Discussion
Dermot O'Logical said:
I suspect that the road car business and Formula 1 team are linked by cross-guarantees, with each underwriting the other.
So no, they can't be "split"
They're separate businesses under common ownership. They can be split, it's a matter of whether there's a commercially realistic way of doing it whilst the thing is still viable or someone picks the bones out of an insolvency later on.So no, they can't be "split"
I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
hey're separate businesses under common ownership. They can be split, it's a matter of whether there's a commercially realistic way of doing it whilst the thing is still viable or someone picks the bones out of an insolvency later on.
I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
It definitely doesn't have the brand power of Ferrari - but that doesn't mean the connection between road and race cars is any less evocative to the buyers they do appeal too.I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
Not to mention shared costs in several areas. Split them and both would have to do more with less.
Mclaren refuse to move with the times, the same old tub with the same old engine in a different state of tune. I condsider myself a petrolhead but i struggle sometimes to tell the difference between the mclaren models. It is the lotus approach to car design and while it may save money on delevopent cost etc of new cars it just looks like a one trick pony rehashing itself every few years.
vulture1 said:
Mclaren refuse to move with the times, the same old tub with the same old engine in a different state of tune. I condsider myself a petrolhead but i struggle sometimes to tell the difference between the mclaren models. It is the lotus approach to car design and while it may save money on delevopent cost etc of new cars it just looks like a one trick pony rehashing itself every few years.
Not so much refusal... They don't have any choice. They've been squeezed in to the corner all independent car manufacturers find themselves in. They can't make ground up new cars under current legislation, it's totally unaffordable for an independent.All they can do is refine and evolve the current platform until the investment has paid off and then start with a new platform. As the legislative pressure increases, so too will the length of time between new platforms. Hence Aston Martin essentially being a dressed up 'British' Mercedes these days. Also why Lamborghini are now VW etc etc etc.
McLaren are in the odd position of their USP (independent sports car manufacturers) being the same reason that their business model is basically stuffed, by legislation.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
hey're separate businesses under common ownership. They can be split, it's a matter of whether there's a commercially realistic way of doing it whilst the thing is still viable or someone picks the bones out of an insolvency later on.
I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
Do you think they need to scale the road car part back and make it exclusive again and over time and make it aspirational once again ?I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
It seems they've just gone a bit sports direct and knocking out to many cars so there no longer as exclusive as the company would like .
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Dermot O'Logical said:
I suspect that the road car business and Formula 1 team are linked by cross-guarantees, with each underwriting the other.
So no, they can't be "split"
They're separate businesses under common ownership. They can be split, it's a matter of whether there's a commercially realistic way of doing it whilst the thing is still viable or someone picks the bones out of an insolvency later on.So no, they can't be "split"
I would have thought one way the group could realise some cash would be from selling the F1 team and licensing the name.
Not convinced McLaren has anything like the brand power of Ferrari that would allow it to commercialise its name in the same way they do, though. It's a nerds brand for car nerds. Ferrari is aspirational to such a wider degree.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
TheDeuce said:
Hence Aston Martin essentially being a dressed up 'British' Mercedes these days.
That makes about as much sense as saying a lotus is a dressed up British Toyota.However, you're basically right (ignoring what I suspect was sarcasm), they and Lotus do these things for broadly the same reasons - small volume specialist car manufacturers simply can't afford to develop their own of everything. Hence my comment that McLaren are committed to recycling the same tub and engine in various forms until such time as the initial investment is paid off and they're able to start fresh.
I don't see anything wrong with that observation, and it's not a criticism of McLaren, or AM... It's just the way it is.
Slightly OT.
About a year ago, as the result of winning an auction, I was given a tour of the Lotus factory - the new facility was just being completed.
From my highly untrained viewpoint, Lotus actually 'made' nothing. They just bolted parts together from other, offsite manufacturers.
Even the body shells were bought from someone else.
donshelmet.
About a year ago, as the result of winning an auction, I was given a tour of the Lotus factory - the new facility was just being completed.
From my highly untrained viewpoint, Lotus actually 'made' nothing. They just bolted parts together from other, offsite manufacturers.
Even the body shells were bought from someone else.
donshelmet.
egor110 said:
Do you think they need to scale the road car part back and make it exclusive again and over time and make it aspirational once again ?
It seems they've just gone a bit sports direct and knocking out to many cars so there no longer as exclusive as the company would like .
+1It seems they've just gone a bit sports direct and knocking out to many cars so there no longer as exclusive as the company would like .
They've gone a bit "white goods", 675LT excepted.
If you're a fan of rapid financial depreciation buy a McLaren street car.
The philosophy with it's F1 street car was correct
TheDeuce said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
TheDeuce said:
Hence Aston Martin essentially being a dressed up 'British' Mercedes these days.
That makes about as much sense as saying a lotus is a dressed up British Toyota.However, you're basically right (ignoring what I suspect was sarcasm), they and Lotus do these things for broadly the same reasons - small volume specialist car manufacturers simply can't afford to develop their own of everything. Hence my comment that McLaren are committed to recycling the same tub and engine in various forms until such time as the initial investment is paid off and they're able to start fresh.
I don't see anything wrong with that observation, and it's not a criticism of McLaren, or AM... It's just the way it is.
I think you could claim the old Cygnet as a dressed up Toyota but modern Aston Martins, no.
Dermot O'Logical said:
The reason that they are in this position is that they are no longer "viable". The various parts of the Group are interdependent, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The individual parts are holding each other and the Group together. You can't take one away without paying far more that it is worth, and that's not an attractive proposition.
