triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TR] Planned obsolescence

To: "Paul Dorsey" <dorpaul@negia.net>, "dave" <dave1massey@cs.com>,
Subject: Re: [TR] Planned obsolescence
From: "John Macartney" <standardtriumph@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:50:02 -0000
Paul Dorsey wrote:
> You say these TR 3's originally were intended to last only seven years? 
> Was
> that number intended or did it just turn out that way?

Paul, I don't think it was an obvious intention to design a car to last a 
specific number of years - and then to scrap it. There were a number of 
differing criteria, among which were:
1. The cars were made to meet a market related price that maximised profit 
for Standard-Triumph in all the markets where the vehicles were offered.
2. The engineering options open to the company were also cost related. The 
company could have made a *better engineered* car to ensure it might have 
lasted longer - assuming it was properly serviced, but manufacturing cost 
for higher quality components cut across the profit margin. Therefore there 
had to be a compromise.
3. Many UK manufacturers took the view that in their primary markets (and 
for Standard-Triumph's total output of all models, this was the UK) the 
ever-increasing ramifications of repairs resulting from rust and salt 
corrosion, made the cost options for the owner less and less attractive as 
the car both aged and deteriorated. Equally, this was reflected in what is 
known as "residual cost" for dealers when a car was taken in part-exchange 
for a new or more recent used car. Also, the majority of customers wanted to 
change their car after three or four years use for reasons based mainly on 
emotion - and I think that view still prevails today.
4. Depreciation was fairly heavy in those days and it was obviously in 
Standard-Triumph's interests to ensure the car "wouldn't last for ever," as 
to do this meant the company would go bust.
5. Perhaps the most significant aspect is this. At the time these cars were 
being made, they were offered to meet a demand for the time. I greatly doubt 
anyone ever saw those models as likely to have an enthusiastic following 
several decades later. To us at the time, it was "just the current 
production range" and if you were interested in old cars, they were usually 
the ones your Dad remembered from his youth. I guess much the same applies 
today?

Cheers, Jonmac 


===  This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
===     http://www.vtr.org



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>