User:Fleetham/SAIC

Hi! I've been having difficulty finding good "overview" source material for the page, so one way (not necessarily the best way) to collaborate would be to first find a stock of good material, read & discuss it, and then write out the page. Other ways to collaborate include each of us focusing on a particular parts of the article and then piecing the parts together or dividing the labor up some other way. Do you have any suggestions? Fleetham (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi and first thanks for suggesting this collaboration. I wonder if it might be a good idea to first identify where we feel the article needs development. The History section is now pretty good in my view, particularly after your recent additions to the pre-2000 period. A few things that I would like to see would be:
 * some photos of the SAIC headquarters, an R&D facility and a key factory
 * a little table showing production data, perhaps for the past 10 years - I think this would be particularly interesting because of the very high rate of growth
 * motorsport activities (if any?)
 * more detail in the Operations section, particularly on markets where SAIC products are sold and R&D activities
 * market share info
 * products - as with say Toyota Motor there should really be something, although I do see that it is complicated in the case of SAIC because of the joint-ventures having their own product ranges
 * environmental initiatives
 * Perhaps if we can agree on what needs to be done, then we can think about who should focus on what? Just an idea. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's some sources I found that address the above-mentioned areas.


 * Images: The only non-vehicle pic I've come across is a GM-SAIC pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo. I'll keep looking.


 * Production table: Well, here's a table of sales figures. As SAIC also sells imports (Cadillac, Saab, etc.) this isn't the most accurate production table. I'll see if I can't disentangle the imports from these data soon. It looks like the older reports did list production, and I've removed the imports from the sales data, which means the table should now represent production.

Production (in millions)


 * Motorsport: Superficial research suggests SAIC hasn't taken part in the Dakar Rally or Race of Champions (two events Chinese companies have entered/sponsored). There is something called the "MG Trophy Championship" Motorsport: Drama as Paul Streather stays in the hunt (Leicester Mercury)


 * R&D activities: The only way I've addressed R&D in the past was to list the R&D facilities of a company. Can you think of a different way to go about it?


 * International activities: While I don't imagine much SAIC production is exported, it seems some "Wuling" brand GM joint venture mini vehicles are: Export introduction (SAIC-GM-Wuling official site) Export activities include re-branding Wulings as Chevys and selling them in Latin America: Wuling minis go global under GM Chevrolet brand (China Daily), SAIC-GM-Wuling Exports Minivans from China to Latin America (SAIC-GM-Wuling press release) These same vehicles may soon be sold, and possibly made, in India: China's biggest automaker SAIC Motor Corp with GM eyes Indian market (The Economic Times), GM-SAIC India JV to produce Wuling minivans in 2011 (Gasgoo)


 * Market share: I think finding info. on this will be more difficult than the other areas of focus you mentioned.


 * Products This 2009 source says SAIC makes "passenger cars, tractors, motorcycles, trucks, buses and parts", and all of these appear in the official SAIC Group website's product showcase (which is a year+ out of date I think) except motorcycles: Passenger cars, Commercial vehicles, and Tractors, Parts. There is a SAIC subsidiary named "Shanghai Xingfu Motorcycle Co. Ltd." but according the SAIC website it "is principally engaged in... design, processing and sales of auto parts..." The subsidiary's site, while in Chinese, doesn't have any pictures of motorcycles. The SAIC Group website stopped listing motorcycles in its summary of sales figures in 2007: 2007 "Highlight Figures" compare with 2008 "Highlight Figures"


 * Environmental activities: It doesn't appear that SAIC has any group-wide corporate social responsibility activities. They did reduce the energy consumption of their Shanghai facilities, however.


 * One thing I would like to do with the article is be able to draw a clearer distinction between SAIC and domestic rivals FAW Group and Dongfeng Motors. My assumption is that, basically, SAIC has emerged as a champion due to a rising demand for passenger vehicles that was created by Deng Xiaoping's market-based reforms in the 1980s while the other two adapted themselves to this new demand instead of being a product of it. But I don't have the sources to support such a thesis. Fleetham (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, couldn't market share info. be drawn from this source? Fleetham (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that your production table should perhaps be added until something more complete can be created, it is fine so long as it is clearly marked as something like 'Domestic production' rather than 'sales' - obviously not ideal but still useful to readers in my view.
 * Re international activities I think that the new partnership between SAIC and GM in India should certainly be added to the article, in addition to your sources I also found this one on it:.
 * Re environmental activities, perhaps we should just start a section with info about the efforts to reduce the energy consumption of the Shanghai facilities, it can be expanded as more detail becomes available (inevitably it will).
 * I do think that the market share data which you have found could be added. As with the production table it isn't perfect but I think that it would still be useful to readers and the source looks reliable enough.
 * Re R&D I guess the key things that would ideally be included are details of key R&D facilities, number of R&D staff and total R&D expenditure. Details of any significant R&D joint ventures with any other companies/universities etc (if any) would also be relevant in my view, as would any notable innovations created by the company (again if any) or particular areas of research focus e.g. hydrogen vehicles, electric vehicles.
 * Re products, perhaps, because of the joint ventures and the large number of marques that SAIC sells under, detail on products beyond listing marques and types of products is impractical. Perhaps we should add more complete details of marques to the article though, and how they fit in with each JV?Rangoon11 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a fun way to address your last point could be to pick a brand, set a deadline, and then each of us debut a short gloss of the marque. That way we'd both be conversant on the topic and would be less likely to leave out important points. Let me know what you think, but don't feel obligated to agree to this if you don't want to. If you'd rather not compete we can just divvy up the brands between us. You also mentioned motorsport, and while SAIC has kept at least one MG-sponsored event alive it would be good to be able to more clearly articulate SAIC's motorsport activities.
 * Things I will do: I can add the market share, environmental activities, and R&D sections to the page; put caveats into the production table (e.g. pre-2008 figures include motorcycles, etc.); and look for anything published by GM or VW about their JVs.
 * Please be on the lookout for: Anything that mentions pre-2001 production figures (You might find a mention while doing other research, and these data will probably be rare. I know I ran across a source that said prior to the 1984 VW JV SAIC had a 20-30K annual pro. capacity). Fleetham (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re production data, yes I will see what I can find; I generally have my eyes open for useful SAIC content.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MG
Hi and apologies for the slight delay in responding. Yes let's go with your idea - should we start with MG? I pick this one primarily because I've been doing some work at MG Motor UK today so it is on my mind!
 * MG would be good. Does formatting allow for easier editing of this page? IDK. Fleetham (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I will aim to post an MG draft up here tomorrow. If by formatting you mean things like adding in headers and keeping discussions organised by topic, then yes I think that is a good idea for this page. Clearly we don't need to worry too much about neatness or perfect presentation though! Rangoon11 ([[User talk:Rangoon11|talk]\]) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't have anything by tomorrow, but I won't read yours until I've finished mine. Fleetham (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK :) Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's mine. Fleetham (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is mine, I have taken the core structure of your draft and kept the cites, but tweaked the text and sentence order. Apologies for not doing this as quickly as I said I would.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's okay, there's no need to hurry. I think things that need to be included include: how SAIC came by the badge, models that SAIC has produced, and that MG and Roewe share models. I also think the UK R&D center deserves a mention but the knock-down kit assembly of the MG6 does not. It's just Systemic bias because so few are assembled. Can you think of any other important points? And I'm not sure I agree that the MG7 is a Roewe 750--my feeling is that the MG7 predates the Roewe 750 and was made by Nanjing Auto in China on ex-Rover Group tooling, this making it a closer kin to the Rover 75 than the 750 is. But I could be completely wrong about that, actually. Fleetham (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to lose the reference to knock-down kit assembly although I would like to include reference to UK based production as I do think it is notable. Re the MG7/MG750 I see your point about there being a pre- and post-Roewe 750 distinction. However a model called the MG 750 is still being sold in markets such as Chile, whilst a model called the MG7 is currently being sold in China. Are these not now the same car but just with a different badge number? To be honest I don't know either, although it would surprise me if Chile was still getting the old model based on the Rover 75 seeing as the cars sold in Chile and China are all being made in China.
 * I noticed from the MG 'global' web site today that MGs appear to already be on sale in far more markets than I realised . I think we should definitely add reference to this, perhaps by saying something like 'currently sold in 30 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe and South America, with plans to expand sales worldwide'? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We also need to add a reference to the MG5/MG350 (based on the Roewe 350) in the text. It seems that the MG6 and the MG550 are both being sold in Chile. This confuses me as both seem to be based on the Roewe 550, with the MG550 apparently being the Roewe 550 with no cosmetic changes, whilst the MG6 on sale there seems to be the same as the UK/China one which is Roewe 550 with certain visual and mechanical changes. Do you think we should add a refence to this MG550 as a separate model?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think the MG550/Roewe 550 is distinct from the MG6, although both share the same platform. I don't know if we need a reference that makes this distinction, although we have already have one, after a fashion.
 * Good catch on the number of global distributors. Here's a map of countries where MGs are sold
 * The Roewe 750 and the MG7 are very similar and both are, basically, the Rover 75. Look at them side-by-side and you'll see few differences (MG7, 750). The MG7 was developed by Nanjing Auto and the Roewe, SAIC. ARonline says, "[the] MG7... look[s] more like the Rover 75 than Roewe's updated effort" and "[the differences between the Rover 75 and the] Roewe 750 [are a] slightly lengthened wheelbase (by 100mm), tweaked styling (especially at the rear) and a freshened up exterior." So they're separate models but sport only a few more differences than a Vauxhall Astra and an Opel Astra do.
 * And I really do think mentioning UK production is WP:systemic bias. It deserves a mention on the MG Motor UK page, but I just don't think knock-down kit assembly is that notable–if it wasn't happening in the UK, it wouldn't be mentioned. Fleetham (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we try and nail down the MG text over the next few days (I appreciate that it's entirely my fault that this has been rather slow)? I think we are basically there - a few tweaks are needed to the draft following some of the points we have touched on above but these can be very easily made - apart from the reference to UK production.
 * I know that I'm from the UK so may be biased but trying to be objective I do think a brief mention is appropriate because the UK is the spiritual home of the marque and the UK production represents I believe one of the very first examples of assembly of a passenger car by a Chinese car company in a western nation, no doubt something that will be much more common in the future. I appreciate that the numbers at present are small - although no doubt will rise over time - but still think that these factors are enough to make it significant enough for a mention. The resumption of production at the historic Longbridge plant also attracted a lot of media coverage in the UK and was seen as quite symbolic.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the terse reply, I will respond later, too. I do stand firm that the UK knock-down kit manufacture shouldn't be mentioned on this page. You're entirely right about UK+MG but this is just a small gloss about how the brand relates to SAIC not necessarily about the brand's history and heritage. Fleetham (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rangoon11 about the relevance of mentioning the UK for this article, three very good reasons in my eyes (and I am not from the UK, FWIW). But why is this conversation taking place here, where other interested editors cannot see it? I only found it by accident, and think it would be much more useful on the relevant talkpage.   ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)