RE: 10 questions TVR's new bosses must answer
Discussion
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
can't remember said:
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
2) Customer expectations are now that much higher for a road car, and therefore the cost of developing them is that much higher. It is no co-incidence that the only small volume manufacturers that have succeeded in the last 15 years have been for track cars, where you don't have to go to the ( great ) expense of developing climate control, ABS, wipers, central locking, a sound system etc etc. People may say that they want a simpler car without these luxuries but when it comes to actually spending your own money, there are very few who will. Even a Lotus Elise has some luxuries these days ( and still sells in tiny volumes )
Everything mentioned in point two is off the shelf stuff. Even the big boys just roll-up at Bosch (for example)for the complicated bits you don't see or touch.As for payment terms, if it was me I would be looking at strictly cash on collection and I'd want time to examine the notes before I handed over even a trim clip.
PW said:
Nicking photoshop renders from Autocar still doesn't seem like a well thought out, professional PR strategy from a legitimate sportscar manufacturer that wants to be taken seriously. What's that all about? Did I miss an explanation?
It hasn't been mentioned as far as I know, I just assumed it was a PH add-in and not TVR advised/sanctioned so to speak. PW said:
That one? The one where you complain about British people being negative, the one where you complain that people in this thread are negative, the one where you attack other people's posting history?
Like a can-do, lead by example, entrepreneurial chinook helicopter, you came to uplift this thread. They all said it couldn't be done and, like an eight figure business venture you... proved them all right by complaining about it. Oh well, I suppose every success is built on a hidden pile of failure... Speaking of which - back on topic!
Nicking photoshop renders from Autocar still doesn't seem like a well thought out, professional PR strategy from a legitimate sportscar manufacturer that wants to be taken seriously. What's that all about? Did I miss an explanation?
Like a can-do, lead by example, entrepreneurial chinook helicopter, you came to uplift this thread. They all said it couldn't be done and, like an eight figure business venture you... proved them all right by complaining about it. Oh well, I suppose every success is built on a hidden pile of failure... Speaking of which - back on topic!
Nicking photoshop renders from Autocar still doesn't seem like a well thought out, professional PR strategy from a legitimate sportscar manufacturer that wants to be taken seriously. What's that all about? Did I miss an explanation?
Uuuhhhh, nope. If you question the automotive credentials of Gordon Murray on a motoring forum your credibility will be questioned. On entrepreneurship that has been my experience, good on you if yours differs. Not sure you grasp the concept of negativity but never mind. If Les and John were spending money on a professional PR strategy at this stage I don't think they would have raised 400 plus deposits. It's TVR, not Audi. Loud and sexy on a GM chassis with a dyno breaking Cosworth lump is pretty much spot on. Anyway, as you say, moving on.
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
I am speaking as an ex-Cerbera owner who still has a fondness for TVR's. I think the reasons Peter Wheeler sold out, and the reason the Russian went under still hold. Namely :
1) The competition has moved on considerably since TVR's heyday in the late 80's. They sold loads of Griffiths and Chimeara's before Boxsters, TT's, Z4's et all even existed. There really wasn't a lot of choice BUT a TVR back then if you wanted a fast convertible.
2) Customer expectations are now that much higher for a road car.
3) I'm very much with the sceptics on this one.
1. 100K+ for a car without a market, :couch: Looks like a lost case to me. There's more than enough wild stuff out there to spent money on.1) The competition has moved on considerably since TVR's heyday in the late 80's. They sold loads of Griffiths and Chimeara's before Boxsters, TT's, Z4's et all even existed. There really wasn't a lot of choice BUT a TVR back then if you wanted a fast convertible.
2) Customer expectations are now that much higher for a road car.
3) I'm very much with the sceptics on this one.
2. Any car going 150+ mph needs massive R&D which TVR did not had (or do). I once did a near 150 in a Sagaris and it did not feel confident. The 3 liter 3-series was a handfull but the Sag had serious straight line issues.
3. Dunno if there's a market for TVR. To me it's a brand with a fantastic heritage that has failed to meet the markets expectations... Let it rest.
Max_Torque said:
GM said:
“I definitely have one supercar left in me, and the team wants to do it too,” he says. “It won’t be anything like the cars you see at the moment – the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, Porsches, Bugattis or the McLaren MP4-12C – it will hold all the values the F1 had, but it will be in a completely different direction which ignores horsepower and top speed. As the F1 was a swansong for the 20th century, I’d like to do something for the 21st century."
