| pro4nut |
12-02-2010 05:34 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8rad
(Post 343421)
By that logic how would any manufacturer be able to produce new kits with 90% new parts and expect to turn a profit? Besides, with the CAT SX2(big bore shocks) replacing the SX on store shelves it would have been cost effective to put the SX threaded shocks on the Cougar S1 because the tooling is already in place. It really does not matter to me because I have a spare set of SX threaded shocks I can use if I choose to get the S1.
I am just being devils advocate because I am enjoying this discussion.:D
|
Enjoying it as well!
Volume of production changes the efective cost of production. Going back years i worked for a small uk company making models, now the tooling cost for making a kit in plastic at that time was £10k and the price at pos for the kit was £20. We needed to sell 500 kits to pay for the mould but that assumes a 100% profit. Actual business profit margin was 10% and we at the time were a manufacturer retailer so we didn't have to pay someone else to sell our goods.
So we actually needed to sell 5000 units to cover the initial tooling cost.
Often we would manufacture a new kit which actuallly used another model as its base and had cast components to make it into something else. Then the only start up cost was new packaging and tooling for white metal casting at £200 a mould.
The tooling is in place for the existing shocks however these shocks have more parts and more operations required in machining increasing cost of manufacture = more expensive than using 'the old school' shocks.
Also, and i could be wrong the big bores are included with both versions of the sx2, so the shocks on the current sx may well now be out of production so little tooling advantage would be gained.
Thats enough for me |
Schumacher
(http://www.oople.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)