LaFerrari replacement: v12, no hybrid, less power than SF90stradale?

why did he approve of the V8 in the F40? purely due to its performance or was it just a comprimised decision or something?

 

I believe the answer is this:

Materazzi raconte la naissance de la Ferrari F40 (youtube.com)

 

Looks like the wing is body color, or at least the top surface.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting, and that’s actually the bottom surface that the arrow is pointing at.

I suppose the wing can be optioned in black (CF?), or body colour. Either that or the black wings we’ve seen on prototypes are unpainted.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What an interesting man. A great era in car making, where technology was not so advanced and it was easier to build a car in the way they built the F40, though by no means diminishing the wonder of what he accomplished. A few themes came through for me. First, the single mind building a car from front plate to rear plate. That doesn’t happen now (and didn’t really happen then). The F40 story is the stuff of folklore - the way it seemed to be so unplanned. Enzo told him to build it quick because he was old and was excited to see it. Mix that with the quote about “an ugly car, if it wins, becomes something beautiful”. That has been my point all along about F250. F250 is the same theme as F40 - and Enzo was excited to see the F40 because he knew it was fast. We all know he loved the V12, as do we all. But this interview shows his excitement to see the F40, a turbo V8, because he knew this would rewrite the rules - it might be ‘ugly’ but it would win, so it is beautiful. It did ‘win’ and it is beautiful.

He makes the point about light weight too. We would all agree that light weight is an advantage, I guess the difference of opinion comes about because of where we are in history. The power and performance that customers expect of these cars today can’t easily be delivered without adding weight, even F1 suffers from it. Would he have approved of where we are? Maybe he would have a soft eye to the simpler past where cars had front-engined V12s, or where they could be designed with simplicity and light weight like Materazzi did the F40. But listening to Materazzi, it is clear he would have been excited to see how far the envelope could be pushed by F250. And above all, he would want the car with the horse on the front to be the fastest. Pure and simple. I hope the F250 is that. We’ll soon see.

Great post.

 

So if you liked it, look here
It's on the Modena track
There is also Toni who has left us in his F 40 with racing paint... :

Ingénieur, ils y vont encore ! (VOST) (youtube.com)

 

LOVE IT!!!!

 

The engineer left to join Enzo, an infinite gratitude to him and his work

 

Oooops ! Sincere apologies !! Must have misread the thread order …in that case I agree with you re the Senna …. Sorry !!

 

I can't get into a dead man's head - no one can - but being fast was not what made be the definition of best. Winning was best and that includes everything including strategy, reliability, and hiring the best drivers which has nothing to do with the car. Many times the cars are so equal that the smallest things about the car can also make the difference. I know that was true when I raced motorcycles.

 

One more angle. From Ilias Abawi.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes, I think you’re right, winning was and is the thing and that takes many elements. But if you build a slow car, winning is harder. And Ferrari built cars so, building a fast one was a good idea. Ferrari’s reputation has always been to build the best and fastest engines and I think they still do that today - the n/a V8 was brilliant, the current V12 family, the V8 twin turbo, the SF90’s hybrid powertrain, the double Le Mans-winning V6 - they have all been fantastic and ahead of the competition in terms of performance in various ways.

 

The F40 could have been slow as snail, and it still would have been a great looking car, the design is gorgeous.

Half WRONG, half correct. Modern F1 cars are heavier due to 3 main reasons:

1. safety regulations
Extra safety features like rollbars/halo, crash-resistant sidepods, survival cells etc - all add weight.

2. environment measures
They wanted to make the cars more eco friendly, hence the hybrid stuff. Energy recovery systems and batteries weigh a lot.

3. packaging and aerodynamics
Rrunning with a longer floor offered more downforce, and thus wheelbases became longer and longer through the years.
Also, in 2017 the cars' widths were expanded to two metres. This also helped to increase the speeds of the cars, but at the cost of their ability to race closely on track. And also added weight.

 

"2026 Ferrari F250 Aperta: rendered.
In just a couple of months, Ferrari will be unveiling their latest hypercar following the heritage of the mighty 288 GTO, F40, F50, Enzo and LaFerrari.
For this next generation hypercar, codenamed F250, the brand will be fusing F1 and LeMans 499P tech into a high performance hybrid. The total output of its V6 and 3 electric motors will be close to 1400hp.
This render depicts the hypothetical “Aperta” variant of the new Ferrari model, which is more than likely to follow 1-2 years after the presentation of the coupe and be limited to less than 200 units.
Expected reveal of the F250: October 13th 2024."

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

By @futurecarsnow on Instagram

 

this October 13th is confirmed?

 

#2 is a lie its a multi Trillion dollar business. The Eco thing is less than 1% of total damage
#3 They got bigger because the human race got bigger and fatter and also bigger for all the stuff that had to be added to meet the safety regs

 

I take most of that info with a grain of salt and the render is well off

 

I don't think (and I would dislike) they are using again the front black panel from the 12Cilindri, it was supposed to be a reinterpretation of the 365 Daytona's plexiglass..

Jorge HG

 

It’s not even close on track. Michelin makes a better tire. Hence why the question was to ask any race car driver.

Tire makers also continue to make tires to meet exact specifications as laid out by a manufacturer or sanctioning body.

 

Can’t think anyone would disagree re the F40 - it is certainly gorgeous. Maybe the most gorgeous.

Re F1, as I said, extra performance. Even added safety is extra performance and in fact mirrors what is happening in the road car world. We all expect a level of safety commensurate with the price paid and the performance on offer. Extra performance tends to cost weight. What GMA have done is remarkable and the result of a focused approach, perhaps like the F40, but the world has moved on and Ferrari’s direction has been different. I don’t think we should expect them to be something they’re not, instead they should be the best at what they do do. Leave the other thing to GMA or whoever else.

 

Based on what? The only way to compare racing tyres is when multiple tyre companies compete in the same series. Last time around Brdgestone was usually the winner over Michelin in F1. What we have is tyre tests for road vehicles, where the currently quickest tyre is the Pirelli Trofeo RS.

My point exactly. Pirelli was asked to make these specific F1 tyres and that is what they made. They can make quicker and longer lasting tyres, but that is not what was asked of them.

 

Rather something they are no more... The Valkyrie, no matter what you do, you get your money's worth.
It would be interesting to see the margin on both, but Ferrari will never do it, they have way too much to lose...
it is expensive to get the recycling of a V6 in the end

 

The Valkyrie is a bold attempt, no doubt. Again a car that is the vision of one man (although I read somewhere that the RB17 exists because he was unhappy at the result of Valkyrie). The rumoured F250 XX is the RB17 equivalent I guess. It’s pretty good that a company as big as ferrari still do the XX programme plus challenge series etc. Those cars are focused and much lighter weight, being able to get rid of the road-going requirements.

Do Ferrari need to do a Valkyrie? I think the price would be very high and the volume low - back to building cars for the very few. Given the XX exists, I’m not sure it’s needed other than for a few collectors to store one away. Do we really want that?

Maybe a more interesting question; given all that is happening in Europe, should a cheaper but higher volume XX programme exist? The best place to really enjoy fast cars is the track. Currently a 15 year old 599 XX is about £3m plus hundreds of thousands for consumables. Even for wealthy people, it’s a lot. If the F250 XX could be made at a lower price, with cheaper consumables and instead of circa 30 units maybe 300 units, would this be a good proposition? I looked at doing the XX programme but for people who are time poor, the cost (and time commitment to justify it) is really high.