Talk:Renault Zoe

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Green vehicle High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.

The article seems to mix up the petrol driven concept car and the electric car planned for 2012 (which has changed appearance quite a bit since the first announcements). It looks like the definitive Zoe won't have much to do with the concept car. --84.119.72.49 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant edit to clarify 2005, 2009 and 2010 Zoe concept cars. More detail required - especially for the 2005 version. Warren Whyte (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a brief note stating that the EFF (Electric Frontier Foundation) was critical of the Zoe in a blog post. They cited it as an example of DRM in cars. The edit did not mention DRM specifically due to possible controvery, and merely summarized their central argument.134.134.139.72 (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I can't follow the argument for removing the photographic evidence of the Zoe displaying a message about having been deactivated due to battery lease contract issues. I was the user making that edit, and just to make one thing clear, I drive a Zoe myself. My battery lease contract also states that Renault reserves the right to "disable the charging function" in the event of me not paying the battery lease on time. I suppose the photograph could've been doctored, though frankly it looks geniune and is corroborated by the text in the battery lease contract that I signed myself. I should also add that the only statement to the contrary comes from Renault via Twitter, and it contradicts their language in the contract. Perhaps pointing to this contradiction would be acceptable? Toumal (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC

You misunderstood the Wikipedia scope. I suggest you to read all the policies and guidelines here, starting with WP:V and WP:OR. This is not the place to start a campaign against someone or something and is certainly not a lobby group. If you think there is a actual problem with the way Renault manages its products, you need to gain the attention of reliable sources, which are mainstream media or journals with a reputation of fact-checking info. Neither your "picture" evidence or the things you say about your contract in a German-language forum are valid sources, as it reduces basically at a personal experience, a primary source. The criticism section as it stands is pretty borderline, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in practice a lobby group, has already been on the line because a lot of its criticism is unfounded or based on say-so. To expand it we actually need better sources, not worst ones. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source: German automobile association ADAC has confirmed the ability of Renault to remotely disable the charge function of the car: https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/technik-und-zubehoer/fahrerassistenzsysteme/daten_im_auto/default.aspx?ComponentId=260789&SourcePageId=227535 (german article). I'm not here to campaign against Renault here. I drive a Zoe myself and it's a great car which I personally highly recommend especially for commuters like myself, who have to drive up to 100km every day. I also have no issue with the battery rent and I understand that the car being my property and the battery being theirs makes enforcing the payment of battery rental a bit of a challenge without them being able to disable charging for non-payers. However, Renault's twitter statement, denying that they built this capability into the car, should not be blindly accepted as true. It should also be noted that Renault themselves confirmed it in the past (http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/elektroauto-renault-kann-aufladen-der-batterie-stoppen-a-930066.html), going on record that they can do it, but would only do it in "extreme cases". So, with the german ADAC confirming this too, are you ready to change your view? Toumal (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put the facts right, in its Twitter statment Renault denied the use of DRM tech, they didn't make clear if they had another system to manage a car function remotely. I can't check the source at the moment. If it's reliable I suppose you can add the info, but only suggesting and/or stating as fact the use of DRM if the source clearly says so. Your previous text was suggesting DRM usage without a reliable evidence Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your sources, they are pretty good actually and are OK to prove the fact Renault can prevent battery charging. In fact, in the ADAC article there're are other criticisms on inusual data exchange that can be included if you wish to do so. However, as far as those articles' wording goes, there's neither concrete evidence or a direct hint Renault is using DRM on the battery. The best source is the ADAC one, it's concrete on its criticism and pretty clear. The article of Der Spiegel is more sensationalist, with strong wording but vague on actual data, although it suffices as a support for the ADAC material, more considering it's a mainstream publication. We can't advance conclusions the articles don't. The points mentioned in your sources should be mentioned in a separate paragraph, as they don't openly claim Renault is using DRM as the EFF does. Anyways, thanks for taking your time to search sources and not try to include unsourced information at any cost. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current article too lean on the Zoe's important technical aspects.

The article should elaborate more in depth how the R. Zoe's unique, up to 43kW AC charging technology works. That capability, brand named Chameleon, is only available with the optional "Q90" traction motor which is apparently built by the hungarian branch of Continental, the tire-maker giant. That electric motor is reportedly of the synchronous, externally excited variety and equipped with slip-rings and somehow actively participates in the car's very rapid battery charging process.

The article doesn't clearly explain however what exactly makes the Chameleon scheme work? One can only theorize if the motor is maybe run with reversed juice flow during battery charging, essentially becoming a phase-splitter or rotary phase converter (umformer) apparatus which turns the umbilical's 3-phase input into single-phase AC, before forwarding it to the on-board semiconductor racks that further process it into DC? On the other hand, why would single-phase AC rectify to DC at a higher power rate compared to 3-phase, if processed by the same amount of electronic racks found in the car? Furthermore, eye-witnesses claim the Zoe's traction motor doesn't spin in idle during battery charging, which contradicts the "rotienden umformer" theory of operation? The marketing materials available on Renault's website doesn1t contain any deeper technical info.

Thus please augment this article if reliable technical info is available. Thanks in advance! 80.99.11.157 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Units and more

I reverted a change with the edit comment "Broken link, lost context, changed to units not commonly used in automotive articles". This was reverted with the edit comment "Completely false", probably by the same user, judging from geolocation. I will here explain my edit comment.

Broken link: [1] works, [2] does not.
Lost context: "In May 2010, a Parisian woman named Zoe Renault..." gives much more context to the naming dispute than "In May 2010, Zoe Renault..." which doesn't explain that Zoe Renault is a person. The version I reverted went on to say "...tried to prevent Renault from using the name" without mentioning the reason (fear of mocking jibes).
Units: The version I reverted had changed the unit for battery capacities from kWh to MJ. While this might be correct if you strive to use only SI units, AFAIK the most common practice in the industry is to use kWh, at least in information to the public (as does the article Electric vehicle battery.) The version also removed conversions to miles for range and horsepowers for power. In short, as the article is now it uses different units than other articles about cars, and I intend to restore my edits but keep the small fixes done after my edit was reverted. Sjö (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on EVs, but I agree with you, I never saw "MJ" as an unit, at least here in the English Wikipedia... --Urbanoc (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]