A Futuristic Ferrari. Speed is a Given but Automated

Designer Iman Maghsoudi believes driving cars in the future will be akin to operating a PC while traveling 200 km/h. Humans lacks the concentration and dexterity required to handle such a task but the inevitably of hyper-computerized vehicles is a truth we can’t avoid. Monza is built for speed but smart enough to drive itself.

At slower speeds, the “pilot” sits in a cockpit similar to straddling your office chair like a motorcycle and has full control. Once you exceed a specified speed limit, the computer takes over. The vehicle changes shape resembling an airfoil for maximum aerodynamics. The design creates lift to reduce friction and strong ground effects keep you from taking off. The 2 manta ray like fins adjust to channel air smoothly across the vehicle while also serving to make you look totally bad ass!

I’ll take 2 thanks.

Designer: Iman Maghsoudi

84 Comments

  • Sheriff says:

    wow awesome design, i love the concept!

  • zippyflounder says:

    lol 210 kph, heck my old maserat go’s faster than that and this old gray haired bastard can drive just fine at 210 kph… It wont go over 210 kph btw, the little tiny front wheels will just FLY APART…nice try kid let me know when you get your learners permit.

    • PassingBy says:

      Silly old gray haired bastard, the tiny little wheels are the back tires. You must be looking at it backwards, since it’s clearly a front wheel drive concept.

  • Keith says:

    ^^What he said.

    And yeah, because any kind of lift is good, until you go flying off the road. This is why we have friction. So it would be pointless to create lift and then cancel it out with ground effects. I hope you plan on driving on perfectly flat ground with those front tiny wheels. The front suspension must be very small to fit in that space as well. And the engine? I am guessing it is driven by a lawnmower engine, because it appears that you can’t fit anything larger in there. Man, I wish my lawnmower could go 200km/h.

    • zippyflounder says:

      kieth it could be a gas turbine, but wheeeeeeeee even with out all the other problems this “design” has lets not forget about BRAKES! Ya know them stoppers, weight transfers forward so them roller blade wheels are going to be leaving a smoking sticky streak down the side walk/road/mall….yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaa.

      • unknown says:

        O yes, I suppose you know all about it, even more than the experimental engineering experts over than Ferrari..
        I bet you’re thinking that thing won’t have a new braking system. I bet you’re thinking the airfoil won’t have some extreme muscle, no costs spared, to make sure it stays on. I suppose you don’t think they custom-designed the engine for it to fit a V12 or higher into that space.

        I bet you wish you hadn’t failed physics.

    • unknown says:

      This is ferrari engineers we’re talking about here, right?
      They can make lawnmowers go 200km/h (http://www.dixiechopper.com/model_xc.php)
      I bet, underneath all the pseudoscience, that you just wish you ever got to touch a ferrari in your sad life.

    • Crazy Phrog says:

      Umm, since this is only a futureistic design, I’m guessing the car is full electric. They already have cars that go faster than 200km/h using only electric motors. And since this will be super light, I’m guessing that even with todays technology, this would go faster. Also, it would be like the flying wing (or stealth bomber to those that don’t know it), when the concept first came around, it was difficult to control, then the computer was invented, and that made everything easier.
      I love the idea. I would do almost anything to get one.

  • Canastrophy says:

    Oooooh, Wipeout!

    (The Game, not the song.)

  • zippyflounder says:

    On a up note, its a lovely model (or rendering) well done there, but come on kid use your skills to at least adress some reality issues.

  • chris says:

    it’s red and has a ferrari logo… does that make it a ferrari?

    aside from that, a monocock implies racing… so why change the drivers position? a everyday car would have at least 2 seats (for offering that nice young lady a ride, you know)

    be kind and rewind.

  • Ahmed says:

    Soooooo Futuristic , I wonder will it by like this in the Faaaar Future

  • Mert Can says:

    Airfoil idea is a nice point, but, probability of “flying” would bring the old apple friend “gravity”.

    And in this vehicles future, there’ll be still “roads” to drive that fast and leave the control to an autopilot confident enough people… if we can fly, why we still stay.

    Artistically, is an eye candy.
    But, in my knowledge of ferrari, can’t see much of a “future” ferrari.

  • Absolutely useless, not to mention ugly design. The author doesn’t know anything about practicality and aerodynamics. The Ferrari logo is disgrace of the Ferrari cars.

    Jerry J. Broz, Former F1 designer & conceptualist.

  • powaz says:

    Another great argument for “Alias goggles”

  • austin says:

    While it looks pretty cool, achieving (sustained) speeds of 200kph requires a change in infrastructure, so this design requires the groundwork as well.

    Also, most people can’t handle that task without computer assistance. But, I imagine that if we were trained to do it that percentage would shrink.

  • shakes says:

    @Jerry J. Broz

    You should note that when you google “Iman Maghsoudi” you find several references to this design that won the Interior Motives Design Awards 2006 as well as some other design references. You should also note that when you google “Jerry J. Broz” all you find is your post here on Yanko badmouthing this design.

    Think about it…

    • Iman says:

      Jerry

      this is Iman, thanks for the comment. I am a design student in Tehran/Iran, and it would be pleasure for me to be in contact with a former F1 designer, Pls do not forget that Monza is just an Ideas about cars in 2030, it is not an actual car. I have had a research on Porf.Lippische’s airfoiles and they were my inspirations. I am very intrested in learning from you, will you pls guide me in this case, as a professional , I just want to know about the basic failures of such a vehicle, I am not one of those people who make a mistake twice!!

      Regards

      Iman

      • Formula says:

        Iman,

        I am no F1 conceptualist, but I am an automotive engineer, and one thing I can tell you is that at 200 kmh, the amount of energy expended on overcoming air friction is way,way,way higher than the amount of energy expended on overcoming rolling resistance. Keeping in mind that a teardrop is the most perfectly aerodynamic shape, we can see that, in some ways, your front-light, rear-heavy design would be almost aerodynamically counterproductive–driving backwards down the highway might be more efficient. Unfortunately, while teardrops are aerodynamically ideal, they are not generally stable enough that building a giant teardrop car would be effective. In order to improve vehicular stability, aerodynamic downforce must be generated at high speeds–unfortunately, generating this downforce via your aforementioned ground effects generates aerodynamic drag, reducing energy efficiency. Lifting the car using an aerofoil design will actually generate additional aerodynamic drag, as well–reducing rolling resistance slightly, yes, but at the cost of a heavy decrease in aerodynamic efficiency, which is a much greater factor, as we've discussed. In other words, your current design is taking a massive, massive amount of aerodynamic inefficiency on to actually increase vehicle instability at speed–you're hurting yourself doubly. Focusing on balancing aerodynamic efficiency and dynamic stability instead of just decreasing friction would lead to a much, much more efficient design.

        This, of course, is not the case with a water-based aerofoil design–in that case, since the amount of energy necessary to propel a vessel through water is vastly greater than the amount of energy required to move the same vessel through air, maximizing the lift to minimize the contact with water, even at the cost of aerodynamic efficiency, is usually the most efficient choice.

        Thus, we can see that the problem with using an aerofoil design on a car is that it is not a direct allegory to a boat–an aerofoil boat is more efficient because it pulls itself out of a higher-friction medium (water) to travel through a lower-friction medium(air)–and there is no convenient layer of lower-friction medium for cars to operate in just above their current operating medium. A hydrofoil does not reduce friction–it just moves the vessel to a zone of lower inherent friction.

        I hope this helps,
        Formula

      • Formula says:

        Iman,

        I am no F1 conceptualist, but I am an automotive engineer, and one thing I can tell you is that at 200 kmh, the amount of energy expended on overcoming air friction is way,way,way higher than the amount of energy expended on overcoming rolling resistance. Keeping in mind that a teardrop is the most perfectly aerodynamic shape, we can see that, in some ways, your front-light, rear-heavy design would be almost aerodynamically counterproductive–driving backwards down the highway might be more efficient. Unfortunately, while teardrops are aerodynamically ideal, they are not generally stable enough that building a giant teardrop car would be effective. In order to improve vehicular stability, aerodynamic downforce must be generated at high speeds–unfortunately, generating this downforce via your aforementioned ground effects generates aerodynamic drag, reducing energy efficiency. Lifting the car using an aerofoil design will actually generate additional aerodynamic drag, as well–reducing rolling resistance slightly, yes, but at the cost of a heavy decrease in aerodynamic efficiency, which is a much greater factor, as we've discussed. In other words, your current design is taking a massive, massive amount of aerodynamic inefficiency on to actually increase vehicle instability at speed–you're hurting yourself doubly. Focusing on balancing aerodynamic efficiency and dynamic stability instead of just decreasing friction would lead to a much, much more efficient design.

        This, of course, is not the case with a water-based aerofoil design–in that case, since the amount of energy necessary to propel a vessel through water is vastly greater than the amount of energy required to move the same vessel through air, maximizing the lift to minimize the contact with water, even at the cost of aerodynamic efficiency, is usually the most efficient choice.

        Thus, we can see that the problem with using an aerofoil design on a car is that it is not a direct allegory to a boat–an aerofoil boat is more efficient because it pulls itself out of a higher-friction medium (water) to travel through a lower-friction medium(air)–and there is no convenient layer of lower-friction medium for cars to operate in just above their current operating medium. A hydrofoil does not reduce friction–it just moves the vessel to a zone of lower inherent friction.

        I hope this helps,
        Formula

    • unknown says:

      It means he guy is a fake-o loser.

  • nigo's black fr says:

    too bad that in the future there will be soooooooooo many people driving that all the roads will be congested with traffic 24 hrs a day, that cars like this will make no sense.

  • nigo's black friend says:

    too bad that in the future there will be soooooooooo many people driving that all the roads will be congested with traffic 24 hrs a day, that cars like this will make no sense.

  • unknown says:

    Nobody cares if it’s flawed or not dude, it still looks f***ing awesome.

    Dumbarse killjoys, I bet your favorite hobby is trashing parties, you miserable scrooges….

  • unknown says:

    The wireless eyepiece and speed dials projected onto it (pic 4) is awesome 😀

  • brabuss says:

    its very futuristic… i like very much w ferrari design… very complicated. its awsome…
    if there a prototype or replica, i want it very much!!!

  • MJB says:

    Good design Iman, Go ahead.

    But please pay more attention to other physics issues.

  • Free says:

    well, to view it constructively, there are a lot of good aspects to extract from this concept.

    As a pilot and a engineer, i have considered the idea of utilizing airfoils for control and stabilizing purposes. However, this level of control has a price. First, the speed is important, for if your system rely heavily on airfoils you will need a secondary for when your speed is below a certain point (add to the overall weight). Second, weight is add with your control mechanisms also, which might offset the benefits. And finally but the more important, the size. From your excellent renderings, it appears you are driving a tank size vehicle, which will no doubt require rebuilding of infrastructure. On the other hand, such a creation would be interesting for sport purposes, in many ways bringing a new level to racing (the X-racer is a good example)

    good luck with your future designs
    all the best

  • ... says:

    This is terrible… Don’t put badge names which hold a beutiful history on crazy or insane ideas…. Mama mia.

  • Eli says:

    Reminds me loosely of the Mazda Kaan. Among other issues it looks as though there is too much weight on the back and if the road/tack this drove on had any imperfections I think that it might just flip over.

    Oh well it is pretty though 🙂

  • iman jan tabrik migam
    ideh khili jalebieh
    be omid movafaghiyat haye bishtaret

  • Ali Haji says:

    Aghaye maghsoodi tabrik migam .

  • What a greatful design it is…
    Its Continuity of Ferrari meaning
    by new Expression.

  • cipher says:

    love the scouter looking goggle

  • this is a monster i like this tank you for picture

  • Where can I get this equipment?
    Thanks

  • Zomg WANT. As a singer with bugger all skills on guitar but a million ideas in my head, that would be

  • I don’t know how much money i have right now but that is how much i would pay for this

  • Where can I get this?!?!?! Seriously.

  • نه خوشم اومد خدایش

  • this was a great content, many thanks for sharing it.

  • I have used my phone to record those tunes. Now if only there was software to convert those recordings to MIDI..

  • Hi decaPODA! many thanks for your message

Comments are closed.