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

What does "feel heavy" even mean? Modern cars accelerate, turn and brake so much better than the old "light" ones that it is not even a contest.

 

You can feel it. The really scary thing is if those tries or brakes go that full weight is coming to bear on you. Its not the speed its the sudden stop and the bigger the mass the bigger the mess.

 

You should explain to Gordon Murray your design... because apparently according to your reasoning he does not know his job...

 

I maintain that a modern Ferrari "feels" lighter than an Elise. It accelerates better, brakes better and turns more eagerly. On the other hand the featherweight Elise "feels" heavier due to its heavy and slow steering and unassisted brakes! There you are!

Never said such a thing. Other engineers also know their job though. It is no accident that everybody says that certain cars "feel" much lighter than what the scales show. It's all in the technology and the engineering behind it. At any rate, the stopwatch doesn't lie.

 

If you put a F40 and SF90 on equal tires and gave them equally capable brakes and ABS, the F40 would no doubt outbrake the SF90 from 200-0 km/h.

Forgot which magazine did it, but some years ago they tested a Mclaren F1 vs an Enzo with laptimes. Guess which car one. Pretty sure back then tire technology did not advance as fast as today though.

or look at the Carrera GT. Changing it from PS2s to Supersports makes a huge difference.

 

Yes the other engineers know their job, which is to design things within a budget and with the returns expected from a public company...Some heavy cars can hide the weight through cornering but once you brake its very hard to hide how much mass is being transferred.

Also maybe the Lotus does not have the light and sensitive steering of a modern Ferrari but it definitely is more lively and reactive to steering inputs, this is just a function of its short wheelbase and lack of mass. Idk about you but after maybe 15-20 mph you don't really notice the unassisted steering...How does that make the car feel heavy when braking?

 

Ifs and buts. The SF90 is a product of its era, so is the F40. You cannot have today's brakes in an F40! Do you realise how silly this sounds?

I remember Road and Track testing both and the Enzo posted the better numbers. At that time it was the fastest car that the magazine had ever tested.

Once you brake, it just stops, much better than anything from the past.

Lively? It's a pig compared to a Ferrari, or even a Cayman. It needs more steering effort to convince it to turn and also a bigger steering angle. A good sportscar needs to steer with minimal steering input. If you have to take it by the scruff of its neck, then it is a dud... Ditto with braking.

 

Take an F50, modify the engine and brakes, put new rubber on it and it will obliterate any modern Ferrari.
Lightness has always been the key.

 

How is this silly ?!??
It just shows that the only reason modern cars brake better is due to better brakes and tires.
Put similar brakes and tires on an F40 and it will break faster. Why ? Caus it's LIGHTER, it's simple physics.

 

I wholeheartedly agree about the Laferrari chassis/ergonomics. I think once you sit in one you realize the value that a company with the history and experience such as Ferrari brings. Somehow the cockpit is extremely slim (I think slimmer than an Elise) but somehow there is adequate shoulder space for both passengers. I think its the only car that has successfully executed the moldering in the seat to the monocoque. Actually I think the Dallara Stradale did it as well. Havent been near one but from pictures looks like the Ferrari is still slimmer.

Also cockpit on the mule looks way too wide imho, still looks like the SF90 aluminum tub, not a carbon tub. Are we sure this is not just a platform to test the powertrain and aero concept, with the final chassis to be used at a later date?

Here is a similar mule from the Laferrari https://www.classicdriver.com/en/article/cars/laferrari-test-mule-maranellos-forbidden-fruit

 

No it won't. You would basically have to change the whole car. Different engine, different suspension, different gearbox, add in electronics and modern aero. It would basically be a different car.

It's silly because it's called progress. You cannot have 2023 technology in an 1987 car. This technology was not available back then. That's why modern cars are better. Retrofitting modern technology to old cars defeats the whole point. Then you turn them into modern cars! They won't even be fit for purpose as they were not designed with that level of performance or technology in mind.

 

I see your point and you could be right.
However, great braking performance is often the sum of many many components, considerations, and always compromises. In the case of SF90 vs F40, the SF90 is technologically lightyears ahead. Development /Technology never stops. Please consider that a new Ferrari is built from/with experience from the previous generation. Here are a few items to consider re. braking:

• Suspension: Why suspension? The better the suspension is, the better the wheel/tyre will follow the road. If the tyre is in constant contact with the road (which it is not) more force can be transferred by the brakes to slow the vehicle down.
• Wheels: Carbon, die cast Aluminum, Magnesium - lots of choices and compromises. Unsprung weight, rotational mass play a big factor in brake dynamics.
• Tyres: Where do I even begin.
• Disks: Steel, carbon, type of steel etc. - again lots of choices and compromises.
• Brake pads: Considerations of brake pad material. Long lasting vs different compound that may wear faster - and get you unhappy customers..
• Brake cooling: Better on the SF90 for sure.
• Regenerative breaking: Further assists breaking forces on the SF90.
• Aero: Dynamic-aero for both down force and breaking on the SF90. None of that (dynamic) on the F40.
• Vehicle weight dynamics during breaking. Electronic assisted suspension is an enormous advantage on the SF90 over the F40.
• Other: Tons of other items I have either not thought about or simply don't know about.

What would I rather drive: The F40 - all day long ****ty brakes and all. Mechanically/esthetically the F40 is much more appealing to me than the SF90. I have absolutely no desire to learn about all the driving modes an SF90 offers. To me that is a distraction. I would rather just drive than mess with settings.

No doubt the next Ferrari halo car will be on top of the game, say from a track performance point of view. It is bound to have the next level of anything electronically possible today, with the complexity that that entails. I also think that it will be a great looking car.

Now park that thought for a moment. As an alternative, I think that Ferrari successfully could build a halo car that went in the opposite direction, back to basics, for sure with a beautiful naturally aspirated V12, manual, light weight, design language in the direction of the Monza. What a halo car that could be. I know, silly wishful thinking on my behalf. Not what the world wants today. However, Emperor's Clothes does come to mind. Rant over - for now.

 

Some people don't get what technical progress means. An RAF Eurofighter has an MTOF weight of about 24 tonnes. A Spitfire has an MTOF weight of about 3 tonnes. The Eurofighter can pull double the Gs of the Spitfire. Weight is not everything!

 

To me weight is everything - when I am on a technical trail up in the Sierra mountains on my two-stroke Beta.
My only 5 pound heaver, much more powerful 4-stroke Husaberg, wears me out much faster.

Sorry. Back to topic: Next Ferrari halo super-car.

 

Not a fan of motorbikes, so I can't relate. The heaviest vehicle I have ever driven was a 60-tonne tank, so I have no problem with a bit of weight.

 

We differ. Nothing wrong with that.

 

There's a whole lot more to why a 4-stroke wears you out faster than a 2-stroke than weight. Two different animals and really not pertinent to the discussion.

 

The engine wouldn't have to be different, you'd justhave to modify it a bit.
The gearbox you are right, it would probably need upgrading. The aero too, but that won't add weight,
You wouldn't need the electronics.

Why not ?!? All that matters is that the car will look the same on the outside.

So what ?! I'll retrofit it.

It depends what your definition of better is. Modern cars are faster, but not necessarily better, at least not in terms of driving sensation.

To me, it seems like a good ideea. They look the same, drive almost the same and are a bit faster.

 

If it's all about straight line performance/breaking, the next Ferrari Halo Car and all the others will have their work cut out for them:

Rimac Nevera Just Set a 1.74-second 0-60 Production Car Record and 22 additional records. Well done.
Please spare me the "it wont last on a track and it can't handle" comments.

I am going with the GMA T.33 Coupe and will just enjoy the drive.

 

Don’t forget that Mate now runs Bugatti and the Chiron will soon be out of production. The next one is suppose to be crazier than the Nevera, which is hard to believe.

 

Well said!

 

T33 Spider for me in either white or papaya spark

 

This is one of your weaker trolls Johnny.
You could take ANY car, modify the engine and brakes, put new rubber on and it could theoretically be as fast as you wanted it to be.
Ridiculous statement without any specificity.

 

has to be 2500-3000hp I think to make the splash it needs to for the first EV bug

 

I'm not trolling one bit, my point was that the lightness helps a lot.