can ferrari survive in future?

I, for one, would prefer that. It would then become more about the cars and not so much about image...

 

SSC Announces Electric Powertrain and Ultimate Aero EV Specifications
WEST RICHLAND, WA (01/22/2009)

http://www.shelbysupercars.com/news-012209.php

SSC will display its AESP in the Ultimate Aero EV in order to prove that electric-powered vehicles will not only match but also provide more linear power (electric motors have 100% torque at 0 RPM) and overall performance than internal combustion cars. The Ultimate Aero EV utilizes a twin motor AESP producing an astounding 1,000 HP and 800 lb-ft of torque enabling it to rocket to 60 mph in a mere 2.5 seconds and reach a top speed of 208 mph.

I don't but I guess SSC does!

You’re welcome to your opinion and even to be a jerk if you want, but when the first internal combustion engine was invented engineers could have never foreseen the evolutionary path that technology has taken. Better combustion chambers, in head valves, “V” engine layouts, over head cams, four valves per cylinder, fuel injection, direct injection, computer controlled sensor mixture and timing adjustment, variable valve timing and on and on. The 1950’s and 1960’s broke the 1 horsepower per cubic inch barrier for standard cars when just 30 years early 16 cylinders were putting out just over 100 horsepower.

If your argument is that electric cars will never perform better then they do right now, I’d say that's rather short sighted of you. Synthetic Nano chemistry that has yet to be invented, computer controlled battery management, computer controlled charging management, electric motor development will all follow the same path as any other technology such as rocketry, computer chip / memory, solar panels or weapons development.

The equation seems to work the same: Man wants it, money is thrown at it, and technology improves.

If your argument stems from the fact that you don’t want to loose your “F-Car Vroom Vroom” don’t worry, it’s not going away in your life time. It may get expensive one day, but it’s not going away yet.

Also, I am not here to try to take your “F-Car Vroom Vroom” away from you. I’m just pointing out that we have already seem leaps and bounds and there will be more.

Now, if you’re an MIT Professor teaching the leading edge of technology with all the answers, feel free to enlighten the rest of us the suspense is killing me! But if you’re just assuming this is it. I’d say, lets have this conversation in 10 years so you can tell me how right you were!

 

You act as if no one has ever addressed the problems of electrical generation and storage until the Prius, but NASA has been on the case for 50 years, at times with literally more money than they could spend. Nearly 50 years on from Gargarin a primary constraint on space activity of any kind is electrical generation and storage, fuel cells and batteries have developed only fractionally.

By your analogy electric vehicles should be well past the 'pre-war hemi-chamber flow-through twin-cam multi-valve head' stage, when in reality they are still mired at the 'Henney Kilowatt - small car stuffed with a half-ton of batteries' stage.

...Call me a jerk if you want, but the science isn't subject to your opinions.

 

A nice thought but remember that the company was not economically viable then.

 

Ferraris chances of surviving now are FAR better than GM or Chrysler thanks to the new "Auto Recovery team" banksters

 

I still believe that the collective minds of many companies with a new profit goal will drive this technology beyond the levels they are now. Even beyond what NASA has done with 50 year old technology. NASA doesn’t sell anything and they don’t turn a profit. Unless you’re blowing things up, these are the two things that drive technology. And no offense to NASA but they aren’t really leading they way anywhere. They are still flying a 30 year old space craft that my grandfather worked on!

GM announced they would share their $750,000,000 research investment they have already made in the Chevy Volt with other companies so now someone can pick up the ball and run. Much the way Nissan has leased Toyota’s Hybrid system for use in the Altima Hybrid. Sharing technology in my opinion will further move this forward.

For the first time you have companies like Nissan and GM seriously going after this area of development for large scale commercial sales openly sharing information.

As of right now, yes, if a half a ton of batteries are the answer, then the car it’s self may weigh less. That's how the Tahoe Hybrid is being made. They lightened the Tahoe with use of aluminum body panels, lightened wheels and seats to make it weight the same as it would without the batteries and in turn gained nearly 20% fuel economy.

More then the ability of the batteries is the perception of what the public feels they need from a car. F-Car people don’t need this technology, because F-Cars are toys.

The general public will eventually need this technology as a means of survival. And since the “New Car” population turns over approximately every 15 years or so, switching to electric is something that could be done fairly painlessly if that's a direction people wanted to go. But what they really need from it is just a matter of practicality. In California the Electric Car standard is always sold the same way “Can you drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco or Los Angeles to Las Vegas with out a charge?” But the reality is, how often does “Johnny Punch Clock” drive from LA to San Fran? Does he really need this? It’s very well publicized that the average person drives less than 40 miles a day. So that means the technology is here right now! Tesla’s new Model S that goes on sale next year boasts up to 300 miles of range with a 5 minute battery swap in for even more range.

In my personal opinion, people will learn to live with less from their battery powered life instead of the other way around.

 

Great, so now I have to worry about my neighbors stealing power from my outlets on the outside of my house? I can see a lot of people (businesses, schools, etc) getting pissed at that. It's not uncommon to have electric oil heaters for cars in Alaska that plug into outlets when you park when it's cold, but this is something totally different.

 

Very strong financial results for ferrari for 2008. And, that's after paying for the F1 effort (billions). When I see those results and think of the cost of the F1 program my immediate reaction is "well, sheit, that's why I'm getting ripped off at the dealer for" fill in the blank here.....parts, service, new car purchase, etc. Those have to be some very healthy margins on parts/service/new car sales to support all the expansion and F1 program at ferrari and still report good profits and top line growth.

Wonder why cam belt bearings are $520 through ferrari and only about $60 through a bearing supplier (same part)? Now you know.

 

No

 

I do wonder just that, often, but it has nothing to do with the F1 budget, which was made solvent and self supporting during the Todt/Brawn years.

 

Hi opus, perhaps you could share where you have gathered the data to conclude that the ferrari F1 budget is paid from its own revenues. The data I've seen shows a) the actual F1 budget is not publicly disclosed but estimated to be between $500M and $1B or even more on a fully loaded basis, and, F1 revenues are not clearly identified either. Any real data here would be helpful and appreciated.

 

Statements made at the turn of the century by Todt or Montezemolo; FORZA, I think.

Bernie used to have an F1 business magazine which, among various other English publications, published public records from English teams and extrapolated to Ferrari and others.

It ramped up over the years, and Ferrari was always estimated to outspend McLaren, for obvious reasons, but I recall numbers ranging from $2XXmm to $4XXmm in this century.

I'd love to hear where $500-$1mmm comes from.