New TVR update
Discussion
HarryW said:
Happy new year Tony 
not tempted then 
not tempted then And you mate.Nah I`m not rolling in it like you
I`m obviously more cynical than most, but if you sponsored a Hippo from outer Cambodia for a pound a month, you would get more updates on it than someone paying 5K of there hard earnt on a 60/70/80k (who knows) sports car which we know might have 4 wheels
In 2017 you can pick me up and take me for a blast up the A32 and say I told you so, hopefully
Edited by T66ORA on Wednesday 30th December 16:12
so this is the front, I did not got the 1 + 1 together before
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/tvr-tea...
T66ORA said:
HarryW said:
Happy new year Tony not tempted then
not tempted then And you mate.Nah I`m not rolling in it like you
I`m obviously more cynical than most, but if you sponsored a Hippo from outer Cambodia for a pound a month, you would get more updates on it than someone paying 5K of there hard earnt on a 60/70/80k (who knows) sports car which we know might have 4 wheels
In 2017 you can pick me up and take me for a blast up the A32 and say I told you so, hopefully
Edited by T66ORA on Wednesday 30th December 16:12
It's a bit clumsy in some places. I think that angle and a similar one looking at the front are its best angles.
Also, when you look at the origins of that car, built for Le Mans first, flat floor, cf composite around tubular frame, side exhaust (on the originals), aero etc, etc, this new car reads like an almost total replacement of a car PW's team delivered back in 2000/1. The only real difference is that 15 years on it looks like improvements in manufacturing techniques and materials have meant that what PW found to be cripplingly expensive and time consuming, LE seems to have found to be the least expensive and time consuming way to build a Le Mans car in a shed.
From my experience, this sort of chassis design is a million miles away from the normal TVR road chassis. Even in a T350 you can still feel that chassis twist that is extremely prevalent in the Griff (still my ultimate TVR). Not in this. It easily lets you use the 400+Hp in places where you know you'd just be asking for trouble in a normal PW TVR. So my thinking is that this new proposal with 500+ and some driving aids will still be easier to drive than a Griff era car.
I have absolutely no doubt that this new car will have a chassis capable of handling whatever power this engine delivers and where. I have no doubt that Cosworth will deliver something exciting with plenty of scope to add more excitement. And I'm sure there are more than enough world leading specialists in the UK to ensure it is set up correctly.
I don't understand the iStream process but I am taking the view that GM hasn't turned into some loony fantasist who has decided to ruin his own memory in exchange for desperately taking a small fee from TVR. It seems to be a process that is perfectly suited to the building of performance cars in sheds in the 21st century.
I don't really care how it looks. I never liked the Sag but it has grown on me as an iconic image. I know this car has to be erring on the side of caution and I also know that visuals are such a personal thing that what one person loves, another may find gopping. So I don't care if I don't like it. What's important is that the majority of non TVR consumers do.
Where I do see a huge problem is once inside the cabin. TVR can't survive on orders from traditional TVR fans. It catagorically must convert fans of other marque's in order to survive. That means working incredibly hard to eliminate all the squeaks, rattles and knocks. To be fair, my car seems to have achieved this so it clearly isn't impossible and maybe the iStream process ensures a level of build consistency that helps this. But this TVR needs to attract people who are used to a hundred and one buttons that do things to their bottom while the car pretty much gets on with driving or parking itself. No one wants to see TVR go the way of Lotus where for the last twenty years, until recently, people have been banging out the sad 'you either get it or you don't' defence. TVRs never had to resort to that because absolutely everyone who saw or heard a TVR knew exactly what they were about but I just worry that today's buyers won't be able to handle a car that doesn't pre-heat their prostate or use a thousand motors to support their arthritic or bone idle limbs.
Also, when you look at the origins of that car, built for Le Mans first, flat floor, cf composite around tubular frame, side exhaust (on the originals), aero etc, etc, this new car reads like an almost total replacement of a car PW's team delivered back in 2000/1. The only real difference is that 15 years on it looks like improvements in manufacturing techniques and materials have meant that what PW found to be cripplingly expensive and time consuming, LE seems to have found to be the least expensive and time consuming way to build a Le Mans car in a shed.
From my experience, this sort of chassis design is a million miles away from the normal TVR road chassis. Even in a T350 you can still feel that chassis twist that is extremely prevalent in the Griff (still my ultimate TVR). Not in this. It easily lets you use the 400+Hp in places where you know you'd just be asking for trouble in a normal PW TVR. So my thinking is that this new proposal with 500+ and some driving aids will still be easier to drive than a Griff era car.
I have absolutely no doubt that this new car will have a chassis capable of handling whatever power this engine delivers and where. I have no doubt that Cosworth will deliver something exciting with plenty of scope to add more excitement. And I'm sure there are more than enough world leading specialists in the UK to ensure it is set up correctly.
I don't understand the iStream process but I am taking the view that GM hasn't turned into some loony fantasist who has decided to ruin his own memory in exchange for desperately taking a small fee from TVR. It seems to be a process that is perfectly suited to the building of performance cars in sheds in the 21st century.
I don't really care how it looks. I never liked the Sag but it has grown on me as an iconic image. I know this car has to be erring on the side of caution and I also know that visuals are such a personal thing that what one person loves, another may find gopping. So I don't care if I don't like it. What's important is that the majority of non TVR consumers do.
Where I do see a huge problem is once inside the cabin. TVR can't survive on orders from traditional TVR fans. It catagorically must convert fans of other marque's in order to survive. That means working incredibly hard to eliminate all the squeaks, rattles and knocks. To be fair, my car seems to have achieved this so it clearly isn't impossible and maybe the iStream process ensures a level of build consistency that helps this. But this TVR needs to attract people who are used to a hundred and one buttons that do things to their bottom while the car pretty much gets on with driving or parking itself. No one wants to see TVR go the way of Lotus where for the last twenty years, until recently, people have been banging out the sad 'you either get it or you don't' defence. TVRs never had to resort to that because absolutely everyone who saw or heard a TVR knew exactly what they were about but I just worry that today's buyers won't be able to handle a car that doesn't pre-heat their prostate or use a thousand motors to support their arthritic or bone idle limbs.
Wonder what the main chassis dimensions are going to be, the releases to date say similar to previous Tivs.
Will that be the 2.5m+ Wheel base of the Cerbera/Typhon, the 2.3m+ of the Sagaris/T350 or 2.2m+ of the earlier Giff/chim. Hoping for something along the lines of the longer one myself... Also a track width of over 1.5m as seen on the later cars.
Will that be the 2.5m+ Wheel base of the Cerbera/Typhon, the 2.3m+ of the Sagaris/T350 or 2.2m+ of the earlier Giff/chim. Hoping for something along the lines of the longer one myself... Also a track width of over 1.5m as seen on the later cars.
DonkeyApple said:
I don't understand the iStream process
'ere ya gohttp://www.istreamtechnology.co.uk/1/iSTREAM.html
and
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/news-articles/go...
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 31st December 11:22
GetCarter said:
DonkeyApple said:
I don't understand the iStream process
'ere ya gohttp://www.istreamtechnology.co.uk/1/iSTREAM.html
and
http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/news-articles/go...
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 31st December 11:22
Let me elaborate on my comment: I've read all about the iStream process and tried my best to wade and hack through some of the mountain of verbiage on GM's promotional material but after all of that, I don't understand the iStream process.
It's been around for years and no one has yet delivered a product on it. Low volume manufacture was never what it was about so it does appear that he's had to resort to doing such a deal just to get a deal done. The Yamaha deal seems to be taking an awfully long time to deliver, as do the other iStream deals announced to date.
I am by no means suggesting it doesn't work perfectly etc but would prefer an explanation of the system by someone more akin to Fred Dibner than a polo-necked, butt plugged disco aficionado spewing media twaddle.
DonkeyApple said:
Cheers Steve.
Let me elaborate on my comment: I've read all about the iStream process and tried my best to wade and hack through some of the mountain of verbiage on GM's promotional material but after all of that, I don't understand the iStream process.
It's been around for years and no one has yet delivered a product on it. Low volume manufacture was never what it was about so it does appear that he's had to resort to doing such a deal just to get a deal done. The Yamaha deal seems to be taking an awfully long time to deliver, as do the other iStream deals announced to date.
I am by no means suggesting it doesn't work perfectly etc but would prefer an explanation of the system by someone more akin to Fred Dibner than a polo-necked, butt plugged disco aficionado spewing media twaddle.
I know what you mean!Let me elaborate on my comment: I've read all about the iStream process and tried my best to wade and hack through some of the mountain of verbiage on GM's promotional material but after all of that, I don't understand the iStream process.
It's been around for years and no one has yet delivered a product on it. Low volume manufacture was never what it was about so it does appear that he's had to resort to doing such a deal just to get a deal done. The Yamaha deal seems to be taking an awfully long time to deliver, as do the other iStream deals announced to date.
I am by no means suggesting it doesn't work perfectly etc but would prefer an explanation of the system by someone more akin to Fred Dibner than a polo-necked, butt plugged disco aficionado spewing media twaddle.
I think the real meat in the sandwich is that a lightweight monocoque can be produced in about a minute and a half. So it's MUCH cheaper... but also stiffer, lighter and will be less prone to 'issues' later in its life than existing production techniques. Power to weight up, production costs down, more MPG, less things to break, less likely to die in a shunt. Saul Goodman springs to mind
GetCarter said:
DonkeyApple said:
Cheers Steve.
Let me elaborate on my comment: I've read all about the iStream process and tried my best to wade and hack through some of the mountain of verbiage on GM's promotional material but after all of that, I don't understand the iStream process.
It's been around for years and no one has yet delivered a product on it. Low volume manufacture was never what it was about so it does appear that he's had to resort to doing such a deal just to get a deal done. The Yamaha deal seems to be taking an awfully long time to deliver, as do the other iStream deals announced to date.
I am by no means suggesting it doesn't work perfectly etc but would prefer an explanation of the system by someone more akin to Fred Dibner than a polo-necked, butt plugged disco aficionado spewing media twaddle.
I know what you mean!Let me elaborate on my comment: I've read all about the iStream process and tried my best to wade and hack through some of the mountain of verbiage on GM's promotional material but after all of that, I don't understand the iStream process.
It's been around for years and no one has yet delivered a product on it. Low volume manufacture was never what it was about so it does appear that he's had to resort to doing such a deal just to get a deal done. The Yamaha deal seems to be taking an awfully long time to deliver, as do the other iStream deals announced to date.
I am by no means suggesting it doesn't work perfectly etc but would prefer an explanation of the system by someone more akin to Fred Dibner than a polo-necked, butt plugged disco aficionado spewing media twaddle.
I think the real meat in the sandwich is that a lightweight monocoque can be produced in about a minute and a half. So it's MUCH cheaper... but also stiffer, lighter and will be less prone to 'issues' later in its life than existing production techniques. Power to weight up, production costs down, more MPG, less things to break, less likely to die in a shunt. Saul Goodman springs to mind
I still remember going to S&D and meeting the gents who headed up the T400 project and Trevor mentioning that it used to take a couple of days and a couple of people just to get the doors to fit in a typical TVR shell. The whole factory was clearly haemorrhaging millions of man hours and ignoring that all around them the only British manufacturing industries that were thriving it even surviving were those that rapidly and massively replaced man labour with machine technology.
