cost of production

[Beeman]

I'd be willing to start on design. I don't think money has to be an issue at the beginning.

I think what has to happen is find people who are willing to invest (but not necessarily investing right away), and start with that small core group of people in an advisory discussion group (closed to public) with the intent of building a new machine. Once the concepts and market direction are agreed upon, a design concept can follow. Once the design is approved, money to build the prototype would then need to follow. Having said that... who's in?

[azz7772]

I'd be willing to start on design. I don't think money has to be an issue at the beginning.

I think what has to happen is find people who are willing to invest (but not necessarily investing right away), and start with that small core group of people in an advisory discussion group (closed to public) with the intent of building a new machine. Once the concepts and market direction are agreed upon, a design concept can follow. Once the design is approved, money to build the prototype would then need to follow. Having said that... who's in?

I am interested what do you think is a fair amount per person to begin the process I guess it would depend on the number of interested parties and then a discussion on what type of machine to design and prototype and the cost of the first build.also where to build it and what resources we can pool together.

[mudNmallards]

Impressive BW6, its pretty clear to me you are a part of the “been there-done that” crowd and many of your points line up very well with the discussion points our little group has raised. If you wouldn’t mind, at a point in the future I would like to take this offline with you for a more detailed discussion regarding your experience in this area.

One of the key points discussed on our end was the “new” design issue. (this goes inline with Beeman’s comments above) In a more simple term, not so much the “design” being new ( I see little wrong with the current design as far as compactness, appearance and basic functionality in the AATV world.) but the functionality and usage bringing a “value add” to the customer. If one looks at many of the threads here and goes to the OEM websites to see the pictures of the units and whatever options are available ( and get quotes like I am doing)- its obvious that anyone can “upgrade” them with a bigger engine, transmission, tires or whatever to make it a little stronger, faster, swim and whatnot. To me that’s not as much a design improvement as it is an enhancement of a current design or function.

Here is where I’m different than the generic market so I’m playing customer. The only difference is that I have had the opportunity to use and manage these vehicles in environments ranging from the deserts of Saudi and the UAE to the frozen wastelands in Russia and China and some of the stans where their unique characteristics in those environments make them the best choice rather that the average gator, mule or quad which are over here by the thousands. So, I have made the “informed” decision to purchase an AATV and nothing else is being considered. The other point is that I have been trail riding all my life and already own jeeps, quads and motorcycles.

If the above were not the case and I was John customer off the block, it would be difficult to almost impossible to even get me to consider buying one. Heres why. The first thing that hit me was the outrageous price tag of the new baseline models. You can buy a brand new car for less than many of these units. (I’ll use one of the Argo quotes I got- with tracks, winch, guard, ROPS and it was the 750 HDI) That unit would cost me more than I paid for 2 Yamaha trail bikes, 1 Honda 4 wheeler and a used CJ-7 combined. Another note was that on top of all that I will have to pay almost $700 shipping to a dock facility and take it home from there and do all the initial servicing, charge the battery etc.
When mommy and daddy ( who are on a budget) are considering a family purchase or something for little Jimmy to play with- that’s a significant impact on a family budget when other options are substantially cheaper. In any market analysis, the specialty or niche customer is not a part of the consideration because he/she already has the “bug” and they are going to have their dirt race car, jacked up truck/jeep or buy a project whatever to build up in their shop or (insert personal preference here) even if they sacrifice somewhere else to make it happen. Statistically speaking, that group will always be the minority in any type of market.

Then there is availability. Look in the yellow pages. Count the number of bike and 4 wheeler dealerships in yourtown USA, Ca or wherever. Next look at the number of AATV sellers. A big part of the purchase and decision process is the family outing where they go to the showroom, sit on it, look at it, check it for fit, features and basically do the “hands on” method of decision making. Its hard to get that level of excitement and information to make a purchase based on a sales brochure and a youtube video or anything else that cannot be measured with the full range of human senses.

Then there is service after the sale. The average yuppie is technically challenged and it would probably be dangerous to put a wrench in his hand. Also, its easier and faster for daddy to trailer it and take it to the shop and pay the bill rather than order everything, wait for it to come in and then fix it. (all the while junior is in the background crying because he wants to play with his toy) Again, this doesn’t apply to that niche customer who does this and looks forward to doing it but they are always the minority.
Then there is the ultimate marketing tool. The peer market. What is everyone else in the community using? If everyone else is riding 4 wheelers and/or bikes- that’s going to probably dictate the first or second choice in the decision making process as to what to focus on. Then there is the added benefit of “word of mouth” where little Jimmy’s mommy and daddy can talk to little John’s mommy and daddy to see how their whatever works and maybe take it for a test drive.

That brings up the oldest problem in the book. How do you get that level of market penetration when the majority of your potential customers have so many other options that will suit their needs just fine and almost all of them have substantially cheaper price tags and right down the street. Unless there is an investor with several million dollars for market advertising or the unit somehow becomes the focus of a major motion picture or TV show that’s difficult to do especially when all there is to really sell is “fun” and the market is already saturated with “fun” products at about a 3rd of the cost. This goes back to Beeman’s most perfect statement “jack of all trades but master of none”. (its like he literally read my mind because I used that exact phrase the other night discussing this little project we are considering)

Yeah they float and swim but if the desired usage is fishing, a good jon boat and motor does all those things better, faster and is more fit for purpose. It’s the same with 4 wheeling. Many like the “speed” and as far as overall riding trails go- any quad will go about 75% of the places the AATV will which is where the “average person” ( who is the major purchaser in demographics) is going to go. I would personally try to go “where no vehicle has gone before” and I go looking for places to get stuck in and/or put the vehicle through a torture test but then again I’m in that small minority niche market. The final nail in the coffin is that when you put figures to paper and add them up- you can buy that (new mind you) jon boat/motor/trailer and 4 wheeler and dirt bike for less than the cost of some of these new machines. ( I and several others did that exact thing using 2 of my quotes averaged as a baseline because we all live all over the US and Canada and we wanted several different views based on somewhat of a national average rather than just a single market type)

Anyone who has any interest or desire to start any business has to consider this first and foremost because without a strong market presence and selling point(s) that fit the needs or wants of the customer base you simply will not make the money to survive. The first question in any business endeavor is “do I proceed or not” and that’s always based in the market analysis.

What our consensus was to focus on the utility aspect of these vehicles. Basically a design rooted in the recreational market but with specific design capabilities that could compete with lawn mowers, the small homeowner tractors and similar vehicles. Our logic was pretty simple. I’ll throw it out there for any comments anyone wants to share.
We didn’t think it realistic to even try to build a model with the baseline characteristics that make AATV’s what they are to compete pricewise with the quad market.
If we focused on the “better, stronger, faster” aspect, that is nothing more than whats already out there so there is no real improvement because these vehicles as a whole already meet that criteria. Additionally, if this board is any indication, that’s already being done on a grand scale by both individual owners and manufacturers with a high level of success. Not to mention that since there is really no “new technology” to make something radically different and the majority of the components would be “off the shelf” already- it wouldn’t take but 1 generation before every other manufacturer would incorporate ( or have the ability to) anything we would do so you are back to square one where all units are basically the same again. (granted it’s a given that that is going to happen anyway no matter what product is put on any given market. All competitors buy their competitions products, test them and tear them down to see what new ideas they can use and back engineer them.)

When everything was tabled what remained was the multi-purpose market where the selling points could focus on versatility and multiple uses to replace several types of equipment with the added benefit of recreational use. I see some manufacturers already doing this and I think from a business perspective that’s the way to go. I don’t see any reason why an AATV could not be built where it would accept mower decks/yard vacs and basically any 3 point hitch accessory. An approach like this with multiple light equipment usages combined with recreational capability would put the product in several markets thus increasing exposure and give potential customers more to think about regarding the justification for such a purchase. For those who are into Jeep history, Jeep tried this with limited success right after WWII and there are videos of Jeeps pulling plows and other things out there. They didn’t push it very hard and the Jeep had its military reputation so it was hard for the public to think of it as a potential replacement for a tractor in many applications. I’m sure there will be some of the same cautious apprehension with an AATV because its radically different than the traditional light utility vehicles but this is a different society more open to change than it was 60 years ago. Plus an 8 wheel AATV might appeal to the more “cool conscious” suburbanite than having than having a light tractor for their garden.

Our final decision was based on 2 things really. It’s a drill down for the bigger models for industrial/military applications we may be contracted to design should the project go forth. The other is simply making a marketable product that produces a profit. Its not about (at least for us) building the next worlds greatest AATV because they are already out there. Every manufacturer I’ve looked at makes a pretty stout reliable machine that has been field proven to perform and perform very well. One model may have more bells or a special thing it does better than another but that’s nothing more than variations of a theme.

From purely a business perspective I believe it would be financial suicide to bring any product to a market where established name brands that are proven heavy hitters exist unless you had either a “new and improved” product or some form of lateral expansion where it would be more versatile and attract non traditional buyers in other markets. I know there is really no “secret” new technology out there and there is nothing we could design that would be significantly different than the design teams at the established firms have either already thought about or may already be in the planning stages of. Every manufacturer currently out there could decide today to put a bigger power plant, larger transmission, thicker body, propeller and even wings on it to make it fly and have a prototype ready in a few months. The question is would the market accept the cost and buy it. In my mind, that only leaves some form of lateral expansion based in expansion of versatility and usage- even if it reduces some of the recreational aspect functionality.

I know to the more traditional users that probably sounds like blasphemy and I would have to concede that to a point it is. I also know that for any business (especially a new one) to survive it must have a positive monthly cash flow that covers all overhead and expenses and makes a growth focused profit annually to expand and adapt to the respective market and survive economic downturns or its life expectancy will be measured in weeks or months. In order to accomplish that it must generate sales in enough volume and profit margin per unit and on an upward curve. The company has to grow. In order to accomplish that it must have constant market penetration and appeal to people in a way that makes them want to buy the product over everything else out there. In order to accomplish that a company simply has to meet the needs of a potential buyer and be at a price they can justify in their budget. It all goes back to marketing and infrastructure. Most buyers (excluding the niche buyers like myself and probably most of the “informed” AATV world) research into buying begins and ends with whatever is available locally. Most agricultural outlets have some model of 4 wheeler there. I see no reason why there couldn’t be an 8 wheeler with a plow or mower deck attached sitting right beside it.

[azz7772]

I think the ATV and utv and aatv markets will always be separated. they are all to different to make one machine that can effectively combine all three. on that note a group of people designing, building, and marketing a new machine ...... It would have to be part time for all involved which is why it would make it safer for a group of people to take a chance on trying it.if someone just quit their job and tried this and hope to make profit and put bread on the table would be crazy.
I believe a person can improve on what there is out there and I have some sound ideas. I think it will always be a nich market but there is a pretty big nich, there is us, oil and gas, geologists, surveying,power companies and that's just off the top of my head. As far as marketing goes I think direct marketing targeting just our nich markets would be first to make it affordable. If we make the right machine in the right price range we could get our piece of the pie in our nich market

[mudNmallards]

I am interested what do you think is a fair amount per person to begin the process I guess it would depend on the number of interested parties and then a discussion on what type of machine to design and prototype and the cost of the first build.also where to build it and what resources we can pool together.

I realize your question was not specifically directed toward me but I can assist you with that. ( this is a large part of what I do in the real world)
I’ll give you the short answer but if you would like more detail or even sterilized documents to use as a go by should you decide to move forward I’ll be happy to help you out.
Assuming you are building your prototype from ground zero scratch, you can estimate 50-100 thousand dollars. That’s a large variance that can be cut substantially depending on what resources you have available. For this post I’m building in the assumption you have nothing so anything you have will start knocking it down. Heres a quickie breakdown of that figure.

This is also based on the assumption that this is something you intend to mass produce in a production environment rather than a custom shop that turns out “made to order” devices.

The other assumption is that rather than “guessing” and throwing parts together until something accidentally works you want to put effort in producing a prototype that has a reasonable chance of meeting all desired performance goals on its first testing exercise.

Unit construction- Assuming you build a wood/metal frame and body for a prototype and aggregate component costs and custom machining to a simple proof of concept model- you are looking about 30-35k. ( you could massage that by any number of ways depending on engine size, transmission type and whether you have a body from some existing unit to play with) You know in advance you will break some things, some ideas will not work even though they looked good on paper and some things will not fit. There is a lot of trial and error in assembling any prototype.

Labor- theres about 20k. Someone has to actually build it. If you don’t have people with the appropriate skills willing to donate time and the equipment necessary then you have to pay someone to do it who has the equipment. My advice is to make sure your team has these people and at least one of them has a fab or machine shop then you can strike this figure but in any case, for planning purposes only, keep it in the initial estimate because to make your money back you have to capture all costs whether you paid it or not.

Research- About another 20k. Someone is going to have to contact numerous vendors, size parts, spec out parts, make sure all parts play well together and that someone must have the technical skills in that area. Again, make sure you have this skill set on your team and you can greatly reduce this figure. Trust me, there is a TON of labor hours and hair pulling in this process. Personally, it’s the one I dread the most because it will turn your brain to mush.

Design-Heres the remainder- It’s a given that you cannot build an “idea”- you can only build against the physical 3 dimensional model of the design. This is also chocked full of experiments to see if the design will work under load. After you go through your brainstorming and come up with your dream sheet with all the qualities you want your model to have- someone has to put it to CAD and SolidWorks. Otherwise, it cannot be farmed out for mass production. This is going to require the services of an engineer who specializes in statics and properties of materials to determine the correct gauges, dimensions, stress points and all that working hand in hand with a CAD operator who puts it into a builders print. Figure about 80 hours of engineering review and about 160 hours for all the builders prints. Engineers generally charge about 100 per hour for this and a good CAD operator is about 40 ph.
The beginning design process.

Team- This is the most important step but there is more than one way to do this. Is this team just potential financier? Is it just the dream team to come up with the design? Is it the team to actually build the prototype? Is it the team you intend to start production with? That has to be answered first because that determines the skills you will need to complete that step. That’s important financially because if your end goal is to market a product, at some point you will need all of them so whatever you don’t have you will have to add to or simply pay for.

The idea- You cannot build an idea- you can only build a machine. The idea must first start with a “brown paper” type process where you decide everything you want this machine to be able to do. That process is followed by a rough sketch with tangible deliverables such as speed, torque, weight, dimension and whatever other performance factors you want. Then you need to calculate the components that will deliver said performance and fit them into your design. The engineering review reviews that and you stay in that circle until something workable comes out on paper.

The build- After you have a print and ordered the materials you have to build it. You either have the facility, tools and equipment or you don’t. If you don’t- you gotta get it.
Sales/marketing/Support- you have your prototype and its been tested. It works. Now you have to develop the means to sell and support it. At this point is also where you start whatever business and business plan to manufacture it. (assuming you do not already own a production facility)

If you accomplish all that you can take your prototype, business/marketing plan and whatever monies you have for people investing it to most banks and secure financing.
Granted this is the simplified 1 minute version of what in reality is 5000 pages of detailed information but for a conceptual outline, that would get you started in the right direction with a reasonable chance of success. If you ( or anyone else) desires more detailed information, I’ll try to help out any way I can because I’m pro business and love to see people start successful ventures.

[Bw6]

Well Mudnmall, you may just win the longest post award! Like a friend of mine used to say: "I wouldn't want to pay you by the word".

However, you make some good points and seem like you've really dug deep on this project.

My take, is when you take a single purpose machine and try and make it multi-purpose or function, it's always a compromise. It ends up doing nothing really well. Argo is always trying to re-invent itself. When UTV's took some of their market share they called their 8x8 an UTV, when compact tractors became popular they called it a Tractor, and show videos of it pulling various farm implements etc., however just saying it doesn't make it so.

By building on the 4x4 platform your starting with a product that has $1,000,000's in R&D spent on it, why not cash in on this. An ATV platform has many advantages, but it doesn't float.

I believe a new market needs to be created for an Amphibious ATV, not an AATV, but a 4x4 that is amphibious.

I'm old enough to remember when motorcycles had a bad rep., black leather jackets, MC gangs, colors, etc. Then Honda came out with "You meet some of the nicest people on a Honda" just brilliant! It changed the industry starting with small scooters, trail 90's, etc. A similar approach is needed.

Bombardier created a market where one never existed before. In the late 60's they were the first to produce a PWC, the "Seadoo". When I first saw it I said "What's That"! They didn't know how to market it, and after a couple of years they left it. However in the early 70's Kawasaki came up with the Stand Up, and the rest is history, everyone makes one now.

[azz7772]

Well Mudnmall, you may just win the longest post award! Like a friend of mine used to say: "I wouldn't want to pay you by the word".

However, you make some good points and seem like you've really dug deep on this project.

My take, is when you take a single purpose machine and try and make it multi-purpose or function, it's always a compromise. It ends up doing nothing really well. Argo is always trying to re-invent itself. When UTV's took some of their market share they called their 8x8 an UTV, when compact tractors became popular they called it a Tractor, and show videos of it pulling various farm implements etc., however just saying it doesn't make it so.

By building on the 4x4 platform your starting with a product that has $1,000,000's in R&D spent on it, why not cash in on this. An ATV platform has many advantages, but it doesn't float.

I believe a new market needs to be created for an Amphibious ATV, not an AATV, but a 4x4 that is amphibious.

I'm old enough to remember when motorcycles had a bad rep., black leather jackets, MC gangs, colors, etc. Then Honda came out with "You meet some of the nicest people on a Honda" just brilliant! It changed the industry starting with small scooters, trail 90's, etc. A similar approach is needed.

Bombardier created a market where one never existed before. In the late 60's they were the first to produce a PWC, the "Seadoo". When I first saw it I said "What's That"! They didn't know how to market it, and after a couple of years they left it. However in the early 70's Kawasaki came up with the Stand Up, and the rest is history, everyone makes one now.

the quad that floats is done but you never see them around

Gibbs Technologies

[Bw6]

Yes, we all know about Mr. Gibbs design, the reason you don't see them around is they sell for over $50,000, but if they were $10,000 you'd see a lot more. Anything can be done if you throw enough money at it, but that's not the design I was thinking about.

[mudNmallards]

I think the ATV and utv and aatv markets will always be separated. they are all to different to make one machine that can effectively combine all three. on that note a group of people designing, building, and marketing a new machine ...... It would have to be part time for all involved which is why it would make it safer for a group of people to take a chance on trying it.if someone just quit their job and tried this and hope to make profit and put bread on the table would be crazy.
I believe a person can improve on what there is out there and I have some sound ideas. I think it will always be a nich market but there is a pretty big nich, there is us, oil and gas, geologists, surveying,power companies and that's just off the top of my head. As far as marketing goes I think direct marketing targeting just our nich markets would be first to make it affordable. If we make the right machine in the right price range we could get our piece of the pie in our nich market

Let me address some of your points. I work mainly in oil/gas, power, mining/minerals and machining/manufacturing and have been on brown/remote sites all over the world for the last 10 years. I not only see whats there every working day of my life but I normally do the procurement of them. (I’m at the approving level) Everything has to have a cost and value justification. Its easy to justify the Argos ( don’t know why but they seem to be the predominant brand overseas) in cases where vehicles have to go in mine leech fields or in ungraded areas where there is more moon dust than developed roads and even in snow. The track and multi wheel drive capability sells them for those applications. That said there are maybe 1 AATV to every 30 quads or trucks. (I’m including gators and mules in the quad category) I’ve heard the same answer so many times I quit putting in the requests. The mules are cheaper so for maintenance to throw tools in and scoot to the job and the cost of them is right at the same price I get the Toyota Hilux ( not sold in the US) which is a 4wd pick up for so I’m told to buy the truck. The prices are so close to the full truck that they get passed over. All you have to do to prove my point is to visit any remote site and count the number/type of ATV’s that are there.

A company can survive in a niche market but it will never make much money.

On your point regarding improvements- I do not doubt for a skinny second that you have 100 intelligent workable improvement ideas and if we polled this board we could fine a hundred thousand all equally workable and doable. Based on the technical posts I am reading there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind of that- if this board is nothing else, it’s a wealth of knowledge and experience. That’s not going to expand a market and sell more units. (ok, maybe by a few single digits) The reason its not is because these vehicles have been in the market for 40 odd years and they have been improved over the generations. They have a name and recognition. They have their niche and are well entrenched in it. Yet compared to the quad market ( the Hondas, Kaws, Yams, Polaris etc) they are so small to the point they are statistically insignificant. If you want to falsify my observation ( which is the textbook way to prove anything) ask the question why every major ATV manufacturer does not have an AATV on their production line. They don’t because their market surveys tell them the money isn’t there. What these AATVs do NOT have is the versatility to make them desirable to a large enough market base to make good amounts of money for the investors. The only way to enlarge that small niche market is to have something that something else doesn’t have or to be versatile over multiple markets. Does anyone really think the Hondas and kawasakis of the world have not seen and investigated these ideas? Why does anyone think the Mule became Kaws main utility vehicle instead of an AATV. They did surveys and market analyses and gave the market what it WANTED. That’s why I say that “improving” the current performance of already proven machines wont expand the market because if the mass market doesn’t buy it at 30mph and will go through a mud bog that’s knee deep- it wont be impressed if it goes 40 mph and goes through waist deep mud either. You have to sell functionality in areas people want or need.

On your point of the separation of the ATV,UTV and AATV markets, that’s an excellent discussion point I would like to tap further into your knowledge in. From my perspective I don’t see that as something that cannot be overcome. There will always be the “specialists’ who desire a certain quality such as speed, water flotation or whatever and that’s their sole decision criteria. That will never change but once again, they are the minority. The majority are going to employ the 80-20 rule.

My personal thought would be to take a page out of Jeep. They mainline the Wrangler ( which is a car that just looks like a jeep) but offer the Rubicon which is as close to the original CJ’s as you can get. I would have the more versatile “do whatever” vehicle for the masses to make my profit ( which would probably be more along the lines of a tractor wearing an AATV coat which is fine because the yuppies would never get further in the mud than plowing their garden after a rain but they “think” they accomplished something) and make a specialty model or two that’s a real performance enhanced AATV that would climb a 90 degree wall, pull skiers and hit 70 on the flat track.

Make no mistake, I’m as hard core mudder and rock crawler as there is and I respect these vehicles as they are currently on the market but now that I and my team are considering actually producing one I have to be realistic to what the market will allow.

[azz7772]

Yes, we all know about Mr. Gibbs design, the reason you don't see them around is they sell for over $50,000, but if they were $10,000 you'd see a lot more. Anything can be done if you throw enough money at it, but that's not the design I was thinking about.

That is exactly the problem making a good product affordable

[azz7772]

Let me address some of your points. I work mainly in oil/gas, power, mining/minerals and machining/manufacturing and have been on brown/remote sites all over the world for the last 10 years. I not only see whats there every working day of my life but I normally do the procurement of them. (I’m at the approving level) Everything has to have a cost and value justification. Its easy to justify the Argos ( don’t know why but they seem to be the predominant brand overseas) in cases where vehicles have to go in mine leech fields or in ungraded areas where there is more moon dust than developed roads and even in snow. The track and multi wheel drive capability sells them for those applications. That said there are maybe 1 AATV to every 30 quads or trucks. (I’m including gators and mules in the quad category) I’ve heard the same answer so many times I quit putting in the requests. The mules are cheaper so for maintenance to throw tools in and scoot to the job and the cost of them is right at the same price I get the Toyota Hilux ( not sold in the US) which is a 4wd pick up for so I’m told to buy the truck. The prices are so close to the full truck that they get passed over. All you have to do to prove my point is to visit any remote site and count the number/type of ATV’s that are there.

A company can survive in a niche market but it will never make much money.

On your point regarding improvements- I do not doubt for a skinny second that you have 100 intelligent workable improvement ideas and if we polled this board we could fine a hundred thousand all equally workable and doable. Based on the technical posts I am reading there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind of that- if this board is nothing else, it’s a wealth of knowledge and experience. That’s not going to expand a market and sell more units. (ok, maybe by a few single digits) The reason its not is because these vehicles have been in the market for 40 odd years and they have been improved over the generations. They have a name and recognition. They have their niche and are well entrenched in it. Yet compared to the quad market ( the Hondas, Kaws, Yams, Polaris etc) they are so small to the point they are statistically insignificant. If you want to falsify my observation ( which is the textbook way to prove anything) ask the question why every major ATV manufacturer does not have an AATV on their production line. They don’t because their market surveys tell them the money isn’t there. What these AATVs do NOT have is the versatility to make them desirable to a large enough market base to make good amounts of money for the investors. The only way to enlarge that small niche market is to have something that something else doesn’t have or to be versatile over multiple markets. Does anyone really think the Hondas and kawasakis of the world have not seen and investigated these ideas? Why does anyone think the Mule became Kaws main utility vehicle instead of an AATV. They did surveys and market analyses and gave the market what it WANTED. That’s why I say that “improving” the current performance of already proven machines wont expand the market because if the mass market doesn’t buy it at 30mph and will go through a mud bog that’s knee deep- it wont be impressed if it goes 40 mph and goes through waist deep mud either. You have to sell functionality in areas people want or need.

On your point of the separation of the ATV,UTV and AATV markets, that’s an excellent discussion point I would like to tap further into your knowledge in. From my perspective I don’t see that as something that cannot be overcome. There will always be the “specialists’ who desire a certain quality such as speed, water flotation or whatever and that’s their sole decision criteria. That will never change but once again, they are the minority. The majority are going to employ the 80-20 rule.

My personal thought would be to take a page out of Jeep. They mainline the Wrangler ( which is a car that just looks like a jeep) but offer the Rubicon which is as close to the original CJ’s as you can get. I would have the more versatile “do whatever” vehicle for the masses to make my profit ( which would probably be more along the lines of a tractor wearing an AATV coat which is fine because the yuppies would never get further in the mud than plowing their garden after a rain but they “think” they accomplished something) and make a specialty model or two that’s a real performance enhanced AATV that would climb a 90 degree wall, pull skiers and hit 70 on the flat track.

Make no mistake, I’m as hard core mudder and rock crawler as there is and I respect these vehicles as they are currently on the market but now that I and my team are considering actually producing one I have to be realistic to what the market will allow.

just a couple of my ideas ......... I think I have a way to eliminate the chain drives that could be made into a brand new designed vehicle or able to retro fit on existing machines as a kit.....and was thinking for the hydro units a person could have an amphib trailer that's also hydro powered just plug it into the back of your machine think there could be some uses for something like that.

[mudNmallards]

Well Mudnmall, you may just win the longest post award! Like a friend of mine used to say: "I wouldn't want to pay you by the word".

However, you make some good points and seem like you've really dug deep on this project.

My take, is when you take a single purpose machine and try and make it multi-purpose or function, it's always a compromise. It ends up doing nothing really well. Argo is always trying to re-invent itself. When UTV's took some of their market share they called their 8x8 an UTV, when compact tractors became popular they called it a Tractor, and show videos of it pulling various farm implements etc., however just saying it doesn't make it so.

By building on the 4x4 platform your starting with a product that has $1,000,000's in R&D spent on it, why not cash in on this. An ATV platform has many advantages, but it doesn't float.

I believe a new market needs to be created for an Amphibious ATV, not an AATV, but a 4x4 that is amphibious.

I'm old enough to remember when motorcycles had a bad rep., black leather jackets, MC gangs, colors, etc. Then Honda came out with "You meet some of the nicest people on a Honda" just brilliant! It changed the industry starting with small scooters, trail 90's, etc. A similar approach is needed.

Bombardier created a market where one never existed before. In the late 60's they were the first to produce a PWC, the "Seadoo". When I first saw it I said "What's That"! They didn't know how to market it, and after a couple of years they left it. However in the early 70's Kawasaki came up with the Stand Up, and the rest is history, everyone makes one now.

I’m sorry everything I write looks like a white paper. ( it goes to show I do a lot of process and procedure writing, LOL) I’ll make an effort to be much shorter but its often hard to get points and the mindset across on paper when the person is not in front of you. Clients also like long boring monologues that show them how much edjumication I has and they are getting value for their money.

I’m digging deep because engineering is what I do and if the industrial/military project comes to fruition then theres a lot of money on the table. The idea to drill it down for a recreational vehicle was mine and since 90% of it is going to be paid for on that project- it made sense to me to come here and pick peoples brains who have the vast experience to fill in the voids on the “private” project that we are kicking around as an offshoot. I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know and have enough common sense to seek out those who do and ask them.

I’m motivated and deeply involved because I see a very real doable opportunity with a substantial return on investment and that gets my full and undivided attention every time.
I take your posts to heart because I see where you have put substantial thought and probably experience into this as well. ( your words exude experience and keen insight from somewhere- it shows in the points you raise)

I’m kinda on the fence on the new market and your definition on the single purpose vehicle aspect. I view the AATV as a multi purpose vehicle by design. My boat would be a single purpose vehicle by my thought. ( I would have a hard time taking it 4 wheeling) By its design an AATV goes in water, land and mud. I really think that adding additional capabilities would be more of an “enhancement”.

I can see it immediately being a difficult sell because people are programmed for traditional views. That’s going to take some really good marketing professionals but if Michael Vick was able to recreate his image, I think its possible. The ‘what” and “how” is where I’m at now.

I see your points on the 4x4 and I agree amphibious is probably the key as well. I think to make a potential new AATV marketable in the water world- its capabilities need to be greatly enhanced.

I’m a long way right now from getting a PO and actually getting in the designing mode but when I do I’ll have a better idea regarding what it technically and monetarily feasible for this type of market. Until then I’m brainstorming and considering every thought presented so I would appreciate any insight you or anyone else might offer.

[mudNmallards]

just a couple of my ideas ......... I think I have a way to eliminate the chain drives that could be made into a brand new designed vehicle or able to retro fit on existing machines as a kit.....and was thinking for the hydro units a person could have an amphib trailer that's also hydro powered just plug it into the back of your machine think there could be some uses for something like that.

Apparently we are thinking along the same lines. I’m a hydraulics designer (started at Cat on that specialty) and Eaton is one of my major vendors and I spec out their stuff all the time. My first thought is that I wouldn’t use anything but hydraulic motors on each wheel. I know I could make one go 100mph and enough torque to pull a house off of the foundation.

I have never laid eyes or hands on that Hydrotraxx (I think that’s the hydraulic one) that I know of but I have to wonder why that design is not the unchallenged leader in performance. I could put multiple accessory loops on it and power just about anything from the same pump. I’ve searched the web for any type of technical info on those models and so far have not gotten much. If the project gets approved I imagine one of the team will buy one just to examine it. I cant say much more right now because I have not seen the motors and pumps along with their control circuit they are using. Just based on the comments on the thread devoted to them I wonder if that unit is not substantially under-engineered. Maybe they had to power it down because it might have more available power than the body and frame in their units could handle. I don’t know but I really intend to investigate the hydrostatic units on the market because that would be my first choice on speed, power, torque, overall weight and simplicity/reliability.

[Bw6]

That is exactly the problem making a good product affordable

I didn't say it was easy. But if you really look at Mr. Gibbs design(s), they are quite elegant, and he can line his corporate office walls with the associated patents. But it really is more of a PWC than an ATV. If I took that unprotected Quadski hull on some of the trails I go on, it wouldn't be amphibious very long. I also would have to carry a large chainsaw with me because its dimensions would severely limit it. Having said that if it ever goes into production, there are people who will buy it.

But that's not the design I was thinking of.

[Outdoorsy74]

Just FYI, in my case ( on the actual project) all I have been given thus far is an advance sheet with desired properties so thats not a whole lot to go on ( the actual marketing survey is just now beginning by the firm that contacted me so they have not even hashed out all the final qualities yet so I'm told so I cant really plan against a "dream" at this point)

That said, the gist of what I'm reading is that the intent of these machines is not just human conveyance over whatever terrain ( over here there are zillions of gators,mules and 4 wheelers that do that just fine and they can buy 2 or 3 of them for the price of some of the AATV models) The actual end purpose seems to be a new breed of industrial multi purpose machines with enhanced capabilities that can be readily adapted to specific "fit for purpose" uses. (seriously, one item on the dream sheet is an attachable outrigger and jib crane attachment in the body for field lifting)

There is a guy on Youtube that outfitted a terra Jet with a medium duty hydraulic bucket attachment. He then went on to build his own scratch version. A Max or Argo would need a decent frame to handle the stress of such off center weight transfer.