© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'SF90 Stradale' started by RichardCH, Aug 1, 2019.
Am I correct in thinking that the weight is circa 100kg more than a La Ferrari ?
in fact just reading latest copy of Enzo magazine, they say +300kg (660 lbs) but that seems excessive no ?
Weight of what car sf90 ?
The LF is complete composite and the interior is actually pretty spartan. Hard to imagine a car that's mainly aluminum and a normal model is going to be only 100kg more.
Oops didn’t realize this is the sf90 thread
will be interesting to see, esp as ferraris always weigh more than their quoted figures
Ferrari quotes 1570 kg for the SF90 Stradale, but I'm not sure it's a real kerb weight or a fake dry weight; the LaFerrari is quoted for 1350 kg but has been measured up to more than 1600 kg... a real SF90 could then weight more than 1800 kg I guess.
Which ones? All of them?
Ferrari does not quote the weight of the LF; neither dry nor wet. It has been weighed, wet (fuel and all), at less than 1600 kilos.
What does curb weight mean anyway? 1/4 a tank of fuel or a full tank? A slim driver or two big blokes on board? Dry is the most sincere way of stating weight. Some cars have 50 litre tanks, others have 100 litres. Is it fair to brim them both and quote curb weights?
My guess is that since a LF is about 1570-1580 kilos with fluids and fuel, the SF90 Stradale should be circa 1770-1780. Drive around with half a tank, save some 30 kilos... I would also say lose some weight, but I like my bon fillet, wine and scotch too much to go down that road myself...
Per yesterday's quarterly release: "1,000 cv, and a weight-to-power ratio of 1.57 kg/cv." So that imputes "advertised" weight of 1570 kg, or 3,461 lbs. It will undoubtedly be much heavier than that, especially fully-laden.
All supercar manufacturers quote dry weight, superbike makers too for that matter. So yes, dry, not to mention laden, will be more. Not exactly news...
Thank you again for all the infos my friend!
Dry weight is meaningless for comparison as manufacturers often use it as a marketing tool, and are often way off reality. However for homologation in EU an EU kerb weight (which is precisely defined by the UNECE) and a GVM (gross vehicle mass) are required. In the case of Enzo and LaFerrari etc, the only weight used in the owners manual is the kerb weight (legal requirement), and nothing else.
Kerb weight includes car + fluids+ 90% fuel + 75kg for payload (driver, luggage etc). i.e. ready to drive. Dry weight is irrelevant as I've yet to see a car being driven around without fluids, fuel and driver. So kerb weight is far more realistic, and precise than a possibly made up dry weight.
Anyone remember how the LaFerrari had a "claimed" 1255kg weight at launch yet the real car weighed c1600kg with fuel and fluids? No way the car has 350kg of liquids! Just a massively inaccurate dry weight was given to journalists, and conveniently dropped since.
He works there, come on man!
I don't recall him saying that...
You say that dry weight is irrelevant, yet somehow the EU weight (payload of 75 kg, totally unrealistic) and 90% of fuel (totally arbitrary as one car might have a 50 litre tank and another a 150 litre one) is more representative? I don't see how that works. It makes more sense to say that a car weighs X kilos and then you can add the fuel and a slim or, a fat driver and some luggage, or no luggage at all. The only concession to that is that the cooling fluid and oil should be added to the dry weight, as you cannot drive around without those, but how much do these weigh anyway? In contrast, one can surely drive around with a car that only has 10 litres of petrol in its tank; the 90% rule is nonsensical.
As a matter of fact the aim was for the car to have the dry weight of the Enzo and that is what had been communicated to the journalists beforehand. That goal was not achieved and it was never quoted officially when the car was launched.
First you say
Which will it be?
So you want to use a dry weight figure that doesn't even officially exist??
Quite the opposite, actually.
A car doesn't drive itself without a driver and only on the last drop of fuel.
Why is 75kg payload unrealistic when the typical adult US male in 2017 weighed 89kg? Is it more realistic to assume the car is instead driven by a weightless ghost?
The fuel tank capacity is a design parameter which a function of a car's size and fuel consumption. A Caterham 7 has less than half the capacity of an F12 because of its smaller size and and ability to achieve an acceptable range with a smaller tank due to better economy. So it is fair that a larger, thirstier car has more fuel weight in a comparison.
And even if you take out the fuel difference between cars, an extreme case a difference of 40 litres, that is a weight difference of 30kg given the specific gravity of gasoline of 0.76kg/litre. That is small in the context of fuel + fluids + payload which is typically 175-200kg that would be missing if you just use dry weight.
Bottom line, dry weight is for marketing, kerb weight is for the real world.
Pls don't try to be "smart" now. Ferrari usually quotes dry weight. In the case of the LF they didn't quote the weight at all (https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/past-models/laferrari/#specifications). I think it is quite simple. No need to drag over it.
It's more realistic to say that the car itself weighs XXXX kilos and then you can add you own weight and that of the fuel you care to carry. Personally, I don't brim my cars, unless I need to travel a long distance, or go to the track (the constant refuelling between laps is a bummer, unless the track has its own petrol station). No need to carry the extra weight around on every day driving. So, you know that the car (with fluids but not fuel) weighs for example 1600 kilos, you weigh, say, 90 kilos and you put in 30 litres of fuel (20 kilos). Much simpler than the 90% tank plus 75 kilos silliness.
The whole discussion is meaningless though. All that matters is how the car drives, 50 kilos more, or 50 less won't make a big difference.
While you continue to enjoy driving your fuel-less, driver-less, coolant free car that weighs a (sometimes) undeclared amount and discuss the resulting theoretical power-to-weight no one can possibly experience, the rest of the world can just use more realistic kerb weight measure.
And here's some reading material as logic appears to have escaped enturely from your argument:
pretty much everyone I've seen on the scales.
So which ones exactly and how much more?
Will have to hold you to that...