THE F70 (LaFerrari) Thread

Herein lies the debateable point, how many Enzo customers ever tracked their cars on a frequent basis? I would think not too many, how many pushed them to 10/10ths on the track, again I would think not too many.

I fully understand your point of view but Ferrari and McLaren are building road cars, not racing cars, whats good on the track isnt always good on the road. One needs to look at the MP4 12C, objectively its better than the 458 but you would need to look quite far and wide to find any review that says its subjectively better.

The point is if one wants to go fast around a track only there are alternatives, MP4 12C Can Am for example, engineering a car that can work on the road and be super fast and able to race on the track is a near impossible task in my opinion.

 

This V12 situation in the F70 is very odd. It seems sad that Marketing innovation is becoming a higher priority than engineering innovation... I thought we had seen the ultimate marketing spin with the 599GTO debacle, but based on the last few pages of this thread, it seems like the F70 is destined to continue the tradition.

 

Why is it a debacle? They made a great car, sold them all.......sounds like a successful campaign to me.

 

It was for PnL. But marketing only use of GTO for the 599, dilutes GTO.

Perhaps he's referring to the 'O' in GTO. Homologated for what?

 

Just continuing the F50 and Enzo tradition of cars with no purpose.

A v12 is unnecessary nowadays. It made sense when Enzo first saw a Packard and from then on all Ferraris were going to be v12's. What these small v12's gave Ferrari back then was reliability because instead of a few highly stressed parts they had lots of lightly stressed parts.

Nowadays metalurgy has moved on considerably and v12's are only made for emotive reasons. The right number of cylinders should now be determined by intended engine size. ~300cc per cylinder appears to be the ideal number. This is one of the reasons why current Ferrari v12 engines are of enormous capacity.

If we look at the current crop of front engined Ferraris they are unnecessary long nosed to house the v12 behind the front wheel axle line for chassis balance. If they were v6 or v8 engines the cars would be many times smaller, lighter, have more passenger space, change direction better as they could have a much shorter wheelbase and better looking.

If Ferrari want to continue with the emotive 12 cylinder engine then another layout instead of the simple V needs to be part of the package IMO. I suggest they build an engine that is 2 v6 engines side by side, forming a W shape, but where they could be really clever is they should have 2 crankshafts and a clever transmission/clutches so the car could run with only one v6 engine for economy and efficiency reasons. When owners want to prove a point they could flick a switch and both engines would come in to play. Would this concept help with endurance racing? ... save fuel when leading or pacing oneself sort of thing

Just my 2 cents worth.
Pete

 

That's exactly my point. The car was plenty good enough not to need the marketing garnish. It is such a shame that the company is becoming increasingly marketing led. With the F70 it is downright bizarre that the entire car, chassis, body, suspension, aero, energy recovery systems, transmission, electronics suite etc will be cutting edge and yet the engine will be last century. Why? Because Marketing said so. Unnecessary.

 

Well, if you think about it, any supercar is as a whole 'unnecessary'. The whole concept is meant to appeal to the emotion, rather then to fulfill a practical need. And thus, a V12 in a supercar still makes perfect sense to me. Even if there are better technical solutions around, I still believe Ferrari is capable of designing and building a V12 that is good enough to meet todays requirements.

 

Are you sure you are not the one who is being played by McLaren's Marketing Department? A twin turbo V8 might be one way to go but it is not the only one. A twin turbo definitely sounds less exhilarating that a naturally aspirated V12.

I'm confident that Ferrari can designe a V12 that is more than relevant of todays standards. Some of the figures this car is rumoured to achieve are simply staggering.

 

On a side note, I only now realize that the Mac MP4/12 was designed by the guy the brought us the 612 Scaglietti.

 

Why is a V12 last century? I bet it will be cutting edge and perhaps it will set new records for production engines in terms of revving and specific output for a N/A engine. If anything, a V12 can offer huge power amounts, responsivness. smoothness and "revviness" like nothing else! It is the perfectly balanced engine layout after all. Turbos are just a compromise IMHO. Good for lesser cars but not for the pinnacle. I dread to hear how the new F1 cars will sound.

PS: Electric motors existed since the 19th century. Why aren't they old news then?

 

I highly doubt marketing was responsible for the use of the V12 engine, Ferrari has a great V12 in the FF and F12 so why ditch that for a V8. The irony here is many on this forum were hoping for a V12 in this car and now that its confirmed to be a V12 many are hoping for a V8. Emotively a V8 cant sound as good as a V12 and for many people the sound and the feel of the car is more important than a lap time. Irrespective of engine choice I am certain all these new supercars will be fantastic in their own right.

 

Why should Ferrari build another engine?
They have a great V8 and just developed the new and extremly powerfull V12 for the F12. Why shouldn't Ferrari use "nearly" the same V12 engine for the new F70. They did the same with the Enzo and nobody complained about the heavy V12.

Now, McLaren build their MP4-12 using a turbocharged V8 they claim everything else is outdated [even the old BMW V12 engine (a masterpice of engineering) they used in Le Mans] and people start complaining about using a V12.

This old V12 BMW engine has more power, is for sure more reliable and with well under 250 kg it for sure doesn't weigth much more than the new V8 engine that McLaren uses now. Start thinking ... i like marketing;-)

 

One needs to separate science and emotion, and decide where the compromise between the 2 lies in regard of what the expectations of the en-product are.

It would be perfectly possible to build a 1000HP 4-cylinder, twin-turbo boxer engine and be fast, but that solution would lack the exotic refinement the client is looking for.

Historically, the top of the line Ferrari has a V-12. It is expected. Now, to keep up with the times, it'd be nice if this V-12 had a displacement of 3,5 liters and would rev to 10.000.

 

This reminds me of a 1970s F1 engine. Problem is that such an engine would make some 500 BHP which is Ferrari California territory. We need at least 300-400 more BHP for the top of the line Ferrari, hence larger displacement is necessary.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

The problem with group B was not just Toivonen´s accident. It started before.
In 84 Attilio Bettega Was killed in a lancia 037 when he crashed a tree in Corse, than, Ari vatanen had to very big accidents, he was leading in Corse when he went of the road, the Peugeot 205 t16 caught fire and burned to the ground, luckly he and co-driver where able to escape....later he had a huge accident in Argentin (if i´m not mistaken) and he was out of the championship. The real drama however was in 1986. It all started in Portugal when Joaquim Santos took a few spectators out when he missed a corner
in a ford rs200, than Toivonen an co-driver burned inside the delta s4, and than F.1 driver Marc Surer hit a tree and co driver was killed.
This cars had become to difficult to drive, they where made of composit materials that where extremly famable, and the fuel tank was under the drivers seat!!! A 205 t16 was said to accelerate from 0 to 100km/h in 2.3 sec!!! These cars reached on many ocasions 500hp and more (the folowing and actual generation of wrc are limited to 300hp)while beinh extremly light.
This videos show a little about it. 1986 is regarded as the best season ever in rally but also as the most dangerous one.They where preparing a new group (group s) that was strill more radical, Audi and Lancia already had prototypes for that but all was cancelled.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEnGY03YjOc[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sj9yTWP1fA[/ame]

(sorry to go off topic)

 

Yes you are right of course. Toivonen's death was just the final nail in Group B's coffin. No pun intended.

 

A very good 2c.

 

Exactly, many like to overlook this point and what GTO actually means. Homologated=ability to actually race in a series, not just have track days. It is a wonderful machine, but is not a true "GTO".

Back on topic...

 

Well if the purpose of the F50 and Enzo was to please their owners then I think they were a success! I dont recall reading any posts or articles about how "awful" either was to drive.

The W12 I am sure you agree has made for a super agile car in the Bentley CGT, it would surely be any track enthusiasts car of choice, lets not add that its a hugely simple engine to manufacture. Ok, I am sure you get the point.

Where I do agree is the overall dimensions of the cars, look at the F12, thats smaller than the 599 and it still has a V12.

Reality, get rid of legislative requirements regarding pedestrian safety and we can have much smaller more pretty cars, however thats not likely to happen.

While the V12s are here lets enjoy them, not ring the bell of their demise!

 

Firstly all cars are made for PnL.

Secondly Ferrari already diluted the 'GTO' name and spirit with the 288 by putting the 'O' in the GTO. The homologation was never 'approved' by the governing body, it was just assumed that it would have been. It never raced and so its racing pedigree is based on 'what if's' and 'shoulda, coulda, woulda's'.

Having said all this I completely agree that the 599 GTO was a marketing exercise, a 'reverse homologation' of an existing experimental race car. But whatever the reasoning behind it, the fact remains that they ended up making a great car which highlights the pinnacle of Ferrari tech and R&D for it's time.

Anyways......back to the topioc at hand

 

Nowadays homologation is not really needed as racing machines are either a) prototypes or b) series, even though limited, production sportscars. The Homologation Special of the yesteryears is a relick. We just have the name left. I don't see anything wrong with using a name from the past that used to mean something else.

In an analogy, McLaren used the F1 moniker for its 1992 hypercar. Was it a real Formula 1 racer?

 

Hopefully they will be driven further than the FXX Evo being offered with 7 miles on it.

As for judging "track performance" while it's possible that someone may take a P12 real racing there's ZERO chance of that happening with a New Enzo.

 

Agreed here, the V12 wouldnt make sense for any sort of motorsport but I admire Ferrari for sticking to the V12! The world would be a poorer place without an exotic Ferrari V12!

 

That's why I'm keeping my 412P.