Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

danp said:

flemke said:

Yeah, you're right. Why couldn't Honda have made something truly beautiful, such as this:


It hardly makes sense for you to give as examples one of the best-looking F1 configurations next to an NSX that has been catastrophically butchered by someone whose day job is probably head of the Ferrari design studio.

The details don't matter, it was the NSX's poor proportions that I was highlighting.

If that was your point about the standard car, fair enough, but, if you're going to illustrate your point, at least do it with standard car, not some aftermarket cartoon that obliterates what made the standard car nice.

[belleair302]

Flemke, a good letter written by yourself in the latest copy of Evo. Not long enough but straight to the point.

[flemke]

Chunkymonkey71 said:

I'd guess that less than 10% of contributors in this thread have a mind or opinion of their own.

It's both hilarious and utterly tragic to read.

No doubt you feel more comfortable in the Ferrari threads, renowned as they are for their penetrating insights, frank self-criticism, and the relentless challenging of simplistic orthodoxy.

[flemke]

Chim said:

Still, I digress and am not here to interrupt the love in, I am merely picking on the comments surrounding the F12 to which I disagree with, as will many others. All car evolution inevitable takes forks that not all will agree with. It should be noted though that Ferrari have been growing this car for more years than i care to remember, each evolution brings with it the baggage from the past and the requirement to look to the future, not an easy task for any design team, particularly when the eyes of the world are all over every angle of it, many with different agendas to fill.

The P1 on the other hand has no such restrictions, its a clean slate and they can do as they will with technology and design, what they have produced is of course brilliant, it remains to be seen though whether they can continue to evolve it as Ferrari have done for the last 50 years while keeping to the principles that they started out with.

So in short, it is ill advised to slight Ferrari and their direction without taking into consideration the position they are coming from.

Please describe for us these legacy burdens that shackled Ferrari when they designed the F12. As far as I am aware, the only prerequisites were:

- 2 seater GT
- front V12 engine
- high price tag

Were there any others? Tbh, that does not seem like the most onerous list of constraints.

[flemke]

belleair302 said:

Flemke, a good letter written by yourself in the latest copy of Evo. Not long enough but straight to the point.

Not long enough, you say? That might be because they published only 1/3 of what I wrote.

[DanielSan]

That Long Tail has really improved with age, I used to think the road versions look crap tbh, now though it looks amazing!

[Chim]

flemke said:

Chim said:

Still, I digress and am not here to interrupt the love in, I am merely picking on the comments surrounding the F12 to which I disagree with, as will many others. All car evolution inevitable takes forks that not all will agree with. It should be noted though that Ferrari have been growing this car for more years than i care to remember, each evolution brings with it the baggage from the past and the requirement to look to the future, not an easy task for any design team, particularly when the eyes of the world are all over every angle of it, many with different agendas to fill.

The P1 on the other hand has no such restrictions, its a clean slate and they can do as they will with technology and design, what they have produced is of course brilliant, it remains to be seen though whether they can continue to evolve it as Ferrari have done for the last 50 years while keeping to the principles that they started out with.

So in short, it is ill advised to slight Ferrari and their direction without taking into consideration the position they are coming from.

Please describe for us these legacy burdens that shackled Ferrari when they designed the F12. As far as I am aware, the only prerequisites were:

- 2 seater GT
- front V12 engine
- high price tag

Were there any others? Tbh, that does not seem like the most onerous list of constraints.

Rather than copy verbatim take a look at the below link, very well put together site. Its gives a very clear view of the evolution of the car since the 40's and takes you through the thought process, designs, inclusion from past models etc etc. for each and every car. I do believe it does a far better job than I could of describing the legacy.

That and of course almost every review of every GT that comes out that looks for all and any links to past cars and compares them to the inth degree, it is rather obvious therefore that Frerrari must take this into consideration in everything from the exhaust tone to the handling and the very feel of the car, it has to say Ferrari.

http://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/a...

Edited by Chim on Sunday 1st March 22:39

[flemke]

Chim said:

flemke said:

Chim said:

Still, I digress and am not here to interrupt the love in, I am merely picking on the comments surrounding the F12 to which I disagree with, as will many others. All car evolution inevitable takes forks that not all will agree with. It should be noted though that Ferrari have been growing this car for more years than i care to remember, each evolution brings with it the baggage from the past and the requirement to look to the future, not an easy task for any design team, particularly when the eyes of the world are all over every angle of it, many with different agendas to fill.

The P1 on the other hand has no such restrictions, its a clean slate and they can do as they will with technology and design, what they have produced is of course brilliant, it remains to be seen though whether they can continue to evolve it as Ferrari have done for the last 50 years while keeping to the principles that they started out with.

