Confused brand message
Discussion
Am I the only one to be confused with the current Aston Martin brand message?
Aston Martin now use Mercedes for engine / gearbox and software supply. Aston Martin have invested in F1 with Red Bull who currently run Renault engine, which will switch to Honda power next season.
Where is the synergy and what Aston Martin brand message does this show ?
Aston Martin now use Mercedes for engine / gearbox and software supply. Aston Martin have invested in F1 with Red Bull who currently run Renault engine, which will switch to Honda power next season.
Where is the synergy and what Aston Martin brand message does this show ?
I really think it’s just getting the name out there, rather than it being linked to a car/engine/f1 team etc. Obviously there’s a tie in with Red Bull from a design/development point of view, but I believe it’s just brand awareness. Some people won’t understand the association, whereas others will. It does appear a bit messy, but the actual livery has been very visible on the red bulls this year.
leerandle said:
I really think it’s just getting the name out there, rather than it being linked to a car/engine/f1 team etc. Obviously there’s a tie in with Red Bull from a design/development point of view, but I believe it’s just brand awareness. Some people won’t understand the association, whereas others will. It does appear a bit messy, but the actual livery has been very visible on the red bulls this year.
Yeah, I agree; the F1 connection is about showing the name in opening markets that not familiar with the brand, whereas the Mercedes link is about proven technology, saving development costs where there's no benefit. Mercedes F1 are in support of the AMG Mercedes brand so no room at the inn there. I guess if Williams or Force India could get their act together, a swap from RB might not be off the table, though...Doesn’t seem that complex. It’s us car nuts who harp on about the Mercedes hardware in the new range. I’m sure many AM customers won’t know or truly care. Very much the same (and more) could be said for other low volume makes like Lamborghini, Maserati, Morgan, etc.
As for F1... seems like a good way to piggyback onto a successful non-competitive name (Redbull).
Perhaps us nuts all think too deeply about things
As for F1... seems like a good way to piggyback onto a successful non-competitive name (Redbull).
Perhaps us nuts all think too deeply about things
There was an aspiration for Aston to enter F1 as a power unit supplier from 2021 with Red Bull. However - the regulation changes pencilled in for 2021 look to be not of an ilk that would whet the appetite. Allied with that, Red Bull switching to Honda next year because (to put it bluntly) they burnt all their bridges elsewhere, and Renault will throw a mighty large party once the Abu Dhabi race is over and they're free of a customer who happily dragged their supplier's reputation through the mud when they weren't competitive. Honda are on board purely so Red Bull can still field some cars.
At least when McLaren had difficulties with Honda, they were somewhat more diplomatic about it. Besides that, we now see that the teams troubles were more deeply seated that just an engine lacking performance.
Whether the Aston (branded) 1.6L V6 single turbo-hybrid sees the light of day, who knows. Some might argue "why can they spend money developing an F1 engine and not a V8 for the Vantage?". It's a good question, but race engines are typically cheaper to develop due to the absence of having to comply with emissions regulations. The regulations are particularly tight now anyway, so innovation is almost a blacklisted word, and the only scope for being clever is in battery tech and energy harvesting (something being explored with Williams at the moment on the RapidE).
Back to the road cars - they've always had tie ups with 3rd parties for some parts, perhaps not as clearly defined as currently. Complaints about using a ZF box in the new cars I find strange (not a Merc box). Who built the gearbox in the DB5...I thought it was ZF. Was it ever an area of complaint though?
Perhaps in a way, the recent success and profitability of the company, is now a problem - it's raised expectations to the point where it's believed by many that they must be making enough money to be able to develop engines and infotainment systems in-house.
We'd all love a new Vantage with an in-house developed V8, but when one's available on the shelf (fairly) cheaply, and it's the best in the business, it's a no brainer. My reasoning for thinking the 5.2 TT V12 would find its way into the Vantage, wasn't because it needed it for performance (because you can wind the 4.0 AMG engines up more than enough), but more because its origins as an engine design sit more in-house at Aston, and would appease more existing customers.
At least when McLaren had difficulties with Honda, they were somewhat more diplomatic about it. Besides that, we now see that the teams troubles were more deeply seated that just an engine lacking performance.
Whether the Aston (branded) 1.6L V6 single turbo-hybrid sees the light of day, who knows. Some might argue "why can they spend money developing an F1 engine and not a V8 for the Vantage?". It's a good question, but race engines are typically cheaper to develop due to the absence of having to comply with emissions regulations. The regulations are particularly tight now anyway, so innovation is almost a blacklisted word, and the only scope for being clever is in battery tech and energy harvesting (something being explored with Williams at the moment on the RapidE).
Back to the road cars - they've always had tie ups with 3rd parties for some parts, perhaps not as clearly defined as currently. Complaints about using a ZF box in the new cars I find strange (not a Merc box). Who built the gearbox in the DB5...I thought it was ZF. Was it ever an area of complaint though?
Perhaps in a way, the recent success and profitability of the company, is now a problem - it's raised expectations to the point where it's believed by many that they must be making enough money to be able to develop engines and infotainment systems in-house.
We'd all love a new Vantage with an in-house developed V8, but when one's available on the shelf (fairly) cheaply, and it's the best in the business, it's a no brainer. My reasoning for thinking the 5.2 TT V12 would find its way into the Vantage, wasn't because it needed it for performance (because you can wind the 4.0 AMG engines up more than enough), but more because its origins as an engine design sit more in-house at Aston, and would appease more existing customers.
NFC 85 Vette said:
At least when McLaren had difficulties with Honda, they were somewhat more diplomatic about it. Besides that, we now see that the teams troubles were more deeply seated that just an engine lacking performance.
Don't recall it that way, Mac blamed everything on Honda, publicly, at every opportunity - if that's diplomacy, maybe that's where the trumpasaurus got his skills from 
!MarkwG said:
NFC 85 Vette said:
At least when McLaren had difficulties with Honda, they were somewhat more diplomatic about it. Besides that, we now see that the teams troubles were more deeply seated that just an engine lacking performance.
Don't recall it that way, Mac blamed everything on Honda, publicly, at every opportunity - if that's diplomacy, maybe that's where the trumpasaurus got his skills from !V8V Pete said:
MarkwG said:
NFC 85 Vette said:
At least when McLaren had difficulties with Honda, they were somewhat more diplomatic about it. Besides that, we now see that the teams troubles were more deeply seated that just an engine lacking performance.
Don't recall it that way, Mac blamed everything on Honda, publicly, at every opportunity - if that's diplomacy, maybe that's where the trumpasaurus got his skills from !As rough as the McLaren-Honda divorce was, it wasn't as cutting as the remarks by RBR management. In both cases though, much of the reliability issues stem from a chassis builder who's unsympathetic to the cooling needs of their power unit supplier. With McLaren the car as a whole isn't great, so they perhaps should have been less vocal, with Red Bull back at the start of the turbo-hybrid era, it had a significant power deficit to Mercedes, that over time lessened, but they'd pissed off Renault with the public slating in the early years, and then had to stick with an unhappy bedfellow as no other PU supplier would entertain them because of their approach to 'collaboration'. I hope they're more receptive to the packaging needs of the Honda PU.
It's a big reason that Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault's works team suffer less issues - they have a greater appreciation for the needs of others in the supply chain.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 3rd September 10:38
deeen said:
There was an article over the weekend saying that Aston want to become an aspirational lifestyle brand, maybe getting their name associated with F1 is part of that strategy, and the actual details of how the cars are made / parts are sourced becomes less important.
Yep, hence apartments, submarines & planes (if you can call it that?)3rtt said:
Am I the only one to be confused with the current Aston Martin brand message?
Aston Martin now use Mercedes for engine / gearbox and software supply. Aston Martin have invested in F1 with Red Bull who currently run Renault engine, which will switch to Honda power next season.
Where is the synergy and what Aston Martin brand message does this show ?
I don't see it as that confusing, F1 asideAston Martin now use Mercedes for engine / gearbox and software supply. Aston Martin have invested in F1 with Red Bull who currently run Renault engine, which will switch to Honda power next season.
Where is the synergy and what Aston Martin brand message does this show ?
They are primarily using Merc for electronics - makes perfect sense as it's not realistic for a firm of Aston's size to develop it all in house, especially with autonomy and other ever complex safety systems coming in. Whether they should get rid of the horrific bolt-on screen effect is another matter of course !
Other than that, it's just one engine from Merc. They are currently using two engines in the mainstream production models, a V12 5.2 ltr TT engine designed inhouse and the bought in V8 TT 4 ltr Mercedes engine. Aside from Valkyrie, that's it right now for Aston engines in terms of publicly disclosed products
Gearboxwise, they don't use anything from Merc and as others have said, it's not exactly unusual to buy in from the likes of ZF
Where I agree is that of any possible type of firm, for a car manufacturer to sponsor an F1 team is odd when they aren't supplying any components. However this all seems connected to the IPO & the 'volume' mid engined car - by the time that comes out, there will have been Valkyrie & son of valkyrie (both of which are tie-ins with Red Bull) and the Red Bull/Aston F1 tie-in, which is all connected to seeing Aston as a builder of mid engined sports cars, something they've never done before
deeen said:
There was an article over the weekend saying that Aston want to become an aspirational lifestyle brand, maybe getting their name associated with F1 is part of that strategy, and the actual details of how the cars are made / parts are sourced becomes less important.
As many of you will know, the initial link between Aston Martin and Red Bull Racing, must presumably have started because of Andy Palmer's previous connections. Nissan's 'luxury brand' was a sponsor of Red Bull F1.
