Yes it's not good till you've done about 15miles in to a journey from my experience.

 

I can report similar results to AJ in my first 1,200 miles of driving. I just do the math rather than rely on the estimated range meter.

 

As mentioned above I’ve been driving my SE since the beginning of April and have established a methodology for calculating miles against percentage charge using the Mini App charging data combined with recorded mileage. Out of interest I’ve gone back through the data to see what effect the weather has had on the results. Here’s a summary of the findings:

1. April was unusually cold/frosty here in the UK with a mean temperature in England of below 6℃ and daytime temperatures that rarely rose above 10℃. During this period the Mini returned 120-125 miles per 100% charge.

2. Official figures haven’t yet been published but mean temperatures during the first three weeks or so of May only rose by a few degrees and the car returned between 125-135 miles per 100% charge.

3. Summer finally arrived towards the end of May with daytime temperatures since then hovering around 20℃. This resulted in a corresponding range increase to 155-160 miles per 100% charge.

All of this is pretty much in line with data published by the more authoritative sections of the motoring press but I find it comforting that my own experience is comparable. It also helps confirm the scientific data which suggests that Li-ion batteries perform best at temperatures between 15℃ and 35℃.

Returning to my range predictor (GOM) hobby horse I reset mine about 10 days ago and it’s currently predicting 52 miles on a charge of 59%. This immediately rises to 63 miles if I turn on green mode at start-up. As far as I’m concerned this is patent nonsense based on actual performance so I’ll continue to judge range based on % charge and ambient temperature with appropriate allowance for driving conditions. I really don’t understand why the GOM can’t be programmed to do something similar. I thought computers were supposed to obviate the need for mental arithmetic although it helps to keep the brain active I suppose. Incidentally I’ve never found outside temperature gauges on cars to be particularly useful until now!

Alan

 

Yes I can pretty much agree with all your findings. I'm just approaching my first 1000 miles of mostly short local trips and the odd longer one up to 30 miles away or so. As you say I have found that temperature is the most defining range changer.

 

I think you’re spot on with the GOM. I’m coming up to six months of ownership and I have a good feel for what I can do based on % charge rather than range. I’ve also found that running the tires at Ecco pressure has no real noticeable difference to range when journey distance is relatively short. The pressure may have a different effect for a long journey but no chance yet to try it.

 

I usually run my tyre pressures at 2.4 bar front and 2.2 rear but this time of year the weather is becoming warmer and warmer. When you drive it they are up to 2.6/2.4 and above in no time. So the warmer it gets the more ECO they become

 

WE've got our tyres on eco setting -simply because it hardly feels any different and I couldn't therefore be bothered to drop them after our long trip-as I've posted-I've no previous but in mild but not warm weather the car returned home after 100 mile trip -50 on green plus, and at 50mph and the home journey at 60 mph green plus-with 33% left on the battery range. Just done a 20mile round trip this am and the range went from 94 at the start to 91 at the finish-at the fastest I could travel given the traffic-ie 45mph average on our lovely(!) Lincs roads for my second jab! The more I drive this car the more impressed I am-still!

 

Just done a 20mile round trip this am and the range went from 94 at the start to 91 at the finish ......

That's a perfect illustration of my problem with the GOM. When setting off on a 20 mile journey I'm looking for a reasonable estimation of range so I'd be expecting to see something like 111 at the start and 91 at the finish. 94 and 91 makes no sense to my simple brain.

What I find even more irritating is that the computer seems to have the information needed to make good guesses. When I reset the GOM 11 days ago the reset also cleared the kWh/100km record which now reads 12.2. This equates to a full charge range of 146 miles and that corresponds well with my historic charge/mileage/temperature calculations for the same period. If I can work it out why can't the GOM which currently shows 49% charge and a range of 50 miles?

Still love the car by the way.

Alan

 

I've no experience of P7s but different tyres can definitely cause more or less road noise. Hard to say in this case when the only significant noises from an SE in motion are created by airflow and tyres. I'm ignoring the milk float whine at low speeds when the windows are open of course!

I'm dubious about running tyres at consistently high (eco) pressures. Surely this leads to uneven wear and reduced tyre life? Seems a high price to pay for a very limited improvement in range. Also I'd rather have the increased grip available from tyres set to standard pressures especially in wet conditions.

Alan

 

The following image is an extract from Mini’s technical data sheet showing the L2 figures for range and consumption:

The two weighted consumption figures both equate to a full charge range of about 115 miles as opposed to the heavily caveated WLTP figure which is considerably higher. No idea what’s ‘weighted’ by the way. My theory is that the Mini Electric’s GOM uses the 115 figure as the baseline for its range calculations and most importantly takes no account of changes to ambient temperature. In other words the 115 mile baseline seems to assume that the Mini Electric will always be driven in climates with an average temperature at, or just above, freezing.

Although the old NEDC testing regime was widely discredited for being unrelated to real world driving conditions the WLTP tests do seem to make a better fist of the job and yet Mini choose to ignore them. Interestingly WLTP assessments are conducted at two different ambient temperatures (14℃ and 23℃) and the results are then combined when compiling the statistics. Here in the UK average daytime temperatures vary between about 9 and 19℃ depending on the time of year so overall I wouldn’t expect to match the WLTP data and my experience thus far suggests a full charge range between 125 and 160 miles depending on the weather.

As previously mentioned it’s well established that Li-ion battery performance is relatively poor when temperatures are at or below freezing but improves steadily up to a plateau when temperatures reach 15℃ or above. I think Mini is shooting itself in the proverbial foot by designing a GOM that apparently takes no account of this most significant determinant of range ie, ambient temperature. To make matters worse the GOM appears to ignore the car’s own record of kWhr consumption for a particular driver profile. Notwithstanding the fact that the Mini Electric isn’t aimed at the driver who regularly travels long distances there must be a significant number of new owners who are disappointed by the range figures presented by the GOM. Certainly when I made the decision to purchase it was partly based upon the assumption (from research) that I would still be able to comfortably undertake occasional longer trips with a bit of forward planning. If I believed the GOM (which I don’t) I’d be disappointed. Not good for business in my view.

I really do think BMW/Mini should redesign the GOM software so that it properly takes account of ambient temperature and historic performance. Obviously some contingency needs to be built in as nobody wants customers suffering unexpectedly dead batteries. On that note I rest my case and will try not to bang on about the GOM in future!

Alan

 

Well ours sat there in the heat yesterday and range went up from 91 to 94 miles with 85%charge from am to pm. It does seem to a bit. Not noticed increased noise but will be watchingv tyre wear tho I am not going to pump the tyres up,rather simply let them settle back to standard. Unlessx we need a long journey .

 

Well ours sat there in the heat yesterday and range went up from 91 to 94 miles with 85%charge from am to pm. It does seem to a bit.

Interesting although it's not something I've observed when the car's been idle. Problem is I've stopped taking much notice of the GOM recently!

Alan

 

Just finished a week of commuting on one charge, 132 miles covered and 16% battery left when I plugged in last night. I stopped watching the GOM ages ago but even from a full charge it only ever gave a couple of miles above the battery state. Even after being unplugged this morning it only showed 107miles range.

I’m obviously getting good range on a charge but it’s not reflected in the GOMs predicted range!! It’s about the only thing I feel let’s the car down.

 

Just finished a week of commuting on one charge, 132 miles covered and 16% battery left when I plugged in last night.

That equates to a full charge range of 157 miles which is in line with my own results during this spell of warm weather when using green mode.

Alan

 

Have you considered the gom doesn't include the range that mini include with their 140 mile claimed which includes 15% regen value? I'm guessing that can't be added to the gom so it's only giving you driving range with battery state not factoring road conditions etc just your previous driving style.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

Have you considered the gom doesn't include the range that mini include with their 140 mile claimed which includes 15% regen value? I'm guessing that can't be added to the gom so it's only giving you driving range with battery state not factoring road conditions etc just your previous driving style.

I've done 1,000 miles in the SE and wish the GOM did take account of previous driving style or any other historic factors for that matter. Logically previous driving style would reflect regenerative braking patterns of course. I wouldn't expect the software to be able to accurately predict future driving conditions but overall past performance would be a good starting point. To my mind it's nonsensical that the GOM ignores the computer's own record of past range performance (kWhr/100km) and the ambient temperature. By the way the historic kWhr/100km figure is accessible via the button on the end of the indicator stalk if anyone hasn't found it yet.

My views about the GOM are unchanged (ie, it's useless) as set out in post #12.

Alan

 

I think that would be a good assumption at 100% but would expect some adjustments as you drive. It doesn’t really seem to do that, but if it’s averaged over the 5000 miles the car has done then maybe these are very small adjustments 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

The dealer reset the GOM before I picked it up at which point it was reading 140 miles. The highest I've seen it go since then was a few days ago when it was reading 117 miles at 100%. In general it normally reads around 1 mile per percent of charge.

