SSO Blog: Ferrari Maintenance Costs

[SSO]

Just posted up an article on our Ferrari Maintenance Costs:

https://karenable.com

Comments?

[RobYob]

Excellent read as always.

Interesting that for the headline Ferraris the expenses seem pretty reasonable apart from those bag tanks and clutches. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the design meeting of choosing the fuel bladder over a conventional tank for these cars. For racing the advantages are obvious; greater safety, lower mass and easier packaging. Cynical me thinks that the "easier packaging" was probably the overiding point for the supercars in question. The enormous on cost to the owner/s every decade being entirely acceptable.

On a similar note "The F355 taught me a fair amount on what Ferrari ownership really involved in terms of both servicing costs and the complexity of the cars" I think it's maybe less about complexity and more about the compromises due to performance, low volume and, slightly cynically again, about what a sports car manufacturer can inflict on an owner. If the goodwill of your customers can be leveraged to lower developement and production costs then why wouldn't they? At some point this mutates into "special edition" #435 with 20hp more and some pretty stickers.

Looking forward to your next post.

Dunno how busy you are during lockdown but it'd be cool if you joined our friday night (UTC) antisocial beers discord sometime as a special guest. We don't bite, much

[SSO]

Excellent read as always.

Interesting that for the headline Ferraris the expenses seem pretty reasonable apart from those bag tanks and clutches. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the design meeting of choosing the fuel bladder over a conventional tank for these cars. For racing the advantages are obvious; greater safety, lower mass and easier packaging. Cynical me thinks that the "easier packaging" was probably the overiding point for the supercars in question. The enormous on cost to the owner/s every decade being entirely acceptable.

I don't think the bags were used for "easier" packaging as the US spec F40s and F50 have conventional fuel tanks.

On a similar note "The F355 taught me a fair amount on what Ferrari ownership really involved in terms of both servicing costs and the complexity of the cars" I think it's maybe less about complexity and more about the compromises due to performance, low volume and, slightly cynically again, about what a sports car manufacturer can inflict on an owner. If the goodwill of your customers can be leveraged to lower developement and production costs then why wouldn't they? At some point this mutates into "special edition" #435 with 20hp more and some pretty stickers.

Looking forward to your next post.

Dunno how busy you are during lockdown but it'd be cool if you joined our friday night (UTC) antisocial beers discord sometime as a special guest. We don't bite, much

Thanks for the invite, how does one join?

On the F355, I do think it was designed to keep serving costs high and help dealers keep service departments busy. There is no reason why the 348, TR, F355 could not have been designed with an access panel behind the seats for cam belt changes.

[RobYob]

Excellent read as always.

Interesting that for the headline Ferraris the expenses seem pretty reasonable apart from those bag tanks and clutches. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the design meeting of choosing the fuel bladder over a conventional tank for these cars. For racing the advantages are obvious; greater safety, lower mass and easier packaging. Cynical me thinks that the "easier packaging" was probably the overiding point for the supercars in question. The enormous on cost to the owner/s every decade being entirely acceptable.

I don't think the bags were used for "easier" packaging as the US spec F40s and F50 have conventional fuel tanks.

Thanks for the invite, how does one join?

Oh, now that's interesting, different homologation regs perhaps? Maybe US spec cars had higher RRP or bigger volume sales? Very curious.

This is the "Not the evo forum" discord invite https://discord.gg/wkgs8z , that link lasts for 24hours but it's straightforward to generate them once it runs out. A few of us will be on this evening from 8pm BST, 7pm UTC and you're very welcome. If you'd like to do something more focused on your supercar experiences I imagine if we give forumites more notice there'll be lots of interest.

[SSO]

Excellent read as always.

Interesting that for the headline Ferraris the expenses seem pretty reasonable apart from those bag tanks and clutches. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the design meeting of choosing the fuel bladder over a conventional tank for these cars. For racing the advantages are obvious; greater safety, lower mass and easier packaging. Cynical me thinks that the "easier packaging" was probably the overiding point for the supercars in question. The enormous on cost to the owner/s every decade being entirely acceptable.

I don't think the bags were used for "easier" packaging as the US spec F40s and F50 have conventional fuel tanks.

Thanks for the invite, how does one join?

Oh, now that's interesting, different homologation regs perhaps? Maybe US spec cars had higher RRP or bigger volume sales? Very curious.

This is the "Not the evo forum" discord invite https://discord.gg/wkgs8z , that link lasts for 24hours but it's straightforward to generate them once it runs out. A few of us will be on this evening from 8pm BST, 7pm UTC and you're very welcome. If you'd like to do something more focused on your supercar experiences I imagine if we give forumites more notice there'll be lots of interest.

No bag tanks in the US is down to regulations. There are a few Euro F40s that have actually been converted to steel tanks in the last several years. GTO in the UK does conversions.

I can't make it this week but might be able to next Friday. Im on the US east coast so London -5 hours.