I thought CCS1 was 500V and CCS2 was 1000V?
CCS2 is at least 350A/1000V/350kW, which actually makes it slower than supercharging for a 400V pack, given that supercharging supports 360A.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Jaguar I-Pace
- Thread starter AnxietyRanger
- Start date
CCS2 is at least 350A/1000V/350kW, which actually makes it slower than supercharging for a 400V pack, given that supercharging supports 360A.
voyager
Active Member
Possibly. All packs degrade over time. (There should be some fine print in the warranty.) But since the charging is limited to only 100 kW, it may be that even a degraded pack can maintain max charging rates.
The Tesla 100 kWh packs seem to be able to sustain 115-120 kW over their lifetime (thus far, anyway), so they are likely sufficiently big to sustain max charging rate even when degraded.
It is interesting indeed that they have a 108S pack.
The voltage range of each cell is 3,2 to 4,2V with 3,6V nominal.
So the total pack will vary between 345.6V and 453.6V.
They went a bit higher then Tesla and other cars out there. A I-Pace with a SoC of ~0% will start at 43kW on a 125A charger and then climb.
I think that the higher voltage can actually benefit them from being closer to the 500V of what chargers can output in a lot of cases.
I wonder why nobody uses a 114S (480V) pack for example.
bambam4171
Member
Yes, Ionity will eventually build 400 fast charging stations. But, they currently have 3 total in all of Europe, so plan accordingly. Second: Yes they can provide up to 350kw, if your car is able to take that. So far Mission E is the only one that can take it. Just for the laughs: Model 3 is able to take over 200kw compared to the 100kw of the Jag clearly shows what is what.
bambam4171
Member
Think again. Supercharger network is now at 403 stations and many of those are not the paltry 6 charger stations that Ionity is deploying. Also Supercharger network is currently Tesla only. MB, Audi, Porsche, VW, Ford all have to share Ionity
bambam4171
Member
Tesla has already covered all of Europe. CCS chargers are just about starting in earnest, before we had this horrible mixture of everything available on the market. I don't see lack of CCS support as an issue at all. I do see lack of Supercharger support as a huge issue though. Maybe that changes in 5 years, but so far even the notion of having it the other way round is hilarious.
CCS also has possible investment from MB, Audi, VW, Ford, etc. As well as the support of the EU and the individual goverments. Lots of subsidies has gone towards installing 50 kW CCS/CHAdeMO chargers in Norway, and these subsidies will probably only increase.
I think 100-350 kW CCS will become more more widespread than supercharging in europe, but we may not reach that point until 2025-ish.
bambam4171
Member
Show me on the map, I can point out the 3 Ionity chargers but so far its not even sure Jag will be able to charge there.
bambam4171
Member
bambam4171
Member
https://www.carwow.co.uk/jaguar/i-pace - Carwow - Jaguar I-Pace - 6/10.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/model-x - Carwow - Tesla Model X - 7/10.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/model-s - Carwow - Tesla Model S - 9/10.
Does not seem overwhelmingly good? And this is by the same reviewer.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/model-x - Carwow - Tesla Model X - 7/10.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/model-s - Carwow - Tesla Model S - 9/10.
Does not seem overwhelmingly good? And this is by the same reviewer.
Disappointing to see this compared against the fictional Tesla "P75D" in Motor Trend.
The consumption vs range is interesting when compared against the 90D. One the one hand, it shows how much good work Tesla have done on efficiency, but on the other, it shows how small the usable part of the Tesla 90kWh battery is (~81 usable vs ~87 usable in the iPace).
M-71
Satin White Alu 2022 MYP
This was based on a VERY short drive (between those active cones). Let's wait what the final verdict will be once they tested the car under normal conditions.
One review has given it 6/10. There are a number that are more positive about the car. There are around 20 video reviews out there.
Jaguar I-PACE review roundup: 20 early videos are mostly positive but lack EV context
The carwow review also says a negative is "can't have 7 seats" because they are comparing it to a Model X.
They end the review with
Horses for courses.
It looks like there is no consistent correction factor - the Chevy Bolt has less than 1% difference between WLTP and EPA, for instance.
Using comparisons with EPA-rated cars, i-Pace EPA would be:
295 miles (WLTP:EPA ratio of the Bolt)
287 miles (NEDC ranges of i-Pace, Model X 75D, and Model X 100D, EPA of 75D and 100D)
284 miles (NEDC ranges, plus adjusting for the huge difference between 75D and 100D NEDC:EPA ratios)
What would be really informative is if the WLTP Extra-high speed cycle results were published. What we really want to know is the official rating for how far it'll do while cruising on the motorway at 70-75mph.
The Jag has relatively tight thermal management - they keep the battery pack within 2-3degC. The battery pack construction looks similar to the Bolt's . Both the Bolt and i-Pace use LG Chem pouch cells, although the pouch aspect ratio and tab placement are different.
The Bolt has aluminium plates with fluid channels between the pouches - I expect the i-Pace does that, although with the exact pattern of the fluid channels differing.
Model X 75D, NEDC 259, EPA 237, NEDC:EPA 1.09
Model X 100D, NEDC 351, EPA 295, NEDC:EPA 1.19
Bolt WLTP 240, EPA 238, EPA estimate 200, Car & Driver realistic 190
i-Pace NEDC 337, WLTP 298, EPA estimates 220 / 240
Sure, that was my premise.
I said “if you believe Electrify America’s latest statements on their website...”.
We will have a better sense of how EA is holding to their schedule by spring of next year.
There are a couple of key things here:
1. Believing Electrify America (VW)
2. Regardless of the developer, the jarring transition from no non-Tesla 150 kW coast-to-coast highway charging network in the US to having one next summer
It’s hard for folks to believe this will really happen on schedule. I think it’s a very aggressive plan.
It doesn’t help that most major EV news sites like InsideEVs, Electrek, GreenCarReports, etc. still haven’t highlighted EA’s new highway route map even though it’s been available for weeks now. Electrek went so far as to write an article focused on a new European charging network being partially funded by VW Group and used an image of that planned European route map from VW Group that included a version of an EA US route map along side of it to illustrate their story but did not mention anything about the US network in the article....
I think this is mostly because EA is not yet actively flogging the map in a press release and most coverage is driven by press releases.
There are reasons to give credence to the EA plan, imo, and to believe that CCS will expand even more rapidly.
50kW CCS in the US grew from 115 locations at end 2016 to 1,100 locations currently, split between three operators, not incl. EA. (~650 locations per year)
EA had their first 350kW location go live a couple of months ago now. They are an additional operator to the biggest 3.
evGo has now broken ground on their own first 350kW location.
The EA plan is well-funded (VW's dieselgate penance money). Their plan seems conservative compared to Tesla's latest plan.
It would be really useful if EA published monthly or quarterly progress reports, but I'm guessing they won't, until the Audi e-Tron Quattro comes to market.
============
Footnotes:
Tesla had ~330 US locations at end 2016 after 4 years (~77 per year) , and ~600-650 at end 2017 (~120/year average run, ~300/year peak).
The latest announced plan says the rate is going to increase again, but I cannot find a break-out of figures for the USA.
Minimum of 4 stalls per location. ~7-8 stalls per average Supercharger location.
EA's plan for the next 18 months is for 484 locations, in groups of 3 to 6 in rural locations, and 4 to 10 in metro locations, for a total of ~2,700 chargers. It seems to be a mix of 350kW CCS only, and 150kW CCS with an additional 50kW Chademo outlet. (It could be that there are also going to be 50kW CCS with 50kW Chademo outlets in that ~2,700 figure)
(Going off Chargehub.com) Dealers seem to now make up <10% of the CCS infrastructure, and most locations are 2 charger, with more 4 charger locations than 1 charger locations. (Checking a couple of states thoroughly on Chargehub and Plugshare, plus random checks in a couple of other states)
I-Pace video reviews from the Portugal press launch:
Top Gear magazine:
Autocar magazine:
Auto Express magazine:
CCS is at 4,200 DCFCs in the EU parts of Europe atm. Ionity are only one of the 350kW roll-out groups. 350kW chargers started going live last November.
What would be *really* useful would be a CCS stats aggregator that distinguished between the various charge rates (50, 150, 175 and 350kW)
Top Gear magazine:
Autocar magazine:
Auto Express magazine:
CCS is at 4,200 DCFCs in the EU parts of Europe atm. Ionity are only one of the 350kW roll-out groups. 350kW chargers started going live last November.
What would be *really* useful would be a CCS stats aggregator that distinguished between the various charge rates (50, 150, 175 and 350kW)
I read these items, and will answer them:
The wheel sizes are 18", 20", 22". 22" is optional.
The battery capacity according to the Owner's Manual is 84.7 kWh.
The documentation of the specifications is often incomplete or utterly wrong. Think about the pre-release range of 200 miles for the Chevrolet Bolt EV, which is actually 238 miles at release. Both used LG Chem engineers in the development loop.
The 240 miles of EPA range might be a poor translation. There is no EPA range first off. And 80% keeps popping up again and again. If that 240 is 80% that means 300 miles of 100% charge range which lines up with the WLTP filing of 480km.
The wheel sizes are 18", 20", 22". 22" is optional.
The battery capacity according to the Owner's Manual is 84.7 kWh.
The documentation of the specifications is often incomplete or utterly wrong. Think about the pre-release range of 200 miles for the Chevrolet Bolt EV, which is actually 238 miles at release. Both used LG Chem engineers in the development loop.
The 240 miles of EPA range might be a poor translation. There is no EPA range first off. And 80% keeps popping up again and again. If that 240 is 80% that means 300 miles of 100% charge range which lines up with the WLTP filing of 480km.
