The “electric Ferrari” theme, as expected, sparked an uproar of emails. The question, on the other hand, is crucial because the internal combustion engine was invented by a burin from Stuttgart. But pleasure was put on four wheels by an Emilian genius. And the possibility that the heirs of the Drake put their hand to “pleasure” stirs spirits. Let’s say immediately, however, that here the theme is higher. And it is that of innovation, of the future. And, in this regard, it is useful to recall the thoughts of two other geniuses: Henry Ford and Steve Jobs. “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me a faster horse”. And then “You can’t just ask customers what they want and try to do it. By the time you’re doing it, they’ll want something new.”.
“Which – explained Riccardo Luna in an episode of the Almanac of innovation – it doesn’t mean ignoring customers and feedback, but knowing how to look further afield. Only geniuses can do that”. From this point of view, Enzo Ferrari’s heir, Benedetto Vigna, could do it: he has no prejudices, no qualms about old-style motorists and is a very digital innovator.
The question is complicated and to unravel it we have sought the definitive sentence. That of the book of books, “Ferrari 1947-1997” created by the Maranello house for its 50th birthday. The “Court of Cassation” on the subject of debates on the brand of the prancing horse. As Scalfari said “Editors write”. And we edit.
“That of Ferrari – wrote Luca di Montezemolo in the preface del librone – is the story of a company that has always known how to look ahead with stubborn determination, putting love for cars, sports and technological progress above all else. Looking ahead and looking to the world, this is the lesson I learned from Enzo Ferrari through a continuous challenge on the roads and tracks of every continent”. Concluding then with the affirmation that “this is a company with a strong bond with its past and tradition, but with the will to look to its future, to 2000 and beyond, just as Enzo Ferrari would have done”. Amen.
In the book there is also a very important section dedicated to the future. The title of the chapter says it all: “Five decades of innovation”.
It starts like this: “Although he was not an engineer, Enzo Ferrari was nonetheless a man deeply immersed in the art and science of the automobile, in an era in which a professional could enrich his knowledge in parallel with the progress this new industry was making”.
Then further on we read: “Enzo Ferrari had already amply demonstrated that flexibility, adaptability and opportunism were key elements of success in the design, construction and competition of racing cars. Speaking of Ugo Gobbato, head of Alfa Romeo, he said: ‘As a great organizer on an industrial level, he made sure that everything was pre-arranged and rigidly programmed down to the details. He did not conceive of those sudden changes of formula, that adherence to immediate needs, which were instead my necessary religion.’ It should therefore come as no surprise that Alfa Romeo lagged behind in Grand Prix technique in a decade during which the Germans imposed frequent and sudden changes, regardless of the rigid industrial structures of their competitors”.
But there’s more:
“The demands of mass production go against my character,” admitted Enzo Ferrari, “since I am above all interested in promoting new developments. I’d like to put something new into my cars every day, an inclination that terrifies my collaborators. If these wishes of mine were indulged, there would be no production of standard models, but only a succession of prototypes”.
The impatient spirit of Enzo Ferrari and the company he founded to “promote new developments” is a theme that underlies the “Ferrari idea” and the presentation, in the following chapters of this volume, of the remarkable list of innovations that eventually Ferrari are rightly attributed. All this belies the common opinion in many circles, according to which, in the technological field, Ferrari would have been a follower and not a leader.
“Enzo Ferrari was rather cautious in the face of changes” acknowledges Mauro Forghieri, his long-time collaborator, “even if once he got to the heart of the problem, he adapted quickly”. If Ferrari decided with difficulty to switch to engines in the rear position, we must not forget that for thirty years engines mounted in front of the driver had triumphed”.
“Among the solutions that I experiment with today’s cars, there are few that I have not already tried in the past – perhaps in a hasty or summary manner – and discarded before their effective possibilities were accepted”, wrote Ferrari in 1963. “Consequently, inventions are not so much necessary as conscientious elaboration”. Both, as will be seen, contributed to the innovations introduced in automobile construction by Ferrari.
Finally, Enzo Ferrari did not deny that he considered the power of the cars a priority. And in its quest for ever greater power, Ferrari tried every technical gimmick. “As many had predicted” – he wrote – “our 12-cylinder proved to be the culmination of my ambition, the basis of all Ferrari engines. I also gave a chance to the 4, 6 and 8 cylinders. We even built a twin-cylinder engine. When you have this extraordinary power – Enzo Ferrari used to reflect – the shortcomings of the chassis are not a handicap, but when your opponents have engines as powerful and reliable as yours, then the chassis suddenly becomes important”.
In short, for Ferrari, innovation is like a mantra. Indeed more. A “necessary religion”. Question: What should such a brand do today? Do you regret the good times or also look to the electric?
#Electric #Ferrari #Cassation #intervenes #FormulaPassion.it