[Timberr]

Simple question - how big is the traction battery?
Is it 52kWh gross and 50 nett or what?

Reason - last week charged to 100% (212 miles). It was a 50 mile round trip - had to wait until 187 miles left before 'B' mode worked. Consumption was 3.5m/kWh for the outward journey (no regen) but 4.5m/kWh on the return. Shows how essential regen is.

So Dear Renault - is it possible to add a variable charge limit?

Is there a bottom and top buffer to protect the Li-Ion battery pack? I'm starting to think there is no top or upper buffer - hence the loss of the top12.5% with the message - battery Full - no B mode available. I've got used to 'B' mode and don't like driving without it. The reason I charged to 100% was to let the cells balance - hoping the range will increase.

So Dear Renault - is it safe to charge to 100% - or is it like a Tesla - only before a long journey?

Let me explain the 'Dear Renault' bit. The following is my last e-mail from Renault - the original question was 'how to I get theComfort program to work'.

Concerning that matter, I consulted with our technical department and they informed me that this situation is caused by a glitch on the system and Renault is developing a fix to resolve it. You will receive a notification when the solution is presented, but please keep in mind that due to the Covid-19 situation, we do not have a specific date or time to communicate. Our sincere apologies for any inconveniences.


Thanks Renault.

Has anyone found a way of contacting Renault and getting sensible answers?

 

[evescu]

It looks like a sensible answer from Renault. They are aware of the issue and working on it, but, due to the current situation, the solving time is uncertain.

ZE50 comes with buffer in the battery pack, just like some other electric vehicles. To see, for yourself, the battery capacity, check the label under the vehicle. What is more important to you, the kWh number or the range? I can certify that in summer the ZE50 reaches it’s WLTP estimated range

B-mode is not fully active until battery is at 93% or below, has nothing to do with available range. Zoe Regens at all speeds above 10km/h, but reaches maximum for B-mode when battery SOC is under 93%. Above 93%, regen is below 10kW, which is not enough to reduce sufficiently the vehicle speed in B-mode, thus applying brakes is necessary; just like most EVs...

You can charge your Zoe every time to 100% without worry. So far, it seems, Renault owners have not complained of battery degradation so loud that Renault would need to issue a warning, unlike other manufacturers.

 

[Timberr]

Sorry a 'glitch' is not a sensible answer. In my case 'B' mode was not active until the 'range' was below 187 miles. That's 212-187 - 25miles. The label says 52kWh. Is that Nett or Gross?

 

[MrMoonUK]

The battery is bigger than 52kwh but no one but Renault knows how much, of course there is a buffer to protect it, so 100% isnt really 100% just like every other EV except Tesla. The speculation is that it is 56kwh in total..

B-Mode doesn’t work at 100% as the battery is full, as it wont let you store more than useable capacity, you saying B mode didnt work until 187 miles is meaningless, the cars estimation of range is based on your driving... it starts working better at 97% you getting 3.5miles per KWH suggests you were absolutely hammering it

forgot focussing on the GOM and use miles per kWh and battery percentage. Although in winter you will have less than 52kwh at 100% as cold batteries cant store as much

 

[Little_discourage]

This is a big bone of contention. At the launch, the Renault rep was recorded as saying 52 kWh usuable but this may have been down to a language misunderstanding. Renault historically have quoted near the usuable capacity.

Bjorn Nyland concluded that less than 48 kwh useable but I suspect that was much more to do with cold weather conditions.

A test of actual range v wltp range conducted in a Nordic country actually had ZE50 running further than WLTP (and more so than other brands) if driven until standstill. Part of the explanation is that there may be a few kWh hidden in contingency below the 0% shown on dash.

We really need Can ZE or alternative app to show real stats.

Agree that regen signif limited until below 80%.

 

[Mo1]

This is a big bone of contention. At the launch, the Renault rep was recorded as saying 52 kWh usuable but this may have been down to a language misunderstanding. Renault historically have quoted near the usuable capacity.

Bjorn Nyland concluded that less than 48 kwh useable but I suspect that was much more to do with cold weather conditions.

