S.O.V.I. (on same road as MaBo) of Clichy imported ■■■■■■■ Diesel and White Trucks, just after
WW2 and some day also CDB (Denonville) jumped into that market to eat from the big French cake?
MaBo (first) represented Mack and ought to sell E.R.F. as well, but also in that area C.D.B. was very
present, with an active sales staff over the boundarie.
C.D.B. S.A. (■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium S.A. (Ltd)) will reveal it’s history by a non-public publication on some 90 years
of history…Ford, Indiana, White, ■■■■■■■■ Studebaker, Scania Vabis, Autocar, E.R.F., Foden, Isuzu etc…
Over 100 pages of heritage, both European, American and for all who are interested!
Many unreleased/unpublished pictures/documents on this rich company…a register on sold products is saved!
ERF-Continental:
C.D.B. S.A. (■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium S.A. (Ltd)) will reveal it’s history by a non-public publication on some 90 years
of history…Ford, Indiana, White, ■■■■■■■■ Studebaker, Scania Vabis, Autocar, E.R.F., Foden, Isuzu etc…
Over 100 pages of heritage, both European, American and for all who are interested!Many unreleased/unpublished pictures/documents on this rich company…a register on sold products is saved!
Thanks for these contributions. It may seem irrelevant to some, that contributors like A-J (ERF-Continental) and Eric (Tip-top) keep harking back to CDB (■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium) as a reference-point for our navigation of the European scene with regard to British trucks like ERF being marketed there in the '70s. But they are absolutely right to bring our attention to this. Wobbe Reistma also brought our close attention to this link in his articles.
It is interesting how the American truck lingered in continental northern Europe after WW2. Large quantities of very durable military lorries (LHD of course) remained under the Marshall Plan. Not surprisingly, it was later possible to import new trucks that were already LHD; and France, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland continued to do so in relatively small doses until the 1980s. In France, which has always been unashamedly protectionist, there has been for many years a sizeable hard-core of out-and-out American truck fans who have operated seriously good, big and expensive vehicles, which invariably were immaculately turned out.
Inevitably, with the growth of health & safety (and construction & use) regulations on both sides of the Atlantic, the safety culture gap widened to the point that U.S. trucks were no longer remotely compatible with EU regs. The ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ driveline continued to be popular however, until eventually even the Fuller (a God among gearboxes) fell foul of EU regulations.
This left ■■■■■■■ as the last bastion of U.S. hardware, but even ■■■■■■■ has tired of the EU’s highly- (over-) regulated demands, it seems.
It is interesting that the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ driveline was massively successful in the UK for many years, but it only dented the surface on the Continent. Why was this, I (quite genuinely) ask?
Robert
Here’s another factor in the question of why British trucks with American drive-lines didn’t take over the European market. And perhaps this ought to be linked with Eric’s (Tip-top) parallel thread about how the Brits lost the battle. The nearest thing to ERF in France was Loheac, because it built its own lorries and put engines and gearboxes of its own choice in them. One of the big differences between Continental truck manufacturing in the '70s and UK manufacturing was that the UK had an American-style ‘assembly culture’. If you wanted an ERF, Foden, Seddon-Atkinson, Guy, Bedford, Ford or Leyland, you could (within reason) order your preferred combination of engine, gearbox and drive-axle. Foden, in particular, was very flexible and accommodating in this regard (how we lost Foden beggars belief). On the Continent you more or less had to take what was on offer (usually a generous range of products, but all built in-house); or go elsewhere. To be fair, there were exceptions, such as Renault Magnums with Mack 440 engines; and DAF 95s with ■■■■■■■ 500 engines, but they were all very rare.
Do you (bloggers) think that this made any difference? Was the Amercian influenced ‘assembly culture’ (ie use someone else’s engines and gearboxes if it meets the customers’ needs) at odds with the European truck-making machine?
Warm regards, Robert
Evening all,
Robert, ERF Continental,
Please do not try to integrate SOVI,CDB, and at the very least my friend the late Antoine Loheac, with the failure in Europe with the ERF Continental…for failure it was, in terms of market penetration.
