[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Flávio, if you’re reading this, you’re not the only one rolling your eyes! It’s actually quite funny how there are people saying it’s just not different enough and others saying, with equal passion, it’s just not the same enough. On the balance of that the design team must have got it about right, no? Didn’t bother to vote btw.
Evolutionary designs are generally better received than revolutionary changes particularly when brand recognition is lost or damaged in the process of change (as is clearly the case here). Brand recognition and anchoring a brands recognition, is key - particularly in the current market where values are being questioned. This "new" futuristic Ferrari could be seen as any brand other than a Ferrari to most people. Is that a wise thing for Ferrari to do? When I showed my wife the photo and asked her what did she think, her first reply was, what is is it? American? Her immediate thoughts were it was futuristic and unusual looking - rather un-stylish at the back. When I told her it was a Ferrari she questioned really? And she is a very much a car person. Ferrari has spent a life time on anchoring the brand as being the most stylish, higher performing, exclusive sports car in the world. Need I say more? Whether one likes SF90 or not (subjective), from a marketing perspective the design is a major fail insofar as further anchoring the brands recognition in the marketplace.
IMHO SF 90 tail lights are ugly they would have been better inspired to draw them in harmony with the front like these Image Unavailable, Please Login
I'm with whoever posted it earlier. I cannot unsee the happy-happy-joy-joy face in the center rear. Changing the headlights to what you suggest seems to make it more obvious I think.
the result of the vote is clear no offense to some but corvette style lights are not unanimous Image Unavailable, Please Login
Well that obviously clears it up. Your definitive statement is non-definitive. The only imaginative thinking in the original four pictures was the two pictures with the exhaust in place of two of the taillights. Unfortunately no-one liked them. The Acura-style lights also represent some imagination, but nobody liked those either. Here’s the safest conclusion....stick with Manzoni, not everyone will always like the answers but his team are resolving conflicting challenges in a good and professional way. The proof is in the sales.
The remarks are relevant but from there to consider that Manzoni is a great designer there is a step that I would not cross The Pinifarina Battista represents a much more daring and elegant vision of what could have been a Ferrari in the future the initial enthusiasm of the sales does not prejudge anything that will be the perception in the future of this SF90 let us 2-3 years to know how much will resell at that moment a SF 90.
+1 for Battista, because I am a bit disappointed with SF90 styling, especially as the SF90 is meant to be the top serial production model for Ferrari BTW, I do believe that the car looks better live than in the pictures.
I think the Batista is likely to age poorly. Don’t you think it is just a little bit safe? Very few have anything to object to but I don’t see how it moves supercar design forward at all. It is stylish but a little unimaginative. For examples of cars that really stood out and changed the future a bit think Miura, F40, Zonda, even LaF. There are many more. The Batista is not in the same league of drama as any of them, pretty but no more. It is also a seven figure car with 1,900hp and no ICE to accommodate. It has very little to do with the brief the SF90 design team had to meet. People may not think it now but SF90 is much more likely to influence future supercar design than Batista. That is all in my uneducated opinion of course.
is a 1000cv and 1850kg supercar with a controversial aesthetic the grail? Sebastian Vettel finds it too heavy
The only part of this I can agree with is the last sentence. Much of the SF90 is a rehash of LaF, J50 etc. The new part is the rear, which looks like an unholy mess. I hope it really does heavily influence the future of supercar design: i.e. no one ever tries to do anything remotely resembling it ever again. At least the Batista looks like it has been designed cohesively from front to back.
Looking at the rear of the Batista Vs SF90 makes me question what on earth Ferrari were thinking when they broke up with Pininfarina!
So my ‘learned’ colleagues, point to one design feature that is new on the Batista that you get for your millions? As I said, it is pretty but nothing more. And you should expect much more for a very expensive car from a company that majors on design and minors on vehicle production. It will not be remembered. Henry Ford famously said “If I asked my customers what they wanted they would say a faster horse!” All this harking back to the past by putting Lusso/812 lights and a 458 rear window on the SF90 or trotting out the ‘we preferred Pininfarina’ line smacks of just that to me. The great Pininfarina Ferraris of the past were very fresh designs introducing something new - Dino being an example - not beautified regurgitations of what the whole world has seen before from other designers. Even my uneducated brain can work out that the best design is born of fresh and original thinking - that is what is remembered. I totally get that you don’t like the SF90 and have no truck with that. But it has at least two elements that I have never seen before - the front end ‘wing shrouding the headlights’ treatment and the rear deck treatment. I remember the Zonda being a design that split opinion but is now considered a design classic. I’m not saying that is how SF90 will be esteemed but it at least has some integrity as a fresh and innovative design. If you don’t like it you won’t buy it - your problem solved.