Jump to content

Kermit68

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. As far as I now, JLR has not reported the new number as well as they never officially reported the previous one. Most if not all I-Pace owners with Android phone are using an app called Wattcat developed by a very nice and clever Norwegian guy that among many other info it is reporting not the SoC % but also the available kwh. Since the info is coming from JLR api we always consider that pretty accurate and the numbers I was reporting to you (84 or 85 kwh) after full recharge are coming from that. My car is 6 months old, it has 8000 km and it has been fast charged only 3 times so I'm assuming battery degradation should be negligible and now it's consistently getting between 83.5 and 85 kwh at the end of the charge. At least for my experience the average is closer to 84 than to 85, so to be conservative I'd use that one. Other owners on the uk I pace forum are reporting similar numbers and nobody has reported anything above 85 kwh. I do understand it's not an official number nor something coming from scientific experiment but I guess that for the purpose of estimating the range 84 kwh should be close enough to reality considering that range is affected by many other factors on which we may even a worst estimation (wind, real battery degradation, effects of temperature on battery for example ). In any case, if you like me to run some particular test just let me know. I really appreciated your work and being supportive is the minimum I can do.
  2. Hi Jason, as you probably already know, Jaguar is rolloing out a major update for the I-Pace named H264. In theory is should give better perfoprmance in cold temperatures but honestly I've not seen much difference in my test after the update, probably because winter in Italy is not cold enough (and this year is even warmer than the last years ...) so I'm not sure if this will make any difference for your planning algorithm. On the other hand there is a specific change that probably you should take into account for your model: JLR has changed the zero set point of the SoC by reducing the buffer at the very low end of the discharge status of the battery. This has changed the number of kwh that the software is using to calculate the SoC so if before the H264 update it was commonly accpted that 100% SoC meant about 82 kwh available, now the number is more like an 84 or even 85 kwh. I don't know if this is going to affect your model calculation for the residual SoC calculation, but I though you should be aware of that. Ciao, Alessandro
  3. Jason, I have some doubt about highway consumption after you updated the model. I simulate a trip from Rome to the Ionity station in Valdichiana Outlet village, 178 km. Based on the updated model I should get there with 28% SOC left. My experience was I got there with 36% SOC, AC on all the time (ext. temperature 38C), total trip time 1:44 vs the 1:41 planned, so very comparable. Are you sure about the corrections you made with my data?
  4. I'm glad the data were useful. I'll post on the UK and Italy I-Pace forum that you're looking for more data, I hope you'll gahter more. One question about planning: since there is a difference between indicated speed by the odometer and the real speed, how I'm supposed to manage this when planning using ABRP? For example, if I set the reference speed in ABRP to 100% for planning, then on the highway where speed limit is 130 km/h should I set the cruise to 130 or to 137 which is the settings that actually makes me travel at real 130 km/h?
  5. Hi Jason, did you have the time to give a look to the data I posted a few days ago?
  6. Hi Jason, as promised I have some data for you. First some extra info: all data collected after battery warm up (no less than 20 km run before starting the measurements) all data have been collected at external temperatures between 29C and 31C, no air con on (it got a little hot in the car but I wanted "clean" data) all data refers to an I Pace equipped with 20" summer tires and air suspensions (it is supposed to make some difference compared to spring coils above 105 km/h as with A/S the car lowers to improve efficiency) all data have been collected on a loop path or corrected for minor elevation gain / loss (always less then 20 meters) using the formula E =m*g*h where E is the energy used/gained for elevation gain/loss, m = 2200 kg (estimated mass of the car), g = 9,81 m/s2 and h elevation gain / loss in meter. The result has been diveved by 3.6 E06 to convert from Joule to kWh. I also measured the difference between odometer speed and real speed using a Garmin GPS Here are the numbers: Reported average speed Real average speed Consumption Km/h Km/h W/Km 28 26 127 60 56 126 90 86 181 120 115 252 149 144 354 I also have some extra data to get a better estimation of the real speed / measured speed (km/h) : 130 = 124 and 50 = 47 Final consideration: I'm pretty confident on the measues at 60, 90, 120 and 150 Km/h while for the 30 km/h my number can be not so accurate. I could not find a flat or semi flat road where I could drive @ 30 Km/h safely around Rome, so I had to comprimes a little bit and the number I report has been measure on a 2.5 km path, kind of short ... Please let me know if you need more info from me. Ciao
