ramone:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Yes but the scania and volvos products evolved in to those products over time.
Bedford launched a product with a totally alien to European hauliers engine in to a Market they had never competed in.
It would be like lotus bringing out a people carrier.
Or like a US operator in the 1970’s making the jump in thinking from using an old 1950/60’s tech wagon with acceptable outputs for that time to the 8V92 Detroit although cab comfort levels were already better than 1980’s European levels even in the 1960’s as that vid of what was available in 1965 shows.That rate of progression in US truck design versus British and even european truck design at that time,showed that the US customers were far more progressive in their thinking than their British and to a lesser extent european counterparts 
. 
Luckily for the European manufacturers their customers were’nt as far behind the Americans as the British ones were.Which left the British manufacturers in the worst of all worlds of having to use designs which were effectively obsolete and/or underspecced in both cab comfort levels and power outputs in order to be able to sell their products on their home market while the Europeans and Scandinavians had a more forward thinking home marketplace in which to sell those newer designs until our market eventually caught up.
Which is why Volvo produced the F88 during the 1960’s and DAF were producing the 2800 in the mid 1970’s and regardless of the arguments about how many were actually sold,there obviously was sufficient demand in the Scandinavian market for an even more powerful V8 powered truck or Scania would’nt have bothered to design and build one at a time when the British buyers were still often happily using day cabbed 180-250 hp wagons to haul 32t gross loads around the country. 
There`s a village missing its idiot somewhere
That’s probably exactly what the British operators would have said to anyone trying to flog something better than what they were using at the time. 
But if there’s anything wrong about any of what I’ve put there why not just point out where the mistakes are.
Hello all, dear CF, tut, tut, patently you have not done even the least amount of the homework that was set for you. Had you done so, then you would at least have a small understanding of the market place, background to some commercial vehicle manufacturers decision making, frailty of the products that you so espouse, and what a laughing stock you actually are! Shame that such a potentially interesting thread, with knowledgeable contributors who really do have opinions and real knowledge of great value, that can enrich all of us, has been dragged down by a keyboard jockey whose knowledge and intelligence in regard to the subject matter would appear to be exceeded by my Rhode Island Red Hens! and I doubt that you could even lay an egg! Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Hello all, dear CF, tut, tut, patently you have not done even the least amount of the homework that was set for you. Had you done so, then you would at least have a small understanding of the market place, background to some commercial vehicle manufacturers decision making, frailty of the products that you so espouse, and what a laughing stock you actually are! Shame that such a potentially interesting thread, with knowledgeable contributors who really do have opinions and real knowledge of great value, that can enrich all of us, has been dragged down by a keyboard jockey whose knowledge and intelligence in regard to the subject matter would appear to be exceeded by my Rhode Island Red Hens! and I doubt that you could even lay an egg! Cheerio for now.
Time to throw the towel into the ring,he’s taking to much punishment
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
newmercman:
So you agree with the rest of us then Carryfast? Is that what you’re trying to say?
I feel an if, and some buts coming!
My favourite dealer had 3 marques in the years I dealt with them. They are still in business and still popular with operators.
I don’t remember them selling many TM, but they certainly flooded the market with TK and KM, both units and rigids.
They then took on the UK DAF Franchise and had many years of success and many happy operators who still buy the new models off them. They are now very well established as a Renault dealer.
In those days, the “guvnors” were the bloke who wrote the cheque, washed the lorry and kept them running and loaded both ways. He didn’t have time for trucks that didn’t suit him, he didn’t have a shed full of spare parts for or needed a load of specialist tools to work on them. The drivers drove what they were given and it worked well for me. If I wanted to drive a different type of lorry, you changed companies, not their buying policy 
‘But’ any British manufacturer who’d spent a lot of time and trouble designing and producing a 400 hp unit (or drawbar prime mover) on the British market in the late 1970’s did’nt have the luxury,at the time,of being able to ‘change companies’ if they did’nt like the buying policies of their customers.It was a case of take the chance and hope they’ll see sense in time or not bother and just take a few bob off of DAF and flog a few T45’s instead before shutting up shop.Leyland chose the latter option Bedford chose the former and it was Scania,DAF,Volvo etc etc etc who eventually got the orders for some decent 350- 450 hp + units when the British customers eventually saw sense. 
I meant as as a driver, walk from one yard to the next just to get a decent motor, international jobs were ten a penny
Dave the Renegade:
Saviem:
Hello all, dear CF, tut, tut, patently you have not done even the least amount of the homework that was set for you. Had you done so, then you would at least have a small understanding of the market place, background to some commercial vehicle manufacturers decision making, frailty of the products that you so espouse, and what a laughing stock you actually are!
Time to throw the towel into the ring,he’s taking to much punishment
Who him or me .
If there’s anything out there that is saying that the ‘products’ which I’ve been making the case for were ‘frail’ then it’s probably just as well that I did’nt waste my time on the same deluded ideas of history as those that he obviously has.I don’t think that the US and British military would both be stupid enough to have still been using a 30 year old engine design after 2000,in it’s tank/heavy equipment transport vehicles running at 100 t + gross,if they thought that design was in any way ‘frail’,when used in vehicles running at around 60t + less than that weight,at the time when it was originally introduced.
The same applies in regard to the reasons I’ve given as to why it was that the British truck manufacturing industry did’nt survive in the same way that the Australian one obviously did and why it was that the European and Scandinavian manufacturers survived while those British one did’nt.
Unless he can show some better reasoned argument than the ones that he’s so far been making,which just seem to be based on saying that anyone who disagrees with his ideas is a laughing stock.
Wheel Nut:
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
newmercman:
So you agree with the rest of us then Carryfast? Is that what you’re trying to say?
I feel an if, and some buts coming!
My favourite dealer had 3 marques in the years I dealt with them. They are still in business and still popular with operators.
I don’t remember them selling many TM, but they certainly flooded the market with TK and KM, both units and rigids.
They then took on the UK DAF Franchise and had many years of success and many happy operators who still buy the new models off them. They are now very well established as a Renault dealer.
In those days, the “guvnors” were the bloke who wrote the cheque, washed the lorry and kept them running and loaded both ways. He didn’t have time for trucks that didn’t suit him, he didn’t have a shed full of spare parts for or needed a load of specialist tools to work on them. The drivers drove what they were given and it worked well for me. If I wanted to drive a different type of lorry, you changed companies, not their buying policy
‘But’ any British manufacturer who’d spent a lot of time and trouble designing and producing a 400 hp unit (or drawbar prime mover) on the British market in the late 1970’s did’nt have the luxury,at the time,of being able to ‘change companies’ if they did’nt like the buying policies of their customers.It was a case of take the chance and hope they’ll see sense in time or not bother and just take a few bob off of DAF and flog a few T45’s instead before shutting up shop.Leyland chose the latter option Bedford chose the former and it was Scania,DAF,Volvo etc etc etc who eventually got the orders for some decent 350- 450 hp + units when the British customers eventually saw sense.
I meant as as a driver, walk from one yard to the next just to get a decent motor, international jobs were ten a penny
But that was’nt going to help anyone who was trying to flog a Leyland T45 in competition with someone who was trying to flog a Volvo F12 or a DAF 2800/3300/3600 .
So, to summarise, Mr. Two-Stroke: the failure of the British lorry-building industry was due to their “second rate” customers forcing them to deliver underspecified, outdated products late- and then buying someone else’s wares instead?
[zb]
anorak:
So, to summarise, Mr. Two-Stroke: the failure of the British lorry-building industry was due to their “second rate” customers forcing them to deliver underspecified, outdated products late- and then buying someone else’s wares instead?
‘Second rate customers’ yes in that most of those customers were around 10 years,or more,behind in their thinking.‘Forcing’ in this context meant that those manufacturers could only sell what they were being asked to supply by their customers.Contrary to the US and Australian customers at the time those British buyers were still calling for 250 hp,or less, type wagons with 1950’s levels of cab comfort when those manufacturers needed to be designing,and then being able to sell,350-400 hp wagons with big comfortable cabs during the early-mid 1970’s.In that context a British made Kenworth Aerodyne,with an 8V92 in it, ‘should’ have been a more competitive product against an F88 and the later F10/F12 range and the DAF 2800 etc etc than the Leyland T45 was.
That’s assuming that they could even have found as many British buyers for the KW as Leyland actually did for the T45. .
As I’ve said Bedford answered that question not long after that.
It is slightly worrying that all these successful hauliers of the 60’s to the 90’s got it so badly wrong. With CF as fleet buyer there would have only been one company that made any money
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
Wheel Nut:
It is slightly worrying that all these successful hauliers of the 60’s to the 90’s got it so badly wrong. With CF as fleet buyer there would have only been one company that made any money
And guess who were the ones who shouted loudest that it was the British manufacturers ‘fault’,not theirs,that those manufacturers were using outdated/obsolete designs,when those ‘successful’ hauliers (and their drivers) finally realised that they ‘could’ have been even more ‘successful’ and drivers working conditions ‘could’ have been a lot more comfortable ‘if’ they’d have been using more up to date wagons long before those ■■■■■■ operators actually made the jump from the 1950’s/60’s thinking into the real world about 10-20 years later than they should have done.
When what actually happened is that the British manufacturers were hampered by having a retarded home marketplace which meant turning out retarded products in order to stay in business and (more importantly as shown by the case of Bedford who did ‘try’ to push those operators into making the jump earlier) to have a chance of selling what they were producing.When that market finally realised it’s mistake it’s no surprise that those British manufacturers were then lumbered with a load of outdated designs and products while the foreign competition was then able to take advantage of the more advanced designs which they had available to sell because of the headstart handed to them by the more forward thinking buyers in their home markets.
Although even those European and Scandinavian buyers were still probably 10 years behind the American market’s ideas which is why the Australians looked to the States to base it’s emerging truck manufacturing industry on not Europe or Scandinavia.
Dave the Renegade:
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
It would be interesting to see the conclusions reached in the feature as to the reasons for the failure of the TM range in the uk market and for the final demise of the firm and to wether they differ much from the case that I’ve been trying to put forward and if so why .
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
It is slightly worrying that all these successful hauliers of the 60’s to the 90’s got it so badly wrong. With CF as fleet buyer there would have only been one company that made any money
And guess who were the ones who shouted loudest that it was the British manufacturers ‘fault’,not theirs,that those manufacturers were using outdated/obsolete designs,when those ‘successful’ hauliers (and their drivers) finally realised that they ‘could’ have been even more ‘successful’ and drivers working conditions ‘could’ have been a lot more comfortable ‘if’ they’d have been using more up to date wagons long before those ■■■■■■ operators actually made the jump from the 1950’s/60’s thinking into the real world about 10-20 years later than they should have done.
When what actually happened is that the British manufacturers were hampered by having a retarded home marketplace which meant turning out retarded products in order to stay in business and (more importantly as shown by the case of Bedford who did ‘try’ to push those operators into making the jump earlier) to have a chance of selling what they were producing.When that market finally realised it’s mistake it’s no surprise that those British manufacturers were then lumbered with a load of outdated designs and products while the foreign competition was then able to take advantage of the more advanced designs which they had available to sell because of the headstart handed to them by the more forward thinking buyers in their home markets.
Although even those European and Scandinavian buyers were still probably 10 years behind the American market’s ideas which is why the Australians looked to the States to base it’s emerging truck manufacturing industry on not Europe or Scandinavia.
You like to jump into threads with stories about Triumph and Jaguar. This is the reason the astute operators and drivers moved to other manufacturers. They needed vehicles to deliver the goods, they needed to keep the customers they had, because the vehicle manufacturers were being run by the unions. Notice this before your Mrs Thatcher, lots of men losing their jobs because of a few militants
triumph-herald.com/triumph-canley2.htm
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
It would be interesting to see the conclusions reached in the feature as to the reasons for the failure of the TM range in the uk market and for the final demise of the firm and to wether they differ much from the case that I’ve been trying to put forward and if so why .
TM sales suffered because of its limited range.It lacked an 8X4 popular in the UK-and when the weight limit was raised to 38t in 1983,Bedford failed to offer a six wheeled tractor unit.
The Detroit lump suffered from poor fuel consumption and in 1983 ■■■■■■■ engines were offered.But despite that the TM never grabbed the imagination of the British hauliers,and only just over 12,000 were sold in the UK.
All replies to the Commercial Motor.
Wheel Nut:
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
It is slightly worrying that all these successful hauliers of the 60’s to the 90’s got it so badly wrong. With CF as fleet buyer there would have only been one company that made any money
And guess who were the ones who shouted loudest that it was the British manufacturers ‘fault’,not theirs,that those manufacturers were using outdated/obsolete designs,when those ‘successful’ hauliers (and their drivers) finally realised that they ‘could’ have been even more ‘successful’ and drivers working conditions ‘could’ have been a lot more comfortable ‘if’ they’d have been using more up to date wagons long before those ■■■■■■ operators actually made the jump from the 1950’s/60’s thinking into the real world about 10-20 years later than they should have done.
When what actually happened is that the British manufacturers were hampered by having a retarded home marketplace which meant turning out retarded products in order to stay in business and (more importantly as shown by the case of Bedford who did ‘try’ to push those operators into making the jump earlier) to have a chance of selling what they were producing.When that market finally realised it’s mistake it’s no surprise that those British manufacturers were then lumbered with a load of outdated designs and products while the foreign competition was then able to take advantage of the more advanced designs which they had available to sell because of the headstart handed to them by the more forward thinking buyers in their home markets.
Although even those European and Scandinavian buyers were still probably 10 years behind the American market’s ideas which is why the Australians looked to the States to base it’s emerging truck manufacturing industry on not Europe or Scandinavia.
You like to jump into threads with stories about Triumph and Jaguar. This is the reason the astute operators and drivers moved to other manufacturers. They needed vehicles to deliver the goods, they needed to keep the customers they had, because the vehicle manufacturers were being run by the unions. Notice this before your Mrs Thatcher, lots of men losing their jobs because of a few militants
triumph-herald.com/triumph-canley2.htm
The way I read that the ‘unions’ were ‘reacting’ to circumstances being forced on them not the other way round.So exactly what were the circumstances in Europe,especially Germany, at that time.Not many disabled workers being sacked for no reason or government economic policies causing collapse in demand for the product on the home market I’d bet.
So we’ve had the great Thatcherite revolution of a strike free workforce and look where the British economy is now.Not as many people can afford to buy or run a Jaguar now even if they wanted to as could even in the 1960’s.The Chinese are driving Jaguars built here while our workers are now riding Chinese made bicycles because that’s all they can afford.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
It would be interesting to see the conclusions reached in the feature as to the reasons for the failure of the TM range in the uk market and for the final demise of the firm and to wether they differ much from the case that I’ve been trying to put forward and if so why .
TM sales suffered because of its limited range.It lacked an 8X4 popular in the UK-and when the weight limit was raised to 38t in 1983,Bedford failed to offer a six wheeled tractor unit.
The Detroit lump suffered from poor fuel consumption and in 1983 ■■■■■■■ engines were offered.But despite that the TM never grabbed the imagination of the British hauliers,and only just over 12,000 were sold in the UK.
All replies to the Commercial Motor.
The design criterea was for the artic sector sales not tippers ? although I think that Tricentrol probably could have added whatever types of rigid chassis the market required if there had been sufficient demand and don’t remember any reason why a 6x4 unit or 6x4 and 8x4 rigids could’nt have been made available considering that even the TK offered a 6 wheeler rigid option and the TM was also made for export markets where 6 wheelers were more often specced for tractor units and prime movers than 4 wheelers and/or was designed for the home market on the idea that 2+3 operation would become the standard for 38 t operation here more than 3+2 operations .
However fuel consumption might not have been such an issue if it had’nt have been for the British guvnors’ idea of trying to use 7 and 9 Litre naturally aspiratetd engines to run at 32 t + gross considering the type of reaction that would have got in the States at that time and would probably get these days here if any customer wanted a manufacturer to supply a truck to that type of idea.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
It would be interesting to see the conclusions reached in the feature as to the reasons for the failure of the TM range in the uk market and for the final demise of the firm and to wether they differ much from the case that I’ve been trying to put forward and if so why .
Nobody wanted them
That’s sating the bleedin obvious They also obviously did’nt want any other British truck either.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
There is feature about Bedford from start to finish in todays Commercial Motor.
It would be interesting to see the conclusions reached in the feature as to the reasons for the failure of the TM range in the uk market and for the final demise of the firm and to wether they differ much from the case that I’ve been trying to put forward and if so why .
Nobody wanted them
That’s sating the bleedin obvious They also obviously did’nt want any other British truck either.
Another reason was probably that “carryfast” was the last MD of Bedfords!! Me thinks there are echos of the Titanics maiden voyage!! Cheers Bewick.