£230,000 Ferrari FF WRITTEN OFF after driver lost control and veered up grass verge before smashing into tree | Mail Online Anyone knows the owner and what actually happeend. Such a sweet car, and now written off
The black is a carbon panel, as seen here when the car was nice, new and shinny. White Ferrari FF by Oakley Design in Manchester
Seeing this makes me wonder if companies that build relatively small volumes of cars have, or can justify using, the resources necessary to build the same level of safety into their vehicles that larger companies like Mercedes can. Is the requisite safety technology readily available and easy to engineer, or does it take an inordinate amount of testing, etc. to maximize? I know all cars have to meet certain requirements for their respective markets, but I assume ( hope) that some companies take it to a higher level. Just curious.
Ferrari offers some of the most advanced electronics in the car industry. The driver is the weakest link most of times.
great question. my $0.02, some random thoughts Having now seen way too many destroyed current-era Ferraris (on road and track), I am consistently amazed at how strong the tub of the cars are. I will give Ferrari props for building very solid structures that seem to perform well in a variety of impact scenarios, at least from a passenger compartment/tub perspective. Ferraris (like other performance cars) give the driver every advantage to avoid trouble (brakes, steering, grip, throttle), plus the electronic aids (ABS, TCS, ESC, etc). Of course, that same performance seems to help drivers get into trouble. I think each car maker needs to build/spec their cars to meet minimum, and sometimes likely arbitrary, market-specific safety requirements (eg. US DoT/NHTSA, UK MoT, is there still a "moose test" in Sweden?). I am sure there are a lot of extra bits Ferrari could put on - eg. auto-braking, lane-change alert, blind-spot warning, etc that they could source from an OEM. These I'd imagine are not on the cars for a variety of reasons....too much of a hassle to integrate, cost, people would not want them, too little volume of cars to offset investment, they don't work too well....etc. I am sure for some car makers it may be a stretch, but Lambo, Tesla, Ferrari all have the resources and likely the ability to take the cost hit (in the form of a price hike). GM, Chrysler, Daimler, VWAG can leverage the investment over their full line. I was surprised the McLaren just got the backup camera.... Quite honestly, when I got married and we had kids I started thinking more Volvo-ish (i.e. passive safety, wrap them in steel and airbags) - however I am very confident having the kids ride in an FF, 458 or F12, as long as the driver (my wife, or me) knows what the hell we're doing driving one of these weapons.
The manufacturer is responsible for development regarding crash testing and crumple zones etc, the aftermarket companies like Oakley, Kahn, or Mansory are simply fitting cosmetic parts which do not effect the structure or crumple zones of a vehicle. This is why cars always get a face lift with different lights and panels but same basic shape, as it is a cost cutting measure to try and claw back some of the investment made on development. And a way for manufacturers to get a bit more mileage out of a chassis where the development costs are. Case example is the California and the new Cali turbo. Or the 348 to 355 etc.
One of the problems faced by small manufacturers of luxury/performance vesicles is the cost to comply with the regulations of the different countries they wish to market in. The effect of this is to greatly limit the offerings of various electronic aids and add-ons. For example I asked my dealer why doesn't the FF have an emergency call button to summon roadside assistance the way BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Cadillac, etc. all have. I argued that a serious long distance driver should have it. He responded with the complexity and cost of compliance that I made above.
Your problem is you asked the dealer. He is not the manufacturer, and does not know his butt from his elbow about these things. Of course, he won't admit it. So he comes up with a reasonable-sounding explanation. To know the real reason, ask five people in the right place. Then ask five people in the same positions at another company. Then cross check with suppliers in China and India. Then you will have an idea. Cost and complexity are issues for new things. This is run-of-the-mill technology that has been in place for years. It would be neither costly, nor complex, for Ferrari to include this if they chose to put them in.
Entropy, you said it very well. The only thing I would say which I dont think applies to the FF so much, but the 458 has a lower bumper so GFB you are in an accident with another vehicle, especially a truck, the higher bumpered vehicle usually has an advantage. NO, the reason for no on-star like system is kind of like that. Those systems rely on subscriber revenues and many Ferrari owners would simply not subscribe. Its really not so much complying with regulations, its just that there's not a huge demand for it. But if you keep asking your dealer, and filling it out on surveys, Ferrari might very well add it in. I think it would be nice to have on a car like the FF. One of my issues with the FF is it lacks things like that as well as other niceties such as heated steering wheel, HUD, and more advanced NAV. Things that are really appreciated in a vehicle you drive often. I bet they will be adding more and more of these things over time and I bet on-star type system will be one as well.
Yes, a serious long distance DD should have this kind of thing. It won't cause any loss of Ferrari panache.
