https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/136527247/...
https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/136527247/ https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/structural-integrity-of-carbon-monocoque-chassis-like-the-enzo-porsche-gt-dangerous.140720/ You think the KERS battery replacement cost is high, wait until you need to replace the LaFerrari CF tub ! https://www.thesupercarblog.com/ferrari-charges-1-million-for-a-replacement-laferrari-carbon-monocoque/ because CF is layered, it has a tendency to wear out from the inside out, meaning the exterior looks fine but it is about to fail unless you xray/sonograph the CF tub you will not know how it is holding up as the years go by and given that these cars are expected to be around for a long time, that factors in with AL/Steel you are not going to worry about it delaminating and catostrophically failing one day without notice...with CF that is a reality CF trim pieces are beautiful, but I would never want the passenger compartment to be encased, especially given the long term maintenance and eventual replacement as there is no way to fix CF tub that is structurely failing due to age unlike AL, CF epoxies/glues/resins are actually fuel, so, in case of fire, you will quickly be engulfed in an inferno cremated on the spot https://www.ptonline.com/articles/f1-inspired-monocell-racing-safety-for-the-road(3) https://www.carscoops.com/2021/12/porsche-carrera-gt-with-a-cracked-tub-needs-someone-to-save-it/ If you ever were to buy a used car with a CF tub you would be wise to have the tub xtrayed for defects and delaminations internal to the structure, otherwise, you would be a fool as you have no idea of the structural integrity or safety it affords. https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44961938/reliving-my-horrific-mclaren-crash-five-years-later/ In part, challenges surrounding remarkably safe composite material design are innumerable, particularly when compared to metal. “We understand the properties of metal in a crash. Metals largely behave the same in every crash simulation,” he says. “Carbon composite crash models are 100 times more complicated. You can tailor the fibers in any direction, to be stronger depending on where it’ll take the most load. The number of different opportunities we have to get right explodes. It requires a strong methodology in how we build those crash simulations.” ... Myriad potential crash scenarios are calculated during a carbon tub’s development, though Sylvester-Thorne quips that “a high-speed, seven-story crash off a mountain” isn’t among them. ... “We can’t improve the fiber itself. The perfect fiber is a pure carbon fiber, with absolutely no contaminants to it,” he says. “Those applications are for aerospace technology and for Formula One cars; to bring it into a road car would be 20 or 30 times pricier than what we could justify, while only giving a miniscule performance improvement.” I tend to hold cars for decades, so, the above matters to me..maybe not to someone who changes cars with each new year...
You claim to be an insider, but this is indeed factually erroneous. The LaFerrari and SP3 chassis were built in house. In fact you are a distractor and I am starting to think that you might be an employee of a competing brand.
Interesting thread. Is there a timeline on "when" CF should fail? Have we seen any 720s for example failing outside of car accidents?
It's in part - epoxy / stress / resin etc and depends on how much stress 3D etc Complicated but I think a Spider places a lot more stress on the carbon vs coupe. Ferrari committed to welding - it's an art and imo very cool to see R&D and the skills. Failing could take decades - depending on environment etc. Engineers know what does and doesn't not work - I wouldn't second guess these factories, especially ones that build F1 cars.
Perhaps or kicked out by new mgmt design / engineering teams - perhaps knew some people from the past. A lot of "not buyers" don't like where Ferrari is headed - they aren't current or future customers and we see that here very often. Would love to read actual truth vs fiction.
Perhaps I was too harsh on day355, but getting something like this so wrong is baffling, considering he is regarded to be an expert around here. Perhaps he just misspoke...
I get it - he posts his feeling vs facts in a lazy dislike towards Ferrari. When held accountable he pivots to avoid accountability, he's not here to learn or share experiences so it's easy to assume he has a motive.
At Scaglietti via Emilia, next to the aluminum that comes out of the foundry Isn't it? The plans started from the chassis department to Dallara. Return of the hull to the factory for assembly. We can see very well that you have never set foot in the factory... because there is no carbon unit except for the F1 department
This constant carping about “they only do things for $$$$$” is so tiring. I mean, no kidding Sherlock. If you know business, the good ones - y‘know, the ones that survive - have worked it out. A good business is an entity that has found a way to bring maximum customer satisfaction for minimum cost. Ferrari are a great example. And their industry-leading commitment to R&D shows they don’t take it for granted. If they can build a car for half the cost and charge me double, if they deliver me more value and I can afford it then good for them. Win-win. Why should you care if they are good at finding ways to be cost efficient? The industry is full of historic failures that didn’t. I guess you’re all the kind of people that would smile and say “I told you” if they took your advice and failed. All they need to worry about is whether more people buy and are satisfied by their products. Seems like they have been. If ever they aren’t, the Ferrari brand reputation goes down and they will make a change. Why? Because the much maligned (at least on this forum) shareholders will demand it. I thought we liked capitalism?
You are a good dinosaur - own it. Why can't you post in threads in a positive manner. You seek out the dumbest issues and run with it like anyone cares. Tell me Sir Dino - what do you come here for? You are so offended that Ferrari and their owners are enjoying their cars - it's their money and anyone spending Ferrari money doesn't need Dino's permission.
I was hoping that you would have noticed that objectivity does not harm passion. Ferrari has changed, and like many people here it doesn't suit me. I just have a realistic vision that you don't have access to, so it's a shared one. Afterwards, you buy what you want and I have the right to have my opinion on the product. You shouldn't associate yourself with a car, I've had an F 12 for 8 years and if you think it's a bad car, you have the right and I don't feel offended. But contrary to what you imagine, the debate is not me, it's Ferrari, and everyone has the right to pronounce themselves, including negatively if it's argued, which I think is my case
Porsche 24k margin per car, McLaren 27k, Aston Martin 20k and Ferrari 115k !!! Don't you think for a moment that this is to the detriment of the intrinsic quality of the product ? look at the new Aston and Ferrari interiors if you have the slightest doubt... just in terms of the quality of the screens, not to mention the paintings,... not to mention the rest...
When the carbon fiber tub is new, likely no issues, but what happens over time, 10 years out, 20 years out, that's the problem yet to be seen on McLarens and all others.. in the meantime, these may be useful to review: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00219983241231062 if the carbon tub is internally failing you will not know it until you need it and it underperforms...and that's the problem, it is silent and deadly here's what Airbus does: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/safe-operations-with-composite-aircraft/ see section: The “line tool” The “line tool” is an easy to use device developed by Airbus, which allows basic ultrasonic inspections to be performed by non NDT qualified personnel. This tool will allow the release of an aircraft if no delamination is found. But if delamination is observed, a more detailed inspection must be performed by means of additional Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), which uses ultrasonic methods to determine the exact extent of that damage. https://f1tcdn.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27061&start=1305 Re: McLaren MCL33 Post 26 Jun 2018, 02:11 Of course there is fatigue in composite parts, there is not a single material in the entire world that does not suffer from fatigue. Even if there is no manufacturing errors of the composite it will still suffer from delamination fatigue, micro-cracks that eventually grow to macro-cracks and then complete failure of the part, even if the force applied to the composite is well within the designed parameters - used exactly as intended, it will still suffer from cyclic loading that will eventually initiate the failure. from 2023: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/managingcomposites_optimized-approach-to-predict-delamination-activity-7097487171514740736-6IgD Older: https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/139060096/ Overall, the point is, unlike AL/Steel structures where a visual review can provide sufficient durability insights, knowing the durability of a CF Tub is quite challenging, especially as it ages, will it provide passenger protection as designed 10+ years from new? Figuring that out is not straightforward.
They cannot have a flat dollar amount across all models. Use percentages though I’ve never heard someone giving dollar amounts but this must be before options for McLaren and afree options for Ferrari? McLaren just said they have 30% margins in their 2024 H1 postings
This is an average: "Ferrari's operating profits amounted to €1.61 billion, or 27% of total revenue. This is a considerable operating margin that confirms Ferrari's strong position in the sector. In other words, the company kept 27 cents for every euro of sales. Last year, this percentage was 24%. No other car manufacturer comes close to these brilliant results." ( Motor1 .com )
Of course you have a right to misery - it's Ferrari's fault because the cars are all sold / stock price is up. Hope you enjoy your cars in good health, whatever they may be.
Nope. The maths in a car business are crazy mad. There are very few industries that are high ticket, high volume like the car business. That’s why when you get it right it’s very right but when you get it wrong, watch out! Lucid reported something like $300k loss per car last year for example. You may wonder how that is even possible but it really is. I have run many car businesses. You can make lots of money selling small volumes and lose a ton selling larger volumes. And the other way around is obviously possible too. The swings of profitability are absolutely huge depending on certain factors. And I personally believe we have often delivered the best value to customers when we are making good profits. Added value drives profits. And I would never apologise for it. It’s what we aim to do so why would I want to apologise for delivering high value for which I am paid? If Ferrari can deliver that much value, congratulations. What a business. It’s a pointless argument for a customer to get put off a brand because that brand makes good profit. And it is certainly erroneous to conclude that a brand that makes less profit is giving you better value. If you believe that, buy an Aston or a McLaren. I’ve had both twice and I won’t be again so you know my feelings about the value they provide. Others will rightly think differently because we all value things differently. If a quality screen is material to you, you value it. So buy the Aston. As for me, I find the screen in the Roma to be one of the most useful in any car - but it’s far from the best. The only thing a customer needs to be concerned with is whether a purchase is good value from their perspective - do they like the product, the people, the service, the pricing, the residual, the maintenance costs. The profit per car has no relevance (if it is even comparable because there is a thousand ways of calculating it) except to offer increased confidence that the brand will be around in the future. That is usually considered to be a good thing.
What I wanted to say in essence is that when there is such a margin gap between Ferrari and its competitors, it is to the detriment of the quality of the product and the customer. If you look closely at a 296 for example, you will see that many internal and external elements are "cheap". Look at the new Aston interiors, for products 35% cheaper on average, it's of excellent quality and very rewarding. If you take the quality of the paintings' break, same conclusion, the visible welds, the quality of the headlights and lights... etc
I own (and have sold) multiple businesses. Running a business is about finding the balance of all things. Profit, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, etc. In all businesses I could have maximized profit in the short term (3-5) years and run the risk of employee burn out, reputation tarnishment (too expensive, poor quality), etc. As my preferred OEM (and a shareholder), of course I want Ferrari to make a lot of money. However, it can’t be at the expense of the consumer. Because if the worldwide economic tide shifts, even marginally, they can get caught out hard. No other car company (non EV) has the type of the multiple they have. And to keep it, a lot has to continually go right. Including increased profits on already inflated profits. That’s not good for consumers (or Ferrari, really) For what they charge and the sake of the consumer (which is important) considering the profits made, the cars should come out perfect. The paint should be perfect (this is inconsistent). The electronics should operate flawlessly (this is a massive point of contention and certainly a more expensive processing unit would improve feedback times between haptic controls and viewing on the screens). The trim materials should be higher quality as a base offering. These kind of things keep the customer loyal through the storm. When they feel the product is truly superior.
