I can only imagine that more prominent front spoiler winglets are to increase the splitter effect and generate more downforce, why the USA cars have this feature and are different from the Eu/ROW cars I have no idea.
It makes far more sense than pedestrian safety which has nothing to do with the obvious increase of the the downforce area of the car's nose. If anything else was in the equation, then it's likely the protruding mass on each side was somehow in consideration of the USA DOT's low-impact 5mph bumper mandate, as was the case with the preceding USA F40's rubber band and splitter appendages, the latter affording some aerodynamic downforce benefits.
Three quarters comparo, USA vs Eu/ROW. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just FWIW the F50 GT went much further than the USA F50 to increase the aerodynamic downforce surface of the front nose. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Pedestrian safety or bumper mandate, same for me or so I meant, excuse my non-US citizenship and my ESL. Anyway, no way they decided to come up with a bigger lip/splitter for more downforce only for the US versions. No, that makes zero sense, sorry.
You are excused of course, it's not a matter of ESL or non-US citizenship, it's a matter of universal knowledge available to anyone who does the research. We can agree to take different views, but the material fact is USA DOT pedestrian safety mandates are not the same as USA DOT 5mph low-impact bumper mandates, in any case the former would not be enhanced by a slightly more prominent front spoiler. It makes perfect sense that the latter is the reason for the USA F50's more prominent front bumper-spoiler winglets, and it also makes perfect sense that they were designed to incorporate aerodynamic considerations, as anyone can see the aero at high speed on the USA car will undeniably be different. Pininfarina has published not only a series of illustrations about all aspects of the F50's aero but also calculations of the ground effects of the car front & rear, underscoring that aero was an area of focus for them, so there's no question front aero would have been a carefully calculated consideration with the USA car. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
In other words, as long as they needed to comply with the DOT, then why not do it in a way that would bring useful benefits.....
I'll take a step back in this build-up of literature that this very simple question is becoming: The reason for the difference between US version and ROW was the specific US regulation. Had it not been for that, it would have been the same. Of course the change has an effect in aerodynamics, but that is not the question as aero was not the reason. This, in turn, does not mean they wouldn't optimize the aero of that area while complying with the regulations. But the reason is the regulation, not that they wanted to give the US version a different front aero.
The reason for the side protrusions on the USA F50's front bumper is CFR 49 Part 581, as in, this: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-581 The relevant low-speed impact testing involves impact by a pendulum-type test device and also impact into a fixed barrier. To pass the test, an existing bumper may need specific modifications, which sometimes results in horrific-looking bulbuous add-ons like in the Bugatti Chiron's rear bumper, or sometimes it can be done in a rather pleasant manner, like in the F50's front bumper. The Bumper Standard stipulates exactly where the impacts need to occur: Image Unavailable, Please Login That's all there is to it. Any aerodynamic "improvements" are imaginary and unintentional. If the reshaped contours actually did anything meaningful / useful in terms of downforce, Ferrari would have had to balance it out at the rear.
Thanks for this, I agree the aerodynamic enhancements were unintentional, but they are not imaginary, they are there for anyone to clearly see, at high speed they would certainly do something useful however at legal speeds they'd likely make no difference and thus it doesn't appear Ferrari didn't feel the need to do anything at the rear to balance it out.
105265 is coming up for auction, with only 1 318km, one owner from new! The auction will also include the deceased owner’s LaFerrari, F40, Enzo, 599 GTO and Abarth Ferrari Dealer’s édition. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Out of curiosity I spoke to my NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) contact and gave him the link you posted https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-581 and he immediately drew my attention to: § 581.7 Test procedures. (a) Longitudinal impact test procedures. (1) Impact the vehicle's front surface and its rear surface two times each with the impact line at any height from 16 to 20 inches, inclusive... He said to me: "the impact area of consequence for the USA DOT is at a height from 16 to 20 inches, the mandate states that the DOT's bumper height requirement for the period the F50 was manufactured in requires impact protection in the region from 16 to 20 inches above the driving surface, this requirement applies to passenger cars only". On the F50 this area 16 - 20 inches high appears to be atop the main front aperture below the front trunk-lid, as we know, the winglets on the F50 are only at around 4 - 5 inches off the ground as the ground clearance of the F50 is @ 4 inches. A few quick pics below which I had my son Vince do to illustrate the above, the front lifter has been deployed in the 2nd image by the way. The mystery deepens, next stop Pininfarina? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
105265, 153/349, delivered via Ch Pozzi to Monaco on the 24th of June 1996, said to "have covered only 1,318km and is in faultless condition. Hardly any traces of wear can be seen and its paintwork shines like new." It may exceed the estimate, if this market remains strong. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
