Frankfurt Motor Show - are we missing the joke ?

Not sure all the goodwill for ICE will ever leave us. People still love race horses, a hundred or more years after the mass market stopped using them for transport because they were considered anti social and inefficient. The equine industry is measured in the billions, even in a country the size of the UK.

I just read a piece by Zak Brown from McLaren in Asian media following the Singapore GP. He reckons that ICE will be used in motorsport for the foreseeable future, despite there being pressure to convert the world's cars to electric only (which, by the way, was an assertion from the journalist, citing the intention to ban ICE cars in the UK and China among others - an incorrect assumption). In fact, he also used the race horse example. I think the journalist mentioned EV and driverless cars in the context of future racing. I mean, driverless race cars? Hello.

For Brown, Marchionne, Domenicalli etc. I don't think they need to sweat too much. They need to continue development of ever efficient petrol engines, the use of hybrid technology and perhaps accept that some of their cars may need to be able to run on electric only for a range of, say, 50 miles, to allow entry and exit from certain cities. As the world converts to a fleet that emits lower and lower CO2 and NOx the pressure groups will focus on other things. Who now talks about how dirty horses are? Back when they were everywhere, this was a serious and hotly debated topic. It is quite easy to see how manure covering city streets would be an extremely anti-social thing to cope with, but mentioning it today just seems amusing.

In a world of soul-less EVs, a screaming and beautifully engineered V12, giving out 1,000hp with emissions of around 100g/km in 2030 will be far from anti-social, it will shine as both apiece of history and engineering modernity, it will still have all the character it has today, and the CO2 it emits, multiplied by the number on the road, will only be of interest to people who are anti-wealth. The merit of 'banning' them or making them in some way anti-social just won't be there. IMO.

 

At the risk of being hated, I would love to buy a Tesla powered Portofino.

This model seems the ideal in Ferrari's current line up to incorporate all electric drive.

It would be lighter and faster at least to 100mph. Of course it probably wouldn't reach 199 But who knows? With Ferrari expertise maybe . One glaring mistake IMO is that Ferrari does not have any involvement with Formula E

The expense to do so would be a pittance compared to what the company spends on many less important and even frivolous activities.

Anyway I'd love to own a Tesla powered Portofino which will do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds

No lag turbo be damned!

 

Are you sure you could live with a mute Ferrari or in the best case, one with the engine sound coming out of loudspeakers ?

 

Excellent points and I'm basically with you Lukeylikey. I think there is a danger when you simplify complex topics. I say- ask who is winning, who is losing, and make sure to follow the money.

To MalibuGuy, I can tell you for a fact, if the Portofino (or any Ferrari) did not feature an ICE in some form, they would lose me- immediately- as a buyer for such a car. I can handle hybrid. But I like the sound. As Traveller has said many times: Sound = Energy. If we don't have that sensation of energy, then what do we have.

To Scraggy, I don't think there is a lack of goodwill toward Ferrari ICE. That's really my whole point. People still love that sound- and I think it will hold over time.

 

Just took my F12 out today for a long needed run and I can tell you with certainty it is no joke! Could care less about Frankfurt and the future. Here in the US we are in the largest high performance ICE love fest of all time. Even ignoring the host of new +700hp muscle cars, Toyota sells a 2018 Camry with 100% ICE and 301hp (and no CVT). The most sold vehicle in its class five years running. Honda still has a manual ICE. These are bread and butter commuter cars sold in the many millions. Future? Take your Ferrari V12 out, toss in some quality organic dino juice and experience what is real and good in the world.

 

The way I see it there will always be ICE for low volume manufacturers with some degree of KERS but lets also remember the late 90's heralded the diesel engine as being the answer to everything in terms of mass market. Yet today the diesel engine is seen as highly undesirable. On a mass market scale I have no doubt that all electrification will is shorten the useable lifespan of a car.

While the idea is noble in places with short distances between towns and cities its tough to see its relevance or use in the USA for example not to mention the third world which doesn't have the infrastructure to support it. Take another example, Run Flat Tyres, great in theory, let me tell you not so great when its 550 km's between cities and you are stuck in the middle of nowhere and the flat run is destroyed after 90km of driving...

 

Ok. Follow the money ... so you think global gas and oil are the little guy in this equation? Really? lol

Lobby groups also pressure the government for Gas and Oli.

I can't see where there is rational doubt in 2017 ... unless you go for the extreme coincidence of sun spots since the Industrial Revolution lol. There has been a debate, scientists agree:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

NASA has a nice chart that corrects your false assertion in paragraph 1.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


If 9 out of 10 doctors said you had a serious health problem, and you were skeptical because you didn't want to change your diet, or exercise or whatever it was ... and your wife and family SHUT YOU DOWN every time you brought it up, because they were annoyed by your stupidity and because your bet was wasting time, what would you do then? Would you roll the dice?

What is to lose in a greener economy? Jobs? No. Wealth? No. Where is the downside?

Ferrari under 10k a year is not a speck of sand in the universe, long live the V12 NA, yet facts are facts.

 

When this thread was started the author Scraggy in relation to the subject energy /pollution future trends raised at Frankfurt Motor Show, placed the following logical question “are we missing the joke with our V12, NA and cc focus?”. In the meantime the thread has had some very interesting and knowledgeable contributions coming from Fchat members who have a broad knowledge on the subject. Opinions in general and mine as well, more or less agreed that the future survival of the ICE, at least on the next one to two decades, would be possible through hybrid solutions due to the fact that the ICE on it’s own isn't able of meeting the future governmental emission impositions of many countries.

Because August is the natural silly season month and also when the Portofino was announced, I completely missed a very important recent new and a great breakthrough for the future of the ICE. Apparently Mazda has created the Holy Grail of Petrol/Gasoline engines. The average gasoline engine wastes 70 to 75 percent of the fuel's energy content in heat and noise but suppose that could be improved on, without expensive add-on ancillaries or hybrid systems with battery packs? The new Mazda engine has the highest compression ratio of any petrol/gasoline engine in production 14 to 1 and has reached what engine designers for decades have considered a Holy Grail of efficiency resulting in what Mazda’s claims about 25 percent more power in an engine that’s 25 percent more efficient. This gigantic step forward in the evolution of the ICE will have inevitable and very important consequences on the way carmakers will look at the future from now. Hybrid is the way for many of them but the question they’ll be asking now is what’s the need for hybrid if the same can be achieved with a single ICE? For Ferrari that could be an important signal as well that I'm sure will encourage the company to rethink the future of the V8 and V12 engines.

 

That's right Mario. Or, they might use some kind of very mild hybrid, so they can say they have hybrid tech, but use a smaller battery that is more economical...

The one thing I KNOW for SURE is no one knows everything. And I think our world is a fairly complex place. I am an optimist at heart and I do think it will all work out.

For now, I am with Solid State that we should use and enjoy our cars.

 

At the risk of being strung up as a heretic/moron (been called that on Rensport)/lunatic I am a climate change skeptic when it comes to man-made "global warming". As a kid growing up acid rain was going to kill the Black Forest in Germany (looked ok to me last week), then holes in the ozone layer were going to cook me from within (I am still here) and now every time I fart I am causing global warming.

Too many self interest groups, too many leftard governments who think they know whats best. The truth really does get lost in all the hype, leftard BS and general ignorance out there.

So, what to do. Have fun drive your cars you worked damn hard to afford and put a smile on a kids face when he/she sees these wonderful cars and it motivates them to fulfill their dreams.

 

Well, as in everything, pick the theory and data you prefer because you can find all sorts of credible data saying whatever you like...

https://climatethetruth.com/2016/02/03/lets-talk-about-global-cooling/

As for jobs, there is a whole multi-billion dollar worldwide industry based on climate change lobbying and research. There are some very strong vested interests on all sides, and I'm not sure we have a. got a 100% correct diagnosis and b. the best prescription. Just my feeling and I can't shake it. Whenever you have power mixed with vested interests you have a perfect platform for large-scale manipulation. If this whole debate is 'clean' it will probably be a world first. Let's hope it is, because we are spending quite an amount of resource on it.

Any sensible businessman would look at the big items of expenditure and regularly question the continued need, whether we are doing it right, well enough, as well as we can, as smartly as we can. That debate doesn't happen.

 

China is polluting at a great rate, yet they will fix it as people complain, and they can complain as they become sick and have the wealth and power to influence.

In L.A., land of flowing cars, higher standards have cleaned up the air by a huge degree, it's a real fact. Will clean cars save the world on their own? No. Yet what is the downside?

Some people will always pay extra to really drive hard and enjoy driving ICEs, yet most people are getting from A to B and are happy to have a self driving electric. I see a future where both are appeased.

 

Here is another essay that discusses why it is said there is a 'consensus' among scientists and pours significant doubt on that fact and the automatic conclusion that human production of CO2 is the enemy to be dealt with at all costs. It is long and complicated but reading the beginning and the last couple of paragraphs gives you the idea. This is not a disreputable source and serves to at least suggest there is an alternate view.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf

 

From 1992? Really ? That is your argument? 25 years ago was a long time in this field.

https://www.inverse.com/article/11643-climate-change-denying-mit-prof-richard-lindzen-is-suddenly-popular-still-wrong

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-Lindzen.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism


There is always an "alternate view" and it can be wrong, is actually MORE LIKELY to be wrong when science is the topic.

My question stands, if 9 out of 10 doctors said you were sick, why would you trust the 1? Would you not expect your family to wonder what was your problem, for hurting them and you in your rebelliousness?

 

Can't imagine a more articulate and accurate summation of the appeal of ICE's and Ferrari; you should be writing their brochures!

 

The piece from Jonathan Cohler, including the very in-depth and exhaustive research, is from 2016. The article linked from the same website is from 1992 and presumably the justification for that is because nothing has changed - if you read the article, it offers a very good reason why 9 out of 10 doctors could easily be entirely wrong, and his reasoning applies even more strongly today than in 1992. Not saying he is right, I don't have the necessary scientific understanding to be unequivocal about that point. But, I have plenty of experience of trying to understand vested interests. And with climate change there are many, on both sides. To ever reach a statement where we simply accept the information and data that has been served to us, without a healthy dose of caution, is dangerous IMV.

For example, please explain why the forecasted predictions, even if we accept human produced CO2 is the cause of it, only serves to grow CO2 to a level significantly lower than the mediaeval period and the Roman period? That is not what public perception is and not what is alluded to in information presented for public consumption. This begs a very important question - why are we spending so much of our resource trying to avoid what the world has seen many times before and to a greater degree than is currently forecast by algorithms that have massive assumption attached to them?

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

A few other bits of data. The point is, who really knows? This just is not a slam-dunk done deal and there will always be unanswered questions as far as I can see.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not saying I certainly DON'T agree with the majority view, simply that I cannot accept it without question.

 

Thanks Priley, flattery will get you everywhere!

Lukeylikey, I'm afraid you are past my knowledge, but I agree we should not just accept things. That being said, I am of the mindset that we would be better off with less pollution (I don't know anyone who would disagree with that). The question I come to is: does making and buying more stuff = less pollution. I don't see it.

 

I am not just "accepting" the idea that man made Global Warming is the cause of the warming we see. You two seem to be saying there is no warming. That's been resolved. My point is ... WHY NOT GO THAT WAY just in case? Let's say it's 90/10 ... and the 90 is global human extinction and the 10 is status quo. Why not play the odds? What is lost by greener energy? The resistance to is makes no sense, UNLESS you are with the oil and gas lobby. Green energy is money and growth. It's not like a fear of not driving ICE is real. They will be grandfathered in.

 

Although it seems quite difficult to get an agreed consensus on what global temperature actually is, I suspect there is little resistance to the idea that temperatures are rising. The world seems to have experienced some sort of rise and fall in temperatures for thousands of years. I personally have no doubt about this point.

The more important questions are, is man responsible? And is a rise in temperature a catastrophe to be avoided at all costs?

I accept the 90/10 argument made above, if the cost of developing renewable energy, cleaner vehicles etc. was justified on the basis of the benefits that can be certainly quantified. These benefits could be cleaner air in cities (as opposed to globally because until we sort out cleaner electricity production in places like China, electric cars won't make much of a dent in global CO2), cheaper running costs for consumers (this is also a challenging point because petrol taxation is extremely high, electricity taxation is extremely low, a point which heavily contributes to the consumer cost benefit of fuelling an EV. Governments could not afford the drop in revenue of a full conversion to EV so taxation on EV power would have to increase significantly, mitigating much of the advantage), and perhaps there may be advantages to many vehicle users of EV such as quieter running, better drivability around town, better reliability, less need for servicing etc.

Set against this is the global expenditure of wealth and resource in pursuing these advantages. This is an untold and completely overwhelming sum. Governments are spending billions of taxpayers money on researching and financing the argument, a whole industry has developed around this, car manufacturers and component manufacturers and raw material producers and electronics companies etc. etc. are spending a massive amount of resource to try to meet fairly unrepresentative tests so that their products are saleable and fall into manageable and competitive taxation regimes.

The real question is do the benefits justify the huge costs? Because that resource could be spent by governments on better healthcare, increased standards of living for the population, perhaps in some cases removal of many people from poverty. For industry, let's take the car industry, better safety, more interesting products, products with benefits in areas other than those listed above.

Who would argue against a cleaner environment for people, cheaper, quieter, more reliable cars? But is that a reasonable aim, given how much has already been achieved in this regard, and given that the world is still full of many other, possibly worse, unresolved issues? How much further should we pursue this and at what pace and at what opportunity cost?

My own feeling is we should probably still go for a while yet, but there will come a time when other pressing issues warrant more of our attention. And we should do it better and as cost-effectively as we can, without the rhetoric but with a pragmatic and purposeful mindset. And that just won't happen IMV.

 

China is bad, and yet they are also self policing. Middle Class and wealthy people with new money and increasingly western influenced tastes won't live in a polluted hell. Cities like LA have cleaned up a lot with emissions standards. And the main point re: cars. MANY people don't enjoy driving and cars like we do. Sell them self driving electric cars, with a solar support infrastructure and the new batteries of the future and everyone wins. Program them to move OVER so we can pass

 

Whether one believes or not in man made global warming, just the threat has done the car and the world a favour. The advances in solar and wind power has been extraordinary and whether Trump finally pulls out of Paris or not is irrelevant, the world has moved on and these energy sources now have their own momentum with increasingly dramatic results.

We know that city centres across the world are suffering from terrible vehicle pollution so the arrival of hybrid and electric vehicles goes a long way to answering a pressing problem with little downside to the keen driver. What's not to like about the 918, LF, P1 etc?

That said, I suspect, and hope, that ICE still has a lony future ahead of it as inventive minds continue to extract more and more power and efficiency.

 

I can tell you that here in LA, and on TV in the USA, people are sensing that the ICE is going away ... and they LOVE THEIR CARS. Americans hate to be told what to do.

The changes are to me all positive. We will not get outlawed. Again to make the point, Ferrari aka RACE needs to stop making more cars. Just stay under the radar at 9000 and be THE ONE TOP car company for all time with ICEs