So in short, it is ill advised to slight Ferrari and their direction without taking into consideration the position they are coming from.

Please describe for us these legacy burdens that shackled Ferrari when they designed the F12. As far as I am aware, the only prerequisites were:

- 2 seater GT
- front V12 engine
- high price tag

Were there any others? Tbh, that does not seem like the most onerous list of constraints.

Rather than copy verbatim take a look at the below link, very well put together site. Its gives a very clear view of the evolution of the car since the 40's and takes you through the thought process, designs, inclusion from past models etc etc. for each and every car.

http://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/a...

That is a nice website, but all it demonstrates is that over the years Ferrari have made a load of different cars.
Well, the other thing that it demonstrates is that, prior to the woeful hairdresser's California, Ferrari had never made a car with those ungainly gouges along the doors. Not exactly a historical obligation.

The website thus reiterates the question: what precisely in the Ferrari "DNA", legacy, whatever you want to call it, necessitated those awful gouges in the doors? They look terrible; they have no meaningful function. Why?

More generally, the website shows nothing that would inescapably have led the company to make the F12 look the way that it does. The 599 was quite a departure from the 550/575. Apart from the absolutely most basic that I mentioned (2 seater GT, V12 front engine) there has been so much diversity in the Ferrari product line over the years that almost anything is stylistic fair game.

Of other modern GTs - the various Astons, the F-type, the SL, the Conti GT - they all look either good or at least decent. The 599 and especially the 612 were attractive cars.

There was nothing that compelled Ferrari to make this ugly car. They have no excuse.

[Chim]

flemke said:

Chim said:

flemke said:

Chim said:

Still, I digress and am not here to interrupt the love in, I am merely picking on the comments surrounding the F12 to which I disagree with, as will many others. All car evolution inevitable takes forks that not all will agree with. It should be noted though that Ferrari have been growing this car for more years than i care to remember, each evolution brings with it the baggage from the past and the requirement to look to the future, not an easy task for any design team, particularly when the eyes of the world are all over every angle of it, many with different agendas to fill.

The P1 on the other hand has no such restrictions, its a clean slate and they can do as they will with technology and design, what they have produced is of course brilliant, it remains to be seen though whether they can continue to evolve it as Ferrari have done for the last 50 years while keeping to the principles that they started out with.

So in short, it is ill advised to slight Ferrari and their direction without taking into consideration the position they are coming from.

Please describe for us these legacy burdens that shackled Ferrari when they designed the F12. As far as I am aware, the only prerequisites were:

- 2 seater GT
- front V12 engine
- high price tag

Were there any others? Tbh, that does not seem like the most onerous list of constraints.

Rather than copy verbatim take a look at the below link, very well put together site. Its gives a very clear view of the evolution of the car since the 40's and takes you through the thought process, designs, inclusion from past models etc etc. for each and every car.

http://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/a...

That is a nice website, but all it demonstrates is that over the years Ferrari have made a load of different cars.
Well, the other thing that it demonstrates is that, prior to the woeful hairdresser's California, Ferrari had never made a car with those ungainly gouges along the doors. Not exactly a historical obligation.

The website thus reiterates the question: what precisely in the Ferrari "DNA", legacy, whatever you want to call it, necessitated those awful gouges in the doors? They look terrible; they have no meaningful function. Why?

More generally, the website shows nothing that would inescapably have led the company to make the F12 look the way that it does. The 599 was quite a departure from the 550/575. Apart from the absolutely most basic that I mentioned (2 seater GT, V12 front engine) there has been so much diversity in the Ferrari product line over the years that almost anything is stylistic fair game.

Of other modern GTs - the various Astons, the F-type, the SL, the Conti GT - they all look either good or at least decent. The 599 and especially the 612 were attractive cars.

There was nothing that compelled Ferrari to make this ugly car. They have no excuse.

Please Flemke, ugly it is not. As to heritage, this car harks back to the the 64 GTB as its the first point since that date that Ferrari has produced a front engined car rather than mid, there are of course countless nods in the car in everything from styling to handling to exhaust tone. It feels and drives like a ferrari should, if this was an easy feet to achieve other manufactures would be pushing them out the door. Put simply, it show owners expect there new ferrari to be.

Your primary problem with this car though appears to be what you refer to as "gouges", this is hardly new and has been a base feature of a huge number of GT's since the 308 way back in 75, since then the "gouges" have become progressively, note the word there, more pronounced over the years culminating in what we see now in the F12, in fact the "gouge" on the 456 is almost as pronounced as the F12.

The car itself is a joy to drive, pure ferrari and and from a power, performance and handling stand point its a nice evolution from the more than capable 599, a car I will add that I still have a preference for, this preference though does not exclude me from appreciating the improvements in the F12

[chris333]

danp said:

That's because the front overhang is also too long, reduce that and the NSX might work aesthetically for me, functionally I'm sure it's great.

all three varieties. I think this just emphasises the rightness of the real thing.

Edited by chris333 on Sunday 1st March 23:55

[Ali2202]

alecmets2011 said:

RobinBanks said:

It's a privilege to talk to someone from Glasgow whose car hasn't been stolen this week.

^^^

Nasty little comment. Grow up.

[flemke]

Chim said:

Please Flemke, ugly it is not. As to heritage, this car harks back to the the 64 GTB as its the first point since that date that Ferrari has produced a front engined car rather than mid, there are of course countless nods in the car in everything from styling to handling to exhaust tone. It feels and drives like a ferrari should, if this was an easy feet to achieve other manufactures would be pushing them out the door. Put simply, it show owners expect there new ferrari to be.

Your primary problem with this car though appears to be what you refer to as "gouges", this is hardly new and has been a base feature of a huge number of GT's since the 308 way back in 75, since then the "gouges" have become progressively, note the word there, more pronounced over the years culminating in what we see now in the F12, in fact the "gouge" on the 456 is almost as pronounced as the F12.

The car itself is a joy to drive, pure ferrari and and from a power, performance and handling stand point its a nice evolution from the more than capable 599, a car I will add that I still have a preference for, this preference though does not exclude me from appreciating the improvements in the F12

My friend, you really have drunk the Kool-aid.

By "64 GTB", I presume that you are referring to 275 GTB and its transaxle. Yes, all Ferrari GTs since then have had a transaxle, but many other front engine cars (including the lowly - in Ferrari terms - Corvette) also have a transaxle. Furthermore, whether a car has a transaxle has nothing to do with whether it looks great (e.g. 365 GTB, aka Daytona) or looks awful.
If you think that there was something special about the weight distribution of the F12 that necessitated its look, I would point out that the 575's weight distribution was 50-50 and the 599's was 47-53, whereas the F12's is actually between the two, at 48-52. So the transaxle had nothing to do with the design choices in the F12.

You mention the 308, saying that it too had gouges out of its doors. It is true that, ahead of the rear wing air intakes there were concavities in the sides, but they were regular and logical, necessary to allow the air to enter the apertures. Moreover, they looked okay. No one would call them "gouges". There were consistent with the rest of the design, they complemented it, they were proportionate, they did not interfere with the rest of the design. They weren't perfect, but they made sense; one could see why they were there. In a word, they worked.



In contrast, we have the Fred Flintstone Special:



The gouges (can you suggest a more appropriate word?) are disproportionate, they are neither consistent with nor complementary to the rest of the design, they have no apparent (or legitimate) function. They are just an arbitrary distortion on the side of the car to make the car look different from other things. Difference for its own sake is rarely sensible, and in this case it is entirely senseless.

Your implication that what they did to the sides of the F12 is pretty much the same thing as they did to the sides of the 456 is, to put it politely, risible. Do you actually believe that the F12 is similar to this:




As for the rest of your post, which appears to be a copy-and-paste from a Ferrari press release ("a joy to drive, pure Ferrari..."), that is really nothing to do with how the car looks, is it?

[RobinBanks]

Ali2202 said:

alecmets2011 said:

RobinBanks said:

It's a privilege to talk to someone from Glasgow whose car hasn't been stolen this week.

^^^

Nasty little comment. Grow up.

It does appear to be, but it's not.

[anniesdad]

Chim said:

Oh come on, you are seriously trying to say that the F12 is hideous, it may have some slight flaws to its character, prefer the 599 myself, to say its hideous though is simply ridiculous.

No need to thank me for the reply by the way.

Neither the F12 nor 599 look anything like as nice as this...



For me Ferrari's "design language" went awry when they started trying to create downforce with those 599 buttresses.

Flemke, I wonder what do you make of the 488GTB?

[pad58]

Ooo lots of red, I like red.

[hondafanatic]

flemke said:

Chim said:

Lots of stuff

Lots of contrary stuff

I really hope this doesn't descend into the usual PH-esque argument as I'm quite enjoying the different view points and find myself sitting on the fence a little...I never really minded the F12 but when it's stuck next to older models I can see how it's odd looking and not as cohesive.

[Storer]

IMO the best looking Ferrari was never badged as a Ferrari. The 246 Dino GTB (not the GTS, which I don't like) due to the loss of the window in the buttress.




All those lovely curves and virtually no straight edges/lines.

Ever since car designers chased aerodynamic down force their designs have lost a lot of their beauty.



Paul

[Chim]

flemke said:

My friend, you really have drunk the Kool-aid.

By "64 GTB", I presume that you are referring to 275 GTB and its transaxle. Yes, all Ferrari GTs since then have had a transaxle, but many other front engine cars (including the lowly - in Ferrari terms - Corvette) also have a transaxle. Furthermore, whether a car has a transaxle has nothing to do with whether it looks great (e.g. 365 GTB, aka Daytona) or looks awful.
If you think that there was something special about the weight distribution of the F12 that necessitated its look, I would point out that the 575's weight distribution was 50-50 and the 599's was 47-53, whereas the F12's is actually between the two, at 48-52. So the transaxle had nothing to do with the design choices in the F12.

You mention the 308, saying that it too had gouges out of its doors. It is true that, ahead of the rear wing air intakes there were concavities in the sides, but they were regular and logical, necessary to allow the air to enter the apertures. Moreover, they looked okay. No one would call them "gouges". There were consistent with the rest of the design, they complemented it, they were proportionate, they did not interfere with the rest of the design. They weren't perfect, but they made sense; one could see why they were there. In a word, they worked.



In contrast, we have the Fred Flintstone Special:



The gouges (can you suggest a more appropriate word?) are disproportionate, they are neither consistent with nor complementary to the rest of the design, they have no apparent (or legitimate) function. They are just an arbitrary distortion on the side of the car to make the car look different from other things. Difference for its own sake is rarely sensible, and in this case it is entirely senseless.

Your implication that what they did to the sides of the F12 is pretty much the same thing as they did to the sides of the 456 is, to put it politely, risible. Do you actually believe that the F12 is similar to this:




As for the rest of your post, which appears to be a copy-and-paste from a Ferrari press release ("a joy to drive, pure Ferrari..."), that is really nothing to do with how the car looks, is it?

Where to start with this, well first off I'm not a fan of Kool-aid, more a fresh orange and lemonade type of person, I find it far more refreshing. As to engine placement, do you seriously think this was an arbitrary move by of Ferrari and they undertook it just for the fun of it. My point on this it was to show the thinking in car lineage that goes with the model, the designers spend a huge amount of time looking at previous design specs of the car in order to model and capture aspects that can be tracked back in the history to give both feel relevance to what they are trying to create.

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely an aesthetic add on that drive no value other than to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surely you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. Apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches and on the concave at the doors, thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

As to why my assertion that concave's in the car have been common for many years now is "risible" is quite beyond my powers of interpretation, I have pointed out the concave's on on many cars, you have kindly provided pictorial evidence of this, the fact that, as an individual, you not do like the current concave does not remove the fact that they are but an evolution of many other cars that incorporated them.

On the "press release" statement, I will concede that these are terms that often used flippantly, I have though been fortunate enough to drive this particular car and many other incarnations of the GT mark, some have disappointed, 550 being an example, others though have excelled. Almost all though feel uniquely Ferrari with the F12 being no exception. Do not get me wrong here, I am no Ferrari fan boy, in fact I have never actually taken the plunge to ownership, preferring instead the subtle experience of Aston and Bentley, this though does not prevent me from appreciating the car and it's design challenges and history, it is an evolution that this company has managed better than any other car company on the planet, no other manufacture of a premium brand has even came close to continued success and longevity of Ferrari.

Edited by Chim on Monday 2nd March 16:57

[SpeckledJim]

Chim said:

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely aesthetic add on that drive no value other to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surly you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches on on the concave at the doors , thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

But if it's such a no-brainer engineering-lead thing to do, why has nobody else ever done it? Why doesn't the new 488 have it?

I think Ferrari have correctly realised the market for 'ohhh, cooool' is now much larger than the market for elegance. Hence the disconnected buttresses on the 599, and hence the disconnected wings on the F12.

People like holes in Ferraris, because the Ford Fiesta doesn't have holes in it.

[Chim]

SpeckledJim said:

Chim said:

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely aesthetic add on that drive no value other to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surly you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches on on the concave at the doors , thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

But if it's such a no-brainer engineering-lead thing to do, why has nobody else ever done it? Why doesn't the new 488 have it?

I think Ferrari have correctly realised the market for 'ohhh, cooool' is now much larger than the market for elegance. Hence the disconnected buttresses on the 599, and hence the disconnected wings on the F12.

People like holes in Ferraris, because the Ford Fiesta doesn't have holes in it.

Don't be ridiculous, they have realised the market for keeping the car on the road when it turns a corner, you can not keep adding ridiculous amounts of horsepower to a car without addressing traction, the best way to achieve this is downforce, that is why you are seeing this. The downforce created is quite extraordinary and credit to the aerodynamic engineers.

As to the 488 "not having them" have you actually seen the 488.

Edited by Chim on Monday 2nd March 17:04