Hybrid V-12's are coming

While the lack of low-end torque is quite noticeable with the Ferrari NA V8, I'm not convinced it's a defining feature of the NA V12. OK they are not tractors, but I don't feel they miserably lack torque.

 

If people think the F12 lacks torque, they have either never driven one, or their opinion on the matter now enters the realm of worthless to me.

 

I suppose some people can and will read what their minds have already made up to want to read... and ignore what is actually written.

Ferrari road cars use flatplane cranks which, while they facilitate high engine rpm, are compromised when it comes to low-end torque, an inescapable technical fact. Low mass and low-end torque cannot be reconciled because flatplane cranks achieve reliable high engine rpm precisely due to their lower mass... and it is also precisely their lower mass which prevents them from achieving higher torque at the low end.

When Ferrari makes a better screaming V12 to produce more HP out of a "smaller" engine, they have to compromise low-end torque. This is precisely what they did with LaFerrari. So they countered that problem with the KERS motors. The end result is a better-performing and more inspiring car to drive.

If you would only read the specs I posted and tried to understand the numbers, you'll see the ICE in LaF achieved the same CV as the 812, with a smaller engine... running at 500 rpm higher, with 10 g/km less CO2 emissions. Those are all very impressive advantages over the newer 812 engine and was probably achieved by using lighter engine components... which would have reduced low-end torque (to an undesirable extent) if it weren't for the KERS motors.

Please engage your reading and comprehension before jumping to unreasoned conclusions.

 

How can they measure 10g/km less CO2 with the LaF ICE? It would have to run without the KERS switched on to compare, which I don’t believe it was ever built/tested in that configuration?

Also, I don’t know but did Ferrari use the electric motor to increase the efficiency of the combustion engine as was the case with the 918?

I’m not disagreeing with your main point - I think the same way.

 

I honestly don't know how they actually come up with the numbers but these figures (for LaF and 812) were both official figures taken from the Ferrari website.

If I were to guess, I imagine they would HAVE TO collect and measure the CO2 emissions WITH KERS engaged, because CO2 emissions are determined for the purpose of providing (consumers with) comparisons between cars and not engines.

In addition, since KERS is not always engaged while the car is normally driven, the CO2 emissions test regimen must use a standardized (series of) tests that mimic reasonable real-world driving conditions, which would include engine start, moving from stopped on level ground, accelerating to speed limits, decelerating at urban and highway speeds,...etc.

I was simply explaining what I believe is the most obvious primary design purpose of KERS for LaF so I'm not familiar with how Porsche increased "efficiency of the combustion engine ... with the 918".

Can you elaborate on that or at least where you got that impression from?

 

OK, I just had another thought, looking at your words from a marketing bent.

When you combine KERS (which enables) lightening the engine components (pistons, rods, cranks...etc), you automatically increase energy consumption efficiency, because less energy (fuel) is used to move smaller masses. BINGO. It's just marketing jingle meant to impress customers.

If you read this Ferrari webpage describing the LaF HY-KERS, you'll also see this paragraph...

"...The high levels of torque available at low revs from the electric motor allowed the engineers to optimise the internal combustion engine’s performance at higher revs, thus providing unending power throughout the rev range and a maximum torque peak of over 900 Nm...

...The electric motor was designed employing High Specific Power Density technology which enabled the engineers to drastically reduce weight and volume in relation to available torque. The result is performance figures that are comparable to those of the F1 car with the same torque density and the same efficiency (94%) or, in other words, very limited power dissipation...

...As well as producing 800 CV, the V12 spins to 9250 rpm which guarantees fantastic performance and driving pleasure as well as that unmistakable Ferrari V12 sound. These completely unprecedented results can be attributed to work carried out in three areas: volumetric, mechanical and combustion efficiency.

To increase volumetric efficiency, the LaFerrari employs continuously variable-length intakes - a mainstay in F1 engine technology until rule changes banned its use – which boost performance. As the length of the inlet tracts vary in line with engine speed, the torque and power curves are optimised across the rev range to suit the torque output of the electric motor...

...Improvements in mechanical efficiency involved a number of components, most importantly the crankshaft which has been lightened and incorporates new, more aerodynamically efficient counter webs to reduce pumping losses...The crankshaft design also reduces masses around the rotation axis which cut overall mass by around 19 per cent..."
​

Ferrari is very clear on how and why it made perfect sense to use HY-KERS on LaF.

OK, I have to run a number of errands...

 

Quoted from your previous post:

It doesn't matter than they are V8 or V12 - they all use flatplane cranks. That results in compromised low end torque deliver compared to crossplane crank engines. That fact it was REALLY apparent to me when I first drove my first Ferrari (not a California) and I did not like it. I opted not to buy the car partly because of it. I had to crank that engine past 4000 rpm to get some life into the car and it would have meant the car would be full-time in obnoxious mode if I wanted it to feel "happy". I owned a car like that in the past and it was a speeding ticket magnet. I was also more used to crossplane V8s that deliver immediate torque.

You will find other drivers also complain about this. Modern Ferrari V8 and V12 engines are designed to perform like race engines, at high revs and high speeds. You can say whatever you want about them but they are not really optimum for street use.

Hence, IMO the enhanced low-end torque performance provided by small electric motors when moving the car from rest are in fact, a PERFECT MARRIAGE for Ferrari road cars. They just have to get the batteries right


I have no problem with reading comprehension.
You are a very difficult and annoying person to "argue" with on FChat, I know I have do it before with you.
You like to parse words and end with insults.
Your post was easy to read a clear; and implied the lack of suitability of flat-plane cranks for use on the road. The implication is clear that there is something missing in low end torque with current engines, including the current V12s, and your post said nothing about LaF.

I merely pointed out that I, as someone who has logged thousands of miles (>10,000) in an F12, think anyone else who believes the car lacks torque no longer has an opinion I would place any weight on, and I stand by that opinion. I therefore do not value your opinion one iota on this matter.

 

My take is @4th_gear is trying to say in a relative sense a flat plane engine will have less low RPM torque than the alternative (cross-plane?).

Its true in the case of the latest Ferraris, they have more than ample torque. But, in general, every Ferrari I've ever driven is in its happy spot at 4,000 RPM. Its just a more rev engine. It might not be suited to all tastes. But I love it.

 

I know perfectly well what is being stated.

I think the current V12 is just fine as it is (obviously), I think the torque is far more than adequate; and I see no reason to try and change this engine.
Period.
Nothing further to say, and won't argue with people who don't drive the car on a regular basis.
I'll stick with my F12.
I am happy to evolve into a dinosaur and let the kids fight over stats going into the future.
Over and out.

 

Understood. I would just like to point out an issue I find with that type of thinking. It's backwards focused. Running a business requires you to be future focused. So you can have your F12 and be completely happy "for ever". I will be keeping mine as well. I love it.

But I am also excited about the future.

 

It's an overall rating, not just the ICE. It is down to the electric motor and LF's less weight.

 

Well, I am not excited about the future.
It is being in large part dictated by government officials and activists who have a number one concern about environmental issues and noise, etc.
That is perfectly fine when it comes to mass-produced cars and trucks, ships, planes, trains, buses that dominate the highways, byways, and shipping lanes of the World.
But...for a boutique company like Ferrari providing V12 engines to an extremely small group of enthusiasts who log few miles per year the impact of that engine is so miniscule it is dwarfed by fluctuations in the data.
Ferrari and similar enterprises should be able to lobby for an exclusion that doesn't then price their product out of the market place.

The V12 in the F12 and 812 are stupidly fast. They have stupid performance already. They don't need anything further.
They can "perfect the future" by improving the engine's efficiency, economy, weight, durability, etc...but they do not need to add power...it does not need electric help to make it exciting.
I repeat, and I stand behind my statement...anyone who thinks it does has not spent any seat time in either car.

So for anyone reading this and going to respond that you personally think the V12 is missing some aspect of performance please have the decency to put in your post how many miles you have driven an F12 or an 812.

Don't quote anyone else off the internet or elsewhere, and don't quote numbers and stats.

Say something like, "Yes, I have driven an F12 5000 miles and I think it needs more torque and more power to make it exciting. I'm disappointed, and it needs an electric motor to get the car going faster..." or some such thing.
Fine...express your opinion.
But then also please explain to me why is it every time I put my foot more than 50% down on the accelerator starting off from a stop, or even with a rolling start, the ABS kicks in and brakes the rear wheels to keep them from simply spinning and burning rubber. Why is it the computer keeps having to trim power back to maintain traction and control.
Then please explain why you need more power to make the future better....

 

No one said that the F12, let alone the 812, is not stupid fast! But one can also say that for the 599, or even the 550. Every time though Ferrari (and others) surprise us with even more power and performance. Why stop progress? Regarding the traction issues, Raffaele Simone said that as long as the car can put the power down there is no such thing as being overpowered. Of course if you turn the electronics off and floor it with cold tyres on a slippery tarmac it will just spin the tyres into oblivion, but that's not the right way of driving an absurdly powerful RWD car. Ferrari knows what it's doing and that's why its cars keep getting better and better.

PS: I think you mean ASR, not ABS.

 

I noticed that there are in this thread a good number of posts left by F12 owners and I’m quite certain that any of them, including myself, have a solid opinion about their cars. Personally I’ve driven the F12 in countryside roads, mountain roads, motorways, in the track and even at 199 Mph but, the more I drive this great car, the more I appreciate the extraordinary driving experience it provides. I agree with you that the F12 is stupidly fast and doesn’t need more power or torque because it has already too much for road use. However Ferrari and some of it’s customers think differently and that’s the reason why they have launched the 812 as substitute of the F12 with more power and torque.

We might like it or not but the crude reality is that each new Ferrari model is going to have more power and torque than the previous one it substitutes. What it was a considerable increase of 60 cv in power from the F 12 to the 812, can easily be doubled from the 812 to a future hybrid model. All that happens because there is a kind of “irrational” power oriented competition between the top brands but, by the end of the day, buyers are sovereign and the ones that validate that behavior and pay for it.

 

I understand your points, all of them, I really do.
But there has to be a logical conclusion to this...right?
Ok, for the sake of argument, some physicist/chemist genius comes out next year with some ionic warp drive motor that feeds power into a NA V12...and blammo....Ferrari now has the V12 Ferrari WD (warp drive).
This RWD monster has 18,000 hp, 15,000 lb-ft of torque, with the promise that can be doubled in the second generation of the car three years later. They build computers that can put that power down as completely as the laws of physics allows...
You all think that is a great thing, progress to be applauded?
(Not talking about the tech which might be applauded for numerous other applications...I mean that car itself.)

 

As has been said several times before, yet seemingly escaping your comprehension, Ferrari moved to a V10 in 1996 from a V12 because it was the best solution to the prevailing constraints even though the same rules applied in 95 & 96. Not only the V10 had more power than the outgoing V12 as well as meeting the constraints, it was generally better than a V12 which is why Ferrari made the change. Regardless of whatever you say Schumacher thought, Ferrari deemed a V10 to be optimal. Otherwise they would have developed a new V12 for 96 and beyond.

To argue that the Ferrari V12 would have developed into a better engine if there hadn't been F1 constraints, is like saying Ferrari would have built a flying car but gravity got in the way. The real world has constraints whether you like it or not.

Today external constraints on the road cars are forcing lower emissions, better efficiency etc. And Ferrari yet again deem fewer than 12 cylinders is the way forward.

There are reasons such as sound people value in a V12, but for Ferrari the calculation will be different based on commercials.

Enough said.

 

No it is not. Technology has moved on significantly in the past 5 years, and Maranello hasn't been sitting on it's hand for the 5 years since LaF, and in many respects the the 812 has moved the game on in regard to engine and chassis/electronics.

 

Unless there is a major regulation change, every new F1 engine is more powerful than its predecessor. Thus, the V10 power argument is a moot point. Ferrari indeed deemed the V10 more appropriate for that set of regulations, I never questioned that.

I would like to know what indicates that Ferrari have deemed that less than 12 cylinders is the way forward, because they keep saying that they will continue building one as long as they are legally allowed to.

 

LF's technologies were way ahead of its time. Its specific output and rev limit have not been matched by a series production car and its aero is way beyond that of a normal F car. Electronics and tyres keep improving but overall the LF will probably remain the quickest Ferrari until its successor arrives.

 

Those stating that:

Should know that the F12B Berlinetta and the LaF share the exact same crank, cylinders and connecting rods. There's zero difference in size, weight and composition between the two. Please spend some (or a lot) of time verifying part numbers before using assumptions or cut and past to substantiate a theory.

 

Of course you are right. But my reaction is- this has been the situation for decades. The last time there was a really big crack down in the name of emissions and efficiency was in the early 1970s. And look what happened to all cars, including Ferraris of that era. I know there are people who love the Ferraris of that era, but to my mind, they struggled to make powerful engines and the cars got bigger, heavier and less engaging. It's just plain unrealistic to think the regulations will loosen up.

I am aways excited to see what companies, especially Ferrari, will come up with given this ever changing, and increasingly challenging landscape. It's been amazing to me to witness all these amazing cars given this backdrop.

Says you. I respect that. But a typical car is already likely faster than most people need. I think we've seen needs and wants are different things and we are dealing with companies that sell to our wants.

I have driven my F12 about 4,000 miles over 18 months and that is in various conditions. On my home roads, I can deploy all the power of the F12 during good road conditions. As it cools, it gets a little trickier. I find the car to be fantastically amazing and I say I will never sell it. I love driving it. And yes, it does have great gobs of power.

My opinion is to recognize the reality that there will be tighter regulations on Ferrari because they likely are increasing production and thus, will have to make cars that produce less emissions as well as drink less fuel per mile, all the while increasing power, because it sells. Saying they should make a car lighter to make it more efficient sounds great, but its just not what sells cars. And if you really like a lighter smaller car, there are choices. A Cayman is a smaller and lighter car with many creature comforts and far less power. And you can go to a Lotus, with still less comforts and lighter weight and possibly less power. Finally there is the Aerial and Caterham, and probably a few others I'm missing.

Now, as to MY opinion on what is exciting... In the F12 category, the F12b is just about perfect. I would like perhaps a little more steering feeling. I would also like a lifer for the passenger seat.

But, in terms of what would inspire me to give up my F12? Don't think about today or tomorrow. Think about years in the future when more cars are faster. All of a sudden that F12b might not feel quite so powerful. And yes, more power would be exciting to me. And I would wonder just how they managed to make it deploy all the power effectively.

My 599 struggled to put down about 120hp less than the F12 does. And the F12 is actually a drop lighter and smaller (this is one time the successor car got a little smaller and lighter!) The secret to the modern Ferrari's in terms of driving in my opinion is the integration of all the systems. On the F12 I can feel it apportioning power sometimes, but it is done in a way that feels very natural and also exciting for a street car. Add in ever improving tires and to my mind the future for these cars is really exciting.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

I am with italiafan - I don’t think the cars need more power, but a few 100kg less weight would be really nice. At Autobahn speeds - call it 220 - 300 kph I still do not feel like the FF needs more power - you catch up to other cars plenty fast enough
Also the engine has sufficient torque low down in the rev range imo and the FF is a lot heavier than the F12
Have done about 35k km in my FF

 

I get that you love your F12. You may be surprised but I actually asked to buy an F12 from my dealer but they didn't have one in the right colour/specs. My salesman is on the lookout for it. As for the 812, they are all sold out here and I'm still not convinced of its looks. So I also happen to love the F12.

I see this sort of misunderstanding in many people who are not able to debate in an objective manner. In an objective debate, a person can be extremely critical of something but they can actually be doing it out of love and not out of despise. To debate effectively and constructively, one needs to detach emotions from critical thought.

FERRARI (and SM) have clearly told the world that it used KERS to improve the low-end torque of the LaF and will use hybrid tech to improve performance of future V12s. While Ferrari and some of us in FChat recognize low-end torque is not optimally addressed by Ferrari's ICE implementation it does not mean their current V12 Fcars lack torque. Compromised low-end torque is clearly not the same as "lacking torque" in an overall sense. Under the regulated environment, improving low-end torque cannot be addressed by simply making a bigger engine.

As for...

I'm sorry to have to point this out but I said lots about the LaF... you actually quoted my message which is full of LaF references. Here is part of that message:

I also quote the technical specs of the LaF against those of the 812 in an earlier message:

Image Unavailable, Please Login
​

I hope you see why I took offense to your lack of diligence when you omit or misquote information that you claim to be critical of. All the same, I carefully pointed out your mistake, explained why I felt it was a mistake and directed my criticism at your reading and comprehension, not at you as a person.

I don't make summary unqualified broad statements like "your comments are worthless".

 

It's amazing how Ferrari wanting to improve LOW-END TORQUE morphed into hysteria on this thread about "LACK OF TORQUE" and "LACK OF POWER".

FWIW, those are all completely different technical issues.