There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about 100kW charging, but it's difficult to know what the current (!) status is; and you can't search for "100 kW"...
As far as I am aware from reading lots of posts over the last few months, it seems that many of you have charged at around 80kW, but there is some sort of limit of 200A, but I'm not clear whether this is a limit of the car or the charger. Much talk of software updates promising 100kW charging. Mention of needing water-cooled cables on the charger. And lots of talk of problems with chargers generally.
There was a video posted recently (which I can no longer find) showing someone getting 97kW from a Honda charger - but it seemed to taper off very rapidly to c80kW at c25% SoC (all these figures from memory).
So, my question to current owners who have access to super-rapid chargers which should be capable of 100kW or more, is:
"What sustained charging rate can you routinely achieve, between, say 20% and 70% SoC?" Or, perhaps more usefully, how fast have you managed to recharge from 20% to 80% SoC?
By the nature of these forums, there are more posts reporting problems than successes. So please don't use this thread to report specific issues such as cutting out after a few minutes or being unable to charge at more than 30kW. I'm trying to establish what is routinely possible when everything is working as it should.
Went to a Fastned 175 kWh charger today and got 81kWh, all the way from 12% to 80%. But also charging at 81kWh leaves barely enough time to eat a sandwich and drink some coffee..
Question remains: is it the I-Pace or the charger? Earier tried an Allego 175 kWh charger, and did not even start charging. Hopefully will try an Allego 175kWh charger soon..
You have to wait until Fastned and Allego also have released their new software for their 175kW chargers.
This is still work in progress. At the moment Fastned (ABB chargers) is limited to 200A, due to a software glitch they are fixing at the moment. I would not be surprised if you also have to go back to Jaguar for yet another H159 update to get 100kW really working.
See the message from Roland van der Put on the Fastned Twitter.
I watched the latest Fully Charged episode today on Fastned chargers. Fastned said that the ipace can only currently manage 80kw charging but expect a software update to 100 kw soon. So that pretty much answer it I think.
I watched the latest Fully Charged episode today on Fastned chargers. Fastned said that the ipace can only currently manage 80kw charging but expect a software update to 100 kw soon. So that pretty much answer it I think.
Went to a Fastned 175 kWh charger today and got 81kWh, all the way from 12% to 80%. But also charging at 81kWh leaves barely enough time to eat a sandwich and drink some coffee..
First time, as far as I am aware, that charge speed of 81kWh has been maintained upto 80% SOC. Before this H159 V3 update charge speed dropped off beyond 50% SOC. So this is quite positive and just AS importantl as pushing max charging rate to 100 kWh
Went to a Fastned 175 kWh charger today and got 81kWh, all the way from 12% to 80%. But also charging at 81kWh leaves barely enough time to eat a sandwich and drink some coffee..
First time, as far as I am aware, that charge speed of 81kWh has been maintained upto 80% SOC. Before this H159 V3 update charge speed dropped off beyond 50% SOC. So this is quite positive and just AS importantl as pushing max charging rate to 100 kWh
"Both cannot and can not are acceptable spellings. There's no difference in meaning between cannot and can not. but the cannot is much more usual. They do mean the same thing, but common usage over time has made one form more "usual" than the other (namely cannot )......"
Can't is also ok, it's just an abbreviation, though the general rule for such abbreviations is that they are best avoided in written english, unless quoting what someone has said. However, it's becoming common to use such written abbreviations informally in emails and internet forums etc, so I would conclude that all 3 forms are acceptable in this context.
cannot
can not
can't
Sigh. No, they're not the same. "can not" indicates an abilty to choose not to do something (I can go ice-skating or I can not go ice-skating), whereas "cannot" indicates an inabilty to do something (I cannot go ice-skating because the rink is closed - no choice). The reason "cannot" is the more usual form is because it's the more usual meaning - if you use "cannot" you'll be correct probably at least 99% of the time - use "can not" and you'll be wrong 99% of the time.
"Both cannot and can not are acceptable spellings. There's no difference in meaning between cannot and can not. but the cannot is much more usual. They do mean the same thing, but common usage over time has made one form more "usual" than the other (namely cannot )......"
Can't is also ok, it's just an abbreviation, though the general rule for such abbreviations is that they are best avoided in written english, unless quoting what someone has said. However, it's becoming common to use such written abbreviations informally in emails and internet forums etc, so I would conclude that all 3 forms are acceptable in this context.
cannot
can not
can't
I beg to differ, BillyB. As someone else pointed out previously on another thread, "can not" is NOT interchangeable with cannot=can't. For instance, Donald Tusk could say to the UK: "You can not leave the EU". This does not mean the same as "You cannot leave the EU". The first is true - the UK could choose to reverse the process. The second is, sadly, far from true.
But as the OP, can I repeat a plea to return to the topic? :roll:
Went to a Fastned 175 kWh charger today and got 81kWh, all the way from 12% to 80%. But also charging at 81kWh leaves barely enough time to eat a sandwich and drink some coffee..
I watched the latest Fully Charged episode today on Fastned chargers. Fastned said that the ipace can only currently manage 80kw charging but expect a software update to 100 kw soon. So that pretty much answer it I think.
The Audi e-tron seems to charge at Fastned at 150 kW with 375 Ampere without any problems. So why is the I-PACE limited to 200 Ampere at the same 175 kW Fastned stalls?
I watched the latest Fully Charged episode today on Fastned chargers. Fastned said that the ipace can only currently manage 80kw charging but expect a software update to 100 kw soon. So that pretty much answer it I think.
I meant both: both ABB (supplier of Fastned fast chargers) and Jaguar will issue software updates soon to really enable 100kW fast charging with the i-Pace. See the messages by Roland van der Put, Fastned CTO, on Twitter and website. Also referred in recent Fully Charged episode about Fastned.
I meant both: both ABB (supplier of Fastned fast chargers) and Jaguar will issue software updates soon to really enable 100kW fast charging with the i-Pace. See the messages by Roland van der Put, Fastned CTO, on Twitter and website. Also referred in recent Fully Charged episode about Fastned.
Hopefully Jaguar take notice of the results that Audi and TM3 has shown and enables 300A. But appearently noone at JLR is connected to the internet so they dont know about other cars..
They do but there seems to be an issue with the CCS2 protocol that has lead to multiple different interpretations of how data messages between car and charger have to be defined. They are fixing this at the moment.
It seems that Audi and Tesla have understood the CCS2 protocol specs right from the start, while Jaguar and ABB didn't and now have to do some fixes.
They do but there seems to be an issue with the CCS2 protocol that has lead to multiple different interpretations of how data messages between car and charger have to be defined. They are fixing this at the moment.
It seems that Audi and Tesla have understood the CCS2 protocol specs right from the start, while Jaguar and ABB didn't and now have to do some fixes.
It's great that Tesla are being so open on this and should help on the CCS standard. It should be noted that the iPace and Tesla have different battery management and would have to communicate this differently to the charger.
When I was at the Cenex low carbon vehicle event I was told by an engineer from one of the charging manufacturers (I won't name as I don't want to get him in trouble) that he wouldn't call CCS a standard and in particular the handshake seemed poorly defined with a few examples written by the early signatories to match their vehicles. He didn't seem impressed at all. Hopefully we will start to see some maturity shortly.
Thanks Garryjw. See: the issue is that CCS is not really a fully defined standard (yet). Crazy but true... Hope the CCS consortium will fix this issue soon.
Noone who's doing a roadtrip this weekend and trying to get 100kw?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Jaguar I-Pace Forum
101.4K posts
7.5K members
Since 2016
A forum community dedicated to the Jaguar I-Pace owners and electric SUV enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!