Talk:Ferrari F50

message: f50 had a lower top speed than f40, this is widely known. f50 had to look better (with inflated specs) than f40, so ferrari declared a fake top speed. Anyway the f50 is faster and handles better than f40.
Also it's considered a semi-failure in the aspect that it has a very harsh ride, even for a supercar, because of suspensions beign attached directly to engine a la f1 car.
Some kind of source for these two statements: 
"Sadly, F50 is now generally regarded as one of the few failures of Maranello. Compare with its predecessor, it was heavier and slower. Its naturally aspirated V12 produced far less torque than the older twin-turbo V8. Its barchetta architecture was nonsense to a 200mph supercar. Its soft roof blew off at high speed. Worst of all, it was the ugliest supercar ever appeared, beside Lister Storm of course."
--Licurgo 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that its soft roof blew off at high speed is quite normal. You don't go 150+ mph in a convertible with its roof closed, not in the 1990's, not now, but that's no reason not to make one.  As you said, the car was faster than its predecessor, the F40.  The maximum torque of the F50 perhaps isn't that high, but when you'ld look at a torque graph (rpm vs torque) you'ld see there was a big improvement.  I wouldn't call it a failure, unless you'ld say that not becoming as legendary as the F40 is a failure.  That would make almost every car a failure though, so let's not say that.  Besides, your article states it's "the only profitable supercar in the 90's", not bad for a failure. LPJ 09:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections should be made to this article 

message: In one place it says "349 made", in another "439 produced"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.178.46 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many made? 

message: Where does the 2001 come from? I see that autoweek post but is it not a misprint? I can't find any other article that notes the F50 being built again in 2001 or any reasoning why it would resume production for one more year. I think this is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.33.153 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1995-1997 & 2001"? 

message: For citing a web article there was no need to cut off the author, the article name, date, publisher and accessdate and replace it with just the weblink and only the beginning of the title. 
The adding of international m/km numbers to the English feet/miles was informative and even the incorrect term "feets" was replaced.
The 1/4 mile time was from a referenced reliable source, no need to replace it with numbers which even contradict the dubious source given.
Even if we assume this video fragment was fully reliable, what now stands here is wrong. A text in the video claims 0~400m in 11.109 seconds, not 1/4 mile in 11.104 seconds. 
The difference between 1/4 mile and 400m is more than 2,33 m and almost 8 feet which takes some time to cross.
If you really think this time is worth adding please do not reduce the numbers, do not claim it's 1/4 mile when it's not, do not replace the 1/4 mile information from a well known reliable source or revert unrelated information with it. Add something like "In the Japanese TV show Best Motoring a 0~400m time of ... was displayed" or so.
But there are many reasons to doubt the numbers:
* It looks more like a show act than serious testing with professional test equipment.
* The acceleration times (of the other cars also) are far better than what we got from the reliable print magazines around the world.
* The kg/PS number displayed is lower than it should be which points towards either less curb weight or more hp than normal or incompetence. 
* It's only a video fragment, there's no context given about what was before and how the exactly the numbers were created. Maybe the numbers were adjusted, maybe they put on slicks before the run or did other stuff. For example in Top Gear they had Michael Schuhmacher disguised as "The Stig" drive around but it was later said that the time was irregular (not street legal tires), if we accept fragments you could just cut out those 2 minutes out of context and call it prove for a regular time. 
This site how it is at the moment is definitely displaying wrong information, so I'm going to revert it now. Drachentötbär (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   revert 

message: I added a contradictory tag to the article for the reason stated above. The dimensions shown under the specifications section of the article harshly contradict those listed in the infobox. For instance, the weight is listed in specifications as 1230 kg (2712 lb), while the weight is listed in the infobox as 1397 kg (3080 lb). That's a difference of around 200 kg, meaning one of those values is wildly inaccurate and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. --TKOIII (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions listed in the article contradict the dimensions listed in the infobox (SOLVED) 

message: https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/past-models/f50/ Can You read with comprehension? "carbon fibre chassis had factory reference numbers F 130 BD" Do You need everything spelled out for You? Stop deleting edits that You know nothing about! YBSOne (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They need not to be mentioned. This is an informative article, not a technical guide in which technical codes are written. You are in violation of the interaction ban.U1 quattro TALK 02:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Internal production codes are a perfectly fine thing to have, they don't take up much space and provide more information for readers. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipo 130: both chassis AND engine