Design Study: Pagani Zonda

By Bruce McCulloch


Out of the many fantastic supercar designs that have emerged in the past some ten years, the "Pagani Zonda" arguably boasts the most "out there, over the top" design of the crop. Indeed, it's not conservative, nor is it quiet in its design elements and it's most definitely a car for the extrovert rather than the introvert. One could even go as far as to say the Zonda has a design which truly is an acquired taste; you either hate it or you love it.

Myself, well, I'm most definitely one of the latter. I'm one who appreciates the vehicle's great use of thematic, bold and extrovert styling elements; I'm all for the "racing car mixed with a F-16 jet fighter" look, as it truly is one of a kind.Though I can completely understand if one feels it's too clever by half, and thus feels the vehicle's design is very much bordering on overkill.

I think that to fully appreciate the Zonda from a design point of view, one must understand the Zonda's design philosophy and premise. And here today, I hope to give you further insight into this spectacular design - both for the curious and for already-existing fans of the vehicle who wish to learn more about it.

Now of course, most every design has some sort of inspiration and when it comes to this Italian wonder, the general design concept was inspired by that which is the Mercedes-Benz "Sauber C9" (a Group-C racer) of the late 1980's. No surprise then, this is when the Zonda (then codenamed the "Fangio F1" for the car's human inspiration, Juan Manuel Fangio) was born. From thereon, the company's founder and vehicle's designer, Horacio Pagani, would continue to creatively “stretch” the inspired design of the C9 while adding his personal touches of eccentricity.

I do think it's only appropriate for me to inform you on why borrowing inspiration from 1987 C9 was such an important thing to Horacio Pagani and his vision of the "Fangio F1". The reason for such was that Pagani's long-time childhood idol had been the 5-time World Champion Juan Manuel Fangio, possibly the greatest racing driver that has ever lived. After successfully designing a Renault Formula 3 car in Argentina - Pagani's place of birth - the young Horacio was eventually afforded the chance to meet his idol and from there on, Fangio befriended his young fan and introduced him to Modena where he would later take a position at Lamborghini Automobili, and later still opening his own design/industry supply company under the name "Modena Design". Shortly thereafter, it was all history - wanting to create a supercar in Fangio's name, Horacio set off with the goal of drawing inspiration from Fangio's favourite company, Mercedes-Benz.

Additionally, Horacio tells the great story that Fangio said to Pagani that if he was going to create his own supercar in Fangio’s image, "it must have a Mercedes-Benz engine; I'm a Mercedes-Benz man". So it goes without saying then, after that wonderful anecdote, that implementing Mercedes-Benz style into his supercar was a big priority.

’89 Mercedes-Benz Sauber C9

Early Zonda concept drawing

Once one does learn that the Zonda draws inspiration from a race car, the design may perhaps be interpreted as more coherent. The resemblance is clearly evident too - Swooping, high front wheel arches with minimal metal gaping; a low front end with a bubble canopy giving the sensation one is driving between the wheels and a swooping, wide and low rear-end. Individual similarities in design elements between the Pagani and Mercedes are also evident. For instance, the Zonda S' "frog-eye" mirrors are purposely meant to mimic that of the C9, and the Zonda S Roadster goes as far as mimicking the C9's individual air vents found on the side and rear wheel arches of the vehicle.

Detailing Elements:

Though the general silhouette draws inspiration from the C9, the Zonda very much has its own distinctive character - particularly through its detailing. That is of course, with much thanks to Horacio's eccentricity as an artist.

Zonda C12 (1999)


Released in 1999, the "C12" version of the Zonda was the first road-legal production Pagani automobile. Its quite that it's less bold than its successors, but it's still shocking enough to drop most anyone's jaw. Key styling elements with the C12 are: conjoined circular tail lamps, it's one piece rear spoiler, swooping under-tray diffuser; frog-eye mirrors and it's square-cut front bumper with it's quad circular head lamps.

Zonda S (2002)


The C12's successor which arrived in '02, is arguably even crazier. Much of the design focus with the Zonda S was to rework the rear-end and thus is evident by it's: two separate spoilers; additional body flaps on the rear; separated tail lamps; accentuated quad pipe system; and "C12" badge, just behind the bubble canopy, in a circle on the rear bonnet. Whilst the rear-end received quite a theatrical makeover, the front end received a great deal less. In fact, the only visible change is the addition of that of a formula-one inspired arrow integrated into the front bumper; which ultimately, is meant to pay homage to the famous "Silver Arrows" Mercedes-Benz racecars.

Zonda F (2005)



While one might have imagined that the Zonda S was going to be the pinnacle of Horacio's output, he proved all us wrong in 2005 when he released the S' successor, prominently referred as the "F" (which is meant to represent Juan Manuel Fangio, of course).

If you followed the Zonda prior to the F's release, it wouldn't have been hard to see the styling changes. From head-on the signal lamps were integrated into the headlamp units; the bottom aero-dam was re-designed with more curves and unexposed fog lamps. Also worth noting is that nose arrow had been accentuated by 50mm, thus further increasing the Zonda's already aggressive qualities.

But similar to the C12S transformation, the F's biggest design re-work had been with it's rear-end. Horacio, aiming to keep the Zonda looking modern and technologically advanced, meant the implementation of not only more carbon fibre parts, but contemporary styling details were of huge importance. And I think it really has worked. The Zonda does appear to have very much of a classical design theme, without looking the least bit dated or derivative. The rear-end, for example, differs from the Zonda S as it features a one-piece spoiler which ultimately allows cleaner air flow, less drag and more down force. The engine air-cooling grills had been interestingly reshaped so that they partially wrap around the exhausts and give a freer flow to the design of the body. The biggest change, however, is undoubtedly taillights; where the brake, reverse and signal lamp have all been separated and placed in a horizontal position. Not only are they LED-equipped, but each of the lights are wrapped with a silver lining. The actual block which the tail lamps are situated upon remained untouched, though the once-visible bottom seam is nowhere to be seen.


From a side angle, the mirrors had notably relocated to the front fender; finished in unpainted carbon fibre and sculpted for aerodynamic efficiency. And even the rims differ from the Zonda S; though originally based upon that which were previously seen on the Zonda Roadster, they differ with the addition with what would appear to be, for the lack of a better word, "teeth".
Other such features are the various scoops and holes throughout the body. The front two behind the front fenders serve their purpose to help keep the brakes cooled; while the vents on the rear fenders help to both cool the brakes and reduce air pressure at the rear of the vehicle.

And as opposed to the “C12” model, the F differs from previous iterations by the implementation of a clear plexi-glass engine cover just behind the canopy. And just when you think the detailing cannot get anymore comprehensive, Pagani decided to finish the “F” in the Zonda badge in the exact cursive script in which Mr. Fangio wrote the “F” as part of his own name.

Dimensions:

People often misinterpret the Zonda’s dimensions as big and bulky; assuming that because it looks like a NASA rocket, that it’s also sized like one too. Though the redesign of the Zonda F actually lengthens the Zonda, some might be surprised to find out that the vehicle isn’t as big as it looks in photos. At 174.6 inches it is the same length as a Porsche 996 GT3 and at 44.9 inches in height it is .2 inches taller than a Lamborghini Murcielago. It is however, .4 inches wider than a Murcielago. But, overall, certainly nothing abnormal from a size perspective.

Aerodynamic Design Influence:

When introducing the Zonda F, Pagani had wanted to rebut one particular criticism of his vehicle, the aerodynamics. And it’s true, the Zonda’s aerodynamics were always a little wonky. As a result, the design philosophy for the F version was to make sure the car was more aerodynamically efficient than previous iterations, without compromising the Zonda’s unique sense of style.

The problem with the Zonda S was that once the air flowed over the bonnet it was interrupted by the positioning of the highly placed mirrors, and then further bounced off the dual spoilers. Additionally, Pagani claims that while redesigning the Zonda, he noticed that the radiator in the Zonda S hadn’t been working to its full potential; once the air entered the nose it was continuously thrown around, failing to hit the radiator inlets head-on.

And most, if not all, of the additional details on the F helped increase the Zonda’s aerodynamic efficiency. For instance, the reworked undertray diffuser combined with the front aero dam and rear spoiler considerably increases downforce at 200mph from 700kg to 900kg and brings the Zonda aerodynamic air distribution to F46/R54. Meanwhile, the drag coefficient has undergone a significant drop from the Zonda S; .39 versus .36 respectively. And this effect is further accentuated with the suspension being 10 millimeters lower than previous versions.

So there you have it. An in-depth look into what is certainly one of my favourite designs of all time. And to think I didn’t even touch on the subject of the interior...

Ignored Italia

By Bruce McCulloch

The F50 never broke Ferrari tradition, it just revolutionized it



Had you read one of my earlier articles about Ferrari’s shady operations (entitled: The Unmasked Criminals), you probably would have gathered the impression I’m far from the world’s biggest Ferrari fan.

However, I mustn’t kid myself; this iconic firm has produced some of the world’s most fabulous vehicles. From the amazing ‘F40’ to the multi-million dollar ‘250 GTO’, they create many vehicles, which quite simply, are things dreams are made of.

While I’ll greatly admire those models, I feel there is one particular vehicle assembled in Modena that is indeed up with there with the best, but happens to be one of the most overlooked vehicles to ever wheel out of the legendary gates in Modena.

That vehicle happens to be their 50th anniversary supercar which they refer to as the ‘F50’.

Ferrari’s last major supercar previously, the ‘F40’ had been a great success for Ferrari. Released in 1988 with an original planned production of just 400 units, Ferrari was able to successfully produce and sell exactly 1,315 units. By the time Ferrari’s 50th birthday arrived, the idea for yet another ground-breaking flagship had arisen. The concept of the vehicle had been not to further improve on the predecessor as the F40 had done with its own predecessor, the 288 GTO, but to assemble something entirely new. Something that would most properly abide to what Ferrari was aiming at creating, ‘a racecar for the road’.

Problem is, while magazine publications constantly brown-nose Ferrari’s recent crop of vehicles, the foundation on which these vehicles were created on is being forgotten. Mind you, it’s not only the media that deserves a slap in the face, its automotive enthusiast’s world wide - if I may be frank. While general interest in Ferrari supercars is focused on that of the ‘Enzo’ and the ‘F40’ (and to a lesser extent the ‘288 GTO’); the F50 is a vehicle which is constantly ignored but most certainly shouldn’t be.

I suppose the important question here is, why?

Well, the fact that the F50 wore a carbon-fibre body shell that was often criticised as being unambiguously ugly certainly didn’t help it garnish a sterling reputation. Unlike previous attempts which had slowly evolved the hard-edged square-ish designs of the 1980’s, the F50 revolutionized Ferrari design. Ultimately, I think that they tried to blend the old familiar traits which fanatics associated the brand with (like the F50’s rear-end resemblance with the F40), but also tried adding a new degree of allure by making something ‘out of box’. As a result, the F50 could be described as anything but a blocky square; the F50 was a body of curves and shapes, and this alone didn’t sit well with hardcore Ferrari fanatics.

So then, how do I personally feel about the F50’s styling? Well, I think it’s absolutely awful; from front to back I think it’s vulgar in every way imaginable. This is an opinion shared by many other automotives enthusiasts and if styling is your major concern (as I imagine it is for most others) then the F50 is not going to fulfill your needs regarding beauty as it has more or less the same attractive qualities ascribed to catching a venereal disease.



One could argue though, that the preceding F40 was far from the prettiest car on the block. I’d certainly agree that it doesn’t have the beauty of something like an Aston Martin, but in some special way, it’s got a handsomeness which is certainly more attractive than the F50. Think of a Teutonic knight if you will; no delicate features, but brutally attractive and most certainly awesome. Whereas the F50 is all tortured lines to me.

Mind you, Ferrari’s goal with the F50 was never to make a beautiful car, but rather to further push the envelope of aerodynamics. Whilst the F50’s body had a higher drag coefficient than that of the F40 (.34 CD versus .36 CD respectively), the undertray had been sculpted in order to more or less make up for the higher CD. Even the god-awful nostrils gracing the front of the car are functional – equipped with a series of fans they help to create downforce through the front of the vehicle thus increasing its cornering abilities and general performance figures.

I don’t doubt that for one second that biggest downfall of the mid 90’s supercar was its exterior metal; something which is very unfortunate considering it cloaked what turned out to be such a brilliant car.

Sadly, the F50 fell to further criticism when it came to its engine and more importantly, it’s straight line performance. Whereas previous Ferrari flagships such as the 288 GTO and the F40 maximized power from 8-cylinder engines with forced induction, Ferrari had an all-new trick up their sleeve for the engine of the F50. That trick was to borrow the basic engine plan from their 1993 333 SP LeMans car. In standard guise this engine had: 5 valves per cylinder; 650bhp; a displacement figure of just 4.0 litres and above all else, a redline near 12,000 rpm. That last part though, was the key; no longer would Ferrari settle for forced induction or truthfully, an engine that didn’t resemble a Formula One vehicle.

Ferrari’s first of many challenges was to make this engine suitable for road use and ultimately, compliant with emissions rules across the world. Word around the street was that Ferrari had to actually dial the redline backwards to make it pass emissions; nevertheless, an 8,500 rpm limit in 1995 was quite unheard of. Even the most powerful and blistering of supercars were not as peaky; the Jaguar XJ220 topped out at 7,200 rpm, the McLaren at 7,500 rpm and the F40 at ‘just’ 8,000 rpm.



In a further nod to this goal of ensuring that the vehicle had road-worthy torque, Ferrari bored the engine 4.7 litres thus increasing the maximum torque to 347 lb-ft (or 470 Newton Metres for our European readers) peaking at an astonishing 6,000 rpm. Furthermore, the engine churned out 513bhp (Or 520PS), at 8,500 rpm. Make no mistake, the F50 was a racing car for the road and while the concept of the high-revving engine wasn’t new by any means; this took it to a new level. While one can constantly compliment Ferrari’s recent efforts for their amazing high-revving engines, it should be mentioned that the F50 paved the way for many of today’s recent and greatest Ferraris.

Unfortunately, many did not see such an engine as a positive, but rather a negative. I suppose they can’t be blamed as a quick comparison between the F50 and its predecessor revealed that despite an extra four cylinders with an extra 1.8 litres of displacement; the F50 did have some 40 more horsepower than the F40, but was in no way exceeding the F40 when it came to outright force as the torque had dropped a whopping 78lb-ft. This is something which drew great controversy and confusion among fans.

Additionally adding to its bad karma was the installation of its 12-cylinder engine coupled with the ever-increasing (and restrictive) safety laws which required the gain of an additional 150 some pounds (120+kg) of unsprung weight over the F40.

As a result its performance figures, at best, were are par with that of the F40; zero-to-sixty under 4.0 seconds and zero-to-one hundred in a flash of 8.0 seconds. Even the top speed of the two vehicles, were amazingly similar – both breaching a tad over 200 mph.

So then, at first glance, the F50 didn’t have a lot to offer. It wasn’t particularly good looking; it was heavier, less powerful (in the grand scheme of things), nor was it any faster than its predecessor. Or at least, that’s what the majority believed.

Truth is, in the real world the F50 was a far faster automobile. Let me tell you this, trying to achieve consistent performance figures out of any 1980’s supercar with a turbocharger was about a successful as skiing uphill. Such a statement is proven out by the zero-to-sixty figures of the F40 from different testers varying from 3.6 seconds up to 4.8 seconds.

This is where the F50 truly shined; whereas the F40 was left spooling its multiple turbochargers, the F50 was off the line without hesitation. Suffice it to say, the adaptation of a naturally aspirated high-revving 12 cylinder had done Ferrari well. Had these two cars lined up in mid-range acceleration race, the F50 would have always had the obvious advantage.

This is where the F50’s adaptation of Formula One technology for the road really started to shine. For instance, the vehicle’s technological trumps continued with its ultra-lightweight carbon fibre chassis which was not only lighter than that of its predecessor, but stronger as well. The adaptation of this with the addition of a suspension inspired by that of a race car equipped with race-proven brakes meant the F50 had no trouble handling and feeling very much like a Formula One vehicle. That ultimately, was the F50’s appeal.

Mind you, the boasting around adapting F1 technology for the road didn’t end there because Ferrari also implemented a close-ratio 6-speed manual gearbox with this vehicle. Such a transmission was an advancement at the time as it allowed the F50’s high revving power to be delivered across a wide variety of ranges; furthermore it should be noted that majority of high-end exotics had been optimizing 5-speed manuals – A 6 speed manual wasn’t a common thing back in the good ol’ days. What’s particularly interesting about this 6-speed is how the entire transmission is bolted to the rear subframe (similar to that of an F1 car); this is a feature which is very rare indeed. It’s special because there are only two other vehicles that I am aware of that have this particular layout, the 1994 McLaren F1 and 2004 Porsche Carrera GT.

The advantages of such are as follows: compact size; lightweight, low polar inertia and balance. On a downside, this particular style of engineering can cause major vibration and shudders through the cockpit if the not properly insulated. You’ll be glad to know though that I can’t ever recall reading about or hearing of a single soul complaining about an issue relevant to the potential vibration issue.

However, F1-inspired or not, Ferrari did have as one of their goals to make their 50th anniversary vehicle somewhat more drivable than the F40, which had gained the reputation of being both insane and scary. The goal with the F50 was to make a vehicle that could generally out-perform the previous model, but in a way which was more accessible to the casual driver. They succeeded too, whereas the F40 felt like a somewhat mad shopping cart, the F50 felt like a padded shopping kart with the complimentary addition of brakes, and sublime handling. With this, Ferrari was able to keep much of the driving thrill the F40 had been lauded for, but in a much more suitable package.

Even the interior, which shared much of the same foolishness of the F40, was nowhere as choppy or poorly built. Make no mistake, there still were still crank-up windows and noticeable welds; overall though; this interior – err, chassis tub – had a far more enjoyable ambience.



Assuming you’ve been paying attention you would have noticed I have benchmarked much of the F50 against the F40 and nothing else. To ask “why?” is a reasonable question and I shall answer that. Let’s face it; when a successor comes out the only real thing that is on the minds of the enthusiasts is whether it’s any better than the predecessor. Indeed – “Is it faster”, “is it better?” are important questions – especially when judging a car whose predecessor quickly gained the reputation of being a future legend.

Having said that, I suppose the ending question is, F40 or F50? I personally would take the F40, but in the opinion of this enthusiast, the F50 is the better vehicle.

And had you been wondering how the F50 fared amongst its other competition; let’s just put it this way, amazingly well. While it is indeed true that the F50 was one of the least powerful and slower (writing that sounds so repulsive) supercars, it never failed to do what a true supercar should.

Sure, it was never the fastest in the pack, nor the prettiest, but it’s technology, driving excitement and all the other important attributes – brakes, handling, engine sound – was always up there with the best of them (in some cases, better). For instance, back when the F50 was first released, British magazine journalist Jeremy Clarkson was quoted as saying: “even at this speed a McLaren F1 would have steamship body roll, but the F50 stays as flat as a mill-pond”. Similar comments ensued when the vehicle was compared to other competition; yet here we are, 12 years after the release of the F50 and it remains to be a classic case of “misunderstood”. Suffice to say, it’s a shame most of these facts are not well known.

To this end, allow me to quote a set of lyrics from a song titled “Witch Hunt” by the Canadian rock trio, ‘Rush’: “quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand”. Seems to fit the F50’s situation, and besides, how many articles about the Ferrari F50 have you read that quote a Canadian rock band? Eh?

Specifications:

Engine:
4.7 litre 12-Cylinder
DOHC, 5 Valves per Cylinder
520PS @ 8,500 rpm
347lb-ft of torque @ 6,000 rpm

Performance:
0-62 mph: in the area of 3.7 seconds
0-100 mph: in the area of 8.0 seconds
Top Speed: 202 mph

Pagani Revamp

According to EVO Magazine, Italian manufacturer Pagani Automobili has now received a total of six orders (with four waiting to be confirmed) for the next iteration of the Zonda, the 'Zonda R'. With a total production amount of just ten units, Pagani is asking an astonishing 1.2 Million Euro's for this all-inspiring track monster.

Company owner, Horacio Pagani also indicates that he has secured a new factory which is not only three times the size of his current operation, but just a kilometre away from the current factory. Such a purchase and move will allow Pagani to achieve his goal of selling cars around globally with a yearly capacity of around 60 units.

EVO Article here