Ferrari F80

I'm glad you brought this up. The Ferrari patent I found for this system (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240351518A1/) is not so much amplifying inaudible sounds, but rather using the rotations of the (axle of the) electric motor to produce a signal - much in the same way as the famous Hammond organ - using transducers = electromagnetic pickups (like also used on electric guitars), and the signal can then be changed to sound more pleasant (pitch-shifted), which is to a degree mechanical, but I wouldn't call it a non-artificial natural method, since it involves signal processing.

So this patent turns the Ferrari EV into a driving Hammond organ, and that is not even a joke.



But it just so happens that the Hammond organ coupled to a Fuzz Face (like Jimi Hendrix used on his guitar) is one of my favorite instruments! If a car made a sound like the final chord in below performance by the Dutch band Ekseption, I would be in heaven! My three favorite sounds in the world are (in no particular order) the FXX EVO V12, the Hammond organ through a Fuzz Face and Jimi's Strat and Flying V through a Fuzz Face and Marshall amp/stack. It so happens that a Fuzz Face/Marshall adds harmonics/distortion that makes a guitar (and Hammond organ) sound more like a (racing) engine.

 

The things that we learn here on Ferrarichat. I find it brilliant the analogy that you brought with the Hammond organ to explain the principles of the sound system that will equip the future electric Ferrari.
As I learned music at a very young age, when I was a teenager one of my dreams was to have a Hammond organ. Since that never happened, every now and then I would play a Hammond that had a Leslie and that belonged to a professional organist I knew. Hammond is something extraordinary and unique.
I also have three favorite sounds. One of them is obviously the one of the engine of my V12 Ferrari. Another is the one generated by the Steinway B that I play almost every day. Finally is the sound of the Hammond with Leslie that I never had.

 

I think the rear wing needs to be higher and little bigger... But yes, its a great render.

 

I'm not sure I could list my favorites so succinctly, though Ferrari V12s would feature near the top.

I also love that Hammond B-3 / Leslie combination. But emanating from a stage or from a recording. Not from a car.

I want a car's sound to be the natural byproduct of its operation. I get that it's a spectrum. You could argue that tuning an exhaust to coax more/better sound from a car is not a "natural byproduct" either. It's a gray area. I don't know where I'd draw my line, but certainly well short of synthesized sounds.

Yes, I'm a "purist". Sounds like a compliment.

 

Everything used to be better in the good old days, right? You can always put the F80 (or the Ferrari EV) on some 20-inch wire spoke wheels and add a playing or baseball card to each wheel! Very old-school, very analogue, very pure! (tongue in cheek)



Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'm also a purist
I don’t think it’s a gray area. Tones emanating from a car’s exhaust pipes are very much like wind musical instruments in that they have different sound signatures based on the physics of the exhaust gas pulses and how they travel through the pipes. Just as wind instruments are tuned to sound as good as possible, an engine's exhaust system can be tuned without this presupposing that the sound will no longer be natural.

 

I thing we like this because in profile there is a connection between front and back elements, that's kind of lacking in original.

 

Nope. But sometime things really were better. Change is not always synonomous with progress.

This isn't to say that nostalgia doesn't color some opinions. Of course it does. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

However, I think nostalgia has zero to do with the preference for analog over digital, sound over silence, authentic over synthetic. At least in my case.

I want to drive and operate the machine myself, not rely on a computer to make decisions for me. The sound is a huge part of the experience for me, particularly in an age when differentiation in performance is nearly irrelevant because it's already largely inaccessible on the road. And given the choice, I'd always rather see the band live than listen to a recording.

Take these things away, yeah, my experience will be worse. The past really will have been better. Nothing to do with nostalgia.

That doesn't mean these new experiences should be worse for you. The things that excite you may be different and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as there's nothing wrong the "purist" perspective.

 

I love the "original" F80. It echo's so many of the cool Ferrari design elements from the past i love, but at the same time looks like nothing else being made right now. Have you seen it in real life yet? It's is very different to pictures.

 

You are preaching to the choir, this is not TeslaChat after all, but I try to keep in mind that preference is a luxury, and Ferrari owners - like most sportscar owners - are spoiled in that regard. I won't go into human suffering and poverty, and I'm not saying anyone should be happy or thankful that Ferrari is creating the F80 or an EV next, but there are hundreds of amazing existing car models from Ferrari and other brands available to the potential F80 buyer, if he doesn't own them already, so who cares that newer isn't better anymore? Who cares that Manzoni and whatever the CEO's name is are raping Ferrari's heritage? As long as they are not rounding up and crushing the existing cars, enjoy what is available to you before you are in a hospital bed on life support or six feet under. Life is short.

Some people have emotions and some people don't, Marcel said. Sure, but if you feel hurt by Ferrari S.p.A. you need to seriously listen to Jerry's Final Thought.



"The sadness of a lost [brand] is bad enough, but too often we add anger. How dare this [company] who so occupied my life and heart leave me for [another target clientèle]. It's a theft, a personal assault, too much for our ego. And we lash out at [the company] we lost and the [CEO] who took [the cars]. Now I'm not suggesting it's easy to refrain from such feelings, bu we have to know as bad as those feelings are, it is in our own control as to how long we harbor them. The truth is, we don't want that [company] back. I mean who wants to be in a relationship with [a company] who doesn't love [your patronage]. Why are we fighting to get this [company] back? It may have once been good, but it isn't anymore. No, don't let this [company] continue to hurt you. Let it go. Find [a car manufacturer] who will love you back. Then you can have the happiness [and cars] you want and deserve. As for the [Ferrari S.p.A.] you lost, you don't love him, you only loved who you thought he was, you're better off moving on. Take care of yourself, and eachother."

Or as Tom Cruise said:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'm just posting some satire, there is no need to actually respond. Don't waste your breath and enjoy your day, or better yet, turn off your device and go out there and enjoy your Ferrari! I don't own a Ferrari and I don't have friends so I have nothing better to do.

 

This Ferrari owner gets it:

 

edited. dont want to beat a dead horse

 

In response to a post that got deleted lol

Sure, I will gladly admit that for a brief period I rolled with the assumption (it was still only an assumption) that it might be an electronic speaker, and I wrote a few posts in line with that assumption, particularly this one:
"The audio signal being played by the speaker might originate from engine sounds like on the Corvette, but we don't know that in Ferrari's case. Either way, if employed in the F80 it might make for a great engine sound inside the car, which is what matters in the end. So I was not criticizing the system, I was merely showing - without passing judgement - that while possibly not synthetic, it is certainly not natural and thus artificial on the F-cars with the sound generator." [if the sound generator is really an electronic speaker]

It was in fact the strong resistance to this idea by Lukeylikey that motivated me to work harder to proof or disproof it. I was sure though it wasn't a "simple membrane" as some people argued, why would they have changed the part then, made it bigger and rename it? And that's when I thought of the passive radiator and looked up photos of the actual part, which convinced me that it was not an active speaker, but at least it explained why Scuderia would use that word.

So I think that I was no more wrong to push the idea of an electronic speaker as the other people were of pushing the idea that it was a simple membrane like on the 599 GTO, because the "mass-spring" system is tuned to a specific resonant frequency that by design colors the sound much more than a simple membrane. As far as natural, I have to point out that the same Sound Generator with the same frequency response is used for the V12 models (F12 TDF), V8 models, both in the intake (488) and the exhaust (SF90), and in the V6 models, which means that the natural sound which is different for each type of engine (and different for intake and exhaust sound) is given the same enhancement treatment, which is a bit questionable and one could argue it makes the natural sound of these engines less natural. Maybe each engine should have its own Sound Generator tuned for that specific application (V6 - V8 - V12 - intake/exhaust).

 

I can't afford a GMA, that's why I want Ferrari to build one that I can afford haha. ICE only 296 would be pretty similar to a 720/750 but an NA 296 at 1100kg would be the dream.

Again I am not questioning Ferrari's capabilities, and I am not arguing that they should make all their cars like GMA. I said that the V6 turbo is the best solution for the F80. But I think they are missing a big opportunity in not having a more analogue limited model a la Porsche GT3. Outside of developing the next supercar in 10 years, there is no more certain and higher return on investment, imo. They can definitely spare a few hundred million in development costs if they spent 147 million euro in share buybacks in Q3. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they are afraid of killing demand/cannibalizing sales of their hybrids.

Maybe they do need a (more mechanically focused) engineer like Murray. Also my impression is that Murray is not compulsively obsessing over every detail but is bringing a specific mindset and vision to his team, like any good leader should. Recall even LdM was famous for not wanting wings and his attention to detail improving the 348 to 355.

Strategically it makes sense too. Just look at Porsche who went to far into EVs. The demand is weak and the market is fickle (in addition to their China problem). https://ssoreport.com/porsche-q3-2024

Both of us have our respective anecdotal views but if you look at the empirical evidence available like 70% manual take rate in Porsche GT3 in USA (30% globally), 70% manual for Pagani Utopia, uncertain market for EVs, I cannot find a good reason that Ferrari should not at least have a more analogue offering.

But as I said earlier we do not know their plans. They most likely have already shifted their strategy and are in the process of developing new engines.

 

"Mass spring" is just patent lingo describing how the physics of how a membrane/diaphragm behaves I believe

 

I don't get why they didn't release it with a fixed wing in the first place. It doesn't even retract flush like the 720s or the P1. Might as well go all way, esp given that when trying to reference F40
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
It probably also would have saved 50kg of weight.

 

I humbly disagree. The patent is discussing several devices.
Some known symposer devices comprise a flexible membrane [let's calll this category 1, simple membrane], which seals in a fluid-tight manner and, at the same time, is free to deform in order to permit the transmission of sound waves. Other known symposer devices (e.g. the one described in patent application EP1365120A1 ) comprise a rigid plate and an elastic element with an annular shape (which can be flat, cup-shaped or bellows-shaped), which is arranged around the rigid plate and is fixed to an inner wall of the corresponding duct in order to hang the rigid plate, which, therefore, is free to oscillate due to the thrust of pressure pulsations. [let's call this category 2, passive radiator] Therefore, a known symposer device [I take this to refer back to category 2] is a "mass-spring" system (namely, a system consisting of a spring hanging from a constraint coupled to a mass) [again, I take this to refer only to the second category], which, from the acoustic point of view, behaves like a band-pass filter centred on the resonance frequency of the system; the acoustic passband of the symposer device must be positioned in the area of the most significant frequencies of the noise generated by the internal combustion engine (approximately between 350 and 600 Hz) and must be sufficiently wide (it must approximately have a total width of at least 250-300 Hz).

Note how the first category only mentions the membrane is free to deform, it does not mention multiple elements including a rigid plate with mass and a seperate elastic element that acts like the spring. So I interpret this as the first device is a simple membrane, which I think is used in the 599 GTO, and the Sound Generator is a device of the second category, which is effectively a passive radiator, and certainly not just patent lingo for the physics of how a membrane behaves.

Even a simple membrane will have some acoustic properties, but it is not nearly as complex as the second device and not nearly as tuneable. It is just a flexible membrane, not a rigid plate of a certain weight with an elastic element with certain elasticity. The two are very different devices, explicitly described in the patent as two different known symposer devices.

 

Case in point, the Mazda MX-5 has a sound tube with a symposer device in the middle, someone cut it in half, have a look.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

You can clearly see the elements described in the patent under the second category of known symposer devices. The rigid plate and the bellows-shaped elastic element.

Some [emphasis some] known symposer devices comprise a flexible membrane, which seals in a fluid-tight manner and, at the same time, is free to deform in order to permit the transmission of sound waves.[Only a membrane, nothing else].
Other [emphasis other] known symposer devices (e.g. the one described in patent application EP1365120A1 ) comprise a rigid plate and an elastic element with an annular shape (which can be flat, cup-shaped or bellows-shaped), which is arranged around the rigid plate and is fixed to an inner wall of the corresponding duct in order to hang the rigid plate, which, therefore, is free to oscillate due to the thrust of pressure pulsations.

If you object to a passive radiator being called a speaker, you also have to object to a rigid plate plus an elastic element being called a flexible membrane, even if you were to consider both to be mass-spring systems. There are similarities between the two, but even the patent explicitly makes the distinction further on a second and third time.

In order for the acoustic passband of the symposer device to be sufficiently wide, the body featuring elasticity (i.e. the flexible membrane or the elastic element) needs to have a high damping, which can be obtained only if the body featuring elasticity is made of a polymer plastic material (for example silicone). As a consequence, in known symposer devices, at least the body featuring elasticity (i.e. the flexible membrane or the elastic element) is made of a plastic material;

The previous part was called MEMBRANE HOLDER HOUSING. It was a housing that held a membrane. Category 1.

The new part is called SOUND GENERATOR, the patent describes how that is different. Category 2. This is not semantics, this is not patent lingo, this is different devices.

You don't need this whole big thing just to house a membrane.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

The Sound Generator is clearly of similar construction as the Mazda part, and therefore not a membrane, not even colloquially speaking.

 

Therefore, a known symposer device [I take this to refer back to category 2] is a "mass-spring" system (namely, a system consisting of a spring hanging from a constraint coupled to a mass) [again, I take this to refer only to the second category], which, from the acoustic point of view, behaves like a band-pass filter centred on the resonance frequency of the system;

Correction, I now think the patent is referring to both categories as a mass-spring system, but as I have illustrated, they are different devices and you can't call category 2 a membrane or a diaphragm, because that is a singular part (ie no rigid element plus elastic element).

Granted, some people call the cone of a loud speaker a diaphragm, but in that case the cone/diaphragm is the rigid part and the spider is the elastic element. So by that logic the Sound Generator is both a diaphragm and a speaker, and again, not a simple membrane.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

By the way, it doesn't look like the patent is describing the Sound Generator we are discussing. The Sound Generator predates the patent and the patent drawings show a device with a different, symmetric housing.

 

And some final beating of this dead horse, while I unfortunately can't find a photo of the actual part, the drawing for the MEMBRANE HOLDER HOUSING shows a symmetrical part that looks like it has a simple membrane in the middle of it, ie a category 1 sound symposer.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Now as an apology to the people that come to this thread for the F80, here is the first MOC Lego model.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The explanation is that Ferrari is not in the 1990s/restomod car business. A "slow", manual car, is not in their ethos. We all know the uptake last time they offered a manual...

I guess for aero reasons (i.e. high speed runs). It sits pretty low though when retracted and it also forms a small wing with that gap between the main plane and the read deck, which wouldn't be possible if it sat totally flash with the bodywork.

 

And here is the full collection of MOC Lego F80s.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

This one in particular comes pretty close and the spoiler moves.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Perhaps purchase experience is inclusive of visit to here for F80 buyers:

https://www.legoland.de/en/