The software the M3 should have had...

[swamp2]

Although I've been happy with the adjustability and customization the M3 offers the Ferrari 458 Italia really takes it to another level. Check out this video:

The only difference between this truly sublime level of performance and adjustability is software. Sure software won't get the M3 the power to weight nor sheer numbers of the 458, but I am referring to what can be controlled by software. Specifically the invasiveness of DSC in either On or MDM mode needs some work compared to this. Perhaps the new DSC software in the ZCP will be an improvement. Hopefully a hack can deliver that to the non ZCP owners.

The trends we have discussed here in the forum many times continues here with the 458 - ultimate supercar performance, wonderful customization/adjustment through software yet amazing accessibility (recall the GT-R discussion). The result is a car as at home on the track at 10/10ths as it is for a quick trip to grocery store or on a daily commute. And alas, another great decision by Ferrari to offer the car only with a DCT. Also on that point I would be willing to bet anything this DCT is truly bug free.

It begs the question as to why the M3's software isn't this good? Surely BMW has the technology from its race programs. Is it hardware, time to market, existing software "good enough"? I seriously doubt it is cost, it is just code and there is no fixed price per unit for the software content. I am leaning toward the "good enough" point.

The last observation is on how darn green the 458 is. It has an impressive 25% power to weight advantage over the M3 but only produces 12% more CO2 per km. Less CO2 than the Scuderia as well. What an achievement.

[immiketoo]

Swamp, I agree with most of what you said except the part about its only programming. That is true to a point, but at a certain level, the hardware must be able to keep up with the software. All of the threads about the DCT seem to support that there are clearly things BMW could have done in both areas. Plus, good enough at one price point is not at another, i.e. M3 to 458. On the side, I like the last part of the vid where he says F-it! lets slide!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Swamp, I agree with most of what you said except the part about its only programming. That is true to a point, but at a certain level, the hardware must be able to keep up with the software. All of the threads about the DCT seem to support that there are clearly things BMW could have done in both areas. Plus, good enough at one price point is not at another, i.e. M3 to 458. On the side, I like the last part of the vid where he says F-it! lets slide!

Electronic hardware could be a limiting factor, i.e. processor speed, however a brake is a brake and a DCT is a DCT. The Differential though is one case where the differences are hardware+software. The E-diff in the F. is truly software controlled whereas the Visco-Lok diff on the M is entirely mechanical. Nonetheless software is more important these days than ever.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Although I've been happy with the adjustability and customization the M3 offers the Ferrari 458 Italia really takes it to another level.

It's like comparing the M3 to a Fit sport (yeah, same price disparity ).

[aus]

I get what you're saying about the DCT software, but comparing a $65,000 car to a $250,000 car and expecing the cheaper car to be as good as the 4 times more expensive car is pointless.

[M3 vert]

Originally Posted by aus

I get what you're saying about the DCT software, but comparing a $65,000 car to a $250,000 car and expecing the cheaper car to be as good as the 4 times more expensive car is pointless.

+ 1

I mean really what the M3 offers is well beyond its price tag

[TheKosherStogie]

dont think he expects it to be as good...just a TC unit that closer to it

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sammyrusso

dont think he expects it to be as good...just a TC unit that closer to it

Absolutely correct^.

It is only stating the obvious that you get what you pay for. It is also widely accepted that the M3 packs a tremendous bang for the buck. No disagreements there. I am just a bit puzzled as to why the software wasn't made/isn't better than it is. You can easily argue on a cost basis why the brakes themselves are not better but that argument does not really work for software. Again, it is just software.

[aus]

Got it and totally agree, but I though MDM was a similar mode where it allowed some slip before cutting in?

I'd much rather have a 3 step DSC than a 6 step DCT control, which really only needs 3-4 modes at most in manual mode.

[M-Tuned]

what? the shift paddle on Ferrari doesn't turn with steering wheel?

[montreal red]

Originally Posted by M-Tuned

what? the shift paddle on Ferrari doesn't turn with steering wheel?

its better that way imo... cos when you turn the steering wheel, you always know where the paddles to upshift and downshift are.

[RichB]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Absolutely correct^.

It is only stating the obvious that you get what you pay for. It is also widely accepted that the M3 packs a tremendous bang for the buck. No disagreements there. I am just a bit puzzled as to why the software wasn't made/isn't better than it is. You can easily argue on a cost basis why the brakes themselves are not better but that argument does not really work for software. Again, it is just software.

How is software developed? By people...salaries to design, develop, test is not free. It is true that the variable cost to implement on an additional car is nearly $0, but the upfront cost can be quite high (think Microsoft, etc). Same can be said about a manufacturing physical products. Typically, the incremental cost to produce a physical part is not as high as the upfront cost to design it.

[Green///Hell]

Saw this video awhile back and its impressive as their track setting is actually producing faster lap times than all safeties off.
I'm sure in the hands of a professional driver they might be able to squeeze out a few tenths or maybe even a second of performance more out of it with everything off, but the results would be minimal at best. The car is very consistent lap after lap and that is more important than overall times in my opinion

Software like this would be great. I'd love a race mode. I dislike DSC normal Mode and Mmode is still very invasive when you want to have fun and drive at the brink of 10/10s at the track. So when I am at the track full DSC off it would be really nice to have even the furthest point of TC to try and take on physics only when the car realizes its about to die. Great job Ferrari

[OzStriker]

Chris Harris FTW!

[McLuVan]

Originally Posted by M-Tuned

what? the shift paddle on Ferrari doesn't turn with steering wheel?

I think it's because you're not supposed to be shifting and turning at the same time?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by RichB

How is software developed? By people...salaries to design, develop, test is not free. It is true that the variable cost to implement on an additional car is nearly $0, but the upfront cost can be quite high (think Microsoft, etc). Same can be said about a manufacturing physical products.

Agreed. I never meant there is no cost, but just no true part cost per vehicle. Sure the software has to be loaded but that is independent of the quality/function/complexity of the software. My point is that BMW surely had better software than what they actually released say from their racing programs. In that regard no extra costs such as those you mentioned.

Originally Posted by RichB

Typically, the incremental cost to produce a physical part is not as high as the upfront cost to design it.

In regards to manufacturing the upfront vs. per piece cost is entirely a function of the part and volume. For cars made in any appreciable volume the part cost far outweighs the development costs.

Also Microsoft enjoys huge margins not obtainable in most high volume manufacturing.

P.S. I'm in the software field myself at a NASDAQ software company.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Panda///Monic

Saw this video awhile back and its impressive as their track setting is actually producing faster lap times than all safeties off.
I'm sure in the hands of a professional driver they might be able to squeeze out a few tenths or maybe even a second of performance more out of it with everything off, but the results would be minimal at best. The car is very consistent lap after lap and that is more important than overall times in my opinion

Software like this would be great. I'd love a race mode. I dislike DSC normal Mode and Mmode is still very invasive when you want to have fun and drive at the brink of 10/10s at the track. So when I am at the track full DSC off it would be really nice to have even the furthest point of TC to try and take on physics only when the car realizes its about to die. Great job Ferrari

Indeed, when the software is so good that it produces the best results for both those less experienced and for pros you know you got it right. It would be interesting to know if Ferrari test drivers use the "nannys" to get their lap records. I would not bet against that.

M mode absolutely is too invasive. So again I am looking forward to the new ZCP software and hopefully a hack to get it.

[waremark]

You guys who think MDM is too intrusive, what do you find you can do better with it off? Can you get better lap times with it off? Don't you find you can get the car quite sideways with it on?

A couple of people have commented on Ferrari's having paddles fixed on the column, instead of turning with the wheel. Lambo's also have the paddles fixed, but in both cases they use much larger paddles so they are easier to find. In Ferrari's and Lambo's there is no shifter in the centre of the car; I reckon that the M3 can give us the best of both worlds, paddles by your fingers when you are steering with fixed grip, and a shifter in the centre for when you use different steering methods and so your fingers are not by the paddles.

If you like this video of Chris Harris in the 458, do you all remember him driving his own M3 round an amazingly slippery Nurburgring in November 2007? It made me impatient for my car to arrive!

http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallp...0&CT=V&FLT=34|

I think Chris Harris is a great broadcaster, and I am delighted that he is now making videos again regularly at Evo.

[ersin]

I love to watch Chris Harris. Really. But this is one video where I wish he would just shut up and let us hear the sound of that Ferrari.

[SenorFunkyPants]

I would have thought how the 458 drives on the track (wrt to TC) is mostly irrelevant to the M3 which for ~99.9% of owners is strictly a street driven car. I suspect its easier for TC to be smooth and progressive on a pool table smooth high grip track...far more important is how the 458 would drive on bumpy streets with variable grip levels.

[waremark]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I would have thought how the 458 drives on the track (wrt to TC) is mostly irrelevant to the M3 which for ~99.9% of owners is strictly a street driven car. I suspect its easier for TC to be smooth and progressive on a pool table smooth high grip track...far more important is how the 458 would drive on bumpy streets with variable grip levels.

Chris found the 458 sublime on the road; that vid is also on the EVO website.

[MN M3]

Several points are missed in this discussion.

1. The 458's development cycle is much newer than the M3's. The M3 was planned and programmed several years ago - probably 5-6 by now. The 458's program is about 4 years newer. Better programming from more advancements?
2. Software is NOT the only missing link here, and it is not a zero-cost issue. The per copy cost is near zero, but that misses the millions (if not billions) spent on development. Plus, the software is only as good as the hardware that is it programmed to use. Comparing the M3 to the 458 is pointless. Entirely different philosophies, engineering, materials, etc. The 458 weighs hundreds of pounds less than an M3. The 458 has no backseat, no need for rear headroom, no sedan to accommodate, etc.