 

Exactly and I would imagine that you're achieving more like 1.5 miles for each percent at current ambient temperatures.

Alan

 

Just a note about calculating the SE’s cost per mile in terms of energy usage. On the face of it this is simply a case of taking the unit electricity price and dividing it by the car’s displayed miles/kWhr consumption figure. For example if the electricity costs 16p per kWhr and the Mini Electric is displaying 4 miles/kWhr then the cost per mile would be 4p. Unfortunately this approach assumes 100% efficiency in terms of energy transfer to the battery from the point at which the electricity is metered. In reality this does not happen. Losses (largely in the form of heat) occur in the wiring, during the electronic processing and as a result of the chemical changes within the battery. Although the Mini App gives some clues it’s not realistic to think in terms of calculating the exact value of the losses for a particular charging cycle because of the number of variables involved but somewhere between 10 and 15% is probably about right. This means that the real cost per mile in the earlier example may well be between 4.4 and 4.6p. Preconditioning also adds to the cost of charging of course as the energy used doesn’t end up in the battery but is still being metered at the supply. Another factor that’s sometimes overlooked is that many energy companies quote headline domestic unit rates exclusive of VAT (5%) so it’s important to use the gross figure.

Alan

PS Thinking about it a smart meter might help in assessing the actual cost of a charging cycle but I don't have one yet so don't really know.

 

Just a note about calculating the SE’s cost per mile in terms of energy usage. On the face of it this is simply a case of taking the unit electricity price and dividing it by the car’s displayed miles/kWhr consumption figure. For example if the electricity costs 16p per kWhr and the Mini Electric is displaying 4 miles/kWhr then the cost per mile would be 4p. Unfortunately this approach assumes 100% efficiency in terms of energy transfer to the battery from the point at which the electricity is metered. In reality this does not happen. Losses (largely in the form of heat) occur in the wiring, during the electronic processing and as a result of the chemical changes within the battery. Although the Mini App gives some clues it’s not realistic to think in terms of calculating the exact value of the losses for a particular charging cycle because of the number of variables involved but somewhere between 10 and 15% is probably about right. This means that the real cost per mile in the earlier example may well be between 4.4 and 4.6p. Preconditioning also adds to the cost of charging of course as the energy used doesn’t end up in the battery but is still being metered at the supply. Another factor that’s sometimes overlooked is that many energy companies quote headline domestic unit rates exclusive of VAT (5%) so it’s important to use the gross figure.

Alan

PS Thinking about it a smart meter might help in assessing the actual cost of a charging cycle but I don't have one yet so don't really know.

I don't know which charger you use or which supplier but I have installed a zappi 2 charger that gives you charge details with kWh delivered to vehicle and I'm on octopus go and if your on that I highly recommend an app on Android store(maybe on iOS) called octopus watch and if you pay the subscription fee you get very detailed actual usage. It's worth the £8.99 per year as it has loads of great information in the history once you set it all up. Makes working out your costs rather simple but really nice too even letting you know how the energy was produced ie wind, solar etc etc

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

I stay safe .note the miles travelled charge up then kw x price etc I also convert to equivalent mpg based on fuel price in my spreadsheet. 160-180 mpg in general! Excel does it all once set up.

 

My spreadsheet is still under development as I learn more about running the car. I'm a slow learner!

Alan

 

I'm not allowing for that-bit like saying petrol has expanded or shrunk in the tank surely-of very little signifance-what goes in is what it costs me ie what the charger has put in is what is on my bill and my cost and what the car costs to run.

 

I don't fundamentally disagree with you about the general significance of Ohmic losses between the meter and the charging point although it does depend on your definition of significant. However the main purpose of my original post was to highlight the various losses that occur between the supplier's meter and the point at which the car's computer assesses consumption. When taken together the losses are significant in terms of calculating the running costs of the vehicle. By recording energy consumption at the charging point you are of course getting a much more accurate indication of actual costs.

Alan

 

I record the actual kWh supplied by my charger which accurately reflects the usage provided by my energy supplier (Octopus). I am on the 5p Go Faster tariff with the 8:30pm start time for 4 hours (which means the washer, dryer and dishwasher are all on after 8:30pm). I have a spreadsheet in which I track all the kWh used, pence per kWh rates and work out my costs. Overall using my home wall box at 5p (and 14p before I switched to the cheap rate), plus some free charging, and some public charges at 12p / 15p / 18p per kWh, my average cost per mile is coming out at 1.72p

At the 5p rate my cost per mile in the summer is just under 1p per mile, in the winter when the miles per kWh is reduced it is probably more like 1.4p per mile.

