GT California. Like/Dislike.

I like a lot more now in blue

 

Just got rejected by the 3rd F-car dealership to be placed on a list. Same old same old I guess.

 

what was the reason they gave?

 

How much did Ferrari pay for the 212 'love it' votes?? No way that's real.

Hackers or shills or something besides fchatters giving their honest opinion made those votes.

 

The reason is that you have to be a customer who has purchased multiple used vehicles at a premium from the dealership. Once you've done that, then maybe possibly they might consider putting you on the list of something. Either that or buy a couple of 612's off the lot

 

I am not a hacker or shill...

 

Agreed.

They have always blatantly misused historical names of extraordinary cars. The Mondial and the Testarossa were mean racers in their original form, but they were reincarnated into a mediocre 2+2 and a bloated whale with side-streaks.

Thank god they haven't played with the Dino name (yet).

Cheers,

Julio

 

Agree with "yet". It will rip my heart out if they use the name "Daytona" even though it was never an official name at the time

 

excellent post and well written

 

Yes, but we shouldn´t forget that there were more "Californias", not only the 250. It was a series of cars, not a single model, so I find some logic in re-using the name.

 

OK, I can see your logic, but the only other California was the 365GT, and they made only 14 of those (IIRC), so you can't really say it was much of a series...

 

Exactly what I have concluded after analyzing this car's design.

That line is so drastic and it twists awfully. When you observe the original it was pretty straight and clean-cut.

Had they continued the line which runs from the top of the side vent to the back, where the bulge is, it would have been much more sophisticated.

IMHO, the worst aspect of this car is the excruciatingly long rear tail-light which extends over the trunk - awful.

It didn't work on the Enzo, it did not work on the F430, it sorta worked on the 599 because it was subdued. However, this example is too much.

 

"Donde hay dos, hay tres".

Agree in that the original Californias were a limited production series while this one is something more "mainstream", but these days almost everything is "mainstream".

 

Have you or this designer you're quoting actually SEEN the car?

And because this person has studied design it suddenly makes him an authority on what a Ferrari should look like??

He, like many, may have some very fixed pre-conceived notions of what is "good" and "bad" in an automobile's design.

If you would, please provide an example of a design he thinks is good. Thus, we can know his tastes and preferences.

He sounds British. And to think someone, anyone at Pininfarina or Ferrari looked at Lexus or TVR for influences is both comical and offensive. That's like the people who said the Maserati QP was copying off a Buick. lol


Forza,


Cavallini

 

Now that's funny. lol

My first sight of it was at ferrariworld.com where it's pictured in Azzuro. I loved it instantly.

Had I first beheld it in Rosso I may not have been so instantly smitten. RC is not the color for this one.

Azzuro is stunning on it, however. By contrast, a 430 in Azzuro would look decidedly off-beat.


Forza,



Cavallini

 

Since the 360, Ferrari's have not been 2-dimensional shapes, like virtually every other car except perhaps the Carrera GT and the Zonda. Even modern Lambos are still two-dimensional, stunning and gorgeous but still two dimensional.

These late model Ferraris have all been 3-dimensional, even the 612.

By 3-dimensional I mean it is not possible to see the harmony and proportion of line, plane and curve in photos, especially the computer generated photos because photos are 2-D.

I remember the first photos I saw of the 360 in Road and Track. I thought it looked like a space-ship or some sort of alien space-craft. It was stunning but very, very exotic.

In person, however, the depth and harmonius complexity of the entire design literally jumps out at the eye.

For proof, set a 360, a 550 and a 430 side by side. You'll see the sophistication and symmetry of the lines in the 360 and 430 in person that you simply cannot see in photos. The 550 will look flat and plain by comparison. Still beautiful but not nearly as sophisticated, not nearly as FULL.

Obviously, the Enzo is the most extreme and sophisticated yet gorgeous design ever attempted for a road-car. But in photos it looks like some sort of Transformer.

Maserati's latest have the same 3-D quality as well. Pictures in no way convey the amount of raw presence a QP possesses.

If you don't see it now, you'll see it eventually.

It's like comparing these emaciated, starved runway models, who many think are hot, to a Vargas girl from the '50s.

2-D vs 3-D.

I'll take 3-D every day.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

I picked "love it" because that was the only option for how I feel about the car. I don't love the looks but I do like it MUCH better than what has been coming out of the factory lately. It's a nice looking car. I really like the folding hard top convertible, VERY nice!

 

Not only do I dislike the styling, I'm not keen on the whole concept.

I'm sure it will be a sales success though.

 

Oh yes, I shall posess one!

 

That's the attitude. Ooh-Rah!



Forza,


Cavallini

 

Although your point does have merit about many vehicles of this day needing to be seen in 3-d to be fully appreciated, I do not think seeing this car in 3-d will modify the twist in the side nor ridiculously styled rear tail-lights.

No one said it made him an authority, the designer's quote was merely a support to my argument. You know what they say about assuming...

Design is subjective, we are all free to express our opinion.

p.s. although I do not know the designer nor any of his personal favorite designs, I am quite confident in my taste: Aston Martin DB9 coupe, Ferrari 360 Modena berlinetta.

Both of the above vehicles give a modern interpretation based upon traditional elements; both companies stress tradition in their marketing. The 360 clearly draws cues from a Dino with exception of the rear glass hatch which eliminates the "buttress look".

 

hahahahahahahahahahaha

you're screen name is hilarious!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

"dandruff" LOL!!

 

Thanks for clarifying your personal tastes at least. And yes, the designer is decidedly personal in his opinion.

My point about 3-D though was that Ferrari is just about the only designer doing this. Other makes are certainly very beautiful, the DB9 and Gallardo are stunning, breathtaking in totally different ways; the latest 911s are very, very handsome and confident, but none of them are as sophisticated and involved as recent Ferraris. The GranTurismo and QP not surprisingly, are very close to this level of involvement and sculpture.

Remember, all those great, now classic Ferraris that everyone loves were very avant garde when they debuted.

It is the same with this Ferrari.

Ferrari and Pininfarina have the formula. It is high art, if you ask me, in the same league as Coltrane, Hendrix and Arvo Part.

To Ferrari, a design like the DB9, is simply too easy, beautiful but too easy. Ferrari must be daring and confident, striking and perhaps controversial, like the Enzo and the 599. That's the formula I think they veered too far away from with the 612.

In this regard they remind me of that genius of controversy Thelonius Monk, who made every wrong right. Obviously no visual art form could or should ever attempt to do what Monk did with music but you see my point. Monk never did the expected, easy thing with his music. He always challenged himself, his fellow artists and the listener.

Ferrari has a very similar passion with their designs, and of late with their engineering.



Forza,



Cavallini

 

Well said Cavallini.

 

Yes, you said it very well. But I do think the 612 had its purpose and served it well.