New 'Not' Defender INEOS on the BBC

[GBMUD]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0009511  Start at minute 20:15

Chris

[western]

to view  the above registration or sign in is required.

[Anderzander]

Good find. Nothing really new but still good to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.

[GBMUD]

Sorry Ralph, it is just the BBC website.

Chris

[ThreePointFive]

Reading the Sunday Times, JLR have lost the right to copyright the Defender shape in court this week. Reasons given were that it is not "iconic" enough, and only 20-40% of people could recognise the shape as being a Defender.

So this leaves the door wide open for Ineos, but also anyone else to create a near-identical vehicle.

In an odd way, this does strengthen JLR's argument for the new Defender. If what they've been making is not iconic, they are not ruining their heritage by changing it. Their lawyers are going to chase this one for all it's worth though, so I doubt they see it that way.

I am not someone interested in the "investment" potential of the vehicle as so many who jumped on them in the last few years have been (and are now rapidly having their expectations readjusted by market forces) but if Ineos is can make a product that is to all intents and purposes a Defender with improvements, that has to have an impact on both the old and new vehicles.

[Snagger]

I see it as a win - someone can produce something along the lines of what we love, and LR can’t stop them having abandoned the design and us.

[Anderzander]

The shape is an interesting thing - those early Toyotas and the GWagen’s weren’t a million miles away in appearance - so I can’t see that Land Rover can own a slab sided box? Plus if the Jimny  was 20% bigger that wouldn’t look amiss as an Ineos vehicle whilst keeping the look of a successor?

[Tanuki]

As I see it, one of the 'issues' about the old Defender shape which resulted in its discontinuation was the whole matter of pedestrian-safety: a Defender-style flat-front and protruding bumper is really rather unfriendly (gets you a low star-rating in the NCAP tests, potentially meaning increased insurance-costs too).

Equally, the Defender-shape is about as aerodynamic as a medium-sized warehouse, which pushes-up your fuel consumption and grams-of-CO2-per-kilometre emissions in comparison to aerodynamically-smoother shapes, particularly at higher speeds.

While some may hanker after retaining the "classic" Defender-shape, I'm happy to adopt the improved knowledge of automotive shapes that have been learned over the last half-century.

[ThreePointFive]

57 minutes ago, Anderzander said:

The shape is an interesting thing - those early Toyotas and the GWagen’s weren’t a million miles away in appearance - so I can’t see that Land Rover can own a slab sided box? Plus if the Jimny  was 20% bigger that wouldn’t look amiss as an Ineos vehicle whilst keeping the look of a successor?

I agree on both counts, but could it be argued that the shape has been copied by those other makes because it was instantly "right" and iconic out of the box? This is similar to what has happened with big brands that got it right first time; Hoover being a generic term for a vacuum, Google when searching  on the internet regardless of search engine being used. Brands have legally lost the ability to protect their copyright under these kinds of situations, it might be LR are just too late.

I know that there are probably 50 pages of argument to be had over that as the LR is in itself a copy of the Jeep (as much as it might pain us to admit). Even the "iconic" Range Rover owes many design cues to the Bronco, so it's probably best LR don't lean too much on this sort of reasoning.

 

The Jimny manages to look like all of the serious 4x4s in one shape, G Wagen, Jeep, Defender, even a bit of Land Cruiser.... I hate to say it, but I do want one. I hear they're rubbish on road, which only strengthens my yearning.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by ThreePointFive

[Anderzander]

I’ve been suggesting to my wife that one would be a good option when she changes her car.... the massive waiting list doesn’t help though....

[Snagger]

12 hours ago, Tanuki said:

As I see it, one of the 'issues' about the old Defender shape which resulted in its discontinuation was the whole matter of pedestrian-safety: a Defender-style flat-front and protruding bumper is really rather unfriendly (gets you a low star-rating in the NCAP tests, potentially meaning increased insurance-costs too).

Equally, the Defender-shape is about as aerodynamic as a medium-sized warehouse, which pushes-up your fuel consumption and grams-of-CO2-per-kilometre emissions in comparison to aerodynamically-smoother shapes, particularly at higher speeds.

While some may hanker after retaining the "classic" Defender-shape, I'm happy to adopt the improved knowledge of automotive shapes that have been learned over the last half-century.

And yet the preceding and new Wranglers get EU approval (albeit with low NCAP scores).  Same for the emissions claim - the Transit still passes legislation with that engine.  There was no legal reason to end the old Defender - they’re lying about that.  It was a commercial decision, nothing more.

[Snagger]

11 hours ago, ThreePointFive said:

I agree on both counts, but could it be argued that the shape has been copied by those other makes because it was instantly "right" and iconic out of the box? This is similar to what has happened with big brands that got it right first time; Hoover being a generic term for a vacuum, Google when searching  on the internet regardless of search engine being used. Brands have legally lost the ability to protect their copyright under these kinds of situations, it might be LR are just too late.

I know that there are probably 50 pages of argument to be had over that as the LR is in itself a copy of the Jeep (as much as it might pain us to admit). Even the "iconic" Range Rover owes many design cues to the Bronco, so it's probably best LR don't lean too much on this sort of reasoning.

 

The Jimny manages to look like all of the serious 4x4s in one shape, G Wagen, Jeep, Defender, even a bit of Land Cruiser.... I hate to say it, but I do want one. I hear they're rubbish on road, which only strengthens my yearning.

 

 

You can protect a name or brand, and you can protect specific design features, but you can protect a general shape.  But I think the biggest hurdle for LR was trying to make the protection retrospective for a model they abandoned three years ago and so will never generate revenue from again.

[Anderzander]

Who was in court with JLR by the way ?

 

[Snagger]

34 minutes ago, Anderzander said:

Who was in court with JLR by the way ?

 

Jim Radcliffe, of Ineos and Project Grenadier.

[Anderzander]

Ooo - we might get to see what it looks like now 😊 🤞

[BogMonster]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

And yet the preceding and new Wranglers get EU approval (albeit with low NCAP scores).  Same for the emissions claim - the Transit still passes legislation with that engine.  There was no legal reason to end the old Defender - they’re lying about that.  It was a commercial decision, nothing more.

That was always my assumption. Even if the engines have changed completely there is no reason why a current model pickup or van could not be adapted fairly easily. The Ranger is in any case still being sold with a "2.2 TDCI" engine which appears to be the same unit, though I believe the UK versions use adgoo now.

[SteveG]

On 11/17/2019 at 9:33 AM, Snagger said:

I see it as a win - someone can produce something along the lines of what we love, and LR can’t stop them having abandoned the design and us.

👍

[mickeyw]

The only reason I can accept for killing the Defender off is really to do with its very high build cost. The man hours to assemble it are many times that of a Range Rover, that they can sell for heaps more ££££££.

The shape from a pedestrian POV is invalid IMO. As already mentioned Merc's G class, and Suzuki's new Jimny are more or less just as unfriendly to soft tissue.

The emissions excuse is also invalid. LR has previously fitted newer and cleaner engines, so no reason not to continue with that.

It's all about profit, which I can understand any business wanting to make. Just a shame they can't be honest about it.

 

I am keen to see what Ineos comes up with, although I'll still stick with my 33 year old 110. It's economic for me to do so

[Chicken Drumstick]

On 11/17/2019 at 6:42 PM, ThreePointFive said:

I agree on both counts, but could it be argued that the shape has been copied by those other makes because it was instantly "right" and iconic out of the box? This is similar to what has happened with big brands that got it right first time; Hoover being a generic term for a vacuum, Google when searching  on the internet regardless of search engine being used. Brands have legally lost the ability to protect their copyright under these kinds of situations, it might be LR are just too late.

I know that there are probably 50 pages of argument to be had over that as the LR is in itself a copy of the Jeep (as much as it might pain us to admit). Even the "iconic" Range Rover owes many design cues to the Bronco, so it's probably best LR don't lean too much on this sort of reasoning.

 

The Jimny manages to look like all of the serious 4x4s in one shape, G Wagen, Jeep, Defender, even a bit of Land Cruiser.... I hate to say it, but I do want one. I hear they're rubbish on road, which only strengthens my yearning.

 

 

I agree. While we as enthusiasts might consider the Defender shape iconic. It isn't, not even in Land Rover's own line up as the shape hails from the 1958 Series II, which was in itself just largely a restyling of the Series 1, which as you point out was based and a re-imaged version of the Jeep MB.

If Land Rover were still producing the Defender (no, not the new Pretender). Then maybe their claim was more legit. But clearly as a company themselves they didn't consider it iconic enough to persevere with it. The new version looks nothing like the original.

 

Some other 'iconic' 4x4's that pre-date the Defender.

[landroversforever]

11 hours ago, mickeyw said:

It's all about profit, which I can understand any business wanting to make. Just a shame they can't be honest about it.

That's my biggest gripe with it all. So people that don't know any better just take the 'info' and run with it. Spreading the rubbish.

 

One of the things that struck me most on the production line tour was the sheer volume of people power on the defender line. Looking at anything from 2-6 people on a station across 5-6 stations.... the range rover line running past had 2 or 3 in that same distance.

[Ex Member]

5 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I agree. While we as enthusiasts might consider the Defender shape iconic. It isn't, not even in Land Rover's own line up as the shape hails from the 1958 Series II, which was in itself just largely a restyling of the Series 1, which as you point out was based and a re-imaged version of the Jeep MB.If Land Rover were still producing the Defender (no, not the new Pretender). Then maybe their claim was more legit. But clearly as a company themselves they didn't consider it iconic

enough to persevere with it. The new version looks nothing like the original.

JLR were attempting to trademark not only the Defender shape, but all Land Rovers back to the Series 1.

 

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

5 minutes ago, Red90 said:

JLR were attempting to trademark not only the Defender shape, but all Land Rovers back to the Series 1.

 

 

I wonder if they had been successful if they would have then tried to retrospectively sued Austin and Santana? 🙃

 

 

[Gazzar]

Santana was a Rover licenced copy, as was Phaser(spelling). Austin became part of British Leyland, with Rover, so I expect the IP aspect of that amalgamation/disaggregation is probably totally covered.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

17 hours ago, Gazzar said:

Santana was a Rover licenced copy, as was Phaser(spelling). Austin became part of British Leyland, with Rover, so I expect the IP aspect of that amalgamation/disaggregation is probably totally covered.

 

Was a joke, hence the smiley...... 😁

[Daan]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 10:35 AM, Chicken Drumstick said:

I agree. While we as enthusiasts might consider the Defender shape iconic. It isn't, not even in Land Rover's own line up as the shape hails from the 1958 Series II, which was in itself just largely a restyling of the Series 1

Is that not exactly what makes the defender iconic?