  7. Ok, it's not an impossible task. My main problem is to find a flat path but once spotted not too far from my home it's feasible. Even @150km/h, tecnhnically speaking it's not legal in Italy but I would be a laier if I'd say I never drived the I Pace (or my motorbike) at that speed ... 😉 I'll get back to you with some numbers soon.
  8. Hi, last weekend I had some spare time that I used to run some consumption test with my I Pace (20" wheels, no pano roof, air suspension) that I would like to share as it could be useful to fine tune the existing ABRP I Pace model. The test was a 300 km roundrip made of 3 legs (each way) of motorway @130 km/h, country roads @95 Km/h speed with some 600 m elevation gain and a final mountain road at variable speed from 40 km/h to xxx km/h with another 1100 m elevation gain. Temperature from 29C (motorway) to 16C (mountain top), no air con. Started fully charged and got back home with 9% left. Very little traffic in the motorway so the car was running @130 km/h as set in the cruise for 99,9% fo the time. Useful data I can report are: - using a value of 245 Wh/Km @110 Km/h in ABRP I get a consumption estimation very much in agreement with the real data (about 1% more) and over 300 km I think it'a pretty good result and confirms the genral experience of I Pace owners that reference consumption acutally proposed as default (271 Wh/Km @110 Km/h) quite excessive. - average consumption of 262 Wh/Km @130 Km/h measured over a 52 km leg (50m elevation loss, so close to negligible). If helful I can report exacly my trip but I don't know how to do it: save the tirip in ABRP and share it or just a screen shot?
  9. Hi Bo, I tried to plan again the route after your message and actually the numbers are very close to my exprience. I don't know why but the other day I was getting more than 8 hours of pure driving instead of the 7:30 that I'm getting today. As I wrote, most of the difference was in the mountain stretch which actually seems to be much closer to reality. Based on my many yeas of experience with my former ICE car, most of the mountain strech (Passo Gardena - Corvara in Badia) can be done under normal circumstances at the indicated speed limit or very close to that. Especially if none of the kids onboard has problems with sea sickenss 😉 I saw that in ABRP there are segments at 30km/h which I think are too low. Of course I'm not concerned about the time lenght of the trip, I'm rather concerned about a possible undestimation of the Kwh/Km consumption.
  10. Description: I noticed that total time needed to get from Rome to a ski resort in northern Italy was way too off (driving time only, not considering recharging time). I narrowed most of the calculation error in the plan I've shared below. I also simulate the same path directly in the Open Street map web site and that result if fairly accurate with my driving experienced. I'm guessing that ABRP is not picking up some speed limits and it's using 30km/h as a default while the speed limit is supposed to be 90 Km/h. Real speed maybe a little lower than that but no as low as 30Km/h. I also tried to edit the map in Open Street Map website and i noticed that in that section of the road, often it's not reported any speed limit. Widl guess it that Open Street Map assigns for that section a default of 90kM/h while ABRP is assigning 30Km/h. I'm wondering if this behaviour is by design or it's a bug. If it's a bug it's potentially affecting all roads with no speed limits reported in Open Street Map. Link to Plan: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=6b55330c-0b2a-4872-be2d-5a17ac1569ee.
  11. I own an I Pace (just got it last friday) too and an ODB2 dongle but zero knowledge of Python. Can I be of any help?

Contact Us

Bo - Lead Developer and Tesla owner: bo@abetterrouteplanner.com

Jason - New Car Models, Developer and Bolt owner : jason@abetterrouteplanner.com

Idreams - Forums Administrator, Forums Developer and Tesla owner : idreams@abetterrouteplanner.com

×
×
  • Create New...