When will Ferrari switch to Carbon Fibre construction?
Discussion
What are people's views on when Ferrari will switch from aluminium to Carbon Fibre construction?
Are they simply too heavily invested in aluminium processes and equipment to do carbon on the large scale required for Ferrari V8 numbers?
Genuine question. Having owned a Ferrari in the past, and now only owning 3 full carbon cell cars, I would like to add a Ferrari to my garage again, but struggle to see me buying "old tech". Especially as I'd want a convertible, where the material differences on stiffness and handling are even more extreme.
Might it happen with the F8 Tributo's hybrid replacement? Or is there just no possibility?
Are they simply too heavily invested in aluminium processes and equipment to do carbon on the large scale required for Ferrari V8 numbers?
Genuine question. Having owned a Ferrari in the past, and now only owning 3 full carbon cell cars, I would like to add a Ferrari to my garage again, but struggle to see me buying "old tech". Especially as I'd want a convertible, where the material differences on stiffness and handling are even more extreme.
Might it happen with the F8 Tributo's hybrid replacement? Or is there just no possibility?
I don’t have an answer, but personally never felt my cars were not stiff enough - so not that bothered. More important to me is that they find a way to ensure they can keep building V12 cars, with our without some hybrid element and reduce weight further by for example using more carbon body panels (although I shudder at the repair cost / replacement cost of these, so maybe ideally not on the daily driver cars).
I could imagine that at some point they build a car above the current V8 range with a carbon tub / price point say another 100-150k up. Probably a market for that
I could imagine that at some point they build a car above the current V8 range with a carbon tub / price point say another 100-150k up. Probably a market for that
Don’t think they ever will. As previously mentioned not having cf tub doesn’t greatly affect sales (yet).
Mac’s line up basically uses the same tub or derivative for all its cars, saving costs etc., and have a history a research and expertise in production. Totally different than Ferrari.
As for panels, will never happen for mainstream cars imo, as the panels need to absorb energy from crashes and would expect that a plastic/fibre replacement for aluminium.
Of course that’s just my opinion and could be a load of tosh
Mac’s line up basically uses the same tub or derivative for all its cars, saving costs etc., and have a history a research and expertise in production. Totally different than Ferrari.
As for panels, will never happen for mainstream cars imo, as the panels need to absorb energy from crashes and would expect that a plastic/fibre replacement for aluminium.
Of course that’s just my opinion and could be a load of tosh
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
I think the nail is hit on the head with the comment that Ferrari don't need to (yet) as people will buy regardless. Pity really, as I'd like to see Ferrari pushed to up their game and compete on more than branding.
Body panels are another matter of course, as aluminium is much cheaper to repair for dings.
I think the nail is hit on the head with the comment that Ferrari don't need to (yet) as people will buy regardless. Pity really, as I'd like to see Ferrari pushed to up their game and compete on more than branding.
Body panels are another matter of course, as aluminium is much cheaper to repair for dings.
LotusJas said:
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
I think the nail is hit on the head with the comment that Ferrari don't need to (yet) as people will buy regardless. Pity really, as I'd like to see Ferrari pushed to up their game and compete on more than branding.
Body panels are another matter of course, as aluminium is much cheaper to repair for dings.
But isn't this also the argument for the aluminium tub? i.e. its repairable.I think the nail is hit on the head with the comment that Ferrari don't need to (yet) as people will buy regardless. Pity really, as I'd like to see Ferrari pushed to up their game and compete on more than branding.
Body panels are another matter of course, as aluminium is much cheaper to repair for dings.
To answer the OP - as has been said already they are not compelled to.
The number of customers who would a) notice or b) care with their usage profile is such a vanishingly small percentage of their customer base that it's a pretty simple calculus: will we sell more cars if we do this, when we have to charge even more and the customers may not even notice it's there?
Unless you're driving the car on the raggedy edge, or you're a certain member on here (I'm scared to summon him) then I don't think you'd notice, genuinely. That sucks for the tiny proportion of customers who want to track a convertible one, I suppose, but it is what it is.
The number of customers who would a) notice or b) care with their usage profile is such a vanishingly small percentage of their customer base that it's a pretty simple calculus: will we sell more cars if we do this, when we have to charge even more and the customers may not even notice it's there?
Unless you're driving the car on the raggedy edge, or you're a certain member on here (I'm scared to summon him) then I don't think you'd notice, genuinely. That sucks for the tiny proportion of customers who want to track a convertible one, I suppose, but it is what it is.
Wombat3 said:
But isn't this also the argument for the aluminium tub? i.e. its repairable.
Is it repairable though?Just because Ferrari don't use a carbon tub doesn't mean their chassis is a simple aluminium lash-up. It's still pretty much the very best that can be achieved in that format and is a pretty complex structure. There was a story of a nearly new Aston Martin who's bottom chassis rail was creased during a routine tyre swap, that small crease in that bonded aluminium chassis wrote the car off, so a damaged complex aluminium chassis structure will still be as uneconomic to repair as a carbon tub.
sparta6 said:
McLaren HAD to use c tubs in order to create a market USP and stand a chance of selling enough cars.
It's curious then that values sink more like a cast iron tub.
Seriously, if you were designing a supercar from the ground-up which would be offered as a roadster, into a market where cost isn't really a factor, would you start with a carbon tub or a metal one?It's curious then that values sink more like a cast iron tub.
The Surveyor said:
Seriously, if you were designing a supercar from the ground-up which would be offered as a roadster, into a market where cost isn't really a factor, would you start with a carbon tub or a metal one?
Ofcourse - it made sense for Mc.Although that doesn't always translate into a product that is more desirable, or indeed "better", which is always subjective.
I don't suppose it's performance of the F1 grid has helped either, the old adage "win on Sunday sell on Monday" still applies.
Perhaps they will improve in F1 this season.
sparta6 said:
Ofcourse - it made sense for Mc.
Why does it not also make sense for Ferrari? Why do Ferrari not use the same technology that they hailed about in the LaFerrari for their regular cars? If that super-stiff chassis technology was good enough for a £2m Aperta why is it too good for their £200k 488?
sparta6 said:
Ofcourse - it made sense for Mc.
Although that doesn't always translate into a product that is more desirable, or indeed "better", which is always subjective.
I'd agree with that. Mclaren's big USP that they've always like to claim is the carbon chassis. The CF monocoque is technically better but for the purposes of a road car, outside of weight it really doesn't matter as a couple aluminium spaceframe these days is very very stiff torsinoally and no one buys a hairdresser's car for it's driving dynamics anyway Although that doesn't always translate into a product that is more desirable, or indeed "better", which is always subjective.
The Surveyor said:
sparta6 said:
Ofcourse - it made sense for Mc.
Why does it not also make sense for Ferrari? Why do Ferrari not use the same technology that they hailed about in the LaFerrari for their regular cars? If that super-stiff chassis technology was good enough for a £2m Aperta why is it too good for their £200k 488?
And besides, which is "better", a completely analogue McLaren F1, or a McLaren P1 ?
isaldiri said:
I'd agree with that. Mclaren's big USP that they've always like to claim is the carbon chassis. The CF monocoque is technically better but for the purposes of a road car, outside of weight it really doesn't matter as a couple aluminium spaceframe these days is very very stiff torsinoally and no one buys a hairdresser's car for it's driving dynamics anyway
I would agree with that.Also the tubular steel chassis in hairdresser's cars were also fit for purpose, especially the F40
Gassing Station | Ferrari V8 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff