RE: Can Riley revive MG and TVR?
Discussion
In some ways it's nice to think that there are still people willing to chase the dream but it's extraordinarily difficult to pull off.
I've been fascinated by Marcos' slow rebirth for a couple of years now. Stelliga is a good bloke with enough of a loopy streak to give the old British sports car game a whirl. It's taken years (and Lord knows how much money) to get the TSO as good as it now is. Hindsighters and cackling bystanders might suggest ways he might have done it better or - as has been the case for a few months now - ask where the f**k is it? The truth is that the last 10% of getting a car sweet takes a disproportionate amount of time and effort, much of it potentially soul-destroying minutiae. You can't rush these things or ignore them and at the same time you're no longer "making something fit" to make a prototype car a smidgen better, you're thinking more and more about the availability, time and ease of fitting such parts. And wrestling with lead times, inventory and build programming. And much else besides.
The transition from development organisation to production organisation is a significant step change - it involves different people for a start. Expensive, qualified engineering people are happy to bolt together prototypes ...they're not the same people who have to make X cars a week to a consistent, merchantable standard. You also need to keep on developing the product. With the best will in the world, even the biggest car companies face unforeseen faults that cause recalls and customers find things that R&D never managed to find.
Not everybody likes the Marcos from all angles. It's also true that the cabin is "a bit snug". But what's remarkable about them now production has started is how high the quality is, the car's composure on any type of road you care to throw it at and (of course) its colossal power. The Marcos is a proper car, a good car. Nothing about it feels fragile, you just kind of *sense* it will be nigh on impossible to break it. Such intangibles matter a lot when performance from the big boys is so cheap and reliable. From a customers' perspective, the low volume market is more about expressing individuality than saving money. But - as TVR failed to recognise and address - people are less prepared to sacrifice dependability in their pursuit of an "against the grain" sports car.
I can't imagine how the notional "virtual car company" that TVR is mooted to become with Smolenski and the Yanks could or would deal with the vast amount of work needed using such a fragmented organisation. The really significant TVRs (ie the market successes) were the products of a small, committed team working closely together - one of whom was commercially astute and owned the company.
Riley-man, if he's the real deal, will need to be a bit like Wheeler, Stelliga or Noble - hands-on, imaginative and in for the long haul. What's been released/written so far concentrates on conveying his family history and CV. I don't think such things count for much - looking at his credentials I'd expect he could write a nice business plan. FWIW I think he ought to have a go at building a car and formulate his business plan whilst doing so because the status quo will change during the course of making the first car and inevitably cause him to rewrite any pre-written plan anyway. Before he starts, he might as well accept it will take longer and cost more than whatever he thought.
Stop talking Mr Riley - make a car.
I've been fascinated by Marcos' slow rebirth for a couple of years now. Stelliga is a good bloke with enough of a loopy streak to give the old British sports car game a whirl. It's taken years (and Lord knows how much money) to get the TSO as good as it now is. Hindsighters and cackling bystanders might suggest ways he might have done it better or - as has been the case for a few months now - ask where the f**k is it? The truth is that the last 10% of getting a car sweet takes a disproportionate amount of time and effort, much of it potentially soul-destroying minutiae. You can't rush these things or ignore them and at the same time you're no longer "making something fit" to make a prototype car a smidgen better, you're thinking more and more about the availability, time and ease of fitting such parts. And wrestling with lead times, inventory and build programming. And much else besides.
The transition from development organisation to production organisation is a significant step change - it involves different people for a start. Expensive, qualified engineering people are happy to bolt together prototypes ...they're not the same people who have to make X cars a week to a consistent, merchantable standard. You also need to keep on developing the product. With the best will in the world, even the biggest car companies face unforeseen faults that cause recalls and customers find things that R&D never managed to find.
