Cavallino 181

Many blatent errors ??

You make me laugh...

 

Thats funny

 

English is not everyone's mother tongue..

 

Back to the point, Cavallino does list itself as the "The Jounal of Ferrari History" and there was narry an atticle on non new Ferraris in this latest edition - even the cover was of some new white thing - not a proper hand hammered bodied, distributor fired, non integrated circuit slathered, epa non compliant, oil leaking, metal bumpered, soul churning something that Enzo would have touched. God how I hate the 21st century, M

 

Exactly my thoughts. I found it slightly infuriating....and I love the 21st century!

 

When I opened it and flipped through for the first time, I kept wondering where the articles on the historical cars were. The answer - there are none. Not worth saving.
Ed

 

What is that car in the Berlinetta Motorcars ad - on the left, only the back half of the car showing, very round tail?? Black car on the floor.... Anyone?

gp

 

So at what point are you suggesting history stopped then?

Jonathan

 

I think the point is that Cavallino has always dedicated itself to the cars, people and events that have made Ferrari history. My family has every Cavallino published, and wrote articles on the four cylinder cars published in Cavallino in 1991. The focus of the magazine has always been almost exclusively Ferrari history, from its inception thru the mid-1970s. After that point, there simply aren't as many undocumented "mysteries" to chase.

I do not have 181 in front of me, but I believe that every feature article deals with cars currently in production, or custom coachbuilding exercises on cars currently in production. Nothing "historic" about that. And why cover territory that Forza already amply covers (i.e., two consecutive issues w/ the 458 on the cover?).

 

In my opinion the article on the Zagato cars was totally in keeping with their "mission".
Just another man's opinion.

George

 

Hmmm. So you're saying that Ferrari history stops in the mid-1970s then?

I haven't yet seen issue 181 and entirely take the point being made about the balance of the content, but I do take issue with the suggestion that "history" stops at any given point. What happened a minute ago is already history isn't it? As already pointed out in this thread, Cavallino styles itself as "the journal of Ferrari history". Not "the journal of Ferrari history up to 1975". Therefore, the content in issue 181, as described, would seem to fit within that remit, albeit that some of the readers don't like the principle and it might not be a good idea editorially!

Jonathan

 

At times, there are "good commercial reasons" to put a new car on the cover of a "Classic Ferrari" mag. It reminds the "Motor Trend" car of the year awards ;-)
I don't think Cavallino would subsist without the adverts of 21st century purveyors to the marque. And at that, only 66 pages? It makes economical sense in this economy.

Of course, a 458, is a part of "Ferrari History"... and a spectacular car at that, but only if that is the sort of vehicle you prefer. Personally, I am "zoomed by the past".

I, also favor the cover being slightly less actual, and certainly include the new stuff on the inside, otherwise it is might be confused with any of the "modern" magazines. I can just see a customer at Barnes & Noble thinking he's buying a magazine about new cars!

I would never think the English Classic mags would ever put one on the cover, unless it were a side by side photo with a 250 LM.

Regards, Alberto

PS. Lovely photo on the cover, only problem, is the proximity sensor doesn't quite look the part of a classic. It is like a pimple on the nose of your favorite star. It appears as a cheap plug for a screw that holds the fascia on. Wonder if we can get them installed on Dinos...maybe even backup cameras?

 

To be blunt these new cars will have no history. They are fatally dependent on an ocean of microchips and code that has certain half lives and when that time runs they begin to die, just like Roy Bloody in Bladerunner. And the maker again will have no interest or ability to save them. When that hour arrives the owners can replace those dead circuits with equally aged devices and bet ton some differential vitality from Ferrari's pars stock or something used from a breaker. And when those stocks are exhausted the cars simply stop they wont go and no shop will be able to reconstruct new chips and the necessary codes. In short hey become permanent immobile garage jewelry, rather like a very expensive collection of Pex dispensers, well likely then you will still get Pez candies and use that collection.

 

Michael:
I agree with many of the points raised in your post, but not you ultimate conclusion. It used to be said that nobody could keep a Ferrari running because of the 6 weber carbs and aluminum bodies. Then it was because of the irreplaceable dinoplex, no parts and a distinct lack of factory support. Yes, electronics will be a hurdle that will have to be dealt with, but there are enough of these "new" cars out there that it will be worthwhile for done to figure out workarounds for many of the electrical glitches that will occur.

The lack of history will occur, but mostly because the new cars are mass produced automobiles, one the same as the next, not hand built, limited production runs of 1, 25 or 50 cars each with unique characteristics.

 

I thought it was one of the worst issues in a few years. What will be in the next issue, following a 348 through the Classiche certification process?

 

So Ney we agree that there is no history in these things, they barely worth a mention in Cavallino if Cavallino is in fact a "Journal of Ferrari History" M

 

No disagreement there. They are now just cars and these cars are not making history as the early cars did.