A test of actual range v wltp range conducted in a Nordic country actually had ZE50 running further than WLTP (and more so than other brands) if driven until standstill. Part of the explanation is that there may be a few kWh hidden in contingency below the 0% shown on dash.

We really need Can ZE or alternative app to show real stats.

Agree that regen signif limited until below 80%.

Shows as 52kWh useable on this Renault spec Doc ....

 

[cah197]

I measured it at roughly 51 kWh on a range test, and I know there’s a bit of buffer below 0%.

So 52 kWh is probably about right.

Bear in mind the HVAC system uses power, so can affect the calculations if it’s used.

 

[Rooster-x]

Similar to a Zoe 40, I've only got 39 Kwh usable, but it complains a lot for the last couple of Kwh so practically you can use 37 Kwh.

 

[Timberr]

The battery is bigger than 52kwh but no one but Renault knows how much, of course there is a buffer to protect it, so 100% isnt really 100% just like every other EV except Tesla. The speculation is that it is 56kwh in total..

B-Mode doesn’t work at 100% as the battery is full, as it wont let you store more than useable capacity, you saying B mode didnt work until 187 miles is meaningless, the cars estimation of range is based on your driving... it starts working better at 97% you getting 3.5miles per KWH suggests you were absolutely hammering it

forgot focussing on the GOM and use miles per kWh and battery percentage. Although in winter you will have less than 52kwh at 100% as cold batteries cant store as much

Not 'hammering it'. We are talking about country lanes, B roads, A roads and one stretch of dual carriageway.. Bends, hills etc - Average speed was 27mph (ish). Same journey on the way back. All it demonstrates is that regen is important. As for the 187 miles is meaningless - 212 - 187 = 25. So does 25/212 indicate anything? Perhaps it's a BMS parameter limiting regen.

 

[MrMoonUK]

Not 'hammering it'. We are talking about country lanes, B roads, A roads and one stretch of dual carriageway.. Bends, hills etc - Average speed was 27mph (ish). Same journey on the way back. All it demonstrates is that regen is important. As for the 187 miles is meaningless - 212 - 187 = 25. So does 25/212 indicate anything? Perhaps it's a BMS parameter limiting regen.

3.5mpkwh is absolutely terrible for summer so yeah you were hooning it!

as I said forget about looking at the miles, the GOM means nothing as to state of battery when full! the regen is poor until around about 97% then at around 95% ish you will have full B, in winter B mode will be limited also to protect a cold battery

 

[cDy]

All it demonstrates is that regen is important.

As discussed many times on this forum, for the best miles/kWh you want to use regen as little as possible. That's because putting energy into the battery and taking it out again is not 100% efficient. Let's say 60% to 80% efficient for the round trip as a guess. Compare two driving styles:

1. You drive rapidly towards a junction and get regen to slow you down quickly as you make the final approach, either using B mode or by pressing the brake pedal. That takes kinetic energy and sticks some of it in the battery. You can use this to help you speed up again after the junction. You then come to a downhill stretch, in B mode, and use the chance to use regen to put charge in the battery. You can use it later, but the round trip loses some energy.
2. You note the same junction coming up and start to slow down a good distance from it in D mode, coasting and letting the car slow down due to air resistance and friction, using regen as little as possible. Just dab the brakes if necessary as you approach the junction. You come to the downhill stretch and keep your foot gently on the throttle, so that regen doesn't engage and the car speeds up (only to the extent that it is safe). At the foot of the slope the kinetic energy you have built up keeps you rolling with no loss of energy.

On steeper hills you obviously use regen for both driving styles.

The second approach should get you far better miles/kWh. As will driving more slowly of course.

I just drive as I want when I've plenty of charge available, and still get 4.2 to 4.5 miles/kWh at this time of year. But I do often coast up to junctions and not with much dual carriageway, so a lot at 55 to 60 mph.

 

[Sandy]

Shows as 52kWh useable on this Renault spec Doc ....

Without providing total capacity though means its a bit woolly and vague, much like the ZE40 with its 41kWh usable that wasn't

Similar to a Zoe 40, I've only got 39 Kwh usable,

Hit the nail on the head. The absolutely best most folk got wa 39kWh, some got 38kWh. Renault appeared to be the only honest firm when the 22kWh landed, yes you get 22kWh to use and the pack is 26kWh, oh and there is spare capacity to keep it at 22kWh usable, except they never did allow that. So after a year of driving it was more like 21kWh and then stabilised at 20 to 20.5kWh for a long time.

Bjorn Nylands calculation do seem a little on the low side most of the time, but I don't think they are wide of the mark.

3.5mpkwh is absolutely terrible for summer so yeah you were hooning it!

Older Zoe was prone to under reporting mpkwh at a full charge and got more accurate (depending how you look at it) the further you went. Has that changed on the latest model?

 

[cah197]

Bjorn Nylands calculation do seem a little on the low side most of the time, but I don't think they are wide of the mark.

Bjorn’s test was in the winter and so didn’t account for HVAC usage. Hence the underestimate of capacity.

 

[Sandy]

Bjorn’s test was in the winter and so didn’t account for HVAC usage. Hence the underestimate of capacity.

Would that also be your excuse when testing in summer?

 

[cah197]

Would that also be your excuse when testing in summer?

I tested it with HVAC off.

 

[Mo1]

Without providing total capacity though means its a bit woolly and vague, much like the ZE40 with its 41kWh usable that wasn't

41.6 available

View attachment 134196

 

[evescu]

Getting lost in numbers, are we? I miss the point of such a discussion. It's not as if, when we were purchasing our ICEVs, we were wondering whether the tank hold 38,5 litres, 40 litres exactly or maybe the manufacturer made a slightly larger tank. We also didn't wonder how many litres is the buffer and by far the gauges were meh, rudimentary at best, no percentage indication. We merely relied on an estimated range, but mostly on the car to signal us when fuel is getting low, albeit today the car's computer tells you what range to expect. To be honest, I never knew my dad's car tank holding capacity; I knew I have to refuel when the car said so and it would cost roughly so much (too often and too expensive). Only recently, because I had to refuel a rented Captur, and with my reality distorted by EVs, did I realise that Captur has a 40 litre tank. Is 40 litres the standard for ICE vehicles? I don't give a crap, the car did 700km on a full tank; that's what mattered.

Nowadays, with EVs, the discussions seem to be on false "hard facts", the quoted kWh for a battery pack, what's the buffer, what's the net, the manufacturers lie, there's a conspiracy to fool us; yet I believe this is a truly pointless conversation, becomes just "bragging rights" and a lot of "I told you so" and "here's the proof" when there's none; we're trying to figure out the exact wind speed by wetting our fingers and holding them up.

But is it a relevant discussion or are we bored? Lost in irrelevant details?

The kWh capacity is becoming pointless, it's similar to the fuel tank holding capacity. What you're looking for in your plans is for an estimation of the range. I know I can safely rely, for me, on 350km with the ZE50 in summer and 300km in winter, so that's what I plan with regardless of my driving. 50kWh => 350km => 100% means 1% is about 3.5km, give or take; long autobahn journeys need extra safety margin. Does it really make you feel warm inside knowing that the ZE50 has only 49.2376kWh usable instead of 52.0000kWh net? Do you really feel cheated if that's the case? Would you return the car over this issue? Or is it more important that the car achieves quoted range?

Genuinely, I would be interested to know what benefit in real life would be to know the exact, to the watt, battery capacity... it just seems pointless..

 

[BogieMan]

We need to be a bit sceptical of the claims of battery size, as @evescu wrote above.
We should take all data the car gives you as approximate data.

With ICE it was easy to know what went in the tank, fuel dispensers are checked regularly by trading standards. Fuel is the main direct running cost so mpg is important.

With BEV, assuming you are AC charging, you may know how much electricity you used if your EVSE has a dedicated meter, but not the energy lost in conversion or in balancing. If you knew/guessed the energy lost, then you know how much energy went in the battery, but you don't know how much will come out, this will depend on the internal resistance of the battery, which will depend on its temperature. Then we don't know the drive train and regen efficiency and other losses.

Manufacturers are not going to agree a standard way of measuring battery capacity, that's why we have standard mileage tests which are now a bit more realistic than they used to be and allow comparison of different models.

 

[cah197]

This is why Tesla stopped quoting battery pack sizes and referring to it on the boot of the car.