RE: INEOS confirms Grenadier for reveal in 2020

[996TT02]

All brilliant but only the sales figures and profitability will matter.

New car brands are inherently distrusted by the public - and not without very good reason.

Look at Tesla - making relatively mainstream vehicles with outrageous performance yet running at a loss i.e. selling cars for less than the total cost to produce. OK not the best example, as an EV - but it took decades for Kia and Hyundai to be accepted as a viable alternative to the likes of Ford et al. Let alone a niche vehicle manufacturer where even a company spokesman claims that the design will be "very Marmite" i.e. of the potential already limited customer pool, quite a few just won't even like the looks of it.

Several million other existing problems also stand in the way.

They are called Hiluxes and Land Cruisers.

[NomduJour]

Hilux (and Ranger, and D-Max etc), yes; Land Cruiser, not so much.

[Harry_523]

DonkeyApple said:

What’s so brilliant about EVs? Dyson is just making a toy for the urban super rich. Musk is making toys for the urban wealthy, as are Porsche etc. VW, Honda, Renault and Kia etc are making more affordable cars by using smaller batteries that further limit the usability.

These products are perfect for us in the West. We love pissing money we haven’t got away. We all have electricity. Half of us have driveways and most of us don’t drive regular long distances. For us, EVs can be an advantage and benefit and we can expect the market share for EVs in our society to continue to grow and eventually become a significant proportion of sales.

But we don’t represent the whole world, just a part of it and it’s the wealthiest part that is also responsible for the bulk of the pollution through our rampant consumer lifestyles.

Pushing the boundaries forward for ourselves is one thing but when you look to the third world you can begin to see that expensive, heavy and range restricted EVs in their current guise simply aren’t a solution.

So while EVs are easy to argue as being progressive in our society they are regressive in other societies, societies where mobility isn’t the luxury that it is for us but essential for economic growth and freedom. This Ineos product is aimed at the market where EVs are a non starter but where solid, reliable, versatile transport is the very life blood of just being able to put food on the table. Is it therefore not progressive to try and cater for the poorest on the planet with an appropriate product or is progression just restricted to making fancy toys for brand addicts in the West?

What is Dyson’s product going to do to further the prospect of the masses? Selling a few thousand £100k toys for the rich that no one specifically needs so as to make himself even more money? Or Musk? He’s not doing this for the sake of humanity but to become the rischest man in the world by selling high cost products to the wealthy Westerner.

If we are going to resort to playing Commie top trumps then the Ineos product wins over any luxury EV toy in terms of helping humanity as it is aimed at helping those who need it the most.

Besides, if we in the West really cared about the environment we would just buy less of the tat that is destroying it. But instead we prefer to just gobste about caring while continuing to destroy the environment with our profligate and unnecessary spending such as buying premium cars like EVs to make a few wealthy people more wealthy.

Lets be honest, a £30 grand truck with a BMW engine isnt going to mobilise the 3rd world either, thats the job of every used hilux in the world

[Robocop2]

What an incredible amount of negativity in this thread! No doubt most will claim they are just being realistic about a doomed project inspired by a misguided multi-billionaire. I still wish him well and will continue to follow progress.

[DonkeyApple]

Harry_523 said:

Lets be honest, a £30 grand truck with a BMW engine isnt going to mobilise the 3rd world either, thats the job of every used hilux in the world

Indeed. It will take a decade or so of them being stolen from Western financed charities and organisations before they filter down to the masses.

At £40k a pop but aimed at less Western markets I’m assuming the plan is to be selling them to Western organisations that operate in these areas. For example the UN used GWagons below the LandCruiser so this thing would slot in where the GWagon has left off.

I don’t think they are planning to open retail shops in the back and beyond but sell corporately to organisations based in London and other European cities. Oxfam is pretty competent at pissing away vast sums of free money. As are the UN, Red Cross etc;)

[WestyCarl]

DonkeyApple said:

Indeed. It will take a decade or so of them being stolen from Western financed charities and organisations before they filter down to the masses.

At £40k a pop but aimed at less Western markets I’m assuming the plan is to be selling them to Western organisations that operate in these areas. For example the UN used GWagons below the LandCruiser so this thing would slot in where the GWagon has left off.