 

On reflection THE journal of Ferrari history it is here - F Chat Vintage

 

Now, as a 29 year old Tifosi, non-owner, I do NOT have the knowledge you all have regarding the "classic" Ferraris, though correct me if I'm wrong, but what some of you are saying is that none of the Ferraris produced in my lifetime (post 1981) will ever be "classics"? Furthermore, that simply because they have evolved with time and now use electronics and sensors, etc., rather than purely mechanical means, they will never be as significant?

IMO, just like the music labeled as "oldies", the Ferraris of the 40's, 50's, 60's were the first examples put out, the originals, never to be had again. So naturally they will have a very,very special place in history. Though, for the tifosi of my generation, I do believe the Ferraris that change the course of automotive technology for ALL CARS could be viewed as "classics" in their own rights. Obviously, they won't be classics in one sense of the word, but in a new way. I just hate the fact that simply because we weren't born when Ferraris were just starting out, that we will never be afforded the opportunity to have Ferraris labeled as "classics" which were produced in our own era.

Please tell me if I'm not making any sense, because I was struggling with how to place exactly what I was thinking into words. So I'm hoping that some will understand what I meant.

Mark

 

thank you, Mark, for the level-headedness of your question. I have also struggled to find the right words when I try to describe the phenomena of Ferrari to newer enthusiasts. The short answer is that there would not be any Ferrari mytique, passion, etc. if Ferrari hadn't done what it did in its remarkable first 20 years.

The natural tendency is to want to know how this all started; how did the factory function; what were these cars; who were the people who raced and owned them, etc. But there are really significant complicating factors to understanding all of this.

The first is coming to grips with the number of completely different types of cars, street and competition, that Ferrari put out in small numbers and in a very limited number of years - it is mind-boggling. The number of completely different motors that it engineered, produced and raced in that time period is also just as mind-boggling.

Add to this the fact that factory record keeping back then was abysmal, limited and sometimes/often incorrect. Add the fact that Ferrari was involved in motor racing of practically every type all over the world in those decades - not just Formula 1 (for the last 3+ decades) and the limited challenger series stuff of today. Add the fact that Ferrari sometimes cannibilized last year's race cars for next years race cars with little or no record of the fact. Add the fact that Ferrari sometimes switched serial numbers so that certain owners wouldn't get raped by their home-country's tax system. The ultimate sum of this equation is a ******* nightmare from a historian's perspective. Ferrari simply didn't care about keeping track of most of this; they were a racing organization that built production cars to finance the racing. A ton of scholarship has gone into tracking all of this stuff down over many, many years by many people - predominantly a hardcore group of a few dozen historians.

From my perspective, this is all interesting because it describes the birth of what is probably the most legendary company on the planet. What Luca Di Montezemolo ate for breakfast yesterday is arguably "Ferrari history," but isn't noteworthy or relevant to Ferrari's birth and rise to greatness. By the same token, a discussion about a production Ferrari F355 isn't noteworthy or relevant to Ferrari's birth or rise to greatness. And I don't want to pay to read about either of them in a magazine that is supposed to be about Ferrari history. The F355 is still a Ferrari, and therefore one of the most sought after automobiles of all time, and will certainly become a "classic" someday by virtue of the passage of time. Also, by the early 70s, Ferrari was acting more like a "company" in its record keeping and was also not producing the extremely wide range of cars that it had in its first 20 years. As I said earlier in this thread, there just aren't many Ferrari mysteries to chase after the mid-70s. By contrast, there are still great mystery cars and stories that are being sniffed out everyday here on the Vintage forum of f-chat.

I would not construe research and articles on Ferrari's birth as an attack on, or making value judgments on Ferrari's newer cars. apples and oranges, in my view

 

Very nicely put, it sure doesn't seem like you have trouble placing your thoughts about Ferrari into words, LOL. I couldn't agree more with what you said, I also see your point regarding the lack of "mysteries" after the mid-70's. Due to the entrance of Fiat into Ferrari production, it really did make tracking the various models easier. I share the same curiosity and passion you speak of though, regarding the discovery of Ferrari's past and how this wonderful company began. Over the last few years, I've really taken a newfound interest in discovering Ferrari's older models, personalities, competitions, etc., with the same excitement as I do the new ones. When I first became inthralled with Ferrari and for many years after, I largely concentrated on only the newer cars, ie. 348 and after, with no real interest about Ferrari's past. At some point it all changed, all of the sudden I had a real hunger to learn about Ferrari's past, though as you mentioned, it truly was/is "mind boggling" due to the number of coachbuilders and the many engine variants of the day as well. I'm still very much in the middle of exploring Ferrari's earlier decades and it's really exciting actually, though I don't know if I'll ever discover ALL of the earlier models, cause there seems to be an infinite number. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me, I do appreciate it!

Mark

 

Very nicely and eloquently put Bryan.