Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo_v12 Dude u wanna talk sense...we will.
1. U don't think that the F40 and the F50 had the same body design? Did the F40 not have the lights of the 355 and the F50 the lights of the 360 Modena?
2. U say every car "Evolves" from another one? Does that mean that everything in the car has to be "Inspired" by an ex-car? Does the F430 not look like the 360, and not have the F60ish lights? Does paddleshift in every car make it innovative? (F1 style)? If Ferraris start applying the extra comforts most supercars use in their cars, even Ferrari's perfromance would suck. It's just a name that you, along with a million others are driven by.
3. How do Ferraris not have much in common with F1? Apart from the body, wasn't weight reduction a part of the Ferrari F40? Now u will say even that's a part of body construction."Branding race-derived technology to road cars is not a new idea, especially to Ferrari. Up until the late fifties, Ferrari's road and racing cars were practically the same product."-these are words of a magazine, and u are the only wise-1 to believe Ferrari has nothing common with racing? Is Traction control not a part of F1 and the F60 and the F430. Doesn't the red rev-limiter in the F430 remind you of Michael Schuuuuuuuumaker's car?
4. I may not have seen a "FERRARI 612" personally, but then your reviews mean that u are the ultimate car reviewer and test-driver in the world. Each and every Ferrari is just road-focussed, just track perfromance sort-of. That's what I mean by similar suspension settings n I guess now I need to learn from the great 1 (u) what suspensions actually mean, just because you have driven a Ferrari.
5. I was not referring to business in here at all. I was just talking about the models of cars built. I know Lambos built models far in between, but if u think manufacturing "NON_RACING" supercars is that easy, why don't utry settting a business up of one yourself?
6. The Ferrari Testa Rossa was an answer to the Lambo Countach, the F50 to the Diablo, the F60 to the Murcielago and the Merc SLR McLaren and the F430 to the Gallardo. I know I have said this before, but am saying it again for auto-gurus like you. Not only Top-GEAR, a lot of my friends agree with me when I say that Ferrari wont age well. Dude, these guys simply have benchmarks set that they are trying to exceed rather than standing in the market as something new to have taken the world by storm.
7. Even with ur 6 litre 652 bhp, the Ferrari F60 never got the better of the 628 bhp McLaren F1 in top speed, even though they both used carbon-fibre bodies and Ferrari's technology was leaps and bounds ahead of 1992. The Mac had carbon fibre mounted around a honeycomb mesh, while the F60 had it mounted on a carbon-fibre tub. Still you know who is victorious.
6. All Ferrari basically is is the sign of that horse and a name. I've met hundreds of people like you who think I am dumb and that Ferrari's are the best in the world and have left them quiet.
If you really wanna pick on me, we'll have a good chat sometime. The web is still not the best substitute for voice.
CHEERS. |
OK, here's what I think:
1. Body design is an altogether different thing from the style of a car's tail-lights, so no, I do not think the F40 and F50 had the same body design.
2. I didn't say EVERY car evolves from another. Chill out and read what I said before you fly off the deep end. Like I asked you in my earlier message, how often do you think car manufacturers come out with totally new (innovative, as you put it) interfaces? The better part of Ferrari's line-up now uses paddle-shifters (either standard or optional) because they've found that it's a quicker way to change gears for most normal road users, as compared to an H-gate gear shifter. I'm sure you'd like to see the wheel being re-invented. Go ahead and show me some companies that do that as often as you'd like. I'm not driven by anything about Ferrari or any other super-car manufacturer (I drive a Ford), but I am driven to point out drivel when it's uttered!
3. Oh we're talking about the 1950s now. Your earlier post was talking about the late 80's onwards and Ferrari's stagnation since the F40. Make up your mind, which era are we discussing? Frankly, weight reduction, traction control and lights to indicate rising revs really aren't what F1 is about, in case you thought those were the core F1 technologies. I could point out that all of those are also on rally cars, does that mean that Ferrari's cars are rally-inspired?
4. I didn't say I'd driven a 612. Like I said earlier, take the time to read (and understand, if possible) before you mouth-off. I never posted any reviews, as I recall. And obviously Ferrari's are sports cars so every part of their componentry will be biased towards sporty handling, performance, etc. I didn't realise that's what you meant by "same suspension settings". Should have guessed!
Since you seem to love Lamborghini, perhaps you can educate us all on the "different suspension settings" between Lamborghini's current models!
5. I don't recall saying anything about making non-sports cars an easy business! Are you able to read and understand, or is mouthing-off your speciality?
6. Let's give you some perspective, since you seem so certain which cars were a response to what. There was a great Ferrari in the early 80's that would've cracked any Countach at the time. That was the 288 GTO, go read about it. As I recall the F40 would've run circles around the Diablo (which was desperately overweight, and too big to be a truly useful sportscar). As regards the Gallardo, it was Lamborghini's smart move to try and capture some market share (and desperately needed sales) from smaller, high-performance cars like the 360 Modena and Porsche 911 Turbo, not the other way around. The "F60" as you call it, isn't a response to the Murcielago, it's the continuation of a line of supercars that Ferrari has done for some time now. I'm glad your friends agree with your POV on how well cars age. It's nice to have people that share your views on things around you. Just remember, it's still subjective. Lastly, it's a little difficult to "take things by storm" as you put it, unless you re-invent the wheel, which you seem certain that Lamborghini does. Actually it's ironic...I know of another company that's been trying desperately to "take the world by storm" with a certain 1000ps hypercar for some years now, which shares a parent company with Lamborghini. Pity they've discovered the problems attached to trying to "take the world by storm" and have repeatedly publicly tripped-up in testing and repeatedly missed their own deadlines. Tsk.
7. So? Top speed is all that matters right? Good for you! I don't suppose you've heard of the aerodynamic instability the McLaren F1 faced at speeds over 200mph that made it feel light and dangerous to drive? Also the F1 that set the speed record was modified, not stock. But anyway, you be happy with your thoughts, ok!
8 (or is it 6? lol). You're welcome to your ranting opinion, which I still don't agree with, sorry. So you've met hundreds of people who think you're dumb! Wonder why?!!! I never said Ferraris were the best cars in the world, and you're not silencing me till you learn to talk sense.
Lastly, I'm not trying to "pick on you", you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, which is unfortunate.
Is Ferrari really "THAT Good"? Yes, they are. There are others that are "THAT Good" too. Just because there's one good car manufacturer doesn't mean they are the only one. Ever thought of that?
Peace!