Not everybody likes the Marcos from all angles. It's also true that the cabin is "a bit snug". But what's remarkable about them now production has started is how high the quality is, the car's composure on any type of road you care to throw it at and (of course) its colossal power. The Marcos is a proper car, a good car. Nothing about it feels fragile, you just kind of *sense* it will be nigh on impossible to break it. Such intangibles matter a lot when performance from the big boys is so cheap and reliable. From a customers' perspective, the low volume market is more about expressing individuality than saving money. But - as TVR failed to recognise and address - people are less prepared to sacrifice dependability in their pursuit of an "against the grain" sports car.
I can't imagine how the notional "virtual car company" that TVR is mooted to become with Smolenski and the Yanks could or would deal with the vast amount of work needed using such a fragmented organisation. The really significant TVRs (ie the market successes) were the products of a small, committed team working closely together - one of whom was commercially astute and owned the company.
Riley-man, if he's the real deal, will need to be a bit like Wheeler, Stelliga or Noble - hands-on, imaginative and in for the long haul. What's been released/written so far concentrates on conveying his family history and CV. I don't think such things count for much - looking at his credentials I'd expect he could write a nice business plan. FWIW I think he ought to have a go at building a car and formulate his business plan whilst doing so because the status quo will change during the course of making the first car and inevitably cause him to rewrite any pre-written plan anyway. Before he starts, he might as well accept it will take longer and cost more than whatever he thought.
Stop talking Mr Riley - make a car.
rustyintegrale said:
Well historically that may be so, but my memory of that name is old duffers and tartan rugs. Hardly an image anyone interested in performance (hence being on Pistonheads) is likely to be attracted by...
Rich
Only a very, very few Riley cars might reasonably be associated with old duffers and tartan rugs. Unfortunately they were amongst the last to be produced so tend to be remembered most.
Riley, as a marque, has an motorsport heritage to rival that of Aston Martin, Bentley, MG etc.
I know a little bit more about this story than I am able to reveal but there is one particular Riley name I would love to see resurrected......
Copied from other post:
I've always rather liked the SV and SVR. If it was priced right why would it not sell? Substitute the carbon panels for GRP, simplify the build process and would it not represent what so many on here have been asking for? Reliable stock engines, lots of tuning potential in a good looking British package.
Pricing under MGR was always ridiculous but it was intended as a halo model to tempt new investment. Ultimately that did not work but that is no reason to dismiss the car itself.
I do not see how it could be called an MG though as surely the rights to the name, in this country at least, rest with Nanjing Auto. Could there possibly be some connection between these plans and the rumoured resurrection of Jensen or will Nanjing allow the name to be used by others? If they are themselves about to restart production at Longbridge this seems a little strange.
I've always rather liked the SV and SVR. If it was priced right why would it not sell? Substitute the carbon panels for GRP, simplify the build process and would it not represent what so many on here have been asking for? Reliable stock engines, lots of tuning potential in a good looking British package.
Pricing under MGR was always ridiculous but it was intended as a halo model to tempt new investment. Ultimately that did not work but that is no reason to dismiss the car itself.
I do not see how it could be called an MG though as surely the rights to the name, in this country at least, rest with Nanjing Auto. Could there possibly be some connection between these plans and the rumoured resurrection of Jensen or will Nanjing allow the name to be used by others? If they are themselves about to restart production at Longbridge this seems a little strange.
It's true - the SV and SV-R were reasonably interesting cars but massively overpriced. Regardless of the market sector it was aiming for and the production costs, I see it more as a Monaro rival than an Aston Martin rival and the price would have to reflect that.
Edit: As I understand it, the SV was not part of the package that was sold to the Chinese. I believe that X-Power retains the rights to the car, although presumably not to the MG badge that it wore.
Edit: As I understand it, the SV was not part of the package that was sold to the Chinese. I believe that X-Power retains the rights to the car, although presumably not to the MG badge that it wore.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 13th March 20:00
But weren't MG Sport and Racing's assets sold by the receivers after they failed to find a buyer. Many of the cars ended up for sale at Oakfields, everything else was sold piecemeal.
I still think a plastic bodied SV either with the NA Ford V8 or with the option of a supercharger would make a very nice car. A drophead should be possible as I seem to remember that the De Tomaso on which the SV was based could be bought as a convertible.
I still think a plastic bodied SV either with the NA Ford V8 or with the option of a supercharger would make a very nice car. A drophead should be possible as I seem to remember that the De Tomaso on which the SV was based could be bought as a convertible.
Edited by julesv on Tuesday 13th March 20:11
The Hypno-Toad said:
Nope never have and true they are selling every car they can make but they are one of the very few exceptions. Even people like Audi and BMW are engaging in some form of pre registration at most of their showrooms.
Never understood what the issue is with pre-reg to be honest? It makes the figures, hides discounts from the general public. Bit like discounting high value goods that the food retailers do every day. I just got £5k off a brand new Z4M that I signed the deal in Feb, but still got the 07 plate. I'm happy, the dealer is happy, BMW are happy. What's the issue?
J
The Hypno-Toad said:
No this country isn't;
In case you hadn't noticed there is now no longer a BRITISH motor industry. Every car manufacturer in the UK is owned by foreign investors.
The problem is (as I have just said.) that there are too many cars chasing too few people.
In case you hadn't noticed there is now no longer a BRITISH motor industry. Every car manufacturer in the UK is owned by foreign investors.
The problem is (as I have just said.) that there are too many cars chasing too few people.
Surely the british motor industry should be identified as cars designed and (preferably!) built in the UK. The nationality of the shareholders isn't important. Just look at Lotus - a new owner every few years but the cars are designed and built in the UK with a consistent DNA which has everything to do with (the legacy of) Colin Chapman and little to do with this week's shareholder. That aside, we also have Aston Martin, Marcos, Morgan, Ariel, Caterham, Bristol, GTM, Ginetta, Noble and Ultima, to mention only a selection of the hundreds that exist (see www.globalautoindex.com). What do they have in common? They are interesting, specialist, low volume cars. I think the industry has a bright future as everyone wants something special. Small volume, high quality cars with long shelf lives (Morgan is a good example) are sustainable and environmentally friendly. Morgan is the only car you can buy, run for 5 years and sell with minimal depreciation, knowing your car still has another 40 years useful life and didn't pump out tonnes of CO2 in its manufacture. It's the volume manufacturers who have a problem selling their soulless mass-produced tedium. The business model just doesn't add up any more because even Peugeot can make a car which will reliably last 20 years or 150000 miles, rather than less than 10 (years, not miles!) a couple of decades ago. People don't buy a new boring car every 2 years, they want to buy a decent, interesting one and keep it for 5-10 years. Car manufacture may not be profitable any more, but that was never what the British motor industry was about. The Riley will fit right on in with other interesting newcomers such as Connaught.
Why do people keep trying to resurect these names? They mean absolutely nothing to 99% of the car buying public and not much to the tiny number of car enthusiasts who are old enough to even remotely remember them. The only advantage of using a used name is to cash in on the remaining brand awareness among potential customers or to hope that the media get enthusiastic about resurecting a once (i.e. long ago...) famous name and give your venture a head start.
We forget that this is PH, we know a bit about these things. The only other group of people that remembers these names is pensioners. Can PHers and pensioners make a big enough market? In many cases the owners of the name might want some control over your project as well.
Many people actually associate these names with the disaster that was the BL era.
MG probably still has some market value left as a name. The rest really don't.
If I was starting a new car company I'd start with a new name. Using a new name didn't hurt Lexus.
You are also in a catch 22 situation, make a car that clearly identifies with the old name and attract a small number of customers who remember it last time around or design a new car and alienate these people but catch customers from the wider market who won't really care about the name.
Yes, marque names can be revitalised like Skoda*. But at what cost? How much did VW spend on this? How much would it have cost them, or gained them, to have concentrated on their other brands? I honestly don't know why they did it. One way you sell VWs. The other way you sell VWs badged as Skodas after spending a shed load on the Skoda name that could have been kept in the bank and you did this to... sell VWs.
It is equally true though that new names can be created. Toyota did their sums and created Lexus.
Can you think of a resurected car name that has survived? Lexus on the other hand has survived.
*My plan for Skoda would have been radically different. Skoda should have stuck to RWD and developed into a range from a Smart type car to a range topping Renault Alpine type of car. The very last thing they should have done was to become yet another FWD hatchback maker competing in a saturated market with all the other not very profitable FWD makes.
We forget that this is PH, we know a bit about these things. The only other group of people that remembers these names is pensioners. Can PHers and pensioners make a big enough market? In many cases the owners of the name might want some control over your project as well.
Many people actually associate these names with the disaster that was the BL era.
MG probably still has some market value left as a name. The rest really don't.
If I was starting a new car company I'd start with a new name. Using a new name didn't hurt Lexus.
You are also in a catch 22 situation, make a car that clearly identifies with the old name and attract a small number of customers who remember it last time around or design a new car and alienate these people but catch customers from the wider market who won't really care about the name.
Yes, marque names can be revitalised like Skoda*. But at what cost? How much did VW spend on this? How much would it have cost them, or gained them, to have concentrated on their other brands? I honestly don't know why they did it. One way you sell VWs. The other way you sell VWs badged as Skodas after spending a shed load on the Skoda name that could have been kept in the bank and you did this to... sell VWs.
It is equally true though that new names can be created. Toyota did their sums and created Lexus.
Can you think of a resurected car name that has survived? Lexus on the other hand has survived.
*My plan for Skoda would have been radically different. Skoda should have stuck to RWD and developed into a range from a Smart type car to a range topping Renault Alpine type of car. The very last thing they should have done was to become yet another FWD hatchback maker competing in a saturated market with all the other not very profitable FWD makes.
cymtriks said:
Yes, marque names can be revitalised like Skoda.
The only interesting thing about Old Skoda was the utter crapness. Now they are crap in a much more insipid, tedious way, being nothing more than worse versions of Seats, which are themselves simply less good VWs. The only point is to try and sell more Golfs by having lots of different bland names - I mean brand names, which appeal to a rapidly shrinking "mainstream" market. They're all doomed because they do nothing a cheap Korean/Chinese chodmobile can't do for less money.
Well so far there is Dutch guy who says he owns the MG brand, having bought it from Pheonix.
Nanjing may have bought it
SAIC thought that they bought it.
BMW have tried to sell it since they did the deal with Nanjing.
Now this guy says he is going to resurect MGs
So who the hell owns what?
BMW do still own a lot of the names that BLMC owned.
Wolsely, Riley, Vanden Plas, Triunph, Standard, Morris, Austin etc
Nanjing may have bought it
SAIC thought that they bought it.
BMW have tried to sell it since they did the deal with Nanjing.
Now this guy says he is going to resurect MGs
So who the hell owns what?
BMW do still own a lot of the names that BLMC owned.
Wolsely, Riley, Vanden Plas, Triunph, Standard, Morris, Austin etc
odyssey2200 said:
Well so far there is Dutch guy who says he owns the MG brand, having bought it from Pheonix.
Nanjing may have bought it
SAIC thought that they bought it.
BMW have tried to sell it since they did the deal with Nanjing.
Now this guy says he is going to resurect MGs
So who the hell owns what?
BMW do still own a lot of the names that BLMC owned.
Wolsely, Riley, Vanden Plas, Triunph, Standard, Morris, Austin etc
Nanjing may have bought it
SAIC thought that they bought it.
BMW have tried to sell it since they did the deal with Nanjing.
Now this guy says he is going to resurect MGs
So who the hell owns what?
BMW do still own a lot of the names that BLMC owned.
Wolsely, Riley, Vanden Plas, Triunph, Standard, Morris, Austin etc
MGS+R *may* have had a licence to use the MG name which did not lapse with administration / receivership. That licence *may* be sellable / transferrable. In which case Rily *might* be able to buy it off the administrators / receivers of MGS+R without Nanjing having any say in the matter.
The receivers of MGR believe they had the rights to sell the MG brand, and sold it. It is unlikely that a court would overturn that.
BMW only "own" these names until somebody gets around to lodging an application to strike off the trademark registrations at the Patent Office due to lack of use. There is no way in which BMW could successfully defend such an action, since they cannot demonstrate any significant use of the brands in the appropriate use class (selling cars) for a long, long time.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Good for you, eddy. I don't know which part of the industry you work in but the part that I work in (for the past 13 years.) has seen wage cuts, redundancies, showrooms closing, good staff leaving the industry and morale at rock bottom.
Case in point, in order to make (American) manufacturer designated targets, one showroom I know pre registered a load of its top of the line model just before Christmas. Because at the moment the market is so stagnent, they then sold these vehicles through auction last month. The RRP of the vehicles was around £33500. They went at auction with about 15 miles on the clock and the dealers name in the log book, for £16500. That is not economically sustainable. Especially when you consider the effect that will have on the resdiuals for any poor sap who bought one privately for say £30000 for a Xmas present. The joke is the dealer who did this is actually owned by the manufacturer, which would seem an awfully expensive way of being able to beat up the dealer network with,
"Well XXXX XXXX did their target, why didn't you?"
Someone, somewhere is going to have to blink. We can't keep pumping cars into the marketplace in the hope that someone, somewhere will buy them. My best guess is that just after Hillary wins the election, one of the big guys will file for Chapter 11. Then they can blame it all on her, as the infastructure collapses pushing both the USA and Europe into recession.
Yes I might be glass half empty and maybe I can't spell but people need to open their eyes a little and stop living in this world where we can keep bringing back brands and supporting others just because in the fifties they might have won a rally.
Case in point, in order to make (American) manufacturer designated targets, one showroom I know pre registered a load of its top of the line model just before Christmas. Because at the moment the market is so stagnent, they then sold these vehicles through auction last month. The RRP of the vehicles was around £33500. They went at auction with about 15 miles on the clock and the dealers name in the log book, for £16500. That is not economically sustainable. Especially when you consider the effect that will have on the resdiuals for any poor sap who bought one privately for say £30000 for a Xmas present. The joke is the dealer who did this is actually owned by the manufacturer, which would seem an awfully expensive way of being able to beat up the dealer network with,
"Well XXXX XXXX did their target, why didn't you?"
Someone, somewhere is going to have to blink. We can't keep pumping cars into the marketplace in the hope that someone, somewhere will buy them. My best guess is that just after Hillary wins the election, one of the big guys will file for Chapter 11. Then they can blame it all on her, as the infastructure collapses pushing both the USA and Europe into recession.
Yes I might be glass half empty and maybe I can't spell but people need to open their eyes a little and stop living in this world where we can keep bringing back brands and supporting others just because in the fifties they might have won a rally.
Assuming I've correctly deduced the US brand in question, the model selling for £30k in the UK sells for just about half that in the USA. You could argue, therefore, that it is now selling here for the "correct" price.
Frankly, many cars in the UK are over-priced, and are very expensive to sell. A lot of the blame for that must lie with the absurdly high cost of land / buildings in the UK, the relatively high wage costs, and the ridiculous culture of "high sticker less incentive" that has crept in here over the years.
Added to that, so many new cars seem to be bought on credit, but the population is a little credit-heavy right now, following 10 years of sham prosperity fuelled by borrowing.
Those who will be squeezed are those selling something with limited consumer appeal in the target market. Kia Picantos and Fiat Pandas do well, as do BMWs and Porsches. But who in their right mind would *want* to buy a US import at twice the US sticker price?
Frankly anything non-niche and non-premium ought to be sold over the internet or from a "pile em high, sell em cheap" retail operation. The world has changed, but has the motor trade changed with it?
From http://forums.mg-rover.org a poster has identified:
Name & Registered Office:
MG SPORTS AND RACING EUROPE LTD
CRANHILLS HOUSE
EARDISTON
TENBURY WELLS
WR15 8JP
Company No. 06071901
Date of Incorporation: 29/01/2007
Company Director: Mr W.J. Riley
Company Secretary: Mr B. Mitchell
Name & Registered Office:
MG SPORTS AND RACING EUROPE LTD
CRANHILLS HOUSE
EARDISTON
TENBURY WELLS
WR15 8JP
Company No. 06071901
Date of Incorporation: 29/01/2007
Company Director: Mr W.J. Riley
Company Secretary: Mr B. Mitchell
skwdenyer said:
From http://forums.mg-rover.org a poster has identified:
Name & Registered Office:
MG SPORTS AND RACING EUROPE LTD
CRANHILLS HOUSE
EARDISTON
TENBURY WELLS
WR15 8JP
Company No. 06071901
Date of Incorporation: 29/01/2007
Company Director: Mr W.J. Riley
Company Secretary: Mr B. Mitchell
Name & Registered Office:
MG SPORTS AND RACING EUROPE LTD
CRANHILLS HOUSE
EARDISTON
TENBURY WELLS
WR15 8JP
Company No. 06071901
Date of Incorporation: 29/01/2007
Company Director: Mr W.J. Riley
Company Secretary: Mr B. Mitchell
Accepting what you say as fact, the issue is then whether they can use the MG badge. The guys from Nanjing are extremely wise to this (there was an article in the New York Times about this today) and are getting very savvy about branding. Regardless of how trashed the brand is in Europe, it still has a lot of value in the USA, so licencing the name is very unlikely. Again, the same goes for Riley, BMW own it and will use it if and when convenient to them. Ford bought Rover just to prevent SAIC from using it and risk damaging Land-Rover brand value, particularly in the USA where many abbreviate the name to Rover.
I have to wonder if this is really worth the effort at all. It's just a name that has graced some fantastic cars and some pretty awful ones too. Design a car that is superb, with a name that sounds good and you can achieve far better than this as a start up business. Noble, Pagani & Koenigsegg all seem to have got it right - albeit in small volume.
Unless there's supposed to be some relationship happening between the Rileys and Nanjing, I don't see how Riley can start making TFs, as Nanjing are doing it pretty soon, or now. Starting production of the SV again will be nice because it was a great car; had everything going for it apart from price... I don't think they've got much chance of starting a prosperous production-car company and calling it Riley these days, not because of BL ruining their status, but (no offense to the guy's name) it's not a very interesting name. People are superficial and don't like names that aren't interesting or don't have something going for them; Lexus is hardly a fair example of a startup company that did well, their only selling point was that they were Toyotas that were supposed to be as luxurious as Mercedes, they got recognition and made really good cars and here they are today...
joust said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
Nope never have and true they are selling every car they can make but they are one of the very few exceptions. Even people like Audi and BMW are engaging in some form of pre registration at most of their showrooms.
Never understood what the issue is with pre-reg to be honest? It makes the figures, hides discounts from the general public. Bit like discounting high value goods that the food retailers do every day. I just got £5k off a brand new Z4M that I signed the deal in Feb, but still got the 07 plate. I'm happy, the dealer is happy, BMW are happy. What's the issue?
J
BMW and the dealer are only happy because they made the 'best' of an undesirable situation (having a car on the lot that no one ordered). If they sold all cars at a similar discount because no one asked fot that exact car the moment it was built, they'd be bust before you could say 'Oktoberfest'.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff