RE: INEOS confirms Grenadier for reveal in 2020

[diddy_p]

ducnick said:

I bet the board meeting didn’t start with “how can we provider farmers with a new Land Rover?” And instead started with “how do we increase profits? Well we could sell more of this hydrogen stuff we make. But there’s no more market boss... let’s make a market then!”

The cynic in me also reckons that Britain's richest man and staunch brexiteer wants to show that there are job creation opportunities in post brexit Britain, especially in a not so well off part of wales- this basically amounts to a well timed good news piece when the country appears to be on a cliff edge. Even though actual manufacturing and homologation will be based in the EU/Portugal.

In the end, they will file a load of patents, not produce anything and get 100% relief for their R&D.

[TWPC]

diddy_p said:

ducnick said:

I bet the board meeting didn’t start with “how can we provider farmers with a new Land Rover?” And instead started with “how do we increase profits? Well we could sell more of this hydrogen stuff we make. But there’s no more market boss... let’s make a market then!”

The cynic in me also reckons that Britain's richest man and staunch brexiteer wants to show that there are job creation opportunities in post brexit Britain, especially in a not so well off part of wales- this basically amounts to a well timed good news piece when the country appears to be on a cliff edge. Even though actual manufacturing and homologation will be based in the EU/Portugal.

In the end, they will file a load of patents, not produce anything and get 100% relief for their R&D.

Aaaah, I agree with both the above points and like ducnick's theory that Ineos are using the bigger 3.0l BMW because it will be harnessed to a hydrogen network.

Ratcliffe is going to expect a substantial return from his £600m investment and, as others have said, generating those returns solely from making a car is just too hard and risky. Using the Grenadier as a tool to promote and expand sales of other Ineos products makes much more sense.

[cookie1600]

Max_Torque said:

He might be rich, but he really has absolutely no idea what on earth he's doing......

Then I guess £12bn will buy him people that do.

[Harry_523]

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

[DonkeyApple]

powerstroke said:

So what !! even the poorest african has a smartphone !! a bluetooth dongle that plugs into a standard OBD plug are pennies
so no reason whatsoever apart from lost revenue that the customer could get the information if that was INEOS's wish and selling point ..

In terms of selling in the third world, Ineos giving away post sales revenue by allowing other entities to maintain the vehicle is going to be a revenue gain as there simply wouldn’t be that revenue in the first instance and if those third world consumers of serious off-road stuff can’t fix things using their local set up then they don’t buy them.

The reality is that this project does all seem very far fetched and somewhat impossible to achieve in a world where car firms are barely profitable, go bust during most global economic cycles and employ thousands of tech individuals to make an object that just needs to drive from A to B compliant with the thousands of variable global regulations.

We’ve almost become convinced that it’s impossible. McLaren managed it with the backing of a lot of professionally dumb money and targeting a consumer segment willing to pay premiums. Tesla has done it using billions of near worthless, freshly printed QE cash washed through institutions but again by targeting a consumer type will to spend a premium for brand association.

Can Ineos do it? Well they have funding. That’s the first very big hurdle. But they aren’t looking to sell anpremium product to an affluent, cash soaked or debt addicted Western consumer but to the price efficient non first world consumer.

It will need to carry the bare bones of legal
compliance and in order to be cheaper than the competition it will need to both fill some key niches that the competition cannot while also being more durable and cheaper to run so that the initial higher cost when amortised over the life span is cheaper.

It’s a huge ask and until the product appears and actually sells then there is always the risk that regardless of how smart and wealthy an elderly business man is they simply haven’t comprehended the rapid change in society around the world and are falling for the curse of pensioner nostalgia. But on the flip side, most men who work in most industries don’t actually really understand that industry but have a devout belief that they do. Only a few understand an industry sufficiently to rise to the top, most don’t which is why industry pundits are so often wrong yet sound convincingly right. Another issue at present is that given the economic issues within the automotive industry he risks surrounding himself with professionals who are just glad to have a pay check for the next few years and won’t say anything to jeopardise that.

I really want this to work and it will be good to follow but it’s one hell of an uphill battle.

[powerstroke]

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

You do realise Landrover started by making a stty copy of a WW2 Jeep !!

[cookie1600]

DonkeyApple said:

I really want this to work and it will be good to follow but it’s one hell of an uphill battle.

Any more so than Sir James Dyson, another very wealthy billionaire, making EV's?

[themule]

Nostalgia - "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition".

Lots of money to made from it and Jim Ratcliffe is certainly cashing in.

Unfortunately the rest of us won't as he has recently become legally domiciled in Monaco to avoid paying the £4bn in tax that would have helped fund our NHS, education and road systems.

[powerstroke]

themule said:

Nostalgia - "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition".

Lots of money to made from it and Jim Ratcliffe is certainly cashing in.

Unfortunately the rest of us won't as he has recently become legally domiciled in Monaco to avoid paying the £4bn in tax that would have helped fund our NHS, education and road systems.

Yes certainly a warning to the muppets calling for more tax take from "the rich"

[DonkeyApple]

cookie1600 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I really want this to work and it will be good to follow but it’s one hell of an uphill battle.

Any more so than Sir James Dyson, another very wealthy billionaire, making EV's?

Indeed but of the two I suspect Dyson has the more gentle slope in the current climate so long as ultra consumers keep consuming.

Two very different propositions aiming at two very different markets both headed by two very bright and wealthy individuals. It will be good to see both succeed.

[scot_aln]

Howard1650 said:

this whole thing smells like DeLorean all over again

If it works out great but how much funding is coming from the government to support this potential venture.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

[Megaflow]

Everything Max Torque says applies is this vehicle is going to be powered by a traditional combustion engine.

But, something about this doesn’t stack up. We are seeing the beginning of the end of the combustion engine as we know it. Mass manufacturers are all talking about hybrids and BEV’s. Why would a chemical company choose to get involved with what is rapidly becoming an outdated technology?

I suspect if this comes off, which is far from a forgone conclusion, the BMW combustion engine is only an interim power train to be replaced by a battery, or indeed as somebody else said, a fuel cell.

[InitialDave]

Megaflow said:

Everything Max Torque says applies is this vehicle is going to be powered by a traditional combustion engine.

In fairness, I believe the certification and testing etc is mandatory regardless of what powertrain you're running, it's just certain aspects of it that differ. So much of what Max Torque has spoken about is inescapable.

[cookie1600]

DonkeyApple said:

Two very different propositions aiming at two very different markets both headed by two very bright and wealthy individuals. It will be good to see both succeed.

And of course Sir Richard Branson, who's never entered the world of car design/manufacture, but still maintained his wealth and success. What does he know that the other two don't?....

[Harry_523]

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?

[300bhp/ton]

Max_Torque said:

T
claiming the new defender is sh*t,

Edited by Max_Torque on Wednesday 18th September 18:56

Why are you such a dick about this? I have never said anything of the sort.

[Cabinet Enforcer]

Max_Torque said:

;-)


I'm sorry, but i'm entirely unconvinced owners want to be "empowered" to fix their own car themselves? I mean, realistically, ignoring a few PHers, no one is going to do this right?

I think you're missing something obvious here, they are simply trying to provide the modern equivalent of the "get it fixed anywhere" ethos of the defender.

The EU are already trying to force something similar on manufacturers, right now I can sign up on the etis portal and get full repair info for any ford vehicle I want, it's just a smidge expensive and the interface equipment is also prohibitively costly for a small garage or individual. They are actually further down this road in the US, it is even closer to being economically viable as an individual with the costs on the motorcraft website.

All Ineos need to do is make the interface equipment reasonable (or even build it in), and provide a free or low cost access model to repair information and diagnostics.

If you think there isn't a market for this, take a look at the vast quantities of hooky diagnostic gear available on AliExpress.

[splinge]

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.

[DonkeyApple]

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?

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.