Triumph outsells Kawasaki in the UK

I guess the TT600 was overstressed then, given how many used to appear
at the dealers I worked at with blown lumps.

Crap bike!

 

JackH wrote:

Same engine as used in the Daytona 600, which is widely regarded as a
very reliable understressed engine. It's so understressed they took the
motor out to 650cc and it still remains reliable. Last I heard they
were still using it right up til the last of the Speed Fours went out
of production.

They had engine management problems with the TT600 to start with, but
that was cured with new maps.

 

Net. None. According to that Times article they make 46,000 bikes in the UK
and employ 1200 people, which is more than ever. At the time of the fire
the UK plant employed 650.

According to wiki, the Thai plant has capacity for 130,000 bikes. I imagine
the Thai plant makes some sub-assemblies for the UK and maybe vice versa.
If you read the press, the main reason Bloor has opened up in Thailand is
to gain access to India as they have a free trade agreement, so he can
avoid the high import duty.

 

They may well have done.

They also had plenty which lunched their bottom ends.

I've seen at least two personally in the flesh with this problem, and
seen countless others on eBay in the past which have needed new
engines.

Compare this to how many CBR600s you see of that era (or even
earlier), that need a new lump.

Like I said, they're a crap bike and I honestly don't understand why
anyone bothers to buy one given the reliable alternatives out there,
other than they know **** all about bikes.

 

It would be interesting to know just how much percentage wise of their
current bikes is truly sourced and made in the UK, rather than just
assembled here.

Let's hope so, eh...

 

IDGAF. He employs 1200 directly in his factory and countless others are
employed in the UK by dealers and suppliers. As Digby Jones says, Bloor
even lives in the UK and pays tax to HMRC. It's a business to be admired
rather than knocked for buying components from recognised specialists such
as Showa & Nissin.

The trend in the motor industry is to move manufacturing closer to the
market. Hence Jap car makers do well in the US & EU and Kawasaki are
struggling in Europe. The risk for Hinkley is that production for the bikes
they make for the US market will be moved to the US, especially as a
factory in Milwaukee is likely to be empty fairly soon.

 

The Bonnies are built in Thailand, for sure. Dunno what else. Lozzo's
posted the details elsewhere in this thread.

Well, they were considering it, but *they hadn't done it*, which is what
you said. All production was UK at the time of the fire. All.

To be honest, I don't GAF whether they bikes are built in the UK,
Thailand or the Moon as long as they're good. The money comes to this
country, which is really all that matters. The design, engineering, R&D
etc is all British. If they want to pay a few Thais instead of Brummies
to bolt the bits together, fine.

ISTR Dyson got similar flak when he started building his vacuum cleaners
in the Far East.

 

Indeed.

And you wonder why this country is in the shit?

 

It's foreign investment. The high-end skills, the brains, the designers,
all this stuff that actually gets more expensive over time, stays here.

The bolting together of bits of metal: that part of manufacturing gets
*cheaper* over time. And the money comes back to the UK.

While I might concur with Bonwick's belief that removing core
engineering skills from this country is not a good thing, employing
assembly-line workers (which is what we're talking about here) isn't the
same thing at all.

After all, Honda does it.

 

The money might come back here, but there's no guarantee it's being
spent / taxed here, or that it's being spent on anything for the
'greater good'.

The money earned by workers abroad as a result of the work they're
doing on behalf of Triumph, is taxed and generally spent in the
countries where they're based, not here - see why this isn't such a
good thing economically?

The bods that might have been employed here to do the work those
elsewhere have been employed to do may well be on more benefits as a
result of their being less jobs here - so a drain on the economy
rather than contributing to it.

Fact is, our manufacturing base has been largely run into the ground
over the last two or three decades... and now the wheels have started
to come off the industries that took its place in the monetary
generation chain, we're left wondering how to make up the shortfall.

Meanwhile, you're suggesting production of goods elsewhere isn't a bad
thing - read the above and then explain to me again why it isn't a bad
thing economically, not least when you're living in a country that is
as heavily reliant on imports as the UK.

 

Everything up to here is simplistic and incomplete. It's the high
school version of economic theory.

Ok, o wise one: which indutries took the place of manufacturing in the
UK?

You're not taking the macro view. Take it, and the world will seem
like a different place, and you'll realise that the points you are
making just don't matter.

 

Well go on then, feel free to educate me.

I appreciate there are other factors...

In terms of income generation, the financial sector filled some of the
void... up until now, that is.

And now that sector is experiencing difficulties, we're properly in
the shit.

Unless things improve in the near future, we're staring at a scenario
whereby the UK will continue to build and expand its deficit by way of
'prolonging the inevitable'.

In other words, money will continue to be borrowed by the country on
the what seems to be the current basis: 'Things will improve in due
course, and we can address the deficit then'.

The trouble is, we're not in as healthy a position as we used to be
when it comes to what we can trade with the rest of the world; our oil
and gas stocks are dwindling, for one.

Going back to the original point, we make **** all these days too, bar
the odd exception as in Triumph bikes and bolting together a few
Minis, Hondas, Nissans, Jags and Land Rovers on behalf of their
respective companies.

Oh, and some guns... we make plenty of guns.

I would say Vauxhalls too, but that's not looking so good longer term,
and I believe Ford don't manufacturer much in the way of cars in the
UK any more - I believe Dagenham is now more an engine assembly plant
than anything else.

When you become more of a financial risk to lend money to, your credit
rating suffers and you find any credit you can get tends attract a
higher rate of interest.

Recent reports suggest that the UK is in danger of being downgraded
international credit rating wise, meaning that any money we borrow
there on will cost more... do I need spell out where that road will
lead given the current climate here in terms of the cost of living vs
the standard of living?

They don't matter to me per se anyway. ;-)

The overall economic situation in this country affects all of us who
happen to still live here though... that is, unless we 'clear off' in
the near future. ;-)

 

I think this para is key to where you're going wrong.

You speak in derogatory tones of us 'bolting together' cars for their
parent companies. That implies that the true benefit accrues to those
companies, rather than to us, which is, of course, the case.

Yet this is *exactly* what Triumph is doing and we get the benefit.

 

I'm not being derogatory about it - merely stating the state of
automotive manufacture here today.

How many Triumphs do you suppose are produced every year compared to
say the BMW Mini?

 

Well, "bolting together" doesn't sound too complimentary, though I
concede it's hard to tell in a text-based medium ;-)

Quantity has nothing really to do with it. If you think about it, all
Bloor is doing is outsourcing a few relatively low-skilled jobs.
Production line jobs. Assembly. The high-skilled jobs (which are also
high-value) stay here, and the country reaps a benefit.

 

An outsourced job is an outsourced job.

In IT, plenty of stuff has been outsourced to bods in places like
India.

That's jobs that someone here could be doing, and paying tax on the
income.

Unless the people who would have otherwise been doing these jobs have
emigrated or kicked the bucket, that's more people in the system here
seeking work in a marketplace with fewer vacancies as a result.

Does it?

What benefit is it that the country reaps, then?

I can see how maybe the business reaps a benefit, but not the country
given the above.

 

(The Older Gentleman) spewed forth:

http://02d9656.netsoljsp.com/SarcMark/modules/user/commonfiles/loadhome.do

 

As Ben said, you have too narrow a focus on the business and the wider
position. The flow of capital from the parent company to the outsourced
unit is two way. As TOG says, there will be a variety of UK based
operations supporting the overseas assembly which will, on paper, charge
for their services. This will appear on the UK balance of payments as an
export.
These UK based staff in management, logisitcs and R&D etc pay tax/NI on
their wages; UK based staff pay VAT on their purchases in UK shops; UK
staff pay council tax. As a company, Triumph makes a profit and pays UK
corporation tax. Some of that profit is going to be generated from sales of
stuff made in Thailand.

 

Find the full article of this, and a great deal will be revealed:
http://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company/ar/1

 

Because labour is cheaper in Thailand?

Because people in Thailand don't have the same expectations as most
living in this country seem to have?