Talk:Venturi Fétish: Difference between revisions
→MR layout not applicable to electric cars: explain my viewpoint |
Chaparral2J (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::The reason why gasoline supercars are classified by engine placement is that it largely dictates their weight distribution, handling and exterior -- due to the weight of powerful gasoline engines and their positioning inflexibility due to size. Powerful electric motors on the other hand are much lighter, nor do they occupy as much space. The weight distribution is instead determined by the placement of batteries. As batteries consist of relatively small cells, they are located for ideal weight distribution and low center of gravity in all electric cars. This is why I believe the engine layout classification simply not applicable to electric cars. |
::The reason why gasoline supercars are classified by engine placement is that it largely dictates their weight distribution, handling and exterior -- due to the weight of powerful gasoline engines and their positioning inflexibility due to size. Powerful electric motors on the other hand are much lighter, nor do they occupy as much space. The weight distribution is instead determined by the placement of batteries. As batteries consist of relatively small cells, they are located for ideal weight distribution and low center of gravity in all electric cars. This is why I believe the engine layout classification simply not applicable to electric cars. |
||
::To drive this point further, the first section from the [[MR layout]] article mainly deals with the weight and handling characteristics of the layout, which is not at all applicable to middle-engined electric cars. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
::To drive this point further, the first section from the [[MR layout]] article mainly deals with the weight and handling characteristics of the layout, which is not at all applicable to middle-engined electric cars. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::This is still unimportant. The electric motor is still the heaviest single component on the car, and the batteries are heavy too. In fact, I bet that the 1.8 L engine in the Lotus Exige would be as light as the electric power system of the Fetish. But no one is saying that the mid-engined layout is "not applicable" to the Lotus. I am re-adding this category. [[User:Chaparral2J|Chaparral2J]] ([[User talk:Chaparral2J|talk]]) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Battery Life == |
== Battery Life == |
Revision as of 15:07, 31 July 2008
Automobiles Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Sale and battery weight
I believe this car has already been offered for sale, any update on the price? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.227.253 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The car is now being offered for sale, with a retail price of 450.000 Euros, without VAT. This is stated at the Venturi website and I have already updated the article.
The battery weight is specified by Venturi with 350 kilograms, whereas the car weighs about 750 kilogramms without batteries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.3.174 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
MR layout not applicable to electric cars
This page was recently added to 'Category:MR layout cars'. I removed it since I don't think MR layout is really applicable to elecric cars - AFAIK the electric motor is very light compared to combustion engines and batteries actually account for the most of the weight. -- intgr 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the engine is in the middle and it powers the rear wheels, it's MR, regardless of what powers the engine. Chaparral2J (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why gasoline supercars are classified by engine placement is that it largely dictates their weight distribution, handling and exterior -- due to the weight of powerful gasoline engines and their positioning inflexibility due to size. Powerful electric motors on the other hand are much lighter, nor do they occupy as much space. The weight distribution is instead determined by the placement of batteries. As batteries consist of relatively small cells, they are located for ideal weight distribution and low center of gravity in all electric cars. This is why I believe the engine layout classification simply not applicable to electric cars.
- To drive this point further, the first section from the MR layout article mainly deals with the weight and handling characteristics of the layout, which is not at all applicable to middle-engined electric cars. -- intgr [talk] 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is still unimportant. The electric motor is still the heaviest single component on the car, and the batteries are heavy too. In fact, I bet that the 1.8 L engine in the Lotus Exige would be as light as the electric power system of the Fetish. But no one is saying that the mid-engined layout is "not applicable" to the Lotus. I am re-adding this category. Chaparral2J (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Battery Life
I changed "The company specifies the car with a range of 250 to 350 km (155 to 217 miles), which is perhaps the best one can get with an electric car." to "The company specifies the car with a range of 250 to 350 km (155 to 217 miles)." One can get better from an electric car as Tesla Roadster illustrates (up to 250 miles). Batteries are getting better and better, and car specifications could be changed so that a charge would last longer. 209.128.67.226 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Production car?
How can the Venturi Fetish be described as a "production car" with a deliberately limited worldwide population of only 25 units? That's more like a laboratory curiosity. —QuicksilverT @ 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
full power vs full torque available at all speeds
The article mentions that "the full 245 bhp is available at all speeds". As horsepower is a function of torque and rpm, this is incorrect. It is true, however, that full torque is available at all speeds (this is true of most electric motors).