RE: Ferrari 458 Vs McLaren 12C - The Verdict

[Life Saab Itch]

ESOG said:

Ill have the Ferrari please. The 458 and the California are the nicest Ferraris yet in my opinion. The McLaren is stunning, and it is nice to one not near a million dollars. I thought the design was ace until I saw the rear of it in this write up. Its hideously designed at the rear. Agree?

No, you lost all credibility when you said the California was " are(sic) the nicest Ferraris yet in my opinion".

[kingstondc5]

Saw a silver one in passing yesterday, thought it was a lambo at first until i saw the side intakes - would rather have the 458

[Mr Whippy]

Scuffers said:

the 'spring' in the system is the gas sphere's (look at the picture)

Uhhh, it's all getting a bit much to grasp and visualise as a single piece without a nice diagram

So we have conventional springs and wishbones all round, these impact pitch, dive, roll, heave etc.

We then have a system of sprung (air) hydraulic cylinders all ultimately linked via variable valving to control variances in left/right (roll), front/back (pitch), and up/down (heave) movements.
With appropriate control of these springs, and hydraulic valving/damping away from the main springs, they can aim to get more control of certain behaviours vs others (ie, isolate roll more and prevent it, while still allowing pitching or heave to be nicely cushioned and damped)

Makes more sense now.


It's a shame McLaren don't say this, with the aid of a nice diagram showing varying issues, and how their system has improved in them. This is the stuff that IS interesting... not just the generic marketing speak stuff they have put out (which says lots, but doesn't really explain it)

Dave

[BLGuy77]

F458 is the real deal,at least it looks like a supercar.

[6th Gear]

The Ferrari is so much prettier in my opinion

[Davey S2]

6th Gear said:

The Ferrari is so much prettier in my opinion

Agreed although it would be far better if the interior wasnt the same hue as an excited labrador's bell end.

[6th Gear]

Davey S2 said:

Agreed although it would be far better if the interior wasnt the same hue as an excited labrador's bell end.

Too right. Crema for me.

[Rich_W]

Ipelm said:

Hmmm this all seems very depressing, its like that 80's Ferrari/Lambo top speed thing, each company introduces a new model/variation a little better than the others last car. All highly irrelevant to what an owner gets out of ownership. Yes its all very well all that turn in stuff, hydraulic this and that. If you are racing and a tenth here and there is important then heyho, but jeez whats in for the owner. Oh so you can lap 5 secs better than so and so, oh big deal what are you going to do with your 5 seconds......mount it on the wall? Its all vapid and pointless ego, not to say depreciation, when all those updated variations turn up.

Its all going no where fast.....quite pitiful really, corporate egos making charlies out of the gullible rich, an expensive way to learn the value of money for some kid with a rich dad....or a dad trying to relive his idealised fantasy of his or someone elses youth.

When I worked for a Ferrari dealership some years ago the factory used to despise owners as old men just trying to pick up girls and not worth taking seriously, nothing seems to have changed. Maybe something has actually, perhaps its just another theatre for the likes of Ron Dennis and his equivalent at Ferrari to play out their ridiculous feud carried over from F1. Ego has become super-ego which has morphed into mega-ego, truly a banner for the craziness of our meaningless 'life style' times.

The most original (and perhaps accurate) thing on this thread. McLaren didn't NEED to make a road car. It does smell a little like Ron's ego at work. he can't work in F1 anymore, so wants another avenue to try and crush Ferrari at EVERY oppourtunity (pissing in the wind springs to mind) and build himself a legacy for his retirement. I think it's no surprise that Ferrari and McLarens F1 operations are getting on much much better these days with Mr Domenicalli and Whitmarsh at the helms.

coyft said:

First drag race I've seen between the two, oh and for good measure they've added a 911 turbo into the mix. http://uk.autoblog.com/2011/02/17/video-mclaren-mp...

Shocker. McLarens attempt at a Viral video makes itself look silly. 997 turbo is NOT the competitor for these cars. GT2RS is, but I guess that might beat both the F458 and 12C

[Ipelm]

otolith said:

An unusual point of view - what kind of cars do you think they should be making? Or should they just give up and close the factory gates?

I am not suggesting that they should close up, quite the opposite. They should make cars with the passion of an artist as well as that of an engineer. Some of the very best Ferraris were quite imperfect in many respects; no I am not suggesting that these cars should be designed badly. I just cannot see how any of this technology adds to the ownership experience, where is the passion? So much of these cars are dominated by engineering that enables them to be driven at race car speeds, but are inevitably almost never driven like this on real world roads. They have just become life style statements.

So why bother to make cars like this when an opportunity is lost to make something really memorable, because the engineering cannot be allowed to be compromised by sensuality, beauty, desire, proportionality and the subtle interplay between lines and curves.

[otolith]

So the cars should be more primitively engineered and more extravagantly styled? I expect there is a market for retro sports cars, but it seems that Ferrari et al prefer to be cutting edge and to compete on that basis. I suppose TVR would have filled that niche.

[Pesty]

soad said:

Not sure i'd be able to pick one...not that I could afford either

me too. head would explode and then you have to choose the colour. I would have a nervous breakdown

[flemke]

Rich_W said:

Ipelm said:

Hmmm this all seems very depressing, its like that 80's Ferrari/Lambo top speed thing, each company introduces a new model/variation a little better than the others last car. All highly irrelevant to what an owner gets out of ownership. Yes its all very well all that turn in stuff, hydraulic this and that. If you are racing and a tenth here and there is important then heyho, but jeez whats in for the owner. Oh so you can lap 5 secs better than so and so, oh big deal what are you going to do with your 5 seconds......mount it on the wall? Its all vapid and pointless ego, not to say depreciation, when all those updated variations turn up.

Its all going no where fast.....quite pitiful really, corporate egos making charlies out of the gullible rich, an expensive way to learn the value of money for some kid with a rich dad....or a dad trying to relive his idealised fantasy of his or someone elses youth.

When I worked for a Ferrari dealership some years ago the factory used to despise owners as old men just trying to pick up girls and not worth taking seriously, nothing seems to have changed. Maybe something has actually, perhaps its just another theatre for the likes of Ron Dennis and his equivalent at Ferrari to play out their ridiculous feud carried over from F1. Ego has become super-ego which has morphed into mega-ego, truly a banner for the craziness of our meaningless 'life style' times.

The most original (and perhaps accurate) thing on this thread. McLaren didn't NEED to make a road car. It does smell a little like Ron's ego at work. he can't work in F1 anymore, so wants another avenue to try and crush Ferrari at EVERY oppourtunity (pissing in the wind springs to mind) and build himself a legacy for his retirement. I think it's no surprise that Ferrari and McLarens F1 operations are getting on much much better these days with Mr Domenicalli and Whitmarsh at the helms.

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
This project was begun well before Ron "couldn't" work in F1 anymore. For years, he made it clear that he wanted the McLaren organisation to be more than a company whose only business was making 2 race cars per annum. How much of that may have been motivated by the inherent attractiveness of the high-end road car business, and how much by the apprehension that, at least as long as Mosley was running the FIA, there would be a target on McLaren's back and they would be at a systematic disadvantage, may be debatable.
In any case, it would be very unlikely indeed that a person would remove himself as team principal of a fabulously successful, elite racing team in order to gratify his ego. Exactly the reverse is typically the case, as demonstrated by literally scores of examples.

[Ipelm]

otolith said:

So the cars should be more primitively engineered and more extravagantly styled? I expect there is a market for retro sports cars, but it seems that Ferrari et al prefer to be cutting edge and to compete on that basis. I suppose TVR would have filled that niche.

Didnt say anything about 'primitive engineering.' Good design isnt primitive or retro, it is focused on the ownership experience of the customer. You have missed the point. If you own something exquisite then it must hold its place within a framework of the owners value system and must appeal to him or her on different asthetic levels, so that experience of ownership is a complete one.

Its hardly surprising that so many of these cars are traded on with little usage, once the whole ego thing has been satisfied there is no longer any point in keeping it.

[Ipelm]

flemke said:

Rich_W said:

Ipelm said:

Hmmm this all seems very depressing, its like that 80's Ferrari/Lambo top speed thing, each company introduces a new model/variation a little better than the others last car. All highly irrelevant to what an owner gets out of ownership. Yes its all very well all that turn in stuff, hydraulic this and that. If you are racing and a tenth here and there is important then heyho, but jeez whats in for the owner. Oh so you can lap 5 secs better than so and so, oh big deal what are you going to do with your 5 seconds......mount it on the wall? Its all vapid and pointless ego, not to say depreciation, when all those updated variations turn up.

Its all going no where fast.....quite pitiful really, corporate egos making charlies out of the gullible rich, an expensive way to learn the value of money for some kid with a rich dad....or a dad trying to relive his idealised fantasy of his or someone elses youth.

When I worked for a Ferrari dealership some years ago the factory used to despise owners as old men just trying to pick up girls and not worth taking seriously, nothing seems to have changed. Maybe something has actually, perhaps its just another theatre for the likes of Ron Dennis and his equivalent at Ferrari to play out their ridiculous feud carried over from F1. Ego has become super-ego which has morphed into mega-ego, truly a banner for the craziness of our meaningless 'life style' times.

The most original (and perhaps accurate) thing on this thread. McLaren didn't NEED to make a road car. It does smell a little like Ron's ego at work. he can't work in F1 anymore, so wants another avenue to try and crush Ferrari at EVERY oppourtunity (pissing in the wind springs to mind) and build himself a legacy for his retirement. I think it's no surprise that Ferrari and McLarens F1 operations are getting on much much better these days with Mr Domenicalli and Whitmarsh at the helms.

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
This project was begun well before Ron "couldn't" work in F1 anymore. For years, he made it clear that he wanted the McLaren organisation to be more than a company whose only business was making 2 race cars per annum. How much of that may have been motivated by the inherent attractiveness of the high-end road car business, and how much by the apprehension that, at least as long as Mosley was running the FIA, there would be a target on McLaren's back and they would be at a systematic disadvantage, may be debatable.
In any case, it would be very unlikely indeed that a person would remove himself as team principal of a fabulously successful, elite racing team in order to gratify his ego. Exactly the reverse is typically the case, as demonstrated by literally scores of examples.

Surely he went because his position became untenable. Both companies allowed their collective egos to spill into an area that left them at risk of of being perceived as unsporting. Wanting to win at any cost usually ends in tears. The car production theme was just another facet of this obsession

[flemke]

Ipelm said:

flemke said:

Rich_W said:

Ipelm said:

Hmmm this all seems very depressing, its like that 80's Ferrari/Lambo top speed thing, each company introduces a new model/variation a little better than the others last car. All highly irrelevant to what an owner gets out of ownership. Yes its all very well all that turn in stuff, hydraulic this and that. If you are racing and a tenth here and there is important then heyho, but jeez whats in for the owner. Oh so you can lap 5 secs better than so and so, oh big deal what are you going to do with your 5 seconds......mount it on the wall? Its all vapid and pointless ego, not to say depreciation, when all those updated variations turn up.

Its all going no where fast.....quite pitiful really, corporate egos making charlies out of the gullible rich, an expensive way to learn the value of money for some kid with a rich dad....or a dad trying to relive his idealised fantasy of his or someone elses youth.

When I worked for a Ferrari dealership some years ago the factory used to despise owners as old men just trying to pick up girls and not worth taking seriously, nothing seems to have changed. Maybe something has actually, perhaps its just another theatre for the likes of Ron Dennis and his equivalent at Ferrari to play out their ridiculous feud carried over from F1. Ego has become super-ego which has morphed into mega-ego, truly a banner for the craziness of our meaningless 'life style' times.

The most original (and perhaps accurate) thing on this thread. McLaren didn't NEED to make a road car. It does smell a little like Ron's ego at work. he can't work in F1 anymore, so wants another avenue to try and crush Ferrari at EVERY oppourtunity (pissing in the wind springs to mind) and build himself a legacy for his retirement. I think it's no surprise that Ferrari and McLarens F1 operations are getting on much much better these days with Mr Domenicalli and Whitmarsh at the helms.

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
This project was begun well before Ron "couldn't" work in F1 anymore. For years, he made it clear that he wanted the McLaren organisation to be more than a company whose only business was making 2 race cars per annum. How much of that may have been motivated by the inherent attractiveness of the high-end road car business, and how much by the apprehension that, at least as long as Mosley was running the FIA, there would be a target on McLaren's back and they would be at a systematic disadvantage, may be debatable.
In any case, it would be very unlikely indeed that a person would remove himself as team principal of a fabulously successful, elite racing team in order to gratify his ego. Exactly the reverse is typically the case, as demonstrated by literally scores of examples.

Surely he went because his position became untenable. Both companies allowed their collective egos to spill into an area that left them at risk of of being perceived as unsporting. Wanting to win at any cost usually ends in tears. The car production theme was just another facet of this obsession

You seem to be conflating different things.
The statement was made that the reason that McLaren embarked on building a road car business was that Ron was forced to leave F1. That is wrong. The fact is that McLaren had begun their new road car business well before March, '07, when the Stepney affair began.
Separately, Ron "went" from the F1 racing team 2 years later. He did that, it was transparent, because Ryan and Hamilton, in attempting to right a wrong, stupidly chose to lie to the stewards, which gave Mosley a justification to renew his crucifixion of the McLaren team. Ron's head was the price of no further penalty. So, yes, in that sense his position had become "untenable", but not for a usual reason. That situation, however, had nothing directly to do with getting into the road car business, which had been started 3 years previous.
Wrt "winning at any cost": if that were true, then McLaren would hardly have imposed the equal-treatment-for-both-drivers policy that caused them such great problems with Alonso. Rookie driver v defending champ: if you want to "win at any cost", you designate the champ as #1 driver and make the rookie serve an apprenticeship. Ironically, it was McLaren's refusal to try to win at any cost that got them into trouble.

[otolith]

Ipelm said:

Didnt say anything about 'primitive engineering.' Good design isnt primitive or retro, it is focused on the ownership experience of the customer. You have missed the point. If you own something exquisite then it must hold its place within a framework of the owners value system and must appeal to him or her on different asthetic levels, so that experience of ownership is a complete one.

Its hardly surprising that so many of these cars are traded on with little usage, once the whole ego thing has been satisfied there is no longer any point in keeping it.

Yes, I am definitely not getting your point - perhaps you could be more specific about what is wrong with the cars - should they be less powerful, less competent in the bends? Should the shape be less aerodynamically efficient? How far would you like to turn the clock back - when did these companies make cars you approve of? Is what you want not something like a Morgan, Weissman or Bristol?

[Rich_W]

flemke said:

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
.... For years, he made it clear that he wanted the McLaren organisation to be more than a company whose only business was making 2 race cars per annum. How much of that may have been motivated by the inherent attractiveness of the high-end road car business,

I would suggest that he was so enraged by anything Red with a horse on the bonnet and wanted to demonstrate the companies ability.

[quote=flemke)In any case, it would be very unlikely indeed that a person would remove himself as team principal of a fabulously successful, elite racing team in order to gratify his ego+++++++++++++++++

(EDIT what the fk is up with the quotes tonight?)



You are correct, but once he "stepped back" (to paraphrase) was it any surprise that he chose to install himself at McLaren Automotive? His long standing hatred of Maranello drives him. It's petty and it's ridiculous. As I said above. Domenicalli and Whitmarsh have brought a new calm to that rivalry (though still intense) that Dennis and Todt either couldn't or didn't want to. And given that Todt is turning out to be a great president. I have to wonder who was driving that little contretemps...

[flemke]

Rich_W said:

flemke said:

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
.... For years, he made it clear that he wanted the McLaren organisation to be more than a company whose only business was making 2 race cars per annum. How much of that may have been motivated by the inherent attractiveness of the high-end road car business,

I would suggest that he was so enraged by anything Red with a horse on the bonnet and wanted to demonstrate the companies ability.

flemke said:

In any case, it would be very unlikely indeed that a person would remove himself as team principal of a fabulously successful, elite racing team in order to gratify his ego+++++++++++++++++

(EDIT what the fk is up with the quotes tonight?)



You are correct, but once he "stepped back" (to paraphrase) was it any surprise that he chose to install himself at McLaren Automotive? His long standing hatred of Maranello drives him. It's petty and it's ridiculous. As I said above. Domenicalli and Whitmarsh have brought a new calm to that rivalry (though still intense) that Dennis and Todt either couldn't or didn't want to. And given that Todt is turning out to be a great president. I have to wonder who was driving that little contretemps...

It is believed by most that Ferrari are the benchmark for road-going sports cars. They are also considered, by many including Mosley, to be the "most important" team in F1. Therefore it is entirely logical for someone in the road-going sports car and F1 racing businesses, who has high standards, to seek to be as successful as Ferrari. Michael Schumacher wanted to win more WDCs than Fangio did. Was Schumacher "obsessed" with Fangio?

Wrt Dennis's stepping back from the racing team, your chronology is wrong. He had started McLaren Automotive before 2007, when the Stepney stuff happened, and 3 years before he stepped away from racing. He did not leave the racing team in order to start Automotive.
As for Todt's supposedly "turning out to be a great president" of the FIA, that remains to be seen. Because he was being compared with the mature Balestre, Mosley in his first year seemed pretty good, but in time the worm turned. Todt today is compared with a reference that could hardly be easier to better. Let's hold off on the final judgment for awhile.

[Rich_W]

flemke said:

?

Wrt Dennis's stepping back from the racing team, your chronology is wrong. He had started McLaren Automotive before 2007, when the Stepney stuff happened, and 3 years before he stepped away from racing. He did not leave the racing team in order to start Automotive.

I never said he did. But Automotive was going along quite nicely since 03ish (when they rebranded from Cars which of course was started way back in 88) He didn't NEED to oversee the project, but his free time and anti-Ferrari stance made him WANT to be there. And now he's there. The whole of Automotive has to engage in his "crush Ferrari" nonsense. The company is now fixated on ONE of it's rivals. To the point that they didn't even benchtest a Turbo S, let alone a GT2 or Balboni or whatever.

[Ipelm]

otolith said:

Ipelm said:

Didnt say anything about 'primitive engineering.' Good design isnt primitive or retro, it is focused on the ownership experience of the customer. You have missed the point. If you own something exquisite then it must hold its place within a framework of the owners value system and must appeal to him or her on different asthetic levels, so that experience of ownership is a complete one.

Its hardly surprising that so many of these cars are traded on with little usage, once the whole ego thing has been satisfied there is no longer any point in keeping it.

Yes, I am definitely not getting your point - perhaps you could be more specific about what is wrong with the cars - should they be less powerful, less competent in the bends? Should the shape be less aerodynamically efficient? How far would you like to turn the clock back - when did these companies make cars you approve of? Is what you want not something like a Morgan, Weissman or Bristol?

That is the point, it isnt about less of this, that or the other, its about the whole ownership experience, the key is the word 'whole.' Many great cars are far from perfect but they are great because they engage you on so many levels and therefore the onerswhip experience is a complete one. There isnt a formula, or something to go back to as you seem to be asking me. Its as much about the future as it is the past. Like you I mostly look forward to the next great automotive masterpiece; it isnt to be found in these one trick ponies.

Perhaps the final irony is if you took them onto a circuit where you can drive them to their considerable limits, someone would come along with some five grand used ex racer and blow them into the weeds. The circle of pointlessness would finally be joined.

However my experience of most of the owners of these type cars is that they will never drive them even close to their limits