In a message dated Fri, 12 Jan 2001 2:33:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, Trevor
Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca> writes:
<< It could be argued that neither the Triumph car company
or the Triumph Motorcycle company have any real tangible
link to the pre-war company called Triumph. >>
True enough. But...
<< Around wartime, Triumph found itself with in dire straits with no upcoming
products, no materials, no funds, and so on and effectively folder.
About all it had was some public good will in the name, both in motorcycles
and in cars.
One group thought it could use the name to continue to
build motorcycles, and another group felt the name could
be used to sell cars.
So the "name" was split and sold to two different entities, and the two
Triumphs were born. >>
Uh, not quite. I don't have exact calendar dates, but the first "breakup," if
you will, began in 1932 when the bicycle side of Triumph was sold off. (Raleigh
still owns the name, along with the names of just about every other British
bicycle one can remember.) The motorcycle side was sold off in 1936. The car
manufacturing continued, albeit with a lot of struggling financially, until
World War II. I seem to remember the company first going into receivership in
'39 or so.
<< The pre-war Triumph and post-war Triumphs have remarkably little in common
except the name. >>
That's very true, but a lot of that was due to the fact that pretty much all of
the factory, spares and such was destroyed in the bombing of Coventry. By the
time Sir John Black engineered Standard's "takeover" of Triumph in 1945, there
literally wasn't much of anything left but the name and the memories.
When one contemplates Triumph's history, that nameplate might well be second
only to Jeep in terms of the number of different corporate structures under
which it existed. (Jeep, of course, has had various and sometimes tenuous
connections with Ford, American Bantam, Willys, Kaiser and American Motors,
with that last one leading to a temporary Renault connection and then to
Chrysler, who, in turn...well, I guess we all know the current story, huh? :-)
Triumph started out as Triumph, ended up as part of Standard after WWII, then
both names fell under the Leyland umbrella in 1961. Of course, Leyland merged
with BMC, and that went through any number of corporate permutations. Then
bring in Honda, then exit Honda as BMW buys the whole lot, then spin off Rover,
etc....
Hard to keep track of!
But in today's world, where the "largest" automobile maker in the US (and,
perhaps still, in the world) kills off the second oldest continuous nameplate
in automobile history, what room is there for the Triumph that we all remember?
Should BMW decide it could utilize the nameplate, I rather doubt it will be on
a range of "affordable" saloons and sporting machinery such as was the Triumph
range up through the 1970s...UNLESS they can somehow duplicate the success of
the Miata.
Arguably, no one admires the name Triumph on a car more than I (although I
assume I have many equals in that respect). But I'm just not sure it is any
more marketable in 2001 than is Hudson or Packard.
And I share Laura's fears over what a new "Spitfire" might look like? "Retro,"
as in the New Beetle? "In your face," (or "where can I get those drugs?") as in
Pontiac Aztec? Me? I'm still getting used to that restyle Michelotti did for
the '71 Mk.IV. :-)
--Andy Mace, speaking only for myself!
|