LaFerrari replacement: v12, no hybrid, less power than SF90stradale?

I’ve owned and driven both P1 and LaFerrari hard on track on the same tyres and they are very close.
P1 feels closer to race car due to race mode being so low, stiff and with zero body roll.
LaFerrari really surprised me. I expected it to be more road car feeling in its dynamic capability but the front end was mighty strong.
P1 edged it on lap times but by a whisker.
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. They are not track slags. On the road the LaFerrari V12 howl wins every time. The P1 also has its own character, the induction and wastegate noises feel like you have a heavy breathing monster over your right shoulder and it’s a great experience… however the V12 is other worldly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hyper Ferrari without the V12 will lose its aura.
Ferrari has established itself over the decades as the most iconic brand for having very fast cars that stir the senses, provoking emotion with the sound of the engine, the linearity of the N/A response, timeless and perfect design, with italian passion. And the brand's firmness over the decades in maintaining its principles has contributed to making it what it is today.
For example, the 458 Italia coexisted N/A with the 991 Turbo mk1, and even "slower" than the Porsche, it was tremendously fast, beautiful with a huge sales and public success. Just like the F355/355 F1 coexisted with the 993 Turbo, etc.
Today, in these strange times that we are in, unfortunately, Ferrari relativized and abandoned its principles, with similar strategies from Porsche, McLaren, etc, adopting turbos, hybrids, screens, making the FUV (I thought the Purosangue was well made, but I don't agree with the concept).
Before, Ferrari differentiated itself and imposed itself in its positioning (which made it so unique), today it seeks to match itself to the others.
FUV with V12 and the 296 and Hyper with V6 Turbo/hybrid? WTF?
Why didn't Ferrari make the 296 a lightweight V6 N/A 9.700 rpm? Imagine combining the lower weight of the V6 with the absence of a hybrid weight and complexity, plus all of Ferrari's build technology. It was going to sell a lot more and cause more emotions than this turbo-hybrid salad.
If Porsche made the 992 GT3/GT3 Touring/3RS, Ferrari could also launch the 296 with an N/A V6. So there are no excuses as regulations.
Why would virtually every owner of a 992 S, for example, immediately trade it in for a GT3 if they could? Why is the GT3 the most disputed model in the 911 lineup? Why have some 992 S owners I know complained that the car is boring, despite being fast, and that they felt emotion when testing the GT3? It's not just about numbers, it's about the senses!

 

It wouldn't have been quick enough, as per Ferrari's performance targets. Also, Ferrari is all about the future and hybrids are the future. Ferrari's order book is closed for the next 2 years anyway, so even if they wanted to sell more cars, which they don't, they don't have the production capacity to build them. Finally, unlike Porsche, Ferrari's production is very limited, thus making difficult to amortise the CO2 targets (however more laxed compared to a mass manufacturer) of the range. Porsche on the other hand, can compensate the very few GT3s it produced with the vast number of Taycans it sells. Even Lamborghini will go hybrid for the next Aventador and Huracan.

Now, the halo could be a V12 as it will be produced in a tiny number of units and won't make a big difference to the CO2 average. The thing is that Ferrari might want to make a connection with its F1 and LMH racing programmes, hence the use of a smaller, highly strung, TT, V6 or V8. I am looking forward to October the 30th and the unveiling of the LMH, regarding the engine layout it will utilise.

 

Thanks for sharing what you've experienced with those cars.
BTW Do you consider a LaFerrari replacement? And if it gets a TT V6 (+e-motors), will you?

 

Allow me to disagree. Ferrari is about the past and the future. Both synergistically. There must be progress (as there has always been at Ferrari), but preserving what is part of its DNA.

It could use the 'quota' of N/A on the F167 and another model with a rear mid-engine. And leave the CO2 targets for Purosangue and SF90.

But ultimately, I'm not a complete opponent of hybridization. Better a hybrid than an all-electric one.
I just think the hybridization could be less "invasive", lighter, and combined with an N/A engine.
I've heard rumors that the successor to the Aventador, for example, will be a hybrid with a lightweight supercapacitor, with the car's focus still being the naturally aspirated V12.
A car like the SF90, hybrid with three electric motors and also turbo, I think is a salad, complex and soulless.

 

For sure it will have a N/A V12, but the latest rumour is that it will have a lithium battery, not supercapacitors.

The owners seem to think otherwise, judging by their comments on the SF90 section of the forum.

 

Higher-displacement higher-revving NA hp costs more to build than turbo or turbo/hybrid hp. Ferrari aka RACE is a public company now run by bean counters and semiconductor geeks who know nothing about (nor care about) things such as NA V12 engines or the emotions they evoke. Best days behind, sadly.

 

People just don't understand the realities of performance vs emissions...

 

If its emissions we're worried about then we should shut down this Forum as it runs on many servers, all of which consume a large amount of electricity, much/most of which is being generated by coal/gas fired power plants, which results in emissions.

Humans also produce CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. Shall we go ahead and begin max exterminations as well? ... you know, to reduce emissions.

 

While I do enjoy philosophical discussions on how emissions of ultra-low production hyper cars are essentially a rounding error in the grand scheme of climate change, Ferrari is doing what every other OEM is doing to stay relevant and keep making cars. Ferrari is not above the regulatory jurisdiction of environmental institutions in the EU/UK/US/etc.

Could Ferrari be better? Probably. I, along with many others, assumed that the LaFerrari was a signal that hybridization would be used to keep the NA motors around as long as possible. That didn’t happen, but the writing is on the wall. These next 10-15 years will be the last for the ICE. There is simply not much Ferrari can do about it other than embrace the change.

The ICE (and NA motors) will continue to live on in track-only/motorsport vehicles (296 gt3 for example). That’s why we’re seeing so many track specials from all OEMs and will continue to see more.

 

It's irrelevant what any individual on this forum is worried about. Ferrari though has to worry about emissions, because you know... laws and regulations! Thus, it is not "RACE" the reason they have gone down this road, as you said; it is the limitations of the real world. It is for the same reason that F1 and WEC are bereft of the N/A V12s of yesteryears.

 

Ferrari will have to do something astonishing to proudly replace LaFerrari with a new "worthy" model.

Of course they can put eg. a 1500hp in it, and add 17 new electronic systems that will give you an impression that you are the driver of these 1500hp whereas you are really not - the computers are doing stuff for you , ... but it does not impress me much, nor I need the 1500hp in their hypercar. (Who needs?)

I hope they will go for some amazing design, such as amazing was/is the LaFerrari. I mean they should go for even more radical design than LaF, something really outstanding, the way like eg. Lambo Terzo Millennio.

If they abandoned V12 building their new hypercar, it should better be amazing in every other aspect

But so far, only crickets ;P

 

That's the only way of increasing performance whilst keeping it manageable for the operator. I guess you are aware of the fly-by-wire system in modern fighter jets. The planes are inherently aerodynamically unstable, as they are more manoeuvrable flying like that. The problem is that they are almost impossible to fly by a human, in the conventional way. Thus, the human pilot gives the orders to the plane's computers via the controls and the flight computer decides how to move the control surfaces in order for the plane to do what the pilot asked for. Just what throttle by wire does in cars. Cars don't need to go that far yet (even though Toyota's steer-by-wire system seems to be working well), but computers are essential if you want to be in control of ever increasing levels of performance. Technically speaking, it is very impressive.

Hopefully better than that one...

 

Too much and too fast is happening for a human in a fighter jet. Thus not only FBW systems exist, but computers process everything about orientation in the aero space.

I'm not deep into fighter jets, though I am fascinated with Russian ones (yes, their uncanny beauty and maneuverability, though French Rafale is also one I liked)

But that old-school fighter jets' superiority by speed and maneuvreabilty has been superceded by radar wars with their ever increasing range.
You wait for systems to engage the target and pull the trigger. That is all you have to, and you can do (very simplified procedure here, arming weapons etc is still needed on command)

NOW, back onto the topic.
I meant that I'd like the design of the new hypercar be as striking as at least that Terzo Millennio concept.
Sorry to say, but I have "enough" of retro-inspirations on other Ferrari cars. A hypercar should do better than that.

 

Not really, eventually some of them (the ones who avoided the missiles) will merge and will have to dogfight.

The Ferrari hypercars have always been futuristic, so I don't think you need to worry.

 

I guess design will be radical because selling 3millions a car equipped with a V6TT hybrid ( hypothesis) is a tour de force even for Ferrari…

 

slightly off-topic...
not long ago when almost everyone envisioned only about EV future,but now things slowly started to change. more and more automakers are started thinking about hydrogen combustion engines. Ferrari also need to explore this particular option.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/alpine-alpenglow-radical-vision-hydrogen-combustion-future?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=

 

It would have been, had they made it light enough (say 1000 kg).

No, they are not. They are GARBAGE.

I've said this a million times, Ferrari are not bound by any CO2 targets. They can set their own target and they are stupid to make it lower every few years.

Now you are finally talking sense. A NA V12 is the pinnacle of engines.

Or they could use a NA V10 to pay homage to the best F1 car they've ever produced.
Pair that with a ultra lightweight chassis with central driving position for a total weight of 1000 kg, several tons of downforce - and you've got yourself the ultimate hypercar.
Ferrari should go the route of the Aston Martin Valkirye.

 

Yes they are. There is nothing they can do to force Ferrari to go electric.

 

apart form bans on ICE cars coming in 2030-2035 time frame

 

You realise that we were talking about the 296, right? Not possible with reasonable cost and production methods. It would need to be a 2 million Euros, non-hybrid carbon fibre special, like the T50. Still, it would need more power than what a non-hybrid, N/A, 3 litre, V6 would be able to make. Which would be a no go anyway, as hybridisation is essential for CO2.

Spoken like a true Luddite.

And you would be wrong for the one millionth time. Ferrari (and other small manufacturers) do have targets, laxer than mass manufacturers, but targets nonetheless. They have agreed to such (obscure) targets, in order to avoid stricter targets being imposed on them by the regulators.

Not happening. The V10 has been dead for nearly 2 decades now and Ferrari have mostly followed the current racing trends. If they are going to go down that route, they might as well make it a V12!

Which is rubbish for street driving. Pininfarina built two Ferrari 365 P Concept Speciales with central driving position in 1966, 25 years before the McLaren F1. Never produced.

 

From all that I understand, hydrogen is niche only and more for military than civilian use.

For so many reasons, hydrogen is a complete non-starter, there is zero infrastructure, production is very difficult and dangerous, not to mention distribution.

Any manufacturer "investing" in hydrogen is wasting their time and resources, it will never go anywhere of any significance.

 

Hydrogen only makes sense in less developed markets where the electric grid can barely handle energy demand as-is. If anyone thinks that widespread EV adoption is even possible in places like India or Nigeria, they’re incredibly naive. Most people cannot afford a home charger or don’t have the space for one. These hyper-dense cities would need hundreds of EV charging stations to match the throughput of a petrol station.

In Europe and North America there is already significant EV infrastructure in place, so it doesn’t make sense to invest in hydrogen outside of a few niche areas. In my view this is the biggest reason Toyota has been so EV-resistant. They’re THE automaker for the developing world and they know the enormous challenges that face EV adoption in those areas.

 

What about synthetic, CO2 neutral, fuels? They will still have the problem of emissions (other than CO2) and cost, but they could work for expensive sportscars.