Getting the 209 Challenge on a trailer with a mechanic is such a chore always. I'd rather take the keys, start the 296XX and drive it to the track myself! So many people, so many wishes...! I do hope Ferrari's racing department get's involved and release their take on a GT3RS
If that ends up being the XX, I'm loving it. I won't be lucky enough to ever get an allocation, but it's exactly what I want from my supercar. Something more focused, removing most luxuries for the sake of weight savings. I can live with or without the wing. I just want the HUD. It's the best modern tech in a car in my opinion.
If that's the case though the XX SF90 would be 100 kg lighter than the base car. It's exactly the same weight. It's lazy.
You're right, I forgot that's the case. But then again, the GT3RS isn't that much lighter than the GT3 right? (PDK for apples to apples) And I suspect there's a world of difference in feel and performance. Key word "suspect" because I haven't been lucky enough to drive the RS.
I've driven both the RS and GT3 (992). The RS is, to me, un-usably stiff. Not enjoyable. I'd never want one. Even the GT3 is too stiff, to me, for what it is.
Just in case there was some doubt still. Below a pix of a 296 challenge. Image Unavailable, Please Login
There has always been Ferrari GT3 and racecars with wings that didn't translate to the VS road going versions. XX is first time that isn't so.
Thank you, these are literally just bolt on aero bits. Not integrated at all. They'd be awful for a road going car, aesthetically. It's shocking to me so many seem in support of such nonsense.
I'm sure there is a way to balance the aesthetics vs down force. yes the 296 Challnge has a lot ofbolt on pieces that would never ever make it on a road car. Then again, we are talking about hardcore 'track' cars that are road legal. By definition that's a weird set up to begin with. I'd like my 296XX/VS to be very, very driver focussed and less in the looks departement; but that's just me. I'm sure Ferrari can design a fast car without resulting in something as hideous as a Senna.
But why must driver focus/experience be mutually exclusive from aesthetics? Perhaps you're not a Mclaren guy, but the 765 details are stunning, visually integrated and it's 95% the bombastic experience of the Senna plus far more engaging than the 296. A 296, with the immediacy of the powertrain, mixed with the brutality and raw nature of the 765 would be the perfect car. But to me, the aero should be tasteful. Integrated. Active. I'm with you btw, the Senna is hideous. But so is the rear end of the 296 challenge!
I'm sure ferrari will pull off something that's very pleasing to the eye. But maximum downforce and aesthetics don't genrerally mix well together. I mean compare that ugly Senna to the SF90 XX. It's a massive difference in downforce. Downforce is not what you need when going grocery shopping, but for optimal (track) performance it is an absolute. As you can tell I'm torn betwen those two thoughts. Maximale performance vs optimal looks. Tough to get the maximum of both.
Dealer says you need to own a 296 to get a VS allocation and keep it till delivery. Would you do this?
I think of it as first waiting until we have all the details of the VS and taking a decision then if it works for me… if it is similar in concept to the SF90 XX then probably won’t bother…. In the meantime I’ve kept my GTS 12 months already and a few thousand miles of enjoyable driving… and in no rush to get rid of it… can’t think of a better mid engined Supercar for sale currently with the same looks, performance, hybrid tech etc at that price point (or even higher!) that works on both congested narrow city roads as well as on track… so versatile…
Originally I heard you had to have had both a gtb and gts to get a vs, but I suspect it'll depend on demand
