Future prospects are promising, page-6

Sorry for the following long winded response but this company has been a disappointment in so many ways. It is a simple business with a great product that should be quite transparent but all I see is roadblocks and lack of facts.

Yeah I have mixed feelings but some hard questions really need to be asked of the "new" strategy . I'm just trying to work out what their real business case is and if there is any chance they have to execute and return anything to shareholders not have it all absorbed in interest rate and costs, wages and expenses. What value is the company getting for the $400,000 wage with bonus on top etc and any reason it shouldn't be halved or more?? This is a small business turnover but has big business overheads IMO.

Even on small trucks they are now doing a small exhaust brake but haven't seen them on stuff as small as rangers but should check as that same motor / block in different tune is used in a few other vehicles. I know the little Iveco has a aftermarket one that works very well and so far no ill affects on engine longevity.

Plough - Same old issue -is it just normal wear or is it excessive due to temps , load etc. I'll be blunt and say if you want to use Ranger fully loaded all the time in harsh conditions it will use a lot of parts and will only last so long but it is all about total cost of ownership and the length of that whole ownership equation. Hell the ranger on road has great manners and great brakes at normal loads but at limits things change as it is a retail vehicle not a industrial one. I well expect a mine pack"option to include bigger brakes on vehicles with service bodies and oil coolers etc but it all comes down to the economics. Do you train staff not to ride brakes and to use some engine braking and a lower gear and would the new young blood ever listen as they have never experienced brake fade , boiling fluid or loss with a light vehicle as with new modern brakes it is a thing of the past in most situations.

Same old answer to many issues - on the surface brake pads are cheap , discs are cheapish and both are available over the counter with any 2 bit mechanic can fit in 7 minutes a corner for a vehicle the business owns for 3 years? So 4 times a year at total annual cost of $250 in pads , $600 in discs and $600 in labour so lets say 2 grand as opposed to how much capital cost for SIBS? Now add in loss of time for vehicle being unavailable etc - just depends on if brakes service aligns with normal service intervals. What would it cost to approve a larger disc or longer caliper and pad , drilled and slotted discs and any software or safety issues if they aren't factory authorised as they are treating all mine vehicles as on road?

The abrasive and corrosive environment in mines does change that value and value is added in regards to extra OH&S of parking brake and lock outs but the mines are choosing vehicle platforms ( unlike the landcruiser) that I IMO don't think will have the same longevity. So a troopy ( that doesn't have crash protection) with SIBS fitted lasts 7 years as a example and a ranger without lasts 3 years ? Ongoing costs - training mechanics in something new as opposed to changeout costs but the up front investment is a whole different kettle of fish especially if interest rates rise.

I guess it should be made very clear that the change away from landcruisers in mines owned by 1st world owned or run mines was due to insurance and occupant safety in crash and rollover. It is a very murky decision as considering the speed limits on mines and controlled divided traffic and internal rollcage I would rather be in a landcruiser as there may not be crush / crumple zones but there sure as hell isn't those on the other vehicle likely to hit you. The safety tests on new vehicles are all about crash testing and I just don't see those circumstances that happen on a public road the same as on a mine site. Now we all know that dynamics of a landcruiser on the public road at 110k/h often at working load limit and the accident it gets into isn't pretty but they are loading up rangers with work bodies and I'm thinking after a few accidents they will be considering the affects such weights have on the dynamics in a accident but that is another story.

Now my whinge- this change away from landcruisers was indicated years ago so every manufacturer and aftermarket supplier knew there would be a massive change in the mining marketplace ( you know just like the military changing vehicles that I'm not supposed to mention anymore!!) and it doesn't happen overnight but did have a deadline. Now ABV doesn't seem IMO to get in the door and be in a position with the correct product or pricing or partner or I don't know what and are back in the same old retrofit of only specialist vehicles. They possibly had the opportunity to get scale and factory fitment with rangers made in Thailand and their manufacture there as well and I never heard a peep about it. Those large industry and government changes with massive consequences only happen so many times with such a large possible % of your possible market share and for some reason they couldn't get their crap together????? Why? , What will change so it happens in the future and just what project with scale to actually get this product in at a reasonable cost.

Now in regards to 3000 fitted vehicles I'd really like to see a breakdown of just which vehicles these are and where they are. How many have been manufactured and fitted since company inception? Something on the surface doesn't add up IMO. Weird as a company should be proud if they have that many and should be forced by shareholders to disclose this key bit of information with enough detail so it can be determined if they are actually expanding sales at a greater rate than vehicles are being withdrawn from service? I just don't know - does anybody? How can anyone invest when unable to determine the current achievable market size and current penetration of that market ?

To be blunt with the way money has been raised and internal costs etc this company IMO looks to be raising public money that gets spent on wages while shareholders value gets termited as if they have a major success in the future further raising will happen and dilute out normal holders who will get little return. This situation may have come from necessity but it is a like spiral debt funding. Just what would it take to get them out and for normal holder to get a return? That is the question regular investors should be asking IMO.

It has gone beyond having a product and a market as the company structure has the ability IMO to cripple any future return to external holders.

If you reckon I have it wrong let me know facts not fluff. I want actual sales and hard numbers in detail