H264. Not a Codec. Or an improvement? (The Range Enhancement Program)

Back in September 2018 rumours started going around the I-Pace community about an upcoming software update that would improve the range of the vehicle. Subsequently as this was released to the dealers the details of the update, reference H264, were released. According to the release notes this update ' will be provided free of charge and will deliver up to 8% range improvement.' Specifically ' Changes to the torque distribution of the permanent all-wheel-drive system will deliver greater efficiency when driving in ECO mode, while refinements to thermal management control will see the active radiator vanes close more often to enhance aerodynamics. The battery will also run to a lower state of charge than previously without affecting drive-ability, durability or performance ' and ' the racing-derived enhancements, analysis of real-world data has enabled us to recalibrate the Regenerative Braking system to harvest energy more efficiently when the battery is in a high state of charge and recover more energy at lower speeds.'

All sounds brilliant. It also stated ' Changes to the predictive range calculation algorithm will deliver a more accurate and consistent estimate of vehicle range, while being more reflective of an individual's driving style.'

As this update began to roll-out (to those who requested it as, at time of writing I don't believe this is being offered globally), drivers were reporting improvements in the range, based mainly on the GOM (Guess-O-Meter) but also with some real-world comparisons. All, in ECO mode.

In parallel i'd been keeping up to date on the versions of the software available via SOTA (Software over the air) and had installed version 19b of the infotainment software, which included the introduction of a new feature which showed how much current battery you had and what you were expected to have at your destination, when using Sat Nav. Very useful and something that had definitely been missing up until then.

I was one of the early adopters of 19b. So id had a few weeks of getting used to that before the car went in for H264. I also didn't get time to run the car on a decent journey with H264 before 19c came out. 

Sorry if that's a lot of background but it's a complex thing to explain.

So, my observations.. Prior to the update I hadn't really used ECO mode as it seemed to make very little difference. Post update it may have made a small difference to the range but without much actual data from before, I don't know how much. However, the GOM has now settled around a sort-of realistic 220 Miles where before it had always read 201. Interestingly, my overall average efficiency gives a theoretical range of 196 miles.

What I do know is that driving on cruise control in ECO mode is harder. The default gap to vehicle in front increases from 3 to 4 between Comfort and ECO mode. No doubt in an effort to reduce the uneconomical effects of harsh braking and acceleration. You can reduce the gap setting back again but even then, in ECO mode the car is reluctant to accelerate after a vehicle in front. The result is a constant stream of cars pulling in the gap and slowing you down even further and frustrating those behind. Unless the motorway is quiet, I find ECO mode to be more frustrating than useful.

Also, before H264, the 'State of Charge at destination' in the sat nav screen was useful. It wasn't 100% accurate but it was out on the side of pessimism. Typically, the final destination SoC was 5% to 10% under what the eventual result was. After the updates, the SoC at the destination is out by up to 30% optimistic. Meaning, I can't trust it or use it. For example, I left on a journey recently that had a destination at a charger.

When I programmed my destination with 100% battery it said I would arrive with 28% remaining. That's a total, predicted energy consumption of 60.5kWh for 176 miles. Equating to an average consumption of 34.3kWh/100miles when my average is 43.8! 

As you can see from this series of photographs, that estimate even increased to 31% after the first 30 miles of the journey and was still showing 26% with 80 miles (less than half) of the journey remaining. From then on the estimate rapidly reduced, losing 10% in the next 50 miles traveled. 

The final result being 8% of battery remaining. This means that the consumption for the journey was 76kWh. An average of 43.4kWh/100 miles. Almost identical to my ongoing average.

Where is this estimate coming from? It makes no sense. How can the Estimated State of Charge be out by so much? In this case it was predicting a total consumption of 60.5 vs 76 kWh, a whopping 25% out.

One further observation, with no actual evidence... It feels like the regen on the pedal, the effect you get from one pedal driving, is now reduced at all but very low speeds and more initial regen has been put into the brake pedal. This might be to improve smoothness of the transition from regen to friction braking but it seems a backward step for the one pedal driving. My lack of evidence only backed up by me having to re-calibrate my expected stopping distances when using only regen and having to use the brake pedal more, with the regen only maxing out with the initial press of the brake pedal.

Overall, just personally, I see H264 as a retrograde step. I'd love to get a JLR official response to this.