RE: New TVR Griffith on the move

[Moycie]

braddo said:

75MM Graham Hill Trophy Race. The last 10minutes were superb....I think it deserves a link......starts at 11mins to go...

https://youtu.be/ibeg58gRLD8?t=33m43s

[ChilliWhizz]

Thom said:

glue-smelling plastic bath tubs mounted on a rotting chassis that handles like a wheelbarrow?

Oi wotchit, that's my Chimaera you're talking about there

[bullittmcqueen]

Thom said:

Well, just go for a drive in an original Bugatti. If you have a bit of historical sensitivity you should understand what's wrong with rewriting history.

Conversely, if this new "TVR" is such a great car and an innovative departure from TVRs of old, why should it need to carry the badge of a defunct brand known for glue-smelling plastic bath tubs mounted on a rotting chassis that handles like a wheelbarrow?

Edited by Thom on Thursday 21st September 10:15

It's because objects in the rear view mirror appear greater than they are (free after Meat Loaf).

Otherwse, it's not a serious question, is it ? Buying a brand gets you the associated brand awareness. Any memory is a good memory. This is invaluable and would be extremely expensive to create otherwise. "TVR comeback" is way more likely to make a headline whereas "LesBonkers CarCompany trying to build oldschool cars" will only make it to the page-3 section and there are too many distractions there.

[jhonn]

Thom said:

Well, just go for a drive in an original Bugatti. If you have a bit of historical sensitivity you should understand what's wrong with rewriting history.

Edited by Thom on Thursday 21st September 10:15

I don't see what Les Edgar, Gordon Murray and the rest of the team are doing as 'rewriting history', more leveraging and improving on what came previously. Things move on, building for the future, with an eye on the past.

However, I appreciate your viewpoint and in this case happy to agree to disagree.

[Europa1]

Thom said:

Conversely, if this new "TVR" is such a great car and an innovative departure from TVRs of old, why should it need to carry the badge of a defunct brand known for glue-smelling plastic bath tubs mounted on a rotting chassis that handles like a wheelbarrow?

Edited by Thom on Thursday 21st September 10:15

I think you've missed out at least one well-worn cliche.

[Thom]

jhonn said:

I don't see what Les Edgar, Gordon Murray and the rest of the team are doing as 'rewriting history', more leveraging and improving on what came previously. Things move on, building for the future, with an eye on the past.

Indeed, they started from a blank sheet of paper, which was needed on areas where previous TVRs left to be desired.

However, you can hope to "leverage" from a defunct brand when the new products look like the older ones, when you can recognise instantly which brand the new product belongs to, and sorry but this new one does not, pretty much regardless from which angle you look at it, and, at last but not least, whether we like it or not.

Edited by Thom on Thursday 21st September 11:26

[anonymous-user]

KTF said:

Toyota tried that with the GT86 and each time its mentioned, someone always says 'its nice but if only it had more power...'

A GT86 is not an Elise. He was slightly missing the point with the S1, as I feel he has with the new Griffith.

[aaron_2000]

The difference those wheels make, it looks fantastic. Sounds good too

[Light n Hairy]

bullittmcqueen said:

Light n Hairy said:

Assuming TVR does realise the looks need a rethink and decide to redesign the exterior completely, does anyone with knowledge of such things know how feasible or costly that would be? I assume they havent made the permanent tools, pressings or jigs yet.

It's not going to happen and it would be very expensive as it would also impact the type approval process. I guess it's been a lot, lot easier 20 years ago.

That's a shame.
An assured post- do you know this because of direct knowledge of the car's production scheduling?

[rb26]

braddo said:

This in particular is utter bull patties. A bog standard S1 Elise is an extremely efficient car and a wonderfully fun, pure sports car. At the other extreme, the McLaren F1 is an efficient car but designed (successfully, can't remember by whom) to be an engaging road car.

That said, it would be an interesting test to see how fun the new TVR will be if it was shod on 195-width tyres all round...

Peter Stevens is his name. He also did the XJR-15.

[Europa1]

rb26 said:

Peter Stevens is his name. He also did the XJR-15.

Either I'm due a plate of parrot a la whoosh, or this is not the name braddo had in mind.

[bullittmcqueen]

Light n Hairy said:

bullittmcqueen said:

Light n Hairy said:

Assuming TVR does realise the looks need a rethink and decide to redesign the exterior completely, does anyone with knowledge of such things know how feasible or costly that would be? I assume they havent made the permanent tools, pressings or jigs yet.

It's not going to happen and it would be very expensive as it would also impact the type approval process. I guess it's been a lot, lot easier 20 years ago.

That's a shame.
An assured post- do you know this because of direct knowledge of the car's production scheduling?

Maybe came across as too assured. No, i don't have any direct knowledge, this is solely what i make of it. But i read and listened to everything that's been written or said many times over.

I just think that the design process of any new car is so complex these days, that even small changes, that appear to be only of visual nature, have severe impact on a variety of factors. I'm sure there are a lot of simulations, expensive and complex simulations for air-flow, crash-tests, pedestrian-hit-impact, stability at high-speeds, torsion, traction and what-not to be done. This is not the eighties anymore.

The car is basically unchanged from the reveal, although concerns on the front have been voiced before. Les has repeatedly said, even after the launch, that this is it and from my (limited) engineering point of view and my (less limited) economic point of view they simply can't do it. I'm sure it would be immensely costly, would mean delays and all that for an uncertain outcome ? The Sagaris guys would still complain, the Wedge guys would still complain, so why bother.

They've been looking at this thing every single day for the past 3 or more years. Every single one. The Murray guys have looked at it every single day. I'm sure the investors have looked at it many times. Les has dreamed about this, i'm sure. In the video he said "What keeps me awake at night is: will people love it ?". You just don't put this out to the public in Goodwood and go "Damn, why didn't anyone notice the front before". This car is what he wants it to be.

So, no i don't have any inside knowledge but still i'm very sure that this is it.

[BJWoods]

bullittmcqueen said:

Maybe came across as too assured. No, i don't have any direct knowledge, this is solely what i make of it. But i read and listened to everything that's been written or said many times over.

I just think that the design process of any new car is so complex these days, that even small changes, that appear to be only of visual nature, have severe impact on a variety of factors. I'm sure there are a lot of simulations, expensive and complex simulations for air-flow, crash-tests, pedestrian-hit-impact, stability at high-speeds, torsion, traction and what-not to be done. This is not the eighties anymore.

The car is basically unchanged from the reveal, although concerns on the front have been voiced before. Les has repeatedly said, even after the launch, that this is it and from my (limited) engineering point of view and my (less limited) economic point of view they simply can't do it. I'm sure it would be immensely costly, would mean delays and all that for an uncertain outcome ? The Sagaris guys would still complain, the Wedge guys would still complain, so why bother.

They've been looking at this thing every single day for the past 3 or more years. Every single one. The Murray guys have looked at it every single day. I'm sure the investors have looked at it many times. Les has dreamed about this, i'm sure. In the video he said "What keeps me awake at night is: will people love it ?". You just don't put this out to the public in Goodwood and go "Damn, why didn't anyone notice the front before". This car is what he wants it to be.

So, no i don't have any inside knowledge but still i'm very sure that this is it.

I hated the look of the Tuscan when I first saw it... wouldn't have it any other way now..

TVR are trying to do something new (and the I-Stream manufacturing process) not just repeat the past

[bullittmcqueen]

BJWoods said:

I hated the look of the Tuscan when I first saw it... wouldn't have it any other way now..

TVR are trying to do something new (and the I-Stream manufacturing process) not just repeat the past

Yes, and i applaud them. The new pics on the homepage look so much better. That definitely should have been the ones that went out on launch day.

I agree with you, it'll be looked at differently a few years down the road. On the side shot "Griffith front trim close up" new picture (on the homepage) the front looks fantastic. It's just that frontal view that is somehow a bit distorted, but i haven't figured out in detail what it is that bothers me about it. Has to do with the bottom width and the roundness from that specific angle. Sometimes i have the impression that front, side and rear are showing totally different personalities, maybe they should have called it the "Jekyll". I would also have preferred the rear diffusor a tad less dramatic.

While this sounds negative in sum, i don't see anything that'll keep me from buying it.

[cerb4.5lee]

BJWoods said:

I hated the look of the Tuscan when I first saw it... wouldn't have it any other way now..

I still hate the look of the Tuscan now if I'm honest(it's my least favourite TVR to look at), and I really don't like the front of the new TVR sadly, I will give it the benefit of the doubt until I've seen it in person though, and everything else about it hits the spot big time for me...not that it matters to be fair...because I can't afford one anyway!

[aaron_2000]

I think the rear end looks fantastic. It wouldn't be a TVR if it didn't cause massive hate it/love it discussions. Can't wait to read what it's like to drive, because that's as close as I'll get to one for a very long time

[Marwood79]

So after a long discussion the thread seems to suggest that the underlying promise is keeping most deposits in place but the design is the most contentious thing - and consensus that if the front wheels forward zone could be made stop you in your tracks sexy then the whole project is going to fly like a rocket...

If I may, I'd suggest it's not nearly aggressive enough 'in the face'... car seems to be saying "Hello chaps how are you!?"... whereas TVR faces of old were more like "I'm going to go and f****** nut that wall".

So to give the guys some steer what actually should be changed?

In my humble, non-designer opinion - it might be worth experimenting with steepening the angle of the slope of the bonnet over the top lip to make it in line with the lights OR (if various regs etc prevent that) look at revising the lights to make them appear more part of the arches rather than out in front. To do this i'd bring that rear bottom apex of the triangle right up to the panel split line. Also cluster lights a possibility? - (very TVR). Maybe also flip the mouth over so it's less and more

I'm no designer, but any other thoughts on what specific changes folks would like to see?...

[braddo]

Marwood79 said:

...
If I may, I'd suggest it's not nearly aggressive enough 'in the face'... car seems to be saying "Hello chaps how are you!?"... whereas TVR faces of old were more like "I'm going to go and f****** nut that wall".
...

Sorry but that's nonsense. It was only 2 or 3 cars over a short period (say 2000-2006) which were so aggressively styled. i don't think any other TVRs over the 60-70 years have an aggressive face.

[Ares]

braddo said:

Marwood79 said:

...
If I may, I'd suggest it's not nearly aggressive enough 'in the face'... car seems to be saying "Hello chaps how are you!?"... whereas TVR faces of old were more like "I'm going to go and f****** nut that wall".
...

Sorry but that's nonsense. It was only 2 or 3 cars over a short period (say 2000-2006) which were so aggressively styled. i don't think any other TVRs over the 60-70 years have an aggressive face.

That is true, only really post Tuscan were they aggressive though.

The drive however, that was the aggression

[bronthinswede]

YET AGAIN another disappointing effort from this new outfit claiming to be the reincarnation of TVR.

A drive in a car park is sadly not a test drive.

COME ON GUYS you can do better than this.

Have you not learnt the lesson of the old TVR company that it pays to show your car off.

How about a full tour of the car and a proper road going promotion.

If you need help in this regard check out www.porsche.co.uk , your chief rival or www.astonmartin.co.uk, maybe they can help.

GOOD LUCK