The 'aspirational lifestyle brand' can be explained by the very different market values (in relation to profitability), between quoted car manufacturers and quoted businesses in the luxury goods sector. They don't want to be thought of as a low stock market value, car manufacturer in the IPO.
Most of the directors on the AML board (I think), are connected to the present owners of the business, and therefore have a strong decision making influence. When they choose to sell, no one can blame them for wanting the best price, so creating the impression of not being a car company, might increase the value obtained.
It will be interesting to see after AML becomes a plc, whether there might be fewer 'luxury goods company' type announcements about super wealthy AM car owners wanting personal submarines, or being pursuaded at the Farnborough Air Show, to buy Aston Martin personal flying luxury transportation systems.
In the years after any Company flotation, the stock market (which can be a harsh place for businesses) will decide the daily value, and that will be based upon the anticipated future profitability. Some of the present investors might have gone by then.
There might be a certain amount of brand confusion, but probably only amongst car enthusiasts. My interpretation is that AML are trying to a). build better awareness of their name around the world, and b). create more excitement and value in preparation for the IPO.
Does this seem logical ?
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 3rd September 16:11
It's a really interesting response from contributors and Aston Martin owners and fans.
I truly believe Aston Martin are giving out too many brand messages just now which is confusing, not just for petrol heads, possible investors but the whole world audience.
I get the Mercedes tie up for engine and software supply, who wouldn't. Not the best move, but OK.
I get the Valkyrie project with Adrian Newey and F1 technology. A great Aston Martin brand statement.
But why get hooked up in all the F1 politics by placing your brand name on a F1 car with a Renault engine, soon to be replaced by Honda ? Now that does skew your brand message ?
I truly believe Aston Martin are giving out too many brand messages just now which is confusing, not just for petrol heads, possible investors but the whole world audience.
I get the Mercedes tie up for engine and software supply, who wouldn't. Not the best move, but OK.
I get the Valkyrie project with Adrian Newey and F1 technology. A great Aston Martin brand statement.
But why get hooked up in all the F1 politics by placing your brand name on a F1 car with a Renault engine, soon to be replaced by Honda ? Now that does skew your brand message ?
3rtt said:
It's a really interesting response from contributors and Aston Martin owners and fans.
I truly believe Aston Martin are giving out too many brand messages just now which is confusing, not just for petrol heads, possible investors but the whole world audience.
I get the Mercedes tie up for engine and software supply, who wouldn't. Not the best move, but OK.
I get the Valkyrie project with Adrian Newey and F1 technology. A great Aston Martin brand statement.
But why get hooked up in all the F1 politics by placing your brand name on a F1 car with a Renault engine, soon to be replaced by Honda ? Now that does skew your brand message ?
Well said that man.I truly believe Aston Martin are giving out too many brand messages just now which is confusing, not just for petrol heads, possible investors but the whole world audience.
I get the Mercedes tie up for engine and software supply, who wouldn't. Not the best move, but OK.
I get the Valkyrie project with Adrian Newey and F1 technology. A great Aston Martin brand statement.
But why get hooked up in all the F1 politics by placing your brand name on a F1 car with a Renault engine, soon to be replaced by Honda ? Now that does skew your brand message ?
DW
Jon39 said:
As many of you will know, the initial link between Aston Martin and Red Bull Racing, must presumably have started because of Andy Palmer's previous connections. Nissan's 'luxury brand' was a sponsor of Red Bull F1.
The 'aspirational lifestyle brand' can be explained by the very different market values (in relation to profitability), between quoted car manufacturers and quoted businesses in the luxury goods sector. They don't want to be thought of as a low stock market value, car manufacturer in the IPO.
Most of the directors on the AML board (I think), are connected to the present owners of the business, and therefore have a strong decision making influence. When they choose to sell, no one can blame them for wanting the best price, so creating the impression of not being a car company, might increase the value obtained.
It will be interesting to see after AML becomes a plc, whether there might be fewer 'luxury goods company' type announcements about super wealthy AM car owners wanting personal submarines, or being pursuaded at the Farnborough Air Show, to buy Aston Martin personal flying luxury transportation systems.
In the years after any Company flotation, the stock market (which can be a harsh place for businesses) will decide the daily value, and that will be based upon the anticipated future profitability. Some of the present investors might have gone by then.
There might be a certain amount of brand confusion, but probably only amongst car enthusiasts. My interpretation is that AML are trying to a). build better awareness of their name around the world, and b). create more excitement and value in preparation for the IPO.
Does this seem logical ?
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 3rd September 16:11
3rtt said:
But why get hooked up in all the F1 politics by placing your brand name on a F1 car with a Renault engine, soon to be replaced by Honda ? Now that does skew your brand message ?
I have to disagree. My better halfs family are all Dutch and didn't really know of AM until I bought my DBS, even then they were still a bit confused as to who AM are. Now with Max at Redbull and the wings on the car they've been texting me links to the potential IPO, new model updates and general news (of course I've read it all here before hand but it shows the power of brand awareness)They of course don't give a damn about Merc engines and ZF gear boxes, why would they.
I am concerned about the use of bought-in engines in Aston Martin road cars. To me it signals that the V12 is the last engine they will ever make.
It might be one bought-in engine now, but if we let this slide it could easily be every engine in future, and then the chassis, and then why would anyone buy an Aston Martin over the vehicle all these things were actually designed for?
What is it saying? "Buy our cars because the engineering is great. Oh, but we can't be bothered developing the most important part of the car ourselves so we just chuck in someone else's effort." The graveyard of automotive history is filled with the ghosts of other manufacturers who thought that was a good idea.
One time Aston Martin owner Peter Sprague's opinion:
"The V8 engine, however, was developed and manufactured in-house. I personally felt that if you did not build your own engine you were not really building your own car. It was at the heart of the matter."
https://sprague.com/aston-martin/
Even as recently as 2011 nobody thought buying in engines (or admitting to it at least) was a good idea:
"It is absolutely essential to us to have the core elements of our cars in-house," says Jeremy Main, Aston Martin's director of Product Development and Motorsport. "What do I mean by that? One of the most important features of our cars has to be the engine and the overall powertrain—they provide a great deal of the car's character. So we want to produce the engines ourselves and do it under our control." - https://www.adandp.media/columns/building-aston-ma...
It might be one bought-in engine now, but if we let this slide it could easily be every engine in future, and then the chassis, and then why would anyone buy an Aston Martin over the vehicle all these things were actually designed for?
What is it saying? "Buy our cars because the engineering is great. Oh, but we can't be bothered developing the most important part of the car ourselves so we just chuck in someone else's effort." The graveyard of automotive history is filled with the ghosts of other manufacturers who thought that was a good idea.
One time Aston Martin owner Peter Sprague's opinion:
"The V8 engine, however, was developed and manufactured in-house. I personally felt that if you did not build your own engine you were not really building your own car. It was at the heart of the matter."
https://sprague.com/aston-martin/
Even as recently as 2011 nobody thought buying in engines (or admitting to it at least) was a good idea:
"It is absolutely essential to us to have the core elements of our cars in-house," says Jeremy Main, Aston Martin's director of Product Development and Motorsport. "What do I mean by that? One of the most important features of our cars has to be the engine and the overall powertrain—they provide a great deal of the car's character. So we want to produce the engines ourselves and do it under our control." - https://www.adandp.media/columns/building-aston-ma...
Sebastian Tombs said:
One time Aston Martin owner Peter Sprague's opinion:
"The V8 engine, however, was developed and manufactured in-house. I personally felt that if you did not build your own engine you were not really building your own car. It was at the heart of the matter."
https://sprague.com/aston-martin/
Even as recently as 2011 nobody thought buying in engines (or admitting to it at least) was a good idea:
"It is absolutely essential to us to have the core elements of our cars in-house," says Jeremy Main, Aston Martin's director of Product Development and Motorsport. "What do I mean by that? One of the most important features of our cars has to be the engine and the overall powertrain—they provide a great deal of the car's character. So we want to produce the engines ourselves and do it under our control." - https://www.adandp.media/columns/building-aston-ma...
And were AML making any money when Peter and Jeremy were there? "The V8 engine, however, was developed and manufactured in-house. I personally felt that if you did not build your own engine you were not really building your own car. It was at the heart of the matter."
https://sprague.com/aston-martin/
Even as recently as 2011 nobody thought buying in engines (or admitting to it at least) was a good idea:
"It is absolutely essential to us to have the core elements of our cars in-house," says Jeremy Main, Aston Martin's director of Product Development and Motorsport. "What do I mean by that? One of the most important features of our cars has to be the engine and the overall powertrain—they provide a great deal of the car's character. So we want to produce the engines ourselves and do it under our control." - https://www.adandp.media/columns/building-aston-ma...
Aston has needed saving from bankruptcy 7 times if I recall correctly. Would the people who have been instrumental in ensuring the company's survival over the years have cared so much about Jensen, or Gordon Keeble, or Iso, or De Tomaso, or any of the other plethora of defunct luxury sports car brands who didn't think having your own engine mattered?
Let me turn the question around: Has Andy Palmer (and his predecessors) brought Aston Martin to profitability and built the brand to the position it holds now with Aston Martin engines or with Mercedes engines?
Let me turn the question around: Has Andy Palmer (and his predecessors) brought Aston Martin to profitability and built the brand to the position it holds now with Aston Martin engines or with Mercedes engines?
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff