RE: TVR: Back in business (there's even a website)

[Zod]

JonRB said:

Zod said:

Is that a joke?

unrepentant said:

69k for something that looks like a car that was old fashioned 30 years ago? Seriously?

I think it looks stunning actually. Very much in the same mould as the Eagle E-Type and the Jensen Interceptor R.

Edited by JonRB on Thursday 22 November 15:56

No, it looks like a poorly executed kit car.

[TA14]

DonkeyApple said:

When you look at how many man hours it took to make a shell useable and to shape and fit bespoke doors this is one example of how using 21stC tech would have speeded up that aspect 10 fold and reduced labour demand.

People often say this but what would you do? Have the shells made in S.A. or Malasia for a lower labour rate? Build aluminium bodies - would that be any cheaper? Use injection techniques like Lotus and Westfield and produce lower quality shells?

(I would have gone down the woven matting route which TVR offered at the end but at an increased price which I found to be odd from a production view point.)

[TA14]

DonkeyApple said:

PW opted to take money out rather than re-invest and that was his right.

With reagrd to TVR surviving for 50 years, technically it didn't , it had a habbit of going bust at each economic cycle change and being reborn with new owners, funding etc.

In his defence I wasn't under the impression that PRW took much money out at all until he wanted out.

Well, OK but no less dodgy than Maserati :-)

[JonRB]

Zod said:

No, it looks like a poorly executed kit car.

Wait... you're saying that I don't find it stunning? How on earth can you know what I find stunning better than I do?

Just because *YOU* think that it looks like a poorly executed kit car doesn't change the fact that *I* think it's stunning.

[JonRB]

TA14 said:

IIRC the number was in 100s pa; more or less the historical average; the rebuilds of the S6 were never done in a manner for a long future for TVR, the staffing was a problem but the on-going loss of sales due to other factors made matters a lot worse and yes there were bills but you would have been an idiot not to know this before you bought the company since there were just too many suppliers with similar stories.

I'm pretty sure Smolenski walked in and said "I like this. I will buy it!" and swiped TVR from under the noses of a consortium who were in the process of actually doing Due Diligence.

Whether or not said consortium would have gone ahead with the purchase had they completed the Due Diligence is something we'll never know.

[DJRC]

Why does it look like a poorly executed kit car and not a well executed kit car?

It looks like a cracking, well designed, gorgeous lightweight and powerful coupe to me.

What is not well executed about it? Or is this going to be about panel gaps type things?

[vixen1700]

DJRC said:

It looks like a cracking, well designed, gorgeous lightweight and powerful coupe to me.

Yep, same here. Although I'm a little biased regarding the shape.

If it was cheaper and sold as a TVR everybody would be going mental about it, but at 6 a year for the first year it seems sensibly priced.

[JonRB]

DJRC said:

Or is this going to be about panel gaps type things?

I always thought TVR were very clever on that. If you look at the design of their doors, for example, the design has always been such that they only needed to get the trailing edge just right and the leading edge had much more tolerance due to the design of the wing. It was very clever.

[Zod]

JonRB said:

Zod said:

No, it looks like a poorly executed kit car.

Wait... you're saying that I don't find it stunning? How on earth can you know what I find stunning better than I do?

Just because *YOU* think that it looks like a poorly executed kit car doesn't change the fact that *I* think it's stunning.

I'm obviously saying how I find it!

[TA14]

JonRB said:

I always thought TVR were very clever on that. If you look at the design of their doors, for example, the design has always been such that they only needed to get the trailing edge just right and the leading edge had much more tolerance due to the design of the wing. It was very clever.

Not for the first forty years.

[JonRB]

Zod said:

I'm obviously saying how I find it!

If you'd said "well, to me it looks like a poorly executed kit car" then that would have been saying how you found it.

However, I said I found it stunning and you replied "No, it looks like a poorly executed kit car".

Obviously you can't see the difference between the two.

[Zod]

JonRB said:

Zod said:

I'm obviously saying how I find it!

If you'd said "well, to me it looks like a poorly executed kit car" then that would have been saying how you found it.

However, I said I found it stunning and you replied "No, it looks like a poorly executed kit car".

Obviously you can't see the difference between the two.

Obviously you care rather too much.

[scarble]

Seeing this on page on got my hopes up

[JonRB]

Zod said:

Obviously you care rather too much.

Not really. I was just pointing out that when someone expresses an opinion (rather than a fact) then it's seldom appropriate to counter with "WRONG!". Most people grow out of this by the time they leave school. Sadly some don't.

Anyway, moving on...

Edited by JonRB on Thursday 22 November 17:14

[V8RX7]

JonRB said:

That would be a re-bodied Corvette though, wouldn't it?

What would be wrong with a smaller, RHD Corvette with a better interior ?

In fact I'd suggest that should be their goal.

[GTRene]

give the engine some TVR rawness (programm or cams etc)

give the car a lovely TVR like interior

give it a shorter body ala Griffith ot T350

give it a TVR exhaust etc.

you can reuse the front screen and doors I guess.

you can have a lot of good parts, most technical work is already done and tested over and over again.

you (when you choose the Z06 chassis) have a rustfree chassis and one that can handle the power and is made for it, it is also prooved that its a "good" chassis/driveline combo.

just don't give it the looks of a Corvette that don't have to be a problem.

[DJRC]

But still a rebodied Vette :P

I think though, that might be the basis of an idea. A way of building the TVR brand back up. You give it a central structure to build off, but I would use the convertible and then put the TVR targa system on it.

You also allow for a Cerbie replacement to be drawn up, because you give the Corvette brand a second model. Chevvy have been trying to market Corvette as a stand alone brand for yrs. A joint round the world Corvette/Griff and Corvette Plus/Cerbie gives you some cross over, platform sharing and cost reduction.

[DonkeyApple]

TA14 said:

DonkeyApple said:

When you look at how many man hours it took to make a shell useable and to shape and fit bespoke doors this is one example of how using 21stC tech would have speeded up that aspect 10 fold and reduced labour demand.

People often say this but what would you do? Have the shells made in S.A. or Malasia for a lower labour rate? Build aluminium bodies - would that be any cheaper? Use injection techniques like Lotus and Westfield and produce lower quality shells?

(I would have gone down the woven matting route which TVR offered at the end but at an increased price which I found to be odd from a production view point.)

It's a very interesting area. NS's team reckognised the weakness and looked to use the SA operation that had pitched for the Noble business. As you mention, even PW looked to use Malaysia but failed in that aspect for whatever reason (possibly the same reason why many British ventures have failed in the FE) The point is that laying up a shell in traditional methods is labour intensive, there is certainly a strong arguement for having that job done in a place where labour is a fraction of the cost. The key is to control quality. The Germans like to use Poland and Slovenia for dirt cheap labour and high quality workmanship.

But at the same time, there has been for quite some time complete methods available that allow products from one mould to fit another within acceptable tollerances. The comical situation TVR were in was that every single door they ever made had to be bespoke matched to each shell. Treveor Cooper said it took at least one day to match the doors. Investing in making doors interchangeable between shells was a crucial aspect for saving noteable labour spend. But the door scenario is merely an examplar of the glorious way the factory was run.

There is no doubt that TVR were genuine masters of genius cost saving methods, there is real ingenuity in some of the routes they took but they always ran with the 19thC perspective that Northern labour was cheap enough to allow these wheezes. The reality for a long time in the UK, regardless of North or South is that the right labour is far from cheap. The labourer may earn little but the cost of employment is huge.

[DonkeyApple]

TA14 said:

DonkeyApple said:

PW opted to take money out rather than re-invest and that was his right.

With reagrd to TVR surviving for 50 years, technically it didn't , it had a habbit of going bust at each economic cycle change and being reborn with new owners, funding etc.

In his defence I wasn't under the impression that PRW took much money out at all until he wanted out.

Well, OK but no less dodgy than Maserati :-)

I seem to recall looking over a decade's worth of accounts and seeing some hefty pension contributions along with asset sale and 'toppy' leasebacks, along with the usual salary and dividends. I don't think those contributions were all for staff.

[DJRC]

DonkeyApple said:

TA14 said:

DonkeyApple said:

When you look at how many man hours it took to make a shell useable and to shape and fit bespoke doors this is one example of how using 21stC tech would have speeded up that aspect 10 fold and reduced labour demand.

People often say this but what would you do? Have the shells made in S.A. or Malasia for a lower labour rate? Build aluminium bodies - would that be any cheaper? Use injection techniques like Lotus and Westfield and produce lower quality shells?

(I would have gone down the woven matting route which TVR offered at the end but at an increased price which I found to be odd from a production view point.)

It's a very interesting area. NS's team reckognised the weakness and looked to use the SA operation that had pitched for the Noble business. As you mention, even PW looked to use Malaysia but failed in that aspect for whatever reason (possibly the same reason why many British ventures have failed in the FE) The point is that laying up a shell in traditional methods is labour intensive, there is certainly a strong arguement for having that job done in a place where labour is a fraction of the cost. The key is to control quality. The Germans like to use Poland and Slovenia for dirt cheap labour and high quality workmanship.

But at the same time, there has been for quite some time complete methods available that allow products from one mould to fit another within acceptable tollerances. The comical situation TVR were in was that every single door they ever made had to be bespoke matched to each shell. Treveor Cooper said it took at least one day to match the doors. Investing in making doors interchangeable between shells was a crucial aspect for saving noteable labour spend. But the door scenario is merely an examplar of the glorious way the factory was run.

There is no doubt that TVR were genuine masters of genius cost saving methods, there is real ingenuity in some of the routes they took but they always ran with the 19thC perspective that Northern labour was cheap enough to allow these wheezes. The reality for a long time in the UK, regardless of North or South is that the right labour is far from cheap. The labourer may earn little but the cost of employment is huge.

DA, if the chance comes up and the moons and our schedules co-incide, Ill take you for a pint with John Quick and the boys for a proper chat about how they did stuff.