Let alone trying to bring in Societie MABO…who were under Igore Machraine`s influence solely responsible for Macks influence in the French market…(despite Macks own efforts to destabilise them)! ERFs management never realised what a company was interested in their product!!!If only they had!
The fact is, the product was ok…but its success was limited by::
Lack of volume availability,
Lack of viable outlets, (you need to be able to produce in volume, to sell in volume)…and the finished product quality was questionable…
On the basis of evidence, the management of ERF only saw the “Continental” as a “stop gap” measure…
Then simply could not, (due to financial, and manufacturing constraints), produce enough product to satisfy potential demand outside of the UK market…(the largest market in “European” terms, (1969/1987) …statistical evidence to support this is available…if required!
Factually, the only UK producer to achieve any European market penetration, 1962/1990, being, Bedford, Ford,followed by BMC, (and Willeme BMCs), AEC, then the drips and drabs of ERF and Atkinson,who despite some good products failed miserably in achieving their market potential.
Antoine Loheac is a good comparison, but remember Antoine only produced for his own use! And his fleet outnumbered ERF Continental registrations by at least four to one!! And having driven many of his creations, from the early “Tom Tons”, through to the “re engineered” Renault G range…well I know which I would drive to the end of all roads…and Antoine used Fuller boxes…Loheac, Frances second lorry manufacturer…according to that doyen of European industry, Francoise Zanotti, the lorry mans …MAN!!
Cheerio for now.
robert1952:
ERF-Continental:
C.D.B. S.A. (■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium S.A. (Ltd)) will reveal it’s history by a non-public publication on some 90 years
of history…Ford, Indiana, White, ■■■■■■■■ Studebaker, Scania Vabis, Autocar, E.R.F., Foden, Isuzu etc…
Over 100 pages of heritage, both European, American and for all who are interested!Many unreleased/unpublished pictures/documents on this rich company…a register on sold products is saved!
Thanks for these contributions. It may seem irrelevant to some, that contributors like A-J (ERF-Continental) and Eric (Tip-top) keep harking back to CDB (■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium) as a reference-point for our navigation of the European scene with regard to British trucks like ERF being marketed there in the '70s. But they are absolutely right to bring our attention to this. Wobbe Reistma also brought our close attention to this link in his articles.
It is interesting how the American truck lingered in continental northern Europe after WW2. Large quantities of very durable military lorries (LHD of course) remained under the Marshall Plan. Not surprisingly, it was later possible to import new trucks that were already LHD; and France, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland continued to do so in relatively small doses until the 1980s. In France, which has always been unashamedly protectionist, there has been for many years a sizeable hard-core of out-and-out American truck fans who have operated seriously good, big and expensive vehicles, which invariably were immaculately turned out.
Inevitably, with the growth of health & safety (and construction & use) regulations on both sides of the Atlantic, the safety culture gap widened to the point that U.S. trucks were no longer remotely compatible with EU regs. The ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ driveline continued to be popular however, until eventually even the Fuller (a God among gearboxes) fell foul of EU regulations.
This left ■■■■■■■ as the last bastion of U.S. hardware, but even ■■■■■■■ has tired of the EU’s highly- (over-) regulated demands, it seems.
It is interesting that the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ driveline was massively successful in the UK for many years, but it only dented the surface on the Continent. Why was this, I (quite genuinely) ask?
Robert
It’s probably fair to say that the ever increasing EU type approval hurdle put up against American imports of trucks or componentry had nothing to do with ‘safety’ and everything to do with self interest and protectionism.You can then add to that Euro type customer loyalty in which French/German etc operators were always mostly going to buy French/German built trucks not American ones or British ones built with American componentry.All that took place in an environment where use of American componentry like engines and drivelines was essential to the future survival of the Brits because as I’ve stated elsewhere the cash and investment wasn’t there to develop and manufacture our own to sufficient US type levels in terms of the combination of performance/numbers/price.
The fact is it was the perfect storm of a cash crisis facing British industry in general.Combined with the fact that German etc buyers were never going to buy British trucks in viable quantities to justify a Euro export operation even if by some miracle the investment had been there to fund it which it wasn’t.Then the government opened our own large lucrative truck market up to Euro and Scandinavian competition instead of protecting it with massive import tax barriers and quotas.Then the British customers decided to switch over to that competition rather than stay with the more than capable domestic products which the Brits managed to develop against all the odds using that aforementioned US componentry.The rest is history.
Saviem:
On the basis of evidence, the management of ERF only saw the “Continental” as a “stop gap” measure…Then simply could not, (due to financial, and manufacturing constraints), produce enough product to satisfy potential demand outside of the UK market…(the largest market in “European” terms, (1969/1987) …statistical evidence to support this is available…if required!
I can see why you think ERF only saw the ‘European’ as a stop-gap measure, Saviem; but what I can’t understand is what they thought was going to happen next. The ‘European’ model subsequently morphed into the LHD B-series ‘European’ (as it was half-heartedly called at its inception), which itself did no better than the NGC model before it. A stop-gap measure implies something substantial to follow - but it all fizzled out instead. Robert
robert1952:
… Was the Amercian influenced ‘assembly culture’ (ie use someone else’s engines and gearboxes if it meets the customers’ needs) at odds with the European truck-making machine?Warm regards, Robert
Super question.
In the 1950s, all of the subsequently-successful European makers chose to design their own engines. By the 1960s, they had brought the cabs in-house too. The gearbox was the only major component left to the specialists. The Swedes even considered that the design of this part was best done in an adjoining office, rather than behind a smokescreen of buyers and salesmen. Whatever the differences between the individual European countries (a subject worthy of a thread of its own), their manufacturers were unanimous in favouring the “vertically integrated” approach. America has belatedly followed suit.
On this evidence, engineering all the major parts of the vehicle together is the best way. The question could be worded, “Why did the American ‘assembly culture’ persist for so long?”
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
… Was the Amercian influenced ‘assembly culture’ (ie use someone else’s engines and gearboxes if it meets the customers’ needs) at odds with the European truck-making machine?Warm regards, Robert
Super question.
In the 1950s, all of the subsequently-successful European makers chose to design their own engines. By the 1960s, they had brought the cabs in-house too. The gearbox was the only major component left to the specialists. The Swedes even considered that the design of this part was best done in an adjoining office, rather than behind a smokescreen of buyers and salesmen. Whatever the differences between the individual European countries (a subject worthy of a thread of its own), their manufacturers were unanimous in favouring the “vertically integrated” approach. America has belatedly followed suit.
On this evidence, engineering all the major parts of the vehicle together is the best way. The question could be worded, “Why did the American ‘assembly culture’ persist for so long?”
Thanks, Anorak. In answer to your refined version of the question: I imagine that the ‘assembly culture’ persisted in USA because the truck industry is so deeply conservative (small c); but here in Britain I imagine it had more to do with the impression of choice (or the illusion of choice, perhaps) that it exuded. Robert
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
… Was the Amercian influenced ‘assembly culture’ (ie use someone else’s engines and gearboxes if it meets the customers’ needs) at odds with the European truck-making machine?Warm regards, Robert
Super question.
In the 1950s, all of the subsequently-successful European makers chose to design their own engines. By the 1960s, they had brought the cabs in-house too. The gearbox was the only major component left to the specialists. The Swedes even considered that the design of this part was best done in an adjoining office, rather than behind a smokescreen of buyers and salesmen. Whatever the differences between the individual European countries (a subject worthy of a thread of its own), their manufacturers were unanimous in favouring the “vertically integrated” approach. America has belatedly followed suit.
On this evidence, engineering all the major parts of the vehicle together is the best way. The question could be worded, “Why did the American ‘assembly culture’ persist for so long?”
Thanks, Anorak. In answer to your refined version of the question: I imagine that the ‘assembly culture’ persisted in USA because the truck industry is so deeply conservative (small c); but here in Britain I imagine it had more to do with the impression of choice (or the illusion of choice, perhaps) that it exuded. Robert
It would be an over simplification to say that there’s any clear superiority in the case of all in house manufacture of major components as opposed to an assembly of bought in componentry from the established specialist suppliers.The idea that all in house is supposedly better would have to selectively ignore the inferiority of that system in the case of Leyland for example.The question in that case was why did Leyland persist so long in trying to keep an all in house component manufacturing operation in place for so long when it was obvious that the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ combination was the way to go.
