NEW V8 MID ENGINED MODEL (BIG BROTHER)

Your opinion doesn't seem based on hard evidence, but rather on a belief that Ferrari is somehow scamming their customers. Following your line of thought, does a road car really need a CF tub, at all? Ferraris have an aluminium construction and they rock! See now? By the way, Porsche uses steel, not even aluminium...

 

I’m having my coffee now.


It helps.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Very true, Ferrari’s aluminium is far from being low-tech. So I would definitely not say that Ferrari is scamming their customers. To the question if a road car really needs a carbon tub, the answer is simple. Of course not. It doesn’t even need aluminium. You can achieve very good results with intelligent usage of different steel types as Porsche proves.
But then again one could also ask if a road car really needs more than 300 CV? With emotional products like those super cars the whole point is about things and features you don`t need. Launch control, race mode, active Aero etc. all this things are rather pointless in a road car. However they make the car feel special, exotic and Formula 1 derived. So for an extreme mid-rear-engine super car a carbon tub would for sure contribute to that exotic flair of the whole thing. Is it needed? No! But also nobody needs a 900+ CV supercar for functional reasons.

 

Everything in engineering is a trade-off of various factors. If CF was the answer to everything every single airplane (where weight and efficiency really count) would be made of CF.

For sure CF has its advantages and for sure sure if you want to make a topless spider/spyder as rigid in aluminum as in a (properly designed) CF one, there will be a weight penalty. But how much? The difference is probably a small percentage of the overall weight.

But while you bash Ferrari and its "worshippers" here's my take on why McLaren use CF, and the ersatz versions of it: Marketing.

When they joined the production car game they had no history - no iconic Pininfarina or Scaglietti shapes, no history of V12's, V8's or Dino V6's. In fact no engine of their own. The only thing they could hang their hats on was the F1, with its CF chassis, and their history of CF in F1--even though Brabham had CF in their cars before McLaren and Lotus was doing CF, albeit differently, at the same time.

So they created this CF G-d for their worshippers, making RTM CF chassis with aluminum subframes to differentiate themselves from the competition, all the while hiring their ex-Ferrari chassis guy and design chief and then marketed it with videos like "First Light" with John Barnard recounting the use of CF in McLaren's F1 cars of the '80s.

 

Ingegnere, since you are an expert in the field, what is the actual weight difference between a CF and an aluminium chassis, for the same structural rigidity?

 

That is a shocking assertion that automakers do things for marketing purposes!!!


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

To me it's a lot simpler than that. CF isn't the answer to everything, but it likely is for exotic cars. Airplanes are extremely high cost, mission critical item in very low margin businesses. They are subjected to vastly different environments and situations than cars. That said, Boeing's Dreamliner uses a CF fuselage, as do some Airbuses. I don't really know enough about aerospace applications, but clearly it's safe enough as of today.

Exotic cars though barely even get driven. They aren't business assets. They aren't supposed to be owned forever and last for 40 years. They are consumer ultra luxury products designed to milk as much money as possible from customers, and customers have no problem overpaying obscene amount of money. They aren't supposed to be reasonably priced to repair. They are supposed to depreciate massively and get replaced every few years by the people who buy new.

I'm shocked that so many people here don't demand CF tubs. You're paying $350K+ for your cars. Whether the benefits are small or not, do you not want the most for your money? At what point are you as a customer going to ask for standard features to be cream of the crop? I mean, how much do you really think that CF tub costs? McLaren is selling them in a $200K 570S. It's a pretty crazy mindset when people paying $350K don't expect the best things available.

Not wanting CF tub is nuts. You blow obscene amounts of money on literally pointless CF trim that aides in nothing whatsoever, but then say it's not a big deal that you don't get the tub. How much damn money do you have to spend before you expect something for it? You need to spend $1M before you think you should get something in a car priced a fraction as much?

BTW, Lamborghini and Audi are implementing more and more CF in their chassis. I highly doubt it's marketing since they never make a big deal about it and practically no one even mentions it. For $600-700K+, the BB better have practically the entire body already in CF. Anything less would be a slap in the face.

 

Every single Ferrari is built to order. Ferrari meets their overall production goals every year. Their profit margin is X. Why would they absorb the expense of literally re-engineering their entire production cycle to sell the exact same volume but with a profit margin that is less than X? When they end each year with more demand than they are willing and/or able to produce, what sense would that make? You act as if aluminum is some vastly inferior product. Ferrari will switch to carbon fiber, or possibly something even better, when and if the market demands such and failure to do so would impact sales. Not a minute sooner.

They built a new car (F8) that according to some here is vastly inferior to the competition, yet will sell as many of them as they would like. Hmmm. Seems to me they have no reason to change. So if noone1 refuses to buy a Ferrari because it doesn’t have a carbon chassis then that’s just one less person they’ll have to turn down for a production slot ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm curious as well. I'd also like to read more about the new modular platform and the multi-material construction but I can't find anything other than old generic articles..

 

Then we can say that the BB will have aluminum tub.
What will happen to the F40 Icona then? aluminum tub and CF body like the original F40?
The Ferrari P80/C is made entirely from CF but it was used the Ferrari 488 GT3 as its basis.
I knew that the 488 GT3 had an aluminum tub, how is this then?
Could the same principle be used for the F40 Icona to be entirely built in CF?

 

I don't think the F40 had an aluminium tub, it was still the previous Ferrari construction of tubular steel frame (I might have misunderstood, "like the original F40" could apply only to CF body and not to aluminium tub)

 

You are right, it is as you say and of course the body was CF.

 

The F40 had a tubular steel frame; very 1960s. The body was a mix of CF, kevlar and aluminium.
The P80 has an aluminium chassis, just like the 488 GT3.
The basic chassis cannot change. Thus an Icona has to be based on an existing model.

 

I could care less about carbon fiber tubs. Not even part of my decision tree. And when I spec carbon fiber bits (which I normally do sparingly) it is certainly not under the pretense of saving money or being cutting edge technology, it is for aesthetics only.

It is really at the bottom of my wants from Ferrari. What I would really love to have is a mid engine V12. Maybe 3.9 liters with a 12k redline (or even 10k) mated with a hybrid system. What a glorious car that would be! Even width a steel tubular frame...


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Thanks for your reply

 

As Zeus said, chassis is made of aluminium, with a steel roll cage. When they said "made entirely of carbon fibre", they were probably talking about the bodywork. Here's a GT3 with a naked carbon body:

Image Unavailable, Please Login

The P80's owner decided to paint it red (excluding splitter, diffuser etc.).

 

You are totally ignoring serviceability which aluminium is as is steel. Gee panel beaters cant even get a standard red metallic colour right on a Mazda . You think they have any hope on a FC chassis ?

All Mac F1 owners had to send their cars back to the factory for the smallest smash.

Cant wait to see the first Mac in a repair shop. I have plenty contacts in the repair field and none have come up yet.

 

But who cares about repairing wrecked exotics? Mandalay, if you wrecked a 355, how much money would you be willing to put into repairing it? How about a 430 even? The cars largely aren't worth repairing after they get that old, even if they are Ferraris.

 

Again the world exists more than America. So to answer you yeh maybe in USA but not everywhere else. I understand the Judge Judy stance that a 15 year old car is a relic for you guys.

 

That was his point. 430 less costly to repair than sending back to Mac factory. So I don’t understand your point.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

I think you know the main reason that McLaren uses a CF chassis and it ain’t Marketing, that’s BMW’s M Division. Give McLaren some credit. They are pretty much an engineering/racing firm. So that CF chassis has to do with lightness and can be used/modified for multiple cars. They are small company, and don’t have the budget of Ferrari, nor have the backing of say, FCA or VW (for Porsche, Lamborghini, and Bugatti). So they must come up with innovative ways to produce cars, that are lightweight, structurally rigid and powerful. Just like Koenigsegg, look at the transmission for the Jesko and how lightweight it is. Or the other innovations of Koenigsegg.
Let’s give McLaren credit where credit is due. It held the highest top speed for for a production car for quite some time. With a naturally aspirated engine (from BMW Motorsport). And the F1 won the 24 Hours of Le Mans on its first campaign. And a number of other accomplishment. If I remember correctly, Ferrari had benchmarked certain stats of the F1 for the Enzo. Like braking.

The leaps in performance that companies like McLaren, Pagani, Koenigsegg are making can also be attributed to companies like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, and to a lesser extent Aston Martin and Mercedes, resting on their laurels , or taking their customers for granted, relying on past greatness. And I believe that people within these companies are starting to wake up. Especially now with EV or hybridization on the horizon. This shows with Porsche partnering up with Rimac. And Aston Martin coming out with their Mid engine line up (headed by the Valkyrie) Mercedes with their AMG One. And now, Ferrari going hard with the F8, P80/C one off (which may preview certain design elements for the LB), LB (V6 hybrid), BB, etc.

 

Depends, on what the Blue Book (BB) value is... (Judge Judy always has her Blue Book.

 

True but a five year old car costs use about the same for what the states buys brand new

 

Yes it is a great era of cars I believe. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, although weakness may be an exaggeration these days.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

I think you answered your own question in your preamble: