A Green Ferrari?

[JohnRgt 0]

Ferrari had recently announced a series of Green policies that will go a long way to kill not only an automoitve icon, but a concern that has become an interantional symbol of all-out passion.

Read, if you have the stomach:

Link

Meanwhile, Porsche is busy hoarding VW Group stock is an attempt to purchase the ailing giant automaker. Why would this tiny and last independent sportscar maker of note be looking to buy a behemoth that isn't making $$$s? Why, to protect itself from EU-mandated CO2 emissions/vehicle quotas, of course. (What's next? Porsche Oil?)

[PhilO 0]

Ferrari had recently announced a series of Green policies that will go a long way to kill not only an automoitve icon, but a concern that has become an interantional symbol of all-out passion.

Read, if you have the stomach:

Link

While environmentalist insanity might be something of a driver, I don't think that the approach of using modern materials and technology to improve the power density of the cars is against the idea of "faster/better sports cars." For example, with better technology to store electrical power (batteries are notoriously lagging other technologies), it seems probable that an all-electric car could smoke any gas burner because of the ability to instantaneously supply enormous power at full torque from a standing start. For example see Tesla Motors. Even at the first generation of their cars, it can do 0-60 in about 4 seconds, pretty respectable. Greater efficiency simply makes sense and make more possible, though it's unfortunate if it's done in the name of placating environmentalists who'll hate the technology anyway.

[Paul's Here 0]

Ferrari had recently announced a series of Green policies that will go a long way to kill not only an automoitve icon, but a concern that has become an interantional symbol of all-out passion.

Read, if you have the stomach:

Link

Meanwhile, Porsche is busy hoarding VW Group stock is an attempt to purchase the ailing giant automaker. Why would this tiny and last independent sportscar maker of note be looking to buy a behemoth that isn't making $$$s? Why, to protect itself from EU-mandated CO2 emissions/vehicle quotas, of course. (What's next? Porsche Oil?)

Instead it was back to the drawing board to prove, as one Ferrari spokesman put it, that a two-ton car with 1000bhp is not the future. But a one-ton car with 500-600bhp? Now that might be the answer…

Why not zero-ton with 0 bhp? Now that IS the answer!!!

[JohnRgt 0]

While environmentalist insanity might be something of a driver, I don't think that the approach of using modern materials and technology to improve the power density of the cars is against the idea of "faster/better sports cars."

First off, there is a huge, effort to bring EU sports car manufacturers "in line."

One prong of this attack has focussed on racing.

Examples:

-- Le Mans handicapping diesel race cars so much, that Audi's massive displacement diesel racers have dominated the event of late. (The excuse offered was that most Europeans own diesels and so the race should reflect that fact. Perhaps the race should allow buses, and trains to run, as most European transit miles per person are logged in these modes of transportation. How about pedestrians and/or bicycles at Le Mans?)

-- Formula One, perhaps the most sophisticated race venue around, is mandating hybrids, has announced a permanent displacement ceiling of 2.4 liters, and is looking into mandating biofriendly fuels under the claim that some of these fuels yield more power. (True, biodiesel has been shown to yield more power in conventional engines with very few adjustments to the engine. Also true that jet fuels have been shown to do the same for decades -- where's that jet fuel racer, guys?) Of particular alarm is the fact that the rear wings of Honda's F1 cars will no longer carry advertising. These prized ad spots have been delegated to displaying pro-Green one-liners; Honda is actually encouraging people to send in suggestions for this bulletin board. (Honda has been in this mode for some time.)

US racing isn't immune to such pressures:

-- NASCAR is looking into abandoning carburetors and pushrod valve actuation, embracing alternative fuels, talking about Direct Fuel Injection, etc., all in defiance of the culture that has made NASCAR the biggest annual sporting series in the world. (Let's avoid the usual OHV vs OHC debate.)

-- The Pike's Peak race has been forever altered by the paving of the road this unique race is run on. (Apparently, the tons of dirt thrown around by race cars drifting was going to wreck North America's ecosystems.)

Second, it's pretty obvious that lightening a car goes a long way in improving performance -- it's all car magazines and forums talk about.

Ferrari has been at this for a long time. I think they're the only car maker with an all-aluminum model-line. Their 10-year anniversary models (F40, F50, F60, aka, Enzo) have showcased weight-saving technology and design for decades, and some of the most advanced composites companies in the world exist because Ferrari, primarily for its F1 campaigns, researches lightness like no other.

The reasons their street cars aren't lighter is because, 1) safety regulations, 2) the level of trim and equipment packages the market is demanding. (Due to 2, it's difficult to envision Ferrari choosing to force customers into fix seats and lower trim levels in the name of reducing a given model's weight by 50kg. If such measures were acceptable they would've been implemented long before more expensive weight-savings approaches were researched and implemented.)

For example, with better technology to store electrical power (batteries are notoriously lagging other technologies)

I'd bet that there are solid reasons why batteries haven't been developed further at this time.

it seems probable that an all-electric car could smoke any gas burner because of the ability to instantaneously supply enormous power at full torque from a standing start.

Sure. Many hybrids have incredible launch numbers because they unleash their electric reserves in tandem with the best efforts of their combustion engines. Some day all-electrics may very well make today's fastest cars look like chariots. From my regular reading of car magazines, I see nothing that indicates that that day has come, and so I don't believe that attempts to accelerate its arrival via compulsion is going to do yeild anything but compromised designs.

For example see Tesla Motors. Even at the first generation of their cars, it can do 0-60 in about 4 seconds, pretty respectable.

This car has been talked to death on all sorts of forums. Its numbers are incredible and encouraging. But the fact that Tesla is packed with potential doesn't mean that this is the time for Ferrari to implement these technologies.

Greater efficiency simply makes sense and make more possible

Forgive me, but how was this 101-level point challenged?

Ferrari's image is intertwined with its racing success like no other car maker's. Once racing became a target, Ferrari became a target and had to act. The result is that the world's quintessential sportscar icon is about to start towing a good part of the Green line.

[PhilO 0]

Ferrari's image is intertwined with its racing success like no other car maker's. Once racing became a target, Ferrari became a target and had to act. The result is that the world's quintessential sportscar icon is about to start towing a good part of the Green line.

Ok, you make a good case, and you know a lot more about the situation (and sports cars) than I do. I wasn't suggesting that Ferrari ought to currently be focusing on all-electric or even hybrids, simply that someday, based on fundamental physical differences, the electrics will most likely be able to outperform any internal combustion engine, and it's a reasonable approach for a high performance car company, if they want to really push the frontiers rather than refining what amounts to 100 year old gasoline internal combustion technology. But, it is not for the environmentalists or anyone else to dictate how Ferrari and NASCAR should run their cars, and they ought to be fighting the viros, but as with practically every other company, they're intellectually disarmed.

Regarding battery technology, I wouldn't say there's a "good reason" for it lagging besides a lack of R&D. For most of the 20th century, lead-acid batteries were "good enough", but with the advent of the electronic age, they (and other existing battery technology) aren't even close to good enough anymore. There's been a surge of recent research which will probably yield vastly better designs, as well as fuel cells which can utilize hydrocarbon energy far more efficiently.

[JohnRgt 0]

Regarding battery technology, I wouldn't say there's a "good reason" for it lagging besides a lack of R&D. For most of the 20th century, lead-acid batteries were "good enough",

Isn't the lack of a serious need and/or lack of demand for a better battery a good reason to focus one's financial reserves somewhere other than battery-related R&D?

but with the advent of the electronic age, they (and other existing battery technology) aren't even close to good enough anymore

There's been a shift in need/demand and it's being answered -- not fast enough, perhaps, but they're on it. Why should all those funds and mind-hours have gone to improving a product prematurely?

There's been a surge of recent research which will probably yield vastly better designs, as well as fuel cells which can utilize hydrocarbon energy far more efficiently.

My sailing buddies can't wait for fuel cells and high-capacity batteries, as running a diesel engine for hours every day just to store enough power for minimal equipment operations gets old fast. (Imagine being limited to two hours of computer time per day!)

[JohnRgt 0]

Note how neat the Green approach is: it not only has moved Ferrari and race organizers to compromise, but its forced billions of race-realted R&D funds and as some of the best engineering minds available to focus on bring about solutions to unsubstantiated problems.

[PhilO 0]

There's been a shift in need/demand and it's being answered -- not fast enough, perhaps, but they're on it. Why should all those funds and mind-hours have gone to improving a product prematurely?

I don't think it should have - but better technology is desperately needed in many areas - millions of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, including for military applications (U.S. soldiers now have to carry a large array of electronic devices with inadequate power supplies). Cars will be one particularly big payoff.

[JohnRgt 0]

Here's a video link to Jay Leno's first impressions of the Tesla Roadster:

Link

[KPO'M 0]

Meanwhile, Porsche is busy hoarding VW Group stock is an attempt to purchase the ailing giant automaker. Why would this tiny and last independent sportscar maker of note be looking to buy a behemoth that isn't making $$$s? Why, to protect itself from EU-mandated CO2 emissions/vehicle quotas, of course. (What's next? Porsche Oil?)

No, there's another reason why Porsche took control of VW. VW was founded by Ferdinand Porsche (who designed the VW Beetle for NAZI Germany as a response to the cheap cars available in the US at the time). Sometime after the war, VW was restored as the publicly-held mass market producer, while the Porsche family continued to run the eponymous sports car maker. Lots of Porsches have held management positions at VW through the years, including Ferdinand Piech, who was the CEO of VW in the 1990s. He's an authoritarian CEO type who is known for over-engineering cars (hence the reason VWs cost so much but have interiors that fit perfectly), and who has been eyeing VW ever since he left VW and returned to the Porsche board a few years ago.

[JohnRgt 0]

No, there's another reason why Porsche took control of VW. VW was founded by Ferdinand Porsche (who designed the VW Beetle for NAZI Germany as a response to the cheap cars available in the US at the time). Sometime after the war, VW was restored as the publicly-held mass market producer, while the Porsche family continued to run the eponymous sports car maker. Lots of Porsches have held management positions at VW through the years, including Ferdinand Piech, who was the CEO of VW in the 1990s. He's an authoritarian CEO type who is known for over-engineering cars (hence the reason VWs cost so much but have interiors that fit perfectly), and who has been eyeing VW ever since he left VW and returned to the Porsche board a few years ago.

A few points:

-- VW was not founded by FP.

-- I'm not sure either which Porsche family members or management positions you're referring to when you write that "lots of Porsches have held management positions" at VW. The key players I know of that have been pillars at VW were Ferdinand Porsche and his grandson, Ferdinand Piech. Are we including Ferdinand Piech's father, who was the first VW CEO after the war? Strictly speaking, he's not a Porsche. Didn't he marry the fierce Louise Porsche Piech after being named VW CEO? And even if we accept him as a Porsche, that's "just" three Porsche family members involved at VW in determining positions. Having said all that: Even if there were an army of Porsches at VW over the years: what are you implying with this reference?

-- The current Piech never left VW -- he simply stepped down from the CEO position.

-- I wouldn't say he over-engineers. I'd say he looks to add a ton of value to models priced just above average, a good thing for everyone.

-- Porsche AG is being forced to surrender its coveted image as the last independent sports car maker because of Emissions Laws -- they simply won't be allowed to sell cars if their average emissions/vehicle don't rise, and the only way to do that and maintain part of their image is to merge with a mainstream manufacturer that doesn't have a huge sports car tradition. Therefore, irrespective of Piech's alleged desire for VW Group, Porsche AG, a huge part of Piech's portfolio, BTW, needs to be sheltered form the loony Greens -- soon!

-- VW is bleeding money, and there's an army of stockholders who want the current Porsche AG management team to take over. They're actually willing to sell a significant percentage of their stock to Porsche AG bellow market value to assure this takeover happens (happened? the most current info I have is that the EU courts ruled against objections to the takeover raised by several layers of German Gov, clearing the way for one of the largest industrial restructurings in history. BTW: POrsche AG has been the most profitable automobile manufacturer of note for several years -- this after they almost went belly-up in the very late 1980s-early 1990s.)

Q: Are you implying that Piech's alleged desire for VW Group is a bad thing and/or indicative of a some sort of ill motive on his part?

[JohnRgt 0]

This is what they want people with the passion and means to buy supercars reduced to. (I'd rather go out in a great ball of fire like this )

[Thales 0]

This is what they want people with the passion and means to buy supercars reduced to.

I'd seen that before. It looks like fun for what it is, but, yeah, don't want that as my main means of travel.

(I'd rather go out in a great ball of fire like this )

Absolutely! I believe that's technically a rocket on wheels.

[JohnRgt 0]

-- Porsche AG is being forced to surrender its coveted image as the last independent sports car maker because of Emissions Laws -- they simply won't be allowed to sell cars if their average emissions/vehicle don't rise,

I meant to type, "they won't be alllowed to sell cars if their average emissions/vehicle doesn't drop."

[PhilO 0]

I meant to type, "they won't be alllowed to sell cars if their average emissions/vehicle doesn't drop."

I read recently that hidden underground coal seam fires, some of which have been naturally burning for thousands of years, emit more CO2 annually than the sum total of all vehicles in North America. So again, the whole thing is ludicrous anyway, even accepting the bogus premise of evil GW.

[JRoberts 0]

This might be slightly off-topic, but I have no idea when this general "green" shift happened. I had known that the "green" campaign had been going on for awhile, but rarely saw it. However, today, I was at Wal-Mart...and almost everywhere I looked, I saw "Green...", or "Save the Earth...". Green Campbell's Soup. Environmentalist T-shirts. Green "wrapping" on DVD's and CD's, etc. etc. When did everything go green?

.

[JohnRgt 0]

I meant to type, "they won't be alllowed to sell cars if their average emissions/vehicle doesn't drop."

I read recently that hidden underground coal seam fires, some of which have been naturally burning for thousands of years, emit more CO2 annually than the sum total of all vehicles in North America. So again, the whole thing is ludicrous anyway, even accepting the bogus premise of evil GW.

That's so funny I'm crying, Phil. What is wrong with these people?

One solution (please sub "Green" for "Yuppie," the private jets or limos used by Green leaders for the BMW):

Link

[JohnRgt 0]

For this interested, I posted on a relevant editorial from one of the most respected sport car magazines available here.

[Lady Brin 0]

For this interested, I posted on a relevant editorial from one of the most respected sport car magazines available here.

I remember reading this thread - and I just noticed one day this week that the VW is water cooled. Does the back of the car even open? I didn't see a handle, but I wasn't really looking because I was so shocked to the *bonnet* open.

[JohnRgt 0]

Jeremy Clarkson, the lead host of BBC's Top Gear, will say anything at any time for a laugh, will exaggerate to the nth to stress a point. However, in a video I saw recently he seemed perfectly serious when he said that "in the more polluted cities of the world, LA, Calcutta, [etc], the air coming out of the Porsche 911 turbo is cleaner than the air going in."

Shame that isn't enough for the EU.

[Arnold 0]

Jeremy Clarkson, the lead host of BBC's Top Gear, will say anything at any time for a laugh, will exaggerate to the nth to stress a point. However, in a video I saw recently he seemed perfectly serious when he said that "in the more polluted cities of the world, LA, Calcutta, [etc], the air coming out of the Porsche 911 turbo is cleaner than the air going in."

Shame that isn't enough for the EU.

They did a test in London with a SAAB 9000, and the air was being purified by the engine. If you want to commit suicide one-day, you will have to look for an old car.

[Lady Brin 0]

Jeremy Clarkson, the lead host of BBC's Top Gear, will say anything at any time for a laugh, will exaggerate to the nth to stress a point. However, in a video I saw recently he seemed perfectly serious when he said that "in the more polluted cities of the world, LA, Calcutta, [etc], the air coming out of the Porsche 911 turbo is cleaner than the air going in.

They did a test in London with a SAAB 9000, and the air was being purified by the engine. If you want to commit suicide one-day, you will have to look for an old car.

I don't quite understand how this works (yeah, yeah, yeah I know I'm a girl and should worry my pretty little head over it . Is it just because of the air-filter? How often do you have to change it?

As an aside, I admit I'm perplexed why Porsche switched to water-cooled when Dr. F was adamant about them being air-cooled. Water-cooling allows engines larger displacement which increases hp and torque while allowing the engines to run much cooler (right?). But, why the switch in concept? The *Purists* always exclaim "If it ain't air-cooled, it ain't a Porsche!" Why?

[JohnRgt 0]

They did a test in London with a SAAB 9000, and the air was being purified by the engine. If you want to commit suicide one-day, you will have to look for an old car.

I don't quite understand how this works (yeah, yeah, yeah I know I'm a girl and should worry my pretty little head over it . Is it just because of the air-filter? How often do you have to change it?

It's probably a combination of the efficiency and/or tune of the combustion process, the catalytic converters, etc.

As an aside, I admit I'm perplexed why Porsche switched to water-cooled when Dr. F was adamant about them being air-cooled. Water-cooling allows engines larger displacement which increases hp and torque while allowing the engines to run much cooler (right?). But, why the switch in concept? The *Purists* always exclaim "If it ain't air-cooled, it ain't a Porsche!" Why?

Water cooling allows for higher compression ratios, yielding more power and less pollutants. It also yields quieter engines, a big deal on the Continent.

As for the "If it ain't air-cooled, it ain't a Porsche!"

Overall, modern water-cooled engines are the better choice; Porsche even makes them sound air-cooled for the diehards!

[Lady Brin 0]

Overall, modern water-cooled engines are the better choice; Porsche even makes them sound air-cooled for the diehards!

Now I get it! I saw a 2007 911 with a button that did this. Having been around so many *muscle* cars, it didn't dawn on me the noise difference in water and air-cooled. Thanks for being patient, John.

[JohnRgt 0]

Tesla Rival