Looking at this forum, and probably more so on Facebøk, it is very easy to get the idea that things are going wrong, there are concerns or risks, quality is patchy, the car may not be that good, or has ‘issues'. This is unfortunate, and says a lot about the way the internet works, and how it messes with our psychology. So here’s another perspective.
A summary:
Ineos have knocked it out of the park.
There have, of course, been some issues, notably in systems and communication. The cars have a fairly consistent set of minor niggles, which will be rectified (probably not all immediately). There are a surprisingly small number of problems, and a very few critical ones. Those people’s frustrations are not to be diminished, but the percentages are very low. AND, the faults are so far not consistently showing major design flaws that are ‘baked in’. There are also characteristics of the car that draw much comment.
The car is extremely capable for its purpose, and quite startlingly good at what it is explicitly less biased towards. But it is still the specialist, niche vehicle they promised.
Ineos have done all this in a very few years, and only slipped 6-9 months with all of COVID, supply chain interruptions, transport chaos, energy crisis in Europe, shortage of qualified employees generally, interest rate and inflation shocks, and the war in Ukraine. Any one of which is a major impediment.
Their achievement is nothing short of remarkable.
So, are these the delusions of a ‘fanboy’? Nope.
This car has had expectations on it that were probably unique to a new vehicle. Nearly everyone has come to the Grenadier from loving something; whether Defenders, Jeeps, G-wagens or old Toyotas. No-one ever projected their ‘perfect’ vehicle expectations onto those, because they literally evolved the paradigm over decades with all their warts on view. Defenders were atrociously uncomfortable from inception. Jeeps, well, largely stayed together, didn’t keep you dry and couldn’t handle weight, original Toyotas were agricultural, uncomfortable and boring, g-wagens expensive and puritan… whatever the package, we accepted and learned to love whichever vehicles we did despite, and often because of the characteristics of the design. And because of what they could do.
When the story of the Grenadier came out, we were invited to imagine the best of these vehicles, with ’the problems’ fixed, and as little of 'modern complexity' as could be achieved. That story is the greatest asset, and greatest burden of the Grenadier. Because we all put, unconsciously, a lot of semi-defined detail into that expectation.
The car, of course, has loads of characteristics. Every design resolution of a particular problem has to, one way or another. Some is intentions - safari roof, utility belt, some is consequential - drivers legroom, high floor, and some is accidental.
A huge percentage of the negative atmosphere, or even just impressions from happy people, is this. The car has characteristics. The driving position doesn’t suit everyone, and feels ‘different’ to nearly everyone, because it’s ‘different that they thought it would be'. The steering is not like you might imagine. The windscreen is quite small, the wipers, the doors, the loadspace, whatever, there is now a specific reality to meet the expectation. Every part of the car had to be decided upon, and now we confront the character those thousands of decisions impart.
There’s also a small, relatively neat pile of niggles. Spurious warnings, version one software controls, fuel gauge accuracy, heat shield rattles, and pre-identified replacements of some parts in very early cars. This stuff is expectable in any new model, let alone in a new company’s first car.
Then, there’s a very few failures. As best as the forum distils, these are mercifully rare (and huge sympathy to everyone affected, those with cars in for longer fixes, definitely Jean Mercier, for everything and his dealership reality… ) and they are not consistently pointing to recurring design flaws in the metal.
And then there’s the non-car stuff. Ineos’ communications have been poor. Really poor. Most of the delays and confusion around ordering, or how to deal with them failing their own process steps could have, and should have been handled with fast, clear communicating, and on that count they have not done well. Information shipped with the car is inadequate, for example the electrics, which has caused issues that need not have occurred. But these are of less consequence to the future of the car, thankfully.
They also appear to have underestimated the complexity of developing supporting systems, including software around sales, production and support. Having worked in large software projects, all I can suggest is that I have NEVER seen a company not make this mistake. Ever. Software systems are fiendishly complicated, and that task quite probably is harder than the car itself. There is no reason to believe they will not succeed; they are demonstrating, not perfectly, but quite convincingly a desire to provide really high levels of commitment and dedication to their customers. I'm certainly seeing that here, and hope to continue having reasons to praise their service and their ethics towards us.
It’s not perfect. But nothing is. What it is, is very very good. It makes you smile. It has obvious integrity oozing all over, and feels solid and purposeful, and confident, and a whole pile of emotional things that are quite rare in a lump of machinery.
So, if you are waiting for your car, I hope this long read was reassuring. If you’re yet to decide, accept that you’re buying a new thing, and look through the miasma of moaning at the most solid data you can find (and it is very important we get all the data, good and bad). Remember there’s a big difference between characteristics versus niggles versus faults, that this is a truely niche car that is designed not to suit everyone, and be aware you are probably developing quite big expectations. If you’re not up for that, wait until the second or third year.
If you already have your car…. Well, see you out there, look forward to a meet up and a shared story or three.
A summary:
Ineos have knocked it out of the park.
There have, of course, been some issues, notably in systems and communication. The cars have a fairly consistent set of minor niggles, which will be rectified (probably not all immediately). There are a surprisingly small number of problems, and a very few critical ones. Those people’s frustrations are not to be diminished, but the percentages are very low. AND, the faults are so far not consistently showing major design flaws that are ‘baked in’. There are also characteristics of the car that draw much comment.
The car is extremely capable for its purpose, and quite startlingly good at what it is explicitly less biased towards. But it is still the specialist, niche vehicle they promised.
Ineos have done all this in a very few years, and only slipped 6-9 months with all of COVID, supply chain interruptions, transport chaos, energy crisis in Europe, shortage of qualified employees generally, interest rate and inflation shocks, and the war in Ukraine. Any one of which is a major impediment.
Their achievement is nothing short of remarkable.
So, are these the delusions of a ‘fanboy’? Nope.
This car has had expectations on it that were probably unique to a new vehicle. Nearly everyone has come to the Grenadier from loving something; whether Defenders, Jeeps, G-wagens or old Toyotas. No-one ever projected their ‘perfect’ vehicle expectations onto those, because they literally evolved the paradigm over decades with all their warts on view. Defenders were atrociously uncomfortable from inception. Jeeps, well, largely stayed together, didn’t keep you dry and couldn’t handle weight, original Toyotas were agricultural, uncomfortable and boring, g-wagens expensive and puritan… whatever the package, we accepted and learned to love whichever vehicles we did despite, and often because of the characteristics of the design. And because of what they could do.
When the story of the Grenadier came out, we were invited to imagine the best of these vehicles, with ’the problems’ fixed, and as little of 'modern complexity' as could be achieved. That story is the greatest asset, and greatest burden of the Grenadier. Because we all put, unconsciously, a lot of semi-defined detail into that expectation.
The car, of course, has loads of characteristics. Every design resolution of a particular problem has to, one way or another. Some is intentions - safari roof, utility belt, some is consequential - drivers legroom, high floor, and some is accidental.
A huge percentage of the negative atmosphere, or even just impressions from happy people, is this. The car has characteristics. The driving position doesn’t suit everyone, and feels ‘different’ to nearly everyone, because it’s ‘different that they thought it would be'. The steering is not like you might imagine. The windscreen is quite small, the wipers, the doors, the loadspace, whatever, there is now a specific reality to meet the expectation. Every part of the car had to be decided upon, and now we confront the character those thousands of decisions impart.
There’s also a small, relatively neat pile of niggles. Spurious warnings, version one software controls, fuel gauge accuracy, heat shield rattles, and pre-identified replacements of some parts in very early cars. This stuff is expectable in any new model, let alone in a new company’s first car.
Then, there’s a very few failures. As best as the forum distils, these are mercifully rare (and huge sympathy to everyone affected, those with cars in for longer fixes, definitely Jean Mercier, for everything and his dealership reality… ) and they are not consistently pointing to recurring design flaws in the metal.
And then there’s the non-car stuff. Ineos’ communications have been poor. Really poor. Most of the delays and confusion around ordering, or how to deal with them failing their own process steps could have, and should have been handled with fast, clear communicating, and on that count they have not done well. Information shipped with the car is inadequate, for example the electrics, which has caused issues that need not have occurred. But these are of less consequence to the future of the car, thankfully.
They also appear to have underestimated the complexity of developing supporting systems, including software around sales, production and support. Having worked in large software projects, all I can suggest is that I have NEVER seen a company not make this mistake. Ever. Software systems are fiendishly complicated, and that task quite probably is harder than the car itself. There is no reason to believe they will not succeed; they are demonstrating, not perfectly, but quite convincingly a desire to provide really high levels of commitment and dedication to their customers. I'm certainly seeing that here, and hope to continue having reasons to praise their service and their ethics towards us.
It’s not perfect. But nothing is. What it is, is very very good. It makes you smile. It has obvious integrity oozing all over, and feels solid and purposeful, and confident, and a whole pile of emotional things that are quite rare in a lump of machinery.
So, if you are waiting for your car, I hope this long read was reassuring. If you’re yet to decide, accept that you’re buying a new thing, and look through the miasma of moaning at the most solid data you can find (and it is very important we get all the data, good and bad). Remember there’s a big difference between characteristics versus niggles versus faults, that this is a truely niche car that is designed not to suit everyone, and be aware you are probably developing quite big expectations. If you’re not up for that, wait until the second or third year.
If you already have your car…. Well, see you out there, look forward to a meet up and a shared story or three.
happy motoring