The reason for the success of the big Euro and Scandinavian in house production based operations is all about investment and regulations which favour that system and politics in which the British and recently the Americans have effectively given away their commercial national interests in favour of foreign competition and foreign investment.
Let’s think GLOBAL nowadays…even Volkswagen recognised that idea by creating a truck for South America etc,
by the assembly-concept and did again adapted ■■■■■■■■ DAF was ‘forced’ to apply the 500 ■■■■■■■ with lack of
money to create/develop/produce a new engine themselves, but the market asked for it.
Bear in mind that behind politics (EU-protection or the countries involved) at the end of the day THE CUSTOMER
is and will be KING of the road and the orders!!! It’s all about costs, driver acceptance and Total Cost of Ownership!
All the rest is emotions, preferences, dislikes and propaganda!
ERF-Continental:
Let’s think GLOBAL nowadays…even Volkswagen recognised that idea by creating a truck for South America etc,
by the assembly-concept and did again adapted ■■■■■■■■ DAF was ‘forced’ to apply the 500 ■■■■■■■ with lack of
money to create/develop/produce a new engine themselves, but the market asked for it.Bear in mind that behind politics (EU-protection or the countries involved) at the end of the day THE CUSTOMER
is and will be KING of the road and the orders!!! It’s all about costs, driver acceptance and Total Cost of Ownership!All the rest is emotions, preferences, dislikes and propaganda!
If you mean that market forces will decide in the end, I’m sure few would disagree with you. The ‘customer’ can be tricky to define though. On a single industrial zone you may find five hauliers. At haulier No.1 the ‘customer’ is an old gaffer who has always bought Mercs and doesn’t care whether drivers like them or not. At haulier No.2 the ‘customer’ is a director who always fully consults his drivers before purchasing a new truck (ever met one?). At haulier No.3 the ‘customer’ is an accountant who will make the decision to buy an unpopular truck because it saves money. At haulier No.4 the ‘customer’ is a buyer who is employed by this own-account company to get what he wants using a book of blank cheques. At haulier No.5 the ‘customer’ is an ex-owner driver who now has a dozen lorries and orders new ones based on all his dislikes, preferences, emotions and prejudices. Robert
All your numbered hauliers decide whatever THEY like and intend to do…even multiple fleets to make hungry!
Van Steenbergen tried with Volvo, no success, a lot of arrogance with the dealer, even Scania neglected business and
thus lost some 50 vehicles annually! Luxury to admit your product did not make it…
I guess it’s time for your piano, next week lectures and your neame shep?
ERF-Continental:
All your numbered hauliers decide whatever THEY like and intend to do…even multiple fleets to make hungry!..
‘Deciding what THEY like to do’ is exactly what customers do. My point entirely. Robert
ERF-Continental:
I guess it’s time for your piano, next week lectures and your neame shep?
A drop of that would go down nicely! As for lectures: I do most sincerely hope you don’t think that I’m lecturing! I’ve reviewed all the entries since you posted that SOVI poster and I notice that I have posited theories and asked questions rather than lectured. I’m as interested as you are to know the answers to some of these conundrums! Robert
With all respect, we DID high- and lowlight a lot of things on ERF and I really don’t feel to release it again.
Be grateful to all participants (besides Jerry, Wobbe and Philippe) who finally ‘adjusted/attributed’ your book.
Strange you still ask for more on the Thibaut’s
Lectures as a (head-)teacher…
I am really astonished about people thinking to be specialist with stating an ERF had an NTCE 290 while
pictures had the front bumper stating to have a NTC335 showed…that was NOT the case. Also jumping
to conclusions when a savoyard tilt was coupled stating it would be French…or again doubting it could
have been a demonstrator in France.
Well, fair enough, apparently ALL input here was judged, controlled, verified and again doubted, sorry.
No comments or input anymore…strange thread, but thanks to all who had serious intentions/input!
