One of the stupidest articles ever published in Forbes

[cameraman]

Did you know that because you can't buy a new Ferrari with a 5-speed that the company no longer has anything to do with racing?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billvisnic/2015/10/14/ferrari-ipo-ready-to-go-too-bad-its-stock-symbol-is-the-equivalent-of-a-blown-engine/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=17937756

[gerhard911]

You expect an intelligent article on automobiles (well, anything) in a business publication ?

[nrc]

It's always a bad idea for a company built on passion to give the bean counters and speculators a say in how their company is run. I seem to recall that happening once upon a time and the results were not good.

[dando]

Born from ignorance. Period. :\

[chop456]

Did you know that because you can't buy a new Ferrari with a 5-speed that the company no longer has anything to do with racing?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billvisnic/2015/10/14/ferrari-ipo-ready-to-go-too-bad-its-stock-symbol-is-the-equivalent-of-a-blown-engine/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=17937756

Where did it say the company has nothing to do with racing? I see nothing factually incorrect in the story. It's an opinion piece on why people buy Ferraris.

[cameraman]

Where did it say the company has nothing to do with racing? I see nothing factually incorrect in the story. It's an opinion piece on why people buy Ferraris.


Don’t take my word for it, though: go try to buy a Ferrari with a manual transmission. You can’t – Ferrari, the RACE company, doesn’t do those anymore.

Care to show me the WEC, Tudor or F1 car with a 5-speed?

[chop456]

I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. He's saying that you can't buy a Ferrari with a manual transmission, which is correct.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[devilmaster]

kinda agree with Choppy.... Nothing really in the article is wrong, however the writer takes a simple point, and runs with it to the extreme... and thats the problem. Its the opinion, not the factual content.


Today’s customers buy Ferraris because they’re expensive and ostentatious status symbols. Not because the cars RACE

Not every ferrari buyer is that. There are still plenty of people who know the brand. But yes, there are who just want the status symbol... Like soccer moms and range rovers - But not every Range Rover driver is a soccer m'om. A few days ago I was SUV shopping and happened upon a 06 range rover that I just decided to look over. I seriously had a woman shout me questions about it from her husband's Explorer on the road thinking I was the salesman, and when I told her I wasn't, she yelled 'I saw it first!' as her husband drove away....

I mean, the guy wrote an entire opinion piece (well, a very short opinion piece) on whether Ferrari's stock name should be RACE or FRRI.... thats it. That's the whole bloddy she-bang. -IF- the writer had gone deeper and further into the history and explained his point out further, then maybe its worth time discussing or even debating. This column was a hack job regardless of its content.

Seriously, here's his entire article. 'Ferrari shouldn't use RACE as its stock name because all Ferrari owners just love the status symbol, and Ferrari should just recognise that.' Bam. Brevity rocks.

[cameraman]

And all those guys pounding around the track out at MMP every month don't care about racing.:shakehead:

[Andrew Longman]

I recall Enzo saying most companies race to sell cars and Ferrari sold cars to race. If that is no longer the case then maybe they should change their ticker. If not, then does anyone really care what their ticker is?

Having worked for an exotic car service and restoration firm for a while I'd say a huge portion of Ferrari owners don't actually drive them and bought them in the belief they can sell them at a profit.

I would add though that the writer knocking Ferrari for closely managing their brand is non-sensical. Too many companies drift and fail because they forget what they are really about and why they are even in business. Executives chasing a stock price, quarterly profit or their own bonus have led many a company into a rabbit hole of oblivion.

[dando]

I recall Enzo saying most companies race to sell cars and Ferrari sold cars to race. If that is no longer the case then maybe they should change their ticker. If not, then does anyone really care what their ticker is?

Having worked for an exotic car service and restoration firm for a while I'd say a huge portion of Ferrari owners don't actually drive them and bought them in the belief they can sell them at a profit.

I would add though that the writer knocking Ferrari for closely managing their brand is non-sensical. Too many companies drift and fail because they forget what they are really about and why they are even in business. Executives chasing a stock price, quarterly profit or their own bonus have led many a company into a rabbit hole of oblivion.

IIRC, the old adage was win on Sunday, buy it on Monday. Me thinks that went out the door a few generations ago. :\

[Andrew Longman]

IIRC, the old adage was win on Sunday, buy it on Monday. Me thinks that went out the door a few generations ago. :\Enzo's point was Ferrari was the complete opposite of other manufactures. The Forbes writer was especially wrong in that regard in that the car he highlighted that McQueen and others drove in the 50-60s was not raced on Sunday or any other day. Nor are their street cars outside of the few in GT class, not F1.