Ferrari F80

Hello Lukeylikey, hope you are well! Yes, I am aware of this Chinese company, as we all are of various companies that produce prototype aeroplane-cars. The major problem is that car drivers are not trained to fly. Not to mention the safety and regulatory nightmare that a 3D flying environment would pose to amateurs, without defined airways.

 

Not that said dealer would have any motivation to be economical with the truth of course..

 

It’s true, but like autonomous driving, it will get sorted out in some way or other. Just a question of how long it takes. I guess the sense in making it like a drone instead of a helicopter is the ease of use and lower requirements in terms of training etc.

Unfortunately for us, the UK will likely be among the last to adopt something like this.

Doing well thanks, despite life’s many challenges, hope you are too! Cheers

 

In that spec that changes things.

Shame about the engine though. But looks wise I totally agree with you, spec goes a LONG way in this case

 

I know two of the people on my dealers waiting list, they are friends of mine, plus I have other friends in the Ferrari community in other regions who also are on their dealers waiting list (one in CA and one in GA) all told there is no allocation available.

Don't think my dealer is lying to me, he is not only my dealer but also a close friend...

 

that blog is well known for making up rumors (without good/any sources) for clicks

 

I have to disagree.
1. You do not necessarily have to make the front of the monocoque a enclosed box section. See Mclaren, Porsche 918, Bugatti/Rimac monocoques. The Bugatti/Rimac moncoque also manages to package two electric motors in that space. Also a single motor+differential is similar in width to two electric motors with reduction gearboxes (what F80 and Rimac/Bugatti have).
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

2. On road cars the frontal crash beams need to be around the same width as the passenger cabin to transfer load effectively. This minimum width, even on the F80 where the passengers are staggered, is still wide enough for two electric motors.

3.S duct is in front of suspension pickups.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Also adding on to my first point from before, another advantage would be in developing the front suspension geometry. Torque steer is a big problem with FWD and you need to make certain adjustments to the geometry vs RWD only. Usually the hardpoints are worked out in simulation long before the physical model exists but given that the new NSX, SF90, etc are still getting complaints maybe they wanted some flexibility in that area. But again it is fundamentally a cost issue as the adjustments are usually in the lower control arm mounts (to change the kingpin inclination angle). Also the previous gen LaF tub had both the upper and lower wishbone on the tub, while some other tubs (Mclaren, 918) only have the top suspension mount on tub and the bottom bolted to a small, stiff mini subframe (less weight/stiffness penalty than full metal subframe). The later Rimac tub, which was developed by an ex Ferrari guy, has the same arrangement as LaF. Maybe this is just a different engineering philosophy, maybe patent related as Mclaren tub and 918 tub are manufactured by same company.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Put LaFerrari there and you will see how Manzoni is a one trick pony

 

I will just wait and see the reliability of these sophisticated parts in the future. I hope your comment ages like a fine wine lol.

 

The classic valuer graphs below are in Pounds Sterling and generated from sales recorded in the main world markets. They show the evolution of prices for the 288GT0, F40, F50 and Enzo over time. As classic valuer does not produce a chart for the LaFerrari, what is available is that of Classic.com in USD below, which only has information from 2021 onwards.

Something that draws attention is that it was from 2015 onwards that the prices of 288GTO, F40, F50 and Enzo began to skyrocket. In the case of the LaFerrari in 2020-2021 the average sales price was below 3 million USD but from 2022 onwards it has risen above 3.5 MILLION USD.
Are these appreciation curves since 2015 sustainable? If demand continues strong as it has been probably they are.




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

 

Thanks for the chassis example. But like I mentioned, space wise it would still be complicated to build a front subframe from carbon for F80. There are lot of HW and air is also channeled from front to the sides below the subframe and crash structure.

Picture from ferrari.com:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Screenshots from Shmee's presentation video:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Galiera said that the questions Ferrari asked itself when it had to decide on the engine for the F80 were “what’s the best engine that’ll unlock the performance?”. “Is it better to go for the historically most iconic Ferrari engine, the v12, or the best architecture now used in top-level race?" We know the answer was the V6 turbo which made the F80 the fastest road legal Ferrari of all time.

