If I understand it correctly, the Supercamerica was not really a Ferrari in that it was rebodied by Ghia. In any case, Ferrari hadn't really established itself yet in the 1950s and so there was more variation the design language. The 125-166 look more British than Italian to my eyes, for instance.
You can't prove that something is not ugly, that's an absurd statement.
Sure, you didn't specify what they would be wrong about, but your whole post was about you thinking it's not as ugly as most people seem to think. So when you then said you wanted to prove everyone wrong it seemed like you wanted to prove them wrong about the car being ugly.
I think that you're missing a key point from the end of what these plenty of people are saying, which is that it's also $640,000.
I've heard of people spitting in roadsters with the top down, but is urinating on cars in public a common thing I've just never heard about? It's probably happened once or twice but I've never heard of someone doing that myself. I'll just assume it's hyperbole because this is apparently the worst car of all time.
Remind me where I said that it was the worst car of all time again?
Okay, but this doesn't seem to be actually related to anything in particular.
If you tl;dred right through that: it's ugly and it's expensive, which is why it won't sell well in general terms and is also likely not to sell well in Ferrari terms, but will sell well enough in the sense that Ferrari will probably sell every one it plans to build so won't be a "sales flop".
My response is that, from what I've read, they don't seem to be saying that. In fact I've seen comments that it will sell despite being ugly because it's a Ferrari (which also seems to be the second part of your response).
You spent a good chunk of your last post italicizing the price and comparing it to a Polestar that's a quarter of said price, so that seems pretty clearly like you were trying to say it was overpriced to me, so I replied by saying whether a Ferrari is overpriced or not doesn't matter and they've always been historically? Why do you think that's not related to anything.
Also... it's there, I don't get why people don't see this? It has the quad lamps in the rear, it has the black bar across the front like the old Daytona and the other new-age Ferraris, just done in a different way. The interior is straight out of the 70s and 80s era of the company. But since it's a different take on the design that people don't like suddenly those very intentional design cues are invalidated? Or the lineage just doesn't exist anymore?
I mean what I'm mainly trying to argue against here is everyone seems to now be the gatekeepers of what a Ferrari is and isn't, which I think is ridiculous. We'll see how the sales go and if it does end up being a flop I suppose, but I'm pretty confident this car is destined mainly for the Chinese market and the rising upper middle class that the tech industry's wealth created. They're trying to exploit potential new customers in a new market. so of course it isn't going to be a traditional hypercar that looks like an F80 or a grand tourer that looks like a slightly raised 12Cilindri.
Also called being stuck up ****ers with no idea how business works. I'd hazard a guess that those same people also complained about the Cayenne not being a Porsche, and the Urus not being a Lamborghini, but the former basically saved the entire company from going under and the latter sold so much that the production lines had to be expanded.
I italicised the price once, from two mentions of it, and that was to highlight the fact you'd entirely omitted it as a consideration.
You're making assumptions again. I don't try to say things, I say them - and this is very much an issue here where you're making up stuff I didn't say and responding to that instead - and where did I actually say it was overpriced? I said it was expensive and indeed "too expensive" with a very specific reason.
Only occasionally something Ferrari does, and not something particularly denoting a Ferrari: Chevrolet (not just the Corvette either; the early-00s Impala), Nissan/Infiniti, Bugatti, even the Mk5 Golf (when illuminated) all have round dual lamps. No current other Ferrari has round dual lamps either - the last was the 812 Superfast, unless you want to include the squircles on the SF90 - and those that do employ a dual lamp motif of some kind only illuminate in bars. The 12Cilindri, Amalfi, Purosangue, 849 Testarossa, and 296 GTB/GTS all have a light bar.
Very different, in that it isn't really there. The black portion you can see next to the C-shaped headlight clusters is in fact part of the entire front portion of the car up to the windscreen scuttle and acts as an air duct. A body-coloured (umm... the bits other than black) section sits over that in a similar but different way to how the Pista was set up.
I'm not totally sure Ferrari would thank you for that one, but about which bit are you speaking? The podding of everything isn't particularly Ferrariesque (squint a bit and I might see less-fussy Lamborghini Jalpa), it's stuck with a three-spoke wheel since ever (without loads of buttons it takes up back pre-00s and without shift paddles it takes us back pre-90s), and the ribbed seats which are the closest to a 1980s Ferrari have been an option on pretty much all of them.
It does though have lots of current cars and there was no need to go blank-sheet; it's absolutely possible to make a car that looks a bit like your other cars but also not entirely because it's not limited by traditional ICE constraints.
That wasn't part of the original post, and hasn't been part of any of what I've said thus far. Feel free to quote and respond to other people who are saying that if that's the thing you want to argue against, rather than those of someone who isn't.
I was pointing out that you're missing the price as part of the reason it won't sell well by comparison to other cars (and other Ferraris), not just because it's a crap design (overall and in detail), but also stated that it won't be a "sales flop" because Ferrari will sell every one it intends to sell. Nothing more, nothing different, nothing you need to think I was trying to say but somehow couldn't or didn't. Just that.
I don't know if it'll be a smash hit in China, but Ferrari has confirmed their order sheets are currently sold out through 2027.
Well... there's estimates
The guy whose job it used to be to do that and incredibly successfully too, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, said he hopes Ferrari takes the Ferrari badge off it...
It's my opinion, but I don't count the Cayenne or the Urus as belonging to their original manufacturer's ethos. For example, the Cayenne saved Porsche, just as the 924 and 944 saved Porsche, but both cars came through market-driven decisions rather than anything that followed the philosophies of their heritage.
Interestingly, Lotus went through something pretty similar recently.
That's actually the one thing I appreciate about the Luce: they gave it Ferrari performance figures.
All of these claims that the Luce is ugly because it is appealing to the Chinese market make no sense. You could buy a plethora of luxury EVs in China for one tenth the price of the Luce. The Luce does not offer anything particularly unique in that segment in the Chinese market other than the Ferrari badge. And China has not ever been a significant market Ferrari; in fact, Ferrari sales in China have declined in recent years. So it’s pretty clear that the Luce was not designed with China in mind, let alone China being the reason why the Luce looks so homely.
