Discussion
thegreenhell said:
I'm sure McLaren, and likely Ferrari, will be going fully hybrid ICE/electric in their next model phase. McLaren already have the technology from the P1 and Speedtail, and with the rate they introduce new models they can probably get something into production by lunchtime next week.
They can indeed. That's essentially what bought about the 'holy trinity' of hybrid supercars. Problem is, they're fairly light hybrids and don't do nearly enough to offset that ICE emmisions. Ferrari & McLaren need full EV to make a significant dent - or at least a very popular and more economical hybrid offering (£100k price point entry level car..?). Porsche already have the taycan which they're seriously pushing the volume of now via some pretty tasty lease incentives...The kick in the b
ks is that most of these car firms customers unashamedly want a monster V10/12 n/a car, but that's the last thing the makers want to sell these days. Financially at least..They don't need full EV. They just need a short range of EV-only, enough to get the overall average down for the official tests, and they'll design the hybrid system to give them the best results under test conditions. This is what most hybrids do anyway. Even the P1 could drive in electric-only mode, in which they have zero emmissions, and that is now old-tech.
They don't need to fundamentally change their model ranges to acheive a low overall average. Just hybridise everything. Ferrari can still produce the loud NA V12, just with a bit of hybrid added like they did with the LaFerrari.
They don't need to fundamentally change their model ranges to acheive a low overall average. Just hybridise everything. Ferrari can still produce the loud NA V12, just with a bit of hybrid added like they did with the LaFerrari.
thegreenhell said:
They don't need full EV. They just need a short range of EV-only, enough to get the overall average down for the official tests, and they'll design the hybrid system to give them the best results under test conditions. This is what most hybrids do anyway. Even the P1 could drive in electric-only mode, in which they have zero emmissions, and that is now old-tech.
They don't need to fundamentally change their model ranges to acheive a low overall average. Just hybridise everything. Ferrari can still produce the loud NA V12, just with a bit of hybrid added like they did with the LaFerrari.
Yes if they hybridise everything and can carry on with no fines. But that is itself an expensive task - they need to develop a platform that has the capability to not just pass today's token tests, but also tighter tests that are likely to exist within the platforms lifespan - typically 7-10 years.They don't need to fundamentally change their model ranges to acheive a low overall average. Just hybridise everything. Ferrari can still produce the loud NA V12, just with a bit of hybrid added like they did with the LaFerrari.
Even then they lose a % customers that just want a bog standard ICE.
It's workable for sure but for small car firms like McLaren, the obstacles they have to overcome are very taxing.
glazbagun said:
How do you spend £291M in three months?!
Walk away from the Honda engine deal, pay Alonso's salary and then pay Ron £200m to leave. That'll do it. Some of this is external, but the Group has spent cash like water.
Edited by Piginapoke on Tuesday 23 June 19:11
Edited by Piginapoke on Tuesday 23 June 19:11
Deesee said:
High Court next week, probably insolvency, bond holders to take control.
If they lose their fight that may trigger creditors to petition their insolvency - although that is by no means certain, the creditors may well consider that such a move would reduce what they can salvage and prefer to see McLaren release equity to continue trading.If however a petition for insolvency was heard simultaneously (that is also possible), the the company would be placed into administration - and they would have control. Those that hold title of various assets would have that right of title assessed ahead of liquidation of the entire corporate holdings. The fact the creditors hold title of those assets wouldn't give them any control.
All that's happening currently, so far as we know at least... Is that McLaren are contesting who has security on what assets, in order to ascertain what remaining assets could be used to leverage further borrowing. If they are not successful, none of us know what their next plan of action might be. For all we know, they might immediately petition their own winding up.. or they may simply go about looking to plug the resulting cashflow hole via a partial sale of equity. Or maybe their friends in Bahrain won't step in until the court hearing has been had and failed. We'll all know much more after the hearing, as one way or another it will have to trigger 'something' as a next step.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 23 June 22:58
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Who are the bond holders?
Not the Bahrainis, mostly hedge funds now..The lenders (bond holders) are not happy they do not want to extend funding or give away pledged assets (as per reports), the shareholders (Bahrain) are not happy, I see a insolvency here, can’t see what the judge might do.
Easy solution they all put cash in.
Practical solution the road business goes, down size the race organisation.
Real life solution sell the property and heritage assets, and go racing.
rallycross said:
Deesee said:
High Court next week, probably insolvency, bond holders to take control.
Is this a power struggle where by playing this card the bond holders can nick the business?Race team is viable, everything else marginal.
Shareholders and bond holders are not in a great place by counter suing each other IMO.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2020/06/23/the-...
in short;
Massive sales drop means they don't have the money to pay all the outstanding invoices and could be faced with winding up in July.
in short;
Massive sales drop means they don't have the money to pay all the outstanding invoices and could be faced with winding up in July.
andburg said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2020/06/23/the-...
in short;
Massive sales drop means they don't have the money to pay all the outstanding invoices and could be faced with winding up in July.
Not sure I would rely on anything written by him unless it was backed up by other sources that weren’t relying on what he wrote, although in this case it appears fairly accurate..in short;
Massive sales drop means they don't have the money to pay all the outstanding invoices and could be faced with winding up in July.
My impression is that the bond holders are arguing that they don’t want the security they hold released, and a McLaren are arguing they can’t get the cash to repay the bond holders unless the security is released. That would then enable them to borrow more against it, repay the existing bond holders and have cash left over. McLaren appear to be arguing that in effect the bond holders are willing to lend them more, presumably using the same assets as security, but will charge them more than a different option. They are effectively arguing the bond holders are holding them to ransom.
I don’t think we have been told who the bond holders are, how much money they are owed nor the value of the security have we?
My understanding, from the skeleton argument advanced by McLaren, is that the company needs the working capital raised by sale of some secured assets to keep the business going for the rest of this year (as opposed to paying outstanding debts).
The assets they want to sell are held as security against several hundred millions pounds worth of debt held by hedge funds and others (the figures are available in McLaren's own published materials).
The debt held by the hedge funds is administered centrally by a trustee (an advantage normally being that contractual decisions and negotiations with debt holders can be with one body, the trustee, rather than herding cats with lots of individual debt holders).
The contract with the trustee stipulates that in certain circumstances, McLaren can 'self certify' they need to raise funds by selling secured assets. They can do this, so long as the assets they wish to sell don't form the majority (I paraphrase, for lack of remembering the exact wording) of their total assets (thus rendering the security on the original debt worthless).
The current issue is that the hedge funds now say to the trustee, in the current circumstances, they do not think it should give permission for McLaren to sell the assets it wants to. Simultaneously, they have offered McLaren 'bail out' terms of their own, which McLaren believes are not as good for the business as those it could secure by selling the assets on its own terms.
All of this whilst the business acknowledges it may become insolvent by mid July.
The trustee does not want to allow McLaren to sell the assets unless it is sure it is legally able to do so, under threat of action by the debt holders if it gets the decision wrong. This confidence can be gained by the court declaring that it is contractually allowed to in these circumstances. Hence the recourse to the courts. McLaren claim that the debt holders are purposely trying to add delay to any decision to force their hand and be left with only one deal on the table to prevent insolvency. The debt holders claim McLaren do not have the right to sell the assets and threaten legal action against the company and the directors personally if they do.
Although listed as defendants, the trustees are not opposing McLaren's action, though as a matter of procedure they are technically the defendant to McLaren's claim for action to the court.
I think the above is an accurate depiction of events, though happy to be corrected.
The assets they want to sell are held as security against several hundred millions pounds worth of debt held by hedge funds and others (the figures are available in McLaren's own published materials).
The debt held by the hedge funds is administered centrally by a trustee (an advantage normally being that contractual decisions and negotiations with debt holders can be with one body, the trustee, rather than herding cats with lots of individual debt holders).
The contract with the trustee stipulates that in certain circumstances, McLaren can 'self certify' they need to raise funds by selling secured assets. They can do this, so long as the assets they wish to sell don't form the majority (I paraphrase, for lack of remembering the exact wording) of their total assets (thus rendering the security on the original debt worthless).
The current issue is that the hedge funds now say to the trustee, in the current circumstances, they do not think it should give permission for McLaren to sell the assets it wants to. Simultaneously, they have offered McLaren 'bail out' terms of their own, which McLaren believes are not as good for the business as those it could secure by selling the assets on its own terms.
All of this whilst the business acknowledges it may become insolvent by mid July.
The trustee does not want to allow McLaren to sell the assets unless it is sure it is legally able to do so, under threat of action by the debt holders if it gets the decision wrong. This confidence can be gained by the court declaring that it is contractually allowed to in these circumstances. Hence the recourse to the courts. McLaren claim that the debt holders are purposely trying to add delay to any decision to force their hand and be left with only one deal on the table to prevent insolvency. The debt holders claim McLaren do not have the right to sell the assets and threaten legal action against the company and the directors personally if they do.
Although listed as defendants, the trustees are not opposing McLaren's action, though as a matter of procedure they are technically the defendant to McLaren's claim for action to the court.
I think the above is an accurate depiction of events, though happy to be corrected.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 24th June 10:50
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff