Exo Sports Cars Ltd - The OTHER rocket...

[The Management]

Following an open and frank exchange of views The Management has been requested by the Forum's Brand Owner to summarise and therefore posts as follows:

Apr 22, 2016 22:22:38 GMT nigel said:

The Summary:

Apr 13, 2016 22:24:51 GMT Stiggy said:

The Rocket kit car design rights and IP are owned by Mills Extreme Vehicles Ltd (MEV) who developed it then manufactured and sold it from 2007-2009.

MEV sold a licence to Smarts-R-Us Ltd to manufacture the Rocket, they ran into financial difficulties, ceased trading and formed Road Track Race Ltd, known as RTR. MEV agreed to transfer the Rocket manufacturing licence but RTR Ltd also ran into financial difficulties, ceased trading in March 2015 and formed Exo Sports Cras Ltd (ESC) in Jan 2015. ESC Ltd do not hold a licence to produce Rocket, hence the reason this forum does not support ESC.

MEV are not involved or associated with ESC in any way shape or form.

MEV sold a licence for Rocket in June 2015 to a large international firm who are well placed to distribute as they have offices in all major cities throughout the world. They commissioned MEV to design a new car (not to be sold as a kit) under the registered trade mark "exoleader".

MEV sold the tools and jigs for the original Rocket to Brimoto in Nov 2015.

Any further comments re RTR products should be posted in the tech section under the appropriate heading. Most topics have already been covered so please check before starting a new thread.

Owners of all kits manufactured by RTR are offered full support by MEV and this forum.

Let us simply apply a little K.I.S.S. - "keep it simple stupid" - and say what most have already worked out for themselves that:

 
Exo Sports Cars Ltd -

[li]offer unofficial, counterfeit-copies of the MEV Rocket.

[/li]
[li]attempt to give the impression of an uninterrupted longevity but refrain from informing customers of repeated business failures.[/li]
[li]with clever marketing attempt to give credence to their products being well developed and thoroughly tested.[/li]
[li]attempt, through whatever means possible, to suppress customer dissatisfaction.[/li]
[li]etc. etc. etc..
[/li][/ul][/font]
[/quote]
Having let this controversial subject run its natural course 'unmoderated' the thread is now locked and left as a 'stickie'  to this, the relevant forum board, for historical reference.

Details of the contributing parties' relevant posts that led to this summary have not been deleted but left for those who wish to read them.

We now request that having had an opportunity to participate, the community moves on. Let's enjoy what we have built and what we are to build in the future.


The Management  

 
N.B.  Should anyone object to this moderation please send a PM to The Management . Any further posts made on this forum about ESC - Exo Sports Cars Ltd shall be 'moderated' in the direction of the "Waste Paper Basket" immediately.

[skyquake]

So, SVE have just posted up some pictures of 'their' 'new' nose for the infamous 'SVE Rocket II,' on their Facebook thread.

www.facebook.com/Exo-Sports-Cars-Ltd-107442586012326/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a straightforward rip off of Stuart's new Exocet nose?

[mawdo81]

Imitation the sincerest form of flattery...

[nate78]

I for one think it looks very good haha

[BobN]

I am not sure if it suits the rocket.

[driver]

It doesn't suit the rocket nor the exocet. How are these guys getting away with copying mills designs?

[Deleted]

Me, I don't think it actually looks the same. So maybe all just a coincidence. No matter whatever these two companies do they are going to be similar in design as they are the same style cars. a bit of competition doesn't do anyone any harm...... look at all those lotus 7 style cars/manufacturers.

Ads

[nigel]

I don't know BobN its down to personal taste, but all I see is a simple 'photoshopped' image of what could be, with accompanied marketing spiel, from a fledgling company that just appears to copy others, I guess because it lacks innovation.

@adam I believe the deronda was the first exoskeleton rear/mid engine car to adopt the twin nostril style nose, back in 2002, but I might be wrong.

Mind you as mawdo81 says "Imitation the sincerest form of flattery...", me I always prefer an original, than a second rate copy every time.

nigel

[Deleted]

Just to be clear. I altered my post at the request of the owner of one of the companies/manufacturers. I agreed my post came across wrong. I was trying to say that in this industry there's a lot of cars that look the same and a bit of competition is healthy. God forbid I had a neutral opinion. For the record the nose cone in question in my opinion is awful. Doesn't suit the rocket. Some will love it. Some will hate it.

[mabbs]

Hi all, not been on here for a long time. Nice to see some of the builds going on, still missing the rocket and can't wait for the Rocket 2. I must say I am a little perplexed, disappointed and shocked at some of the comments on here over the new company that formed to produce the other new rocket, especially those who know the history. Never the less, I like the design symetry and core design inputed on their chassis and bonnet. Look forward to seeing MEV's design at stonleigh and may put my hand in my pocket for the right car.

ATB,

Mabbs

[Deleted]

Rocket bodywork has been considered, Stuart and I hold a number of drawings of a full or partially clad Rocket but the major factor that drew me to the Rocket is the Exoskeleton chassis with even less bodywork than the Ariel Atom, there are many kits available with partial bodywork and though we do intend to develop a range of accessories and body panels I would like to see the Rocket, as standard, to retain the minimalistic naked look.
I also see the Rocket as a donor for a builder to be creative, the Rocket offers the bare essentials, a blank canvas.
There are many examples of builder's creativity in the build blogs from a simple bracket to complex engineering and including a number of fabricated panels and bodywork, we all have drawings, ideas, our own concepts, I would like to encourage all you budding designers to be creative and make the throttle pedals, the side pods and even the nosecones you want. We are happy to help and advise and if your design is sought after and for sale we would be happy to take over production to ensure  quality and consistency.  Full body kit anyone?
 

                                                                                  

[bobmick]

Having observed this and other forums for quite a while now I decided to do a bit of due diligence and go and see for myself the Exoskeletal products that are on offer at the moment as I fully intend to place a deposit on one at Stoneleigh. I also recently decided to actively join the MEV forum as largely, this is a very informative place to while away a few hours watching members builds and picking up tips. 
The Rocket, in it's now numerous guises is high on my wish list and having seen the SVE Rocket II at the Autosport Show (as well as the MEV Exocet) in January, I'm looking forward to seeing Brimoto's vehicle (of the same name?) as this has to be considered, even though it would appear that Brimoto are new to the kit car scene.
What I don't really understand (and this is the point of this, my first post) is why there is a negative attitude towards Exo Sports Cars when clearly, a large number of owners here enjoy cars that were manufactured by them (or their team while they traded as RTR).
I have visited their factory in Nottingham and found them to be extremely busy (not always a good thing for customer service, I know) and passionate about the products that they manufacture. They pointed me towards this forum as a good source of build tips for exo cars in general, so why the negativity?
In various guises, they've been building kits for 30 years according to their Facebook page, and I have no reason to doubt this as Liam actually showed me an original Gemini that they have stored at their factory that he had manufactured in 1986 and had bought back from a customer.
I can see some balance on this thread with Mabbs post, but surely there should be a little more.
This forum is on the whole a great place to be but negativity towards Exo seems disproportionate IMHO.

[mabbs]

Silence is golden bobmick !

The issue is people taking sides without looking at were and how historically the Rocket was taken forward, not necessarily the 'history' of how it was developed. Would the Rocket be were it is today if RTR would have not have sunk a lot of hard work and effort to promote and push the car - for their benefit and of course Stuart's, or would have some of Stuarts other great designs since not have gone forward because of the Rocket. Stuart is a great guy and a very busy man who develops great cars, but can not manufacture them all - hence, the sale licence of the Rocket, Eco Exo etc. It is sad that now due to RTR being reformed as Exo Cars who were known for producing the Rocket, are being given negativity by some of the group who got them into there cars, purely because they have a new car called 'Rocket 2'. They have stolen nothing, just taking a car design they produced further, under the same name that neither company actually owns. I suggest the slate be wiped clean, let bygones be bygones and lets get on with seeing these cars, having fun and enjoying the kit car industry, as this negative talk is not good for the businesses or the industry, and believe me, talk is external to this forum. - rant over...... shoot me down if you wish..... ATB, Mabbs

[airforceone]

Totally agree.

I must admit I haven't been as active on the forum since the split as I've found some of the comments rather harsh. I understand that some people have hadhissues with the now defunked RTR so understand not everyone parted on good terms.

I only ever dealt with RTR and hold no grudge or I'll feeling towards them.

I imaging that a high percentage of rocket and sonic owners on this forum bought their kits from them.

[kiwicanfly]

Ok bobmick I will start.

I would suggest the interaction between mabbs and RTR during his build would be at a different level to most, his build is a legend and all respect to him but I doubt many others had so much "to give" to RTR's business so of course they would treat him differently, so would I.

My personal experience was different.

A few things to ponder here, when shipping to NZ at my expense would you not think that everything I ordered and paid for would have been placed inside the shipment? We are not talking the odd nut and bolt that was overlooked but things like the starter motor, battery leads, hoses, critical suspension components, the list goes on. Hey but I did get and extra pair of rear hubs oh and a pair of seats I had specifically deleted from my order so I suppose things equalled out.

To be fair most of the missing parts were EVENTUALLY sent over but it took two goes to get the correct starter motor. Same for the fuel hose, one lot was not even fuel rated! Think about that for a moment.

When advising RTR about the issue it took seven weeks to get an acknowledgement that there was a even problem, to be fair for five of those I was out of NZ but they were advised the day the box arrived and repeatedly upon my return. I fully detailed the missing parts in a spreadsheet but upon eventually tracking Paul down his comment was "oh I thought it was just a few bolts".

All this cost both parties unnecessary time and money and, considering we were both working off the same checklist, does not inspire confidence in organisational competence.

This experience though could be put down to bad luck on one order and to be fair was sorted although some items I just gave up on as not being worth the trouble, brake pipe for example - NZ demands copper/nickel pipe, despite identifying this early in discussions and highlighting it on my order I still got a roll of normal copper tubing. I couldn't be bothered and replaced it myself- not cheap though.

Oh and mabbs do you remember sending RTR the carbon parts I bought from you? I got them eventually!

However the real nail in the coffin for me was the technical incompetence, yes it is a kit car but parts are supposed to fit. The infamous COR, that doesn't fit because they changed the rear chassis tube arrangement, sure the change was required to make some cats fit but don't then keep selling parts that are supposed to mate but no longer do.

Steering column extensions made of black bar which don't fit the support bearing they also supplied then suggesting the bearing might be undersize.

Upon initial discussions I questioned the size of the suspension arm material due to NZ regs, the claimed size changed three times and eventually I was told that they could make my arms from NZ approved material. I then asked if they would fit the jig (I have never been to RTR or seen said jigs) and was told no problem. When they came to actually make my arms they, er, didn't fit the jig. I was also told seamless tube was used, only on inspection of the one other Rocket kit in NZ did I note that the tube used was not seamless.

Upon NDT inspection of my suspension components two parts failed (cracked tubing) and I had to replace them myself.

There are also numerous examples of supplied parts not fitting, wing stays supplied to Jack made of square bar and not clearing the wheels and the bolt holes not lining up with the hub for example.

Critical chassis components redesigned resulting in non triangulated support is another, luckily not to me.

Again all of these might be considered minor problems, easy to sort out and the sort of things that happen in a low volume rapidly changing product, and that might be true if RTR had responded too and addressed the issues in a timely manner as they arrose but they didn't.

Then we have the COD Certificate Of Dubiousness, I requested a chassis certificate, mainly showing welding had been done by a qualified welder but also stating the design was well engineered. I got one, I submitted it to the NZ authorities. Apparently the chassis is good for 400bhp, the chassis will cope with certain loads etc etc oddly though I have the ONLY copy out there, no-one else has one and Stuart Mills had never seen such a document before............

Finally I agree that RTR did a lot to develop and promote the Rocket and without them I would never have one in my garage however that does not change the fact that they do not hold a licence to manufacture or sell the model. It wouldn't be too bad if they were selling a similar, Rocket inspired, design. Splitting hairs maybe but correct period.

Would I send my worst enemy to EXO? Yes I would and my best friend too but only IF they had a product not available elsewhere and they went in eyes wide open and ensured everything was double checked both administrationly and technically.

They have also Pheonixed the business at least twice, legally ok but morally repugnant to me.

As for "silence is golden" well I have not seen too many leap to their defence either.