Forgive me, but I respectfully disagree.....
09-05-2005, 09:38 PM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me, but I respectfully disagree.....
The CGT is perhaps dangerous, but why all the dialogue about it? Why waste digital storage space contemplating whether or not "I can like the car because of it's dangerous demeanor?" How incredibly stupid! Really.
What vehicle that can go +100 mph isn't dangerous? Or +40 mph for that matter. I think everyone understands that $450k is good amount of money, but life is worth infinitely more. So, no one spending $450k is under the dillusion that "Ahh, that much money bought me the right to go exceedingly fast without endangering my life! And if I am endanering my life, shame on you Porsche." Now it would be different if wheels were falling off, engines blowing out or other blatant engineering lapses on Porsche's behalf, but that's hardly the case. They built a solid, fast car with various considerations in mind. I won't list them, but I think the CGT is reasonable considering that 'safety' wasn't the only design criterion; I would imagine fast, sleek, one of a kind, light-weight, nimble, etc. were all considerations as well. So making a four-wheel drive car, adding a large roll-cage, etc... suddenly compromises what is the CGT.
I think a good illustration of how design goals influence a car would be the comparison between an Audi RS4 and the BMW M3. Magazines love to compare these. Having owned one of them and spent considerable time in the other, I would say BMW wanted a super-sporty coupe, 2 + 2 seater that went fast. Audi designed a super-sporty small sedan (also in station-wagon form), 4 doors, Quattro, more room and consequently has more weight and is bogged down by it a bit. They're fundamentally different cars because of the obvious differences manifest in their respective designs. BMW owners think the Audi is unnecessarily heavy and big, not sporty enough. Audi owners think the BMW isn't safe enough and can't be driven safely in bad weather.
I regretfully don't own a CGT yet, but I enjoy reading the reviews of those who do. Being able to write a check for one is only half the battle; I'm in a temporary state of residence' for now and the near future and can't really store one properly or securely. But I would buy one aware of the risk and love it all the same.
I guess my point is that regardless of the car you drive, you should always drive within your own ability to control it. Ben had a freak accident which wasn't necessarily the cars fault. He was going fast with little time to react and apparently a series of unfortunate events cost him his life. Going well over 100 mph isn't safe, regardless of the car. But if you are willing to take that risk(as I am), then you've already proven you're willing to risk safety and you shouldn't blame the car for the consequences of that choice. My dad used to tell me, "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian."
What vehicle that can go +100 mph isn't dangerous? Or +40 mph for that matter. I think everyone understands that $450k is good amount of money, but life is worth infinitely more. So, no one spending $450k is under the dillusion that "Ahh, that much money bought me the right to go exceedingly fast without endangering my life! And if I am endanering my life, shame on you Porsche." Now it would be different if wheels were falling off, engines blowing out or other blatant engineering lapses on Porsche's behalf, but that's hardly the case. They built a solid, fast car with various considerations in mind. I won't list them, but I think the CGT is reasonable considering that 'safety' wasn't the only design criterion; I would imagine fast, sleek, one of a kind, light-weight, nimble, etc. were all considerations as well. So making a four-wheel drive car, adding a large roll-cage, etc... suddenly compromises what is the CGT.
I think a good illustration of how design goals influence a car would be the comparison between an Audi RS4 and the BMW M3. Magazines love to compare these. Having owned one of them and spent considerable time in the other, I would say BMW wanted a super-sporty coupe, 2 + 2 seater that went fast. Audi designed a super-sporty small sedan (also in station-wagon form), 4 doors, Quattro, more room and consequently has more weight and is bogged down by it a bit. They're fundamentally different cars because of the obvious differences manifest in their respective designs. BMW owners think the Audi is unnecessarily heavy and big, not sporty enough. Audi owners think the BMW isn't safe enough and can't be driven safely in bad weather.
I regretfully don't own a CGT yet, but I enjoy reading the reviews of those who do. Being able to write a check for one is only half the battle; I'm in a temporary state of residence' for now and the near future and can't really store one properly or securely. But I would buy one aware of the risk and love it all the same.
I guess my point is that regardless of the car you drive, you should always drive within your own ability to control it. Ben had a freak accident which wasn't necessarily the cars fault. He was going fast with little time to react and apparently a series of unfortunate events cost him his life. Going well over 100 mph isn't safe, regardless of the car. But if you are willing to take that risk(as I am), then you've already proven you're willing to risk safety and you shouldn't blame the car for the consequences of that choice. My dad used to tell me, "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian."
09-05-2005, 10:47 PM
#2
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
phantomias33 I do agree with what you say, but others on this board argue that a vehicle like the C-GT which allows drivers to so readily get in above their heads with respect to skill ought to be either heavily regulated or not allowed at all.
Of course, if instead you were to install an F1 gearbox and scuderia shields with a prancing horse, all would be well.
phantomias33 I do agree with what you say, but others on this board argue that a vehicle like the C-GT which allows drivers to so readily get in above their heads with respect to skill ought to be either heavily regulated or not allowed at all.
Of course, if instead you were to install an F1 gearbox and scuderia shields with a prancing horse, all would be well.
09-06-2005, 08:40 AM
#3
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't post here because I haven't bought one yet and I feel like I have far less right to do so or comment on the car. However, I've recently read a couple of newer people posting comments or debates about whether or not they can even like the car......seems absurd. To each there own and I'm glad that we're all different- it adds variety to life. But when logic seems to be fundamentally flawed, then it gets hard to take.
Nick is just funny at this point; but his arguments would better focused on bullet-bike forums if he's concerned about safety and high-speed vehicles. I know, he's 'concerned for his and the safety of others'. How often, if EVER will he be on the same road as a CGT. Does he assume that the driver doesn't give a rats a about his/her $450k purchase and is driving like a maniac? And to think the 430 is any less dangerous....
The car sounds like it's an unparalled engineering phenom; I wish I had other considerations in my own life figured out so I could feel comfortable buying one. To those who 'can't' like it because it's dangerous- please find some more compelling reasons to dislike it, perhaps the price for instance. I'm just worried that such current lack of reasoning will eventually give rise to a post blaming George Bush for CGT and it's safety. It is, after all, his fault for inventing the Cayenne. (...and his fault for the Hurricane, the Eagles losing the Superbowl, for Christopher Reeves dying, etc, etc.)
Nick is just funny at this point; but his arguments would better focused on bullet-bike forums if he's concerned about safety and high-speed vehicles. I know, he's 'concerned for his and the safety of others'. How often, if EVER will he be on the same road as a CGT. Does he assume that the driver doesn't give a rats a about his/her $450k purchase and is driving like a maniac? And to think the 430 is any less dangerous....
The car sounds like it's an unparalled engineering phenom; I wish I had other considerations in my own life figured out so I could feel comfortable buying one. To those who 'can't' like it because it's dangerous- please find some more compelling reasons to dislike it, perhaps the price for instance. I'm just worried that such current lack of reasoning will eventually give rise to a post blaming George Bush for CGT and it's safety. It is, after all, his fault for inventing the Cayenne. (...and his fault for the Hurricane, the Eagles losing the Superbowl, for Christopher Reeves dying, etc, etc.)
09-06-2005, 09:57 PM
#5
Race Director
Those writing the cheque may do what they wish. If someone doesn't like the car then don't buy it. To say one sports car is inherantly more 'dangerous' than another based on the transmission is lunacy. The capabilities of the Carrera GT are so far above virtually every car ever built. Perhaps Porsche should have dumbed it down? I think not.
The Carrera GT is a phenomenally capable car. Not only do I wish I had one in my garage but I also wish my driving skills were on par with the capability of the car. Would my lack of skills (at the moment) dissuade me from buying a CGT or a Ferrari or Lamborghini? No. I would respect them though.
The Carrera GT is a phenomenally capable car. Not only do I wish I had one in my garage but I also wish my driving skills were on par with the capability of the car. Would my lack of skills (at the moment) dissuade me from buying a CGT or a Ferrari or Lamborghini? No. I would respect them though.
09-06-2005, 10:55 PM
#6
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canuck
Having just tracked my Carrera GT, I can safely say that if one approaches the car with respect and attentiveness, one will not get in over his/her head to the point of danger (i.e. roll-over, high speed off-track excursion). I started the day with caution on a track that I knew well and to which I had previously taken my GT3. The best lap time I had previously posted in the GT3 was 1:37.5 give or take a few tenths. In my first run of about 6 laps, I recorded a 1:35.9 lap time. By the end of the day I was down to 1:32.
I found that I ran out of skill far faster than I stretched the car's limits. Still, it was an exhilarating experience, and one that will be repeated.
D. Min
Bartlesville, OK
Having just tracked my Carrera GT, I can safely say that if one approaches the car with respect and attentiveness, one will not get in over his/her head to the point of danger (i.e. roll-over, high speed off-track excursion). I started the day with caution on a track that I knew well and to which I had previously taken my GT3. The best lap time I had previously posted in the GT3 was 1:37.5 give or take a few tenths. In my first run of about 6 laps, I recorded a 1:35.9 lap time. By the end of the day I was down to 1:32.
I found that I ran out of skill far faster than I stretched the car's limits. Still, it was an exhilarating experience, and one that will be repeated.
D. Min
Bartlesville, OK
09-06-2005, 11:19 PM
#7
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
I think the car can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but with that being said any automobile can be. I love the CGT, its a true race on the street, that in its self is a fine line.I think for the most part , the guys driving this car is not the average driver, but hey sometimes money cant buy you skill.
Trending Topics
09-07-2005, 05:42 AM
#8
Guys... it's real simple, it's the victim syndrome. This is the same ridiculous attitude that has allowed our court system to be bogged down to a halt. It's always someone else's fault silly ;-)
09-07-2005, 10:15 AM
#9
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott-
You're right and I agree with you 100%. However, I have to rerfrain from saying more because this will suddenly cease to be a CGT forum and turn into some sort of 'blog'. The Hurricane illustrates this too well- yes it's a tragedy, yes it's taking too long to get help in, but can we cease the finger pointing until later...much later? And when we do investigate what went wrong, let's do it with the intent of 'fixing it for next time' rather than engaging in a witch hunt. If it turns out there is disciplinary needs, so be it.
Sticking with the CGT, it's nice to see I'm not alone and I don't mean to single out Nick or target some of the recent new comers who want to talk about the dangers of this car because it's affecting their view of it. But it so preposterous to blame the car or manufacturer for your decisions. With Chevy's, Ford's and some other mainstream brands offering horsepower in the 300's for a low price, it's obvious performance is in demand. Porsche delivered perhaps the best embodiement of engineering, power, peformance and design to date. Admire it for what it is, not what it can do in the hands of an irresponsible owner.
-Matt
You're right and I agree with you 100%. However, I have to rerfrain from saying more because this will suddenly cease to be a CGT forum and turn into some sort of 'blog'. The Hurricane illustrates this too well- yes it's a tragedy, yes it's taking too long to get help in, but can we cease the finger pointing until later...much later? And when we do investigate what went wrong, let's do it with the intent of 'fixing it for next time' rather than engaging in a witch hunt. If it turns out there is disciplinary needs, so be it.
Sticking with the CGT, it's nice to see I'm not alone and I don't mean to single out Nick or target some of the recent new comers who want to talk about the dangers of this car because it's affecting their view of it. But it so preposterous to blame the car or manufacturer for your decisions. With Chevy's, Ford's and some other mainstream brands offering horsepower in the 300's for a low price, it's obvious performance is in demand. Porsche delivered perhaps the best embodiement of engineering, power, peformance and design to date. Admire it for what it is, not what it can do in the hands of an irresponsible owner.
-Matt
09-07-2005, 03:02 PM
#10
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by phantomias33
Porsche delivered perhaps the best embodiement of engineering, power, peformance and design to date. Admire it for what it is, not what it can do in the hands of an irresponsible owner.
-Matt
In the recent Road & Track, they had an article about the new Corvette Z06. Though its performance is not as good as the CGT it is pretty close considering the Z06 cost is $65,000 and the CGT is $450,000. Here is a quote from the article which hopefully will clarify for you what my position has been.
"Yet defeat all the electronic driving aids and a hurried jab of the throttle will unstick the big 325-mm rear tires more easily than you think. Or switch the stability control to the Competititive Driving Mode, and you can carry some amazingly lurid drift angles, the system magically stepping in AT THE BRINK OF DISASTER'
One would think that the $450,000 car would have the driving aids as opposed to the $65,000. One would think that a $450,000 car would assist a driver in avoiding the brink of disaster. To say that it is a drivers car thus he/she are personally responsible not only misses the point but endangers not only the driver but the those around him. This is my last word on the subject.
09-07-2005, 04:02 PM
#11
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go watch Tiff (from 5th Gear) test drive the Enzo, where the test driver says "you are not allowed to run it without the stability management".
Watch his annoyance as he can't induce a very-tiff-like oversteer corner to save his life.
He hits the "turn-stability-management-off" button, and then oversteers into the next corner, admittedly not before spinning the car.
Then watch the sh$t-eating grin on his face as he power slides through the rest of the course, less than 2 seconds "off" the pace of the Ferarri test driver that lives with that car on that track.
To me, that is a DRIVER enjoying a DRIVER'S car.
$0.02 (CDN)
Watch his annoyance as he can't induce a very-tiff-like oversteer corner to save his life.
He hits the "turn-stability-management-off" button, and then oversteers into the next corner, admittedly not before spinning the car.
Then watch the sh$t-eating grin on his face as he power slides through the rest of the course, less than 2 seconds "off" the pace of the Ferarri test driver that lives with that car on that track.
To me, that is a DRIVER enjoying a DRIVER'S car.
$0.02 (CDN)
09-07-2005, 04:21 PM
#13
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by DMin
Boo Nick. I couldn't get you to respond to my comments, but you'll respond to phantomias33.
I feel neglected.
D. Min
I feel neglected.
D. Min
BTW, here are a few questions to ponder.
1. Would the CGT in the hands of a non- professional be any less of a car if it had electronic aids?
2. Do you believe your time at the track would be less if your car had electronic aids?
3. Do you believe your track times could be faster with electronic aids?
4. Do you believe you would have less fun driving your car if it had electronic aids?
5. If Porsche sold the car with electronic aids would that have prevented you from buying it?
6. Finally, would the CGT be a safer car with electronic aids?
09-07-2005, 04:58 PM
#14
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick-
Despite having no credibility in your judgement but more importantly missing an opportunity to take you at your word and hope that truly you have said your last on the subject ("This is my last word on the subject. "), your questions once again represent flawed thinking.
You reference speed and track time but claim you're worried about the other drivers on the road?? I think you're assuming to many things that don't go along with one another. First of all, no reasonable person drives on public roads like they would on a track. Second, on a track, most rational people are there to enjoy their cars on a controlled surface but still have some regard for the pile of metal they invested 6-figures in, not to mention their own lives. Taking a corner too fast and surviving is definitely a priority, but I don't even want to take a corner too fast and have to repair side panelling or anything else. Not everyone drives like a bat out of hell- track or not. If your concern is only for safety, then thanks...but I doubt Porsche is going to do a "Nick" recall on the CGT's; the car's done, it's designed and sold and people love them for exactly what they are. I was reviewing many of your past comments and thought of copying and pasting them for reference, but you don't need them read back to you and no one here wants to read Nick Re-Runs. Suffice it to say, more than a handful make it seem more like an envious 430 owner whose just bitter about the CGT. (By the way, I love the 430 and know it to is a superb car...no question.) Who wants to read that time and again? Love your 430 for what it is and give others that same right.
Would your 430 be safer with re-inforced steel body structures? Would it be safer with 4-wheel drive? What if the bumpers were at a more normal heigth compared with mainstream cars? It would be a lot safer if it had a 60 mph speed governor on it.
Matt
Despite having no credibility in your judgement but more importantly missing an opportunity to take you at your word and hope that truly you have said your last on the subject ("This is my last word on the subject. "), your questions once again represent flawed thinking.
You reference speed and track time but claim you're worried about the other drivers on the road?? I think you're assuming to many things that don't go along with one another. First of all, no reasonable person drives on public roads like they would on a track. Second, on a track, most rational people are there to enjoy their cars on a controlled surface but still have some regard for the pile of metal they invested 6-figures in, not to mention their own lives. Taking a corner too fast and surviving is definitely a priority, but I don't even want to take a corner too fast and have to repair side panelling or anything else. Not everyone drives like a bat out of hell- track or not. If your concern is only for safety, then thanks...but I doubt Porsche is going to do a "Nick" recall on the CGT's; the car's done, it's designed and sold and people love them for exactly what they are. I was reviewing many of your past comments and thought of copying and pasting them for reference, but you don't need them read back to you and no one here wants to read Nick Re-Runs. Suffice it to say, more than a handful make it seem more like an envious 430 owner whose just bitter about the CGT. (By the way, I love the 430 and know it to is a superb car...no question.) Who wants to read that time and again? Love your 430 for what it is and give others that same right.
Would your 430 be safer with re-inforced steel body structures? Would it be safer with 4-wheel drive? What if the bumpers were at a more normal heigth compared with mainstream cars? It would be a lot safer if it had a 60 mph speed governor on it.
Matt
09-07-2005, 05:18 PM
#15
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another observation living out here in Germany: it's amazing to me the number of exotic cars I've seen on the Autobahn that are usually doing the speed limit (or recommended limit when none exists) - 130 kph. I've seen a 959, a CGT, a number of Ferrari's and some Lambo's...all were travelling at a reasonable rate of speed. It's the other quite common cars that you see pushing 200 kph up and down the Autobahn.
Matt
p.s. Nick, I respect your opinion but just feel it's been stated and re-stated enough. That coupled with some other recent threads just got a little overwhelming and very tiresome. ...Hmmm...so I have to ask myself...why am I continuing to respond? Hypocritical I suppose.
p.p.s Nick- Some say they prefer the F40 over the CGT and other modern exotics because of its raw nature and lack of driver aids. I think it safe to say that some people actually prefer it...CGT owners included.
Matt
p.s. Nick, I respect your opinion but just feel it's been stated and re-stated enough. That coupled with some other recent threads just got a little overwhelming and very tiresome. ...Hmmm...so I have to ask myself...why am I continuing to respond? Hypocritical I suppose.
p.p.s Nick- Some say they prefer the F40 over the CGT and other modern exotics because of its raw nature and lack of driver aids. I think it safe to say that some people actually prefer it...CGT owners included.