that "know better than us" that has resulted in Tesla being so far out in front.
 
#26 ·
You are answering your own question.
"...They may get better figures in their own car by running one rather than two motors..."
I never compared them to Tesla or anyone else.
We were all talking about ways and means of range improvements by manipulating the ECU firmware of any individual marque/model.
 
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