Jaguar I-Pace

[SageBrush]

.. and even Teslas are vastly inferior to ICEVs for range and refueling time/convenience.

I can see that being true for certain drivers but it not true for my wife and me. We simply do not drive much over 400 miles in a day and we take a couple breaks along the way. The on-road EV charging easily folds into our stretching and bio breaks, while the majority of charging is still at night when we sleep.

 

[scaesare]

I agree, if the battery is taken in isolation.
As a car though, miles gained per hour during a long trip is a lot more useful. Since I can Supercharger hop in the Model 3 at SoC between 20% and 70% and the average miles gained per hour in that interval is about 400, I find that to be the most telling number. Aside from the high consumption rate per mile of the i-Pace, if it requires charging above 70% SoC to road trip it is at a distinct disadvantage due to tapering.

Also agreed... ultimately what capability you get matters as well... once batteries get to the point that a 20 minute stop gives you more range than you can really use in your next hop, people won't care.

Until then, having a decent range accumulation rate depends on pack size and it's relative C-rate... and we are still at the point where tradeoffs on either make a difference...

 

[Asterix187]

Gave one a race today, it didn't win.....

 

[SageBrush]

once batteries get to the point that a 20 minute stop gives you more range than you can really use in your next hop, people won't care.

Trips up to 450 miles are already there in the Model 3 LR

I figure 320 miles from the full battery charged overnight, then about 130 + some reserve of on road charging.
At 400 miles per hour charging that is about 20 minutes. Our habits lead to at least two breaks, so no more than 10 - 15 minutes a break before the car is ready to go.

 

[hiroshiy]

The Jag Dealer in Chandler installed a CCS Quick/Fast charger. It charged at a whopping 17 kW but said it is capable of 25 kW. What a joke!!! Tesla has no real competition yet.

Don't know about the specific charger manufacturer, but in CHAdeMO (and possibly CCS too) world, they state charger power based on amps and calculate kW by just multiplying 400 or 500.
For example, if there is a charger with 60A, charger manufacturer A says it's 60x400=24kW, but if your car is S/X 75, your voltage is like 350 so you get 60x350=21kW. Charger manufacturer B says it's 60x500=30kW, but you will actually get 21kW. If your battery is empty and like 320V, you'll get 60x320=19kW.

 

[electracity]

Except it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, as other than Tesla, there aren't many other cars with packs as large as the I-pace's 90KWh pack. While the raw power rate of 80KW is greater than say the Bolt's 55KW, the reality is that it's also a 50% larger battery, so the overall time to charge will still be as long.

The real figure of merit is the C-rate... or even more accurately the charge curve that includes the taper. Neither the Bolt nor the I-Pace manage to get to even 1C.... and both seem to taper pretty aggressively.

The Bolt is supposed to be able to do 80KW according to some claims, but so far even the cars plugged in to chargers capable of more than 50KW haven't seemed to hit that... I don't know if that's a future firmware upgrade thing or not...

Plus Musk indicated that Tesla will go to higher energy packs rather than much higher power charging. That will mean fewer stops than today, and more time charging in the optimal part of the curve.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Don't know about the specific charger manufacturer, but in CHAdeMO (and possibly CCS too) world, they state charger power based on amps and calculate kW by just multiplying 400 or 500.
For example, if there is a charger with 60A, charger manufacturer A says it's 60x400=24kW, but if your car is S/X 75, your voltage is like 350 so you get 60x350=21kW. Charger manufacturer B says it's 60x500=30kW, but you will actually get 21kW. If your battery is empty and like 320V, you'll get 60x320=19kW.

It's the same in the CCS world. A "50kW charger" can be 500Vx100A or 400Vx125A. Frustrating for Bolt owners.

Similarly a "350kW charger" spec will be a 1000Vx350A.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The I-Pace is not practical for road trips, though maybe it will be someday when the CCS chargers are far more powerful and prevalent. I'm not holding my breath. The Teslas are the only EVs for long trips, and even Teslas are vastly inferior to ICEVs for range and refueling time/convenience.

But the I-Pace will charge fully in my garage overnight. That's all I need or want. Road trips are what gasoline is for!

Just disagreeing with "vastly". 190 miles per 35 minutes of charging (including a 5 minute diversion overhead) would mean that at 80mph there would be a driving:charging ratio a bit worse than 4.07:1, with a diversion/stop every 2 hours and 22.5 minutes. 130 miles per 35 minutes would mean an 80mph driving:charging ratio of a bit worse than 2.79:1, with a 35 minute diversion/stop every 1 hour 37.5 minutes.

In other words, even ignoring gasoline refueling or other stops, that an increase in journey time of 25% to 40%. At more moderate speeds, in good conditions, how trips should be enjoyed, the ratios should be better.

 

[scaesare]

It's the same in the CCS world. A "50kW charger" can be 500Vx100A or 400Vx125A. Frustrating for Bolt owners.

Similarly a "350kW charger" spec will be a 1000Vx350A.

Yup.

Which is why I, and a few others, have posted that, with no 1000V cars even on the horizon, and that not being the voltage in the fat part of the curve anyway, it's unlikely that the "350KW" CCS stations EA is installing will ever deliver anything close to that...

 

[SageBrush]

Yup.

Which is why I, and a few others, have posted that, with no 1000V cars even on the horizon, and that not being the voltage in the fat part of the curve anyway, it's unlikely that the "350KW" CCS stations EA is installing will ever deliver anything close to that...

I can believe 400 A * 800 V within the next 5 years. There is merit to EA being a few years ahead of the curve. Perhaps it will push the car manufacturers that produce CCS cars to up their game for a change. Just the jump to 800 v would be most welcome, and then intermediate size packs that can take 200 - 250 A current would be a vast improvement up to 250 kW, about 5x what the CCS offers today.

 

[MP3Mike]

Just the jump to 800 v would be most welcome, and

But that would make no real difference other than cutting the amps in half so the connector and cable could be smaller. You would need a change in formulation and cooling to be able to take more kW.

 

[scaesare]

I can believe 400 A * 800 V within the next 5 years. There is merit to EA being a few years ahead of the curve. Perhaps it will push the car manufacturers that produce CCS cars to up their game for a change. Just the jump to 800 v would be most welcome, and then intermediate size packs that can take 200 - 250 A current would be a vast improvement up to 250 kW, about 5x what the CCS offers today.

Provided the max current the pack can take is somewhere around the 700V mark in an ~800V pack (i.e. a 192S configuration), that would mean something around 245KW if the pack could handle it.

For even a 100KW pack, that's nearly a 2.5C rate...

 

[thegruf]

so it seems we have noticeably slow charging, noticeably greater power consumption with the iPace.

Doesnt make it totally unusuable, but does make it a huge disappointment that Jaguar failed to match Tesla on two of the fundamental metrics of EVs, after all this time.

Of all the current manufacturers out there I seriously believe Jaguar would be well advised to link up with Tesla's superchargers. With the Germans (trying) to gang up, this would be Jaguar's best defence, best way to gain immediate credibility and actually Jaguar and Tesla are not a bad fit.

I suspect they won't eveon consider it out of some false sense of pride, so that makes 3 major failings against Tesla so far.

Maybe this is why the Porsche Trashcan has been deferred to 2020 delivery.
The ICE manufacturers are making plently of money with fossil fuel so what's the hurry.

 

[SageBrush]

Plus Musk indicated that Tesla will go to higher energy packs rather than much higher power charging.

Supercharger 2.0 is expected to be announced late 2018. I don't know what is coming, but obviously the Supercharger tech is not static.

 

[Saghost]

Supercharger 2.0 is expected to be announced late 2018. I don't know what is coming, but obviously the Supercharger tech is not static.

With the first FSD features being added this fall, the obvious choice would be the production version of the snake, hopefully with liquid cooling of the car connection for better speeds in hot weather or with worn connectors.

 

[SageBrush]

For even a 100KW pack, that's nearly a 2.5C rate...

Yep. Isn't the upcoming Porsche an 800 V battery config that is planned to support 1200 km/hour charge rate in a 95 kWh battery ?

Regarding C rate, I'm uncertain about the underlying physics. Does it really not matter to the pack whether the higher power is from current or voltage ?

 

[MP3Mike]

Regarding C rate, I'm uncertain about the underlying physics. Does it really not matter to the pack whether the higher power is from current or voltage ?

That is pretty much correct. The voltage has to match the voltage of the pack, but the total power put in, or kW or volts*amps, has to be controlled based how much the cells can handle and how fast you can cool them.

You could easily make the Model 3 battery pack double the voltage by taking half of the cells out of each parallel group and adding them as additional series groups. (Just re-wiring the pack.)

But you haven't changed the cells themselves, so you are still limited to putting the same number of kW in to the pack.

 

[scaesare]

@MP3Mike is correct. That's why I noted that an 800V pack is likely a 192S configuration. That's twice as many cells in series, which raises the voltage. Which means for a given capacity (say 95KWh), that's half as many cells in each group in parallel, which reduces the total current capacity, measured in Amps. The limit of a cells ability to discharge or charge is dictated by it's C-rate, or how much currentit can deliver over the course of an hour before the voltage drops to the cell minimum.

As you have to match (or slightly lead) the voltage of the cell, you control power delivery by how much current you put through it. So an 800V pack has that advantage that it only needs half the current to charge at the same C-rate, thus reducing wire gauge, heating losses, etc.... That also means that the pack can handle less current during charging.

The end result is that a 95KWh pack can absorb 95KW of charge power at 1C regardless of voltage. If you want to pump more than 1C in to it, your chemistry has to handle it... the voltage really does not matter in that regard.

 

[scaesare]

Yep. Isn't the upcoming Porsche an 800 V battery config that is planned to support 1200 km/hour charge rate in a 95 kWh battery ?

Regarding C rate, I'm uncertain about the underlying physics. Does it really not matter to the pack whether the higher power is from current or voltage ?

That's 750MPH of charge rate. Assuming 3 miles per KWh, that's a 250KW power delivery (about what I guestimated the "350 KW" chargers would practically deliver).

That's over 2.6C. That's a bit above the sameC rate as the Ioniq, which is about the fastest I'm aware of. It will be interesting to see what the other performance parameters and longevity of a pack like that are.

 

[WannabeOwner]

Road trips are what gasoline is for!

On how many days in a year do you drive more than 250 miles (no charging) and 400 miles (one charge, but maximised for 100% SoC departure)? i.e. avoiding the charging-penalty of 400+ mile journeys (assuming 90-100kWh battery)

Are there figures for frequency of these types of journeys for the "average American owning this category of car"?