Will There Be Another Mercedes-Maybach G-Class? Don't Count On It
Maybach makes ultra-high-end versions of Mercedes-Benz's pinnacle models. Right now, you can get Maybach versions of the electric EQS SUV, GLS SUV, S-Class sedan and SL-Class roadster. But there's another super shiny star in Mercedes' fleet of icons: the G-Class SUV. Is it destined to get the Maybach updo? According to the brand's chief executive, no.
Speaking to members of the media during an event in Spain this week, Daniel Lescow, head of Mercedes-Maybach at Mercedes-Benz Group AG, said a G-Class variant is "not planned" at this time. "We have no plans to go further than those four cars at the moment."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
The Best Rubber-Strap Watches for Summer
In T's column 1 Piece, 10 Budgets, we share 10 perfect versions of an item in a range of prices. Typically lighter and sportier than leather- or steel-bracelet models, rubber-strap watches are an ideal match for the warmer months, especially when they come in vibrant candylike colors. Here are the T fashion assistant Jameson Montgomery's favorites. 1. Swatch, $195 The Swiss brand Swatch has been making relatively affordable, brightly hued watches since the 1980s. This model's vivid green dial is a generous 47 millimeters wide for optimal legibility. 2. Timex, $229 The dial of Timex's Deepwater Reef 200 is embossed with a subtle wave pattern, nodding to the fact that the watch is water-resistant up to 200 meters. 3. Tissot, $595 The displays on Tissot's T-Race Quartz Chronograph were inspired by those found on motorcycles. Its hour and minute hands are coated in SuperLuminova, a phosphorescent, nonradioactive pigment that glows in the dark. 4. Movado, $695 The Bold TR90, by the Swiss American watchmaker Movado, is named after the strong, lightweight nylon compound (TR90) used to make its case. Its matching bright red dial and silicone strap make it an instantly noticeable accent. 5. Hamilton, $895 The Khaki Navy Scuba is water-resistant up to 100 meters and comes with a timer function, making it perfect for lap swimmers and beach runners. 6. TAG Heuer, $2,050 Like many of TAG Heuer's watches, the Formula 1 Chronograph has displays that resemble those on the dashboard of a racecar. It's offered with straps in a few bright shades, but none is as striking as this vibrant green. 7. Rado, $2,600 As its name suggests, the True Square Automatic Skeleton features a skeletonized movement — one that's visible to its wearer through a transparent dial — which is rare for a watch on a rubber strap. 8. Bell & Ross, $5,000 This version of the French company Bell & Ross's BR-05 GMT watch has a sky blue sun ray dial that strikes a playful note along with its grooved rubber strap. 9. Hublot, $6,200 The Swiss watchmaker Hublot uses the highest grade of titanium in its 33-millimeter Classic Fusion. Prized by the aeronautics industry for its lightness and durability, the metal has a natural bluish tone that complements this watch's strap and dial. 10. Hermès, $6,650 Customers of the French fashion house Hermès are easy to spot, thanks to the brand's signature orange shopping bags. This version of the company's H08 watch features the shade on its textured rubber strap and second hand, which pop against the black nickel-treated dial.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
EVs Are Rewiring Risk For Manufacturers
The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been steadily improving for more than 100 years, giving us cars that are almost unrecognisable from those early, groundbreaking days of the Ford Model T. This, in turn, has made driving a faster, safer, more fuel-efficient, and more enjoyable experience for everyone. Now electric vehicles (EVs) mark a fundamental shift. One that not only paves the way to innovative changes in how passenger vehicles are designed, built, and maintained, but that will also kickstart a whole new era of risk for manufacturers. Driving this transformation are three key factors, the first of which is consumer dynamics. To date, EV adoption has actually been slower than many projected with only a quarter of car buyers seriously considering going fully electric due to concerns around cost, range and charging time. This has seen the manufacturing industry double down on addressing these concerns with new models that travel further and charge faster. The second factor is battery innovation. Right now, lithium-ion is found in 90% of US EVs, but their performance and safety features don't completely meet all customer requirements. Interest in alternative designs is therefore accelerating too – from iron- and sulphur-based lithium variants to sodium-ion and hydrogen cells. All have their own advantages and disadvantages, leading manufacturers to invest in understanding how they perform in the full life cycle of a user experience. The third and final driver of change is the supply chain itself. EVs use up to three times more chips than ICE vehicles and therefore rely heavily on materials sourced and processed overseas. China alone accounts for 70% of global battery production. Add in geopolitical volatility, tariff controversies, ongoing labor shortages, and localized incidents like the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and it's clear: EV supply chains are more stretched and unpredictable than ever – requiring flexible and proactive risk mitigation frameworks to match. There are new, less familiar threats for manufacturers to counter too. While ICE and hybrid vehicles actually catch fire more frequently, EV fires tend to burn hotter and longer – with several high-profile cases making the news and rocking consumer trust. Responding to this risk requires specialized equipment and training for staff, along with a deeper knowledge of chemistry, housing, and fire suppression. Then there's cyber. EVs are, by nature, software-defined machines that are deeply integrated with networks and cloud platforms. From code-level bugs to coordinated hacks, this opens up new areas of potential vulnerability, all capable of causing costly reputational damage and liability claims. Even product recalls are changing. In contrast to ICE vehicle breakdowns, EV issues can often be fixed with over-the-air updates and patches. Yet while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still classifies these events as recalls, the cost and customer experience are entirely different. This, in turn, forces insurers and manufacturers to re-examine the way they calculate risk along with how they structure mitigation strategies going forward. So how should the manufacturing industry respond? First and foremost, by empowering risk managers to lead in this evolving environment and become a central part of a broader, stronger, more connected ecosystem within their own companies. One that connects stakeholders across R&D, supply chain, operations, IT, and even government relations to create a comprehensive framework for analysing and responding to risk. The way manufacturers deploy data must evolve too. Unlike with ICE vehicles, firms don't have decades of EV insights to fall back on in their decision-making and planning. So instead, they should lean into forward-looking indicators, using machinery data on the shop floor to identify quality risks and limit the likelihood of product liability and recall. Leveraging smarter building data in areas like fire protection and structural soundness will also be vital, as will utilizing supply chain visibility information and scoring models for business tax. Encouragingly, much of this data is already available today; it now just needs to be viewed with a risk lens. Rather than simply present data at renewal time, manufacturers and brokers should therefore engage in an ongoing dialogue with carriers about emerging threats, evolving mitigations, and the specific steps they are taking to reduce exposure. This will help shape limits and premiums that fit the realities of their operating landscape. In fact, this ability to focus on the future is, perhaps, the most important shift of all. As EVs become an ever more frequent sight on our roads and in our factories, the passenger vehicle market will be defined by both new methods of manufacturing and new approaches to risk. The firms that lead this new era will be those with their eyes on the road ahead, not in the rear view mirror.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How Should Businesses Be Approaching Sustainability Now?
There is a palpable air of uncertainty among many multinational corporate sustainability, ESG and risk management teams these days as everyone tries to anticipate the future of sustainability regulation. I've written quite a bit about the mixed messages companies are receiving from regulators in Europe as the EU Member States continue to debate the details of the Omnibus Simplification Package, and in the U.S., where it's still unclear exactly how this historic period of environmental deregulation will affect companies. The fact is that many businesses have invested significant time and resources into sustainability compliance and reporting initiatives while operating under the impression that major reforms like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) would be hitting their stride right now. Instead, they're living through a period of regulatory limbo in which it's not clear what exactly their future sustainability compliance obligations entail. So, what should they be doing in the meantime? The short answer is: now is the time to be reviewing the steps they have made so far, and the most obvious place to start is with is their materiality assessments. In the world of financial reporting, materiality is defined as information that can influence and ultimately inform the financial decision making of an entity. When applied to sustainability reporting, a materiality assessment is a company's foundational definition of the core sustainability issues that matter most to their businesses and their stakeholders. These guide the way they will report and integrate them into overall business strategy and investment. In short, these materiality assessments shine a light on the foundational truths that define a company's values and goals and determine whether or not they are aligned with their strategic objectives. The identification of these material matters is also the starting point to determine the information that should be disclosed in the sustainability statement, which identifies the impacts, risks and opportunities confronting a company and its upstream and downstream value chain. At a time when the rules of the game keep changing and where corporate positions on sustainability can easily become politicized, a well-thought-out and delivered materiality assessment is an important way for a company to assert the business case for its sustainability strategy. Importantly, it is a way for companies to take the emotion out of sustainability and instead focus on the facts and the financial rationale behind their actions, while ensuring their sustainability strategy is dynamic and meets the changing needs of their businesses. Even during this period of regulatory flux, the market drivers behind sustainability have not changed , and in some cases they have even increased in significance. Now is the time for businesses to really look at what other companies in their space are doing when it comes to sustainability reporting. This peer comparison will soon become a key benchmark against which other companies will measure themselves and will also be measured. While sustainability disclosure reporting regulators have been debating the best path forward, many leading companies have already started reporting in compliance with the CSRD. In fact, some 500 companies have already published sustainability reports under the CSRD. The full library of reports can be found here, courtesy of ESG data management software company KEY ESG, which has been cataloging them all. One of the first things that stands out when reviewing these reports is that many of them come from companies in jurisdictions where the CSRD has yet to be fully implemented. In fact, according to a detailed PwC analysis of 100 CSRD reports, about 90% of them came from five European countries, three of which (Germany, Spain and the Netherlands) have not yet transposed the CSRD into national law. Another key finding of the analysis was that these reports are not very standardized. Some are 30 pages; others are 300 and they each focus on different aspects of sustainability-related risks. However, the important takeaway for business leaders who are still refining their approaches to sustainability reporting is that hundreds of manufacturers, technology companies, financial services firms, retailers, utilities and others are already out there walking the walk on sustainability reporting. These early standard bearers will not only have a jump on the intricacies of the reporting process once the mandate is finalized; they will also help establish industry best practices and position themselves as leaders to investors, customers and other stakeholders who increasingly want to know about business risks linked to sustainability. It's easy for business leaders to become distracted in a news cycle like the one we find ourselves in today that seems to be consumed with the idea of delayed implementation and political infighting. The big picture is that, delayed or not, sustainability reporting mandates of some type are coming, whether directly from regulators, or as is currently the case, from other stakeholders such as investors and customers. The sooner companies get themselves aligned with those standards, the better off they will be when the time comes to comply with the law. Moreover, with so many companies already reporting in line with the CSRD, and the informed view is that more and more will do so voluntarily, the prevailing market forces are creating some pressure on businesses that have not yet shared their sustainability reports. Now is not the time to delay. It is the time to refine and hone sustainability practices to focus on what matters most to the business and its stakeholders.
