Enzo successor spotted

  • Thread starter McLaren
  • 675 comments
  • 64,386 views
It looks better with less reflective paint. Like the McLaren P1, it still doesn't look beautiful, but it looks menacing enough (without being ugly) to create an impression.

Two cars styled by aesthetically ignorant aerodynamics will never be design masterpieces, but instead they could very well be technical masterpieces. The design was never what the car is really about: good enough sums it up, and that's better than the worst case scenario.

Car still needs a name though.
 
Isn't the car (in production) referred to as the "F150"? I suppose we could all refer to it as that and never mention the other "name" ever again?
 
Horde_R35
This is more like it.

860801_422114847881525_1312829609_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Besides the rear spoiler, I have to say...that black area in front of the rear wheel actually does make the rear end look more lean. I'm rather surprised by that. Good call! I also like the black wheels.
 
Just did a quick edit of this picture and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this makes the front look much better
laferrariedit.jpg


(p.s. please excuse the poor editing, not very good at it :dunce: )
 
NFSCARBON1
Just did a quick edit of this picture and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this makes the front look much better

(p.s. please excuse the poor editing, not very good at it :dunce: )
Click to expand...

IMO it looks so much better. The new supercars today have to much curves and lining, you made it looked much simpler, bravo
 
SagarisGTB
Two cars styled by aesthetically ignorant aerodynamics
Click to expand...

That's not what happened here, or at McLaren. And I'd wager the aerodynamicists would give the stylists a run for their money.

You wouldn't find a car designed that way though, not today. It used to be that one group (say chassis) did their part, and handed it down to someone else (styling) and they had to work with that. It would go down the line until the car is done. Today, everything is done at once, and the engineers were probably arguing with the stylists the whole time.
 
-> New vid for the F70/F150/LaLaLaFerrari:



^ As if Ferrari keeps on comparing (bashing?) on the (F60) Enzo?
 
Exorcet
That's not what happened here, or at McLaren. And I'd wager the aerodynamicists would give the stylists a run for their money.

You wouldn't find a car designed that way though, not today. It used to be that one group (say chassis) did their part, and handed it down to someone else (styling) and they had to work with that. It would go down the line until the car is done. Today, everything is done at once, and the engineers were probably arguing with the stylists the whole time.
Click to expand...

Agree. It's probably even worse. I'd imagine it as a three-way tussle between aerodynamicists, stylists and engineers.

Neither car looks completely aero. If the aero-people had their way, all cars would look like the XL1. And even the XL1 has features that are dictated by style... the sidescoops are no longer functional, but stay on the final model.

Instead, compromises have (very obviously) been made for cooling, structural strength and styling. An aerodynamicist would not add the cutouts on the side, creating more turbulence simply to feed air to the radiators... they would have tried to source air from the front of the car and via smaller ducts here and there in pressure pockets (like under the car). The cutaway is partly functional and partly for show, just like the aero-bridges and flying buttresses on the F12 and the 599.
 
One big thing that people sometimes don't realize is that a curved rear end, like that on the McLaren is not ideal for aerodynamics. Actually curvature in general is a bad idea once you get past the front wheels. The side profile for both cars, excluding the driver area, gets higher for both cars which is also the opposite of what you would want to do.
 
Exorcet
That's not what happened here, or at McLaren. And I'd wager the aerodynamicists would give the stylists a run for their money.

You wouldn't find a car designed that way though, not today. It used to be that one group (say chassis) did their part, and handed it down to someone else (styling) and they had to work with that. It would go down the line until the car is done. Today, everything is done at once, and the engineers were probably arguing with the stylists the whole time.
Click to expand...
Some things aren't meant to be taken so literally. ;)

My point was that aerodynamicists have had a bigger hand in the design of these two cars than perhaps any previous car that has gone on sale. In addition there's the sizable cooling demands, so the exterior stylists have had their hands tied in many ways. The photoshops by NFSCARBON1 and oskierox show just how easy it is to make this car look better, but the performance demands ensure it was never so easy for Ferrari.
 
I feel you've got it the wrong way around. I look at the car and see one in which the stylists have had their way and aerodynamics took a back seat to styling cues that had been decided in advance. The front valance, for example is a blatant homage to F1. If the car were designed for aerodynamic efficiency, all those dramatic, open cut lines would be gone. The side scoops served by that dramatic cutaway would perhaps have been better served by a more streamlined duct... which would have made designing the doors and crash structure easier. In fact, you could aerodynamically improve that cut-away by lengthening the trailing edge of the rear fender to reduce drag yet still deliver a large volume of air to the scoop.

You want a car where styling took a backseat to aerodynamics? Take a look at the Mercedes CLA. This one? Not so much.
 
niky
Neither car looks completely aero. If the aero-people had their way, all cars would look like the XL1.
Click to expand...

I doubt the XL1 creates same amount of downforce as the P1/LaFerrari.

For a high performance supercar the optimized downforce/drag ratio is very different.
 
SagarisGTB
My point was that aerodynamicists have had a bigger hand in the design of these two cars than perhaps any previous car that has gone on sale.
Click to expand...
I don't think there would be much difference between this car and most other cars. The only time aero people would have full reign would be really fast race cars like LMP and F1.

This is Ferrari's flagship, I highly doubt that the look of the vehicle would take a backseat to anything. Ferrari probably wanted to it to look as it did while performing as it did.

The photoshops by NFSCARBON1 and oskierox show just how easy it is to make this car look better, but the performance demands ensure it was never so easy for Ferrari.[/QUOTE]

Well, NFS would have blown the engine, and I don't think the ducting on the hood is much of a problem. The gap running along of the side of the car isn't an aero feature, I don't see what purpose it would serve.

alonsof1fan91
I doubt the XL1 creates same amount of downforce as the P1/LaFerrari.

For a high performance supercar the optimized downforce/drag ratio is very different.
Click to expand...

They have the underbody and retractable wings for that. You would also want to streamline the car for downforce because it will make sure that the air at the back of the car has maximum total pressure, which makes wings and whatever else more effective.

Toyota+TS030+Hybrid+LMP1+2013+Side.jpg


Lots of curvature in the front that dies down into a near straight downward slope in the rear. The very end of the car kicks up for downforce.
 
It's about efficiency of shape. While the LaFerrari has excellent aero, stylistic panel gaps really aren't great for aero, creating small areas of turbulence that the aerodynamics group need to iron out. Then there is the front F1 winglet, which is pretty useless, and the rear pillar meant to simulate the tail-light on an F1. It's all about style.

I take back what I said about the front fender cut-off. I'm beginning to see how it all works together. The official site has a lovely 360 degree viewer that shows the car of much better than staid photographs. The air diverted from the front air intakes comes out of a vent inboard of the wheels, possibly pulling the air coming over the fender down into the rear intakes or creating a cushion that makes it go over the rear fender instead. Again, needlessly complex. Likely done by Ferrari simply because it was cool, not because it was the most efficient solution. Again, like the aerobridge on the F12 or the buttresses on the 599. Both aerodynamic, but applied for the sake of doing something unusual from a design/style point of view.

I'm loving the official viewer. Be warned, the shape is mesmerizing in motion. I think I've found the first modern Ferrari I want as a 1:18 scale.

http://www.laferrari.com/en/design/
 
Last edited:
Relax guys, I just said you can't compare the XL1 with the LaFerrari or P1 ;)

While it must perform like nothing seen before, the Enzo successor also has to look magnificent. Dont judge this car by the first look. The Enzo is 11years old and still looks more futuristic then most sports cars you see today. I already prefer this one over the P1 on looks.
 
Thanks for posting the link, Niky.

The more I look at this car the more I think there are some elements of the design that just don't work together.

The front of the car just doesn't seem to fit with the overall design... it looks like someone else designed it and then just stuck on to the rest of the car... to me, from head on, the front looks too square (a function of the sharp crease that run across the front and round to the arches) which in turn makes the whole of the bonnet look too flat and wide in relation to the cockpit area.

The rear seems to have a lot of black carbon just filling the gap between the rear lip and the diffuser.

I'd like to see one in person to see if the curves translate better in reality than pictures.
 
I've been telling people to check out the site pages ago. lol

But yea, my opinion hasn't changed. I think this car looks wonderful.

I have a theory with the gap running down the front side panels, and the rear and back panels. To allow for proper clearance of the active spoiler system, that gap had to be there. So as a design feature, and to maybe blend the space in the rear, the same length gap was placed around the rear and front.

I can't think of any other reason for it being there.
 
I think it's just a styling feature to hide what would otherwise be a tricky panel gap to get right on the rear cover. The front is there just to balance with the rear aesthetically.
 
Stotty
I think it's just a styling feature to hide what would otherwise be a tricky panel gap to get right on the rear cover. The front is there just to balance with the rear aesthetically.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I believe Ferrari really outdid themselves, and exceeded my expectations. Where's my scale models, tho?

IIRC, the f12berlinetta was announced with 1/43 scale models ready for order right on Ferrari's own site.
 
DeathSmiles
I've been telling people to check out the site pages ago. lol

But yea, my opinion hasn't changed. I think this car looks wonderful.

I have a theory with the gap running down the front side panels, and the rear and back panels. To allow for proper clearance of the active spoiler system, that gap had to be there. So as a design feature, and to maybe blend the space in the rear, the same length gap was placed around the rear and front.

I can't think of any other reason for it being there.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one that thinks it's a nod to the F40?
 
^ Ask Ferrari. j/k :sly:

-> Seriously. It started with the Enzo, calling the supposed to be the F60 "Ferrari Enzo Ferrari"...:odd:

-> Then the "California", I'm still looking the real alpha-numerical number of the damn thing! :grumpy:

-> Now its "LalalalalaLaFerrari", really!? It could've been better if it was called the "F150" so Ford can teach a thing or two about letting go your EgGO . :indiff:

^ Whatever, I'd still call this Ferrari the F70 and thats it! :indiff:
 

Latest Posts

Back