Debbie Bruce
Elio Addict
- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 78
Great points ! Personally I think a prototype should be displayed in shows for futuristic concepts. Not taken to the street. Many drive to these events only to be told this will change, tires will be different, We are still working on that, this will not be the real what-u ma-call it etc, but get on your laptop, put up a grand, you will love it when you receive it in November 2014, 15 or 16 when we get the bucks to manufacture it. Make a few functional ones , invite test from Car n Driver type magazines. People are walking away with nothing once viewing. We are not hungry to see 250 units a day coming out of the pant door at this time only one or two of the running real deal.The "dashboard photo" is just a computer rendering, not a photograph of an actual Elio. Giveaways include sharp focus throughout - objects in foreground are equally sharp as those in the distance. Another is the lack of cast shadows and limited gradation of the dash. Finally, that wheel is about two years old - the current version seems borrowed from a Toyota. PhotoShop, Gimp, and even some CAD software are powerful tools, but like any tool, they are only as effective as the person wielding it and the time they have to invest in it. I don't think that illustration was ever intended to be photo-realistic, but a CAD drawing with surfaces and textures added with "global" lighting to point up the driver's perspective of the SB instrument panel. For that, it serves the purpose well.
As far as the gaps between engineering, production, and marketing, I can speak from small amount of experience to that. There is a whole series of steps between a cocktail napkin sketch and a prototype. Then there are often dozens - if not hundreds of changes that have to be made to make the design workable. Ditto something that can be manufactured in volume efficiently and at minimal cost. Then comes reliability testing and a whole new set of changes to arrive at a product that, once released for public sale, will perform well day after day, without continuing warranty problems. We can name a large number of automobiles produced overseas for the US market - even many that were engineered and manufactured in America, that were total mechanical failures. Yugo and Vega come to mind - and they came with the engineering and manufacturing expertise of Fiat and Chevrolet - two of the largest, most experienced automakers in the world. Is it any wonder EM is taking baby steps? I think not.
I spent many years working with companies bringing new products - even new technologies to market; I even headed a few projects myself, and I can assure you it's a very fluid process. One of my engineers used the old Southern expression, "It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a stump." Well, yeah, like that. You start with a set of design goals you hope to be able to carry through to production, but often a conflict of these demands dictates you make basic changes. Those changes will have to appear as changes in goals (the fast and cheap way), or changes in the product (the slow and expensive way). A couple of truisms eventually arise to bite you hard: First, is that changes do not exist in a vacuum - you make one small change and you have to make two to twenty other changes to accommodate it. There's a huge ripple effect here as the solution to one concern becomes a cascade of changes. A larger engine will require a more robust transmission, probably larger half-shafts and CV joints to survive the higher torque of the engine. Meanwhile the engine mounts may have to be changed to accept the larger block, we might even have to spread the frame rails to accept that block too. This will change the suspension pick-up points, thus the geometry, and require some tweaks to the wishbones. We haven't even considered larger brakes, trimmed up brake proportioning valves to accommodate the heavier nose, or any required changes to the front clip and hood to fit all this under.
There is an old adage in business that goes, "Do you want it cheap, fast, or good? . . . pick 2." If you want a good, reliable vehicle that is engineered to Paul Elio's lofty goals of mileage, cost, safety, and domestic content, it will take time. There are always those who will complain that the final product won't corner like an F1 car, won't return 12-second timeslips, or won't accommodate a family of six, but I would suggest they are looking at the wrong car in an Elio. Remember, that the Elio is a "scratch" design, incorporating a large number of well-proven parts . . . that have never had to work together before. That's a very tall order.
As far as marketing is concerned, that aspect of the company has experienced a number of running changes just as the design has. The first three prototypes were rolled out as "proof of concept", from which the final design could be developed. I don't recall any of these being touted as THE final product, but a work in progress. I used to have to have to sell a product that didn't exist to some pretty crusty old customers who had nothing but our company's reputation for success in engineering to bank on. One of these old guys, the CEO of his Fortune 500 company, eyed me and rumbled, "Well, your drawings appear to work about as well as your competitor's." That was Friday. Sunday morning I was on a plane for Abu Dhabi with 220 pounds of camera gear I had to smuggle in to document our second prototype on test in the Arabian Gulf. Fast-forward three weeks and I'm back in the CEO's office with a 12-minute presentation video documenting the performance of the product halfway around the world. He ordered two. Two months later, he ordered three more. In two years he bought eighteen. At a sale price of just under $1 million each, and delivery stretched out six to eight months in the future, it was a leap of faith that would put an Olympic long-jumper to shame.
Not all of us "future Elio owners" want to take that kind of chance. What we are seeing is the slow progression of a product from concept to reality and the running changes that are encountered along the way. You and I are sitting at ringside viewing the entire process - sometimes its boring, sometimes it's disappointing, but we're learning valuable lessons that will pay off in the end. Ford or GM takes a minimum of two to three years to do a "clean sheet of paper" design - and they have millions - if not billions of dollars to throw into the project, and they do all but the last few months of it behind the scenes. Ford's Mustang was basically a re-bodied Falcon, and although a number of design criteria fell by the wayside during development, the reason it became a classic was not engineering innovation, not manufacturing efficiency, but styling. It would take years to put a Mustang on the market that had the sellar performance its appearance promised. Sure there were the early Shelby's, but they were literally hand-rebuilds of the basic design. Pushing 250 vehicles per day out the door for a fledgling automaker like EM, building a whole new set of design priorities into a finished vehicle that will stand up to everyday commuting is an absolutely monumental task. You and I are watching the birth of a new product from the inside, experiencing the setbacks, the disappointments, and the triumphs as no ordinary auto buyer ever will.
Hang in there and try to be patient. Every day that delivery slips is a day closer to a product you can be proud of.