DonkeyApple said:
That's my basic understanding. Given that when you look at PW's last few set of accounts you can see that labour costs were absolutely shocking and than a decade on it's even more costly to maintain a labour pool then the key to TVRs future, in this regard, still lies with what killed them off last time which was ultimately a comprehensive failure to invest in modern techniques so as to massively reduce labour costs and risks. If they can churn out cars by only using half a dozen people instead of several hundred then it is an absolutely massive step forward and highlights why LE feels the project can succeed while many look at how the older cars were built and are correctly adamant that no such product could ever be constructed in the UK again and be either commercially viable or meet modern customer quality expectations.
I still remember going to S&D and meeting the gents who headed up the T400 project and Trevor mentioning that it used to take a couple of days and a couple of people just to get the doors to fit in a typical TVR shell. The whole factory was clearly haemorrhaging millions of man hours and ignoring that all around them the only British manufacturing industries that were thriving it even surviving were those that rapidly and massively replaced man labour with machine technology.
...although I'm still not totally clear what iStream is, despite reading most of the information available and looking at all the pictures. Although the terms 'carbon' and 'composites' are bandied about, various texts also hint at steel tubes, and certainly in some of the high-res images of the Yamaha chassis it's clear there is round tube in there and welded-up sections. The only thing that's not clear is if the tube chassis is itself fully welded before the carbon/composite panels are added, of if it is the carbon 'skin' that holds it all together. The latter doesn't sound sensible, so to me this looks almost 'business as usual' for TVR manufacture with the first step being a welded-up tube chassis. Only now it gets composite panels in the 'gaps' between the chassis tubes, and gets sheathed in carbon fibre? Am I wrong?I still remember going to S&D and meeting the gents who headed up the T400 project and Trevor mentioning that it used to take a couple of days and a couple of people just to get the doors to fit in a typical TVR shell. The whole factory was clearly haemorrhaging millions of man hours and ignoring that all around them the only British manufacturing industries that were thriving it even surviving were those that rapidly and massively replaced man labour with machine technology.
So on the plus side - like the GM promo wording it means minimal setup costs (presumably a bloke with a welder, a chassis jig and some moulds); and all very green as we aren't using massive bits of kit to stamp out body panels. But given labour costs were historically a problem, I can't see how this makes things better? Don't we still need a bloke with a welder? Don't we still need folks to lay-up glass/carbon panels? I could see some saving in the actual body panels if they were using glass strands in resin sprayed into a mould as opposed to a hand lay-up; but if we're talking visible carbon weave then that's back to being labour intensive again.
Although in fairness, having visited the factory when it was running and seeing the chassis getting welded up, that didn't seem to be such an overhead in the grand scheme of things. I can't really remember exactly, but when I was there it was maybe only 3 or 4 welding 'booths' active to keep the factory supplied with chassis, so half a dozen chassis builders out of a staff of how many? Maybe iStream can make saving in this area - but that's just the chassis. It still needs built-up, mechanicals, transmission, wiring, interior, body panels, paint etc. I guess CanBus simplifies the wiring nowadays, but there's still a whole lot more than just saving on the chassis.
I hope this does all work out, but having built-up the Chevrolet-Tuscan pretty much from scratch*, I'm struggling to see how iStream makes any sort of significant dent in the total costs of building a low-volume car - lighter maybe, but I can't see a cost reduction over a conventional TVR chassis. I really really want this to work (having put a deposit down and holding off buying a Stingray instead), but I'm still thinking it's going to be a really tall order to deliver cars at the prices currently being bandied about at anywhere near the target weight. As for power - 500hp plus please - the Tuscan challenge chassis (all CDS tube unlike the road cars) is perfectly fine with 500hp, and very nicely controllable, although I accept that's also with the benefit of a roll-cage stiffening things up. If it performs/handles as well as the 'tvrolet' and includes a few 'road car' creature comforts I'll be a happy enough bunny.
- [shameless plug] for sale in the classifieds BTW, at far less than the new car (waaaaay under cost to build
) lower weight, and [probably] more power [/shameless plug]
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff