12 Cylindri Spider picture and comment thread

We’ve just done a mini road trip over a long weekend in our Superfast. We’ve been to Europe three times in our GTS but never the Superfast. Mainly because the open top of the GTS is too appealing to leave behind. However, since deciding on a 12C Spider our GTS is being sold. I also made the mistake of not ordering lift on the Superfast because we did a TM build with purposely no carbon (couldn’t avoid the carbon-backed buckets) modelled on an old 50’s race car that had no carbon in it either. I figured what’s the point of the lift without carbon? But the point is that it never feels nice to whack your front end on speed humps or ferries or into inner city underground hotel car parks, whether plastic or carbon decorates your splitter. So I discovered you can add the Ferrari lift post build - for a price. Anyhow, I decided to take the pill because it would mean we would use the Superfast more on long trips.

I have developed some added thoughts about the car, which I’m posting here because it is relevant to my feelings about why to buy the 12C Spider, and why that may not be worth doing. This last sentence might make you think the tone of this post will be “812 is so good don’t bother” but in fact, the 812 reveals there are other reasons that a 12C might not be the car for everyone. One in particular.

We will be keeping our Superfast and selling the GTS because we did TM on the coupe (and did not do it on the GTS) before we even knew a convertible would be made. The GTS is the better car in my opinion, in roadtrip driving it sounds as good - despite the fact our coupe is the non-GPF version - and the car seems a bit more settled as a package. It is stiff despite its lack of a fixed roof and its manner is properly sporty despite being a sports GT. After 1,000 quick miles with the coupe, I’m left wondering if the closed roof brings more focus to the driving such that its weaknesses are more apparent. Weaknesses that I never really noticed in the convertible, possibly being distracted by the open roof experience.

The Superfast is fantastic on large roads. Much better and more sporty and rewarding than an equivalent Aston for example. The instant and linear power allows you to control the steering attitude with the throttle beautifully, the weight transfer from front to rear as the you progress through a properly cambered corner is fully rewarding. It flows.

On uneven surfaces, the kind of road where you can only do about 60-80mph at a push, the suspension feels like it can be overwhelmed by the moving mass. It’s not soft, in fact it feels quite firm, even in bumpy road mode. It’s that when the road tries to throw the car in opposing directions the movements can be slightly confused. Perhaps ‘confused’ is a slightly excessive term. It likes to flow and not hurry. When hurried, it can feel unsettled and lose that rewarding feeling that other, better, roads bring out of it. I never noticed this with the GTS. Can’t remember if the GTS has slightly softer damping but if it does, it works. I think the Superfast is probably superior on big roads with fast and flowing tarmac. But it definitely has a sweet spot and doesn’t fully reward tighter and more broken roads.

I’ve often commented on Fchat that the Superfast is not a GT, it’s a sports GT or even a supercar. I still think that’s true but our trip meant I did have to revisit my conclusion. The 812 is so good and driver-rewarding on fast roads, it cannot be merely labelled a GT car. It is a proper sports or super car. And its suspension is rarely - or maybe never - cosseting, especially on less than ideal roads, so it’s not really a GT. Yet despite its stiffness, it still cannot control its mass in extremis in the softer setting. The harder setting solves the problem but at the cost of what feels like unnecessary ride harshness. You have to choose what you dislike least.

I pondered this. A mid engined car, such as the SF90, does not suffer from the same traits. All the mass is inside the wheelbase. With the 812, the weight distribution is still roughly 50/50, but crucially there are large elements of the mass slung outside of the wheelbase, for example the transaxle and gearbox. When unsettled, this moving mass is exerting a larger pull on the rear suspension and, because it is over the rear of the back axle, it also has a greater impact on the front axle - as the gearbox moves downwards and presses on the rear axle, it moves the front axle upwards. I’m not an engineer and maybe there are engineers here that can explain this better than me but despite statistically having an almost perfect weight distribution, that does not tell the whole story.

So what’s my point? The 812 format - the same as the 12C - is good for certain things, but overall, the SF90 drives better over more types of roads, as a GT and as a sports car, than the front-engined format with its heavy gearbox slung behind the rear axle.

So what should we look for from the 12C, and why should someone buy one when there is a better “all things to all men” car from the same stable? The 12C, like the 812, will offer better packaging than an SF90, i.e. more boot and cabin space. It has the magnificent 12 cylinder engine and it will still drive like a super car for 80% of the time. Is that enough? Some will say the V12 is all you need. I used to be one of them but after the arrival of the SF90, it’s no longer enough. The 812 Comp is not an 812 plus a bit, I am now absolutely certain of that. It is a stellar car that does not suffer from the same problem as the standard 812 - it is a masterpiece. But it is also worth over £1m and to drive it 10,000+ miles is only for the very committed and very very wealthy. The 12 C does not compete with it.

The 12C is a sports GT, how can it be anything other than that? It has more power and will have at least as good a suspension as the 812. But it will have to solve the ‘problem’ of the 812’s overwhelmed suspension on difficult roads if it is to be a true dynamic alternative to an SF90. If the 812 GTS’s more relaxed gait is repeated and enhanced with the 12C spider, I think that will be a good direction. I hope for that. The 12 C spider should not try to be a SF90 Spider competitor. It’s appeal will hopefully be that it is relaxed, powerful, a supercar for most but probably not all occasions and that that open top and creamy V12 will combine to offer a beautiful and different driving experience. All with a bit more boot space.

If it solves the 812’s lack of composure when hurried, that would make it something quite special. I think the spider is the one. Mainly because the coupe is no longer the halo model. The SF90 occupies that spot now. But the open top format, with the driver sitting well behind that long bonnet, has its place. In the 2020’s, it’s as evocative as it was in the 1970’s.

 

Great look for the 12 C