Based on last week's email about the fashion range (exciting month June ahead etc) it looks like a global e-launch "Ferrari powers into June with exciting news – the launch of a new sports car, of the marque’s fashion collection, and the opening of the Cavallino restaurant. Each reflects the passion and excellence of the Prancing Horse."
I do not understand the issue with Ferrari being profitable and making bottomline driven decisions. Would you much rather that Ferrari be like McLaren and Aston Martin where they have a full ownership and management reshuffle every 3 years because they don't make money? Or like Lamborghini with their cars sharing basic DNAs with mass produced cars (Urus). I would much rather have a Ferrari with an Al tub but well differentiated model lines with different engines rather than one carbon tub and engine with different skins on top. Even with all its failings there is no sports car company like Ferrari out there that makes multiple uniques engines (McLaren out), made in-house (Aston Martin out) with no major component sharing with other brands (Lamborghini and Aston Martin out) and creates fresh and uniques designs for each and every one of its models (Porsche out).
McLaren don't even make their own engine, that new V6 is still made by Ricardo. Ferrari is completely unique and are doing a fantastic job of making money and keeping the heritage/ DNA of the brand. The only thing that is left is SF to win in F1 & LeMans again.
A carbon tub does not hinder them to be profitable. As you pointed out correctly Ferrari is Ferrari and I would a pick a Ferrari all day long over an Aston or McLaren. But imagining a Ferrari with or without a carbon tub I know what I would prefer. I would be even happy to pay a price premium for that.
From a technical point of view, obviously they should make all cars in carbon, but more obviously business is business. Porsche still uses steel, not even aluminium, in their 911s and don´t hear so much complaining from the GT3 cultists.
Why would Ferrari step their game up when there are so many fanboys regardless of what they put out? Just read some of the responses in this thread, repeated excuses and justifications for a lesser product. No other mnfr would get away with these things, they've got their fans by the balls.
There are Audis and Hondas in the same price range with aluminium chassis. What´s Porsche excuse, or are just the Ferrari fans who are dumb?
Take a porsche and drop 500 pounds and you will even people lining up to buy these- aka Singer. porsche is a great fun car. So is Ferrari. They would be better if they were lighter. They would be more responsive if they had a carbon tub. One can deny reality all they want. But there is a large contingent here that owns both cars with carbon tub and car with aluminum chassis. Take a poll and ask which one they prefer to drive.
Find on the web, I don't know if it will look like this (Probably not) but I like this design. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Both brands shouldn't be the benchmark for Ferrari but even the current R8 has significantly more carbon in it's chassis than any Ferrari range model: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Not arguing that. But as I´ve said, business is business, for Ferrari, Porsche and McLaren with their carbon chassis they reuse for several cars. That doesn´t mean that neither of the buyers of those cars are silly, like some are insinuating here. P.S: a Singer is light because it´s based on a 30 years old 964. Most modern 911 buyers would complain more about the lack of space than about the weight, and Porsche knows it.
I think we are saying ty few same thing. It’s a business decision foe ferrari. If there are buyers lining up to buy their cars, why would they invest in a carbon tub to make t the car better? They can save money by reusing the same chassis for years. Aka- 458>488>F8 for a dozen years. Same chassis. It’s a cost savings move and while the cars are good, they can be better. But Ferrari is content to ride its laurels and reputation than to actually produce the best cars they can.
The issue is that Ferraris with their aluminium chassis and even some Porsches using steel can outperform McLarens with their carbon tub. So it´s not all about carbon/aluminum whatever. Of course a Porsche or a Ferrari with carbon would be better, but so would be a McLaren with a Ferrari engine and gearbox, or with a layered carbon chassis like the Maserati MC20 or the Alfa Romeo 4C (a way cheaper car), instead of that molded stuff they´re using. But McLaren used the molded carbon and buys engines from Riccardo: the cars could be better, yes, but they still have to make some money.
That’s a good visual and shows that the Audi is not much less than a McLaren in terms of CF content when you consider that the majority of a McLaren structure, including front and rear subframes, bumper structure, roof and roof pillars, etc. are aluminum or other metals. Also, if you consider the bulk of the cars’ weights—engine, gearbox, suspension elements, glass, interior, exterior sheet metal—these are all pretty much the same. The other thing that image highlights is that the Audi, with conventional and practical doors has a normal sized sill which prioritizes ingress/egress and which is probably the biggest contributor to any stiffness shortfall, if any, compared to a McLaren tub. Every manufacturer tailors their design to their production plans—number of models and volumes—and McLaren invested in their RTM tooling—not the best CF process, BTW—also to simplify the assembly of the cabin area.