The problem, and it's a bit of a biggie, is that "rewriting the supercar rules" way back in the early 1990s with the F1 was actually pretty easy. Fast forwards to 2016 and i'm sorry Gordon, but it's all be done before. In 1992, when the F1 shocked people with it's 600bhp, a typical sports car, say 964 911, had just 250bhp odd, here in 2016, the cooking model has 400ish bhp for example!so, lets check some of the F1's salient points against todays supercar barometer:
Big V12 - you now get them in lots of supercars with nearly 800bhp
Carbon tub - you now get them in pretty much everything now
No driver aids: good luck with that one - unfortunately, as many F1 owners have proven in numerous ruinously expensive mishaps, lots of power in a light car can result in a loss of control very, very easily indeed, especially when having a million quid is no guarantee of having any driving talent whatsoever..... Whilst you could sell a modern supercar with no drivers aids, i think you would be extremely foolish to do so imo.
Pure drivers car: Plenty of those, from Mono, to 458 etc - The laws of physics mean you simply can't improve on those by an significant margin. Pretty much all modern cars are tyre limited, and those, for a road car, are a massive compromise
Aerodynamics: All modern supercars, and most sports cars now have a lot of clever aero stuff going on. But realistically, a heavily downforce assisted road car design is HORRIBLE to drive for normal people.
So GM builds the "rocket II" so what? that moves the game on precisely by nothing whatsoever. Sure, they'd sell a few on reputation / name alone, but it will be a mere side show in the grand scheme of all things automotive
I agree re the end product. In basic terms not only has everything been done but we have also witnessed a major cultural shift that has seen consumers wanting uniformity of product with differentiation just by badge. So any product that emanates from TVR isn't going to be ground breaking in what it actually is. I think that what GM is generally referring to is that it will be ground breaking in how much upfront capital has been required to set up and bring the product to market along with the flexibility to build the same car out of different materials on the same production line and the ability to change your non structural outer panels when you are bored of the look.
GMD are talking about factory costs being 20% of current levels and I think that is the one single crucial bit about his product.
If it transpires to be the case then it has the potential to reverse the trend of the last 20 years of platform sharing, badge engineering and everything that has made generic utility vehicles just so utterly boring. It changes the formula for economies of scale. It opens the door for individuality and creativity to return to the conventional car market.
That's what is exciting to see. If he can prove his product with TVR then the whole market opens up and we could actually go back several decades to a time when small firms or people with great ideas can bring a product to market and break the utter misery of global corporate uniformity and blandness of the modern car market.
In short, he is referring to breaking the one size must fit all business model of today and reopening the market to the creators, the adventurers, the people who used to make cars interesting and bespoke but affordable.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 14th June 08:42
leglessAlex said:
Max_Torque said:
And the "big boys" can afford to pay Bosch......
(hint, how much do you think BOSCH want for an "off the shelf" ABS system for example? The reason low volume manufacture cars don't have things like ABS etc is simply because they are too expensive to amortise at low volume. Get Bosch to supply the ABS system, and on top of the $200 cost of the actual ABS unit, they will want £10M to calibrate, validate and warrant it. Not a problem if you are making 10,000 or 1000,000 or 1M cars, but a big one for <1000unitsPA
Seeing as you're here Max, I'd like to ask something. You've mentioned before that these systems are very expensive, and I believe you, but surely they must be within reach of a company that will be offering a car for £80k? (hint, how much do you think BOSCH want for an "off the shelf" ABS system for example? The reason low volume manufacture cars don't have things like ABS etc is simply because they are too expensive to amortise at low volume. Get Bosch to supply the ABS system, and on top of the $200 cost of the actual ABS unit, they will want £10M to calibrate, validate and warrant it. Not a problem if you are making 10,000 or 1000,000 or 1M cars, but a big one for <1000unitsPA
The only thing that's making me think that is that the Lotus Exige has a BOSCH TC system doesn't it, and I didn't think Lotus had that much more buying power than TVR would have.
ABS / DSC is safety critical, and hence Bosch will only supply their system if the manufacturer completes the full validation sign-off procedure (which is on-top of the already expensive (and extensive) system calibration work). Bosch can't afford to have their reputation destroyed by a small manufacturer cutting corners and so generally, won't even answer the phone/emails unless you have either significant backing or in a very very few cases, a reputation for excellence and personal recommendation to the board.
Lotus, despite being small, have a (relatively) proven history, and crucially, are owned by a large company with significant assets. This is NOT the case with TVR, who are really a couple of blokes with some investment support and who are really outsourcing everything to Tier1 and 2 suppliers (Cosworth/GMD etc).
Then consider what the risk to reward looks like for Bosch to supply their system at these low volumes? Lets say they sell 2000 units in the first 3 years, that represents probably something like £100,000 of profit, but at significant risk. It's much better for them to just spend the time selling stuff to say VW, who want 1M units, and can afford to pay them for the development program in full.....
dinkel said:
1. 100K+ for a car without a market, :couch: Looks like a lost case to me. There's more than enough wild stuff out there to spent money on.
2. Any car going 150+ mph needs massive R&D which TVR did not had (or do). I once did a near 150 in a Sagaris and it did not feel confident. The 3 liter 3-series was a handfull but the Sag had serious straight line issues.
3. Dunno if there's a market for TVR. To me it's a brand with a fantastic heritage that has failed to meet the markets expectations... Let it rest.
My Sag feels fine at 1652. Any car going 150+ mph needs massive R&D which TVR did not had (or do). I once did a near 150 in a Sagaris and it did not feel confident. The 3 liter 3-series was a handfull but the Sag had serious straight line issues.
3. Dunno if there's a market for TVR. To me it's a brand with a fantastic heritage that has failed to meet the markets expectations... Let it rest.
RichB said:
900T-R said:
BJG1 said:
My Sag feels fine at 165
So does my Chim at 155 
Just a quick note on this: I have no high power cars myself but I've spent time with owners who have. I've touched well over 150 mph numourous times (enjoyed it) and I must say compared to the other modern cars - all well under 15 years old, with the exception of a silly 600 bhp R32 Skyline - the Saggy felt uncomfortable. An therefor no match to a Boxter, Beemer or Corvette. Which I consider to be all within the range of interest of a the possible buyer.
That uncomfortableness could be a good thing if that's what you want in a car. But I expect most who are in for a 100K car are not and do expect more. The mentioned Porsche and Jag cut 150 like it's no experience, OK. I did 165 in an Ultima and that was a riot. It felt easy but it also offered the desired adventure. That's what a TVR should be about. Loved the ride in a Chim, Cerbera AJP8, several wedges... but the then new Sag just felt like an updated Triumph TR6 (I exaggerate) and by far not as refined and performance calibrated as a Cerbera.
Almost every Dutch (ex-) owner of a post Griff Blackpool Beast tells me the same thing: "They are awesome but after a few years of hassle I lust for a more trouble free and easy going tool." - Owners who enjoy their Griffs, S8s, wedges and earlier cars are basically classic car owners and do not seek for the supercar experience. The New TVR Buyers do. I really wonder 1) if this is going to happen, and 2) if the cars will meet expectations especially outside of the UK.
When the Tamora S6 came out I suggested a 4 pot version / entry level TVR Tamora Light. Looking back... that could have worked out. Imagine a Focus RS mill in there. Volume to fund R&D for the Boss TVRs: Coyote worked by Cosworth yum. If Ford bought the TVR brand to setup a .... ah, dreaming, sorry.
That uncomfortableness could be a good thing if that's what you want in a car. But I expect most who are in for a 100K car are not and do expect more. The mentioned Porsche and Jag cut 150 like it's no experience, OK. I did 165 in an Ultima and that was a riot. It felt easy but it also offered the desired adventure. That's what a TVR should be about. Loved the ride in a Chim, Cerbera AJP8, several wedges... but the then new Sag just felt like an updated Triumph TR6 (I exaggerate) and by far not as refined and performance calibrated as a Cerbera.
Almost every Dutch (ex-) owner of a post Griff Blackpool Beast tells me the same thing: "They are awesome but after a few years of hassle I lust for a more trouble free and easy going tool." - Owners who enjoy their Griffs, S8s, wedges and earlier cars are basically classic car owners and do not seek for the supercar experience. The New TVR Buyers do. I really wonder 1) if this is going to happen, and 2) if the cars will meet expectations especially outside of the UK.
When the Tamora S6 came out I suggested a 4 pot version / entry level TVR Tamora Light. Looking back... that could have worked out. Imagine a Focus RS mill in there. Volume to fund R&D for the Boss TVRs: Coyote worked by Cosworth yum. If Ford bought the TVR brand to setup a .... ah, dreaming, sorry.
jamieduff1981 said:
Is it possible that the Sagaris was just a big of a sensory overload compared to a 1.6 hatch?
Err, no.
Doing a 8:30-ish 'Ring lap with normal seat belts on was.
Maybe the feel of 'almost average cars' like BMW, Merc, Jag and Audi cruising effortless at 220+ kmh makes me expect any hipo car to feel '300 kmh is in the pocket'. Sorry, maybe the Sag had the wrong wheels on.
RichB said:
900T-R said:
BJG1 said:
My Sag feels fine at 165
So does my Chim at 155 I have done the same experiment in the T350 and the current car. The T350 was better but still not re-assuring but it was much harder to guage if there was any lift as it had PAS so it would be harder to spot the initial effect. They did some aero work on the later cars and I think that's why the Sag and some Tuscans had the rear spoilers? The Typhon seemed pretty good to the point that my primary worries were of mechanical failure rather than aero. As this new car is going to be GMD designed and intended to operate at Le Mans then should it appear I don't think it will have the slightest issue sticking to the road. Even if it doesn't appear until 2018 I think it will still be the first GMD car to hit the market and it will have a lot of eyes on it. His business and reputation cannot afford for it to be a twisty, delicate thing that isn't well planted and well stuck together.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff