Posted by harry on August 16, 2009, 6:48 pm
> > To be fair labour AND management have to share the blame for the
> > demise of BMC. Their cars were poorly designed to start with,and
> > poorly built in substandard plants by workers who didn't give a hoot.
> > Neither labout or management was willing to invest any effort in
> > building a better car.
> It was all management's fault, as with the current GM. They own and run the
> business. They are to blame. Labour relations, quality control, marketing,
> design, engineering, investment, the whole lot. They control it.
> http://www.leylandprincess.co.uk/HarrisMann.htm
> "The dramatic wedge shapes were totally of their era. That the cars
> themselves eventually became to be regarded in an unfavourable light was the
> result of British Leyland's financial crisis, appalling build quality
> control record, atrocious industrial relations, laughable attitude towards
> marketing and inherent lack of managerial ability. British Leyland wouldn't
> even have been able to find a brewery, let alone organise a bloody good time
> in one."
> Designer Harris Mann, complained that the company toned down is designs to
> produce absorb looking cars. He complained at the absence of marketing and
> quality control. The company was obsessed at using existing parts, like
> doors of older cars. That restricts a designer.
> Don't blame the man who screws on the wheels for not accepting this, which
> was designed for them using their
mechanicals:http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?pinin1800f.htm
> They did sort of copy it 10 years later and too late, and it looked
uglier.http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?pinin1800f.htm
The worst car they made was the Marina!
But they were all rot boxes. Some were rusty when you bought them new.
Posted by harry on August 16, 2009, 6:45 pm
On Aug 16, 2:24 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> wrote:
> >>> The UK did the same as the US and
> >>> saved an industry, but they allowed it to
> >>> be split, against advice, sold it off and then decline.
> >> If you're talking BMC/British Leyland, it was so
> >> unionised and with a labour government. the
> >> workforce was on strike more than doing any
> >> work. Many of their car were actually sold at a loss.
> >> The mini for example.
> >Unions? You have been reading right wing tabloids. The company suffered from
> >poor management and lack of investment in plat. Some of the models were
> >outdated as well. The models which leading edge, the Rover SAD, was poorly
> >made because of poor facilities. The outfit was nationalised by the
> >Conservative Party.
> >The original Mini never, ever made money, as it was manpower intensive to
> >make. Where it scored was that many of the parts used were used on other
> >models and buying more in bulk from suppliers dropped the price of other
> >models. It made financial sense.
> >There was a plan in place to produce a new body hatchback Mini using the
> >same mechanicals, which would have been a sure-fire winner - R&D was done.
> >The company never invested in the plant, so it was dropped. A "gearless"
> >Mini was made and this was earmarked for production and never made it.
> >The XC9001 prototype (larger Mini) was in the 1960s. Not too dissimlar in
> >looks to the current model:
> >http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?ado17storyf.htm
> >Pinifarina took the front and rear subframes and engine of the Austin 1800
> >and produced an advanced style and "running" car at the time, which would
> >have been easy to have brought into production as all the mechanicals were
> >off-the-shelf. Of course they rejected it and Citroen took it up. Look:
> >http://www.landcrab.net/mainframes/main_pinafarina1800.htm
> >All the decent designs they came out with were turned down by the
> >management.
> >> And at that time they had the most advanced
> >> cars in the world.
> >Yerr of course they did! The Morris Marina, The Austin Maxi? Austin 1800?
> >(what an ugly car!!) What dogs!!!! Design and styling was abysmal. They
> >were using the A & B series engines that were designed in he 1940s. Need I
> >go on? All management problems. No idea, no vision, making cars for old
> >men. The up and coming baby-boomers with money would not touch them with a
> >barge pole.
> >The Labour government got in place the partnership with Honda, which put a
> >huge injection of quality know-how in the company
> To be fair labour AND management have to share the blame for the
> demise of BMC. Their cars were poorly designed to start with,and
> poorly built in substandard plants by workers who didn't give a hoot.
> Neither labout or management was willing to invest any effort in
> building a better car.
Alec Issigonis came up with the idea of a transverse enging and front
wheel drive. That was the innovation. These cars were easier to
build as all the mechanicals were in one lump. They just lowered the
body on to it. Now a host of cars use this layout.
As with any goverment owned industry the work force though there was
an inexhaustable supply of money for their wages. and few of them
wanted to do a days work. The Labour gov was in the union's pocket
due their financing of them.
This what will happen to GM.
Posted by News on August 16, 2009, 8:22 pm
> Alec Issigonis came up with the idea
> of a transverse enging and front
> wheel drive. That was the innovation.
He never. He perfected front wheel drove using constant velocity joints. A
device used on sub periscopes.
> These cars were easier to
> build as all the mechanicals were in one lump. They just lowered the
> body on to it. Now a host of cars use this layout.
> As with any goverment owned industry the work force though there was
> an inexhaustable supply of money for their wages. and few of them
> wanted to do a days work. The Labour gov was in the union's pocket
> due their financing of them.
> This what will happen to GM.
Oh f***k off!!!!!!
Posted by harry on August 17, 2009, 7:13 pm
> > Alec Issigonis came up with the idea
> > of a transverse enging and front
> > wheel drive. That was the innovation.
> He never. He perfected front wheel drove using constant velocity joints. A
> device used on sub periscopes.
> > These cars were easier to
> > build as all the mechanicals were in one lump. They just lowered the
> > body on to it. Now a host of cars use this layout.
> > As with any goverment owned industry the work force though there was
> > an inexhaustable supply of money for their wages. and few of them
> > wanted to do a days work. The Labour gov was in the union's pocket
> > due their financing of them.
> > This what will happen to GM.
> Oh f***k off!!!!!!
You just watch. It will be Obama's undoing. All nationalised
industries end in disaster. What happened to the USSR? China?
The mines in the UK were the same. Maggie Thatcher sorted the sponging
layabouts out.
Tell me how constant velocity joints were used on sub periscopes.
This intrigues me.
Posted by News on August 27, 2009, 12:12 pm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Alec Issigonis came up with the idea
>> > of a transverse enging and front
>> > wheel drive. That was the innovation.
>>
>> He never. He perfected front wheel drove using constant velocity joints.
>> A
>> device used on sub periscopes.
>>
>> > These cars were easier to
>> > build as all the mechanicals were in one lump. They just lowered the
>> > body on to it. Now a host of cars use this layout.
>> > As with any goverment owned industry the work force though there was
>> > an inexhaustable supply of money for their wages. and few of them
>> > wanted to do a days work. The Labour gov was in the union's pocket
>> > due their financing of them.
>> > This what will happen to GM.
>>
>> Oh f***k off!!!!!!
> You just watch. It will be Obama's undoing. All nationalised
> industries end in disaster.
It is your interpretation of events. Some sort of right wing loony. Obama
and Brown have to nationalise to stabilise the countries. Then they sell off
when times are good, to repay loans.
XML site map
> > demise of BMC. Their cars were poorly designed to start with,and
> > poorly built in substandard plants by workers who didn't give a hoot.
> > Neither labout or management was willing to invest any effort in
> > building a better car.
> It was all management's fault, as with the current GM. They own and run the
> business. They are to blame. Labour relations, quality control, marketing,
> design, engineering, investment, the whole lot. They control it.
> http://www.leylandprincess.co.uk/HarrisMann.htm
> "The dramatic wedge shapes were totally of their era. That the cars
> themselves eventually became to be regarded in an unfavourable light was the
> result of British Leyland's financial crisis, appalling build quality
> control record, atrocious industrial relations, laughable attitude towards
> marketing and inherent lack of managerial ability. British Leyland wouldn't
> even have been able to find a brewery, let alone organise a bloody good time
> in one."
> Designer Harris Mann, complained that the company toned down is designs to
> produce absorb looking cars. He complained at the absence of marketing and
> quality control. The company was obsessed at using existing parts, like
> doors of older cars. That restricts a designer.
> Don't blame the man who screws on the wheels for not accepting this, which
> was designed for them using their