2005 Ferrari F430 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari call for unfreezing F1 engines

Formula One is a hugely expensive sport. Not only do you have enormous salaries and logistical expenses, as you would in any other sport, but each team also spends huge sums developing their own chassis from the ground up – and so too do the participating automakers in developing the engines. One of the ways the series organizers mitigate those costs is by freezing development. So once the new crop of V6 turbo hybrid powertrains were developed, that was it. But now three of the of the sport's leading teams are calling on the FIA to unfreeze engine development. Their reason? Unfair advantage. There's little question that Mercedes did the best job of developing its "power unit" to meet the new regulations that took effect at the beginning of this past season. That's how the Mercedes team won all but three of the grands prix this season and finished with at least one car on the podium at every single race. It's also a big part of how the teams that bought their engines from Mercedes this season managed to consistently outperform the other non-works-supported teams. That clear advantage is why Red Bull, Ferrari and now McLaren are calling for engine development to be unfrozen. Their argument is that, under the current locked-down status quo, their engine suppliers (Renault, Ferrari and Honda, respectively) cannot possibly catch up. So unless the FIA and Formula One Management want the next few seasons to be the kind of absolute blow-outs that this past season was, these leading teams argue, the powers that be are going to have to make some changes. For its part, Mercedes naturally counters that unfreezing engine development would send costs spiraling out of control. But then of course it stands to lose the most by re-opening engine development. If those three teams, however, closely intertwined as they are with the three other engine suppliers participating in next year's championship, manage to solicit enough support from the other customer teams and bring the matter to a vote, Mercedes may very well find itself out-numbered. News Source: ESPNImage Credit: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Motorsports Ferrari McLaren Mercedes-Benz F1 engine

Ferrari IPO may turn out to be good news for enthusiasts

Sergio Marchionne's strategy to spin off Ferrari from FCA and make the Italian automaker a publicly traded company has been met with ire from a vocal contingent of enthusiasts ever since rumors about the plan began to surface a few years ago. Some of these particularly pessimistic automotive pundits have voiced fears that with stockholders in the mix, it would not only spell the demise of the exclusive Italian supercar maker as we know it, but would in fact "ruin" the company. Call me dense, but I fail to see what the issue is. That isn't to say that I don't understand what's causing the fear. When profitability becomes a higher priority for a brand that's historically relied on exclusivity to keep its products in the highest echelons of desirability, there's a high potential for internal philosophical conflict. And then there are concerns about the sorts of products that Ferrari might develop that aren't the high-performance sports cars that the brand is known for. But individuals with those apprehensions seem to forget that Ferrari has already lent its name to a multitude of things that are not LaFerraris, 488 GTBs, or F12 Berlinettas, including clothing, headphones, and even laptops. But let's assume for a moment that the core anxiety is about future vehicles – including the unspeakable notion that Ferrari might develop an SUV. Why wouldn't Ferrari build an SUV, especially after seeing how incredibly successful that endeavor has been for Porsche? I think it's likely that Ferrari will put engineers to task creating some sort of crossover or high-rolling cruiser with room for the whole family at some point in the near future. And why wouldn't it, after seeing how incredibly successful that endeavor has been for Porsche? After all, the Cayenne accounted for more US sales in 2013 than the Boxster, Cayman, 911, and 918 combined, and it only gave up about a thousand units of sales last year to make room for the Macan crossover, the latter of which Porsche sold nearly as many of as it did Boxsters and Caymans. People want these vehicles, and they're willing to pay quite a bit of money for them. If we use Porsche's recent trajectory as a foreshadowing metric for what's in store for Ferrari, the future actually looks pretty good. After all, those SUV sales keep plenty of cash in Porsche's coffers for the low-volume projects that we enthusiasts love, like the 918 Spyder and the 911 GT3 RS.

FCA likely won't sell more than 10% of Ferrari stake

The initial public offering of Ferrari on the stock market is likely coming in the second or third quarter of this year, but apparently the exact stake of the Prancing Horse set to hit the exchange isn't final. When FCA first announced the plan to spin off Ferrari, the idea was for 10 percent of the stock to go on the open market in the US and maybe also in Europe. Another 10 percent would go to company vice chairman and Enzo's son Piero Ferrari, and the remaining 80 percent would be divided among current shareholders, including a large portion for the Agnelli family. FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne hasn't finished tweaking those numbers, though. Last month, he indicated the automaker might put more than 10 percent of Ferrari on the market to boost liquidity. However, the original proposal has now returned to the table. "I don't believe we will go above 10 percent," Marchionne said, according to Automotive News, but also noted things weren't final. By increasing the Ferrari stock on the open market for the IPO, FCA decreases the amount going to current shareholders, according to Automotive News. With that being the case, don't expect too much of the Prancing Horse to be offered up to investors when the stock hits the market. Related Video: