TVR and Aston Martin have announced plans to establish car production in South Wales, with new production processes and partnerships
British sports car maker TVR has announced that it will build a new factory in Ebbw Vale, South Wales. Costing some £30million, the new factory will be part-funded by the Welsh Government.
The capacity of the factory and number of employees have yet to be announced, and the precise location has not yet been identified, but its first product is known: an entirely new sports car whose chassis and body have been designed by legendary Formula 1 designer Gordon Murray. The design incorporates F1 ground-effect technology to increase downforce and grip, and will use a V8 engine tuned and optimised by Cosworth. It will be the first car to be built using Gordon Murray Design’s iStream production process, which constructs the car around a framework of large-diameter, thin-walled steel tubes that are formed, laser-cut and profiled under computer control and welded together.
TVR announced the project last year and says it has secured over 350 deposits for the car, keeping the new factory fully occupied until the end of 2018. “South Wales is becoming a major hub for automotive and motorsport technology and development and the area is a serious opportunity for business development and job creation,” said TVR chairman Les Edgar. “We have a sports car project that has garnered global approval and excitement, and we are delighted that the Welsh government wish to become a part of an exciting new era for TVR.”
Aston Martin has also announced plans to build cars in South Wales. The company is to convert three former RAF hangars in St Athan, in the Vale of Glamorgan, into a factory with an area of some 90 acres, to build a recently announced 4X4 crossover vehicle targeted at the US and Chinese markets. The conversion will cost some £200million, with the first vehicles rolling out in 2020. Sports car construction will continue to be located at Aston’s Midlands base in Gaydon.
Aston is also going into partnership with another F1 engineering legend, Red Bull Racing’s Adrian Newey, who will work with Aston’s Chief Creative Officer, Marek Reichmann, to design a new hypercar, codenamed AM-RB 001. “The opportunity to collaborate with Adrian and Red Bull Advanced Technologies will be a fascinating experience for everyone involved. Unconstrained by F1 regulations, we have a unique chance to create a car in its most efficient form that will represent the ultimate fusion of art and technology,” said Reichmann. Newey added: “From the age of six I have had two goals in life – to be involved in the design of racing cars, and to be involved in the design of a super car. While the former ambition went on to form my career to date, the latter has always bubbled away, resulting in countless sketches and doodles over the years. The opportunity to now develop and realise those ideas while working with Marek and his colleagues from Aston Martin is tremendously exciting.”
One thing it is safe to assume; Adrian Newey’s “countless sketches and doodles” did not include anything that made a radical improvement on the flawed dynamics of car design convention. The same is also undoubtedly true for Gordon Murray Design.
Adrian Newey has proved himself to be the best F1 chassis designer ever (Gordan Murray wasn’t too bad either). As to whether his talents extend further we shall learn in due course. What experience gives you the confidence to be so dismissive of these designers abilities?
The experience of having created the chassis dynamics’ principle that eliminates the ride/handling compromise. I made a proof-of-concept model in 2001 to demonstrate that. It’s an indisputable fact that the chassis levelling function is divorced from the suspension compliance. Any vehicle built to this design benefits from having zero roll and zero pitch, regardless of the suspension travel.
An appraisal of F1 chassis designs admitted they suffer so many incurable technical contradictions that their set-up permutations are to all intents infinite. The dysfunction of the anti-roll system was described thus – “This is the opposite of what’s required.” Why do they still insist on making it that way? Stable Suspension needs no anti-roll and exhibits no bounce with no dampers!!
As Martin Brundle said; “The F1 car is a clumsy piece of kit.” – and it always will be, as long as car designers refuse to embrace (safer) 21st. century innovation. But then, who cares if racing drivers lose control? The fundamental dynamics of your average family car are not as safe as they could be (witness the promotion of ESC), and that’s unforgivable.
I’m rather surprised that your system hasn’t be developed further by an established car company given the fundamental and clear advantages you claim for it (either small / innovative companies like Noble or large / wealthy companies like Ford or Aston martin). Any idea why this is?
Isn’t Adrian Newey designing the Ben Ainslie America Cup challenger too ?
Hope he doesn’t get his “countless sketches and doodles” mixed up !
Welcome to an exclusive club Stephen. . . The CEO of the Welsh Automotive Forum was even more surprised (as he’d seen the proof-of-concept), when my brother and I phoned him to say that the 4 Longbridge engineers we’d met were itching to prototype my design, but told us that management would never approve the R&D funding.
There are two main reasons for this; patents are an expensive minefield, which only an established big business can afford, so they exploit that position by telling an impoverished SME; “We monitor patent publications . . . we may contact you, if any patent application is of interest.” Add to that the arrogant assumption that they know it all, so there couldn’t possibly be a better way.
The ‘rejection’ list is endless and most automotive companies never get to see my model, because they refuse to sign up to an NDA – Honda, McLaren, BMW, Williams F1, Gibbs Technologies etc. Even MIRA said they’d speak to their lawyers, and then never got back to me.
QinetiQ were “under pressure to cut expenditure on internal research.” In other words, if I paid them £100k they’d be happy to do the work. A major motorsport group (that remains anonymous under the conditions of the NDA) asked me to pay £5k for two weeks work on computer analysis. Their estimate to build a ‘mule’ – £500k!
The DSTL failed to follow their internal Code of Practice for innovative submissions. The Defence Diversification Agency wrote; ”The DDA cannot provide seed funds.”
One academic spelt out the benefits of Stable Suspension and added this endorsement; “I strongly recommend this for funding.” Another professor says “I love ideas that challenge convention.” but is also out-voted on the committee allocating funds.
I am stymied, whatever I do. This is my neck of the woods:-
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/wales-must-seize-golden-opportunity-9971489
Therein lies a 15-year saga that continues to this day; a sorry tale of the political suppression of innovative engineering in the UK – all because of an ideology that says “public bodies are not allowed to own IPR.” This idiocy is reinforced by (the UK’s interpretation of) EU state aid rules.
If designers can’t own the IPR to their creations, they can’t sell them. . . .
The Welsh government spent millions from EU funding on ill-conceived schemes to ‘promote’ innovation. The ‘incubator network’ in this field was AutoTechnium in 2001, but a sure sign of impending failure was changing its name to Technium Performance Engineering. That didn’t help; it folded in 2011:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-15526971
Can there be anything more valuable than the intellectual ‘infrastructure’ of a nation’s creative brains? All our futures depend on this precious resource, but for those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, the price is apparently too high. So, a £4m grant for ‘inward investment’ but not even £4k to ‘support’ home-grown IP. . . In fact, direct grants amounted to less than £400 in over a decade! (The prize for ‘Letter of the Week’ in Autosport 15/12/05 was worth that much.)
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/jobs-car-parts-company-toyoda-9500227
Sorry to hear this. I worked for a moderately sized company (non-automotive) for a while and not only were they quite hot on IP protection they were also fair on reviewing ideas offered from external sources.
Dave
If the idea is sound, there eill always the money can always be found to develop it.
In the dot com era even crazy ideas secured funding.
If you speak to the right people, you will secured the funding.
Established automotive companies may not be the most receptive to new ideas.
“If you speak to the right people, you will secured the funding.”
No, sorry Richard, you are mistaken – there are no “right people” when it comes to truly disruptive technology, because even those with loads of money recognise that the established industry rules the roost and they’re never going to embrace innovation that threatens their self-esteem.
People are only tempted to ‘invest’ if they can be fooled into thinking there’s a good ‘business case’ (a boom!) to give them a ROI. There is no business case for spending a small fortune on R&D if the IP rights cannot be guaranteed, even after an equally eye-watering ‘investment’ in the essential patents. That dilemma was highlighted in the Kok Report and the Lambert Review, but nothing’s been done to address the issue. Dyson couldn’t get any sense out of the European Court either:-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822600-900-challenge-to-patent-fees-ends-in-a-vacuum/
The irony is, annual renewal fees are NOT the insurmountable hurdle – the up-front costs are.
Then, of course, there’s the usual put-down; “If you think it’s such a brilliant idea, put your money where your mouth is.” (As Dyson would tell me) That’s kinda difficult when you have none!