Cars We Drive!

[OtterMeanGreen]

but I'm also happy to see Ferrari continue improving it's glorious V12 in a beautiful GT car

Sadly from what I hear Ferrari will be ending their V12 program with the F12 or possibly the next model. A sad day indeed when you can't hear the screaming roar of a new Ferrari V12. So we are forced to appreciate the classics that much more, hopefully they don't end up in museums or fancy garages (Bueller Bueller). I've been lucky enough to have driven a vast majority of the modern offerings and some of the classics (minus the F12).

 

[TheFoo]

I though your post was very well put together and I found it to be very descriptive. However and this is a big HOWEVER, that last paragraph is 100% false. In more than one occasion Ferrari has used F1 Technology on their road cars and have many times been innovators in the industry. Here's a basic list of just what I know to be correct, if I had to research it I'm sure I could find more (maybe @Dino944 could assist):

The Wind Tunnel being one. Ferrari also pioneered the first ever production car mounted spoiler, which came from their race cars. Also there's the Manettino (or "little switch"), which was inspired by the Formula One steering wheel, where you can adjust suspension/traction settings on the go. Ferrari also was the first road car to offer a steering wheel that had no column stalks (only wheel mounted buttons and switches); where did it stem from? The F1 Racing Team. Last but not least is the BIG ONE. The first ever Electronic Differential (or E-Diff) which came off the F1 cars and was featured proudly in the F430.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. You are absolutely right that Ferrari has regularly implemented significant F1 technology in their road cars. My point was that, nonetheless, their F1 cars are not racing versions of the road cars and their road cars are not streetable versions of the F1 cars. In contrast, Porsche's GT3 Cup, R, and RSR cars are all based directly on the GT3 road car, with varying degrees of modification, but where the chassis and engine are essentially unchanged (though the RSR does move the engine forward).

 

[TheFoo]

The 812 ring time wasn't a factory effort. It was laid down by a german magazine so it's fair to point out that tires and aero can explain why it didn't go faster. It's less about "gaming the system" than it is a difference in philosophy. If Ferrari has designed the 812 to set records on the ring, it appears to have failed. All that Bawlin and others have pointed out is that it appears the 812 had different development targets which will have an impact on performance measurements.

The rise of the nurburgring lap time as the one-size-fits-all metric to judge all performance cars reminds me a bit of the impact Robert Parker had on wine over the last few decades. I'm glad Porsche and others are devoted to ever improving lap times at the ring, but I'm also happy to see Ferrari continue improving it's glorious V12 in a beautiful GT car with subtle aero features even if it doesn't generate the absolute best performance per dollar. I would hate to see Ferrari give up its front engine V12 heritage due to the greenhelling of sports cars.

At the end of the day, every new car for sale can get you to extra legal speeds so the quest for car manufacturers is how to put the biggest grin on the driver's face. For Porsche GT drivers, ring supremacy is both a performance target and likely a point of pride. For Ferrari V12 owners, that doesn't seem likely to be the case.

Maybe it's a little harsh to call the 812 Superfast a "failure" in any sense. But the car's abilities are so ridiculously beyond street use and "grand touring" applications that I don't think one can avoid discussing its track performance. Otherwise, why on earth do you need an 840 horsepower V12? Maybe it is truly just about the "passion," but I don't see why that is mutually exclusive from expecting Ferrari to also make the best use of the power they put into a car. Otherwise, reduce the power, reduce the weight, and it's a better car in every respect.

As for improving the V12: that's great. But Porsche has also improved the flat-6 and Lamborghini's V10s and V12s are phenomenal. Engine greatness is not Ferrari's monopoly.

Yes, factory track efforts are advantaged and yield better times vs. journalists/magazines, but not magnitudinally.

 

[Texasmade]

Patek? I must have missed that one.

It was in the watch thread similar to Foo's Porsche. He got a Patek Calatrava and proceeded to tell everyone how great a Patek Calatrava is, everything else is basically garbage, and you'd be stupid to get any other brand if looking for a simple dress watch. Wasn't as big a fuss unlike here because Pio wasn't part of that one arguing back so it eventually died down unlike peak 911.

 

[OtterMeanGreen]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. You are absolutely right that Ferrari has regularly implemented significant F1 technology in their road cars. My point was that, nonetheless, their F1 cars are not racing versions of the road cars and their road cars are not streetable versions of the F1 cars. In contrast, Porsche's GT3 Cup, R, and RSR cars are all based directly on the GT3 road car, with varying degrees of modification, but where the chassis and engine are essentially unchanged (though the RSR does move the engine forward).

I hear what you're saying now. That is true about Porsche. Today Ferrari certainly doesn't compete in that regard. They settle with just paying tribute to the racing team with vehicle nomenclature such as "Scuderia" or "Fiorano" . However this was not the case in Scuderia Ferrari's inception. The road cars were scaled down versions of the race cars that caught buyers attention. There was certainly an event when that all changed though. It's unfair to say that Ferrari is just Formula One, as they got their start doing distance racing and was just as much of a winning dominant force as they were at F1. We wouldn't have the Ford Racing Team and the GT40 if that wasn't the case.

 

[Spats]

...

 

[TheFoo]

It was in the watch thread similar to Foo's Porsche. He got a Patek Calatrava and proceeded to tell everyone how great a Patek Calatrava is, everything else is basically garbage, and you'd be stupid to get any other brand if looking for a simple dress watch. Wasn't as big a fuss unlike here because Pio wasn't part of that one arguing back so it eventually died down unlike peak 911.

This is the sort of horseshit misrepresentation that I'm constantly having to untangle. I did not say that everything else is garbage. I did say that my personal experience and exploration over the years has led me to tire of fashion trends in watches. After ~20 years of watch collecting, you come to notice that so many brands are just that--brands. Only a couple truly matter over time. Not an accident that so many serious collectors (maybe even a majority?) ultimately focus on Patek and Rolex. Just as with cars, history and heritage are as important as anything else, and those two makers happen to lead everyone else in those respects by bounds.

As for the Calatrava: at its best, it doesn't care for fashion and is perfectly great in all respects, even if not the most ornate in design or movement decoration. It's a great watch because it's a great watch, not because you care to show anyone you have a great watch. As an expression of style, I defy anyone to name a more classic, timeless watch design.

Anyway, you know people are playing contrarian when the guy arguing in favor of Patek or Porsche is somehow being the ridiculous one.

 

[Spats]

So, basically, you're rolling coal (in Manhattan?!) this year?

[/QUOTE]

Just put on your best Jewess-winning yellowface and the rest will follow.

 

[lefty]

I understand now what you meant. Yeah I hate douchebags like those. Ever since DMX did the Ruff Ryder's video I have often been turned off by shenanigans like those. It's just highly disrespectful, especially to law enforcement.

Not to mention drivers. Here's an incident from a few years ago where a guy, his wife and kid in the car met these guys.



lefty

 

[OtterMeanGreen]

Not to mention drivers. Here's an incident from a few years ago where a guy, his wife and kid in the car met these guys.



lefty

I remember that story. No sympathy from me to the bikers that got run over. They’re giving motorcycle riders a bad name.

 

[bawlin]

Otherwise, why on earth do you need an 840 horsepower V12?

Same reason you (and I) need a 500hp car with a wing: vanity.

 

[brokencycle]

Same reason you (and I) need a 500hp car with a wing: vanity.

Is it vanity if it is objectively best?

 

[TheFoo]

Same reason you (and I) need a 500hp car with a wing: vanity.

It is all academic unless you race for a living, which is why an academic measure like Nurburgring time matters. Otherwise, we are talking about little more than horsepower numbers and acceleration times, both of which are not all that hard to achieve for little money these days.

The GT3 is 15 seconds faster than the 812 Superfast despite being short 300+ horsepower and costing less than half the price. Yet, I don’t know that the latter is any better a grand tourer. That’s why I think such super-powerful GT cars are getting silly. Make them better road cars with less power and less weight and/or hunt track times like they mean it.

Is it vanity if it is objectively best?

It is objectively faster around the ‘Ring.

 

[clee1982]

Well if I want bang for the buck stick with Corvette...

 

[bawlin]

Has the Pista put down an official Ring lap time?