The Future

That Zagato is amazing! Regarding Ferrari, I think there are simply not enough enthusiasts to drive the race oriented cars. The Scud is still most likely found being rubbed with a cloth diaper on the weekends and rather than building a car like the Zagato, Ferrari would probably like for those 60 people to enter the 430/458 Challenge series. I have to link up with the Porsche or BMW clubs to enjoy track days and when I do, more than a few people always remark "it's good to see someone actually driving their Ferrari on a track, I just thought you guys only rubbed them with cloth diapers on the weekend."

 

Guessing the Zagato's built to compete w/458 GT3? Be nice if the stradale version comes w/the wheels, exhaust (and cams!) of the track car, though.

 

Jim--

Someone brought up the history of racing, and how what you're doing with P4/5C used to be the norm. People really could drive a race car to the track, race it, and then drive it home. But what I want to know is this: How big was the technology gap between a 1960s race car and a 1960s road car? Does it really compare to the gap between a GT3RS and one that's been stripped/prepped for the 24 Hours of the 'Ring? Or the gap between P4/5 and P4/5C?

What I want to know is this: How close is a CS, Scud, GT3RS, etc., to a real track-ready competition car? And I'm talking spring rates, damper stiffness, chassis stiffness, the lot. People go on and on about road cars that are track ready, but are they really? And how many people do you know would really drive a true race car on the road? James May drove an Aston across Europe that was prepped for whatever race series it belonged to, and he was (apparently) miserable. It at least looked very uncomfortable, even if it really wasn't that bad.

I love the idea of hard core road cars. But how hard core are they, really?

 

Roads are junk these days, and really road use requires -milder- cars with softer suspensions and such. Super low profile tires just result in destroyed wheels, low clearance ride heights = bumper repairs.

Ferrari -spares- are too expensive for most folks to want to really push a car to the limits on the track. The Pbugs are more capable than most drivers and a LOT cheaper to fix when pranged.

 

Keep in mind the 911's second ultimate advantage (over the first one, which is obvious: no weight at all in the front means superfast cornering):
The models have been produced for decades. When teams race a 911, they know EXACTLY how much tear and wear a single screw can take before requiring replacement. Other cars are NOT as proven. This is why Skyline GT-R's, V8 Ferrari's etc. have more failures on and off track. Every new 911 generation is an evolution, which means that the new model always share many parts with the old one - and thus the engineers know what that part is good for.
This is the reason I believe that 911's are much cheaper to track too, they are made of parts which are engineered to perfection and will stand up against any form of punishment...
In this perspective, the 997 GT3 RS with a factory roll cage and fire extinguisher, is pretty much as good as it's going to get in todays regulated world.

Not a Porsche guy at all (like some of the 911 models though), but you can not deny their astonishing engineering skills... They don't joke around.

 

I had a few hard core cars I drove on the street but they were too hard core to be good road cars

I think w my Z06 I have reached a good balance. 3000# 650hp full race trans, differential, uses race or road fuel but w AC,gps, comfy interior. I could strip it down to full race but it wouldne be too fun on roads then

 

I would like to see a comparison of todays track day stars like rs, z06, scud, etc vs vintage race cars. Can a gt2rs keep up with a 1970's 935? 934? In what era would todays cars win a race? I would think 40 yrs ago would be soonest

 

+911

 

+911 from me too

People can debate whether they stir the soul, have passion, blah, blah, blah, but they are as finely tuned as a swiss watch and as durable as an AK-47. Porsches don't brag, they don't draw stares at the stoplight, they just quietly go about their business and gut the competition.

Again, I have never driven a Porsche that I have enjoyed half as much as a Ferrari, but I have to give credit where its due.

 

Jim, you said something the other day that has stuck in my mind -- "You should do what makes you happy."

You built a car that few people will understand because it makes you happy.

I sold my Ferraris and brought a little underpowered P-Bug that shifts itself. Everytime I drive the car, it makes me happy.

There are others who brought a new California so they could put the top down and cruise down the road. So long as it makes them happy, life is good.

Dale

 

Spending the last few years absorbing as much information as possible from this site, I believe that in ten years we will look back on this as a time of proliferation and development that characterizes certain points in sports car history. Like the 60's and early 70's prior to the 'gas crisis' and subsequent economically induced catatonia. I'm amazed at the variety of responses.....the last two years on this site there's been a spike in the "what the h*** is happening to Ferrari?" as if they're trying to explain away the wonderful richness of the change from our favorite manufacturer. It's resisted now, in ten years....it will be longed for. More amazing, that anyone would interpret these times as somehow bad for Ferrari. We should be thankful the have the freedom of vision to do it because it could easily go away tommorrow. When multiple performance iterations of the same car, and multiple completely new developments roll out, that covers the spectrum, it's not an afterthought, it's a profound passion and attenttiveness as opposed to marketing hyperbole. But look! Even the American manufacturers are going back to that great era and remaking those classic styles. We have more than the venerable Vette to offer the world. Will they be doing this in ten years? Doubtful, but hopeful

Just my highly marginal .02.

 

Ferrari branding strategy: "La bella figura."

 

I don't name my cars because the relationship I feel is one of "a personal extension" rather than "a separate entity." When I first got into Fiats over ten years ago it stirred some sense in my mind that had never been there. It was my first convertible, and the smallest car I'd ever had. Maybe that explains part of it. But the sheer intimacy and attachment is hard to explain. You feel yourself taking comments more personally, doing those extra 'special' things to the car, putting up pictures on your cubicle wall. I'd never done that before.

Humans are drawn to anthropomorphize complex objects, it's the easiest way to encompass the additional complexity of mechanical things that seem to 'think.' Men universally refer to cars in the feminine gender, probably because men are driven to master and dominate cars in the same way they do women, in a social Darwinistic sense, and of course women are much more than cars and gentleman think of women in much better ways than this, it's just a reference point.

It's a dance between man and machine, mind and physical complexity in a continuum of behavior that results in a cluster of thoughts, emotions, declarations....all to bring the relationship to socially communicable norms. Forums, clubs, drive-ins, just talking about cars to a friend. A fascinating domain of discourse. This forum has introduced me to the upper echelon of automotive esoteria....the enthusiasm for this marque and the detailed discussion of everything from transport services, to spousal stress, to sodium filled valves.....this has changed my life. I own several Fiats and am earnestly working to graduate to the Ferrari club. I love this forum. Thanks for tolerating my gloriously marginal remarks.

 

I think Jim understands the "secret"!!!