RE: Geneva Special: Ferrari's Hybrid Future

[DJC]

Its nothing to do with carbon or saving the planet. The CO2 figure is just a figure, its pretty much irrelevent other than a "please aim for this" and its way more focussed on the mainstream boys.

Punters do not buy cars ...esp bloody Ferraris and Porsches... on their Co2 figures. Punters *do* buy cars on what they cost to run though and on public perception, esp. high end image sensitive motors.

What all this means for Fezza and Porsche is that their markets have changed. Their cars are bought much more by those who are sensitive to the public mood, have PR concerns and understand social context. In Porsche's case, their buying demographic is now also very much the "affordable supercar" group who heavily use finance to afford the car. This group absolutely major on the affordability of running the car and a large part of that in todays world is fuel.
The all-might God of mpg.
This stuff wacks the mpg up by 20mpg. Suddenly you just dangled an frigging huge carrot in front of your buying demographic. Thats Porsche taken care of.

Ferrari are after the PR. Just as affordability is now a massive took for Porsche's marketing dept. so PR/"cred" and high profile celebrity "cool" are mainstays of Ferrari's marketing dept. In the face of the "green cool" onslaught Ferrari couldnt not do anything. This is Ferrari moving with its buying demographics zeitgeist.

This isnt about carbon or green or regulation. Its Human Sociology 101.

[Tokamak]

Roberty said:

V88Dicky said:

Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of all this carbon scam bu llsh it? There's no escape from it, everywhere you look, adverts on telly, radio, carbon trust this, act on CO2 that. All because they think a naturally occuring gas, vital to every living thing on earth is somehow taking over the atmosphere. At 385ppm I somehow don't think so, thats 0.0385%. Muppetry of the highest order is afoot.

Ahmen, The carbon Nazi's have got the whole world by the balls over the 'Global Warming Theory', Notice these days that no one mentions the 'Theory' part anymore but it's still there, yes we are being taxed, legislated and generally ass-raped over a Theory!

Take a look at the history of our planet and you'll see that the climate is in a constant state of flux, it's f-all to do with us just another band wagon for the NCO's to profit from and the Governments to tax.

But that said I'm still glad Ferrari are looking into ways of staying in business in this carbon obsessed world we find ourselves in.

Edited by Roberty on Tuesday 2nd March 13:04

Both go look up the vibrational modes of CO2 and CH4

Get back to me.

(ewww, they made it green)

[wab172uk]

Once all these Hybrid car come on line, petrol consumption will fall, and so will Governments coffers. So all we can expect is higher taxes on everything else to make up the difference.

Allthey need now is something else to blame on Global warming, and they can Tax away.

[V88Dicky]

Tokamak said:

Roberty said:

V88Dicky said:

Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of all this carbon scam bu llsh it? There's no escape from it, everywhere you look, adverts on telly, radio, carbon trust this, act on CO2 that. All because they think a naturally occuring gas, vital to every living thing on earth is somehow taking over the atmosphere. At 385ppm I somehow don't think so, thats 0.0385%. Muppetry of the highest order is afoot.

Ahmen, The carbon Nazi's have got the whole world by the balls over the 'Global Warming Theory', Notice these days that no one mentions the 'Theory' part anymore but it's still there, yes we are being taxed, legislated and generally ass-raped over a Theory!

Take a look at the history of our planet and you'll see that the climate is in a constant state of flux, it's f-all to do with us just another band wagon for the NCO's to profit from and the Governments to tax.

But that said I'm still glad Ferrari are looking into ways of staying in business in this carbon obsessed world we find ourselves in.

Edited by Roberty on Tuesday 2nd March 13:04

Both go look up the vibrational modes of CO2 and CH4

Get back to me.

(ewww, they made it green)

Whats methane got to do with it? Or Channel Four?

[Fidgits]

wab172uk said:

Once all these Hybrid car come on line, petrol consumption will fall, and so will Governments coffers. So all we can expect is higher taxes on everything else to make up the difference.

Allthey need now is something else to blame on Global warming, and they can Tax away.

they wont though...

look at the "real" MPG of a Prius, or RX400h...

thats my point - these are a nod to an idea that simply doesnt work..

[DJC]

Fidgits said:

wab172uk said:

Once all these Hybrid car come on line, petrol consumption will fall, and so will Governments coffers. So all we can expect is higher taxes on everything else to make up the difference.

Allthey need now is something else to blame on Global warming, and they can Tax away.

they wont though...

look at the "real" MPG of a Prius, or RX400h...

thats my point - these are a nod to an idea that simply doesnt work..

Really?
My friend with an original Insight which I pointed him to buying back in 2000 or so has never seen less than 60mpg on any of his journeys. Immediately after a good service and bringing it back to tiptop shape again, it usually did about 70mpg on various journeys.

Some of us have been playing hybrid-mpg game for a long time. You should never get less than 50mpg in them, if you are you are driving like a muppet with no understanding of the advantages of your drivetrain.

[Fidgits]

right... but 50MPG is still only taking you 50 miles on a gallon of fuel...

This doesnt solve the problem...

[Mr Whippy]

E21_Ross said:

Mr Whippy said:

How big are the fines?

Dave

i'm not sure how much, but i was under the impression they are rather hefty.

More hefty than the development costs I wonder.

Personally I'd prefer to pay 10% more for my Ferrari and have it still efficient, but not excessively so to the point it's a target chaser than genuinely really efficient.

Ie, DSG box is a good 'cheat' way to about 20% reduction I'd imagine, but it's not *really* any more efficient at all, because no Ferrari driver will ever do the euro cycle in auto mode in their Ferrari


Really is very frustrating. If there really was a decent test then I'd be all for it, but these motivations and changes are all to meet specific targets that don't always mean more efficiency, just more efficiency on a certain specific not very real world test.

Dave

[Roberty]

Tokamak said:

Roberty said:

V88Dicky said:

Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of all this carbon scam bu llsh it? There's no escape from it, everywhere you look, adverts on telly, radio, carbon trust this, act on CO2 that. All because they think a naturally occuring gas, vital to every living thing on earth is somehow taking over the atmosphere. At 385ppm I somehow don't think so, thats 0.0385%. Muppetry of the highest order is afoot.

Ahmen, The carbon Nazi's have got the whole world by the balls over the 'Global Warming Theory', Notice these days that no one mentions the 'Theory' part anymore but it's still there, yes we are being taxed, legislated and generally ass-raped over a Theory!

Take a look at the history of our planet and you'll see that the climate is in a constant state of flux, it's f-all to do with us just another band wagon for the NCO's to profit from and the Governments to tax.

But that said I'm still glad Ferrari are looking into ways of staying in business in this carbon obsessed world we find ourselves in.

Edited by Roberty on Tuesday 2nd March 13:04

Both go look up the vibrational modes of CO2 and CH4

Get back to me.

(ewww, they made it green)

I shan't but if I did would it somehow tell me that the Governments are right to legislate against the cars we love, to promote Fossil fuelled powered Electric cars, or bio-fuels that are grown at the expense of the Rainforests, to tax us more for medium sized economical engines than for under powered wheezy little ones, is it really all our fault?

Is it not a theory picked up by the media and hyped beyond comprehension, rammed down our throats so hard and so often that we don't question the evidence for and against anymore just criticize those that don't conform, is it really a rock solid fact that only taxation and legislation of the developed countries can curtail?

Right or wrong, less emissions and better fuel economy can only be a good thing but don't tax and legislate on a theory. We need to stop polluting the atmosphere; Fact, we need to develop more efficient vehicles; Fact, we are causing the planet to heat up and the sea's to rise? Possibly!

[renrut]

Mr Whippy said:

E21_Ross said:

Mr Whippy said:

How big are the fines?

Dave

i'm not sure how much, but i was under the impression they are rather hefty.

More hefty than the development costs I wonder.

Personally I'd prefer to pay 10% more for my Ferrari and have it still efficient, but not excessively so to the point it's a target chaser than genuinely really efficient.

Ie, DSG box is a good 'cheat' way to about 20% reduction I'd imagine, but it's not *really* any more efficient at all, because no Ferrari driver will ever do the euro cycle in auto mode in their Ferrari


Really is very frustrating. If there really was a decent test then I'd be all for it, but these motivations and changes are all to meet specific targets that don't always mean more efficiency, just more efficiency on a certain specific not very real world test.

Dave

It may not be a simple fine as such, it may be a case of not being allowed to sell any more of them full stop. I'd imagine if I were the CO2-nazi setting up the legislation I'd make it similar to those faced by failing to meet the standard required for type approval, i.e. full stop and recall all the ones you've sold, oh and a hefty fine just to slap your wrists for doing it. Thats the sort of mistake that puts a company out of business very rapidly.

Surely Ferrari can make that goal just by rebadging some Pandas or somthing? The amount of people who wander round in Ferrari badged jackets, hats and t-shirts would suggest there is a big market there...

[Roberty]

renrut said:

Mr Whippy said:

E21_Ross said:

Mr Whippy said:

How big are the fines?

Dave

i'm not sure how much, but i was under the impression they are rather hefty.

More hefty than the development costs I wonder.

Personally I'd prefer to pay 10% more for my Ferrari and have it still efficient, but not excessively so to the point it's a target chaser than genuinely really efficient.

Ie, DSG box is a good 'cheat' way to about 20% reduction I'd imagine, but it's not *really* any more efficient at all, because no Ferrari driver will ever do the euro cycle in auto mode in their Ferrari


Really is very frustrating. If there really was a decent test then I'd be all for it, but these motivations and changes are all to meet specific targets that don't always mean more efficiency, just more efficiency on a certain specific not very real world test.

Dave

It may not be a simple fine as such, it may be a case of not being allowed to sell any more of them full stop. I'd imagine if I were the CO2-nazi setting up the legislation I'd make it similar to those faced by failing to meet the standard required for type approval, i.e. full stop and recall all the ones you've sold, oh and a hefty fine just to slap your wrists for doing it. Thats the sort of mistake that puts a company out of business very rapidly.

Surely Ferrari can make that goal just by rebadging some Pandas or somthing? The amount of people who wander round in Ferrari badged jackets, hats and t-shirts would suggest there is a big market there...

Ferrari Pedal cars!

0 CO2 emissions.

Shift enough and that's got to bring the average way down and assuming it's for kids shouldn't hurt the brand either!

Got to be better than rebadging a Panda or an Eygo

[Crow555]

DJC said:

Its nothing to do with carbon or saving the planet. The CO2 figure is just a figure, its pretty much irrelevent other than a "please aim for this" and its way more focussed on the mainstream boys.

Punters do not buy cars ...esp bloody Ferraris and Porsches... on their Co2 figures. Punters *do* buy cars on what they cost to run though and on public perception, esp. high end image sensitive motors.

What all this means for Fezza and Porsche is that their markets have changed. Their cars are bought much more by those who are sensitive to the public mood, have PR concerns and understand social context. In Porsche's case, their buying demographic is now also very much the "affordable supercar" group who heavily use finance to afford the car. This group absolutely major on the affordability of running the car and a large part of that in todays world is fuel.
The all-might God of mpg.
This stuff wacks the mpg up by 20mpg. Suddenly you just dangled an frigging huge carrot in front of your buying demographic. Thats Porsche taken care of.

Ferrari are after the PR. Just as affordability is now a massive took for Porsche's marketing dept. so PR/"cred" and high profile celebrity "cool" are mainstays of Ferrari's marketing dept. In the face of the "green cool" onslaught Ferrari couldnt not do anything. This is Ferrari moving with its buying demographics zeitgeist.

This isnt about carbon or green or regulation. Its Human Sociology 101.

Well said, everything spot on. I'm fed up of people complaining about hybrids and alternate technologies. I'm guessing that when people hear the word "hybrid", they automatically think of the Prius. Anything that makes a performance car more efficient to run in my eyes is a move forward.

renrut said:

Surely Ferrari can make that goal just by rebadging some Pandas or somthing?

Isn't that the point of the Fiat 500 Tributo Ferrari? (I think it's called that) Same idea as the Cygnet.

[Mr Whippy]

Crow555 said:

DJC said:

Stuff

Well said, everything spot on. I'm fed up of people complaining about hybrids and alternate technologies. I'm guessing that when people hear the word "hybrid", they automatically think of the Prius. Anything that makes a performance car more efficient to run in my eyes is a move forward.

But they generally are not much more efficient.

All the tests we have seen show the cycle used to collect CO2 and mpg data is based in dream land.

Did anyone catch the article on why DSG now gets much better mpg than manuals? People assume they are more efficient, but they are not, they just manage to bend a stupid rule on the test that means as they are auto they can shuffle to top gear by about 15mph, while the manual cars can't.
911 C2 DSG gets under 225g/km my arse. In real terms it'll probably do 25mpg average, not over 30mpg!

Ferrari pampering to it is their perogative, but lets not pretend that they are making performance cars that are (on the CO2/mpg figure at least) that much more efficient.

What Lambo did with the 560 Gallardo is more impressive and interesting from an efficiency point of view... making what is there already better for OVERALL benefits, not just fitting a device that plays in to the weakness of the test cycle for CO2!


Dave

[DJC]

Mr Whippy said:

Crow555 said:

DJC said:

Stuff

Well said, everything spot on. I'm fed up of people complaining about hybrids and alternate technologies. I'm guessing that when people hear the word "hybrid", they automatically think of the Prius. Anything that makes a performance car more efficient to run in my eyes is a move forward.

But they generally are not much more efficient.

All the tests we have seen show the cycle used to collect CO2 and mpg data is based in dream land.

Did anyone catch the article on why DSG now gets much better mpg than manuals? People assume they are more efficient, but they are not, they just manage to bend a stupid rule on the test that means as they are auto they can shuffle to top gear by about 15mph, while the manual cars can't.
911 C2 DSG gets under 225g/km my arse. In real terms it'll probably do 25mpg average, not over 30mpg!

Ferrari pampering to it is their perogative, but lets not pretend that they are making performance cars that are (on the CO2/mpg figure at least) that much more efficient.

What Lambo did with the 560 Gallardo is more impressive and interesting from an efficiency point of view... making what is there already better for OVERALL benefits, not just fitting a device that plays in to the weakness of the test cycle for CO2!


Dave

Well yes generally they are more efficient, i.e. they give you more mpg if you drive them properly to do so.

Nobody in the real world assumes a DSG box is more efficient than a manual, this is because nobody outside of car geeks knows what they, they are just an autobox to most and therefore its still an auto v. manual decision for them. Its only petrolheads who get riled up about this crap. Nobody else cares except what mpg they actually get out there driving.

This is why lots of very similar cars get bought...because the general public rapidly works out which are most suited to their requirements in the real world, hence the roads are ruled by VAG 1.9tdis. They give 55mpg and reliability at price points to suit.

Hybrids will give you 60mpg but at said price point + £x thousand quid.

As that equation becomes more balanced in terms of price, but the mpg aspect is weighted towards the hybrids, then they will sell more and more. The general public is very rarely as thick as either anal geeks or politicians.

[BSC]

The hype about the hybrid powered cars sucks. In China every week two new coal-burning powerstations are opened. There are burning stuck piles in China as large as South-East England. Does anybod ask how much CO2 is de-allocated?

How many jets are flying around the world without catalytic converters?

How many military waste of fuels for transport of troops and material around the world? Military vehicles and aircraft are the most polluting you can imagine as environment protection that is lowest - if any - priority. And that for wars nobody has an interest in except military personnel and weapon producing companies.

Edited by BSC on Tuesday 2nd March 23:53

[Mr Whippy]

DJC said:

Mr Whippy said:

Crow555 said:

DJC said:

Stuff

Well said, everything spot on. I'm fed up of people complaining about hybrids and alternate technologies. I'm guessing that when people hear the word "hybrid", they automatically think of the Prius. Anything that makes a performance car more efficient to run in my eyes is a move forward.

But they generally are not much more efficient.

All the tests we have seen show the cycle used to collect CO2 and mpg data is based in dream land.

Did anyone catch the article on why DSG now gets much better mpg than manuals? People assume they are more efficient, but they are not, they just manage to bend a stupid rule on the test that means as they are auto they can shuffle to top gear by about 15mph, while the manual cars can't.
911 C2 DSG gets under 225g/km my arse. In real terms it'll probably do 25mpg average, not over 30mpg!

Ferrari pampering to it is their perogative, but lets not pretend that they are making performance cars that are (on the CO2/mpg figure at least) that much more efficient.

What Lambo did with the 560 Gallardo is more impressive and interesting from an efficiency point of view... making what is there already better for OVERALL benefits, not just fitting a device that plays in to the weakness of the test cycle for CO2!


Dave

Well yes generally they are more efficient, i.e. they give you more mpg if you drive them properly to do so.

Nobody in the real world assumes a DSG box is more efficient than a manual, this is because nobody outside of car geeks knows what they, they are just an autobox to most and therefore its still an auto v. manual decision for them. Its only petrolheads who get riled up about this crap. Nobody else cares except what mpg they actually get out there driving.

This is why lots of very similar cars get bought...because the general public rapidly works out which are most suited to their requirements in the real world, hence the roads are ruled by VAG 1.9tdis. They give 55mpg and reliability at price points to suit.

Hybrids will give you 60mpg but at said price point + £x thousand quid.

As that equation becomes more balanced in terms of price, but the mpg aspect is weighted towards the hybrids, then they will sell more and more. The general public is very rarely as thick as either anal geeks or politicians.

Fair points.

But I just think back to the KISS principle.

I can't see hybrids working out cheaper in the long run, even with economies of scale in mind. Extra batteries, motors and weight will always be present vs a car sans that lot, and that will always have additional costs etc...

Will just have to see I guess. As far as public not being thick, I agree, but when their product is biased by politically set targets for no REAL reason, then it's bad.
Spend the money that has been on developing hybrids to optimise for CO2/mpg cycle test into improving car efficiency generally all over, and would it perhaps have already matched the benefits from hybrids?!

Shirley lighter cars (ultimately) are the way forward, and hybrid is a step back before it even starts in that regard!?

Dave

[davepoth]

I've got a fun idea - why not make smaller engines?

I mean the 308 made do with a three litre V8, in Italy it had a 2 litre turbo v8. I bet it would be easier to get better figures that way rather than added hybrid nonsense.

[smallgun]

Just think we may not have had this problem if the politicians hadn’t had a knee jerk reaction and insisted that all cars must have catalytic converters. Lean burn should have been the way to go then we could still have had big engines making nice noises but with minimum emissions.

Edited by smallgun on Wednesday 3rd March 12:39

[Crow555]

Mr Whippy said:

But they generally are not much more efficient.

All the tests we have seen show the cycle used to collect CO2 and mpg data is based in dream land.

Did anyone catch the article on why DSG now gets much better mpg than manuals? People assume they are more efficient, but they are not, they just manage to bend a stupid rule on the test that means as they are auto they can shuffle to top gear by about 15mph, while the manual cars can't.
911 C2 DSG gets under 225g/km my arse. In real terms it'll probably do 25mpg average, not over 30mpg!

Ferrari pampering to it is their perogative, but lets not pretend that they are making performance cars that are (on the CO2/mpg figure at least) that much more efficient.

What Lambo did with the 560 Gallardo is more impressive and interesting from an efficiency point of view... making what is there already better for OVERALL benefits, not just fitting a device that plays in to the weakness of the test cycle for CO2!


Dave

Again, I'll echo what's said. It depends how it's driven. If you remember an episode of Top Gear (no, no, don't go, there is a point) where a Prius was driven as fast as would allow against the new M3 and they found that the prius was less efficient. Hardly a shocker but then no-one drives a Prius like that unless they are actually retarded.

Just so we're clear, I don't buy the whole CO2 thing. Never have. Water vapour is a more common greenhouse gas yet hydrogen cars which output water vapour were mooted as the next big thing.

However, I do understand that pumping all sort of particulates into the air and not using what fuel we have left to it's fullest potential is largely damaging. Ergo, an hybrid/alternative fuel bashing leaves me scratching my head.

When there's no oil left, what are you going to run that Gallardo on?

[Fidgits]

Crow555 said:

When there's no oil left, what are you going to run that Prius on?

Edited for a more important point.

No matter how efficient a HYBRID is... its still a hybrid, it still needs oil-based source fuel to function.

and fully electric cars - dont make me laugh, terrible ranges, long recharge times, and where does the electricity come from?


We need to INNOVATE. Come up with a whole new solution, not a short term fix (which by the way, catalytic convertors were in the 80's, with the exception of one very significant point - they increased a CO2 emmisions by a substantial amount.... oops!)