There was a race team before the other elements and a race team could exist without the others. The legal entities can be unravelled if the will and commercials stack up. I guess for me, if I wanted to have an F1 team, it would be how much to pay for the existing F1 entry, infrastructure and goodwill over and above what it'd cost in money and time to build from scratch. On the other side would that raise sufficient to satisfy the debt holders and would it breach the existing convents inter alia the requirement not to sell most of their secured assets?
Also, is the car manufacturing so underfunded that failure of that element is almost inevitable? Have they painted themselves into a corner by ultimately creating many variations of the same thing rather than genuinely entering different segments? Is the relationship with Mercedes going to see them move towards their powertrains and technology?
Lots of questions...
LaurasOtherHalf said:
A Chrysler Crossfire is a dressed up Mercedes, an SLK with different body panels and interior. All AMLs are on bespoke platforms, new DBX included.
I think you could claim the old Cygnet as a dressed up Toyota but modern Aston Martins, no.
Arguing the definition of what counts as dressed up and what does not... Fine, you win - have it.I think you could claim the old Cygnet as a dressed up Toyota but modern Aston Martins, no.
The point was always that low production car firms have to buy in a lot one way or another, or make what they do develop last a very long time - that was in response to the poster that said McLaren 'refuse' to develop a new tub and ICE. I was simply pointing out that they don't have that option, it's not affordable for them to develop an entire new platform as frequently as would be ideal.
TheDeuce said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
A Chrysler Crossfire is a dressed up Mercedes, an SLK with different body panels and interior. All AMLs are on bespoke platforms, new DBX included.
I think you could claim the old Cygnet as a dressed up Toyota but modern Aston Martins, no.
Arguing the definition of what counts as dressed up and what does not... Fine, you win - have it.I think you could claim the old Cygnet as a dressed up Toyota but modern Aston Martins, no.
The point was always that low production car firms have to buy in a lot one way or another, or make what they do develop last a very long time - that was in response to the poster that said McLaren 'refuse' to develop a new tub and ICE. I was simply pointing out that they don't have that option, it's not affordable for them to develop an entire new platform as frequently as would be ideal.
If they wanted to add an SUV or front engined GT then fair enough but they may not want nor need to. Are there any other sports/supercar manufacturers that develop new platforms less than every 10-15 years?
McLaren has many problems at the moment but the cars I feel are the least of them (they generally are best in class).
LaurasOtherHalf said:
What would they need to develop a new platform or engine? The monocell has proved infinitely adaptable to variations on a theme, the engine is still relevant, power dense and efficient.
If they wanted to add an SUV or front engined GT then fair enough but they may not want nor need to. Are there any other sports/supercar manufacturers that develop new platforms less than every 10-15 years?
McLaren has many problems at the moment but the cars I feel are the least of them (they generally are best in class).
Personally I agree, the cars are fantastic and more than competitive alongside other marques. There is however a general feeling that several of them are very similar - which probably isn't fair as the subtle and unseen changes transform the car.If they wanted to add an SUV or front engined GT then fair enough but they may not want nor need to. Are there any other sports/supercar manufacturers that develop new platforms less than every 10-15 years?
McLaren has many problems at the moment but the cars I feel are the least of them (they generally are best in class).
Every time they unveil a new car there are comments about it being more of the same - I was simply addressing one such comment in this thread, and pointing out the reality. As you say, their competitors are generally the same in terms of platform life.
The problem for the road cars is that the worldwide market is very small yet the amortised development cost very high. The high retail price doesn't make the difference.
It's ironic that the diversification into building cars that was supposed to mitigate the risk of being entirely exposed to F1 might end up dragging the whole thing down.
It's ironic that the diversification into building cars that was supposed to mitigate the risk of being entirely exposed to F1 might end up dragging the whole thing down.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
The problem for the road cars is that the worldwide market is very small yet the amortised development cost very high. The high retail price doesn't make the difference.
It's ironic that the diversification into building cars that was supposed to mitigate the risk of being entirely exposed to F1 might end up dragging the whole thing down.
It's only getting more difficult for guys such as McLaren (road cars). Not only has legislation tightened up at an ever increasing rate, they also now have to battle current and incoming emissions penalties for making 'non green'' cars.It's ironic that the diversification into building cars that was supposed to mitigate the risk of being entirely exposed to F1 might end up dragging the whole thing down.
Put it all together and it explains why 15 years ago £100k would buy a decent supercar, and now it's more like £200k++. That's not just inflation... It's passing on the truly enormous cost of making a product that 99% of the people and politicians don't want.
It's also a situation not helped by the fact that car making giants such as VW and Mercedes insist on making halo supercars/hypercars at a loss.. Whereas McLaren need to turn a profit on each and every unit they ship.
glazbagun said:
Are the recent problems Covid shutdown related or have they just been burning through money?
Saying goodbye to Honda money was a brave move which showed McLaren the way out of their nadir, but is best-of-the-rest be a viable way to continue or do they need to crack the top three?
I think CV is just one of those things that comes along and speeds up/exposes problems that already existed.Saying goodbye to Honda money was a brave move which showed McLaren the way out of their nadir, but is best-of-the-rest be a viable way to continue or do they need to crack the top three?
In this instance, McLaren were used to revolving credit, as are many large organisations. Sadly it appears they had already stretched the affordability of their debt levels pre CV, and now in a CV ravaged economic climate lenders are less willing and more demanding in terms of security. Not to mention the fact that all teams will take a significant revenue hit this year as there is no way any of them can deliver the sponsor exposure that was expected.
They're probably no more 'broken' than this time last year. It's just back then it was manageable, now it apparently isn't.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff