This is the new California: The California T.

Can you take a pic or two of F12 on Ferrari stand? You can post on F12 picture thread. Thanks in advance.

 

Maybe there might be someone there who could answer how much body roll the new T will have compared to the Ca. 30 with the handling package? I was ready to buy one after a vigorous test drive,, and then I got back in my 991s and it felt all the more bonded to the road.

thanking you ahead of time...

 

i suspect the 991s' center of gravity is a bit lower than the california, which may translate into less body roll.
this is likely an intentional design element.
the california is an easy vehicle to enter an exit.
and it makes for a comfortable dd.
if you want a car that behaves as it is "driving on rails", the 458 is superior to the 911s (i own both a 991s cab and 458 spider).
entering and exiting a 458 requires far more agility than the 991s.

 

Which Maserati is shown on that pic?
That car looks awesome!

 

I couldn't agree more about the 991 not being an optimal daily driver. That's one of the main reasons I was looking to get into the cali. I also owned a 458, and would contend that my 991s with PDCC is the equivalent of the 458 with respect to the feeling of driving on rails. But, still am hoping that the new T with it's newly updated shock system can keep the car flat around hard cornering. The last 30 edition got closer, and I bet they go one step farther in that direction.

 

Alfieri concept.

 

Will try to get some pics.

Will do. But the 991 with the PASM/PDCC corners nearly flat and has a different mechanical setup so I doubt the Cali T will be able to match to it. Even the 458 and F12 have quite a lot of body roll (even though they feel quite stiff in the correct suspension mode), check out pictures from trackdays etc.

However, it would be nice to get a number on how much body roll is reduced in % compared to 30 HS.

 

Came back from Geneva last night. Had a great time, all the staff were fantastic. Was really surprised by how friendly just about every single person working there was. I was inside the stands of Ferrari, Maserati, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Koenigsegg, Pagani, McLaren as well as having a great chap at Jaguar showing me around the stand even though it was open.

At Ferrari everyone was way friendlier than they have ever been before, many young and really enthusiastic guys. I spoke with 3 different reps over the day, a nice guy named Rafael gave me a full demo of the Cali T. I asked him if he had a number on how much body roll was reduced, but replied that he didn't know other than the fact that the magneride dampers were quicker (I can't remember by how many % on the fly). I was also inside the atelier for a quick look at all the different things, but the Italian gentleman inside (also very kind and friendly) said that no pictures taken could be shared online. (don't know why, and since he was very friendly I didn't bother having an argument about it)

The interior is a huge improvement, it's much more aggresive and compact than the old Cali. Quite reminiscent of the F12.

However, I do have a concern. The top of height of the windscreen is very low (partially due to the aggresive angle9. The visibility out of the front is not as good as I expected. The steering wheel somewhat blocks your view, and if you lower it the wheel blocks the top of the rev counter. Headroom was absolutely fine, and so was everything else of the interior. No CarPlay, as they said it was only available on the press days. I would recommend anyone interested in the Cali T that they sit in the car before they purchase as for me at least, I did not except it to be so compact. It's not a bad thing, but it is very different from the old car which is more open and GT oriented.

 

Thanks for asking about the body roll.

 

Does this mean that Magnaride is included in the car ?

 

MisterMaranello,

Thanks for the Geneva report. Sounds like it was a good time! One of your observations about the California T struck me: The low height of the windshield. I've attached a profile photo which has intrigued me. The windshield does look low and seems to have a steep rake. I think it looks GREAT and decidedly aggressive! My question is this: Does the appearance of the windshield represent a structural change to the framework and a change to the roof as a whole? I had the idea in my head that the California T was basically a re-skin over the original California's frame, meaning the windshield and roof would remain the same. It doesn't seem to be? It looks as though that structure has also been redesigned to flow with the new body curves. What's the story?

ST

 

Oops. Here's the profile photo.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That is a great question, i can tell you that i have almost no buffetting in my Maserati GTC, however in my SLK it is very noisy and windy. I wonder how the new Cali will be ? Guys, what is your experience with the current Ca is it quiet and non windy or not ?

 

I find the car is quiet and comfortable top-down, and extremely quiet for a convertible with the top up. The hard top stiffens the roll when up, and the ride is almost as good as a sport coupe IMO. The car allows just the right amount of engine noise, which is one of its great pleasures. I have had 5 other convertibles, and it is the quietest of the group for the driver & passenger. Not sure if it is because I'm lower in the cockpit than with the others or the aerodynamics of the wind flow?

 

Much more quiet with top up and much more calm with the top down than my 911 cab. by a large margin. FWIW

 

I was also under the impression that the greenhouse would remain unchanged. I have not measured it, but the new car at least felt like the windshiled is lower.

The angle is very steep. With the steering wheel in a position that did not obstruct the view of the tach, there can not have been more than 20cm height between the top of the steering wheel and the top of the windshield (add another few cm's for the thickness of the front roof bar).

I had the seat all the way to it's lowest setting, and the view was too restricted for my liking. With the front windshield being so low and angled, the front roofbar takes quite a large portion of my view since I'm 6'1", which is unpleasant. Taking the roof up helped since I did not have a big bar in the top of my eyeline. The headroom is more than adequate and the interior in general is marvellous, I'm just a bit disappointed by the view which for me was too restricted. The Bentley Convertible was much better in terms of view and the roof bar was much higher up and further away from me. But that is a completely different car and not a fair comparison.

The issue with the view is a personal issue, depending on how you're proportioned in terms of leg lenght vs. backside height it might not be a problem. So try to sit in the car before you take my conclusion which is that the windshield is too low and too steeply angled.

 

That is a bit disconcerting. The old Cali seemed a bit low to me and took some adjustment. And I am not a tall guy at all...

 

Large steeply raked windshields with compound curvature seem to be a Ferrari design direction. Look at the FF, F12, and now California T. When I sit in the driver's seat of my FF, the sun visors are actually quite close to my head although I sit quite far back, and I have a visual sense of looking out of a bowl. I shudder to think of the cost of replacing one of these, so one of my first acts was to install a protective film. This greatly challenged the installer because of the sheer size of the windshield and its compound curvature.

 

FF windshield is nothing compared to the new Cali t.

 

To my eye, all three cars have an expansive steeply raked windshield that extends backward beyond the plane of the steering wheel.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The windshield on the cali is much steeper irl than it is on that press photo.

 

That side view suggests that part of the design intention may have been to make of the windshield frame a functional protective roll bar.

 

It would be interesting if the new CA got rid of the pop up roll bars. The Corvette C7 uses the windshield frame as it's roll bar and does not have pop ups.

The reason to get rid of them would be more space in the back, lower weight, lower cost, and a lower repair/replacement costs in at the case of false activation (a minor accident that triggers the roll bars to pop up).

Obviously, if you roll the car, it's a total so you don't care about replacing them. But if you get into a situation where you just go a little over but don't actually flip, the pop ups activate and cost a lot to replace. Expensive for insurance companies to repair in what might be a minor accident.

 

I'm also 6'1" and always had to have my seat at its lowest setting. I realize that we may be proportioned differently, but after you adjusted the front seat to your liking, I'm wondering if you noticed whether the back seat passengers would have more leg room than in the old California? Part of the reason why I sold my California was that my oldest child would soon reach the point where it was no longer comfortable to sit in back. I'm wondering if the T would allow me to "squeeze in" a couple more years of family motoring together.

Thanks for sharing your impressions.

 

Judging from one of the original press photos of the blue car, it uses the pop ups. You can see the outline of the covers for the pop ups (red arrows) in my attached photo.

IMO, the pop up roll-over protectors are far superior by design to the windshield when it comes to protecting the occupants. The windshield has to perform dual functions, a compromise, whereas the pop ups are designed from day-1 only as roll-over protection. The "bracing angle" of the protector (for lack of a better layman's term) when it is deployed, places the windshield at a great disadvantage, the action of an impact on the acute angle of the windshield presents a major challenge as a small deflection of angle results in a large displacement of the upper tip of the windshield.

Redesigning the windshield would add unnecessary costs, weight (and possibly bulk as well) to the front of the car and shift the car's centre of gravity. Any rear space saved would likely be moot because to take advantage of the space, the placement/shape of the roof and trunk would require major redesign and likely not work at all. As well, you cannot place objects in front of or on the sides of the metal roof mechanism/storage in the trunk. You can only store within the "bin" area - something not immediately obvious unless you own a California.

Here's another personal observation.

Ferrari favours a rear weight bias vs. the conventional 50/50 "perfect" balance. Why? Because Ferrari simply prefers to place weight on the (main) driving wheels for optimum transfer of power. Therefore, if weight is transferred away from the rear because the pop ups are eliminated (and the windshield strengthened), Ferrari will likely have to compensate for the loss in rear weight bias. Not good.

I think the pop ups were popularized by the SL-Klasse and those cars remain the closest comparison in layout to California. It's hard to find fault in German safety designs and it would not add to the California's appeal to skimp on the feature. If a driver tips the car enough to trigger the pop up, I think the occupants would be glad they deployed, deferring to safety rather than to save a few dollars (of insurance deductible).
Image Unavailable, Please Login