 

Me too not the car!

 

From what I can gather, the buffer is at the bottom to prevent the battery from hitting absolute zero.

EVs Explained: Battery Capacity, Gross Versus Net

Automakers quote their EV battery capacities in kilowatt-hours, but be careful when comparing across makers: not all capacities are the same.

www.caranddriver.com

 

There is a buffer at the top and bottom of the battery. The bottom buffer is always full (obviously) to prevent discharging the battery completely. The top buffer is never used and never gets any charge, this is to ensure the battery is never fully charged which would cause damage over time. We don’t know what the actual top and bottom buffer sizes are, but usually the top buffer is bigger as people are more likely to charge fully rather than completely discharge their battery. Unlike the reserve tank on an ICE car the owner has no access to the charge in the bottom buffer. There are some losses in the charging process but with a cost per mile for me of 1p based on real kWh usage measured as what has been provided by the charger they are minimal in terms of cost.

 

There are some losses in the charging process but with a cost per mile for me of 1p based on real kWh usage measured as what has been provided by the charger they are minimal in terms of cost.

Agreed but not in terms of percentage. If you calculate the losses over 1,000 or 10,000 miles the monetry value becomes a bit more obvious. Also if there were a leak at the petrol pump so that you were charged for 8 litres of fuel but only got 7 would you be happy? If we're going to the bother of creating spreadsheets to calculate the running costs we might as well get as close as possible to reality.

Alan

 

My costs per mile are between 10 times and 14 times less than my ICE equivalent. In the last year I have spent £69 on 4000 miles of travel. In my previous petrol car that would have cost me £591. So if £7 of the £69 was due to losses what does it matter? It is all part of how an EV works. Just the same an an ICE car, there are losses from heating up a cold engine, engine friction, etc, etc. The mpg includes these losses as does my miles per kWh figures I calculated. I know exactly how much energy I output and how far I travel. I do not use any kWh figures from the car.

 

I have just compared the wall box figures with the car figures. For the last three charges the car says: ~12kwh, ~16kwh and ~7kwh.
My wall box (it’s not actually a charger) reports the following for the same 3 charges: 13.41kwh, 16.36kwh and 8.28kwh.

 

My figures were also quoted from zappi charger and smart meter data not the car but interestingly my mini app shows 22kwh and zappi 21.58kwh for last charge and the previous 26kwh charge was just as close. My mate who calculated my wiring that I've installed works on a max 3% loss for his job which might explain how my figures are showing very little loss between smart meter and charger, maybe that's why the mini app is also close to same figures.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

Anyone convert to equivalent mpg. I use current(ha) local petrol price?

 

I haven't bothered doing that, my main focus is my daily, weekly costs to commute and so far I've managed 4 days on one charge that cost me £1.10 and in my Audi A8 it would have been about £22/23 depending on the fluctuating diesel prices.
Just did a quick calculation with 26kwh @5p = £1.30 which is nearly a litre of diesel here. Multiplied by 4.546 then multiplied by 4.7 mile per kWh average and shockingly 555mpg
What are you results?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

Reading through the various posts in this thread sparked me to have a quick look through the various sources of data I get. I already know that they are inconsistent so not surprised to see this in the figures below. This represents one charge back on the 8th June.

	mini app	pod point	OctopusGo		Owl
08/06/2021	23kWh	24.2kWh	24.536		24.252
	£1.70	£1.21	£1.22		£1.21

The table represents the mini app data as supplied by the car. The pod point is my charge point and the information is taken from the app. The Octopus Go column represents the data read by the smart meter and the Owl column is the separate monitor I have fitted in the form of two current transformers, one on the supply to the house and the other on the supply to the RCD for the pod point. Unfortunately the owl sums the reading into one so an element of correction is required to the figure (items on standby, fridge, etc).

Both the mini app and the pod point app have the octopus go rate and timings entered but for whatever reason the mini app is miles out in respect to the calculation of cost and clearly in the power consumption. I have about 200watts of standby items, fridge, etc so the others are all around the same figures. However, worth pointing out that none of these items are calibrated and the % accuracy for each is an unknown so unless I attached a calibrated meter at the point where power is connected to the vehicle and allow for the accuracy of the device it’s only ever going to be a rough measurement.

At the moment and for ease I just use the cars reading. I know it’s wrong but until I can spend time validating each charge I’m happy to accept it. Unfortunately my Wi-fi is not great where the pod point is so it misses the odd reading else I would use this. Project for the winter months!

 

Deleted as posted twice