The Official Ferrari 812 SUPERFAST pictures thread

Thanks for the info and picture.

I recall renting the film about a decade ago. In the final scene, a low set wire is shown dripping in blood. The actor was decapitated as he drove his car since the windscreen has a very low profile.

That movie car was based on a Ferrari 330 which had been rebodied by Fantuzzi specifically for this film.

Terence Stamp played the part of the wild unstable drug fueled actor

 

Take a look at the position of the glass input vent and the exiting rear vent. Looks like they had to go pretty darn low and then back up high to clear the fuel compartment. Not sure internally both sides are symmetrical. Looks like a problem that didn't need fixing considering the rear well is also vented out the back. Glad you noticed though.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

As always a brilliant render from Milano. Grazie mile!

 

Can I ask what red you used on the render - I am liking it for the 812

 

It looks Fantastic!

Marco.

 

In my extremely humble opinion, Ferrari is falling behind McLaren - I think you'd agree the main competitor - when it comes to aero and weight. I was lucky to see the 812 and the 720S and I have to say that Ferrari needs to abandon their no-moveable-wing policy. The wing/spoiler aero surface in the LaF was state of the art and I cannot wait to see it in more F cars. Finally...it might be time to reconsider carbon fiber chassis even in the non-special series cars as the current aluminum chassis is too heavy. I know that we are in the middle of the mid-cycle upgrade in the Ferrari line up, but I have high expectations for the all new models at the end of the decade.

 

Oh my god! Just take my money now! [emoji7]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

McLaren was forced to bring out very innovative technical solutions, in order to position itself in "big-players" game. Ferrari is not forced, so they are milking massive profit from alu chassis (just like Porsche).

Since we have guy in sweater as CEO with main interest in profit & production enlargement, dont expect cf chassis anytime soon. Not because Ferrari cant do that, but because that move would decrease profit. And lets be honest, absence of cf chassis wont turn away new buyers even in 2030

 

I hear you loud and clear! It seems long gone are the times of the 458 rollout...do you remember? Such a step change in the supercar category it forced everyone to step up their game. I feel the 720S will have the same impact on this market segment.

Sorry everyone if I strayed slightly off topic...

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

Thank goodness for competition!!!

 

Looks good!

 

Maybe someone here has more info about this.


https://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-PT&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autorevue.cz%2Fferrari-pripravuje-dve-platformy-maji-zlevnit-a-urychlit-vyvoj&edit-text=

"But it is not the only platform on which Ferrari operates. For cars with an engine in the middle for the passenger cabin is also preparing a new carbon monocoque style competitive McLaren. This should be common to all future Ferrari from the base 488 GTB (resp. Its successor) to the successor laferrari . Single piece also cheaper and simplify the development of new models so because Ferrari can respond more quickly to market demands."

 

No so sure. I own a 650S (which is brilliant) but have "less than zero" interest in the 720S. Would rather have the Huracan Perfomante.

McLaren while they build exceptional cars (for me at least) does not have that "it" i.e. the un-explainable factor which Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini have for me.

The 812 will have the "it" factor in spades.

 

I have a question. When you say falling behind what parameter are you using?

If we look at demand, Ferrari has longer waiting lists than Macca.

If we look at IMSA, Ferrari are winning in the sport car category.

At Le Mans the 458 has performed very well.

The LaFerrari and Laperta are still on the tippy top on everyone's list.

The TDF is considered more beautiful and coveted than Macca cars other than their tete du cuvée P1.

The disadvantages of carbon tubs are the thick bulky sills and impracticality when body repairs are needed. This makes carbon tubs in cars that are driven in traffic a questionable choice.

The sublime looking baby Alfa challenges this premise. However, that car is a fraction of the price of a Ferrari or Macca. I predict most of them if involved in a collision will be written off rather than repaired.

We will see though

One interesting advantage of a metal chassis is safety during a lighting strike.

A carbon fiber car would be severely
damaged. One solution is to place a small mesh of copper netting on the surface.

This is what carbon composite airplanes such as the Dreamliner have to protect themselves.

The average airliner experiences at least one lighting strike during their life of service

 

I read about that some time back but my understanding is that the modular platform is aluminum.

 

Hello,
What do you think about my modifications of the rear bumper and the front bumper?
I'm just beginning with photo modification softwares, so please be cool with me

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136620090@N04/32595967910/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136620090@N04/32822617312/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136620090@N04/32822618952/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136620090@N04/32822618112/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136620090@N04/32822618452/

 

No question Ferrari is and will remain a top brand. The demand for the cars will only increase and I can see 10K cars by the end of the decade. Furthermore the allure of the brand (and the awesome 7 yr maintenance) keeps the resale values sky high. I am just looking from the technology point of view, something we all in the Ferrari family care and are proud of.
As for CF tubs, great progress has been made to make them more user-friendly. Ferrari showed how it is done in the LaF that is super easy to get in and out. Fixing CF tubs is not too complex in today's world once you have the expertise. To cite the 787 Dreamliner example, Boeing developed patches that can be installed on case of ramp rush on the airplane to make it flight worthy.
It is however undeniable that there is great weight savings in using CF. Once the 720S and the 488 are both weighed in a comparison, you will see a quite significant difference.
My hope is that the competition between these two respected brands will give all of us better cars!

 

Prefer the car as launched - new design is more progressive and has the influence of aero considerations.

 

I just hid the air outlet of the rear bumper

 

Interesting, I was not a fan of the new 812 rear design, my first statement was "too busy". But when I see now your "modifications", which defuse the rear, I already miss the original version. Current I think Ferrari did a great job!

 

I prefer your rear bumper look. Less fussy than the real car. Nice work.

 

I personally think the argument for carbon fibre is not so straight-forward. First issue, body strength. I seem to recall that the stiffness coefficient for Ferrari's alu tub is quite similar to Mac's carbon tub. Perhaps someone who knows how to get that info can check?

That would be important for two reasons - first, safety, although again, the implications here are not so obvious. Most people think F1, carbon tub, better. But in a road car, where there are no moulded seats, 6 point harnesses, Hans devices, head protection from the body etc. what is needed is crumple zones to absorb crash energy gradually. Otherwise the tub slows down instantaneously but you won't. The safety cell, immediately around the passenger needs to stay intact, which is where tub strength comes in, but it is not the sole factor. Big bucks, for whole-car crash development, is what is needed - more of the 'big bucks' point later.

If the stiffness co-efficients are similar, clearly carbon will be a lighter solution in achieving a set stiffness. Comparing the weights between the two tubs will tell how much of a penalty Ferrari carry in this area (I doubt more than 50kg but perhaps again, someone who might know the exact comparison weights might chime in?) so, if it is only 50kg, that is not so significant, especially considering there are some benefits to Ferrari using aluminium.

Secondly, cell stiffness aids handling. It is why Ferrari is likely to want to achieve a similar stiffness to its competitors, whatever construction they are using. They would probably rather pay a weight penalty than a stiffness one. The stiffer the chassis, the better for mounting suspension to. Think about it, suspensions are designed to deform (and rebound) in a predictable and controlled way. The more chassis flex, the less this deforming and rebounding is constant and predictable. This is key to the Ferrari philosophy and I would not be surprised to find that the 488 and 650 have similar body stiffness. As I said before, leaving weight as the only real penalty.

Other reasons, as mentioned above, are to do with cost and repair. It is still difficult to repair carbon tubs, even though it can be done. The issue is that the insurer (and usually the customer) don't want to mess around and the extra cost/hassle usually means a car is written off. It has already happened on numerous occasions I believe. Remember too, that there is a difference between McLaren's current tub construction and the F1/Pagani/Enzo/CGT/LaFerrari type tubs. Those are hundreds of hours to build, with the carbon laid in a specific way. The current McLaren tub is kind of 'all mashed up' and set in a mould. Much cheaper and while I can't say that makes it more or less effective, I think it is an immutable law of life that cheaper is not usually better. So, when we talk of carbon tubs, it is not a single entity, it is like cars themselves - some are fast, some slow, some nice, some not, some highly developed, some not, and so on.

Finally, cost. It is not cheap to build an aluminium tub. In fact, the issue with regard to Ferrari Changing to carbon is not about the one-off unit cost I suspect. It is more about the plant and machinery, factory facilities etc. that would need to be ditched, plus the time taken in production disruption to make a change. If you have ever seen the factory, you will know what I mean. The line, the aerial jigs, the routing from building to building, the engine assembly mounting..... The change required basically needs a new factory because the old one would have to be completely decommissioned while it is converted.

There is a lot of talk about 'the Sweater', which, as a businessman myself, I find more than a little disrespectful. The implication being that he doesn't care about the brand, only the production numbers and short-term profit. Well, he would have to be some kind of idiot to solely think like that, and I don't believe he is or does. In this day and age, with increased competition from all over the globe, brand is the thing that differentiates and provides long-term stability. Cost is important, profits today are important, but not at the expense of profits tomorrow. Even the market knows that. Destroying the brand will ultimately tank the share price and I'm sure he has no intention of doing that. But, companies do run on budgets, forecasts and targets.

So, the added cost of completely changing construction, plus the cost in lost revenue and customer irritation as huge production delays hit, would undoubtedly have to be drawn from other budgets - software development, engine development, design, chassis and handling development, NVH etc. Which would you choose to spend hundreds of millions of Euros from, to gain a carbon-tub-driven weight saving of 50kg?

There will be a right time for them to consider carbon - the new platform is it. If they don't choose to go carbon, they will have done their sums, with an eye to keeping the brand strength as high as possible. I have no idea which direction they will choose, all I know is that choosing carbon 'sounds' more high-tech, but may not allow them to build a better car.