Interesting Article...

Well strangely reading the article I merely see an out and out attack at Ferrari, I dont see any other manufacturers mentioned. Be that as it may, I am glad he wrote the article.

 

And that's what it comes down to. I think this extends beyond what the article mentions even (Classiche etc.)

This is true, Ferrari didn't even run in the first race in 1950 as Enzo was upset with the financial arrangements.

 

Wouldn't this be more cost effective?

Natan
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Impact of article on Ferrari = none, zero, less than zero. Here today, forgotten tomorrow. Business as usual.

Impact of article on CH = positive. He spoke his mind. I respect that. I want to know what a journo really thinks - not just what he thinks the manufacturer wants him to say or do.

 

agreed .. I'd imagine a few journalists wanted to say/print, but none were brave enough to do so!

true .. although didn't Jeremy Clarkson get into trouble with the factory a few years ago for doing exactly that, i.e. showing how to access the "secret" launch control on the 599GTB given US spec cars didn't come with the LC button?

 

I remember him doing that; I don't remember him getting in trouble for it.

There was good reason for the 599GTB not having launch control--wear and tear. When Nissan started delivering the GT-R they had way too many owners sending them back to dealers after a month or so of use with blown transmissions. Owners were asking the dealers to absorb the $25K for a new unit, and things got a little feisty.

Nissan responded by writing a new policy that voided warranties as soon as LC was accessed on any car. Period.

In light of that, I can understand Ferrari's motive here: This is what we can do given extremely optimum settings (press car), but it's not really maintainable by normal, daily driver customers. Nissan did the same thing with LC because they wanted the 0-60 posted on the cover of every magazine, but they removed it pretty quickly when they learned that owners couldn't handle the real deal responsibly.

The only problem is that Ferrari builds daily driver automobiles...for daily driver people. I guess an owner could optimize the car on his own and deal with the consequences (or they could call Ferrari's press team ), but that (to Chris' credit here) would defeat the purpose of buying a Ferrari production vehicle, which is made to have X performance with X reliability and X warranty.

 

I don't think it was ever publicised officially but I read about it in one of the UK car mags. From memory Top Gear didn't get any factory Ferrari's for about 2 seasons after that, whilst their competitor Fifth Gear was invited to the factory several times, including giving Jean Todt a birthday cake after driving from the UK to Maranello in a 612, plus 599 & Scuderia test drives at Fiorano.

 

You must not have seen his video review of the 458:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTurbScHcqY[/ame]

After making a big point of rattling off various facts and figures ("so what" is my feeling) he then nearly orgasms to death whilst driving like a lunatic on public roads. Closed or not, great example there Chrissy.
And, is he now saying that Ferrari specifically tweaked that particular 458 for the (again, public) roads in his test drive?
Quote @ 4:09: "And THIS is what it's all about: 2nd gear hairpins..."
Apparently now he's of the opinion that it's actually NOT all about 2nd gear hairpins.

I generally like reading/watching CH, but the Jalop article comes across like a little kid throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way.

 

Umm, he's owned three Ferraris recently. A 612, then a 512 TR, then the 575. Seems rather enthusiastic if he's spending his own money on the brand. Also I remember him loving the 599 GTO and the 288.

I'm surprised by all of the "everyone else provides juiced cars to journalists comments" as I don't think those are the most revealing parts of the article. What's new is the lengths Ferrari goes to, tuning a car for a specific track, and the draconian control it asserts by refusing to allow a writer to drive a car that's not provided by the factory. I've not read that about any other manufacturer.

This reminds me of many of the posts from disgruntled owners who say they are abandoning the brand because of their negative experiences at the dealers.

 

If this is true, Ferrari should keep in mind that a cover-up is always worse than the crime.
Would not be surpised to see other media outlets jump on this type of story. Coziness is fun for all concerned until they begin reading about it in the media.

 

Chris Harris' complaint can be boiled down into a single sentence:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."

That Ferrari is guilty of bending some rules is not his point.

His point is that Ferrari has entirely lost any attachment to the notion of why rules exist.

And if we aren't the least bit disturbed by that revelation, then we probably need to lay off the Kool-Aid until we regain some perspective.

 

I don't think the average consumer will really recognize the difference between a souped up Ferrari and the apparently de-tuned version that consumers get. I've driven an F430 and regardless of how much Ferrari covers up , manipulates, and exaggerates, the car is friggin' awesome. There really is no need for them to be so ridiculus, but at the same time I don't think that this "scandal" will have any real impact on their sales. Chris Harris said it best. The cars already rock. There's no need to be so controlling and manipulative. Just let people drive em so that they can see for themselves. Personally, this makes me more of a McLaren fanboy. It's not cool to support the establishment... especially when they function like North Korea... ; )

 

Harris' argument only works if people buy the cars because of the magazines tests and numbers. He's assuming/implying people only buy the cars because of his/others reviews. I think we've seen in other threads that isn't really the case. Taking out that aspect there's no real "moral" issue, just Ferrari using tactics (that I don't agree with) to get the best results

 

If "rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are" this must be a new revelation for him because by his own admission, he didn't have any principles for many years.

 

+1

Very well said.

Unfortunately many individuals and companies have become complacent about ignoring their core principles for the pursuit of wealth or power.

 

Chris Harris is very objective, read his latest rant in his EVO blog :

Cold, clinical, unemotional.

You’re going to hear and read these words used a lot in association with the new McLaren MP4-12C. This is not a car that wears its heart anywhere near its sleeve: it’s a towering piece of engineering that requires time and a multitude of conditions to reveal the complexities of its brilliance. In many ways then, it is the anti-supercar, because a supercar by definition is a binary creature; something that exists on a solitary, self-indulgent, look-at-the-bulge-in-my-trousers level.

Is the Macca better than a 458? I suppose technically it does things the Ferrari cannot do – it offers a blend of ride and handling never before witnessed in this type of car. It is also faster than the Ferrari – in fact even though I was stunned by the chassis’ spread of abilities, I was even more shocked by just how bloody fast it was. Hitting 124mph in 8.9sec from rest makes a travesty of the supposed opposition. But that doesn’t make it the greater car of the two, and I for one am not willing to be drawn much further into that discussion until I’ve driven both on the same road, the same track and had a chance to digest the results.

Understandably, everyone wants to know the outcome of 458 v Macca, but for me there’s an even more interesting story emerging here: one that deconstructs the role of this type of car. Once we’ve decided which one wins the group test, the internet-scuffles have abated and I’m choking on an MX-5 what I want to know is how people propose to use cars like the MP4-12C and 458. I think they question the nature of the ‘occasional’ sports car because they’re so damn good at being used all-the-time. Well, certainly the McLaren is.

The progression of the super-sports-car in recent years has been startling. Three years ago the benchmark mid-engined toy was a Ferrari 430 -1450kg of aluminium monocoque with 483bhp, two-stage dampers and a pretty ropey robotised paddle-shifter. The MP4-12C has 592bhp, its carbon tub contributes to a weight of 1336kg and it has a double-clutch gearbox. Its performance potential is in a different reality to the 430. Never forget that the Ferrari Daytona was launched in 1968, yet in 1980 it was still one of the fastest cars in the world. In other words, right now we’re seeing unprecedented advances in vehicle performance.

That the McLaren is an entirely useable everyday car is both undeniable and testament to the skill of the engineers behind it – but is it what this type of car should be? If you spend the week in an Audi A8, in your weekend toy do you want to change gear yourself or pull a paddle? You know what I’m getting at here – to me it feels like we’re right at the tipping-point in the driver/machine relationship. The current prerogative is very much engineering-lead; the language of communication is numerical, everything is faster, grippier, better. But where does the driver fit-in? Where does this development process take us?

It’s fascinating to watch the developing Ferrari/McLaren rivalry, it’s a privilege to drive these cars, but I for one hope that the driver will always be considered as something more than simply the operator of a set of electronic systems - because driving is the thing that draws us into this strange world of car-lust in the first place. As a sports-car manufacturer, if you forget that, you become the purveyor of three-dimensional arcade games which offer the potential for life-changing bills.

So I can’t tell you if the Macca beats the 458, but I can tell you that, great though they both are - sitting here right now - I suspect I would rather have an F40 than either.

 

I think the opinions being expressed about the Macca are very much hyped. This is a road car destined to be produced in high volumes and used everyday by some owners, its not like the original Mclaren F1.

Quotes such as "its carbon tub contributes to a weight of 1336kg". Whaaaat? Thats not light. Sub 1 tonne and I'd be impressed, thats exactly what Lamborghini are working on. Sorry but where is the progress in cars with a kerb weight with driver of 1.5 tonnes and 600bhp? Give me sub 1000kgs and 400bhp please. I'm sure it will be a technical tour de force but I cannot help but think that most cars produced today are too heavy and major too much of glitter of special effects (technology) rather than getting back to basics, lighter weight, lower power, improved handling through less weight rather than computers changing things 1000 times per second. Sorry but thats not my dream....

I think the 430 should have come out first in '99 and then later the 360. With the 360 boasting a smaller engine yet still significantly improved performance through weight reduction, not millions of computers doing everything for you... suppose thats f1 tech transfer but it doesn't necessarily mean its more fun...

 

+10,000

 

Seriously, this is SUCH BS. The 12C and the 458 have never tried to be an F40. Try taking the F40 to your local grocery store. Try taking it cross country. Try using it to go to the office down the freeway in traffic.

I just hate it when people can't understand why vehicles are designed the way they are for different purposes and markets and then, decide to slap them with total nonsense.

They lose all credibility to me everytime this same baloney comes up.

 

http://jalopnik.com/#!5760248/how-ferrari-spins

Can't say I blame him. It's a sad fact that every mfg does it. Ferrari is no different. Still don't like it.

 

Every auto maker doesn't freak when you borrow a customers car for an article, or blacklists journos that dare to try.

 

I think he is over stating their "special" setup steps.

Fact is that with a Ferrari you can adjust the suspension, so it is only natural to do this if you want to track the car. I bet many owners do if their Ferrari is a track tool only.
Pete

 

Not sure that this will really change anything other than making people view specs and reviews with a grain of salt. This story is really getting around though and highlights some the tricks being used in the industry.

 

I really worry about people who would buy a car based on a quoted 0-60 time from a magazine.

Like who the fnck cares, next week somebody will go faster ... but yes the reviews of the driving experience is important, but again we can all adjust any Ferrari we own to be more suited to track, or whatever if we want to, just get a spanner out.
Pete

 

I would say that his rant is more about control and access. Of course he does take exception to the testing procedures, but his ire seems to be pointed at Maranello pretty accurately.