Yeah just proves the point I've been making although you love to make counter arguments with nothing substantial to back your position. Keep at it though perhaps someone will find some substance in your comments.
I got some info that the 812 VS will be super limited, perhaps 2 to 3 per dealer and they will go to their best customers. Cost will likely be above the SF90 so I imagine it will be quite an upgrade to the std car.
I was asking because it would help my decision to pick up an 812 now if I could get the VS so they set my expectations. In the same conversation I was told less than 900 Pista's in the US which is about what most estimated. Apparently they got numbers from corp but I didnt press for an exact number. They do seem to be dialed in though.
We have particular issues here in UK at the moment but I believe dealers worldwide are worried with the pace of model releases and the availability of VS versions so a scaling back would not surprise me. If car finance rates start to rise dealers here would face the perfect storm after 7 years of good times.
Most (not all) are buying these cars with cash so I am not sure how interest rates will effect the market at this level. Dealer carrying costs is another issue though. Keeping cars on a lot will get super expensive. Here in the states dealers are getting new inventory and they are incentivized to move them because of carrying costs, this will only get worse when rates increase.
It's funny when someone doesn't even consider the arguments that others make, let alone when those others are engineers, like the author of post Nr 1015. Do you have any counterarguments?
I think financing is pretty common in the US too. With rates below the rate of nominal inflation, it’s hard to see the downside in financing.
If you are paying attention we pretty much said the same things you just pick and choose what you want to accept.
I cant believe so many people would be financing depreciating toys. I know all the arguments about cheap money but at the end of the day, I hate debt. Besides, that monthly payment would make it impossible for me to ignore how much I spent on my FCars... nobody needs that! Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
I tend to agree. I do think that there are two key mitigating factors: do you have money and are you good with money. If both are true, then it’s reasonable to finance. I wish I could borrow $2B at 2% interest.... I could do some serious damage.
I was told it's about the same in France - which I think is incredible since Ferrari finance applies ridiculously high rates (given the current price of money). Apparently the advantage is to keep the VAT visible, so that the second hand buyer could also finance in good conditions... still does not make much sense to me, for such unnecessary expenses I think if you're not able to pay cash, just do not it.
but you miss the big picture of playing the Ferrari game. When you get Ferrari Finance you are in the good graces of the factory along with all the other Ferrari events you attend like driving courses and visits to the factory and buying and selling multiple new cars. When you never say no then you are much more likely to jump to near the head of the line and get that special limited Ferrari that many covet but few consistently receive. The best customers always have deposits already committed with the dealer for new models that are only a whisper long before the prototypes are photographed. These customers buy every new Ferrari. Loaning cars to the dealer or the factory for exhibit or display or otherwise being a brand ambassador is another way to gain a car allocation that otherwise might go to someone else. This was done to good effect by one successful LaFerrari buyer in an extremely competitive Ferrari market where he lived. While all these examples don't apply to everyone the idea that you are a willing buyer often gets you "the call" that others won't receive. Beyond the car benefits come special exclusive events put on by the dealer for like minded Ferrari owners who are their best customers...
I don't think you got the full flavour of the limited Ferrari. The carbon material was used because it became necessary to counter the weight problem of the LaFerrari. The car was conceived originally with a twin turbo V8 of 560HP. However that was deemed unsuitable for a car that showcased Ferrari technology. The V12 was the chosen engine even though it added 200 pounds of weight and that would have to be adjusted for with innovative use of specific design features and materials. The hybrid system added back a further 200 pounds again for the batteries and then the electric motors and other things like wiring, control systems added a further 132 pounds. The result 950 combined HP and 9,000 rpm. Another consideration was ease of access as many potential clients didn't resemble 150 pound Ferrari test drivers. The carbon tub and roof with large cut outs plus fixed seats was seen as a solution at 167 pounds. The fixed seats and a smaller passenger compartment as a result would save 110 pounds. Special thin CF body panels provided strength and light weight but all this technology came at a high cost only suitable for a few hundred cars vs the thousands that Ferrari built for other models they sold. This was not to be a vehicle that could be used in electric mode. That was not the focus, so Ferrari limited the top speed in that mode to 3 MPH maximum. Being an exclusive model meant that Ferrari probably lost at least 200 more sales. However a small production run meant that problems could be handled more efficiently. The resources necessary to build these limited models are partly what limits their production total and the technology used is much more than just building something with carbon fibre. It is unlikely that Ferrari will go to these extremes with the VS since it already starts out too heavy compared when compared with the LaFerrari program...
I am sorry but that is incorrect. Enzo's successor was always meant to be a carbon fibre, V12 hypercar.
I get more than you might imagine. What you see is common sense in business. At the end of the day there is this thing called profit and this comes first especially with a publicly traded company. If Ferrari or any other mnfr were to build the ideal car and profitability, repeatability and reliability were not of paramount things would be much different. The hyper cars are sold in such limited quantities I would be surprised if they even make money, there is so much time and testing that goes into the complete solution and they can only charge so much. Dont think for a minute Ferrari is unable to design and produce a car that is beyond what others are doing but at the end of the day there is a lot more factors to consider. I truly believe McLaren with the release of the 720 and Senna helped push Ferrari a bit which is good for us auto connoisseurs. If Ferrari can get along without using CF and still sell cars at a premium they will, this is not because aluminum is necessarily ideal but rather it is good enough and costs much less to manufacturer at scale. I am not building a house out of brick if I can sell it for the same price with vinyl siding. After all, you will buy whatever I build once I slap some nice landscaping around and some fresh paint. Perhaps not this simple but you get the point. Limiting quantities is probably because they aren't making any or enough money on the hyper cars and they are taking away precious resources (man hours) from the mass produced (relatively speaking) units that make the wheel turn. None of this is too hard to figure out Ferrari like Ford is an auto manufacturer with high expectations for growth and profitability - this is the main driver for all decisions. Working within these confines to produce leading edge products that people will buy is the art of business and they are exceptionally good at it. This is not a question of what material is better for performance.
