Well said. It only makes sense that the owner of the vehicle drive it the way he/she wants to, not to some implied standard imposed by a bunch of enthusiasts.

Oh, and you forgot the part about "eliciting extreme jealousy from other people".

 

[QUOTE=alexpapas]The reality of modern cars is that any car capable of 130MPH (just about every car built today) is dangerous on public roads if driven recklessly. Just look at the accident rate (and fatalities) among new teenage drivers in hondas, totyotas, VW's etc.

QUOTE]

Alex I rarely disagree with you but this time I must. The difference between most modern cars and the CGT is night and day when looking at the power and ease of reaching incredible speeds. In the CGT you can reach 130 and barely notice. In most other cars, it would take considerable effort and time.

This fact plays a large role in safety and the need for safety aids.

 

Carelessness in any car, no matter the HP, is dangerous. Not noticing your current speed is what I would consider quite careless.

Nick, I think that most people would tend to agree with your general points, but where we disagree most vigorously is where you are drawing your line of acceptable vs. not acceptable. The CGT is not for everyone (thank God), but I would also agree that it perhaps ought to take more than a fat wallet to purchase one.

Note that the same may be said for a lot of high-performance sports cars, including offerings from Koenigsegg, Ford, Dodge, Saleen, Pagani, Lamborghini and *gasp* Ferrari.

D. Min

 

Nick,

I would think you would agree that you have seen numerous guys wrap their 360s around poles and a guy here in town just wrecked his new 430 computer driver aids and all.

Yes, the CGT would be easier for more people to drive and therefore safer if it had a paddle shift and more driver aids. I guess my thoughts are that when a car, any car is capable of 200 MPH it is inherently dangerous driven by an untrained driver at speed.

I am curious and mean no disrespect. Having been at the track when Ben died and investigated the crash that day do you think if he had been driving a 360 or 430 that day the outcome would have been any different given that he would have been carrying close to the same speed on the track at the time in a Ferrari? And I don't mean to open any wounds but am just curious about your thoughts on this ??

 

Les, I will share some information because it is public. Based on most witness accounts, Ben's actions in steering clear of the Ferrari was not anything radical or extreme. There was some braking and turning of the steering wheel. The car spun immediately.

His speed at the time is estimated between 120-130 mph. Had he had driver aids, I believe the car would not have spun so easily because the traction systems would have intervened. I know for a fact the the CGt spins fairly easily even in the best driver hands. The "Stig" who is a former Formula One driver spun it several times on the track for Top Gear. We also know of other owners spinning out.

BTW something else to ponder. When Ben left the track his estimate speed was LESS than 100mph. He spun across almost a 100 yards of grass before he hit the concrete divider. His speed when he hit the wall had to be considerably less than 80mph and yet Ben and Cory both died on impact (though Ben was barely breathing for all purposes he was dead.)

How crashworthy is the car? Obviously the car did not absorb very much energy.

The CGT is a very special car. As I look over its parts and how it was constructed, Porsche took great care in designing it for speed and performance. It really epitomizes what a race/street car should be. In this regard it is a masterpiece. Unfortunately, no great thought or consideration was given to safety issues other than airbags and they did not perform very well. On that I cannot say anymore.

 

AT the risk of sounding contrarian, I believe that a CGT at 130MPH in the hands of an experienced driver is much safer than a hopped up Honda Civic at 80MPH in the hands of a brand new 16 year old driver trying to prove how quick he is.
My point is that any mechanical equipment from a power drill to a supercar requires some skill to operate safely. I really don't believe that adding all kinds of "nanny' devices to a CGT will make it any safer. What it will do, for the inexperienced driver, is give him a false sense of security. The power in a CGT will overwhelm any safety devices if the car is driven beyond the limitations of the driver. You cannot suspend the laws of physics.

 

Nick, I respect your thoughts and I don't know where this thread goes from here. It's easier for me to be more disconnected with Ben because I'm wasn't closely associated with him. Hurricane Katrina was an enormous tragedy affecting thousands, but I can't identifiy with that whole siutation while living over here in Germany and not having anyone I even remotely know affected....at least I can't sympathize the same way as someone more personally connected. I use this only to clarify that I don't want to minimize Ben's death and I understand that your quest or resolve to spell out the dangers of this car are more personal than that of others, but really- where do you/we go from here?

Many people (Ben included) love the car. Some may be moved to sell it based on it's safety, others won't. Your point is well taken, but I think you're speaking to many on this forum who are in the company of those who understand the risks (as well as they can without witnessing a crash like Ben's) but who still enjoy their car. You've got to grant them the right to enjoy it at some point without constantly interjecting your knocks on the car, especially on a CGT specific forum....agreed? You've made your point, let them enjoy the car. For as shameful as Porsche should be in your eyes (perhaps negligent is a better word), you have a multitude of more unsafe vehicles than the CGT to worry about- including bullet bikes/crotch rockets, Dodge Vipers, etc.

On a different note (and disregard this if it's too personal):
Just out of curiosity, assuming the CGT was travelling at ~ 70 mph when it hit, that's still very fast. Don't all cars have to meet a minimum in safety? Don't all cars have to perform crash tests? I'm not making a point, I'm sincerely asking. If that's true, then how many cars would you really have a chance of survival in at a crash where you go from say 60 mph to a dead stop? I wouldn't like my odds even if I were in a Ford F350 at that speed. The impact alone could snap your neck or cause internal injuries sufficient to kill someone.

What am I getting at? I guess I'm getting back to my original premise---the design criterion Porsche put into the CGT. I'd rather be (financials not considered) in a CGT and in a crash at say 40 mph, then a Honda Accord. My point is it's probably better/safer than most cars out there. Now after we get to speeds in excess of 100 mph, there are assuredly cars more safe than the CGT. But those cars may sacrifice handling, feedback, acceleration or whatever. Again get's back to my original point---design considerations. I know you don't like the car's safety and you're justified to have that opinion. Let others be justified in enjoying the car for what it is and how it may perform- sacrificing safety for other excess in other attributes perhaps. No?

 

May be we are over-reacting here, I mean only three people are dead so far one burned to death and the other two died with their heart and brain displaced. At the same ratio 20,000 teen-agers would have been killed in FY05 in a Honda so which one is safer? From Porsche’s point of view a damaged CGT is more money in their pocket and a destroyed one is early termination on the warranty for a customer that probably won’t come back for another ten years – probably never.

I love my GT3 just the same after Ben's death, but won't be shopping a CGT anytime soon. There is already a 520hp V10 cab with F1 tranny and AWD on the way and there is the 430 spyder if you don’t want AWD. Both of these are fast enough, just as fun and far safer too.

 

I would think you would agree that you have seen numerous guys wrap their 360s around poles and a guy here in town just wrecked his new 430 computer driver aids and all.

One trip to Premier Motorsport in West LA will show you all kinds of crashed Ferrari's , I guess all the driver aids did not work.

The past has shown that gentlemen and upper club level racers have one talent : to make / inherit large amounts of money but that talent does not translate into professional driving skills, it only let's you buy all the toys.

 

The CGT has electronic traction control, at the request of Porsche's #1 test driver, Walter Rorhl.

"The traction control or 'anti-slip regulation' system (ASR) provides direct coordination of all four wheels to smooth out any variances in traction. This selective regulation of each individual wheel enables the car to maximize the available grip and achieve balanced acceleration and braking. For added driver involvement, the traction control system can be manually disabled at the wheel..."

 

As I've stated earlier, I've not driven a CGT but have lots of track and street miles in 600 hp vehicles. The problem isn't that it can't be driven safely. The problem is that driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slowly. So guys in fast cars tend to have fun by going fast, and in these ultra-hig-performance cars, that is very fast. Fast means using some significant portion of the car's capabilities, and in mid-engined supercars without huge downforce and slicks, it' is very difficult to tell when you near the limits. So you think you are slow enough, til you find you aren't. Then, the reaction time to correct a heavy mid-engined car is microseconds, and the typical "good driver" isn't experienced enough or quick enough to do it.
The end result is anyone can be safe in the middle of the car's envelope (say pulling .6 g's vs a max limit of .9 or thereabouts). But, with incredible power, it is extraordinarily easy to go over the edge. This will typically happen when a driver is "experimenting" or impressing a passenger. If you have the iron discipline to always go slow, anyone can be safe in anything.
Re safety vs Honda, I would guess the Honda is safer at a given speed. For one thing, it probably gives the driver much earlier warning that bad stuff is about to happen. But more importantly, in a place the CGT could get to 80, the Honda would only get to 30. Dissipatable energy is a function of the square of speed. For this specific example, that is 7 times more kinetic energy transferred to the driver.AS

 

AS,

Very well said. "you think you are going slow enough until you aren't, then the reaction time trying to correct a big mid engined supercar is microseconds"

Very, very, well put. Your post IMHO really sums it all up perfectly. The fact is that only an experienced driver is going to safely extricate oneself from a high speed problem and in my opinion all the classroom and face time from an instructor is of little value because of the limited amount of microseconds you have to resolve or correct the problem. Any ability I have to properly correct a car in a 125 MPH plus roblem comes from directly experiencing such a problem and learning from each experience. That is one reason Skip Barber and some other schools require you to come in after a spin during race practice to force you to reflect on what you did right and wrong and discuss it with one of their pro's. I have found that during the times I have safely corrected a high speed problem that I first felt the problem in the seat of my pants and then watched my hands prperly correct before my mind was able to comprehend what needed to be done. The times I have screwed up are when I unconsciously didn't react fast enough and by then it was too late to correct. IMHO the ability to safely resolve the problem comes from on track experience.

I forgot how many times i have been a passenger in a supercar and the driver is way over is head while he is trying to show off. At this point I don't accept many rides these days.

The kinetic energy stuff is way over my head though. LOL

 

I don't ride with anyone, and I mean anyone. I'm responsible for myself, but I won't risk my life in the hands of anyone else at high speed in a supercar - not Michael Schumacher . Not anyone. Even the best drivers make mistakes and I don't want to be in the car when they can't recover.

I have huge admiration for pro driving school instructors and even more for volunteers at DE events, as I have learned most of what I know about performance driving from them, but I simply will not do what they do on a regular basis - get in a car with a rich hotshot clearly lacking in basic (sometimes) and advanced (always) skills, but with some part of their brain wanting to impress the instructor, without appreciation for the consequences of losing control at high speed..

 

You can get a good estimate of the speed by showing the barrier manufacturer the photos on how far the barriers moved. They'll know the barrier weight and how far they should move based on the mounting surface.

It appears the car hit the barrier very hard since the engine and headlights left the vehicle. The fact that the passenger compartment was still intact is a major plus for the safety engineering of the carbon fiber shell.

BTW, the actual speed shouldn't really matter to anyone legally since it was a closed course with no speed limits. If anyone's at fault, it's the track owners allowing an unreasonably dangerous situation to exist.

 

Nick- "One would think that the $450,000 car would have the driving aids as opposed to the $65,000. One would think that a $450,000 car would assist a driver in avoiding the brink of disaster. To say that it is a drivers car thus he/she are personally responsible not only misses the point but endangers not only the driver but the those around him. This is my last word on the subject."

Rest assured that were i paying that kind of money for any car that i would not want an electronic "big driving brother" riding along with me.

Put a telephone cord in the hands of a jeffrey dahmer, and it becomes an instrument of death/torture.

Does that mean telephone cords are inherently unsafe?

Ummm.....no.

Technology is dumbing down human knowledge and experience in the old ways. When i was in the Army you had to be able to read a map, do compass navigation, be able to manually call/plot fires, etc.

Now all a guy has to do is read his GPS unit to do the same things...and the old skills are slipping.

Back in the day to get the most out of a car one had to practice, practice, practice(and have a good bit of natural talent to begin with), now the idiot just mashes the gas and the computer provides the 'skill'.

That's why i like the CGT so much(and i've never even driven one), because it is a throwback to the days when men really were men, not little boys aided by a computer.