Ferrari 458 (430 replacement)

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Sadly I must admit it is faster and prettierthan the really cool Lexus LF-A.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Sadly I must admit it is faster and prettier than the really cool Lexus LF-A.

Sorry, but the Aztek is prettier than the LF-A.

--Andre

 

[Brian278]

They peaked with the 360 in terms of looks, IMO. Wish they would stick to those classic lines.

 

[Confucius]

^^ Half agree, but they took it up a notch on the 430. The last truly beautiful Ferrari to me. It has such a muscular, menacing stance that marries so well to that glorious bark it emits.

This one is pretty ugly. Still a head-turner for sure, but maybe not entirely for the right reasons.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by A Y

Sorry, but the Aztek is prettier than the LF-A.

--Andre

I'm not sure I would go quite that far. The Aztek is really horrid.

 

[whiteslashasian]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

I'm not sure I would go quite that far. The Aztek is really horrid.

LF-A better or worse than?:

 

[dhaller]

The problem with the 458's shape is that it isn't "designed" so much as it's "calculated" - it's more a nod to physics (or at least aerodynamics) than to Pininfarina tradition. Now, that itself is pretty cool (science run amok usually is) and should appeal to lovers of extremes, but there is something essentially un-Italian about such an approach.

It's certainly not "ugly", but it IS an example of form following function, and I think the eye grabs that fact - it's not beautiful because it's an engineer's car, not an artisan's.

That said, I suspect the car will grow on people, especially as other makers (inevitably) begin using airflow models and aerodynamic optimization to "design" car bodies in future: eyes will be trained, eventually.

I think it's the kind of car I'd definitely want IF I had more than one high performance car in my stable; if I could only have one, though, the choice would be guided more by emotion than "the numbers", and I don't think the 458 would be it.

DH

 

[centrix]

ugly

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by dhaller

The problem with the 458's shape is that it isn't "designed" so much as it's "calculated" - it's more a nod to physics (or at least aerodynamics) than to Pininfarina tradition. Now, that itself is pretty cool (science run amok usually is) and should appeal to lovers of extremes, but there is something essentially un-Italian about such an approach.

It's certainly not "ugly", but it IS an example of form following function, and I think the eye grabs that fact - it's not beautiful because it's an engineer's car, not an artisan's.

That said, I suspect the car will grow on people, especially as other makers (inevitably) begin using airflow models and aerodynamic optimization to "design" car bodies in future: eyes will be trained, eventually.

I think it's the kind of car I'd definitely want IF I had more than one high performance car in my stable; if I could only have one, though, the choice would be guided more by emotion than "the numbers", and I don't think the 458 would be it.

DH
You raise a very good point, however I felt Ferrari began the 'form follows function' aspects of their designs with the 360. The modern day Stallions are still unique, however I feel their present designs are based more on aerodynamics, versus the conventional coach building of the yesteryears (not that this is a bad thing).

 

[TheFoo]

I like the 'form follows function' approach, but I still think the 458 is ugly. Many of the details and shapes appear too stylized. If they were simpler and too-the-point, I'd probably like the car. The overall shape is nice.

 

[Gallardo2501]

Congratulations Ferrari, you've built a kit car.

 

[tc6]

I still prefer the design of the 360 compared to the 430 and 458.

 

[crazyquik]

I find the "form follows function" argument to be pretty weak. It's admitting that the car is ugly, (or not really that great looking) but making the excuse that "well, it only looks that way because it's optimized for aerodynamics."

Aerodynamics have been taken into account in road-car designs for years. At least since the McLaren F1 hit the road. The laws of aerodynamics haven't changed in that time either; there really haven't been any major discoveries since then. The biggest changes have been in construction techniques, and the increased use of carbon composites.

Since the McLaren F1 came into production, we've had dozens of aerodynamically-styled cars; most of them are/were more attractive than this. So either the air in Maranello is different, or they *********** pooch on the design board.

 

[A Y]

Most aero designs for road cars are trying to minimize lift or reducing wind noise. The Ferraris are actually generating real, usable downforce, so the shaping is quite a bit more pronounced, but I agree that the 458 shape isn't totally all about the aero.

Even when working in a pure form-follows function mode, car design can vary quite a bit, as Formula 1 shows. The Red Bull cars this past season were probably the best-looking cars of the lot.

The F1 road car is very attractive, and it's kind of the elephant in the room, since Murray designed that car inside out, and it's one of the great examples of form-follows-function. It also shows the sad, wide gulf between car design as how it is, and how it could be.

--Andre

 

[bawlin]

Originally Posted by Brian278

They peaked with the 360 in terms of looks, IMO. Wish they would stick to those classic lines.

I think the regular 360 is rather bland, but the 360CS is the pinnacle of modern Ferrari design in my honest opinion. It's hard to top perfection...