RE: New TVR Griffith - official
Discussion
ChilliWhizz said:
DonkeyApple said:
Why on earth does it need to be faster than current supercars all of a sudden when that has never been part of TVRs true history.......
Because this is General Gassing DA, where fantasies matter..... not the real world we live in 
I like the General Gassing fantasy world much better than the real world for sure!
TartanPaint said:
0-100mph in this TVR will be white-knuckles, holding on for dear life, bouncing off the rev limiter while you try to keep it out of a hedge. This will be wondering if tyre smoke is carcinogenic. Wondering what the county record is for drawing 11s on the road. Wondering if a set of tyres per week is excessive. Wondering if any research labs are working on a prosthetic eardrum.
Hmm, that has a really familiar ring to it 
DonkeyApple said:
Ares said:
DonkeyApple said:
So what this TVR needs then is awd and huge amounts of electronics?
No. 
You do seem to believe that TVRs of old were cars that slayed supercars all day long? I don't really recall that being the case.
I was 21 when I bought a 4.3BV back in the early 90s. It was a fast car. Pretty much quicker than the vast majority of kit you'd find on the roads. Was it faster than then supercars? No. It was certainly cheaper. ( this particular car was dragged against a 220 and an F1 by its previous owner. It didn't win, despite the more then prestigious driving ability of that owner).
By the time I sold it 13 years later a huge amount of boggo cars were quicker all round.
The T350 I replaced it with wasn't quicker than supercars of that time either. It was cheaper though. Boxsters were quicker down the road.
I've been driving the Typhon for the last few years. That's not quicker than supercars of its era either. But at £100k+ it was still cheaper.
But you could fill them up with awd, electric motors, auto boxes and very smart electronics and you'd get much better performance stats for magazines. They just wouldn't be very exciting cars any more, wouldn't be cheaper than the mainstream and still wouldn't be supercars.
£90k for a spot of automotive theatre, designed by GMD and powered by Cosworth and able to hit 0-100 in 7s seems awfully appealing. Why on earth does it need to be faster than current supercars all of a sudden when that has never been part of TVRs true history just a fantasy of some owners and a lot of fans?
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 14th September 11:47
It doesn't need to be faster than it's contemporary supercars, especially to the fairly meaningless 100mph from standstill.
Mikearwas said:
Ares said:
It's not 'cack'.
OK, for a run off the mill performance car, 7secs is an amazing time, but when we are looking at the supercars, 6 secs is the benchmark - a look down that list to see how many supercars now get there.
The 430, now 13yrs old, did 100mph in the high 7s, and that was with a power and PWR that saloon cars match now.
It's current incarnation (488) is in the mid-5s, as is the Lamborghini equivalent.
The 99 Turbo S has cracked 6 secs.
With so many AWD supercars, the launch off the line has moved things along further.
I like a lot of your posts Ares but you cannot seriously believe the V10 M5 did 0-100 in 5.1 seconds? 9.5 is about right.OK, for a run off the mill performance car, 7secs is an amazing time, but when we are looking at the supercars, 6 secs is the benchmark - a look down that list to see how many supercars now get there.
The 430, now 13yrs old, did 100mph in the high 7s, and that was with a power and PWR that saloon cars match now.
It's current incarnation (488) is in the mid-5s, as is the Lamborghini equivalent.
The 99 Turbo S has cracked 6 secs.
With so many AWD supercars, the launch off the line has moved things along further.
To add to the arguments, and set a few silly points straight, as i've both been following the new TVR closely, and was at the launch and had a chat with a few different members of their team:
Firstly, production is definitely happening, they have secured a deal to build a factory in Wales, and I believe have some government grant to help with that. For a small and NEW car company, they seem relatively well funded. The price is definitely at £90k for a launch edition car (basically a fully specced car), which includes all the carbon fire chassis etc. Eventually they plan to have a cheaper chassis too. They had sold 450 build slots and closed the order book a few months ago with a £5k deposit, saving 50 for the launch at Revival. These 50 all sold out on the Fri morning at Revival. (I got there Fri early afternoon and asked). In fact when I went again on Saturday afternoon, they had been taking a waiting list and "standard car" deposits!!
TVR say they will take about a year to produce the first 500, and expect to start in about a years time. Their long-term plan is to be selling 2,000 cars per year, which may be do-able when you start adding in other markets. Afterall look at Mclaren, they already produce that, and aim to make 4,000 per year now! It seems the car will be more or less ready relatively easily for US homologation for the more distant future.
Secondly, this is a fully running prototype but it's not the finished article. That means some tweaking and changes are still to be made. For example, and most notably, there is likely to be some edit to the front bumper - they still need to fit the number plate - and Gordon Murray apparently is being quite the stickler in terms of design and aero, requiring the front opening to be a certain size - don't forget the exhaust also needs cooling from the front, as it doesn't get the lengthy under car tubing...
It will sound insane, especially with the side pipes - giving exhaust note in stereo! The side pipes are that way for a reason though, as that's what allows the totally flat bottom.
I had a good look around the car, honestly I loved the back and the sides, and was less keen on the front in looks, but in the flesh its better than in the pictures. Also, it's a "grower" in looks, and is steadily improving as my eyes are getting used to it. It really is a nice looking machine, just not the wild and totally insane look of a Sagaris or Tuscan, but then did you REALLY expect to have ridiculous fins and scoops with A. a modern new car, and B. Gordon Murray involved?? And the previous Griffith or even T350 didn't look all that mad, or madder than this. For those that say it "doesn't look like a TVR" I totally disagree, there are plenty of design cues to the older cars, and TVR never had a distinct design style anyway.
For those saying it looks like a "generic sports car/mazda/gt86" well yeah to an extent it does, I agree, but then please show me a new production sports car in the last several years that doesn't look at least a bit like something else. Actually it's damn difficult to do that isn't it really... unless you spend 2-3 times what this costs. I also honestly am struggling to pin exactly what it is this car looks like... there's a little bit of AMG GT, maybe...
I loved the interior having seen it in the flesh. It felt (and smelled) high quality and quite unique. Particularly the seats which look great (oh and it had an optional 4 point harness fitted btw which is rarely pictured). Like Mclarens interior design philosophy, It was a simple yet elegant, uncluttered driving experience. The LCD screens also looked good. My only comment then was that yes they have taken the vents from a ford, but these tiny parts cost a lot to produce bespoke, and I've seen many cars with them (including Lotus, for example). I didn't notice at the time, the Ford steering column/indicator stalks. But maybe with all this feedback, they might be changed...? And for that matter if that's the only sacrifice to get this price point... do we even care?? V8 Vantages have some really crappy interior components, even the latest updated one is imperfect.
To those that call this a kit car, it really really didn't look that way to me. It appeared very modern in it's build quality.
And the price-point, well that's arguable and I struggle to exactly work out where it fits. TVR bring up valid points - it's a 500bhp NA V8 with a cutting edge carbon fibre chassis, and power-to-weight ratio that exceeds even a 911 turbo s. It's competing with much more expensive cars. Yes those have super techy gearboxes, and probably better/more electronic driving aids, but we all know that's not what this car is about.
Compared to an F-type V8R/SVR which I feel this car is closest in spirit to, I feel the F-type may look prettier, but this certainly looks crazier, and sorry but dynamically those don't stand a chance given their 500kg weight penalty and the TVR's far superior aero package, given they are similar-ish in size, and the boot is bigger!! Oh and the F-type's manual only comes on the V6... and I didn't feel particularly special inside an F-type's interior. Added to that when you think an F-Type V8R starts at £91k (and you will spend several thousands on options on top), the Griffith starts to look like a very appealing option.
Or do we compare it to the new GT3 Touring? similar power but heavier, though likely more refined. But those start at £112k, and have you seen the prices on a Porsche options list!!? They don't look unique either, and the Griffith may easily be more emotive to drive.
TVR's in the early 2000's cost about £50-55k, good value then, but when you add 15 years of compound inflation, it's not actually much less than £90k now!
So once you get your head around the figures, it's starting to look like a very very appealing proposition.
Will it be unreliable? well put the old TVR's totally out the window (and honesty they weren't all that bad, my brother had a Tuscan which never broke down once in years - except for occasionally killing a battery, compared to his previous Z3 which blew 2 engines, or my Cayman that has sprung coolant leaks and also lost batteries). This is a totally new company, with a proven reliable gearbox and engine, and relatively few electronics to go wrong. I'm certain that like Mclarens, they will have little niggles, but probably nothing all that major. And they know given the past reputation, that they will have to be good, so I'm hopeful at least!
Firstly, production is definitely happening, they have secured a deal to build a factory in Wales, and I believe have some government grant to help with that. For a small and NEW car company, they seem relatively well funded. The price is definitely at £90k for a launch edition car (basically a fully specced car), which includes all the carbon fire chassis etc. Eventually they plan to have a cheaper chassis too. They had sold 450 build slots and closed the order book a few months ago with a £5k deposit, saving 50 for the launch at Revival. These 50 all sold out on the Fri morning at Revival. (I got there Fri early afternoon and asked). In fact when I went again on Saturday afternoon, they had been taking a waiting list and "standard car" deposits!!
TVR say they will take about a year to produce the first 500, and expect to start in about a years time. Their long-term plan is to be selling 2,000 cars per year, which may be do-able when you start adding in other markets. Afterall look at Mclaren, they already produce that, and aim to make 4,000 per year now! It seems the car will be more or less ready relatively easily for US homologation for the more distant future.
Secondly, this is a fully running prototype but it's not the finished article. That means some tweaking and changes are still to be made. For example, and most notably, there is likely to be some edit to the front bumper - they still need to fit the number plate - and Gordon Murray apparently is being quite the stickler in terms of design and aero, requiring the front opening to be a certain size - don't forget the exhaust also needs cooling from the front, as it doesn't get the lengthy under car tubing...
It will sound insane, especially with the side pipes - giving exhaust note in stereo! The side pipes are that way for a reason though, as that's what allows the totally flat bottom.
I had a good look around the car, honestly I loved the back and the sides, and was less keen on the front in looks, but in the flesh its better than in the pictures. Also, it's a "grower" in looks, and is steadily improving as my eyes are getting used to it. It really is a nice looking machine, just not the wild and totally insane look of a Sagaris or Tuscan, but then did you REALLY expect to have ridiculous fins and scoops with A. a modern new car, and B. Gordon Murray involved?? And the previous Griffith or even T350 didn't look all that mad, or madder than this. For those that say it "doesn't look like a TVR" I totally disagree, there are plenty of design cues to the older cars, and TVR never had a distinct design style anyway.
For those saying it looks like a "generic sports car/mazda/gt86" well yeah to an extent it does, I agree, but then please show me a new production sports car in the last several years that doesn't look at least a bit like something else. Actually it's damn difficult to do that isn't it really... unless you spend 2-3 times what this costs. I also honestly am struggling to pin exactly what it is this car looks like... there's a little bit of AMG GT, maybe...
I loved the interior having seen it in the flesh. It felt (and smelled) high quality and quite unique. Particularly the seats which look great (oh and it had an optional 4 point harness fitted btw which is rarely pictured). Like Mclarens interior design philosophy, It was a simple yet elegant, uncluttered driving experience. The LCD screens also looked good. My only comment then was that yes they have taken the vents from a ford, but these tiny parts cost a lot to produce bespoke, and I've seen many cars with them (including Lotus, for example). I didn't notice at the time, the Ford steering column/indicator stalks. But maybe with all this feedback, they might be changed...? And for that matter if that's the only sacrifice to get this price point... do we even care?? V8 Vantages have some really crappy interior components, even the latest updated one is imperfect.
To those that call this a kit car, it really really didn't look that way to me. It appeared very modern in it's build quality.
And the price-point, well that's arguable and I struggle to exactly work out where it fits. TVR bring up valid points - it's a 500bhp NA V8 with a cutting edge carbon fibre chassis, and power-to-weight ratio that exceeds even a 911 turbo s. It's competing with much more expensive cars. Yes those have super techy gearboxes, and probably better/more electronic driving aids, but we all know that's not what this car is about.
Compared to an F-type V8R/SVR which I feel this car is closest in spirit to, I feel the F-type may look prettier, but this certainly looks crazier, and sorry but dynamically those don't stand a chance given their 500kg weight penalty and the TVR's far superior aero package, given they are similar-ish in size, and the boot is bigger!! Oh and the F-type's manual only comes on the V6... and I didn't feel particularly special inside an F-type's interior. Added to that when you think an F-Type V8R starts at £91k (and you will spend several thousands on options on top), the Griffith starts to look like a very appealing option.
Or do we compare it to the new GT3 Touring? similar power but heavier, though likely more refined. But those start at £112k, and have you seen the prices on a Porsche options list!!? They don't look unique either, and the Griffith may easily be more emotive to drive.
TVR's in the early 2000's cost about £50-55k, good value then, but when you add 15 years of compound inflation, it's not actually much less than £90k now!
So once you get your head around the figures, it's starting to look like a very very appealing proposition.
Will it be unreliable? well put the old TVR's totally out the window (and honesty they weren't all that bad, my brother had a Tuscan which never broke down once in years - except for occasionally killing a battery, compared to his previous Z3 which blew 2 engines, or my Cayman that has sprung coolant leaks and also lost batteries). This is a totally new company, with a proven reliable gearbox and engine, and relatively few electronics to go wrong. I'm certain that like Mclarens, they will have little niggles, but probably nothing all that major. And they know given the past reputation, that they will have to be good, so I'm hopeful at least!
Jazz Machine said:
TVR say they will take about a year to produce the first 500, and expect to start in about a years time. Their long-term plan is to be selling 2,000 cars per year, which may be do-able when you start adding in other markets. Afterall look at Mclaren, they already produce that, and aim to make 4,000 per year now!
I hope they are right but can't help but feel that delivery schedule sounds hopelessly optimistic. 10 cars a week? If they achieve that GM/iStream is quite remarkable especially as it is, from what I've read, a move away from a production line type manufacturing process.Aside from the looks, granted I haven't seen it in the flesh, the exhausts worry me a bit. I suspect these things will be far too noisy (for drive by mics) for a track day where they could run low which completely negates all this talk of flat floors and ground effect. It might have a big diffusser but running at road height I doubt the ground effects can generate any meaningful forces. Lastly, not a biggy but exhausts ahead of the driver in slow traffic means windows up I imagine?
500 Cars in the first year, well maybe they wont hit it! That said, it's not all that far-fetched given what other "small" companies achieve. Also that i-stream process apparently is clever in making tooling cheap and fast for production. Though, I don't really know why!
Now I've worked out what the looks really do remind me of....
Lightning McQueen!
Now I've worked out what the looks really do remind me of....
Lightning McQueen!
Jazz Machine said:
Also that i-stream process apparently is clever in making tooling cheap and fast for production. Though, I don't really know why!
In a nutshell: http://istreamtechnology.co.ukGetCarter said:
Jazz Machine said:
Also that i-stream process apparently is clever in making tooling cheap and fast for production. Though, I don't really know why!
In a nutshell: http://istreamtechnology.co.ukfblm said:
GetCarter said:
Jazz Machine said:
Also that i-stream process apparently is clever in making tooling cheap and fast for production. Though, I don't really know why!
In a nutshell: http://istreamtechnology.co.uk .. that's about it.Though it costs less, takes less time to assemble, uses fewer materials, and is greener and lighter.
Apart from that, it's your regular DFA
Certainly no production expert, but I also thought a clever aspect is that entire bending tubes + stiffening with composite panels idea. Looks to me like that solves the problem of making a space frame type chassis cheap enough for (small to mid) volume production.
The whole stamped steel method needs to much capital / sales volume for a small company. The usual approach seems to be either classic welded space frame or an extrusion based tub (Lotus) or full bespoke carbon (McLaren, 4C). All of this seems more expensive and less flexible than 'iStream'.
BTW, makes me wonder -- what's the material for the body panels on the launch edition Griff?
The whole stamped steel method needs to much capital / sales volume for a small company. The usual approach seems to be either classic welded space frame or an extrusion based tub (Lotus) or full bespoke carbon (McLaren, 4C). All of this seems more expensive and less flexible than 'iStream'.
BTW, makes me wonder -- what's the material for the body panels on the launch edition Griff?
Jazz Machine said:
And the price-point, well that's arguable and I struggle to exactly work out where it fits. TVR bring up valid points - it's a 500bhp NA V8 with a cutting edge carbon fibre chassis, and power-to-weight ratio that exceeds even a 911 turbo s. It's competing with much more expensive cars. Yes those have super techy gearboxes, and probably better/more electronic driving aids, but we all know that's not what this car is about.
Compared to an F-type V8R/SVR which I feel this car is closest in spirit to, I feel the F-type may look prettier, but this certainly looks crazier, and sorry but dynamically those don't stand a chance given their 500kg weight penalty and the TVR's far superior aero package, given they are similar-ish in size, and the boot is bigger!! Oh and the F-type's manual only comes on the V6... and I didn't feel particularly special inside an F-type's interior. Added to that when you think an F-Type V8R starts at £91k (and you will spend several thousands on options on top), the Griffith starts to look like a very appealing option.
maybe it doesn't need to fit in anywhere. it's a great, typically TVR recipe, of driver oriented raw high power.Compared to an F-type V8R/SVR which I feel this car is closest in spirit to, I feel the F-type may look prettier, but this certainly looks crazier, and sorry but dynamically those don't stand a chance given their 500kg weight penalty and the TVR's far superior aero package, given they are similar-ish in size, and the boot is bigger!! Oh and the F-type's manual only comes on the V6... and I didn't feel particularly special inside an F-type's interior. Added to that when you think an F-Type V8R starts at £91k (and you will spend several thousands on options on top), the Griffith starts to look like a very appealing option.
Weight dulls the experience, no matter how clever the engineering. The big manufacturers (and their big cars) have left a TVR-sized gap. Shame i can't still punt 5k now, that's a bargain opening deal.
Very insightful post, thanks!
.
Really wonder what the pricing and schedule is going to be for the standard cars... But probably not a priority for them right now so we will have to be patient..
Jazz Machine said:
Secondly, this is a fully running prototype but it's not the finished article. That means some tweaking and changes are still to be made. For example, and most notably, there is likely to be some edit to the front bumper - they still need to fit the number plate - and Gordon Murray apparently is being quite the stickler in terms of design and aero, requiring the front opening to be a certain size - don't forget the exhaust also needs cooling from the front, as it doesn't get the lengthy under car tubing...
Only going by pics & video unfortunately, but the front was the weakest part for me as well. However, as you said, it's a 'grower'. Certainly like it a lot more after spending some time studying details. And info like the front intake size being the way it is because there of e.g. cooling requirements helps understand the shape and appreciate the design. Thanks again .Really wonder what the pricing and schedule is going to be for the standard cars... But probably not a priority for them right now so we will have to be patient..
GetCarter said:
...it costs less, takes less time to assemble, uses fewer materials, and is greener and lighter.
Than what? The whole point of DFA is to reduce, cost, assembly time, foot print, tooling, reduce component count, use less material, choose better materials etc... iStream looks like a brand name for DFA, a design process that was taught in Uni 20 years ago when I did it and that if GM wasn't involved no one would care about. What I can't work out from the marketing guff and pretty animations is if there is something more or particularly clever about iStream that elevates it above DFA for low volume cars?fblm said:
GetCarter said:
...it costs less, takes less time to assemble, uses fewer materials, and is greener and lighter.
Than what? The whole point of DFA is to reduce, cost, assembly time, foot print, tooling, reduce component count, use less material, choose better materials etc... iStream looks like a brand name for DFA, a design process that was taught in Uni 20 years ago when I did it and that if GM wasn't involved no one would care about. What I can't work out from the marketing guff and pretty animations is if there is something more or particularly clever about iStream that elevates it above DFA for low volume cars?Yamaha love it!
GetCarter said:
fblm said:
GetCarter said:
...it costs less, takes less time to assemble, uses fewer materials, and is greener and lighter.
Than what? The whole point of DFA is to reduce, cost, assembly time, foot print, tooling, reduce component count, use less material, choose better materials etc... iStream looks like a brand name for DFA, a design process that was taught in Uni 20 years ago when I did it and that if GM wasn't involved no one would care about. What I can't work out from the marketing guff and pretty animations is if there is something more or particularly clever about iStream that elevates it above DFA for low volume cars?Yamaha love it!
There are hundreds of examples of very similar processes and operating models that provide the same principles and approach. There was the US start up that produced the Rally Fighter (iirc) that used effectively the same approach.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff