Thoughts and Musings on the Ineos Grenadier

[jeremy996]

Someone has some good news on the way - just not me yet!

I'm not jealous - much!

And for those who want to know what an Australian market Grenadier looks like with a protection bar on the front. Reduces the Jay Leno led by the chin look a bit......

[Bowie69]

Yeah, that looks much better

 

[ThreePointFive]

I don't hate that. Any more photos?

[jeremy996]

6 minutes ago, ThreePointFive said:

I don't hate that. Any more photos?

The Magic Mushroom ones are renders, the black one is real, posted by Ineos on Australia Day. (We are never going to be able to fit those in the UK; fails even the workaround of being a 'winch bumper')

[L19MUD]

They do look substantially better with the bull bar but agree we will never get those in the UK legally. 

[Bowie69]

Yup, much better.

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, jeremy996 said:

The Magic Mushroom ones are renders, the black one is real, posted by Ineos on Australia Day. (We are never going to be able to fit those in the UK; fails even the workaround of being a 'winch bumper')

Should be ok. Bull bars aren’t illegal in the U.K.  I know there is the thing on the .gov site about post 2007. But there is more to it than that and it isn’t a blanket ban on them. 
 

It’d be more about if anyone is importing the bumpers. 

[jeremy996]

1 hour ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Should be ok. Bull bars aren’t illegal in the U.K.  I know there is the thing on the .gov site about post 2007. But there is more to it than that and it isn’t a blanket ban on them. 
 

It’d be more about if anyone is importing the bumpers. 

It's more nuanced than that. There is no such thing as a type approved bull/Roo/whatever bar made of metal in the UK, winch bars are exempt; the 'necessary' function trumps the need to be squishy to pedestrians. As the Grenadier has a compliant winch mount, I would not want to be the person arguing with the authorities that my shiny add on bar was legal. Once you have had the accident, your insurance company will dump you to face the music.

Edited February 2, 2023 by jeremy996
change 'allowed' for 'exempt' - terminology is important!

[landroversforever]

4 hours ago, jeremy996 said:

It's more nuanced than that. There is no such thing as a type approved bull/Roo/whatever bar made of metal in the UK, winch bars are exempt; the 'necessary' function trumps the need to be squishy to pedestrians. As the Grenadier has a compliant winch mount, I would not want to be the person arguing with the authorities that my shiny add on bar was legal. Once you have had the accident, your insurance company will dump you to face the music.

That’s what I was thinking, the bill bar side of it seems to add onto the standard bumper rather than being a bar/winch mount all in one hit. 

[Snagger]

11 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Should be ok. Bull bars aren’t illegal in the U.K.  I know there is the thing on the .gov site about post 2007. But there is more to it than that and it isn’t a blanket ban on them. 
 

It’d be more about if anyone is importing the bumpers. 

I thought there was a cut off date where vehicles built prior had no restrictions while those made after had to use pedestrian-friendly versions which were foam coated and much more deformable.  Both attract a premium increase on insurance cover and are notifiable accessories.  I can’t see how a declared bullbar gives any insurance company wiggle room to run away from a claim if the vehicle met roadworthy standards, including the type of bullbar.

[Chicken Drumstick]

As said. The info on the .gov site is a bit vague and incomplete. 
 

 

The first line is very clear. They are not illegal. This is the key take away. 
 

I also don’t believe insurance companies can “dump you either”. My insurance company happily had a bull added at no cost and shows on the policy documents. 
 

The last paragraph is interesting. On face value if you take it as written. It would be illegal to sell a 2nd hand bull bar. That isn’t approved. Or even a bull bar for a quad bike. Clearly this isn’t the case which means there is far more detail behind this paragraph than is published here. I suspect it is more about new vehicles under type approval can not be sold with one fitted that isn’t approved, rather than a person fitting one to said vehicle after they have bought it. Hence why manufacturers no longer offer them as dealer fit accessories. 
 

If you Google, there are loads of companies selling and fitting bull bars to post 2007 vehicles in the U.K.  I doubt very much that they are all trading illegally. As many of the companies have been trading for decades. 
 

I also do not know if there is a legal definition of a bull bar. When does it become just a winch bumper or a heavy duty bumper for example?

[jeremy996]

In the UK, so long as you are not involved in an RTC it is unlikely that anyone will look at your vehicle hard enough to truly enforce the law. If you kill someone or create enough damage you can be certain that interested parties will examine you, your documents and your vehicle very carefully.

UK law is permissive; if something is not proscribed as illegal, you may assume you can do it, but other factors then come into play. There is a general presumption that you have a duty of care to those around you, there is statute law, case law and common law. 

Modern vehicles have to meet their crash tests to be allowed on the road; add anything that changes that crash performance and any adverse consequences will come back at you. If your unapproved, non-squishy bullbar kills your victim, where an approved one might have just maimed them, your insurance company will cover the losses, (as they have to), and then seek redress from you. Much like the situation with drunk drivers, insurance companies do not indemnify lawbreakers.

Summaries on Gov.uk are just summaries written for the general public; you need to read the actual statutes, the guidance, the decided cases and even then the Courts may chose a different winner, if they consider the conventional outcome to be perverse. 

In a previous career, I would have been the one sanctioning the payment of damages and engaging legal counsel to bankrupt the offending policyholder. I will not have an unapproved bar on the front of my vehicle, it is a risk I am not willing to take. YMMV

[Chicken Drumstick]

34 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

In the UK, so long as you are not involved in an RTC it is unlikely that anyone will look at your vehicle hard enough to truly enforce the law. If you kill someone or create enough damage you can be certain that interested parties will examine you, your documents and your vehicle very carefully.

UK law is permissive; if something is not proscribed as illegal, you may assume you can do it, but other factors then come into play. There is a general presumption that you have a duty of care to those around you, there is statute law, case law and common law. 

Modern vehicles have to meet their crash tests to be allowed on the road; add anything that changes that crash performance and any adverse consequences will come back at you. If your unapproved, non-squishy bullbar kills your victim, where an approved one might have just maimed them, your insurance company will cover the losses, (as they have to), and then seek redress from you. Much like the situation with drunk drivers, insurance companies do not indemnify lawbreakers.

Summaries on Gov.uk are just summaries written for the general public; you need to read the actual statutes, the guidance, the decided cases and even then the Courts may chose a different winner, if they consider the conventional outcome to be perverse. 

In a previous career, I would have been the one sanctioning the payment of damages and engaging legal counsel to bankrupt the offending policyholder. I will not have an unapproved bar on the front of my vehicle, it is a risk I am not willing to take. YMMV

I'm not sure I agree. An insurance company can't say they will cover a specific item and even document it on your policies, then turn around and say they won't after an accident or claim. That isn't how things work.

You can change lots of things on a car after you have bought it. No car maker sells a vehicle on extreme mud terrain remould tyres, which will impact stopping distances in the wet or dry. As they would not be part of the type approval for the vehicle. But it is perfectly legal to fit them the moment you roll off the dealers forecourt. And I do not believe anyone would be prosecuted for having them fitted to a vehicle, even if involved in an RTC where they could have stopped quicker on a different tyre.

Also worth noting, the .gov site makes no mentioned to the fitting or use of a bullbar, the only mention is to "selling". Again, I suspect this is a rather key piece of information. Meaning that even selling them for off road use would be illegal, just a like a restricted item such as a firearm. Clearly reality differs as there are loads of companies "selling" bullbars, which would be the illegal bit. If this was true, they would be simple open and shut cases to prosecute all of these companies selling bullbars.

I very much suspect the restriction is to new vehicles ony being supplied with a bullbar that doesn't meet approval standard. If you wish to buy and fit one afterwards it is perfectly fine (even if not recommended), all you need to do is inform you insurance.

[jeremy996]

2 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I'm not sure I agree. An insurance company can't say they will cover a specific item and even document it on your policies, then turn around and say they won't after an accident or claim. That isn't how things work.

You can change lots of things on a car after you have bought it. No car maker sells a vehicle on extreme mud terrain remould tyres, which will impact stopping distances in the wet or dry. As they would not be part of the type approval for the vehicle. But it is perfectly legal to fit them the moment you roll off the dealers forecourt. And I do not believe anyone would be prosecuted for having them fitted to a vehicle, even if involved in an RTC where they could have stopped quicker on a different tyre.

Also worth noting, the .gov site makes no mentioned to the fitting or use of a bullbar, the only mention is to "selling". Again, I suspect this is a rather key piece of information. Meaning that even selling them for off road use would be illegal, just a like a restricted item such as a firearm. Clearly reality differs as there are loads of companies "selling" bullbars, which would be the illegal bit. If this was true, they would be simple open and shut cases to prosecute all of these companies selling bullbars.

I very much suspect the restriction is to new vehicles ony being supplied with a bullbar that doesn't meet approval standard. If you wish to buy and fit one afterwards it is perfectly fine (even if not recommended), all you need to do is inform you insurance.

Para 1: That will be down the actual wording on the policy and the additional schedules. If you have a modern vehicle, post 2006, you can only have an approved bar on the front, unless it is a winch bumper. The vehicle and its accessories have to meet roadworthiness compliance rules. The insurance company has no power or desire to police this until you make a claim. At which point it will depend on whether it is a small claim or a big one; a small one will probably go on the nod, so no issues. A big one will have investigation assets thrown at it, as it is a commercial decision. In the UK it is a grey area as the police/DVSA are under resourced and will only act where they have to. In Germany, no approval on your acccessories and you don't pass the equivalent of the MOT and your vehicle is banned from the road. We currently have mostly the same laws but much less testing; Jacob Rees-Mogg not withstanding.

Para 2: As a private owner you can change all kinds of things, but there is a general expectation that it will be roadworthy. Fitting items labelled "off-road use only" is prima facie evidence that it is not roadworthy. Fitting items that are e-marked suggest that it will be roadworthy. You pays your money and takes your choice, but after the RTC, you don't get to decide what is right or wrong. 

Para 3: Compliance is the issue; banning all sales of unapproved bars was a decision made to reduce the number of bars in circulation without having to inspect and inforce the nation's car park of 4x4s. 

You may remember the case of the LR110CSW owner who had an accident that killed some of his children, pre 2008. His LR was dissected in forensic detail; all kinds of infringements were brought out in Court, missmatched parts, poor workmanship, second hand parts, construction and use failures, the book was thrown at him.  

[Chicken Drumstick]

40 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

Para 1: That will be down the actual wording on the policy and the additional schedules. If you have a modern vehicle, post 2006, you can only have an approved bar on the front, unless it is a winch bumper. The vehicle and its accessories have to meet roadworthiness compliance rules. The insurance company has no power or desire to police this until you make a claim. At which point it will depend on whether it is a small claim or a big one; a small one will probably go on the nod, so no issues. A big one will have investigation assets thrown at it, as it is a commercial decision. In the UK it is a grey area as the police/DVSA are under resourced and will only act where they have to. In Germany, no approval on your acccessories and you don't pass the equivalent of the MOT and your vehicle is banned from the road. We currently have mostly the same laws but much less testing; Jacob Rees-Mogg not withstanding.

Para 2: As a private owner you can change all kinds of things, but there is a general expectation that it will be roadworthy. Fitting items labelled "off-road use only" is prima facie evidence that it is not roadworthy. Fitting items that are e-marked suggest that it will be roadworthy. You pays your money and takes your choice, but after the RTC, you don't get to decide what is right or wrong. 

Para 3: Compliance is the issue; banning all sales of unapproved bars was a decision made to reduce the number of bars in circulation without having to inspect and inforce the nation's car park of 4x4s. 

You may remember the case of the LR110CSW owner who had an accident that killed some of his children, pre 2008. His LR was dissected in forensic detail; all kinds of infringements were brought out in Court, missmatched parts, poor workmanship, second hand parts, construction and use failures, the book was thrown at him.  

That's fine and I don't want to re-rail this thread, so maybe we agree to differ. All I can say is, what you have posted is very interesting. But does not tally with what is on the .gov site.

[Snagger]

I can see what Jeremy is getting at.  The .gov.uk page screenshot above is not definitive - there is greater guidance on statute books than is on that website.  Furthermore, if you end up costing an insurance company a boat-load of cash, they will do everything they can, legal and probably otherwise, to claw that back from you.  If you installed a bar to a vehicle prior to 25May 2007, then the rules would appear pretty clear that as long as it complied with the contemporary C&U regs, it hills grandfather rights.  It seems equally clear that any bar bought after that date would only be legal with an approved bar.  
 

There may be a grey area over an older car being paired with an older bar post-2007, but would the onus be on the authorities to prove that the installation was conducted before the date or on the owner to prove that it was fitted prior?  Since the UK legal system is supposedly founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then I would assume the former, but there would be plenty of CCTV footage to make the authorities’ point.  Now, since the .Gov.UK wording is “sale” of these bars, it does rather lend leeway to owners as we can’t reasonably be expected to be legal experts.  Thus, any insurer with a policy agreement covering a vehicle with a declared bar should find it impossible to claim costs back from the owner - the vehicle is legal by the definitions in the government site and the insurer agreed to the contract with that item fitted.  But that won’t stop many unscrupulous insurers, which seems most of them, from threatening owners or even trying vexatious court proceedings.  I think it’d be unlawful if the costs were passed to the owner, but what would I know?  I have little faith in the legal system or insurance companies, and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised in this political climate to see legal decisions being made with heavy bias against any 4wd owner, bars or no bars.

For older vehicles, I think there is little practical legal risk.  For post 2007 vehicles, I’d heed Jeremy’s caution and ensure the bar was marked as approved.

[jeremy996]

31 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

That's fine and I don't want to re-rail this thread, so maybe we agree to differ. All I can say is, what you have posted is very interesting. But does not tally with what is on the .gov site.

My comments are essentially the same as this thread in 2021, 

I don't work for the Lloyds broker anymore, but I am friendly with the claims management litigators at one of the successor companies and their process follows the money as I laid out. It is a condition of your policy that your insured vehicle on the road is roadworthy, as defined by a soup of statute, case and common law. If it is not roadworthy, then it is not insured. Whether the eventual loss falls on the insurance company or the client depends on the Insurance Ombudsman and the Courts, but you really do not want to be the poor sod looking at personal bankrupcy and a term doing porridge, as it will take decades to be resolved.

Ignorance of the law, even if it is bloody complicated, is not a defence and the .gov.uk web page is nowhere near a full statement of it.

[jeremy996]

A new communication from Ineos, in my inbox at 13:13. There is a YouTube link included in the e-mail I have added here.

 

view.grenadier.ineos.com.pdf

https://youtu.be/xB8457Fidjo

Back in the days of Austin Rover, (ARG!), delivering unfinished vehicles to dealers was common practise - I picked up some good overtime sorting them out!

[Snagger]

8 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

. It is a condition of your policy that your insured vehicle on the road is roadworthy, as defined by a soup of statute, case and common law. If it is not roadworthy, then it is not insured. Whether the eventual loss falls on the insurance company or the client depends on the Insurance Ombudsman and the Courts, but you really do not want to be the poor sod looking at personal bankrupcy and a term doing porridge, as it will take decades to be resolved.

Ignorance of the law, even if it is bloody complicated, is not a defence and the .gov.uk web page is nowhere near a full statement of it.

Those first two sentences are critical, and frankly, entirely reasonable.  A very high proportion of drivers, in the UK and everywhere else, seem incapable of understanding that and think they only have to scrape through the MoT standard one day per year and cannot see the repercussions in safety, legal or financial terms of neglecting their maintenance.

As for the part following that, I have seen a friend’s life ruined by being on the wrong side of an insurance company following a write off, even though nobody was harmed at all.  Get accused of misleading insurance companies and you end up on a fraud database, barring you from most insurance, credit and a lot of other financial services.  There are probably other penalties too, and that can all happen without a hearing or trial.  That is bad, how much ability they have to wreck someone’s life without redress or independent scrutiny.  Naturally, the Ombudsman is as much use as a chocolate teapot, just like in other industries.

[Anderzander]

New CEO - wonder why that is. 
 

Probably for the different skill sets as it moves from project into production.

[jeremy996]

1 hour ago, Anderzander said:

New CEO - wonder why that is. 
 

Probably for the different skill sets as it moves from project into production.

Ineos is run a bit like a football team, as Sir Jim seems to collect a core of "safe hands" around him and to and send them out to business units as required. The previous incumbent, Dirk Heilman,  "Vice President of Engineering & Projects - INEOS Olefins & Polymers, Asia" now sorting out a Chinese joint venture for Ineos Corporate. Lynn Calder came from 2 years at Ineos Composites, and periods at Ineos Shale and Ineos Phenol, (according to her LinkedIn entry https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-calder-a6814b55/) 

 "Lynn Calder leads British off-road vehicle maker
20.12.2022 By Jan Rosenow

Ineos Automotive is getting its own CEO for the first time. Lynn Calder, a manager from parent company Ineos, takes over the post. The new COO comes from vehicle manufacturer Magna Steyr.
Lynn Calder has been working for the Ineos Group, a chemical company, for six years. Its founder Jim Ratcliffe launched Ineos Automotive.
Lynn Calder has been with Ineos Group, a chemical company, for six years. Its founder Jim Ratcliffe launched Ineos Automotive.
(Image: Ineos)

Car manufacturer Ineos Automotive has appointed Lynn Calder as chief executive officer (CEO). Her appointment completes Ineos Automotive's new, strengthened leadership team, marking the transition from development project to normal business operations, according to a press release.

In other personnel news, Hans-Peter Pessler, a former senior executive at Magna Steyr, which helped develop the Ineos Grenadier off-road vehicle, joins the company as COO. He is responsible for all technical and operational areas. Phillippe Steyer remains president of Ineos Automotive SAS, responsible for manufacturing, safety, health and environmental management, and supply chain.

Ashley Reed, Chief Executive Officer of Ineos Automotive Limited, says: "We are committed to establishing a long-term presence in the automotive sector. In managing the design program and overseeing the production build, the team has done a great job. Now, as the company transitions into full operations, Lynn Calder and Hans-Peter Pessler will lead the next phase in the company's development."

"It's an exciting time to take the reins," adds Lynn Calder. "The team and Grenadier have already come a long way. And yet, we are just at the beginning of building a global automotive company. I enjoy taking on challenges, and given the ambitious plans for the future, I'm looking forward to the adventures ahead."

Edited February 3, 2023 by jeremy996
LinkedIn stuff

[Retroanaconda]

Had a poke around one today. Thoughts and observations are:

- seems well built, as much as one can tell in a showroom.

- good ground clearance underneath, chassis and axles all looks very HD

- the front bumper is hideous, though it makes as useful step/seat.

- there are radiators/coolers in front of both front wheels, similar to the new Defender.

- good driving position and seems comfy, but don’t like the dash in the centre.

- it’s massive, as wide as and 400kg heavier than my L663 Defender 110 

- very little legroom in the station wagon second row, the Belstaff editions have much more but are much more expensive.

- standard ones are N1 and subject to commercial speed limits (too heavy to be a dual purpose vehicle like most LRs), but importantly any with seats and windows in the back will be treated as cars by HMRC for BiK purposes.

I did like it, and if it was cheaper I’d be seriously contemplating one. As it is I’ve got a test drive arranged for a month or so’s time so looking forward to that.

[Retroanaconda]

[ThreePointFive]

Excellent pictures.

Are those DSC/ESC buttons in the shapes that look like cup holders?

[jeremy996]

The first of the Car Media reviews are in, from Top Gear, March 2023, photographed in the US. They gave it 7/10, the new Defender got 9/10.