While unfortunate, the only people who can afford that car physically cannot get into it.
I didn’t see any mention of price… but I assume it would cost more than a Miata… if it ever becomes anything other than a design study.
This was the only oblique mention of cost in that article that I could find. Did I miss it?
My bad. My assumption for an e sports car is a silly price. I stand corrected.
All good, you could be totally right… Imagine how nice that Polestar sports car concept would be for $50k - $70k (or better yet, less than that)… but for $125k or whatever it might as well just be a concept car…
Such a shame that BMW still own the triumph name.
There is no history, its just a brand now
1 Like
That’s true for every company that ever existed. I see the same “complaint” in the bicycle industry. Either you have to move on or die. Just that simple.
1 Like
I didn’t either.
1 Like
I was thinking about where I work (Jaguar Landrover) and although we have been owned by several companies, but we still occupy some of the original Land Rover buildings.
The Solihull pant is pre war, you can still see the camo paint on the outer walls of some of the original buildings.
So what makes the continuation of the history of a company?
1 Like
Excellent question and certainly for someone more intelligent than me. But I will say people get testy about “legacy”. The internet (I know, not a great example) is rife with “this person sold/left/died”, and the company is no longer the company. Which is silly because we all die at some point. Or people get upset if a company goes out of business (I’d argue Jaguar did that under Ford ownership 
) and then comes back it is “fake”. My only point is if the company doesn’t change, it will definitely die so clinging to the past is a sure fire way of killing it.
btw, does the Solihull paint have lead in it? Sometimes continuation of history isn’t all that great.
1 Like
Respecting the past and everything that made a brand great while still looking forward, evolving, staying relevant… that’s the eternal balance for brands with a big following and something that is always hotly debated. It can be easier in footwear where a big brand might have a lot of products so there is room to be referential and indulge enthusiasts and loyalists. Nike and Adidas are always retiring old product or doing modern takes on historical models with new technology. For car brands it seems harder since the tooling investment is so high and the product portfolio so much smaller in general. Land Rover has certainly fallen into a nice grove with a referential language that still has room to explore… but it seems so hard for Mini to make room for itself to grow or for VW to move the Beetle forward. It seems difficult in time pieces where Rolex, IWC, Breitling or even a relatively new brand like Bell & Ross became known for a small selection of styles and then they can’t or don’t really move off them much.
I thought this Triumph did a nice job of it. It clearly references their old bug eyed single seat racer but if you didn’t know what that car from the 50s was it still just looks like a clean modern racer.
I grew up hanging my hand out of the low slung window sills of my Dad’s 58 TR3a. She was pale yellow over crimson red. Her name was Henrietta. That concept does the original justice - the eyes, the shoulders, the hips, all harken back to what I remember.
1 Like