THE F70 (LaFerrari) Thread

you are obviously new to these parts. i'll let him answer (or not)..but when someone asks ME that same question...my reply: it's not HATE! I love Ferrari, Lamborghini, McL, for whatever the are, what they offer of particularly themselves... BUT.... i do not blindly 'love'... 'love' as in, excuse, as in a 'blind eye'. you can be critical and love a product/brand at the same time.

 

that's right, keep telling yourself that. whatever you have to do, to convince yourself that 'perception', and 'interpretation' of proportions, shapes, etc, are not hinged on subjectivity.

 

his 'point' is simply: "there is an objective and quantifiable 'beauty', and to be defined, to qualify as 'beautiful', 'magical', it must meet his needs... it is only beauty if thing in question falls into framework that he created.

 

Nope. Beauty is NOT subjective, because proportions, 'aesthetics' are not subjective. Well, that's what several folk here claim they've got it all worked out...how to make something beautiful and provide massive downforce, technical performance, etc. Yep. McLaren should've enlisted their help...McL would surely have a car with 5000lb of downforce, go 300mph, AND most importantly, have 'that otherworldly Ferrari beauty'. oh brother

 

Whoa... that´s a... "quite controversial" statement. As this a philosophical/psychological/physiological/historical matter that exceeds the field of discussion of Ferrarichat (and probably my own capabilities too), I´m only going to say that I think that you´re underestimating the problem.

 

Again, both F70 and P12 (or P1 or whatever) are roadcars. LMP1-cars are not the benchmark. Not for Ferrari anyway. They have no interest in LMP1. Otherwise to would compete in that category. Also no point in comparing the P12 with the Enzo, since the latter is over ten years old now. Also no point in comparing it to the F12, which is in terms of aerodynamics a very advanced car no matter what you say (but it is no surprise that a hypercar takes its aero a step further) and is in terms of the combination of speed, drivability, allround performance and usability, lightyears ahead of any McLaren roadcar.

 

I'd counter that everything is a compromise . Irrespective as to how they stack up on the track the truth I suspect is the owners of any of these cars arent really worried about the competitor in the sense that each car will give its owner pleasure, thus the comparison to me doesnt really have much merit.

Often the true value of a car is how its looked upon say a decade after its launch, back when the F40 was launched at least one magazine thought the Porsche 959 would be the icon of that decade, how wrong they were.

 

I am not saying that I know aerodynamics. Far from it. I am just reading here that the P12 is sooooo aerodynamicaly advanced, that I am surprised that it obviously needs to use a rather old school rear wing to create those amounts of downforce. Not so impressive at all I would say.

 

I am also surprised at the wing, speaking under correction the Enzo also generated significant downforce without the use of a large wing. The question as ever is are the owners of these cars going to have sufficient skill to drive them to even half of cars capability, personally, I suspect not.

 

While there are standards of beauty they are subject to interpretation and revision.

Initially the music of Stravinsky was considered ugly. And that of Beethoven too.

Picasso rewrote the language of painting. As did Leonardo.

Guigiaro broke a lot of established rules of automobile styling. As did Pininfarina.

As Emerson said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".

Or " a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?".

 

that's precisely what i said! but certain folks simply won't have it, no siree bob. perception, and interpretation have much to do with the whole shenanigan. they 'flow' as does subjectivity matter. 'Art' in form of music, or paintings, etc, often evolve, benefitting from cultural saturation, through time, through shifting perspective.

 

He's simply speaking the truth, that's not hate, imo. If anything, that shows his true love for the brand. Regardless of their flaws, he's still very involved with the cars.

Just my 2 cents.

 

by that same token, you are also non-plussed by today's F1 cars...the need to use an 'old school' trick such as the familiar rear wing design to achieve their downforce levels?

car designers and engineers decide which 'tricks' they will incorporate based on their desired blend of 'style' and tech performance. Mclaren claims that they have found 1300lbs of downforce up front despite a very small frontal area, thus also giving them a very respectable Cd .34. active underfloor flaps ahead of the front wheels certainly must play a big role. I'd say that's pretty impressive stuff.

 

that's how i see it as well. just has the ballz to be critical when critical is warranted. me, i simply don't understand utter and complete blind allegiance to a product/brand. Ferrari, and the buyers of its cars excusing crap build quality back in the day, is why it took so long for change to happen.

 

uhm... no, the marvel of F1 cars is not in their rearwings. Those things are, by regulation, pretty straightforward.

Sure, but again, it is a roadcar. And since a roadcar isnt a competitioncar, downforce shouldn't be a goal in itself. A competitioncar can not have enough downforce. A roadcar can. Apart from that, putting a huge rearwing on a car is a good way to create downforce. There is however, nothing impressive about that. No problem at all, but since we are being told that the Mac is very innovative in terms of generating downforce, the fact that it needs a rearwing is a bit of a let down. That it also functions as an airbrake, doesn't really interest me. That has been done before.

 

It is pretty obvious Jim has a bone to pick with Ferrari about their refusal to provide P4/5C with spare parts. Come on....

 

of course, but it's more than that...

 

it's a road car in plain terms, yes. BUT, this car is built for those who see it as more than that. it has massive aero because the intended use of this car is on the race tracks as well as the motorway. don't say intended and actual owners of these cars won't track them, because we've seen how cars like the F1, MP4, Ferrari ABCDE, etc, do get tracked hard. so it's goal is to be the best it can be for that purpose. for those who will buy it as a formidable track day machine, i'm sure it will not disappoint. that's where the massive downforce comes in. the technical requirements thus woven together with the McL 'design'. you may hot think so, but clearly many folks (me included) think that a DRS system for a production run series car is very trick stuff. getting that 'big rear wing' to do several things (air brake, DRS via trim/angle, variable height-variable downforce..all the while not upsetting the rest of car balance) and not simply generate static downforce is impressive--but you feel it's a letdown having such a device? hmm... you don't think that's pretty trick....to see how air is being channeled this way and that...how the front radiator vent splits the hot outlet air so it doesn't feed into the central roof intake...but instead feeds that air to the left and right door inlets. to me, getting that type of aero manipulation to actually work is very very impressive.

 

I don't know. It is Jim's opinion to which he is entitled. Plus, the man can speak for himself.

 

Sure, if it is meant to take part in trackdays... But still, there are reasons why competitioncars aren't suited for the public roads and at one point, on those public roads, you get a surplus on downforce. The levels of downforce you will never ever reach on an open road. No one wants to drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel.

So even if it is also meant to perform on tracks, it isn't a competitioncar and McLaren will have done very well if it turns out they have found the balance between a usable yet very potent roadcar and a very effective trackcar. I can imagine that this would be a very thin line.

I suppose the F70 will be much less focused on the track. Other than the F40, which was really a competitioncar which was made just about legal enough for the public roads.

I don't know. In F1 DRS is in itself not such a technical marvel. All the teams have no problem designing and realizing it and it is a pretty simple device. A Drag Reduction System on a roadcar seems gimmicky to me. But so do headlights in the shape of the manufacturers logo. But I am sure the P12 has aerodynamic characteristics that indeed are impressive but go beyond me comprehension.

I like the aerobridge in the F12. I thought that is a pretty creative way to influence airstreams.

 

Even though generally I agree with you, this time around I will have to disagree.

First of all, apart from a drag penalty, I see no disadvantage in having a lot of downforce in a road car.
Secondly, as fas as we know, the F70 will not be less focused on the track. After all, Ferrari loves announcing Fiorano lap times!
Thirdly, the F40 as great as it was, has been surpassed by many Ferrari models. It was never meant for competition either. The 288 GTO was, even though it was very slow compared to the 40.
Fourthly, many teams have problems with their DRS systems and in reality none is identical to the next one. There are varying degrees of efficiency between them. The hardest part is having both high downforce (measured in Units) when the system is idle and very reduced drag when the system deploys. It's a fine art really. I am sure that Jim will concur on this one, even though I have disagreed with him on several occasions.

The F12 is indeed a great car, probably the best supercar out there. Let's see what the hypercars will bring though.

 

Nice Post. I don't like Picasso but I appreciate his tremendous contributions to art. Guernica is epic.

This is why I don't hate on McLaren.

And, I love the Emerson quote--I use it often.

We have to get a drink next time I am up your way.

 

Hey Mr. 9 Posts, he has done more for Historic Ferrari than just about anybody here, if he has a reason to criticize Ferrari the Company, that his right. Perhaps when your a Subscribed Member, and have read more about Mr. Glickenhaus, you will understand his reasons.

 

Is there a reason to get that personal? He is just asking a question. Subscriptions and histories should not really come into this.

 

have a look on Ferraris Youtube Channel...


nice videos about the monocoque.