Maximum performance has been Ferrari’s criterion in all hybrid models and is nothing new. However, all hybrids that came after the LaFerrari, although delivering a masterclass in hybrid engineering and performance refinement, are no longer capable of providing all the drama and emotion that was once the prerogative of Ferraris with V8s and V12s na. But why hasn’t Ferrari presented again a V12 hybrid as it did with the LaFerrari ,capable of providing all the emotion and drama one could ask for ?

When Michael Leiter was Ferrari CTO he was one of the persons that fought hard to save the V12 engine from extinction but he was the one that also said “A naturally aspirated V12 engine is not a downsized engine, and for me, it doesn’t make sense as a hybrid,” “The LaFerrari hybridization was for performance. In the future, we’re being forced to look at emissions and if you want to really utilize the CO2 benefit, you have to downsize,”
Leiters's and Ferrari's kind of dogma that a hybrid V12 didn’t make sense and the engine had to be downsized are behind the conception of the SF90s, 296s and also F80. However, there is another Italian company also with a great tradition in V12 engines that unlike Ferrari, saw a lot of sense in making a car with a hybrid V12 na. The car is the Lamborghini Revuelto, almost as performant as the SF90, which instead of sounding muted roars with the fury of its new naturally aspirated V12 while fully complying with all the draconian EU emission laws.

According to Ferrari the reason for abandoning the idea of a V12 hybrid was due to an engine downsizing absolute need however, there are some who suspect that the real reason was to avoid the development cost of a completely new V12 engine.

 

Surely they want to avoid new V12 development costs. Then again, their V6 is an overwhelming package as a power source (though not as a sound source).

It is interesting to note how the 3-litre V6 crushes the old 4-litre V8. It produces significantly more torque on a much wider power range. I wish Ferrari would release comparative torque graphs so that people could get better understanding how dominant it is compared to their V8 TT and V12.

 

The V6 has an extraordinary performance but at a high cost which is the muted engine sound. A Ferrari should be much more than just high performance.

 

oh, that's would explain why F80 is so cheap

 

Michael Leiters is an exceptional engineer but more or less at the time when Vigna came in Mr Leiters was "let go".
Vigna and his buddies strictly follow bean counter Marchionne's philosophy. Avoid any and all costs. Good for Elkann but for the clients?
Doesn't get much more stupid.

Marcel Massini

 

Good for the shareholders but only short term - Stellantis (having common shareholders with Ferrari) followed the same strategy, which allowed a surge in the share value (and huge bonuses for the CEO), before crashing heavily (in less than one year the share is now losing more than 50% compared to its peak, and is basically where it was 4 years ago when Stellantis was created).
Now Stellantis's shareholders have got rid of their genius CEO, but they only reacted when caught by the outcomes of the policy whereas any observer could see the writing on the wall.

 

Imagine if they made it V8 and with +1000cc like McLaren. Instead they managed to make a car with less power than the rival (yes 300hp/1000cc I know, amazing bla bla still...less power,period) and more weight (!) with a V6. 10 (TEN) years and they have not managed to have an ICE that alone produces 1000hp just to recycle a V6 already in production so as not to spend too much money on R&D for a new, TRULY EXCLUSIVE engine (because obviously they struggle to make it to the end of the month and pay the bills).And it will be their best for the next ten years or so....
Absolute geniuses

 

BINGO !!!

 

This is a solid and sober analysis. Alas, at the end of the day, it is what it is. Ferrari has always followed the motor sport trends of the times. Their F1 engine is a V6, their WEC engine is a V6, hence it makes perfect sense that their halo road car's engine is also a V6. A new V12 would have been great, but it was not meant to be...

Do you honestly think that the thoroughly reworked V6, with electric turbos and all new internals was cheap to develop? If yees, you don't sem to know much about engineering... The same goes for Mr Massini who things the same.

 

It was certainly way cheaper than developing a new V12

 

Well the last decade Cosworth managed to develop three high performance NA engines ( two V12 and a V16).
Final cars equipped with are in the same price range compared with F80.
One can only deduce it was absolutely possible for Ferrari to do the same with its halo car..
For sure margin would have been less important in this precise case..

 

They could have easily taken the Comp engine, added LaFerrari-style KERS to it and put an aero body on it. Hardly any added development cost to that - disproving to me the theory that they just want to go cheap. The so-called ‘purists’ would have been happy. Or probably not. The car would be heavier, hardly more powerful, and still a lot more expensive. In fact it would lose the one thing that all these halos have possessed in their own way. It would push no boundaries whatsoever. You might say “aero”, however, without the advantage of the short V6 engine, aero possibilities would be limited, probably ending up near the XX Stradale’s number. Not exactly impressive halo stuff.

So, such a car would have been the first halo that would push no boundary at all. Not so pure after all.

And had they done that, would the keepers of the brand’s integrity and the only ones to really ‘get’ Ferrari anymore - praise the car, or Ferrari? I think you’d be waiting a while.

Could they have developed a new V12 engine for the F80, like they did the Enzo? The Enzo engine has had 20+ years of emissions-meeting production in four V12 super-sports ranges with 11 different models, plus two shooting brake GT cars, plus their first FUV, plus the LaFerrari, LaF Aperta, SP1, 2 and 3. Can anyone reliably say they could get away with the same again? Even if you believe the ICE will continue, to expect the kind of payback from a V12 engine family that LDM did when signing off the current family, is just unrealistic in my opinion. Nobody can predict the future. But you can have a pretty good guess at a lot of things and you can easily work out how much risk there is to making that investment. Sure, take the easy, keyboard-warrior way out, blame RACE. But LDM couldn’t have taken a ludicrous decision to invest millions of euros when there was little chance of getting value for it, simply for ‘the love of the brand’, either. Enzo, FIAT, LDM, RACE, whomever. Ferrari is a business. And has to play by business rules. Make stupid decisions, get an undesirable outcome.

F80 is too expensive. And they might have made a mistake pushing it that far. But that doesn’t take away from the product itself. It seems to be a well-thought through halo car to move Ferrari into the future, just like every other halo car has done.

As a post script about Cosworth’s V12. Their whole business is designed to provide customer engines and other services into the automotive and aerospace sectors. They use their technology and spread their costs over multiple customers. Ferrari won’t do that. The requirement for a Ferrari V12 family is vastly different from a super-high price, low volume application such as Valkyrie or T50. They don’t take one-off engines for a halo car and have always looked to ensure the halo engine has other Ferrari applications. This changes a lot.

As a post, post script, as I have mentioned before, I have direct experience with Cosworth. They think like a race team. It’s hard to understand the challenges that brings for a road car application unless you have had experience of it. Ferrari road cars are developed by a road car team with some technology transfer from racing. That is a very big difference. In use, these Cosworth engines will not be the easiest prospect in my, probably limited, opinion.

 

I find it so strange that so many people are so focused on sound and how that will, or will not, enhance the driving experience of the F80, as if this car is nothing more than a machine for making sound. Its all speculation, how about you speak from first hand, real life experience rather than pure speculation. Its like arguing about how something tastes when you never tasted it. Fact, none of you have driven the car, and most have not even seen it in person.

Drive the car, experience the car first hand and then let me know your thoughts, because without this experience you are talking out of your A*$!

I spent quite some time discussing the development of the new engine with Ferrari and the individual who was point on the project when I was at the factory in September. They spent 8 Years developing this system. WAY more money than it would have taken to rework the existing V12 in the Competizione, adding electric turbos and electrification. Has anyone read the technical development PDF of this engine and the separate one around the new electrification changes? Well if you have not, you should before you make what sounds like "mater of fact" statements. This engine is way more than the engine from the 296, its 100% totally reworked with great expense and development time/cost to Ferrari. If you think its all about shareholder value, it would have been easier to slap a V12 into the F80.

I'm sorry, but I find so many unfounded statements in this thread childish. Fact, more money was spent on this powertrain than what would have been needed to rework their V12. Fact, this car is dedicated to current motorsport performance, its not meant to pay homage to the V12, that is what the Icona series is for.

You do not need to like the car, that's fine. But try to make the argument around what this car represents, and not some personal need to only pine for a V12. This car is to showcase Ferrari's pinacol of motorsport development and technology, and it does this at the highest level. Its a technical marvel vs. the W1, and will set new standards in automotive engineering for road legal sport cars. And that is exactly what Ferrari intended this car to be, and what the five predecessors were built to represent.

OMG, sound, like I said before, buy an aftermarket exhaust for the F80 if that's what you need to get your rocks off! Or maybe a Lamborghini Revuelto, with V12+electrification, which buy the way gets beat in most 1/4 mile pulls by the V6 powered 296!

In summation, see the car in person, drive the car, read the full technical data on development and then I am interested in your thoughts. Otherwise its just a bunch of sound, oh, I forgot, we only care about sound...