RE: 250 orders for new TVR

[joncon]

dealer network is a who's who of old dealers ...
http://tvr.co.uk/network/members

[ORD]

I'm just a bit disappointed that the focus is less and less on making a car that is enjoyable, rather than just fast, to drive. All the bumf about torque and racing makes me think it will be just another stupendously fast and dull car. I hope I am wrong and it majors on character and actual driving pleasure Chasing numbers just looks so familiar.

[Blown2CV]

RoverP6B said:

PAUL500 said:

Take the badge off what!? we need to actually see something to contemplate that scenario

Quite! Right now there isn't even a car to put a badge on. Just some very unappetising renderings.

If TVR think they can get this thing below 1400kg, they're very much mistaken.

If TVR think they can sell in the US to buyers who prefer it to a similarly-weighted, similarly heavy Mustang, they're mad.

If TVR think they can sell this thing below £70k, they'll go bankrupt. Again.

This has all the makings of yet another overblown launch followed promptly by grand failure.

i hope they don't read this... how will they cope with an Internet expert picking holes in what he's imagined their plans to be... i mean that sort of thing could just torpedo the whole operation.

[Cyder]

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

1200kg is extremely light. It worries me that TVR thinks they can hit that, but we will see!

I don't see how they couldn't, if it was something they were really keen on sticking to.

The new MX-5 is 1,047KG. A crate Coyote V8 block weighs 200KG. Take away the current engine, stick the Coyote in, use some lightweight materials where the MX-5 doesn't etc... Under 1,200KG...

I know its not as easy as that, but it is definitely achievable!

I think the MX5 comparison shows exactly why it is unrealistic. The R&D budgets wont bear any kind of comparison. More important, the MX5 doesnt have huge wheels & brakes; nor does it need to cope with a heavy engine and lots of power. I imagine the TVR will need much stronger and therefor heavier components to its rolling chassis and powertrain. For example, I expect the 6MT in the Mazda has a torque limit of about half what the TVR will need, and it must be easier to make a light weak box than a light strong box.

I think 1300kg would be decent. 1250kg would be pretty damn impressive. 1200kg would blow my socks off

To be honest, I used the MX-5 comparison just because it was the first car that popped into my head that's under 1,200KG

I see your point, its no easy feat. But also bare in mind, the MX-5 fully loaded is a £23,000 car materials used in it aren't particularly groundbreaking. Assuming the TVR is around £75,000 at tripple the price, you have a good chance of them utilizing more up-market materials to keep weight down. Recycled Carbon-Fibre like the Zenos E10 - much cheaper than normal CF and almost as efficient - perfect for the chassis. Plus more fancy-named lightweight materials here and there and that could negate the extra weight of the heavier gearbox, powertrain etc.

1,300KG is 'easy', losing that extra 100KG will be hard but I'm confident is a doable weight!

The mx5 has the added benefit of D+D costs and tooling being split over a much much greater volume of cars per year than the TVR so the same parts developed for each car would cost significantly less on the mx5 than the TVR.

Thise fancy materials you're suggesting for this car would of course get you down to 1200kg if they wanted it to, but the cost of the car would be astronomical. It's a balance the owners need to get right, and frankly most people probably wouldn't notice if their car was delivered brand new with an extra 50kg under the bonnet.

[Cyder]

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

1200kg is extremely light. It worries me that TVR thinks they can hit that, but we will see!

I don't see how they couldn't, if it was something they were really keen on sticking to.

The new MX-5 is 1,047KG. A crate Coyote V8 block weighs 200KG. Take away the current engine, stick the Coyote in, use some lightweight materials where the MX-5 doesn't etc... Under 1,200KG...

I know its not as easy as that, but it is definitely achievable!

I think the MX5 comparison shows exactly why it is unrealistic. The R&D budgets wont bear any kind of comparison. More important, the MX5 doesnt have huge wheels & brakes; nor does it need to cope with a heavy engine and lots of power. I imagine the TVR will need much stronger and therefor heavier components to its rolling chassis and powertrain. For example, I expect the 6MT in the Mazda has a torque limit of about half what the TVR will need, and it must be easier to make a light weak box than a light strong box.

I think 1300kg would be decent. 1250kg would be pretty damn impressive. 1200kg would blow my socks off

To be honest, I used the MX-5 comparison just because it was the first car that popped into my head that's under 1,200KG

I see your point, its no easy feat. But also bare in mind, the MX-5 fully loaded is a £23,000 car materials used in it aren't particularly groundbreaking. Assuming the TVR is around £75,000 at tripple the price, you have a good chance of them utilizing more up-market materials to keep weight down. Recycled Carbon-Fibre like the Zenos E10 - much cheaper than normal CF and almost as efficient - perfect for the chassis. Plus more fancy-named lightweight materials here and there and that could negate the extra weight of the heavier gearbox, powertrain etc.

