Talk:Venturi Fétish

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Green vehicle

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.

Sale and battery weight[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MR layout not applicable to electric cars[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not agree. Allright, let's do the math.

The Venturi Fetish weighs 750 kg without batteries and 1100 kg fully equipped (source). The batteries make up a whopping ONE THIRD (32%) of the car's weight! I could not find exact stats about the Fetish's motor — but the electric motor in the Tesla Roadster weighs just 52 kg (source) and produces 185 kW/248 hp (more than Fetish). With this figure it would make up under 5% of the car's weight — which the placement of batteries can easily compensate for.

You mentioned Lotus Exige, which has the 1.8 L Rover K Series VHPD engine. According to this site, the VHPD version has a power output of 137 kW/184 hp. At 1.91 hp/kg power-to-weight ratio, we can calculate that it weighs 96 kg, or over 10% of the car's weight while still producing less power per curb weight. And this isn't all: gasoline cars also need complicated gearboxes, oil storage and pumps, fuel injection and more elaborate cooling to support the engine, which are typically placed close to the engine and therefore also play a big role in engine placement. -- intgr [talk] 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Life[edit]

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)[reply]

Production car?[edit]

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. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, this sounds like manufacturer's hype to me. Any other thoughts? -- Bdentremont (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the car is not the first electric two-seater, that title belongs to the Tesla Roadster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.218.109 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

full power vs full torque available at all speeds[edit]

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).

66.25.142.47 10:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]