Good morning Oppo 

"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin) 07/27/2017 at 08:33 • Filed to: None

0

15

At what point should automakers choose revolutionary design over evolutionary design? The RR post got me thinking. The Phantom was a revolutionary design.... when it was introduced 15 years ago. Think about that. The RR is nearly as old as a 1st gen iPod. Is an evolutionary update really in their best interest?

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 08:41

0

I think you mean the current generation RR saloon? Cause the RR saloon car has been around since before cassettes let alone iPods...

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 08:50

0

Nowadays, it’s a big fat Audi. And talk about dee preesh!

Honeybunchesofgoats > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 08:54

0

I think it’s in Rolls’ best interest not to. They’re not cars like Ferraris where their target segment is going to buy another as soon as a new model is released. Considering how bespoke they are generally (and what I can only imagine is a rather long delivery time), drastic updates with any frequency would probably alienate potential buyers. You have to figure that there are probably quite a few people still waiting to take delivery on their car.

RT > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 08:57

0

Depends how competent these automakers are really.

Most Japanese car brands have a habit of replacing a model every 4-5 years, regardless of if the replacement was an improvement or not. Either way, it does promote innovation.

British brands meanwhile, especially in the BL years, would make their best designs for ridiculously long amounts of time before replacing them. But it did lead to some brands becoming perceived as ‘old money’ as a result.

So, I guess it’s a bit of both really. Keep with the times, but don’t kill your identity. After all, staying behind for too long messes with identity in the first place (see Jaguar, who are desperately trying to gain a younger image) - but rushing out polarising new designs isn’t much better. In the end, it’s time to make revolutionary designs when common sense dictates it.

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 09:01

1

I once read a quote of the RR CEO, saying something along the lines of: I want every Rolls Royce to have something timeless, as it should never be viewed as the previous model, but just as a Rolls Royce.

Aremmes > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/27/2017 at 09:01

0

You’re thinking of Bentleys. RRs are big fat BMWs, IIRC.

xyzabc > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 09:14

0

You forgot “ Derivative Design ”. Commonly referred to as “ Time Sharing ” or simply “ blatant rip-off ”.

AuthiCooper1300 > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 09:20

0

I think “revolutionary” is a much overused term when talking about cars. Revolutionary was... the Citroën DS. And maybe the Model T, although in a much different way.

On the other hand, evolution (not talking about cars here, or not just about cars) is not always linear but has moments when it proceeds in fits and starts. When talking about cars these “quantum leaps” can be quite striking – but seldom truly revolutionary. Bangle’s 7-series was trying to be a bit of leap, for example. The man was trying to inject some new blood into BMW. I for one did not like many of his designs but at least they were not bland.

Rolls-Royce cannot (or should not) be seen as a purveyor of expensive planned-obsolescence appliances, but of something else. I very much think the firm effectively died around the time of the BMW/VW takeover vaudeville , but I would like to imagine the people in charge at the very least do not feel the need to change just for the sake of it.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Aremmes 07/27/2017 at 09:22

0

Ah. I’d rather have a Cadillac CTS-V.

AuthiCooper1300 > RT 07/27/2017 at 09:32

0

One should not even compare Rolls-Royce with Jaguar. The timescales in terms of model change are completely different, let alone price, desirability or quality (whether the perceived sort or otherwise).

The fact that Rolls-Royce builds “cars” does not make it an automaker in the traditional sense of the word. A Rolls-Royce product competes mostly with other forms of non-automotive luxury, rather than cars.

During the BL era there was no money in the kitty to develop new models, if you are talking about BL brands. Jaguar was part of that mess for a long while and they had to make do with whatever they had. Does that make them “old money”? I wouldn’t go as far. I’d say “quaint”, and I am being generous.

During that time and well afterward Rolls-Royce (then still owning Bentley) and Aston Martin were not in the best financial health either. Someone acknowledged that one good reason why both companies were still alive was because they could charge outrageous prices for one-offs ordered by certain well-heeled overseas buyers with even more outrageous tastes and demands.

fintail > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 09:51

0

As long as we continue in this new Belle Epoque (recall how the last one ended), and sales are healthy, no need for anything but subtle changes. The demographic who buys these things doesn’t appear to love huge changes. If there’s a stagnant era and then a new boom, maybe then is time for a large update.

Those Silver Seraphs are getting into Camry money now, just watch out for maintenance.

Urambo Tauro > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 10:08

0

Depends on whether they’re making a new generation of an existing car model, or if they’re introducing a whole new one. If it’s a whole new car, then be revolutionary! But if it’s just the next generation of an existing car, then you have to maintain brand identity while updating it.

jimz > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/27/2017 at 10:35

0

The entire point of a Rolls or Bentley is for the owner to show everyone he/she can afford a Rolls or Bentley. They could still be selling the Corniche for all their customers care.

RT > AuthiCooper1300 07/27/2017 at 15:31

0

It goes without saying that Rolls Royce and Jaguar compete in completely different markets, but in terms of model update frequency (the relevant context here), I’d say both are - or at least were very stagnant. Of course an ultra-luxury brand like RR will not need to update models as frequently as a (comparatively) mass-market brand like Jaguar, but as I said earlier - that’s ultimately down to common sense.

But poor Jag did push it a bit too far. The original Jaguar XJ6 (itself an evolution of the 1961 Mark X) was produced from 1968-1992 with only three refreshes. The XJ-S also lasted decades with only three refreshes (1975-1996). So for over 20 years Jaguar’s main lineup didn’t change - this was for a much longer time than low-volume brands like Rolls Royce ever had!

We know this happened as these were difficult times for Jaguar financially, but regardless they shaped their ‘old money’ image with the public. Note how I said ‘with the public’ and not with us, as I’m talking about the brand’s general success and popularity - not whether it meets our favour. Personally, they’re one of my favourite car companies out there.

Furthermore, it can be argued that most of the British car industry played it safe for too long after financial recovery and foreign ownership: see Jaguar’s retro designs under Ford, Rover’s backwards approach and the long life cycles of modern British cars (e.g both generations of the XK, most modern Aston Martins, MG F/TF etc). Only recently are these companies willing to ‘revolutionise’ their designs more, which can again be showcased with Jaguar as they modernised the styling across their range in hopes to take on the German luxury brands.

So, these British brands could not afford to invest in new models so quickly for a long time, but the consequences of this did not go ignored - even if it was partially beyond their control.

AuthiCooper1300 > RT 07/27/2017 at 17:05

0

First of all I’d like to say that Jaguar is also one of my favourite marques, and I feel extremely pleased with their reversal of fortunes since acquired by Tata.

We can also agree on the fact that both Jaguar and Rolls-Royce+Bentley did not/could not renew their model lineup for a very long time. However... regarding your statement of Jaguar specifically as old money... not quite. Maybe in the States. Maybe, as the Brits say, “in the continent”.

In Britain Jaguar had for many years a very dodgy image, the kind of car associated with a certain type of flamboyant personality or even borderline close to the underworld. And it did not help them. That started changing little by little when Rolls-Royces became “oil money” cars, a trend which completely alienated part of its more traditional British clientele. The upshot: revival of Bentley (a “respectable” luxury brand, with a tinge of sportiness) and, amazingly, Jaguar, which also acquired much needed “respectability”. They went from being the car of the baddies in hundreds of films and TV series to the car used to ferrying around governement ministers.

Arguably the fact that Jaguar had a caddish subtext in Britain should not necessarily affect its fortunes in the rest of the world. But Jaguar was in Britain, and those perceptions in its country of origin were not helping to secure its proper brand development, for better or worse.

I am convinced that Jaguar was not quite free to do what they wanted under the PAG/Ford umbrella (Jesus, they had Wolfgang Reitzle there, whose idea of “britishness” was, allegedly, owning a Series 3 E-Type and sporting a moustache à la David Niven). Maybe the S-Type was, as you say, “playing it safe”. Well, I disliked it intensely (still do). It felt cheap, it did not feel like a Jaguar at all, whatever that is, and it pains me to say it, its design was a joke. And it was based on a Lincoln. Strangely I liked the X-Type better (partially based on the Mondeo; not so much as people think), even if I imagined it was going to fail. They just aimed too high, too soon.

BL-Rover did not have any money at all, and for a long time their recipe to barely stay in the market was to “anglicise” Hondas. BMW just did not know what to do with Rover or Land Rover or MG (they only or mainly wanted the Mini brand, and to be honest, I am not sure they really know what to do with it either, in spite of its apparent success), so that period does not count. Then came the mismanagement of the sad remnants of MG Rover and that was that, in spite of cars that were much more palatable than before (the 75 – a Rover designed, albeit financed by BMW –, the sporty MGs, the 75 V8-engined derivatives.)

It is very difficult to survive with little money/investment and old factories and all the baggage (old ways of working, old machinery, unskilled and/or aged staff) they carry with them. Jaguar+Land Rover had the double fortune of being more or less put on the right track (financially, above all) by Ford and then being bought by Tata.

How Tata came to steer them even better than Ford or several generations of British managers is a big enigma to me, but certainly we should all be grateful to them.

Ford coming to the rescue of Aston Martin was a godsend to Aston – maybe not so much to Ford – but its renaissance started just as so many other players entered the expensive sporty car arena. Funny: for a while they had to use a development of the XJS platform, which ended up helping Jaguar too. One has to wonder, however, if Aston will ever be really profitable for any proper length of time.