Because the current existing engines cannot be adapted to hybrid stuff and full electrics. Marcel Massini
Ok thanks, What do you think is the deadline from which there will be no more combustion engines in the Ferrari range?
Truly a shame! I consider myself fortunate and lucky to have acquired a piece of Ferrari history that will live on with my family when I am underneath the grass.
The other unspoken thing is that we really don't need more power. There is no reason to add an electric assist to the current V12, it's plenty fast. It's about the experience not just having the most horsepower. The real issue here is emissions which means that Ferrari is literally not the one in the driver seat on this. I expect them to transition to fully electric within 10-15 years. Fully electric makes a lot more sense than weird hybrid systems to me.
This is an interesting, balanced and informative article. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-manufacturing/analysis-new-rules-could-make-ice-engines-unviable-2026 in short, the aim of Euro 7 is to try and get to a “zero impact after treatment” solution for ICE. The implications for this now begin to involve other interested parties as well as the obvious auto manufacturer body. For instance, the people who represent the interests of caravan towers and therefore the caravan industry. Some reading between the lines is needed. I believe there is a private understanding within governments in Europe that the capacity of the national electricity supply grids will be insufficient for a full EV fleet. The time that their zero emissions agenda allows for the electricity grids to solve this problem is not enough. There is also no battery industry in Europe, something which will also take time to solve. The EU’s historical solution to protect a threatened industry is trade barriers. However, in this instance, they can’t completely do that because they need technology from China in the short term to make sure they can proliferate EV production and sales and head towards zero emissions as they have stipulated. They already have member states protecting jobs for displaced industries such as the foundry workers needed for engine blocks. They have snookered themselves. This phrase “zero impact” seems to me to be the start of a possible fudge. It looks like the regulators are trying to force the industry to find a way to make ICE power much more palatable. In other words, the message to the industry is “you need to get us out of this snooker”. The industry is naturally objecting to this because some of the suggested technology has never before been used. Does it work? Can it be packaged? What is the cost? The illogical idea that EVs are zero emissions is not unknown in political circles. They are zero at the tailpipe but actually quite heavy in production and depending on who provides the electricity, that is not exactly clean either. And have you tried to imagine the annual impact of decommissioning millions of huge car batteries each year. Does that strike you as green? This term “zero impact” suggests the very logical thing of considering the whole impact of what is produced, not just the tailpipe emissions. I guess they are trying to promote the idea of trying to get ICE to meet zero emissions, or as close to it, as they can. Ask this question; If ICE were able to compete favourably with EV in whole life emissions terms, wouldn’t that solve a lot of problems for the EU? I could be off beam but I see an intractable problem and no real solution. Europe is heading towards a brick wall with no brakes. They can’t dismantle the brick wall so they will try to brake, it’s the only thing left. That’s what Euro 7 looks like to me.
Virtue signaling is very high in EU. I believe the EU end-game is removal of personally owned transport (i.e. cars/light trucks) choices and eventually removal of existing too. The consumers are not asking for "EV only" options at the exclusion of all others, but that's what's happening. All the EU car manufacturers are going to serve a greatly diminished role and their businesses will necessarily collapse, maybe to 50% of current, probably less (at least their EU business if they do continue to make ICE for other markets). Look at the commitments already being made by VAG, etc: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g35562831/ev-plans-automakers-timeline/ The greater goal delves into P&R so no further here. The electric grids (in EU) being morphed into unreliable power sources (wind/solar) has already had profoundly negative effects and that process is continuing. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/green-shift-brings-blackout-risk-to-world-s-biggest-power-grid https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germanys-stressed-grid-is-causing-trouble-across-europe That's a lot to "dial back", if past behavior predicts future behavior the EU's plans will only continue to accelerate, no looking back.
Maybe Ferrari could take a page out of Elon’s book and build a new plant in Texas to exclusively manufacture V12 cars for the rest of the world? Wishful thinking... then again, based on our current leadership, who know’s... the US may pull a wildcard and join the EU before the next 3 1/2 years are up. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app
It is interesting to see that the EUs focus on lower harmful emissions (deliberately ignoring the controversial climate and clean energy aspect for the moment) is seen as tedious and spoiling our fun by many here. I would have thought it is embarrassing to the US that there is minimal focus on this. I am no EU fan but we can’t keep belching filth out forever. Presumably US Govt is more “bought off” and the folks less progressive, except on the East and West Coast. No offence intended. Am not suggesting EV is the answer and well aware of the whole of life arguments, but I do agree with the objectives.
What are you talking about? "belching out filth", could you be ignoring everything that nature has always done and will always continue to do with or without any anthropogenic intrusions? https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanic-gases https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814412940_0009 ICE cars are extremely clean and very low impact in terms of noxious pollutants Do you realize the entire world's consumption of petroleum is about 1.2trillion gallons (4.54trillion liters) per year? That's far less than the capacity of most sizable European lakes, in the big picture it is not a lot for all the freedoms and long lives that result from its positive use. In balance, talk of 'shorten lives' is very misleading. Some things that emit more toxins than driving a modern car with its full emission controlss for 1000+ miles smoking a single cigarette burning a candle with an untrimmed wick and, get this https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00334-018-0669-8 burning dung for heat... I'm sure the list goes on, but I suspect modern use of petroleum is not 'belching' toxins of any serious concern
Geez...with all of this transitioning to electric vehicles we are going to need a cleaner burning coal.
Ridiculous answer - You assume the EU regulations are done on 100% scientific basis and not self serving interests and politics!! - Like every other government Again if you feel that strongly about it get rid of your ICE cars and drive an EV
I get transitioning to EV's for daily drivers and normal cars. I think when battery tech gets to the point where you can charge as quick as a fuel stop, go farther then a normal car and be purchased at the same price consumers would want to switch. However it is criminally stupid that small volume manufacturers of exotic cars are having to hit ever unrealistic emissions targets. These cars are in such small volumes and are driven so infrequently that they are a negligible impact. Greenhouse gas emissions from personal transport accounts for only 12%. Where is the same scrutiny in other industries? Why are countries still burning coal for power? Why do cruise ships that emit the equivalent of 1 million cars per day get a free pass?
I am quite proud to "belch out filth" in my F12 as little as I do get to drive her. Spent a lifetime of selfless effort to afford such automotive brilliance. You will realistically not inhale one atom of pollution from her. And if you did consider yourself lucky to participate in the experience.
Can anyone explain why Ferrari is promoting the 812SF as if you can still order one?? Image Unavailable, Please Login Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
As matter of fact, I feel exactly the opposite and unlike every pushover corporation on the planet, I won’t be apologizing for it.
I’m hopeful and optimistic that ferrari will find a solution to allow it to use a development of the 812C V12 that remains naturally aspirated and non-assisted, for the replacement . Unlike many learned members here who probably know more than most regulators - I know nothing of emissions regs but have blind faith that Ferrari ( as almost always ) will come good . Power increase as we all know reaches a Peak beyond which it becomes unusable /irrelevant so progressive ‘improvements ‘ will probably end up being in the handling /chassis /electronics etc ....