Energy consumption - Page 2 - Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 03:31 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 167
No dice. Apparently they can't (don't/won't?) repair chips that are in the black painted section of the windshield like it is for me. Will have to call Jaguar for a price quote. Oh well, it was worth a try. Thanks again for the suggestion, McRat.

HSE | Caesium Blue/Siena Tan | 20" Style 5068 wheels | Received 01/09/2019
ryzvy is offline  
post #12 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 04:06 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 368
I always recommend getting full glass coverage. I have a zero dollar deductible on glass and it has saved me a ton of money here in Denver. It adds a few bucks a month but last year alone I replaced the windshield on my X5 3 times! Each time it was 100% covered.
Dantrium and ryzvy like this.
sgtpeper is online now  
post #13 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 104
In California, a lot of insurance companies pay for the rock chip repair, no deductible as it saves them more than the cost of replacing the windshield. So you might want to check your insurance to get reimbursed.
alphanstein is online now  
Sponsored Links
post #14 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 06:25 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 131
I haven’t found a company in CA yet that offers no-deductible glass coverage. I had that when I lived in AZ and we ended up using it about every other year because there are rocks all over the place.

Soon after moving to CA I had to replace the windshield on my A6 twice in 8 days. Because of all the systems that have to be calibrated that was not a pleasant experience.
CyberSlug is online now  
post #15 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 06:34 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 104
Not no-deductible windshield replacement, it is no-deductible rock chip repair. This is different and why you want to get a rock chip repaired asap to eliminate having to pay a deductible and replace the windshield.

I have done a couple of rock chip repairs myself though thru the years, the kit is like $10 on Amazon and takes about 25-30 minutes on a nice dry day. Both times it just leaves a small looking pin prick in the glass and saves the hassle of trying to get someone to fix it and talk to the insurance company.
alphanstein is online now  
post #16 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 07:20 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 131
Yep, I currently have the no-deductible chip coverage, and have used that a few times as well. I was referring to sgtpeper’s comment about the no-deductible glass coverage he has in CO.
CyberSlug is online now  
post #17 of 17 (permalink) Old 02-16-2019, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
sciencegeek's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 1,056
Alrighty folks this is just a friendly reminder that the title of the thread is "Energy consumption" and not "Chip coverage"

Yesterday I drove back and forth from Stanford to Walnut Creek, almost identical trips. See screenshot.

Bottom line: I also see a mismatch between %age of battery used and the consumption reported for the 'journey' [kWh/100 miles], resulting in considerably lower estimates of usable battery capacity: For both legs of the trip the implied battery capacity was ca. 74 kWh.

If I assume 84 kWh capacity and take the SoC difference at face value, I get ca. 50 kWh/100miles. That's a lot worse than the reported 36 kWh/100miles.

The end of the first 'journey' (which is the same as the beginning of the second 'journey') is at 50% SoC; the percentage used was 29 or 30. The kWh/100 miles figures are also very close. In other words, none of the estimates seem to depend on higher (first journey) vs. lower (second journey) SoC, and do not imply that the SoC estimate is off.

This is puzzling. My best guess is that the SoC estimate is pretty good and that the kWh/100 miles is off and gives us an optimistic estimate. Evidence in favor of this idea is this: Both trips involved about 80% of the miles driven at between 65 and 80 mph. I can't believe that the average consumption was 36 kWh/100miles. 36 kWh/100miles is almost exactly my long-term average, which is dominated by commute miles. The calculated ca. 50 kWh/100miles is much more realistic for that trip yesterday.

I believe that JLR's calculation of the average rate of consumption makes a rookie mistake: averaging the rate as a function of time, instead of miles driven. Additional evidence for that hypothesis is the fact that the real time estimates of consumption [kWh/100miles] rapidly decrease after driving many miles at high speed and then driving a few miles at lower speeds. I will put that to an actual test some time this weekend.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	temp.png
Views:	56
Size:	177.4 KB
ID:	1337  
fedorachef likes this.
sciencegeek is online now  

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AAA analysis of HVAC consumption sciencegeek 2018+ I-Pace EV Batteries And Charging 0 02-08-2019 02:32 PM
Regen efficiency on downhill vs energy used for uphill sciencegeek 2018+ I-Pace EV Batteries And Charging 3 02-05-2019 01:43 AM
Jaguar I-Pace consumption test TeslaOwner 2018+ Jaguar I-Pace EV 400 General Discussion 15 08-28-2018 04:47 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome