Hello
@James ,
thank you for your thoughts..
I'm pretty sure,that not many parts of the existing Grenadier can be reusesd in a smaller E-Grenadier.
You can't use the engine, the gearbox and the whole drivetrain and also not the axles. As it is smaller you need new body panels, seats and many new interieur stuff, covers, etc. Ineos has decided in many sections not to use same parts left and right due to the design. Example: the lights. The lights for the actual Grenadier are not from the shelf, Ineos paid for the development. However, left and right are the same, that saves costs. If they would have taken lights from the shelf, they even would have saved more money. For the E-Grenadier they decided that llights will be anm even more important part of the design and that leads to lights for left and lights for right. That increases costs in some apsects. You also need new software, for the complete management of the electric and battery systems. Depending which functions they want to offer, you also need softwrae to control the drivetrain, like torque vectoring etc. And now weight becomes an even more important thing than with the actual Grenadier. Weight is key. And already today software is also key (where Ineos had not such a good start...right?). You said their noin reliance on external software providers....I think it will be the other way around.
What do you think is wil be reused from the actual Grenadier? Maybe the display....maybe the ladder frame...and maybe a few other things....
Regarding the manufacturing, you can't build both cars on one line. You need a lot of differnet things and also security measures. WIth high voltage technology you also need educated and certified technicians (also at the dealership) to handle these cars. The former head of technology at Brabus Ulrich Gauffrés (Brabus deos not only tune Mercedes but they also do prototyping for the automotive industry) talked once about their E-Brabus. They build a few models just to get experience and to see what it measn. He said it was such a complete different thing.
That also means, that you need many new suppliers, new contracts, new homologations, new interfaces, new test drives etc. and you do not have an effect on the price as you need to take different parts from different suppliers. For the body (panels and frame) four suppliers and one developmer are listed for the Grenadier. What if they can't produce more parts due to capacity limitations or other things. Also to too less demand can mean you have to look for another partner, who is specialised in small production numbers. Having one supplier for body panels (or other parts) for example doesn't mean that this will be the best choice for a different model, as well. The same applies to other parts. Just check the existing car world. In an Audi, same model, you find up to seven different brakes. VW build its Tiguan on four different lines, one exclusively for the US which was montored every few years by US officials. Two for Europe and one for the rest of the world, all with different parts.
And what you should also not underestimate is the marketing. Ineos does really a lot in that area. My wife is actually in Spain to drive a Grenadier back to Frankfurt, all paid by Ineos. A two week happening, And that is only one event of many in the whole world.
The 1,5 Billion for developing the E-Grenadier doesn't come out of nothing. That is a good educated guess.
"Planned obsolescence is not required for their profitability when you are a minor player with unmet aspirational demand" Do you have existing examples for that?
AWo
Awo,
I agree with you, basically completely, all your comments on the electric car. Even if their 'smaller' car is dimensioned as a shorter Grenadier (like the renders, no guarantee this is what they are doing, and frankly I'd be surprised) then there will be little shared. As you say, can't even use axles, suspension will be different architecture... It's switchgear and bits and pieces. Its a seperate production line, different staff training, different suppliers, for sure. All agree.
I was thinking that, the second time any new company goes to do anything, then it is doing something it has done before, and it has teams that exist, in facilities, and they have done that thing before. So, all new suppliers required yes, but not the first time they have managed that process, and they'll have learned a lot. They have supplier relationship teams, purchasing processes, supply chain logistics teams, processes and software, etc etc. So there's a corporate structure, staff, and reflexes and memory.
I also understand and agree that software in an electric car is a MASSIVE deal, and completely unlike normal cars. I wasn't talking about that software. (There are rumours they have already partnered in that space, SW/HW combo. You probably know more than me about it....?)
INEOS have chosen not to rent software for lots of standard automotive business running functions, and to write their own. This software will require re-configuration (to some extent) for any new vehicle, but is a capital cost that will start to yield increasing benefits over time, and more so with a broader product range. I understand that they have avoided something in the region of 12 packages, and the attendant costs for licenses, but more so the costs for dealing with the difficulties of data communication between them, and on-going cost and inefficiency in their business from package compatibility problems (these afflict most large businesses, and are usually underestimated in terms of their negative effects).
The comment on planned obsolescence:
I was thinking around your comments about their brand and its positioning in the market.
A big part of that positioning, so far, is rugged durability and longevity. This runs counter to the current auto industry, which (since the lovely W123 Mercedes) has moved towards the inkjet printer model of high portion of profits from parts, and declining lifespan of product, leading to shorter second hand product life, and therefore increased new car sales.
It is very difficult to prosper doing otherwise, as a mainstream player, in any market where this model dominates. However, INEOS is not aiming to be a mainstream player, and I think that their position will sustain a product that does not rely on short lifespan high margin spares*, mostly because they are at the upper end of the value proposition, low volume, and likely unable to satisfy enough demand to meet the really price conscious market soon.
What do you think about their prospects of using the brand in the city car space? Just idle speculation....
*I'm not suggesting that their parts will be cheap, or even reasonable, although I hope they will be! It's tough doing low volume spares... But I don't think they have based their business case the same way stellantis have for example.
