Rumours of Zenos into administration..
Discussion
100 IAN said:
If you have a look at their financials they're in very rude health. It wouldn't surprise me if their profit per car was one of the highest.
Nomad certainly has a decent lead time and Atom 4 when it arrives will be type approved.
UK facility is by no means 'a shed', its purpose built and fits the need admirably without being a financial millstone (very sensible).
They're manufactured under license in America as well, and have a good export market.
Its interesting to note that there's "no market for a car without a roof" yet Ariel have managed to be successful building 2 different cars in this 'non existent' market segment...?
Bike's don't have roofs either and there's a few of those out and about.
As it happens I test drove a Zenos and then bought an Atom...why?...because it was way more fun and put a much bigger smile on my face.
People are saying that Zenos needed to bring out a roof version but I disagree, what they needed to do was improve the driving & visual experience not detract from it by sticking a roof on. That said Ariel wouldn't go too far wrong if they do something along these lines...
Not seen that picture of what looks like a Bugatti style Atom before?Nomad certainly has a decent lead time and Atom 4 when it arrives will be type approved.
UK facility is by no means 'a shed', its purpose built and fits the need admirably without being a financial millstone (very sensible).
They're manufactured under license in America as well, and have a good export market.
Its interesting to note that there's "no market for a car without a roof" yet Ariel have managed to be successful building 2 different cars in this 'non existent' market segment...?
Bike's don't have roofs either and there's a few of those out and about.
As it happens I test drove a Zenos and then bought an Atom...why?...because it was way more fun and put a much bigger smile on my face.
People are saying that Zenos needed to bring out a roof version but I disagree, what they needed to do was improve the driving & visual experience not detract from it by sticking a roof on. That said Ariel wouldn't go too far wrong if they do something along these lines...
Got any links please?.
rockin said:
Thank you Donald Trump. Never let the facts get in the way of "alternative facts". 
Well if you have been there you'd know how they manage stock. You'd also know that it's not jusat a case of buying off the shelf parts, a ridiculous statement by the way. Lastly, to make the aforementioned things function you need an engineering resource. Anyway, I'm going off to pick an Ace frame up from the local motor factors, should be simple to build it up by lunchtime?Zenos didn't want to be just another caterham or ariel.
The tech they were using was pretty different and the intention was to build to hundreds of cars/year.
The E10 (even in R form) would never be able to sustain the R&D alone. No matter how perfect they made it.
As for not exciting? Ok, I never drove the e10 or e10s but the R is bonkers. Mine has a revised mk2 setup which solves some issues freeing more power. It totally feels the 500 bhp/ton it's marketed as and a 211 wouldn't know which way the car went. I've had playtimes with exotic cars and none of them ever gained anything and quite a few struggled to keep up.
I think the chassis is too good for the lower power engines and it made it feel too 'safe'.
The R has no problem spinning its wheels in 4th if you provoke it.
The tech they were using was pretty different and the intention was to build to hundreds of cars/year.
The E10 (even in R form) would never be able to sustain the R&D alone. No matter how perfect they made it.
As for not exciting? Ok, I never drove the e10 or e10s but the R is bonkers. Mine has a revised mk2 setup which solves some issues freeing more power. It totally feels the 500 bhp/ton it's marketed as and a 211 wouldn't know which way the car went. I've had playtimes with exotic cars and none of them ever gained anything and quite a few struggled to keep up.
I think the chassis is too good for the lower power engines and it made it feel too 'safe'.
The R has no problem spinning its wheels in 4th if you provoke it.
nigelpugh7 said:
Not seen that picture of what looks like a Bugatti style Atom before?
Got any links please?.
Original article here https://www.carthrottle.com/post/11-car-render-mas...Got any links please?.
100 IAN said:
Original article here https://www.carthrottle.com/post/11-car-render-mas...
Fantastic! Thanks for the link!
What a shame you have no understanding of the meaning of "shed",
http://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/189765/comme...
The pic above shows fitters installing off-the-shelf components onto a steel chassis in a shed. QED
http://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/189765/comme...
The pic above shows fitters installing off-the-shelf components onto a steel chassis in a shed. QED
rockin said:
What a shame you have no understanding of the meaning of "shed",
http://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/189765/comme...
The pic above shows fitters installing off-the-shelf components onto a steel chassis in a shed. QED
Nothing wrong with off the shelf of course. Really most modern cars are simply collections of off the shelf parts. Ford don't make everything (Valeo, Bosch, Continental, Garrett, Borg Warner, Aisin etc all make bits like ECUs, suspension, turbos etc some might be designed to spec though). http://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/189765/comme...
The pic above shows fitters installing off-the-shelf components onto a steel chassis in a shed. QED
I've worked at a small company who tried to develop, from scratch, its own natural gas fuel system, injectors and ECU (that had to drive 12 gas injectors and 12 diesel solenoids and intercept and coerce many OEM signals without touching the CAN).... we had myself and about 3 others. Only one guy doing the Hardware and Software. It didn't end well. Twice.
Having said that, our competitors did similar but used off the shelf ECUs from Woodward. It didn't end well for them either! It is tough to do nearly bespoke, complex systems engineering on small budgets. So its sad to see Zenos go, but not surprising and Ariel have done very well.
rockin said:
The Ariels are simply a steel chassis. Everything else is an off-the-shelf component hung on that chassis.
They have almost no R&D costs, no engineering costs, no stock-holding costs, no industrial tooling costs (the factory is a large shed) and a very small workforce. They found a tiny niche and filled it well. Others need not apply.
Low-cost design and production are exactly what it takes to survive in the overcrowded, low-profit global car industry. Atom is a well-managed company to be applauded.They have almost no R&D costs, no engineering costs, no stock-holding costs, no industrial tooling costs (the factory is a large shed) and a very small workforce. They found a tiny niche and filled it well. Others need not apply.
Olivera said:
Interesting that BAC seem to be going from strength to strength. Just watched the latest Shmee video on BAC and their factory is impressive, miles apart from the old TVR man in a shed factory. Very similar car but triple the price and it's succeeding.
They build carbon parts for the Aerospace industry. Of course their factory is impressive and their equipment first class. It's why the cars are so well finished, well, that and Ian and Neil's anal attention to detail. All cars are sold, lots of Japanese clients love them plus Germans too. Totally different from Zenos. Oh and the average value of a BAC leaving the factory now? £200k.I'm sure he'd never tell me (but do drop me a line/call me Ansar and I promise I'll not spill the beans
) but the reasons given for Ansar and Mark splitting were given as differences in views on where to take the company. Perhaps there's something in that?I think I might have bought a Zenos this year. I want something that's a little more friendly than a Caterham for the drive to and from the circuit but still performs well and is enjoyable on the track. Sub £30k is the right money for me and I don't fancy an Elise, great cars though they might be.
hondansx said:
Can you expand on that, as it comes across as quite naive.
If you have a full order book with deposits, then you can get financial backing to aid cash flow and related issues.
Can you also define a 'waiting list' - does it equate to 1 vehicle beyond capacity, or 100s?
One another note, it would be interesting to know more about Atom's model and financial performance given they have been around for some 15 years now. They're the only New Co. that i can think of who has weathered the storm.
Atom is an assembly company, so I'm told. Everything manufactured by external suppliers and they then bolt them together. Clearly they make money from that structure.If you have a full order book with deposits, then you can get financial backing to aid cash flow and related issues.
Can you also define a 'waiting list' - does it equate to 1 vehicle beyond capacity, or 100s?
One another note, it would be interesting to know more about Atom's model and financial performance given they have been around for some 15 years now. They're the only New Co. that i can think of who has weathered the storm.
Edited by rubystone on Tuesday 31st January 00:00
rubystone said:
Atom is an assembly company, so I'm told. Everything manufactured by external suppliers and they then bolt them together. Clearly they make money from that structure.
The upside is that you farm out the bulk of your risk and set up costs. You haven't needed a big balance sheet to invest in setting up all the tooling etc, you don't have all the staff on your books to handle material purchasing and parts construction, nor paying up front for specialists. Plus, any falls in demand and the core shock is worn by suppliers not yourself. Edited by rubystone on Tuesday 31st January 00:00
Sure, you lose a lot of control over supply and are at risk of chain delays but I imagine that Ariel have quite good elasticity with their clients' expectations and can manage modest delays better than faceless firms with weaker relationships with their customers?