1,300KG is 'easy', losing that extra 100KG will be hard but I'm confident is a doable weight!

The mx5 has the added benefit of D+D costs and tooling being split over a much much greater volume of cars per year than the TVR so the same parts developed for each car would cost significantly less on the mx5 than the TVR.

Thise fancy materials you're suggesting for this car would of course get you down to 1200kg if they wanted it to, but the cost of the car would be astronomical. It's a balance the owners need to get right, and frankly most people probably wouldn't notice if their car was delivered brand new with an extra 50kg under the bonnet.

[feef]

Cyder said:

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

1200kg is extremely light. It worries me that TVR thinks they can hit that, but we will see!

I don't see how they couldn't, if it was something they were really keen on sticking to.

The new MX-5 is 1,047KG. A crate Coyote V8 block weighs 200KG. Take away the current engine, stick the Coyote in, use some lightweight materials where the MX-5 doesn't etc... Under 1,200KG...

I know its not as easy as that, but it is definitely achievable!

I think the MX5 comparison shows exactly why it is unrealistic. The R&D budgets wont bear any kind of comparison. More important, the MX5 doesnt have huge wheels & brakes; nor does it need to cope with a heavy engine and lots of power. I imagine the TVR will need much stronger and therefor heavier components to its rolling chassis and powertrain. For example, I expect the 6MT in the Mazda has a torque limit of about half what the TVR will need, and it must be easier to make a light weak box than a light strong box.

I think 1300kg would be decent. 1250kg would be pretty damn impressive. 1200kg would blow my socks off

To be honest, I used the MX-5 comparison just because it was the first car that popped into my head that's under 1,200KG

I see your point, its no easy feat. But also bare in mind, the MX-5 fully loaded is a £23,000 car materials used in it aren't particularly groundbreaking. Assuming the TVR is around £75,000 at tripple the price, you have a good chance of them utilizing more up-market materials to keep weight down. Recycled Carbon-Fibre like the Zenos E10 - much cheaper than normal CF and almost as efficient - perfect for the chassis. Plus more fancy-named lightweight materials here and there and that could negate the extra weight of the heavier gearbox, powertrain etc.

1,300KG is 'easy', losing that extra 100KG will be hard but I'm confident is a doable weight!

The mx5 has the added benefit of D+D costs and tooling being split over a much much greater volume of cars per year than the TVR so the same parts developed for each car would cost significantly less on the mx5 than the TVR.

Thise fancy materials you're suggesting for this car would of course get you down to 1200kg if they wanted it to, but the cost of the car would be astronomical. It's a balance the owners need to get right, and frankly most people probably wouldn't notice if their car was delivered brand new with an extra 50kg under the bonnet.

But when you look at something like the Citroen C6, it was never intended to be a high production-volume vehicle so it was more cost effective to make some chassis cross members and subframes out of carbon fibre. (Was with mixed feelings when I saw it being removed to fit my tow-bar :/ )

Assuming TVR go down the route of more exotic materials, then they lend themselves more to the smaller scale production than setting up a factory to press thousands of steel panels.

So yes, economies of scale DO come into it when making comparisons with the likes of the MX5, but it's been shown in other cars that depending on the materials used, the scaling might not be as obvious as you might think

[PAUL500]

I was referring to the example of the MX5 and the extra weight over and above the components fitted to that car if it ran a v8 instead.

Previous TVRs were glorified kit cars that would no longer pass muster against the brand new competition now or pass current regulations. At the end of the day the company went bankrupt selling that type of car back then.

jamieduff1981 said:

PAUL500 said:

TREMAiNE said:

ORD said:

1200kg is extremely light. It worries me that TVR thinks they can hit that, but we will see!

I don't see how they couldn't, if it was something they were really keen on sticking to.

The new MX-5 is 1,047KG. A crate Coyote V8 block weighs 200KG. Take away the current engine, stick the Coyote in, use some lightweight materials where the MX-5 doesn't etc... Under 1,200KG...

I know its not as easy as that, but it is definitely achievable!

and to run that motor you need a tough and no doubt heavy gearbox, propshaft, diff, driveshafts, wheelbearings, uprights, suspension then add in large radiator, manifolds, exhaust, cats etc etc and to get it through type approval some significant crash structure to absorb all that weight.

The f40 struggled to get to 1200kg 25 plus years ago when regulations were not so tight and even then they had to resort to a piece of string to open the door! and no gel coat to hide the carbon weave.

Why would manifolds, exhausts, catalytic converters, wheel bearings, radiators and uprights be heavier than they used to be on the last TVRs? Propshaft, diff and driveshafts maybe but not much else aft of the gearbox.

Empirical evidence of plenty last-gen TVRs running nonsensical amounts of power from LS conversions are coping just fine save some broken driveshafts - and most of these cars are either racing or spending a lot of time at Santa Pod getting thrashed down the drag strip.

[PAUL500]

Do you seriously think buyers of £70k plus cars would accept hand lay up and non type approval these days just to own a lightweight car? If indeed 250 deposits have been taken then the car will have to jump through some significant legislative hoops in order to be able to be registered for road use in virtually every country.

jamieduff1981 said:

PAUL500 said:

jamieduff1981 said:

It isn't hard to make a lighter composite body tub than the last gen TVRs used. Just using pre-preg cloths or even vacuum pumps would be a good start. It's hard to make a heavier layup than just using random weave fibreglass mat and wetting the resin on by hand.

Its very hard to to do if you need to get it through type approval though, men in the shed engineering is only for kit cars these days.

Eh? How does composite lay-up technique affect type approval? Is type approval even relevant for low volume manufacturing? It certainly wasn't until recently.

Edited by PAUL500 on Monday 2nd November 23:54

[PAUL500]

Even a pared down, sparse track car version with no fuel on board could not get that low in real life

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/288gto-f40-f50-en...

xRIEx said:

PAUL500 said:

The f40 struggled to get to 1200kg 25 plus years ago when regulations were not so tight and even then they had to resort to a piece of string to open the door! and no gel coat to hide the carbon weave.

F40 kerb weight is quoted as 1100kg



Although the interior is sparse, to say the least, the Ultima GTR is quoted at 950kg (although that's going to vary quite a bit with build).

Edited by PAUL500 on Tuesday 3rd November 00:07

[Kolbenkopp]

ORD said:

I'm just a bit disappointed that the focus is less and less on making a car that is enjoyable, rather than just fast, to drive. All the bumf about torque and racing makes me think it will be just another stupendously fast and dull car. I hope I am wrong and it majors on character and actual driving pleasure Chasing numbers just looks so familiar.

Same boat. Semi OT, but I really wish someone would invest in a modern Elan type vehicle, something GM said he wanted to do more than another super car. But how do you sell that? It is difficult to market intangibles such as steering feel and agility. No way to out MX the Miata on price/performance. And realistically, the margin they could make on say a 30-40k car does not fit the low volume and limted capital outfit that TVR will be for a good long while.

So what are they to do? Looks like they are aiming for something around 70-90k. Serious competition at that price, so the car needs serious stats to sell. And they will want a bit of 'Giant Slayer' drama to put TVR back on the (world) map. What better than super car humbling stats and a class win at Le Mans?

Crate V8 @ 500 PS in a ~ 1.3 ton car = something around 400 bhp / ton. I'm confident that if they let him, GM will deliver on the intangibles. So on paper, and giving GM some advance praise, enough to keep a GT3 RS in check. But at half the price. Makes sense, no?

[Kolbenkopp]

PAUL500 said:

Do you seriously think buyers of £70k plus cars would accept hand lay up and non type approval these days just to own a lightweight car?

Speaking of type approval, has anyone got info about what they are aiming for? Possibly the TVR brand has enough appeal in the UK that they can do the first couple of years local market only. But mid/long term that is a dead end IMO.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Kolbenkopp said:

Speaking of type approval, has anyone got info about what they are aiming for? Possibly the TVR brand has enough appeal in the UK that they can do the first couple of years local market only. But mid/long term that is a dead end IMO.

Morgan has had to slash the price of its Aero to shift the cars,

"Morgan has unveiled a new Aero 8 at the 2015 Geneva Motor Show, 15 years after the model first went on sale.

"The big news is the price: where the current Aero Supersports costs £100-128k, the new Aero 8 will start from £66k. Both cars are identical from the A-pillars forwards, and use the same 4799cc BMW-sourced V8 with 362bhp and BMW limited-slip diff. Presumably Aero Supersports owners will be smarting at the news."

[skyrover]

Good... the UK is missing an affordable performance sector.

Something Joe public can actually relate to.

[TA14]

Ozzie Osmond said:

"The big news is the price: where the current Aero Supersports costs £100-128k, the new Aero 8 will start from £66k. Both cars are identical from the A-pillars forwards, and use the same 4799cc BMW-sourced V8 with 362bhp and BMW limited-slip diff. Presumably Aero Supersports owners will be smarting at the news."

Thanks, I missed that. An impressive offering from Morgan:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-...

[900T-R]

So basically they were back to where they were when they first introduced the Aero 8 at £50K and before every new iteration became more expensive than the limited production showcase Aeromax...