Talk:Vectrix

September 2007

vectrix This is possibly about to go on sale in Australia (Sep 07) ~$17500AU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.211.45 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting but flawed concept, the range is still not very good (110km but only if you keep the speed to 40kmh) only usfull to commuters and then the price WOW! Compared to 150cc scooter (which is the match in performance) it costs more than twice the price, three times if you pick one of the fairly good Chinese models. By comparison the Toyota Prius (car) is only about 30% more than a similar fuel car. While it will probably sell to celebs etc the only way to be a success is mass appeal. With major bike manufactures close to releasing similar products in electric, hybrid and hydrogen I think Vectrix, so long in pre-production may have left their run to late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.66.8.158 (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Scooter or motorcycle?

The seating and foot position on this looks like a motorcycle to me. I'd like to edit the article to reflect this, any comments? Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduced Infobox Motorcycle today, type is listed as Electric scooter. Added Motorcycling WikiProject tag. Brianhe (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, now I realize the m/c is a prototype, adjusted article. Brianhe (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Non participation in TTXGP

The paragraph on non-participation in the TTXGP reads oddly, as if Vectrix is being criticized in a POV fashion. Many events which Vectrix has not participated in could be listed. Can this paragraph be fixed? -- Brianhe (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for COI

A company representative has deleted discussion of bankruptcy and restructuring. Original material was sourced to Vetrix website anyway, but this subject needs to be researched in 3rd party sources and added back to the article if reliable sources are available. Overall the article needs to be reviewed for neutrality. --Dbratland (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Extremely limited range?

The comment:

"Compared to an equivalent fossil fueled machine, range is extremely limited."

needs to be either deleted, or cite an article that does a proper comparison. To me it seems like comparing this particular apple with an "equivalent" orange would require a complicated series of calculations regarding things like: energy density of the fuels, engine efficiency, mass, rolling resistance, regenerative brakes vs non-regenerative brakes, etc. It could be that the range is "amazing" considering the small amount energy stored in the batteries.

Besides, ~100km is actually quite a common range for scooters as they often have tiny petrol tanks, around 4~6L. Yet they still consume 4L/100km due to factors such as inefficient motors, lossy transmission, and bad aerodynamics compared to cars.Guid123 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted as well. There is no "equivalent fossil fueled machine." Additionally, the range is clearly specified in the chart directly above this comment. Hbmallin (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The equivalent fossil fueled machine is called a motorcycle. However, without a reliable source it should be removed. tedder (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus. Removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of business again?

An editor has in good faith deleted the post referring to Vectrix going out of business, because the citation was to an Internet forum. While generally Internet forums are not considered sufficiently reliable, there is an exception: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In this case the poster is a respected expert in the field of electric scooters who publishes in several areas (including technical notes.) The rumor was subsequently verified by another person speaking to a different Vectrix employee. So this meets the standard of reliability. It also meets the standard of public importance. People will be buying used machines not realizing parts are no longer available simply because the company did not bother to post "official" notice that they were going out of business. For these reasons, the post should stand for now. As soon as a newspaper gives us details, of course that cite should be substituted. With any luck, a business news service will take an interest in exploring this, perhaps as a result of the Wikipedia post. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're citing a handle named "IBScootin"? I'm sorry, but that doesn't even come close. The exception to WP:SPS that you're grasping for would be, for example, the verified Twitter or Facebook posts of a celebrity, expressing their own opinions. E.g. "Britney Spears tweeted that she hates..." You can be a super star forum poster but that doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's minimum standards. This has been discussed many, many times. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Why_not_link_to_a_forum.3F or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Do_we_accept_forums_that_are_likely_the_source_for_a_statement_-_not_just_a_source.3F. You can find many similar discussions searching at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

I should add that we have no urgent need to report forum rumors about a company's demise, one day after they're posted. Wikipedia is not a news site, and we can afford to wait several weeks, or even months, for seasoned publications to get around to mentioning that Vectrix has gone under, if it's true. The very fact that none have done so doesn't bode well for the claim that this is of public importance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I will defer. Though there are times when one suspects we might be exalting form over substance, and policy over practicality. The information that a company has gone out of business, related by two employees through an online forum, seems to me to be both reliable and worth noting on the company's Wikipedia page. This is not touting one's own rock band on a personal blog. Still I too would prefer to see a citation to a news source and will await some business news service catching up with this.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How do we know the people on the forum are who they say they are? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point. I will add also that the online forum cites secondhand info from people claiming to be ex-employees. Who knows whether they have an ax to grind, hoping to injure their former employer with false reports of the company's demise. In court this would be called multiple hearsay, and excluded with a bang of the judge's gavel However, on the other side of the balance, this online forum like Wikipedia, is open to everybody. And we are speaking of a matter of fact, rather than opinion. The theory is that on Wikipedia wrong facts will be exposed by other editors; triumph of truth in a free market? We know this theory to be problematic but that is at least the theory, and it would apply as well to fact (though not opinions) reported in an online forum. Addition reason for credibility is the people posting are regulars. While using nicknames, the reliability of their information has been demonstrated over time--just as a Wikipedia editor with a long track record of constructive edits gets some benefit of the doubt. Still as we have agreed that we need a better source, this discussion is academic. I have notified a magazine specializing in electric vehicles and asked them to look into the issue.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be a complete rejection of the core policy of Verifiability. It has been discussed thousands of times. Thousands. The consensus has always remained that we will use reliable sources, not unreliable ones. You're free to go and try to suggest the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy be rescinded, but the place to make such a drastic change to the way Wikipedia works is not here on this talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Vectrix abandoning models?

There have been two reports, one from France here and one from EICMA in Italy here, that Vectrix is abandoning its VX 1 and VX 3 models and focusing exclusively on its new 125cc equivalent VT-1. But these reports are very sketchy, it is unclear if they have discontinued the models altogether, or are abandoning them in Europe only? Has there been any further information in the motorcycle press about Vectrix?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are pretty much out of business

The sad answer to the above question is that a Spanish magazine is reporting that Vectrix is closing the doors of all of its US facilities. They are keeping the Poland manufacturing plant open, as part of a joint venture with Daimler AG. The citation is on the main article page, lede. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 03:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So, considering that manufacturing continues in Europe, it is appropriate for the article to speak of the Vectrix in the past tense as it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.215.129 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vectrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130515013029/http://www.vectrix.com:80/file/pdf/Vectrix_Peirspeed_Press_Release_05-18-12.pdf to http://www.vectrix.com/file/pdf/Vectrix_Peirspeed_Press_Release_05-18-12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)