LOL. You prove my point! Most buyers want it just because it's a Ferrari. Who do you think creates the it's a Ferrari aura? It's the general car enthusiasts who aren't customers, but who read magazines and argue on the forums! If tomorrow the entire world says Ferraris are pieces of **** owner by losers, that 99% crowd concerned with image won't want one! Same thing happens, but to a lesser extent, if they all start saying McLaren makes better cars. It's not something that happens overnight, but like I said, it's gotta start somewhere.
Simply put, no! Ferrari will actually limit production this year even though demand is very strong. You can make more money by being exclusive as long as you sell at a very high premium!
Ferrari has recently announced production cuts after spending a fortune to raise capacity. Spin that.
True and your point about the GTR and ACR Viper and many other's who market their Ring Times and Race Victories at The Ring and use these victories in their marketing as MB, Audi, Porsche and Audi do also proves that low Ring Times and Ring Race Victories sell cars. HP has made The Ring a center piece of selling Pagani's and many tire companies use the Ring in their marketing as well. Ferrari has already spent a fortune to raise productive capacity to 10K cars per year and even with the California and FF they aren't getting there and have recently CUT production.
Sorry, but I disagree. Ferrari does not need the mystical Ring as much as any other marque. It is the defacto worlds premier brand and does not need to continually prove it. Vipers, Corvette, Subaru, Audi understandably do.
There's that muddled thinking again. Having the second or third or eighth best time at N'ring does not mean the car is inferior in ANY way. Get real. No, people would not be happy with any one of them. People have specific tastes and desires that are fulfilled in unique ways. There are many, many buyers who could buy any car, but choose to focus on specific marques. For them, there is no substitution. The metrics don't matter one bit. You seem to think people buy cars on the basis of track times. Very, very, very few do. The vast majority buy a specific car because they feel it reflects them best. Either their pocketbook, their self-image, their desire to impress others, their desire to complete their collection, their desire to show that they have arrived to others or to prove it to themselves, or because their third mistress thinks it's "cute" or their competing trader at Deutsche Bank got one last year or their father collected them and they want to carry on the tradition or they need to shelter taxes by making a purchase that can be written off somehow, or it makes them feel affiliated with the F1 team from the same company, whatever. You don't understand consumer psychology. At all.
It's F1 program is low fair these days, after spending a fortune to increase production capacity it's cutting production, it's FF isn't selling well, it clearly realizes how important Ring Times are because IT posted them at Geneva. Used 458 are stacking up. IMO Ferrari should get back to LMP1 asap. McLaren and Porsche are all doing massive marketing at Goodwood and the Ring and it's working. P1 Sales and 918 sales are much better than they were. The local McLaren dealer has sold 9 P1's in NY. If McLaren made a car that looked as good as the 458 Ferrari would be in BFT.
There are a variety of factors at play here. N'ring times, however, do not figure into this equation AT ALL, except for maybe 0.00001% of the market.
Ferrari doesn't sell cars. It sells an image. That image is built on history and on perceived performance. Actual performance is so far beyond useable that its these " meaningless " parameters which count.
Then why did Ferrari Loudly Publicly claim that they will be below 7 minutes at the Ring. If it doesn't matter why mention it? Ferrari ability to sell a few FF's proves their brand so far has massive power but anyone who thinks that Porsche, Lambo, McLaren and Pagani aren't out there gunning for them and don't matter is whistling past the graveyard. If P1 beats La Ferrari at the Ring it will matter. Just how much TBD but anyone who claims it doesn't matter at all is wrong. When the P1 owner at PDiddley's White Party mentions that his car's Ring time is faster than La Ferrari's you'll be able to hear the sound of Dicks shriveling.
I'm not saying I personally care but saying no one does is silly. How these cars drive on a track and how fast they are at The Ring does influence buyers. My neighbor who got his Rolex Daytona the hard way has no interest in a La Ferrari but likely going for a P1
Because it's a threshold value. Under 7 minutes is GOOD ENOUGH to be a world class supercar. Whether the time is 6.48 or 6.53 or someone else is a hair faster might be disappointing to some but it really does not matter when it comes to buy/don't buy. Spin it any way you want, that's the truth. Same literature also mentions a host of other details. None of them really matter, either. It's marketing fluff. Would people change their decisions if the leather was a different grade or was finished in a different way? What if the pedal box was not billet aluminium? What if the steering wheel buttons had different functions? What if the headliner was made of bunnies? And the dashboard had eggshells buried in it? What about the font on the plaque...suppose they use the same font that's used in F1 tickets and the 2013 official season programme? It might be interesting but it won't change the market. It's marketing. You can say anything and the average consumer will lap it up. The last 512 was yellow with a blue interior. Same as the very first one. That's "historically significant" according to Ferrari of SF. Really? Think people jumped at it? It sat on the showroom floor for months. The colors and history did not matter as much as the price and the state of the general economy. Nobody is saying this. Of course they are all vying for the same market. That market, however, does NOT consist of schoolboys comparing track times. Pathetically wrong. Once you are in the right bracket, as all supercars are, this ceases to be significant. Pathetic.
Generally a good principle to live by, but if you take this to an extreme, you become an obnoxious boor. It's also a big mistake to assume you understand what others think.
And the room goes dead silent - until someone says 'wtf is the ring? The only ring that matters here is bling'
If the P1 beats the LaFerrari by a couple seconds at the ring it's no big deal. If the P1 beats the LaFerrari by a larger amount of seconds at the ring it might not be a big deal, but it will be significant. Ferrari will still sell many cars regardless, likely over stated production, but there will be some buyers who opt for the perceived fastest car. If the P1 is significantly faster at the ring it will likely be significantly faster elsewhere and over several measurable stats. Some buyers will write the check simply because the LaFerrari is Ferrari's supercar. There are also multi-ferrari supercar buyers who aren't buying the LaFerrari. With seven-figure pricetags most buyers don't buy the car for the pure driving experience, but for the status and perception and satisfaction of ownership. How quick the car is compared to the competition is an important part of this perception. If Ferrari supercars were bought primarily to drive, they would all have more mileage, plain and simple.
Btw - when did Ferrari LOUDLY proclaim a sub 7 minute time? They mentioned it, and they also mentioned 230 top speed etc.... Funny how people criticize certain spin, yet do the same themselves...