Other Manufacturers copying Triumph cars

[Peter Truman]

Not from my daughter who worked for General Motors Holden here in 2001 up to about 2010, in Engineering and Development Sections but from an old Friend who had an aquaintence who worked in the GMH body design section for years, this Old Friend had a very large cross sectional drawing of the Triumph 2000 Mk1 in half scale fully dimensioned up BUT on official GMH Drawing Sheet with their Drawing Number and GMH Titled, the drawing was so old it was tearing at the numerous folds.

So Triumph must have got it right with the 2000 Saloon!

[Qu1ckn1ck]

I worked for Ford Motor Company throughout the 1960's. 

I believe that it was common practice for manufacturers to strip down and fully analyse and cost the competitors vehicles.  Not with any intention of copying the entire vehicle itself.

Within Ford at that time we believed that the Mini was losing BMC £12 on each car sold. 

[NonMember]

1 hour ago, Qu1ckn1ck said:

Within Ford at that time we believed that the Mini was losing BMC £12 on each car sold. 

It possibly was, depending on your accounting methods. It's certainly a widely quoted "fact". And I do know the Metro was only break-even (may have made a fiver per car). They're called "loss leaders" - get people to buy the company's most basic car as their first car, then they're much more likely to buy your posher offerings when they upgrade.

Rover also had a "competitor evaluation" department, whose job was to strip down and analyse other makes. The intent was to keep aware of the "state of the art".

[Unkel Kunkel]

 That's very interesting - and especially to have the drawings on official “ headed” paper.

I would imagine  though, a car maker would be almost offended if  competitors did not show a great deal  of interest in their product.

There is a long history.Before the  “eight “ appeared, Morris dismantled  a 1932 Ford eight.When the Morris emerged it did have had some different features, such as better suspension (and brakes that worked)  but the little 803 cc side valve engine and its three speed ‘box bore close resemblance to the 918 cc Ford.

 

[Colin Lindsay]

At least they are usually protected by Patents; there are still countries in the Worlds who have no qualms about reverse-engineering products and making their own direct copies; after all, what's anybody going to do about it?

In addition, many of the cars these days are so identical we're almost back in the days of badge-engineering...

[Pete Lewis]

rear suspn on a good few BMW looks to have very 2000  origins 

Pete

 

[Clive]

45 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:

rear suspn on a good few BMW looks to have very 2000  origins 

Pete

 

BMW owners tend to say Triumph copied BMW. Probably chicken and egg. But no doubt it is a VERY good rear end 🙂

[Bfg]

All manufacturers in any industry 'compare' their design / marketing proposal with competitors offerings.  Be dumb if they didn't.  I did the same when I worked in the design and manufactured of cars, and then of boats.  When I had my own kit-car business ; to be commercially viable I needed to offer advantages in my product ..but at the same time not to be so outrageous whereby the buying public thought it weird. 

The accommodation design (whether car or boat interiors) would start with knowing what was considered good &/or 'of note' in other designs, which inevitably meant what had been received favorably in the press  ..even if we didn't happen to like other aspects of the competitor's product.

From those space envelopes, scale drawings or manikins were placed to sit over mechanical and within structural limitations of our own design.  Controls like pedal box and steering wheel would be placed accordingly in plan, side-elevation and cross-sections. Likewise glass (viewing angles) and roof lines. 

This wasn't copying others designs, it was simply deriving established dimensions that were known to work ..at that point in time. These set acceptable parameters to work within.

Inevitable once our design was released, the motoring press would road test and comment on what they thought was good and what was not so, and what else was interesting. Those then would add to the database or yard-sticks which were to be improved upon during the next round of product design.  And so, as each designer adds a little more, so cars have grown in size and with ever better design features. 

Design is evolution more than invention, and although other's work is noted for its excellence and so inspires a trend or fashion, it's rarely plagiarized.

Pete

[Pete Lewis]

but triumphs have indicators as standard 

Ha !

Pete

[Bfg]

48 minutes ago, clive said:

BMW owners tend to say Triumph copied BMW. Probably chicken and egg. But no doubt it is a VERY good rear end 🙂

Not if you were to listen to many TR owners ..who seem to believe that their live-axle cars have the ultimate in chassis & suspension design ..and the IRS models have been cursed with a rear-suspension abomination !

Perhaps posted a little tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless prevalent underlying theme. Today for example < here >

[Pete Lewis]

well the basic  TR4A   IRS went on to the Tr5 , TR6 and all 2000 ,2500  and Stag models so it cant be that much of an abomination

pete

 

[Bfg]

I agree.. I specifically chose to buy the TR4A because it had IRS. 

Pete

[JohnD]

Surely it is rare for there to be a design feature that is truly original?       The  post war, 'small-chassis' Triumphs had the swing axle as a way to implement "fully independant suspension" as a sales feature.    Every motoring journalist knew of the design and its flaw, the 'jack-up'.   Despite more pricey cars having equivalent suspension (Merc 230SL,  1954,  anyone?), they immediately set about cornering in ways that no one would use on the road, so that they could write about it!

 

[Clive]

1 hour ago, Bfg said:

Not if you were to listen to many TR owners ..who seem to believe that their live-axle cars have the ultimate in chassis & suspension design ..and the IRS models have been cursed with a rear-suspension abomination !

Perhaps posted a little tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless prevalent underlying theme. Today for example < here >

I think the live axle chassis suffer less issues? But to compare the road manners of a live axle to IRS shows some people are true knuckle draggers. I noticed n your example there was mention of a race spec IRS and that is not exactly normal usage. Maybe live axle is better on a nice smooth track? Not sure why, but about the only situation where it may be better? I know the IRS on the stag and saloon make me extremely jealous when "doing" scottish roads, they look compliant, where my spitfire feels like it is a bit all over the place at speed. 

[NonMember]

8 minutes ago, clive said:

Maybe live axle is better on a nice smooth track?

There are a few cases where a live axle works well and that is allegedly one of them. The same claims are made in more expensive car circles vis-a-vis how terrible the Jaguar IRS is compared to the D-type's live axle. Which is why all Formula 1 cars have live axles, presumably 🤔

Also, the MG Midget handles much better than a Spitfire because of its live axle, and is thus a much better track car. Except that in most historic race series the Spitfire has always outperformed the Midget.

[Clive]

28 minutes ago, NonMember said:

Also, the MG Midget handles much better than a Spitfire because of its live axle, and is thus a much better track car. Except that in most historic race series the Spitfire has always outperformed the Midget.

The IRS on a spitfire is a real oddball, not anything to be proud of. You may remember teh story where teh factory grafted a TR4 axle on a spitfire, which was so good it was destroyed....

Midgets outperform spitfires in terms of handling, largely as they are so much mor eridged with no floppy chassis ad seperate tub. They may very good autotest cars, but I have no idea about racing. 

Mk 1+2 escorts perform pretty well with a love axle, but maybe they are suited to rallying? 

But the saloon IRS is a great design. Must be about the best of the period? (mayeb let down by spline lock?)

[Colin Lindsay]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

 Every motoring journalist knew of the design and its flaw, the 'jack-up'.   Despite more pricey cars having equivalent suspension (Merc 230SL,  1954,  anyone?), they immediately set about cornering in ways that no one would use on the road, so that they could write about it!

 

I read the same before now, where the motoring journalists set about finding the limit of the handling, and then made a big thing about the breakaway and tuck-under despite the fact that the cars would rarely if ever be driven like that under normal road conditions.

[Pete Lewis]

17 hours ago, clive said:

(mayeb let down by spline lock?)

mine had a real twitch coming out of roundaouts under power fitting poly to the trailing arms resolved this completely 

the old rubbers were well old , but this one set of poly solved any rear steer/wandering and them   twitches 

Pete

[Bfg]

For the racing guys, the TR4 IRS, together with chassis changes, was said to add about 100lb to the car's weight ..not good.  And that particular IRS chassis has a design fault insomuch as it's poorly cross braced. The renown negatives of live axles, like rear wheel steering, limited suspension travel, their unsprung weight, and axle tramp.. could to a large extent be held in check with link bars and a Panhard rod.  The further idiosyncrasies with a live axle is relatively easy to live with because they are intuitive and so driver predictable.

Live axles have the advantage that the drive parts are well protected both from impact (whether flying stones or the car landing on a boulder or edge of a ditch or a rock) and again from dust, wet, sand, grit, etc.  Sealed lubrication is easier within a tube, and their fewer parts means less joints (in particular articulating) and therefore less maintenance. They are also relatively idiot proof in terms of alignment / height adjustment, etc.  ..and easy to weld up in remote places.  As a consequence they gained an enviable reputation with rallying and hill climbs, and also in countries where unpaved roads are very common.  In these scenarios robustness  is the differential (pun intended ) between finishing the competition or not, &/or getting home again.  In the US or Australia where it may be 100+miles to the nearest garage and where imported / transcontinental parts supplies were erratic at best - that is an important factor.  Hence the US version of the TR4A ..with live axle.

Triumph and of course many other saloons proved that IRS could be made robust enough for rallying in all weathers and terrains,  and the TR6 and many others proved that IRS can be set up and be adjusted for and used to advantage on different race tracks and surfaces. But that's not going to change the mind of those who like a live axle.

Pete 

[Colin Lindsay]

If we're talking about other manufacturers copying Triumphs in LOOKS, I always felt the Peugeot 304 was remarkably similar to the Vitesse.

  

 

[Wagger]

On 04/01/2022 at 13:14, Pete Lewis said:

rear suspn on a good few BMW looks to have very 2000  origins 

Pete

 

When was the BMW 700 designed? That was independent suspension with drive shafts common to everything following on. Dunno what all of the pre-war ones had, or the 507. One of them had a solid rear axle like Fraser Nash. OK I like BM's but not the horrid 4x4's or their drivers. I have yet to break a BMW diff or drive shaft and I have had eight different models. Top ends have been problematic, and I will avoid any with the timing chain at the rear of the engine. Stupid idea, but then the rogue so called engineers get into anything nowadays.

Something else for me to look up on a horrid day, and did EMW become Wartburg?

[Wagger]

https://www.veikl.com/d/BMW-700-Cutaway-90136

 

Ok. I have spent some time looking in my BMW history books. Image should appear if above link actually works. Industrial espionage always went on. BMW were really in the doldrums post war until about 1963. The BMW 700 appeared 1959ish as did the Herald, The BMW had Trailing arm rear suspension 90 degrees to the direction of travel. Much more sophisticated than the Herald rear end. This little Beemer and the Isetta bubble car began their revival. They were fun cars but very tail happy. Lovely 700cc motorcycle flat twin engine.

Maybe the Triumph 2000 was on the drawing board in 1959, I do not know. After 1962ish, Mercedes had made an attempt to buy BMW. It did not happen. They then introduced the 1500/2, 1600/2 and 1800. The 1600/2 evolved into the 2002 which saved BMW. I had a 2002tii. It was a fantastic car.

All of these cars have trailing arm rear suspension using drive shafts that have a sliding spline and two cv joints. UJ's are used on the propshafts, not the drive shafts.

I saw a setup in year 2000 at a Triumph meeting where BMW E28 five series diff's and drive shafts had been adapted for Triumph Stags and big saloons. As these are very plentiful, it might have made a very robust rear end with loads of ratio options. 2.93:1 to 4.11:1

Yes, EMW (Eisenach Motorien Wurks) did become the Wartburg factory. Their three cylinder two strokes are very tunable.

 

[Wagger]

On 05/01/2022 at 17:33, Colin Lindsay said:

If we're talking about other manufacturers copying Triumphs in LOOKS, I always felt the Peugeot 304 was remarkably similar to the Vitesse.

  

 

They were nice. Was there a 504 Cabrio also? I believe that the next 2 Litre straight six full convertible after the Vitesse was the BMW E30 320i in the late 1980's. The Herald/Vitesse CV's certainly resulted in Baur converting the German cars prior to that.

[rlubikey]

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Harry Webster regretted not patenting the 2000 semi-trailing suspension design, which was obviously thought good enough to use on the 1300, TR4A/5/6 & Stag. Of course the Triumph 1300 was FWD but had the semi-trailing rear end. Whether it was the semi-trailing arms, or some other aspect of the suspension which was patentable I don't know.

Cheer, Richard