No, that time I was in Portugal. Only the temperature log was from Spain.I just graphed some data from a car in Spain comparing GPS speed and the value for real speed from Torque.
If Torque does it automatically for us, it seems more terse to leave that responsability to it.I multiplied the formula by 1.609 to get km/h
I also found that, only eyeballing the numbers. Did you actually do averages over a longer period?and compared to GPS speed which then was slightly lower (about 2%)
I then added a 0.98 multiplication and then the two speed indicators matched perfect.
What could be the reason for this 2% mismatch?
I agree with you entirely. We need a short-term estimate. But we also need to eliminate the height factor. Because, on a motorway, we never perceive well if we are climbing or descending...I have one that's based on a 5 minutes average consumption and one of 15 min avg consumption. I have made them as distance to the turtle. I will now change to use the real speed instead.
But that's just a start for testing, I don't know if 5 and 15 minutes averages are the most useful.
My reason for doing this is that I have no idea how that is calculated by the car. If the battery is running low and I have to save energy I don't now if a change in driving style and speed is enough to get to my destination.
Well, we have been reading and logging BMS data from the OBD port for a while now. JejuSoul is now looking again at data from another electronic control unit in the car (VMCU, vehicle management control unit) which has gears, speed as we now know, motor temperature, and more we don't know yet.Afterwards, I may ask what it was all about
After googling a bit, related to a car, I foundWell, we have been reading and logging BMS data from the OBD port for a while now. JejuSoul is now looking again at data from another electronic control unit in the car (VMCU, vehicle management control unit) which has gears, speed as we now know, motor temperature, and more we don't know yet.
It's not only fun, it's also caring. We can read battery temperatures for instance. So, when we're taking a fast charge we may decide what to do based on that. 38 degrees? Fine. 42 already? Better stop. No wait, I'm already at the 55A phase, it won't heat more, let it go through the end.I might try myself, just for fun.
Can you just leave this dongle plugged into the vehicle all the time? Are there any side effects to doing this?
I suspected it all alone. Ionic for sure behaves quite different(better) from other EVs while charging and when getting close to empty(I ran demo one to 5 miles left with no panic or cliff hanger like in Leaf; or Bolt which just shuts down with less than 25 miles left). It is easy to figure the upper buffer, but lower is not that easy as you need to go very low to figure it out. I would not be surprised if lower buffer even bigger than upper. Battery in Ionic behaves like bigger battery, may be even bigger than 31kWh, usually capacity is even number, so it would not be a stretch to assume 32kWh total capacity.Another "rumor" is that 90% is usable and total capacity is 31 kWh. I hope this issue can be settled once and for all by these Torque readings.
I think the only way to get closer to real capacity figure, by taking voltage measurement and it should very accurately point to SOC of the battery regardless of capacity. We know 28 kWh is usable. It should be possible to find those top and bottom buffers when we know the real SOC (not BMS nor Display). The only thing I would caution about: the voltage value-to-SOC during charge and discharge cycle could be quite different, so the best way is to stick to discharge cycle(no charger connected) voltage as it excludes any charger interference.SOC BMS does not relate to the total capacity. It is another way to measure existing usable capacity. It will always vary between 2% and 95%. Hence it cannot be used to measure either deterioration or total capacity. If someone can show me I'm wrong I'd be pleased. It would be nice to finally have an answer to the question - what is the total capacity?