It seems a sensible way for this type of firm to operate.
rubystone said:
Atom is an assembly company, so I'm told. Everything manufactured by external suppliers and they then bolt them together. Clearly they make money from that structure.
Pretty much every car manufacturer is 'just' an assembly company.Edited by rubystone on Tuesday 31st January 00:00
McLaren don't make any parts, they might deign key elements and own IP rights but everything from the tub/engine/gearbox/body panel to the seats/switches/lights/tyres is made by someone else.
This is how the whole industry works and one of the reasons why the quality of cars has improved so dramatically.
rubystone said:
Atom is an assembly company, so I'm told. Everything manufactured by external suppliers and they then bolt them together. Clearly they make money from that structure.
As is the case for most companies, would you expect them to have there own foundry? This is not the 1900's, modern manufacturing relies upon stock management/control and sourcing components at competitive prices whilst retaining enough branding to to be marketable. Get that equation wrong and you're out of business. Large motor manufacturers with automated production plants do make a fair chunk themselves. But yes, they will obtain other key components (usually complex, reusable items such as electronic control units) from suppliers.
It's not the actual amount they physically make that is the point (I believe).
Airel, Caterham, and I think Bac use traditional materials and techniques that have been tried and tested for decades. The supply cost is a lot cheaper, the supplier market more competitive and the R&D lower.
Zenos were trying a material and construction combination that hadn't been tried together in a road car. The fact they sourced the final components from a third party doesn't change this - the design and R&D would have been considerably higher.
From looking at the high level figures my guess is that the ongoing interest payments on the initial investment/loans for this development (no car was sold for the first 2 years or so) caused the cashflow issue.
Take that aside and sales were double the previous year, costs reducing, profit margins heading up...
It's frustrating as there was a plan and the numbers suggest on face value that there is a business here.
Lets take a wet finger in the air look - if you look at UK registrations in 2015 Ariel had 29. Zenos had 19.
Caterham? 68.
Thats before the E10R was available (April 2016) and the E10/E10S wasn't delivering until part way through 2015.
Granted, that doesn't include track only and exports...
So some people don't like the look... but other do... so take to one side on that. I don't think people all agree on any car being universally pretty.
These guys built a new type of car and started selling it (which is more than can be said for others!).
Before long we'll all be in our air-conditioned electric boxes wondering if it was a dream that we actually did enjoy driving.
It's not the actual amount they physically make that is the point (I believe).
Airel, Caterham, and I think Bac use traditional materials and techniques that have been tried and tested for decades. The supply cost is a lot cheaper, the supplier market more competitive and the R&D lower.
Zenos were trying a material and construction combination that hadn't been tried together in a road car. The fact they sourced the final components from a third party doesn't change this - the design and R&D would have been considerably higher.
From looking at the high level figures my guess is that the ongoing interest payments on the initial investment/loans for this development (no car was sold for the first 2 years or so) caused the cashflow issue.
Take that aside and sales were double the previous year, costs reducing, profit margins heading up...
It's frustrating as there was a plan and the numbers suggest on face value that there is a business here.
Lets take a wet finger in the air look - if you look at UK registrations in 2015 Ariel had 29. Zenos had 19.
Caterham? 68.
Thats before the E10R was available (April 2016) and the E10/E10S wasn't delivering until part way through 2015.
Granted, that doesn't include track only and exports...
So some people don't like the look... but other do... so take to one side on that. I don't think people all agree on any car being universally pretty.
These guys built a new type of car and started selling it (which is more than can be said for others!).
Before long we'll all be in our air-conditioned electric boxes wondering if it was a dream that we actually did enjoy driving.
yonex said:
As is the case for most companies, would you expect them to have there own foundry? This is not the 1900's, modern manufacturing relies upon stock management/control and sourcing components at competitive prices whilst retaining enough branding to to be marketable. Get that equation wrong and you're out of business.
Did I say I in any way disapproved of that? You need to wind your neck in a bit and think about what you're saying. It's clear that you have close ties with Ariel and that's just fine with me, and probably others on here. And your input is valued!McLaren are probably the biggest profile assembler I can think of. But the mainstream manufacturers do indeed build their own cars. Electrical systems and control systems may be outsourced, but engines and platforms are not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff