![da595e497fa436d97598e0159a9498a6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FGso1kd.jpg "da595e497fa436d97598e0159a9498a6[1].jpg")
Why is this so forgotten compared to the other 'rraris?
>>14854874
Didn't come standard with a glock duh
>>14854874
Ugly, no roof
>>14854874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd-LBGixtyk
Pretty much this.
that car just did not age well
it shouldnt have been so rounded also my god those wheels on a fucking 200k car what were they thinking
>>14854874
because the car it replaced was quicker and better looking. Nice v12 though
>>14854874
ugly as fuck, only appeaked to arabs
>>14854874
Because it's styling was polarizing, it wasn't any faster than its predecessor, and it was never raced like a proper Ferrari.
The only thing it had going for it was a it's relative rarity at only 349 examples (compared to 1311 F40, 400 Enzo, 499 TheFerrari).
>>14854874
Because the McLaren F! was around and people didnt think Ferrari were trying very hard with the F50.
>>14854898
>those wheels on a fucking 200k car what were they thinking
It was the '90s. People wouldn't care about rims for another several years.
>>14854896
>with a ferrari f1 engine in the back
Can people please stop saying F1 in connection to road cars. No road car has ever had a single part in common or even been half as fast as an F1 car. Even the latest "ultra extreme" LaFerrari/P1 are slower than a 70's F1 car
>>14854971
Mclaren F1s rims look pretty good in my opinion.
F50s rims look similar but also much more exaggerated.
>>14854980
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH ANON!!!
>>14854980
> No road car has ever had a single part in common
except the engine block in an F50
>>14855111
>tripfag being retarded as always
An F1 block doesn't even last 10,000 KM. You're so fucking stupid you probably think "based on a true story" means X-men or any other hollywood movie actually happened.
>>14855160
Average ferrari can't last 10,000km either
Worse (slower, uglier) than the F40.
>>14855160
Let me go take a look
Yep, hard to see with the underbody cover but looks like the same casting as the F1 car
>>14855160
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Why do you suppose an F1 engine block would implode after 10K, do you think it's made out of glass or something? There's a lot of things in an F1 engine that contribute to its short life span, the block isn't one of them. Hence why they used one in the F50.
>>14854971
but the wheels on the mcclaren fit the sytling of the overall car
the ferrari's look like cheap honda stock wheels
>>14855267
>Why do you suppose an F1 engine block would implode after 10K
Because they're made as thin/light as possible. During the 80's-early 00's (during which the F50 was produced) they had qualifying engines which were literally designed to do 5 laps before breaking down. The race engines were scrapped after every single race. A team would show up with 8 engines for a single race weekend. You had 90KG engines producing 1,000hp naturally aspirated.
Again, No road car has ever had a single part in common or even been half as fast as an F1 car.
>>14854980
Does the ferrari website trigger you all the way to tumblr?
>rraris
What are you a nigger?
It was the final unlock in Project Gotham Racing, but I preferred the Carrera GT because it was just a better looking car
>>14855331
>designed alongside F1 cars
>inspired by F1
>F1-style
And where's the actual parts retard? Where is anything but marketing buzzwords? Like the tripfag you're so fucking stupid you probably think "based on a true story" means X-men or any other hollywood movie actually happened.
Fun fact. The F50 has a 4.7l engine. The F1 cars during that era had 3.0 and 3.5. Care to embarrass yourself even further?
>>14855316
Yep, they were so thin and light that they decided to use them as a structural member to hang the entire rear suspension off. That reminds me, there was a street car that did the same thing, I think it was called the H49 or something like that. Nope, wait a second, it's the F50!
>>14855400
So you are triggered than
>>14854980
detuned for street use
even then people complained that it is easy to stall
not to mention horrendously noisy
all the suspension is rose jointed too
another thing that makes the F50 a pain
>>14855409
They don't mount suspension inside the cylinder retard.
It's sill a fact that an F1 block doesn't even last 10,000 KM.
It's still a fact that During the 80's-early 00's (during which the F50 was produced) they had qualifying engines which were literally designed to do 5 laps before breaking down.
It's still a fact that The race engines were scrapped after every single race. A team would show up with 8 engines for a single race weekend
It's still a fact that the F50 has a 4.7l engine. The F1 cars during that era had 3.0 and 3.5.
You can't argue with that.
>>14855400
>bore is the only thing that determines displacement
Just kill yourself already familia
>>14855370
Stop appropriating nigger culture then. Only black people and wiggers call them rarris.
>>14854891
>>14854914
one arab commissioned his to have a roof
and the F50 GT has a roof (three chassis only one assembled)
>>14855454
>detuned for street use
No, different engine all together.
>>14855474
>I'm just going to say, without any basis, that they lengthened the stroke because I don't want to lose an internet argument
>I'm just going to ignore everything about lifespan you mentioned
>>14855477
>2016
>not being a nigger
>>14855471
You seem to think the block just disintegrates after 5 laps and that's the only source of failure. Do you think you are enlightening /o/ with "facts" that F1 engines are extremely high strung? Nobody doesn't know that. The block, which is also used in the 333SP and F50, is extremely stout. It doesn't have extremely thin siamesed bores or cylinder walls because on the race cars it has to handle insane compression and 17k RPM. Displacement can be different with the same block, you should look up what bore and stroke are, pretty interesting stuff.
>>14855524
>which is also used in the 333SP and F50
No, only used in those.
>Displacement can be different with the same block
see >>14855510
I seriously don't understand why you want to believe marketing buzzwords so bad for a car you'll never even own. Or is it because you're a tripfag and you feel you can't admit you were wrong because people will know?
>>14855558
Are you really this angry that ferrari uses formula 1 technology and formula 1 engineers to create a formula 1 experience for on the road?
>>14855510
His basis is the well known fact that the F50 uses an F1 engine block. Just do an ounce of research, you're just making yourself look even more stupid. You could even just look at the Wikipedia page listing all Ferrari engines, scroll to the V12 section and see the F310, 333SP and F50 all listed under the same iron block. Your argument is about as idiotic as arguing the Ford GT40 used a V6. It just categorically wrong. And it's hardly like the F50 was the only car go use an F1 derived engine, the Carrera GT did as well.
>>14855558
Ok, I'll check your post
>>14855510
>I'm just going to say, without any basis, that they lengthened the stroke because I don't want to lose an internet argument
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/627/Ferrari-333-SP.html
>IMSA regulations specified that the engine used could not displace over four litres and had to be derived from a road car. The V12 used was similar in design to Ferrari's contemporary Formula 1 engines, but it was homologated because it would power the upcoming Ferrari F50 road car. For the F50 the 3.5 litre F1 engine was increased in size to 4.7 litre and then reduced again for the 333 SP. All technical aspects, like the 5 valves per cylinder setup, were retained for both the F50 and 333 SP engine. Like many of its legendary predecessors the 333 SP was named after its engine's unitary displacement of 333 cc.
Couldn't care less about marketing (Ferrari is apparently marketing a 20 year old car, quite odd), nor owning one, working on them and driving them is fun, owning them not so much
>>14855627
1. I'm talking specifically about parts. I haven't said anything about the other stuff you're backpedaling into
2. You can hardly call it a "formula 1 experience" when the car is closed cockpit, has air conditioning and isn't even as fast as an f3 car
>>14855638
The 333SP and F50 uses a block based on the F1 design. Just like modern top fuel dragster engines producing 8,000+ HP are based on the crysler "Elephant engine" from the 60's producing 500 HP.
>>14855682
>similar in design
That's what I've been saying all the time retard "based on", see above. If it's not that you desperately want to believe marketing, then I guess you're just bad at reading. And ferrari knows how retards like you (but with more money) work, which is why they plaster F1 this F1 that all over the advertisement so shitheads will buy it actually thinking they're getting an "F1 car for the road"
>>14855719
Tell us what the differences between the two blocks are then, and explain why Ferrari, who already had a road going V12 in the 456 and 550, and a F1 V12 they poured tons of development into, decided to make a third V12 that they had to make completely new casts and machinery for just for a run of 12 IMSA cars and a limited edition street car that they made 350 of. Seems like an extremely odd choice when they already had a block developed that could do the same thing, all the way down to acting as a structural member.
>>14855719
>WHY IS NO ONE AS AUTISTIC AS I AM?
>EVERYTHING SAID OR WRITTEN ABOUT A CAR HAS TO BE LITERALLY AND ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL AT ALL TIMES!
that's you, bro
>>14855719
>you can hardly call it an F1 experience
F1 experience on the road, fuck your dumb
>>14855789
>>14855719
Also the gearbox, steering wheel design, hybrid system, seating position and active aero found on the laferrari is derived from formula 1 cars, designed in a formula 1 wind tunnel with formula 1 engineers and formula 1 drivers, yet you are still sperging out?
>>14855758
>Tell us what the differences between the two blocks are then
I don't know any specifics, but obviously it's different blocks that are "similar in design" according to your own source
>already had a road going V12 in the 456 and 550
Obviously they didn't think it was good enough, or they would have used it
>a F1 V12 they poured tons of development into
Doesn't matter how much development you pour into something if it's for a different purpose (F1 racing vs Road Car), but at least they can use the same overall design and principles and base the road car block on the F1 block. Which also means they can fool retards like you with F1 marketing buzzwords
>>14855789
You can hardly call it a "formula 1 experience on the road" when the car is closed cockpit, has air conditioning and isn't even as fast as an f3 car
>>14855789
tire heaters
oil and water heater
external stater
20 minute start up procedure
cant clear a pebble
>its a lifestyle bro u would ent understand
>>14855830
>the laferrari
Which is is closed cockpit, has air conditioning and isn't even as fast as an f3 car
See what I wrote above about buzzwords
f50 with straight pipes is pure sex. especially when it's wailing around suzuka.
https://youtu.be/dxTu80ZO3Uo?t=1653
>>14854874
becuase it wasn't as revolutionary or insane as the F40.
>>14854874
>purists don't like it because it was worse than his predecessor and its sucessor
>still a $2Million+ car who just keeps getting more and more expensive
sucks to have a F50 as a dream car
>>14855858
Don't forget losing 4KG of body weight in fluids and having to be hospitalized after driving for 1½ hours because you didn't prepare properly the week before
>WOW GUYS DID YOU SEE MY 0-60 TIME USING LAUNCH CONTROL? THIS IS LIKE F1!
>>14855871
It is an experience, on the road, similar but not excatly the same as F1, happy?
>>14855949
>>14855858
>it has to be exactly the same or its just buzzwords tehehe
>>14855758
I could be misremembering this, but as I recall the F50's motor was made from the same casting as the F1 motors, but the machining after that was different.
>>14855967
>>14856006
>similar
No it's not. It's fundamentally different in every way except it's a car.
If they called it a "touring car experience" it would start getting closer, that's about the same performance of the LaF. Except the touring cars doesn't have all the driving aids of the road cars, and have slick tires and more downforce so they're much quicker in corners, and ride twice as close to the ground with much stiffer suspension so the nice, smooth ride in the road car is a constant rattling and banning of your spine, and you need hearing protection. And the brake pedal needs 100KGs of force from a single leg
>>14854898
>forged center locking wheels
>omg what were they thinking
kill yourself.
>All this talk of the F50 being unreliable
If you have the means to own an F50 you also have the means to keep the car running.
>>14856040
How is it not similar you fucking retard? I stated all the different parts which were heavily based off formula 1 parts and had been changed for road use by the most successful F1 company, with F1 drivers and F1 engineers. Yet you keep saying its 'fundamentallly different' without explaining how. How is the active aero not similar? Or the seating position, or the hubrid system or the gearbox or the steering wheel or the fixed seat with adjustable pedals?
![f1-seating-position[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KS0NxsC.jpg "f1-seating-position[1].jpg")
>>14856096
>How is it not similar you fucking retard?
I just explained how it's barely even similar to a touring car. And an F1 car is just on another planet
>based off formula 1 parts and had been changed for road use
It's just standard 2015 sports car parts you idiot. Stop falling for buzzwords. Pagani, Lambo and Porsche have never been in F1 and still make very similar cars to the LaF.
>How is the active aero not similar?
Because active aero is banned in F1 since decades you retard. You have no Idea what you're talking about
>Or the seating position
>we made the seat slightly more inclined so now it's like F1 lol
no, pic related
>or blah blah blah blah
You can stick all of those in an old Volvo. It doesn't make it an F1 experience you retard. Again, the most similar cars to the LaF are built by companies with no F1 connection
F40 was bare and pure.
F50 was made for posers and arabs.
>>14856160
>Because active aero is banned in F1 since decades you retard.
what is DRS? also why are you being such a little bitch?
Because F50 is the R34 of Ferraris. Unfortunately R34 is the most hyped Skyline for certain reason.
>>14856255
>what is DRS?
Not active areo. It's a single flap that the driver manually open on a single straight (10% of the track) if you're closely behind another driver.
LaF has little flaps that move constantly and are computer controlled, That is active areo and that has been banned in F1 for decades. It doesn't even seem like you watch motorsport at all, yet you somehow know what driving an F1 car is like
>why are you being such a little bitch?
I factually refuted all your points and now you're doing the whole "I wasn't even trying, you're just autistic"-thing
>>14854971
Rimz are one of the worst automotive trends conceived. Id take bland 90s wheels over the donk-lite shit that almost all modern cars have.
>>14856160
Porsche and lambo are involved in racing, pagani uses AMG components and trickled down technology and the other car compared to the laf is a mclaren, the active aero is based of DRS and aerodynamic improvments from F1 and no it wouldnt be the same if you just chucked all these parts into a Volvo, the seating position drops the centre of gravity 2.6 inches lower than the 458 which isnt just an incline, also the argument has gotten off track and neither of us are getting anywhere so I'm going to leave
>>14856317
active aero is not designated based on whether it is controlled manually or by computer. it is a moving part that is physically actuated by a device on the car, as opposed to passive aero where a wing will flex at speed.
>>14856335
Believe it or not, it's largely because of safety regulations. Stupid pedestrian impact standards made hoods higher, high hoods made the whole beltline higher, and the high beltline made reasonably sized wheels look tiny.
>>14856404
this explanation seems logical but do you have a reference perhaps outlining this evolution?
>>14856337
>are involved in racing
But not F1. That was the point. You don't need any F1 experience to build a LaFerrari type car.
>the active aero is based of DRS
No, see >>14856317
>it wouldnt be the same if you just chucked all these parts into a Volvo
The retard I'm responding too says those things (inclined seat, double clutch gearbox) like those are what makes the F1 experience. If that was the case, then chucking them into a volvo would suffice. It obviously doesn't as you agree.
>the seating position drops the centre of gravity
Which still has nothing to do with an "F1 experience", You can do it in a volvo too.
>>14856358
Argue semantics all you want. The fact remains that
1. LaF has little flaps that move constantly and are computer controlled, that has been banned in F1 for decades.
2. You can stick that on an old Volvo, it doesn't make that Volvo an F1 experience
3. You're desperately clinging to a single point which isn't enough to support your argument even if you were right about it. This is pathetic, accept that you didn't know what you were talking about from the start
>>14856404
>>14856418
Pretty sure it was first started by ricers and then trickled down to actual car designers.
>>14856433
>semantics
>banned in F1 for decades
i honestly think you're confusing active aero with active suspension but are too triggered to realize it.
>>14856481
1. Even if you were right, it doesn't matter as per point 2 and 3 in the previous post
2. You're wrong:
>any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not
having any degree of freedom).
>any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
http://www.fia.com/file/38950/download?token=Nu_ymUVZ
as an additional fun fact, the LaF can peak 2g deceleration. An F1 peaks >5 A Toyota Prius peaks ~1.3. The LaF is closer to a prius than an F1 car
>>14856433
DRS and aerodynamics from formula 1 combined is used to make the active aero, you are right in saying that it is different from F1 though and F1 cars are on a different planet. The volvo argument only makes sense when you look at individual parts of the car and not the whole package, ultimately F1 buzzwords are overused but Ferrari still uses components that are very similar to their F1 cars
>>14856335
>>14856478
think of it as the oems absorbing the aftermarket
starts out at alloy wheels only sold on sports trims
then it becomes an extra cost option for the mid range
then every one says fuk that and gets the oem steely trim and replaces them with aftermarket
>>14856499
>DRS and aerodynamics from formula 1 combined is used to make the active aero
The LaF doesn't even have a segmented rear wing like an F1 car does. DRS is purely a buzzword used to make retards like you believe it's "like F1". And again Pagani, Lambo and Porsche have never been in F1 and still make very similar cars to the LaF.
>Ferrari still uses components that are very similar to their F1 cars
None of the parts are more similar to an F1 car than a Subaru
>>14856498
what exactly am i wrong about? flex wings are banned, i never said that they weren't. there are lots of passive aero devices that get banned. f ducts, double diffusers, exhaust blown diffusers etc.
>>14856531
You cant honestly say that a Laferrari gearbox, aerodynamics and hybrid system is anywhere near that of anything subaru has created
I didn't say they used the exact same DRS system on the Laferrari, just that they learnt from experience with it and experience with the other aerodynamic parts to make their active aero, again lambo and porsche are both involved in racing and use that experience to make cars, whilst pagani uses AMG components and trickled down tech. Only 12 year olds believe the Laf is like F1 but denying the direct link in F1 tech and laf tech is just ignorant
>>14856552
>what exactly am i wrong about?
To begin with; that the F50 (which you later switched to a LaF) is an "F1 experience on the road".
Later you started "desperately clinging to a single point", which is the active areo stuff. Here >>14856096 you ask "How is the active aero [on the LaF] not similar [to formula 1]?". I've explained that it's not only fundamentally different, it's not even allowed in F1
>>14856563
>anywhere near that of anything subaru has created
Nor is it anywhere near anything on an F1 car.
>I didn't say they used the exact same DRS system
DRS specifically refers to the opening of a slot gap. It doesn't even apply to the LaF. It's purely a buzzword and you're swallowing it.
>they learnt from experience
>again lambo and porsche are both involved in racing and use that experience
see >>14856433
>denying the direct link in F1 tech and laf tech is just ignorant
But companies without any "F1 tech" are building cars with all the same systems and features as the LaF.
>>14856613
i'm not the same anon who said either of those things though. i am clinging to the point that drs is active aero and drs is allowed in f1 therefore active aero is allowed in f1 and that you are obviously wrong when you state otherwise.
>>14856613
Lambo's tech is nothing close to the Laferrari (gearbox, aerodynamics and the hybrid system are all very differnet) and the 918 is close because of porsches extensive racing experience, and again is similar or close to the Laferrari but different
You seem to either think that F1 cars have tech that is outside of the reach of companies such as porsche which is just crazy or that I am arguing you can't build a car like the Laf without F1 experience, which I am not.
All I am saying is Ferrari is correct in saying this and that on the Laf is F1 tech because that is were the got it from, they looked to their experience in F1
>>14856683
>i'm not the same anon who said either of those things though
But you are continuing their argument with me without restating that you're on about something else. That's stupid, especially on an anonymous formum
>active aero is allowed in f1
The point made to begin with was that the active aero found on the LaF is "like F1". That's wrong and that's what I said. If you jump in, in the middle of that and start arguing something else without even saying so that's just stupid.
>>14856731
>918 is close because of porsches extensive racing experience
None of which is F1 tech. Thus, there is no "direct link in F1 tech and laf tech" as you claim
>F1 cars have tech that is outside of the reach of companies
Nope. I've made 2 points this entire thread
1. No road car uses any F1 parts
2. No road car is even close to "an F1 experience"
>Ferrari is correct in saying this and that on the Laf is F1 tech because that is were the got it from
It's still closer to road car tech like than F1. In fact, the entire reason F1 cars have hybrid systems is because the constructors wanted to be able to further develop their road car tech. So F1 got the hybrid system from road cars, not the other way around
>this sperg arguing over an irrelevant marketing phrase
you should hionestly kill yourself autist
>>14856782
How can you claim there is no direct link yet, ferrari have detailed how they based the Laferrari of F1 tech, you cant just say because another company can create a comparable car without looking to F1 that Ferrari is lying, yes of course it is closer to a road car than a F1 car and yes it doesn't use the exact same parts but it is still influenced by F1, it is possible to list many automotive advances thay started in F1 and than moved to road cars.
>F1 cars have a hybrid system because manufacturers wanted to further develop their road car tech
Therefore they are taking technical knowledge gained from F1 racing and using it in their road cars, which is what I have been saying this whole time
>>14854874
personally, it's my favorite.
it looks great and it sounds fucking fantastic with that V12.
>>14855921
merci twingo
>>14856876
for this particular autist 'f1 experience' can only be used if the car is single seater, open cockpit, open wheeled (he never mentioned this one though), and also be built from genuine f1 car parts. so f2, or f3 cars don't really count. they must be using f1 as a 'buzzword' too.
>>14854874
Because it's fucking ugly, and the F40 is the godmachine. I say this even as someone who doesn't give a shit about italian exotics.
>>14856930
it's not really that bad looking, and the F40 looks kind of retarded from the front
>>14854874
because "muh F40" and "muh newest ferrari trash"
I fucking love the F50GT but sadly got no game with it. only shitty mods for GTR and rFactor.
>>14855454
>easy to stall
because "people" that buys them are fucking assholes that can´t drive a car even if their lives was at stake.
just like I can´t speak english.
It has a really ugly interior as well.
>>14854971
This too, especially the trend of fuckhuge wheels on everything. Even power-heavy cars like the supra had little babby 16's.
>>14856966
just got to keep the rpm above 4000 and pop
>>14856876
>How can you claim there is no direct link
Well, for example with the LaF "DRS" there factually is none. It would be outright banned in F1, yet they still claim it's F1. That's the thing in general. It's very hard to tell what parts are actually drawing on F1 tech, and what parts are just drawing on normal development Ferrari and other companies does on its roadcars regardless of F1. The fact that they keep plastering adverts with F1 F1 F1 doesn't really tell you anything since their marketing department say that regardless of if it's true or not.
In the end, you can't really say that the LaF is closer to F1 than any other hypercar.
>>14856918
>for this particular autist 'f1 experience'
Nothing about it is an "F1 experience". The things that make F1 unique compared to other "experiences", like driver weight loss, 5G braking, and 30 minutes to start the engine exist with the LaF. Whether I'm autistic or not doesn't change that. It makes no sense to say it's an "F1 experience" when it is much closer to other categories of motorsport. I.E. It's just marketing.
>>14856999
Im not trying to say it is closer to F1 than any other hypercar, but it was built from F1 experience but as you say it is hard to know how much is marketing and how much is the truth but Ferrari were first and foremost a racing company and are extremely passionate about F1 so it is understandable that they use that as a selling point
>>14856999
do you sperg when someone says driving a car is an "out of this world experience" aswell, autist?
>>14856999
>>14857031
>it was built from F1 experience
I would guess you can only really say that about maybe 15% of the car. The rest is so different that any experience in F1 is barely useful, or at least their experience as a road car manufacturer is much more important. Which is why other companies can produce such similar cars even lacking the F1 experience
>it is understandable that they use that as a selling point
of course, it obviously works too.
>>14857042
No because that's a figure of speech as opposed to the plenty of retards that literally think driving the latest Ferrari is similar to driving an F1 car
>>14857079
The 333 is not an F1 car so I'm not even sure what your point is
>>14857106
i didn't read the thread fully, just namefag being a namefag.
>>14857083
no one belives that other than irrelevant teenage kids and autists like you that take it seriously
>>14857106
what about the 355 F1 ?
>inb4 bitter and salty wingeing
>>14857154
1. sports car manufacturers keep using it in marketing. I think their decades of experience weighs heavier than your opinion
2. Seems like there's plenty of irrelevant teenage kids on /o/ then if you read from the top of the thread
>>14857178
That didn't use the same engine. Read the thread before you post
>>14855921
This is now a twinge thread
>>14856970
16’ arent even that small and were pretty standard on sports car in the 80s/90s. Back then most econoboxes had 14’, or even 13’ wheels.
