Carryfast:
But the link to the example,which was making the point about the issues and problems,faced by our export dept’s,was all about the 1970’s which was the make or break point in time for the Brits
The previous few posts have more or less concluded that the “make or break point” was the 1950s. Read Valkyrie’s post again. Do make an effort to keep up!
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
But the link to the example,which was making the point about the issues and problems,faced by our export dept’s,was all about the 1970’s which was the make or break point in time for the BritsThe previous few posts have more or less concluded that the “make or break point” was the 1950s. Read Valkyrie’s post again. Do make an effort to keep up!
I’ll put it another way then the last point in time where things still could have been turned around if not the (arguable) real make or break point.Which seems to fit in with the article in the link considering that it doesn’t seem to say that all possibilities related to exports had been given up on at that point.Although as I’ve said concentrating on the export markets at the expense of forgetting about the domestic market wouldn’t have worked.However the problem was that there was no way of satisfying both markets with the same types of products so it was effectively catch 22 game over at that point. 
The evidence as to what really went wrong is contained in at least two examples here related to 1984 registered British trucks fitted with 265 hp naturally aspirated 8 cylinder Gardner engines in a world of motorways and 38 t gross weight limits.
[zb]
anorak:
Nmm, gingerfold- The notion that the British Bulldog mentality made us disregard the talents of foreigners may apply to popular culture, but we are talking about the decisions of successful businessmen, with firms full of clever people. One would expect them to be less naïve and better-informed. For some reason, they found a reason or reasons (or excuses) not to join the party. If a collaboration was the only way, there were plenty of potential suitors in Europe in the fifties, all of them doing whatever it took to keep up with the increasing demand for top-weight lorries.
I disagree, at the end of the 60s both companies (Gardner and Foden) were on the downward spiral that would eventually lead to their demise 
Up until that point, you’re correct, they were successful businessmen, but the decisions they made in the early sixties were naive
Take it one step further and look at the arrogance of Gardner, they were notorious for long lead times, so their product was obviously in demand, but did they ramp up production or invest in more facilities so that they could upply the customer with the engines they so clearly wanted when they wanted them, no they never, the attitude was more like ‘You’ll get it when we want to give it to you’ and look where that got them 
The same arrogance was responsible for their reluctance to move with the times and develop a turbocharged engine, they had the brains and their engineering ability was second to none, but they were just not interested, their belief was that turbocharging was unnecessary and that you would never need an engine with more than 250hp, this arrogance led to the end of the company, so if they were well informed, they didn’t listen
newmercman:
The same arrogance was responsible for their reluctance to move with the times and develop a turbocharged engine, they had the brains and their engineering ability was second to none, but they were just not interested, their belief was that turbocharging was unnecessary and that you would never need an engine with more than 250hp, this arrogance led to the end of the company, so if they were well informed, they didn’t listen
To be fair nmm that was probably more realism in knowing that they didn’t actually have anything available which would beat a turbocharged ■■■■■■■ and the British customers were still demanding those 250 ish hp motors anyway.Which logically would have meant finding the funds to build a completely different motor from scratch that could beat ■■■■■■■ products and Scania’s and Volvo’s.Even if those funds had have been there,which they weren’t,where was the market for a totally unproven new engine,in a domestic market in which the customers were still demanding and using naturally aspirated 250 ish max hp Gardner engines into the mid 1980’s,all based on the idea that maybe a few Dutch,Swedish,German,French and Italian buyers would desert their own manufacturers for Brit exports.
Realistically there’s no way that anyone could sell that business plan to the investors or even to the dragons on dragons den.
Those Dutch Foden examples from 1957 were preceded by about three or four years by similar vehicles from Foden again with the Gardner 8LW and wide radiator coupled to the 12 speed epicyclic gearbox but with a Foden cab which seems to be a version of the FG with centre split screens (they also produced a heavy 6x4 tractor of similar build spec). These wagon and drags with a total payload of 35 Tons were for the Dutch customer Haukes as in the previous posts and were paraded around Arnhem in a special competion and demonstration for the Dutch MoT officials. They obviously did the trick as it seems others followed but fitted with a locally built cab. This early entry into the Dutch market was said to have helped further Foden sales in Holland. Franky.
Carryfast:
where was the market for a totally unproven new engine:
That would be the UK market
The same UK market that went on to buy unproven new Volvo and Scania lorries by the boat load, the same UK market that progressed from naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines to unproven turbocharged ■■■■■■■ engines
newmercman:
I disagree, at the end of the 60s both companies (Gardner and Foden) were on the downward spiral that would eventually lead to their demiseTake it one step further and look at the arrogance of Gardner, they were notorious for long lead times, so their product was obviously in demand, but did they ramp up production or invest in more facilities so that they could upply the customer with the engines they so clearly wanted when they wanted them, no they never, the attitude was more like ‘You’ll get it when we want to give it to you’ and look where that got them
The same arrogance was responsible for their reluctance to move with the times and develop a turbocharged engine, they had the brains and their engineering ability was second to none, but they were just not interested, their belief was that turbocharging was unnecessary and that you would never need an engine with more than 250hp, this arrogance led to the end of the company, so if they were well informed, they didn’t listen
Err… I was referring to the 1950s in my previous posts, specifically with reference Valkyrie’s account of the success of the 8LW fodens in the Low Countries before 1958, then the apparent capitulation immediately thereafter. Your account of events following on from this is beyond dispute (to me, anyway, although it may encounter some resistance on a frosty evening on the Kingston bypass!).
Rather than arrogance, the British national trait which I would associate with Gardner, Foden and Leyland’s downward spiral is greed- our business community, compared to more productive nations, is accustomed to, or demands, a good short-term return on its investments. It is disinclined to compromise this position if longer term prosperity, or even survival, demands that big things are bought. Activities which require a long view are:
All of these things were going on in the European lorry industry in the 1950s. The fancy cabs, the rapid development of engines, the increase in demand for heavy, long-distance lorries, the opportunities to sell across the Continent. Faced with the choice of grasping this nettle, the owners of the British lorry-builders opted to carry on as before, feeding their existing markets with the existing product. Effectively standing still, while the Continentals marched forward. They chose to remain small, while the firms who survived all tried to get big, starting about that time. The Dutch 8LW Foden story just happens to illustrate this quite well (as does the craven mismanagement of Leyland by Mr. Stokes).
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
I disagree, at the end of the 60s both companies (Gardner and Foden) were on the downward spiral that would eventually lead to their demiseTake it one step further and look at the arrogance of Gardner, they were notorious for long lead times, so their product was obviously in demand, but did they ramp up production or invest in more facilities so that they could upply the customer with the engines they so clearly wanted when they wanted them, no they never, the attitude was more like ‘You’ll get it when we want to give it to you’ and look where that got them
The same arrogance was responsible for their reluctance to move with the times and develop a turbocharged engine, they had the brains and their engineering ability was second to none, but they were just not interested, their belief was that turbocharging was unnecessary and that you would never need an engine with more than 250hp, this arrogance led to the end of the company, so if they were well informed, they didn’t listen
Err… I was referring to the 1950s in my previous posts, specifically with reference Valkyrie’s account of the success of the 8LW fodens in the Low Countries before 1958, then the apparent capitulation immediately thereafter. Your account of events following on from this is beyond dispute (to me, anyway, although it may encounter some resistance on a frosty evening on the Kingston bypass!).
Rather than arrogance, the British national trait which I would associate with Gardner, Foden and Leyland’s downward spiral is greed- our business community, compared to more productive nations, is accustomed to, or demands, a good short-term return on its investments. It is disinclined to compromise this position if longer term prosperity, or even survival, demands that big things are bought. Activities which require a long view are:
- Fast technological change. This needs an increase in the R&D budget.
- Expansion. This needs investment in buildings, machinery and personnel.
- New markets. Incentives for the new customers and service back-up will only show a return later on.
All of these things were going on in the European lorry industry in the 1950s. The fancy cabs, the rapid development of engines, the increase in demand for heavy, long-distance lorries, the opportunities to sell across the Continent. Faced with the choice of grasping this nettle, the owners of the British lorry-builders opted to carry on as before, feeding their existing markets with the existing product. Effectively standing still, while the Continentals marched forward. They chose to remain small, while the firms who survived all tried to get big, starting about that time. The Dutch 8LW Foden story just happens to illustrate this quite well (as does the craven mismanagement of Leyland by Mr. Stokes).
I wonder how many of those companies under the BL banner would have survived alone ,there was only AEC and Leyland who had a complete range and their own drivetrains ,the lack of funds and the unfortunate appointment of Stokes would always end with the same outcome.If the 2 had merged as equals and worked together in harmony pooling their ideas it may have been a totally different outcome
newmercman:
Carryfast:
where was the market for a totally unproven new engine:That would be the UK market
The same UK market that went on to buy unproven new Volvo and Scania lorries by the boat load, the same UK market that progressed from naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines to unproven turbocharged ■■■■■■■ engines
By the timeline of a domestic market that was still speccing naturally aspirated Gardners up to 1984 then the Volvo,Scania,and turbocharged ■■■■■■■ had already been well proven in their domestic markets and those relatively (very) few British operators who were running DAF’s,Volvos,Scanias etc etc on uk and continental work in the years preceding that.
The fact is there was no way that you could overcome that massive difference between the Brit manufacturers domestic market’s demands and those of the rest of the world.The ‘world’ being Scandinavia,Europe and the US/Colonies.That’s even before taking into account the financial situation that mainly affected this country and no other during the post war rebuilding of Europe’s economies and industries while it’s obvious that countries like Sweden and USA came out of WW2 in much better financial shape for obvious reasons.
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
I disagree, at the end of the 60s both companies (Gardner and Foden) were on the downward spiral that would eventually lead to their demiseTake it one step further and look at the arrogance of Gardner, they were notorious for long lead times, so their product was obviously in demand, but did they ramp up production or invest in more facilities so that they could upply the customer with the engines they so clearly wanted when they wanted them, no they never, the attitude was more like ‘You’ll get it when we want to give it to you’ and look where that got them
The same arrogance was responsible for their reluctance to move with the times and develop a turbocharged engine, they had the brains and their engineering ability was second to none, but they were just not interested, their belief was that turbocharging was unnecessary and that you would never need an engine with more than 250hp, this arrogance led to the end of the company, so if they were well informed, they didn’t listen
Err… I was referring to the 1950s in my previous posts, specifically with reference Valkyrie’s account of the success of the 8LW fodens in the Low Countries before 1958, then the apparent capitulation immediately thereafter. Your account of events following on from this is beyond dispute (to me, anyway, although it may encounter some resistance on a frosty evening on the Kingston bypass!).
Rather than arrogance, the British national trait which I would associate with Gardner, Foden and Leyland’s downward spiral is greed- our business community, compared to more productive nations, is accustomed to, or demands, a good short-term return on its investments. It is disinclined to compromise this position if longer term prosperity, or even survival, demands that big things are bought. Activities which require a long view are:
- Fast technological change. This needs an increase in the R&D budget.
- Expansion. This needs investment in buildings, machinery and personnel.
- New markets. Incentives for the new customers and service back-up will only show a return later on.
All of these things were going on in the European lorry industry in the 1950s. The fancy cabs, the rapid development of engines, the increase in demand for heavy, long-distance lorries, the opportunities to sell across the Continent. Faced with the choice of grasping this nettle, the owners of the British lorry-builders opted to carry on as before, feeding their existing markets with the existing product. Effectively standing still, while the Continentals marched forward. They chose to remain small, while the firms who survived all tried to get big, starting about that time. The Dutch 8LW Foden story just happens to illustrate this quite well (as does the craven mismanagement of Leyland by Mr. Stokes).
I think you’re blaming our manufacturers for the failings of our bankers and our government in looking after other countries financial interests instead of our own.Nothing new there then.The biggest favour which the government could have done was to massively reduce road fuel costs to US levels and increase gross weights and sizes to Dutch type levels which just might have given our domestic market the kick it needed to change it’s over conservative way of thinking. Nothing new there then either.
While underestimating the foreign customer base’s (correct) loyalty to it’s own domestic manufacturers over that of imports.
Anorak i don t understand yourr view that the British national trait is greed , far from it our country has some of the best engineers in the world and I don t think that greed had anything to do with the decline of our truck industry it was more possibly dueto fleet owners not knowing or not wanting to know that foreigners could produce anything better than a Gardner or even worse those abortions of wood and plastic cabs we all had to put up with and don t forget the Unions would have nothing to do with sleeper cabs our Members need to sleep in a proper bed after a hard days graft, superb, Bobs Cafe on the A45 between Coventry and Daventry 15 to a room and a ■■■■ bucket in the middle for those caught short in the night after a visit to the nearest pub nearly a mile away. Last time I stayed there many years ago driving an F86 sniffing the aroma of the bucket I can still hear now the wooly exhaust of the Gardners compared to the lovely crisp note of the ■■■■■■■■ despite all the many previous posts on this subject Gardners have found their true resting place powering fairground rides and sampans. Regards Crow.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
Anorak i don t understand yourr view that the British national trait is greed , far from it our country has some of the best engineers in the world and I don t think that greed had anything to do with the decline of our truck industry despite all the many previous posts on this subject Gardners have found their true resting place powering fairground rides and sampans. Regards Crow.
^ This.With the exception that British bankers have always been the some of the greediest of those greedy waste of space zb’s. 
Carryfast:
I think you’re blaming our manufacturers for the failings of our bankers and our government in looking after other countries financial interests instead of our own. Blah blah.
Have you got any evidence to show that interest rates, or the availability of state funding for long-term projects, was significantly worse in GB during the 1950s, compared to other European nations?
That aiside, whatever/whomever else you blame- there will always be someone- there are no excuses in business. If you fail, you fail.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
Anorak i don t understand yourr view that the British national trait is greed , far from it our country has some of the best engineers in the world and I don t think that greed had anything to do with the decline of our truck industry it was more possibly dueto fleet owners not knowing or not wanting to know that foreigners could produce anything better than a Gardner or even worse those abortions of wood and plastic cabs we all had to put up with and don t forget the Unions would have nothing to do with sleeper cabs our Members need to sleep in a proper bed after a hard days graft, superb, Bobs Cafe on the A45 between Coventry and Daventry 15 to a room and a ■■■■ bucket in the middle for those caught short in the night after a visit to the nearest pub nearly a mile away. Last time I stayed there many years ago driving an F86 sniffing the aroma of the bucket I can still hear now the wooly exhaust of the Gardners compared to the lovely crisp note of the ■■■■■■■■ despite all the many previous posts on this subject Gardners have found their true resting place powering fairground rides and sampans. Regards Crow.
Every country has good engineers, Britain included. Those design-led firms which are successful in GB at the moment tend to stick out a bit, because they are few and far between. It is the way the technical people are treated by the business leaders that is different. Foreign firms have, for the past half-century, had bigger R&D budgets than British ones: they employ more engineers. It is a crude generalisation, but we are a nation of spivs.
sCs F bankers which rhymes with another word not my favourite people however be that as it may I ve lost interest in this oh so boring go on forever factsandfigures thread, it s all totally meaningless apropos I shifts and all the other meaning less nonsense written about them and their competitors, wagon drivers drive wagons and like a lot of airline pilots don t understand how they, it works, when a computer takes over from that which some of us have between the ears the job is doomed ,doomed I tell you . Crow.Thats not true either Anorak Fools and Horses long gone and if you delve deeper into your History book or everymans guide to the Universe, Wikipedia you ll see that almost every thing worth having in this modern world we re living in was invented by folks from the Northern Hemisphere, you can t count the Yanks cos they re amix. Crow.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
I think you’re blaming our manufacturers for the failings of our bankers and our government in looking after other countries financial interests instead of our own. Blah blah.Have you got any evidence to show that interest rates, or the availability of state funding for long-term projects, was significantly worse in GB during the 1950s, compared to other European nations?
That aiside, whatever/whomever else you blame- there will always be someone- there are no excuses in business. If you fail, you fail.
Every country has good engineers, Britain included. Those design-led firms which are successful in GB at the moment tend to stick out a bit, because they are few and far between. It is the way the technical people are treated by the business leaders that is different. Foreign firms have, for the past half-century, had bigger R&D budgets than British ones: they employ more engineers. It is a crude generalisation, but we are a nation of spivs.
No one needs to make any excuses because they’re gone much like most of the war time generation who came home only to find that ze Germans who they’d just defeated were getting handouts paid for off the backs of British workers and taxpayers while our own had to go without and what I’ve given you are reasons not excuses.
If I’m wrong maybe you can explain where the money actually came from to rebuild Europe and it’s industries after WW2 especially those of Germany.
Bloody ell CF you ve got it wrong yet again if you check the real facts you ll find that the UK was by far the biggest receipient.Crow… It was called the Marshall plan.
Thanks for the link. It said this:
The economic cost of the war has been estimated at US$1500 billion.
Of this, the US spent 21%, Britain 20%, Germany 18% and the USSR 13%.
(Source: The Penguin Atlas of World History ; Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann; Originally published as Atlas zur Weltgeschichte).
British lorry builders were no more skint than Continental ones. Their owners were used to a faster return, that is all. When the industry changed in the fifties- more R&D, expansion/consolidation of manufacturers, new markets, the GB lot decided it to take the easy money from the markets who would accept old-hat technology. That is another overarching generalisation, of course: Leyland and AEC had the money and the foresight to have a bash at it but, unfortunately, they fell under the influence of the charlatan Stokes and his small-firm mentality.
Anorak CF is not talking about the cost of WW2 he s on about the Krauts having more U.S assistance than the U.K. its not true, check out the Marshall Plan its all there Crow.And ■■■■■■■■ to gearboxes.
And what s more I ve had enough of this technical crap, whilst savouring a large blended Scotch and stroking the cat i ll try to think of something more entertaining than all this guff ,don t hold your breath.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
Bloody ell CF you ve got it wrong yet again if you check the real facts you ll find that the UK was by far the biggest receipient.Crow… It was called the Marshall plan.
I know everything I know seems to have been turned upside down in this world.Germany won the war and it was us who won the peace according to planet truck net. 
