No improvement with H264

Faults and Technical chat for the Jaguar I-Pace
Gegaal
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:34 pm
Location: Amersfoort

No improvement with H264

Post by Gegaal » Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:34 pm

On Christmas eve my car failed big time and had to be towed to the dealer. I got it back on the 31st with all updates, incl the H264 and two new batteries.

Anyway, I hoped for a range improvement but didn’t notice anything, actually it looks like range became worse.

Before the garage visit I would see something like an avg. consumption of 22kwh/100km, now I am happy to see something like 25.3kwh/100km. Note that the first 30/35km of the trips, the avg consumption consistently is above 30kwh/100miles which is also unusual.

Interestingly, were the gom is far to optimistic, if I compare the SoC% with the kwh/100km figures these seem to be pretty much in alignment.

Temp is around 7 degrees C. Trip distance is between 40-85km. Avg speed, around 85-90km.

Below pictures show the result for a trip after being fully charged.

Anything I missed, was my previous kwh/100miles to optimistic maybe?

6A18345E-9A0E-4837-B1D9-FDA54702113F.jpeg

7181B304-7619-40F4-8526-701447B913E9.jpeg


User avatar
Koala
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:40 pm
Location: Germany - Bavaria

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by Koala » Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:51 pm

As far as I got the Jaguar information right, H264 does mainly two things: Frist there are some optimizations for the ECO mode (e.g. torque split) that would actually lower your consumption, but no so for the Comfort mode. Second, and more important for the 8% range extension is, that Jaguar moved the "0 km" from a (true) battery charge level of ~4.5% down to ~2.5%. So now the car reports 0 KM range when there is actually 2.5% capacity left rather then 4.5% before. It's more a GOM calculation "improvement" then a real range improvement.
There has been a video link posted in this forum of a JLR engineer presenting / discussing this with a group of IPace owners in Norway, where this has been explained.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2961&p=40842&hilit= ... deo#p40842
(from min 31:00 it's about H264)
My experience with current temperatures around freezing is as well close to 30kWh/100KM consumption at Autobahn speed.
2019 I-Pace S, Firenze Red, Light Oyster Interieur, Acitve Air suspension, 18" Diamond turned Wheels.
InControl: 19C_19.46.4-458817| Telematics: 17.2 | > 35.000 KM of happy I-Pace driving since March 14th, 2019

Billy Bunter
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:27 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by Billy Bunter » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:11 pm

I’ve done a few longer trips (without H264) and notice:
- during first hour or so of the journey, I “lose” range compared to the GOM (ie I leave home with a GOM estimate that gives me 100km margin, but it slowly reduces down to about 40km)
- after about an hour, the GOM is very reliable for the remainder of the journey and remains steady at a margin of 40km

Driving conditions didn’t change.
What did change was that there was no preconditioning, so I suspect that getting the battery up to temperature takes about 50km of my range during the first 30-60 minutes of the journey.

Could preconditioning (or not) be an explanation for your observations ? (especially your increased consumption during the first 30-35km — this is exactly what I see / pre H264)
SE, Firenze Red, Black Pack & Black 20” wheels, Air Suspention, HUD, ACC, DAB+

User avatar
ELray
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:02 am
Location: Norway

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by ELray » Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:51 am

After the h264 update the car must re-learn your driving style, so you need to give it some time to give you a more accurate presumption. However the GOM is wat GOM do, it’s a guessometer dependent on several data inputs.
Unless you set a departure time in your car (not to be confused with precondition), your car use lots of energy to get the battery temperature up.
And as said above, unless you drive in ECO mode, there is little to gain.
🇳🇴 Norway
:arrow: I-Pace S Edition X590 (19MY)
:arrow: Build date: 1 Feb 2019 | Delivered: 15 March 2019
⚙️ H264: 06.01.20
⚙️ Telematics: 16.2
⚙️ InControl(updOTA:13.12.19): 19C_19.46.4-458817
⚙️ BECS: Unknown
⚙️ Maps(upd:06.02.20): 08.030.0104.0157

FENorway
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:06 am
Location: Norge

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by FENorway » Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:19 am

Koala wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:51 pm
Second, and more important for the 8% range extension is, that Jaguar moved the "0 km" from a (true) battery charge level of ~4.5% down to ~2.5%. So now the car reports 0 KM range when there is actually 2.5% capacity left rather then 4.5% before. It's more a GOM calculation "improvement" then a real range improvement.
This change of setpoint is in addition to the 8% and will boost GOM-range with 5-8 km.
The "up to" 8% is an actual improvement ffrom 100% until the car stops. Or in other words 8% lower consumption.
What Audi did with the e-tron was making more of the battery available and in that way extend the range.
Best conditions for having 8% more range is cold weather and ECO-mode. But thats bad conditions for long range :D
Several posts here in Norway shows impressive range/consumption even at -10/15 degrees after H264. 23,5kwh/100km over 250 kms with 1000 meters climb in -10 @74km/h is an example.
FE Corris grey light oyster/light oyster Performance 22" 5069 & 18" 19C_19.46.4-458817 and 18.2

Gegaal
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:34 pm
Location: Amersfoort

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by Gegaal » Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:08 pm

I’ll will need to do some more testing.

Right now it looks like the GOM is to optimistic. It still reports almost 400km were the avg. consumption is around 3.9km/kwh. If so, a realistic GOM would than be 81*3.9 is 315. This matches pretty well with my pre-H264 GOM which was 320.

As mentioned above, the SoC% matches well with the presented avg consumption (kwh/100km).

For the record, total km driven since 264 is about 450. Temp around 7 degrees, avg speed around 90.

Thank you all who responded, appreciated.

MvM
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by MvM » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:13 pm

It's now two weeks since I got the H264 update.
Have driven about 900 km so far and, on average, I seem to be getting around 20-25 km more range on a full charge.
Before H264, the GOM showed around 340 km of range, now it shows around 370-380 km/range. I think that is OK for this time of year.

Have not really been able to test consumption. For the last two weeks, traffic was fairly light and, to be honest, I have been using that to drive at (much) higher speeds than I usually do, so consumption is much higher than. But even after driving strechtes of highway at speeds of 140-150 km/u, I need only 10-20 on secondary roads to get consumption below 30 kWh/100 km.

Tomorrow I will be leaving for Germany, long trip of 700 km ahead with girlfriend and kids. Will be a good time to test the long range consumption.

User avatar
NightFox
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:36 pm
Location: Shropshire, UK

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by NightFox » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:26 am

ELray wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:51 am
Unless you set a departure time in your car (not to be confused with precondition), your car use lots of energy to get the battery temperature up.
Is this right? Does the car actively increase the battery temperature (which would seem to be very inefficient for short trips), or does the temperature of the battery just increase naturally as a physical consequence of discharge?

Also, I'm still not clear on the difference between setting a departure time and preconditioning (with the car plugged in) - some people seem to think that preconditioning only heats/cools the interior and doesn't precondition the battery, others say it does also precondition the battery (the same as setting a departure time) - is there a common consensus yet?

User avatar
ELray
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:02 am
Location: Norway

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by ELray » Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:46 pm

NightFox wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:26 am
Is this right? Does the car actively increase the battery temperature (which would seem to be very inefficient for short trips), or does the temperature of the battery just increase naturally as a physical consequence of discharge?

Also, I'm still not clear on the difference between setting a departure time and preconditioning (with the car plugged in) - some people seem to think that preconditioning only heats/cools the interior and doesn't precondition the battery, others say it does also precondition the battery (the same as setting a departure time) - is there a common consensus yet?
It’s my understanding that the car will heat the battery while driving if it’s cold and that preconditioning the battery before driving only happens if you set a departure time, and the car is plugged in.
🇳🇴 Norway
:arrow: I-Pace S Edition X590 (19MY)
:arrow: Build date: 1 Feb 2019 | Delivered: 15 March 2019
⚙️ H264: 06.01.20
⚙️ Telematics: 16.2
⚙️ InControl(updOTA:13.12.19): 19C_19.46.4-458817
⚙️ BECS: Unknown
⚙️ Maps(upd:06.02.20): 08.030.0104.0157

GoneNuts

Re: No improvement with H264

Post by GoneNuts » Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:29 pm

ELray wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:46 pm
It’s my understanding that the car will heat the battery while driving if it’s cold and that preconditioning the battery before driving only happens if you set a departure time, and the car is plugged in.
ELray is correct. Battery preconditioning happens when you have a departure time set and the car is plugged in. Unplugged, a departure time will bring the interior to your desired temperature. Using WattCat, I see that with the car plugged in and a departure time set, the battery loses no kWh. Unplugged the car loses 2-3 kWh to warm/cool the interior. 3 kWh equates to 5 or 6 lost miles so it's inefficient for short trips.

Post Reply