I don’t think they are planning to open retail shops in the back and beyond but sell corporately to organisations based in London and other European cities. Oxfam is pretty competent at pissing away vast sums of free money. As are the UN, Red Cross etc;)

I can't see any Org taking an unproven car from a new manufacturer into the 3rd world.

I applaude the idea but this will be a 40k "toy" for people, maybe a few UK org's such as RNLI or Mountian rescue will order a few . In EU regulations (and lack of real demand) have killed the days of producing a simple car which can be fixed by the owner. If you want one of these get a kit car.

I still think Tata missed a trick by not making a cheap simplified of the Defender in India for the 3rd world. I guess it was down to economics.

[Maldini35]

Max_Torque said:

This is surely doomed! there are so many contradictions in their aspirations it would be funny it it wasn't real:


1) Using BMW 6 cyl engines, but "you can diagnose faults yourself" - really, have a go at that and get back to me. (they are also assuming BMW will release this proprietary info that effectively short circuits their own dealer network....)

2) Using BMW engines (high performance, finely tuned, but "will run on poor fuel" (have a go and sticking some low lubricity, hgih sulphur fuel in your 330d and get back to me on how it pans out (the answer is expensively)

3) Using BMW engines (product of several million euro worth of calibration and certification), but "the engines will run our own tune" (BMW won't warrant anything if you change the cal, and you'll have to completely re-cert the tail pipe emissions and OBD across world wide markets (which is roughly a 20 million quid job and takes 3 years)

4) Costs 10% more than a top of the range competitor, but is more basic (right, who exactly walks into a dealer and say "oh, no, i don;t want that nicely spec'd japanese pick up that does everything i want for less money. oh no, i'd like to spend 10% more on a completely unproven, less specified version that i have to fix myself after spending 10 years reading up on fault codes and buying £3k worth of diagnostic kit"

5) They'll sell 25,000 a year (LR only sold about 15k defenders on average) Without a military market, and competing against the likes of toyota and nissan who can leverage platform sharing, sorry, but no way do those numbers add up.

6) Body on frame with beam axles, but will be robust and reliable and put together by only 200 people. Have to sat in a Defender? panel gaps you can put your had through, the crashworthyness of a eggbox, and more rattles, squeaks and leaks than an, er, rattly, squeeky, colander....

7) Revealed in 2021. Hurray, 2 years till we get to see it, then what, when can we buy it. Because i'm not sure if you've noticed, but polluting, high CO2 vehicles are already looking a bit anti-social today, and EVs are taking over fast. Companies like Rivian are re-writing the rules faster than the existing OEs can pedal......

8) It's designed to encourage aftermarket development: Pull the other one mate. No OE who wants to stay in business is going to let people bolt completely untested, unproved and critically un-homologated bits to their vehicle, and even more certainly not whilst honouring the warranty..


and

9) 300 is going to have to buy one of these, it's his perfect car, and after months of claiming the new defender is sh*t, if he doesn't he's a two faced liar!

;-)

Edited by Max_Torque on Wednesday 18th September 18:56

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You know your onions (I have enjoyed your posts for years) and you are right to raise these concerns based on the knowledge that has been shared.

But....

If you have spotted these problems after simply reading a press release it it reasonable to expect that the team of full time engineers working on the project will also be aware of them.

However, no start up will ever share the inner workings of their project at this stage. Why would they share the precise details with their competitors just to appease a few experts on Internet forums?

After all , very few people will have your knowledge in order to dissect the information and identify any potential flaws.

Instead they drip feed a superficial level of PR to keep people interested and drum up some registrations of interest.
PR can also be used as a diversionary tactic for competitors or to bring pressure to bear on suppliers, politicians etc.

It is naive to assume that we can know the whole story from the tightly controlled Press Releases.

You may turn out to be correct - time will tell - but let’s give the Ineos team some credit.

[NomduJour]

Point is, what will this offer to a commercial buyer that a one-tonne pickup (with existing worldwide service and support) doesn’t, given that it’s going to be a lot more expensive?

That’s surely the only important question.

[anonymous-user]

Harry_523 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Harry_523 said:

So American and Chinese billionaires are starting companies to kickstart the EV revolution, and commercialise space travel.

Meanwhile in england this bloke wants to build a few s***ty old landrover replicas. Talk about "little Britain" thinking...

And the chemical company have a shocking environmental record in ocean pollution

8 billion people on the planet cannot afford an EV or make use of one practically so it’s not as if it’s moronic to target a segment where EVs don’t work.

EVs will eventually become a big segment in certain markets but until battery tech significantly changes the ICE is here to stay for most people on the planet for decades to come.

I don’t think it is provincial thinking to look at the wider market and risk building a product for it.

My point is he's using his massive resources to simply make more money for himself and employ a few people in his back garden, meanwhile his billionaire colleges are trying to push humanity into uncharted territories.

As you say, most of the 8 billion people cant afford an EV, and battery tech needs to change, so why not invest his billions into affordable next generation EV tech instead?

You're thinking too small, i see htis as a project for tax efficient/ government funded R+D into Hydrogen fuel cell technology.

How long before EV tech is available in remote Africa? Outer mongolia? etc, perhaps he is thinking 3 or 4 steps ahead and devising an eco-friendly Fuel cell that can be used in remote parts of the world whilst conveniently also being a huge producer of said fuel.

Produce the only car that runs on Hydrogen Fuel and supply said fuel for the car !

[anonymous-user]

splinge said:

I'm actually working on this, so I'm a bit closer than most

He has contracted a team of capable and competent engineers to deliver the project - and they have vast experience of automotive design with MB

It's not a bunch of blokes in a shed knitting together a Rickman Ranger from an old Ford Escort and some cereal packets, so I'm sure that the finished product - and manufacturing facilities - will be comparable to other vehicles in its target market.

The problem is not the engineering or the people tasked with delivering it.

The problem is does anyone actually want to buy one of these Trucks? (or at least enough per year to make it even break even)


Let's consider the various facets, on the limited info we have available so far:


1) Price. "10 to 15% more than the competition". That right there is a BIG problem

2) Specification "Basic 4x4". In most of our society, most consumers want, or at least aspire to, a higher specification. The "low spec" market does exist, but it is extremely costs sensitive (see "poundland" and point 1 )

3) Subjective Reliability - In any developing market, a purchasers buying decision is dominated by previous reputation. You're spending a lot of money, so to "take a risk" on an unproven option is, well, a risk. If that option is also more expensive and low spec than the competition, realistically thats a no-sale for the vast majority.

4) Objective Reliability - "tough truck" is a market dominated by the Japanese manufacturers. They have 50 years or more of direct experience, skills and workforce training (and attitude!) that enables them to deliver a product that is objectively more reliable than their competitors. That accomplishment is dominated by subjective factors that go well beyond what i would call "fit for purpose design". Ineos can hire all the 'best' engineers in the industry (and they have, and are headhunting those people right now, temped with large paychecks!), but the end-to-end process control, so critical to product reliability is not something that can be bought. See JLR for reference!

5) In-territory backup - Being able to fix your truck yourself is great, in a small proportion of cases. But realistically, modern vehicles work until a component fails catastrophically. The days of damp plug leads, worn points, or badly set up carb jets are long gone. Other than things like miss-fuelling, flat tyres, or flat batteries, i'm struggling to know what you can fix by the side of the road without support? Being able to read some codes is useful (and off course you can already do that, because standard codes and the databus protocol to access to those codes are mandated by regulations), but at some point i'm going to need to buy a part, be that a coil pack, an injector, a fuel rail pressure sensor etc. Here the Japanese manufacturers have a huge head start, with an existing, global support network of part suppliers, dealers, and of course, 50 years of in-field repair knowledge

6) Global sales of large, consumptive and polluting basic 4x4s are falling. More and more of the world is paved, more and more of the world is city based and aspirational. The increasingly remote "other parts", well, how are they going to afford to buy a £30k truck? Companies like Tata in India produce locally built, ultra cheap, low spec product for those markets. Yeah, those vehicles are indeed st, but they are cheap st, and that's what matters! A truck with a 3.0 BMW engine is not going to be cheap to run, or fix. Economy will be poor, parts expensive.



But really, the biggest "warning" to me is this projects actual birth place. It came for an idea in a pub. where Ratcliffe, a fan of the classic defender, bemoaned the passing of that vehicle. He tried to buy the rights to keep making it from JLR, who rightly told him to "do one", and snubbed by that put-down, came up with this plan to beat them at their own game. What he apparently failed to notice is that JLR were already no longer playing that game! JLR had by that point battled unsuccessfully against the Japanese invasion of low cost, high reliability trucks in emerging markets for over 30 years, which you would have thought would have been a bit of a red flag to Ratcliffe. But here's the thing with the ultra rich, they really like to get their own way, and projects that are objectively "flights of fancy" are pushed through whereas otherwise basic business sense would seem them fall aside.

And that's what this Grenadier is. It's basically a "reborn" or "reimagined classic" in the same vein as a Singer 911, or a DBA mini cooper. But rather than target a few, affluent rose-tinted spectacle wearing hipsters, he's trying to take on the might of Toyota, Nissan, or Isuzi. And that, well, that's a whole different ball game..........

[anonymous-user]

Max_Torque said:

splinge said:

I'm actually working on this, so I'm a bit closer than most

He has contracted a team of capable and competent engineers to deliver the project - and they have vast experience of automotive design with MB

It's not a bunch of blokes in a shed knitting together a Rickman Ranger from an old Ford Escort and some cereal packets, so I'm sure that the finished product - and manufacturing facilities - will be comparable to other vehicles in its target market.

The problem is not the engineering or the people tasked with delivering it.

The problem is does anyone actually want to buy one of these Trucks? (or at least enough per year to make it even break even)


Let's consider the various facets, on the limited info we have available so far:


1) Price. "10 to 15% more than the competition". That right there is a BIG problem

2) Specification "Basic 4x4". In most of our society, most consumers want, or at least aspire to, a higher specification. The "low spec" market does exist, but it is extremely costs sensitive (see "poundland" and point 1 )

3) Subjective Reliability - In any developing market, a purchasers buying decision is dominated by previous reputation. You're spending a lot of money, so to "take a risk" on an unproven option is, well, a risk. If that option is also more expensive and low spec than the competition, realistically thats a no-sale for the vast majority.

4) Objective Reliability - "tough truck" is a market dominated by the Japanese manufacturers. They have 50 years or more of direct experience, skills and workforce training (and attitude!) that enables them to deliver a product that is objectively more reliable than their competitors. That accomplishment is dominated by subjective factors that go well beyond what i would call "fit for purpose design". Ineos can hire all the 'best' engineers in the industry (and they have, and are headhunting those people right now, temped with large paychecks!), but the end-to-end process control, so critical to product reliability is not something that can be bought. See JLR for reference!

5) In-territory backup - Being able to fix your truck yourself is great, in a small proportion of cases. But realistically, modern vehicles work until a component fails catastrophically. The days of damp plug leads, worn points, or badly set up carb jets are long gone. Other than things like miss-fuelling, flat tyres, or flat batteries, i'm struggling to know what you can fix by the side of the road without support? Being able to read some codes is useful (and off course you can already do that, because standard codes and the databus protocol to access to those codes are mandated by regulations), but at some point i'm going to need to buy a part, be that a coil pack, an injector, a fuel rail pressure sensor etc. Here the Japanese manufacturers have a huge head start, with an existing, global support network of part suppliers, dealers, and of course, 50 years of in-field repair knowledge

6) Global sales of large, consumptive and polluting basic 4x4s are falling. More and more of the world is paved, more and more of the world is city based and aspirational. The increasingly remote "other parts", well, how are they going to afford to buy a £30k truck? Companies like Tata in India produce locally built, ultra cheap, low spec product for those markets. Yeah, those vehicles are indeed st, but they are cheap st, and that's what matters! A truck with a 3.0 BMW engine is not going to be cheap to run, or fix. Economy will be poor, parts expensive.



But really, the biggest "warning" to me is this projects actual birth place. It came for an idea in a pub. where Ratcliffe, a fan of the classic defender, bemoaned the passing of that vehicle. He tried to buy the rights to keep making it from JLR, who rightly told him to "do one", and snubbed by that put-down, came up with this plan to beat them at their own game. What he apparently failed to notice is that JLR were already no longer playing that game! JLR had by that point battled unsuccessfully against the Japanese invasion of low cost, high reliability trucks in emerging markets for over 30 years, which you would have thought would have been a bit of a red flag to Ratcliffe. But here's the thing with the ultra rich, they really like to get their own way, and projects that are objectively "flights of fancy" are pushed through whereas otherwise basic business sense would seem them fall aside.

And that's what this Grenadier is. It's basically a "reborn" or "reimagined classic" in the same vein as a Singer 911, or a DBA mini cooper. But rather than target a few, affluent rose-tinted spectacle wearing hipsters, he's trying to take on the might of Toyota, Nissan, or Isuzi. And that, well, that's a whole different ball game..........

You seem to know a lot about business, can i ask how many $50B+ global businesses you have successfully started and ran?

I am pretty sure that Ratcliffe has a better understanding of commercial business than you do and he employs people like you to bother with the technical details.

[oldtimer2]

I need to know more about the product to form a view. I remain unclear about the intended target market, body structure materials and technology, price points, variants and so forth. His financial model may be different too; for example if it fails it may be a tax loss that can be used to offset profits earned elsewhere by Ineos. Obviously he is very committed, he is having fun, it is his money and he has concluded it is worth the risk.

It seems he is drawing on MB experience for his design (per an earlier comment). That suggests to me a steel, body on frame vehicle; possibly with extensive use of flat panels; built by hand (?) to avoid extensive press shop, b-i-w tooling (?). Whether such a vehicle would offer competitive payload/towing capacity remains to be seen. In this respect the new Land Rover Defender appears to have set new benchmarks in this sector, certainly outperforming established competition in the US market according to comments on the Overland Journal forum.

The benefit for users is that it will add a new competitor causing, one hopes, everyone to raise their game. It should also be noted that the all electric Rivian is much closer to reality and has impressed those who have seen it. It makes bold claims about range and payload/towing capacity. In this respect the recent post by TFLCar, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=yjklex38lkQ ) attempting to tow a 2000lb trailer 1000 miles from Colorado to Portland Oregon, behind a Tesla X is instructive. It was an utter failure; effective range dropped to only c100 miles when towing this relatively light load. They abandoned the attempt (for reasons of range anxiety and time required) and called someone to save them with a traditional US pick up truck. Kudos to TFLCar for having the gumption to buy their own Tesla and try it out in real world circumstances (they also went off road in it in a separate test).

So all in all it is an interesting time for consumers, and a nail biting time for manufacturers having to live in an extremely uncertain world. I think the Land Rover have made a step forward with the new Defender and that it will succeed in its intended role as a dual purpose vehicle. I especially like the look and intent of the new commercial versions.

[TWPC]

ducnick said:

I strongly suspect this is a high media impact project to focus more attention on hydrogen fuel cell power. That makes the choice of 3 litre bmw power much more understandable. Bmw could well be benefitted too by partnering with such a big producer of hydrogen..... it would be like Tesla partnering with national grid.
In this context it makes perfect sense to go into the commercial vehicle market. Ie vehicles that can be refuelled from apparatus at a company depot. Somewhere Ineos can deliver gas cylinders to regularly as this is the problem currently. Hydrogen isn’t available from filling stations yet so not an ideal fuel for the private user at this time. EV only works as you can charge at home overnight.
Expect a van to follow, with exactly the same bmw hydrogen power train in something that looks like a transit.
This could be genuinely disruptive.

Edited by ducnick on Thursday 19th September 03:05

The CAR website mentions this as well.
"And there's already talk of the second generation - with a hydrogen fuel cell version being considered."
"Ineos thinks hybrids and plug-in electric are not the answer." They quote Mark Tennant, Ineos Automotive's commercial director.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/first-offic...

Very interesting: Ineos Automotive may not be expected to generate massive returns from making cars but from enabling the wider Ineos group to make more money by selling more chemicals like hydrogen.

[anonymous-user]

Lord.Vader said:

You seem to know a lot about business, can i ask how many $50B+ global businesses you have successfully started and ran?

I am pretty sure that Ratcliffe has a better understanding of commercial business than you do and he employs people like you to bother with the technical details.

None.


Now ask me how many highly successful vehicles i have designed, developed and brought to market over the last 30 years.


That's the difference, i know my arse from my elbow when it comes to actually delivering a viable automotive product. :-)

[JxJ Jr.]

Lord.Vader said:

You seem to know a lot about business, can i ask how many $50B+ global businesses you have successfully started and ran?

I am pretty sure that Ratcliffe has a better understanding of commercial business than you do and he employs people like you to bother with the technical details.

Go take a look at the likes of Eclipse Aviation, it was backed by people like Paul Allen, Bill Gates and Vern Raburn (early Microsoft employee, one of Apple's biggest customers, Symantec CEO). It was a corporate jet start up that thought the aviation industry was filled with a load of idiots who didn't know what they were doing. The backers were from a world where you could send whatever junk out the door because the next update would fix it.

Ineos operates in a world of commodity products that are bought on price, spec and supply. The automotive industry does not operate like the chemical industry.

Success in one industry doesn't mean success in others, oftern hindered further by complacency. Just look at the difficulties Tesla's gone through and has yet to convincingly fully emerge from.

[InitialDave]

JxJ Jr. said:

thought the aviation industry was filled with a load of idiots who didn't know what they were doing.

Don't worry, you still meet the odd one here and there!

Though it's more aerospace engineering does suffer sometimes from people being too cautious/computer-says-no, rather than evaluating why things are done a certain way and looking to whether improvements can be made that still achieve that end. It's not that people don't know what they're doing, more sometimes they don't recognise it could be done a different way. You can't just wander in all Billy Big bks with a sack full of VC funding and magically do something completely different, of course, but there are areas where insight gained from elsewhere is definitely beneficial.

I suppose that's just any manufacturing industry though.

[EvoOlli]

The Crack Fox said:

Nice to have you here. Are you UK based? When you say experience with MB, it that Mercedes-Benz?

PS - Some of us have dirty thoughts about Rickman Rangers and clag. Shhh

Found that:
https://www.ineos.com/businesses/ineos-automotive/...

But MBTech has been sold to a french company AKKA in the meantime....

[BeardyBodge]

Jim looks like that kid at school that wet his pants and had to wear some random jeans from lost and found in that photo. Awkward.

Nostalgia can be a dangerous thing and I fear this project will find out the hard way. £600m investment is a drop in the ocean when developing a new car. They'll spend that on a small fleet of prototypes.

Shame it's being engineered and developed in Germany and not the UK. Missed opportunity.

Lots of talk so far and no action, but good luck to them. They'll need to spend billions on marketing to actually convince anyone to take a risk on an unknown...

If I was in the market for a farm truck I'd just get a Toyota pick-up, so they'll have to compete with that attitude.

[Jimbo89]

Much as I'd like to think this will work for the sake of the British jobs that have been promised, it's hard to put faith in a man who campaigned to leave the EU and then moved there to avoid paying taxes.....

Realistically though, I just do not see this working. Legislation will probably kill it first. If it does make it through the safety legislation required to homologate a vehicle it certainly won't look like an old Defender. Then the emissions regs will require half a dozen ECU's and engine management systems to be bolted on, making it complex and difficult to fix. Besides which you have to wonder, if there really is a market for this then why did Land Rover stop making the old Defender?

People citing things like the Land Cruiser 70 series need to have a good look at the reviews in the ones where they're still for sale, they've been updated over the years and were a hell of a lot more comfortable and modern inside than a Defender to begin with. They're also massive, which is why they never really took off with the UK farmer brigade. Yes while you're probably more likely to be able to fix the drivetrain yourself than a modern Land Rover, the engine and gearbox are a mass of sensors and DPF filters. Theyr'e also not cheap and sell almost exclusively to Mining organisations in Austrailia, Africa and South America.

Finally - if this is really just a nostalgia trip designed to appeal to those odd chaps that spend their weekends deliberately getting stuck then there is another major flaw......They don't buy new cars anyway.

[Bodo]

Max_Torque said:

Now ask me how many highly successful vehicles i have designed, developed and brought to market over the last 30 years.

Not a single one. Not even a facelift of the Reliant Robin.