Ferrari F80

You are rationalizing all of these when what we are asking is something that doesn't have to make sense but be very emotional.
If Ferrari wanted to do it, they would. I have no doubt. But they are too rational nowadays. Great when blueprinting a purosangue type of car but when it's a hypercar, I'd would want a bit of what we used to say ferrari was about when they would get outspecced - Passion.

How many videos will the next generation be sharing of an F80 screaming down the road?
I remember growing up listening to the French f50 video on the highway blowing by a screaming 355. It was maybe a few seconds but I'd repeat it over and over. Then the same with Barichello driving the stradale at fiorano.

Hopefully kids will do the same with the F80..

 

Andrew:
Their ONLY passion today is $$$$.
Wake up.

Marcel Massini

 

" the Ferrari Enzo was described as one of the "Fifty Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years", by Bloomberg Businessweek."
Now there's a credible trustworthy source!

 

I didn't (still don't) like that the LaFerrari added electrification. I don't think I'm alone on that, but probably in a small minority.

Everyone mocked the name.

Those thing aside, yeah - they nailed it.

 

Nothing rationalising in pointing out that you cannot compare it with track cars or cars from the past, for example. The sound regulations do now allow for those screaming cars anymore. At the end of the day, passion means different things to different people.

 

The Enzo and the F50 are the best looking cars in automotive history.

 

How about Motor Trend; “to our eyes the Enzo isn’t the prettiest” and talked about an origami swan. Or EVO magazine who said “pretty it ain’t, aggressive it is, and brutally effective”

The point is, almost all opinion from the press was like this back in 2002/3. Same for the F50. (EVO “the lines are too soft…”)

Now, they’re both almost universally loved. History and what comes after changes the context we see these cars in. Not only hyper cars but ‘normal’ super cars too. And those who are passionate about how the F80 is not good looking have their passion matched by critics in 1995 and 2002 of F50 and Enzo. Presumably people who now think rather differently.

 

I can't speak for others, but I'd bet the farm that the black trim on the 12C and F80 will never grow on me. It hasn't yet for the 365 Daytona. That will never be a favorite Ferrari design of mine, but I do think that car looks much better without the plexi nose.

Shame, because without the black graphics, I think I'd be neutral at worst towards the 12C and F80. I think I'd actually quite like the 12C. The renders with the all the black trim painted in body color look pretty great to my eyes.

In my personal experience, cars that I'm neutral about at launch sometimes grow on me. But I've never come to like a design that I disliked at launch. Maybe one of these will be the first. I kind of doubt it.

I do believe the F80 will gain acceptance over time, if for no other reason than its place in the Ferrari hyper car lineage. I'm skeptical that it will ever elicit the same emotion and affection as its predecessors, however. It won't from me.

PS: FWIW, the F50 looked awkward to me at launch and still does. It's not a looker, IMO. But everything else about the car is perfect, so I never particularly cared. As for the Enzo, I loved the simple, clean lines the first time I saw it.

PPS: I have no horse in this race (puns intended) except that I desperately hope this black trim thing is a fad that passes very quickly. I would like Ferrari to take my money again, please. They won't as long as this fad lasts.

A quiet turbo V6 hybrid hypercar is of zero interest to me personally, but I'm not in this market anyway. And as long as they keep producing V12s in Iconas and GT cars, I really don't have anything to complain about...other than the black bits.

 

I think that’s fair enough. I certainly don’t want to persuade someone to like something they don’t. My only observation is that many of these cars were controversial at launch and came to be widely appreciated later. The only exceptions aesthetically seem to be GTO and LaFerrari.

 

Yes, and I think your observations about the low correlation between initial public reactions and eventual public acceptance are absolutely valid. But, of course, it may or may not apply for any particular individual. And time will tell if it will apply I this case. I believe it will to at least some extent.

As for me, this is uncharted territory for Ferrari. Before the 12C, I think the last launch that left me even lukewarm (nevermind disappointed) may have been the F50. But in that case, I was anything but lukewarm about the car under the skin.

Incidentally, I love reading your posts. I find them very insightful. We disagree about some things, but agree about more.

 

What the press said is meaningless, most people considered both great looking.
That's not the case with the F80, most consider it hideous.

 

No and no. It is what it is. There were many who were challenged by the looks of F50 and Enzo at launch - I remember well. And most people I know, including reaction from buyers at the private reveal, have had a positive reaction to F80. It is certainly controversial and some clearly hate it. But that was also true for every car ever launched to a greater or lesser degree. Most and hideous is just exaggeration.

 

"Porsche confirmed to Bloomberg that around 70 percent of all last-generation U.S. GT3s were ordered with manuals. The U.S. manual take-rate in the rest of the 911 lineup is only around 20 to 25 percent by comparison. Globally, the manual take-rate for the last GT3 was 30 percent" It does in the US.

Also re the political future of ICE, there is no way EU or US are banning ICE now. If they did (EU especially) all their OEMs would get slaughtered by Chinese EVs. Even with the current 35% tariff they present a better value to consumers than most Western offerings. If EU stick with the 2035 ban they will ensure the death of their car industry.

To be honest this comparison is not really useful just a fun continuation. I see the V12s as allegories to the Birkin, the mid engine V8s as the Kelly, and the entry level front engine V8s as the scarves/ties. Yes Ferrari makes a lot of money from other activities like licensed merchandise, and so does Hermes with overpriced belts and Apple Watch straps. So I disagree about the Bugatti comparison. The point being, Hermes is not trying to chase the younger generation by pursuing flash in the pan collaborations or trends like LV, even if it would net them increased short term profits at the expense of diluted brand value. Aside from the Neverfull and maybe their luggage, I could not name another LV equivalent to Hermes' lineup.

Yes some might argue that Hermes basing their main revenue drivers on old, outdated, traditional appeal is a risk as the older generation dies off and millennial/GenZ have different tastes (which is actually a very valid point) is a strategic mistake. But if you look at how they are interacting with their consumers through events, it's more about maintaining their historic (and vaunted) appeal but with modern trends.

Ferrari does get the customer interaction right, but IMO they are slowly diluting their historic appeal with the push to for more power with turbos, and increased electrification and digitalization. They also do not understand how to correctly do digitalization, as they hired someone from Microsoft to lead their HMI (although I think that has since changed), a company not really known for innovative and well designed products. This is evidenced in the haptic touchpads and their resulting removal.

Although structurally the only reason Hermes can keep a long term outlook is because 51% of the equity is held in a trust by the Hermes family. But Ferrari is also family controlled under Elkann/Agnelli.

*Also interesting aside, if you look at LV's watches lately, its clear they are at least trying to build the impression of a slower, lower volume, traditional approach.

 

Like I said before, I think a V6 turbo hybrid is best choice for the F80. But there definitely is cost savings involved in the choice not to develop a new V12 for future models. Not to mention the cost savings from the fact that the turbo V6 and V8 share the same combustion chamber architecture. I do not think they would extend that architecture to a turbo V12 though. But if a tiny company like GMA or Bugatti can afford to develop an entirely new engine that will probably be outlawed in 2035, why can't Ferrari.

Also this entire point is moot because they might use the profits from the F80 to pay for the development of a new V12. Realistically, they probably have the engine prototype ready are just waiting for the Euro 7 regs to give the greenlight.

Also there is clear cost saving on the F80 with the aluminum subframes and crash structures which must add 80-100kg.

 

Elkann encouraged (demanded?) this. Marchionne unleashed it. Vigne's appointment was the natural consequence of this regime shift. He is delivering very competently against Wall Street's expectations.

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle now. We can only speculate about how Enzo would choose to navigate this regulatory and consumer environment. But I don't think many would argue that "shareholder value" was his primary concern.

Agnelli and LdM respected this tradition and recognized that it was intrinsic to Ferrari's identity and reputation. Elkann and Marchionne did not.

 

@Lukeylikey:
Re the TM experience you mentioned:
You forgot Rolls-Royce. That's another league.

Marcel Massini

 

As mentioned before, it was Marchionne who became sort of a "father" for young Elkann and promised him the moon (Wall Street). Elkann didn't necessarily demand it. Don't forget that after Marchionne's passing Camilleri came but not for long. Then they really needed a new guy: Vigna. Beancounter Marchionne's path was already clearly defined.

Marcel Massini

 

Thank you Mr. Massini. I was never entirely sure if it was Marchionne who pushed for these changes or if he was acting on orders from Elkann to extract more of the brand's value. Either way, it was clear that Marchionne was quite happy to turn Ferrari from a founder-led business to a corporate machine. I disliked him from the moment I learned about him.

It's a shame that Elkann didn't share his grandfather's reverence for the little company from Maranello.

Let's hope that Vigne and Elkann are smart enough to keep enough of Ferrari's DNA to continue producing great cars. They have made many choices I dislike. But they've also produced some cars that I adore. So while thing like SUVs and the ridiculous clothing lines are diluting the brand in my eyes, I've far from given up hope. I still love the (now big) company in Maranello.

 

Unfortunately you are right.

 

When Gianni Agnelli passed away in January 2003 John Elkann was not even 27 years old. He inherited an empire, but quickly became very influenced by powerful leaders such as SM.
Sadly today, $$$$$ is the one and only and all important while the marketing dept is way too powerful and the people in charge lack knowledge of the true history, consequently the brand can only suffer.

Marcel Massini

 

Mister Massini,
Do you believe a massive commercial failure with their EV program could change their mind about NA engines ?

 

No.
I find it interesting to learn that the initial strict provision for the production of EVs in the new building has already been softened again and it is now said that all kinds of vehicles could be built there, not just EVs. Vigna said they are very flexible in the use of the new building. Sounds like a lot of uncertainty for the future. Also, don't forget the superstupid EU regulators.

Marcel Massini

 

Thanks Sir.

 

Queen Ursula will have you sh…