 | Home > INEOS Grenadier > Delayed production start |
 
|
|
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018   
|
If timeless design comes about through adopting good design principles then it's hard to see why that would be an accident. I struggle to see your car examples as timeless, with the possible sole exception of the 911, as they are no longer in production and so quite literally have not stood the test of time. |
||
14th May 2021 8:40am |
|
| Ryderoo Member Since: 28 Aug 2015 Location: South Oxfordshire Posts: 1666  
|
I’m not denying he knows how to make a fortune. They cannot get it right every time, that’s the way of world. So maybe not contradictory. The Grenadier will probably be a low volume vehicle and cost as much as a Land Rover Classic Works V8. Cheers Simon I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you 1990 110 TD5 county, my first Land Rover - gone 2012 Discovery 4 XS SDV6 - gone 2014 Discovery 4 XS SDV6 - gone 2015 Evoque SD4 dynamic - Wife’s - gone 2015 Urban Truck 90 XS Santorini Black Hard Top - Reluctantly gone 2020 Discovery 5 Eiger Grey 3.0 SE - gone March 24 2021 Defender S D250 Santorini Black 110 HT - gone March 24 2023 Evoque P300e SE wife’s current vehicle |
||
|
14th May 2021 10:54am |
|
| Philip Member Since: 09 Mar 2018 Location: England Posts: 510
|
What if Porsche launched a “new” 911 that was a woeful copy of a forty-year-old one, and inevitably miles off the various standards expected of a modern car, but with someone else’s very complex modern engine and gearbox? Would that be “timeless”, or more than a bit silly?
|
||
|
14th May 2021 11:53am |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
But I'm saying it doesn't come about through "adopting good design principles". As I said, 'timeless' cars seem to come about as they appeal to a lot of appeal in an undefined way (to the brain). The same applies to the 'Golden Rectangle'. We don't know why a rectangle 1 x 1.618 is appealing to the eye...it just is. It's perfectly fine that you don't see the original Defender, 2-door Range Rover, and classic Mini as timeless - we're all different. However, in defence of my statement, many people do indeed see these cars as timeless. 'In production' has nothing to do with it, Supacat. Cars which are classed as 'timeless' in PistonHeads-type forum debates are no longer in production, and yet could be made today and/or are still very appealing to the eye. Now left. |
||
|
14th May 2021 12:15pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
"The Grenadier will probably be a low volume vehicle and cost as much as a Land Rover Classic Works V8"
I'm actually struggling to think who will buy the Grenadier. Back when this was first proposed (and I was amazingly excited by it) there was talk of it being sub £30,000, and to be a replacement for the Defender. Now...what is it? Will utility companies buy it? Not if the talk of its final price is accurate! Will the police buy it? Again, unlikely, given that they appear to be buying Skodas and VWs (so they're are in the £25,000 market). So, its woeful design aside, who is going to buy it? Dacia announced today that their dabbling is going to stretch to a large 4x4 with the Bigster. I can see this being VERY appealing to so many companies (and police) with talk of it being just £15,000 (!!!) for the base model. https://www.carwow.co.uk/dacia/news/5039/n...lease-date EDIT: AutoExpress are running it today, by coincidence...starting price of £20,000!!! https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/dacia/354041...-brand-lar ...and a hybrid version coming. Meanwhile, Ineos are going with a diesel unit - is that correct? So a serious question (maybe I should start a thread) who is going to buy the Grenadier? Please inform me, anyone. Now left. |
||
|
14th May 2021 12:25pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
Not a very high bar set there. Which of the vehicles you referenced not in production today, "could be made today" ; and if so, why aren't they? |
||
|
14th May 2021 5:41pm |
|
| Fabio Member Since: 05 Aug 2011 Location: Somerset Posts: 589  
|
I think the time has passed for its launch. Times are changing the concern with climate change around the world will make it redundant before it is launched. In 10 years time cars/4x4 or SUVs wont be used as much. The young people in the world have a very different view of cars. But obviously and hopefully we will be here to see it. Fabio |
||
|
19th May 2021 4:37am |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
I am beginning to think that the Grenadier may be dropped. I still think it highly unlikely, but I can't rule it out, given what's happening in the sector. I don't know how much Mr Ratcliffe has invested, but for how much longer if the sales projections start to fall away? Even 25,000 units a year might be optimistic. It does all depend on the sales projections by Ineos staff, and if there's another delay to production. As time marches on, the Grenadier does seem a lot less relevant than it did back in that pub when everyone was spitting feathers about the demise of the Defender. I've always thought it was no big deal to start a car company. Evidently, it's a huge deal, given that James Dyson pulled the plug. But the Grenadier's problems are even deeper, as it isn't just a little sports car which can be thrown together utilising bits off the shelf.
I have to disagree with you about the climate. I think the coming decade will show that the Earth's temp isn't rising anything like they thought (see the latest dive in tropospheric temps!). I think climate concerns will wane, and the Left will find a new worry...it always does! Now left. |
||
|
20th May 2021 12:13pm |
|
| cyberhusky Member Since: 09 Feb 2021 Location: Luxembourg Posts: 275 
|
I read somewhere that Land Rover is still going after the Design of the Grenadier. Although LR lost in the UK, they have a chance to win in Germany and other EU countries.
As for the climate change, it will come faster and heavier than calculated. Artic ice shelfs are melting at record speed so does glaciers worldwide and in Greenland. This will augemnt temperature faster. This will change climate very fast not in 100 years but the next 30-50 years. Plus the Gulfstream is losing its power, it has already lost 17% (will loose or change by 30% in the next 20 years). This will change the climate completely in Europe. Probably more rain, we will have more UK weather 
(Probably more mud and high water on the roads, so one needs a 4x4  )
The Y-Generation doesn't buy cars, they don't need nor want one. By the time the Grenadier comes to market all other 4x4 will have EV version of their fleet. As for the price I don't think it will be at 35000 €, probably 40-50K €. When big-mouth Elon Musk introduced a 3D model of his Tesla 3 he touted 36000 €. Finally when the car was sold it was more like 60000€. For that price I would have bought a Jaguar I-Pace. 22MY Defender 110 (actual) | 10MY Freelander 2 (history) | 15MY Discovery Sport HSE (history) |
||
|
23rd May 2021 5:47pm |
|
| 90 Dreamer Member Since: 13 Jul 2019 Location: Oop North Posts: 2154 
|
Not sure Ratcliffe follows your line of thought given his Petro-chemical business and the fact he has already bought 1/3rd of Merc F1 with plans to complete the purchase later this year I believe.......
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/article...int-for-f1 |
||
|
23rd May 2021 6:38pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
There's always a risk of almost any debate cascading into a climate change one! However, I'll address your points. 1. Arctic ice melt has been arrested for the past nine years. That is to say that ice volume fell significantly from 1986 to 2012. However, since 2012 there has been no increase in sea ice volume loss. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content...ntV2.1.png 2. Greenland ice melt is complicated, as there is the Snow Mass Balance/budget which actually shows a small increase in ice due to heavier snowfalls (precipitation). However, this is counterbalanced by glacial calving (which is increasing), so overall there is a decline in Greenland ice. However, the annual rate of decline is incredibly tiny compared to the trillions of tonnes of ice on Greenlands land mass. It's loss is insignificant (in that respect). 3. Neither of these situations will exacerbate climate change (increased global temps) as they are factors from the causes of climate change, not contributory ones (in other words, they don't increase the temp). It's also important to remember that the Antarctic sea ice volume has INCREASED while land ice has decreased. The RISE in sea ice is despite warmer surrounding oceans. The tropospheric air temp over Antarctica as a whole has actually DECREASED very slightly over 40 years. 4. There are fairly dramatic changes in the Gulf Stream, but a study by Nasa eleven years ago found no underlying trend. In other words, we may see short periods of slowing, then periods of increasing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8589512.stm There was a study by the Earth Observatory of Columbia University to show that the gulf stream effect is in fact a myth, originated by an American military man, Matthew Fontaine Maury, in the mid nineteenth century. http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/ 5. There was a pause in the warming rate from 2000 (after an El Nino) up until the El Nino of 2016, after which there has been a small increase in global temp. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2020 This is odd, as CO2 emissions meant that massive amounts of the gas SHOULD have increased temps. They did not. Also, the lower tropospheric temp (the air above your head) has seen a marked decrease in the past year. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upl...021_v6.jpg The problem is that the statements you forward are projections: Maybe Possibly Could be Could see They are not even 'likelys' as they are based on incomplete data and computer modelling. 67 of 68 model simulations (of 13 models) of sea temp (for example) have been wrong: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upl...-Fig01.jpg This is not the way on which to base our future energy needs and standards of life! Unlike you, I cannot state what will or won't happen, only what I think. You have looked at the science and come to a conclusion. But this is not possible because it isn't 'data'. You are looking at projections proposed on an incomplete analysis. We can't KNOW what will happen. As climate science is the most complicated science there is, we should be very wary of making any predictions at all. In fact, to do so is insane. We've been constantly told that 'more energy' in the climate system will result in 'worse' hurricane frequency. Analysis shows this to be just plain wrong: https://phzoe.com/2021/05/21/atlantic-hurricanes-trend/ It's clear that human activity has had some effect on climate, but the truth is that we don't know to what degree - literally. The massive increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have had a marked effect on global temps, it has not. In other words, we are beginning to understand that the sensitivity of the Earth to atmospheric CO2 is not what we thought - obviously by observation. This is NOT to say that temps aren't increasing, or that sea levels are not rising (no increase in rate), but there is NO climate emergency or crisis... there isn't a single climate scientist that says there is. Towns, cities, countries (UK government was the first!!!), politicians, activists, Liberals, Marxists, journalists, the BBC, and many scientists all say there is - climate scientists do not say that. I could be wrong in my thinking, but observations aren't wrong, and it's clear that by observing the (so far) result of us massively increasing atmospheric CO2, it has not caused catastrophe. If you took the last 40 years, and looked at the increase of just 0.4 of ONE degree, even that you could not say is all due to man-made emissions. If we increase the atmospheric CO2 by another 100 parts per million over the next 40 years, would we see another 0.4 degree rise? https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/climate-sensitivity We don't know! We don't know what feedbacks do, and yet they are key to the entire subject. Just one for you... increased temps cause increased cloud cover. Increased cloud cover cause a DECREASE in global temps. That's called a negative feedback. But there are positive feedbacks, too. Key to this is water vapour. Water vapour is far and away more important to the Earth's climate system than CO2 is. In fact, it is THE key... and we don't know how it works! Water vapour is controlled by the temperature: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climate...e-co2.html After all that, we await the rate of temp increase - if there is one - of the coming decades, but the one thing we KNOW is that we don't know! Now left. |
||
|
23rd May 2021 8:07pm |
|
| cyberhusky Member Since: 09 Feb 2021 Location: Luxembourg Posts: 275
|
1. The volume above sealevel doesn't melt it is below. The sea become more salted, and does melt the ice from below. last year they found a big hole (size of Manhattan) below the ice.
This year scientists believe that the point of no retunr has been reached in Antartica. The ice melting can't be stopped. 2. the ice masses of Greenland are huge, but once the system has begun it's not possible to stop it. 4. No the Gulfstream system is not a myth. Only since 2004 it is monitored by the RAPID system.https://rapid.ac.uk/index.php. A study from German, British and Irish scientist came to the comclusion that it is diminishing (published Feb 2021 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/earths...millennium) 5. Fact is that the temperature is higher than 200 years ago. If it pauses or accelerates is of no importance. As it will increase. Some years after the industrialisation a German scientist calculated that if we humans continue industrialisation like we began temperature will increase by 2°C in average during our century. We are now 2°C higher. Exxon did hide a study made in 70s what exactly will happen. At 0.1°C they were right with their conclusions. This study had to be published 2 years ago under the public interest act (don't know it's name) in the USA. It's true that more CO2 increases temps, but at the moment forest and plants absord millions of tons. Ever notices how fast forests grow the past years? Much faster than the years before. But plants can only absorb a certain quantity after that CO2 will grow massivel and the temps. The same is true for the seas: they absorb CO2, but get more acid this way losing most of its ogygen. It's of no importance if the temperature will increase by 1, 2 or whatever degrees. Fact is it is increasing because of mankind and all the things we built. The problem with all the climate science is it is very complicated and complex. Many systems interact with each other. It's true we don't know how it will continue. The whole problem are the interactings systems. If systems stops, reverses or diminish othe systems will change too. Like domino bricks. (published 14.5.2021 Potsdam Institute of climate science) point of no return reached (very high) or being reached for any of these system with interaction on the other systems: For the Nothern Part of the planet: 1) melting arctic sea ice (probability very high) 2) loss of Greenland ice shield (probability likely) 3) melting of perma ice (probability likely) 4) diminishing of nordic forests (probability likely) 5) liberation of frozen methan gases in oceans (probability poor) 6) deforestation of Amazonas (making lost of prairies) (probability likely) 7) diminuing of jetstream (probability poor) 8 ) diminuing of Gulfstream (probability likely) 9) disturbing of El Niño (probability poor) For the Southern Part of the planet: 1) Destabilisation of Indian Monsun (probability likely) 2) movement of westafrican monsun (probability likely) 3) destruction of coral riff in Asia (probability very high) 4) diminishing of global marine CO2 pump (probability poor) 5) collapsing of the eastern antartic ice shield (probability likely) 6) collapsing of the Western antartic ice shield (probability very high) 7) diminuing of jetstream (probability poor) 8 ) diminuing of Gulfstream (probability likely) 9) disturbing of El Niño (probability poor) I live in a region which had a lot of snow (50 cm up to 1 m) for weeks when I was a child. The last 10 years there is snow for some days but not more than 20 cm). The same is true for the forests. Vanishing very fast: either too hot during summer or missing rain druing Spring). 22MY Defender 110 (actual) | 10MY Freelander 2 (history) | 15MY Discovery Sport HSE (history) |
||
|
23rd May 2021 10:08pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
I'm afraid we could never agree on this as you appear to be convinced, whereas I say we don't know. Sorry, but that's not how science works. WE DON'T KNOW. That's the reason you hear about projections, or models, or 'possibility of'. You state things with a certainty which is (sorry) totally misplaced. We're not even sure what the temperature WAS, let alone is, or will be. We used to take sea temperatures by throwing a bucket over the side of a ship, pulling it up, and sticking a thermometer in it. No one even tested if that thermometer was calibrated will all other thermometers!!!
There are also proxies used as temperature indicators. That is to say that we look at past tree ring growth and try to determine temperatures from it. But trees have many factors (like rain) for their growth, not just temp. The now infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph was actual temps tacked onto tree ring growth...from a few pine trees!!! You couldn't make this up...except they did. "Not all the data showed a 20th century uptick either. In fact just 20 series out of 159 did, and these were nearly all based on tree rings. In some cases, the same tree ring sets had been used in different series. In the end the entire graph got its shape from a few bristlecone and foxtail pines in the western United States; a messy tree-ring data set from the Gaspé Peninsula in Canada; another Canadian set that had been truncated 17 years too early called, splendidly, Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill; and a superseded series from Siberian larch trees. There were problems with all these series: for example, the bristlecone pines were probably growing faster in the 20th century because of more carbon dioxide in the air, or recovery after “strip bark” damage, not because of temperature change." Your claim that temperature is higher than it was 200 years ago is the most revealing... You do know that was the end of the Little Ice Age, right? 1860. Why do you think it is that many pro-warming advocates start their graphs at 1900? How convenient? You say: "It will increase." You cannot state that! ONE large volcano (which is overdue) could drop global temps for years, if not decades! Sorry, cyberhusky, but what you believe may not in fact be true. I'm willing to admit that. I'm afraid you are not. Climate change is all about feedbacks - positive and negative. And we don't know about them, either. We know that what was predicted just a couple of decades ago has not come to fruition. We know that sea level rise is the same as it's been for over 100 years: https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indica...level-rise The rate of increase has stayed at 3.3mm a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_ri...ations.jpg You say: "It's of no importance if the temperature will increase by 1, 2 or whatever degrees. Fact is it is increasing because of mankind and all the things we built." No, that's totally wrong, it's not a fact. It's an assumption. There is not a single piece of evidential proof that climate change is all man-made - not one. If there was, there would be no argument. Sorry, but you are stating things which have not been proven. We only know one thing about climate change... WE DON'T KNOW. I have let some of your statements go, in the cause of friendliness, and the risk that this conversation may wander. But I do implore you to start reading the truth, not just what you're told. All the info is on the internet (even though Google is deliberately running 'anti' sites down the search order on purpose as it doesn't fit their narrative!). The situation may not be what you think it is, and some of what you say indicates that you are parroting a slant on climate change which is pure conjecture and political. Enjoy your 4x4ing. Now left. |
||
|
24th May 2021 8:24am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
I would be interested if you could find the source for that? I thought there was an international agreement in place along the lines that winning in one nation's court would be applicable in all signatory's courts. |
||
|
24th May 2021 8:32am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
