roberga

Fortunatly for my friend's client, the waver ment something. Person signed wavers, a crash, litagation, verdict of you signed waver for an event with risks therefore no money for you. As a result due to something in the waiver which states that the person bringing the action will be required to pay costs. He has to either pay the $900K or sue his lawyer either way the defence lawyer gets paid. Do not know if this is the case down there.

W8MM

There is no sufficient reward to, once again, wade into a discussion dominated by non-owner know-it-alls whose tiresomely negative speculations seem to be their only form of entertainment.

It's all so deja-vu from a time when the first Carrera GTs were yet to be delivered.

I sometimes read these threads because I hope to find some interesting chit-chat about the CGT that may have escaped my notice. Unfortunately, I usually only find warmed over, thrift-store-worn concepts being trotted out by the usual suspects (you know who you are).

By now, real owners have moved on from petty message board combat, tired of the anti-intellectual tedium, to actual enjoyment of their CGTs. The nay-sayers have tanker-loads of venom ready to inject into any thread where the CGT is the subject, and more than enough energy to keep bashing like the Energizer bunny. It's soooo tiresome.

Unless the tone and manner here changes, only the most engaged CGT owners will even bother to post comments.

Bob Rouleau

Hey Mike,

Please don't paint ALL of us with the same brush. Most of watch this thread because we are astonished that anyone would attempt to blame the car for a tragic accident. The more I learn about the incident, the more I believe that the car was *not* a contributing factor. Since I have driven a CGT but once on a track inputs from knowledgeable track drivers is meaningful to me at least.

Best,

W8MM

I wasn't referring to you

I was making a general comment on a general theme.

Icon wanted to know why more owners don't put in their two cents worth. I was trying to explain that it becomes a lose-lose proposition relative to the rewards of doing so.

themarsman

I completely agree with Mike, I have become sick on defending the CGT to people who have never even sat in one but have virtually unlimited negative things to say about the car.

It would be different if it was an owner that actually had something negative to say, but the main people who have negative comments know virtually nothing about the car.

It also would be different if their points were true, but as I and numerous other owners have stated is this is the greatest car ever made!

I think there is a level of jelousy in a lot of the negative posts, this will be the last post like this I make on this board. If I see other topics about aftermarket stuff, do it yourself, etc.. I will post in those.

Les Quam

Splinelube,
I like your original moniker now there is one we don't see everyday. I hope you realize those quotes from me are from the allegations contained in the complaint not my personal viewpoints????

JBH,
I have raced at the CA speedway several times but not since this new infield track was created. The old pit out was the actual pit out where you left the pit's stayed under the line on the apron on the oval and waited until you reached the end of the turn and merged into traffic. We then went into the infield and back out onto the oval. If I understand the pit out used the day Ben died based on the diagram Mikey provided I agree with you in that it is not optimum for safety.

Jeff,
I think most of us CGT owners have been defending our cars for the better part of the last year and we are simply worn out and overwhelmed by the volume of negativity. It is also obvious many people who post on this thread have their own agenda's in regard to Ben, Nick and the litigation. I can't express how much I regret even starting this thread. I thought it was newsworthy but didn't stop to consider the pain it could possibly cause the surviving family members of the accident.
Like Mike I am done with the CGT forum.

themarsman

You have my email address so if you have any questions or every make it up to Michigan give me a note and we will do some driving!

Vancouver83LTD

the car's fault, at the most, lies in the fact that it did what a poor driver told it to, in the case of the borrowed and totalled hotel guest accident in norway (??)
i think ben just sort of lost control - and understandable as he would've had to put a lot of input in to avoid that ferrari at that speed and distance....
the car did what it told him, and he got on the grass and it was over.
just an unfortunate accident

dcmelik

"I have become sick on defending the CGT to people who have never even sat in one but have virtually unlimited negative things to say about the car"

At the risk of lightening things up a bit, try owning a 928, which has endured a similar fate for the last 25 years.

David Cmelik
87 928S4 auto "guards red"
01 986 5 speed "seal grey metallic"
00 BMW 323i black on red

Ron_H

David makes a valid point. Few people realize the virtues of a 928. I often raised my eyebrows at 928s myself, until someone challenged me to drive one. Don't do it. I did. And had to have one.

OTOH, those who started in P cars with 356s back in the late '50s and early '60s are accustomed to enduring subjective criticism from an unenlightened majority, particularly when the engine is "in the wrong end of the car". I just smiled and went on enjoying my esoteric pleasure in my "funny looking" 356S coupe. By now it means little to hear jeers and wise cracks. The only problem in my 928 are the hot rodders who want to drag race me.

M758

The difference is the 928 is an attainable car. Even its prime the car was nice and expensive, but not really "out of reach" for the target Porsche owner.

The CGT however is "out of reach" for most Porsche owners. Even for the guy that goes to get a new 997S the CGT is still out of reach. I can see how that will create some resentment.

I for one know that I will never own a CGT. I have seen a few upclose and consider it a work of rolling art. I can't say how it drives or feels on the road. I do know it is powerfull and very capable machine. Given all its speed and performance owners naturally will want to "open it up a bit" every now and them. It performance is so good however that many may not be ready for all it can do.

This does not make the car unsafe, but it should be respected at all times. In this particular incident I don't believe the car itself played and significant role. The situtation seems like a was heading down the straight at speed and another car pulled out in front. Reasoning is still not completely clear, but layout of the pit exit seems to have increased this danger. The driver of the car on track attempted and evasive manuver and failed to control the car. Then car then hit a wall off track.

Very sad incident indeed. As and experienced track driver and racer I can tell you the hardest thing to do is to react another car on track with an evasive maneuver. It takes quite a bit more skill and confidence in the car that just normal driving. Even the pros often "get it wrong" when faced with making quick evasive maneuvers. Given what little I know about the situation it is hard to give blame to any person or thing involved in the situation. Sure their are many places on can say "if so and so did this or that, or if this or that had bee designed different". However as most tragic incidents it takes alot of "little" seemingly harmless mistakes that all add up in wrong way to create a terrible situation.

The reason I am watching this thread is the outcome of this lawsuit potentialy has an impact on track driving and racing. I can easily see where a potential decision is made a some level (or many levels) that will have a direct impact on my ability to drive on race tracks or the tracks we drive on. That is why I am concerned.

H20NOO

If ever there was a case to be made for "loser pays" litigation, this is it. This is a lawsuit filed knowing that a six or seven figure settlement is likely. The incident was tragic but the lawsuit is very unfortunate. We all have to take responsibility for our actions and decisions. When you climb into a 200mph supercar on a racetrack, you must understand you are taking your life in your hands. A blown tire at 100mph could easily result in the death of driver and passenger.

"Loser Pays" legislation would simply mean that whoever loses the lawsuit must pay the legal fees for both the plaintiff and defendant. This will significantly reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits filed. These suits are often filed with the knowledge that a settlement of $250k or more is much less expensive than defending the lawsuit in court. My former employer had a policy to settle any lawsuit under $100k since that was about the initial cost of depositions, discovery, legal filings, interviews, research, etc.

The attorney in this case will probably get 30-50% of the proceeds. With all the named defendants, the settlement would likely be at least $250k, possibly in the $millions. Very sad.

MC

1AS

As a doctor and a car nut, I would typically agree with that sentiment. But, this particular case has some significant issues.
It has been stated that the driver was unhappy with his car's handling.
The flagging has been questioned
The track configuration has been questioned
The driving has been questioned
Driving a fast car on a track is not racing in the Indy 500. This is typically a controlled, non-competitive environment. I don't think you expect to die. This comes from someone who has been in the rolling start of vintage CanAm events, where you do know there is pandemonium coming.
I have been the recipient of some derision for voicing my concern that there are too many CGT wrecks. It would not surprise me if a resultant forensic engineering analysis shed some light on this issue.
Again, I love the car, love racing have raced for 40 years, have 4 race cars etc, but I fear something is wrong, at least with some cars, or at least for some drivers. This wasn't a drunken street race ending in a pole. Two families lost fathers, husbands. They are entitled to the inquiry, in my opinion.
OJ Simpson excepted, juries aren't generally insane, just overly generous. AS

BC

The truest form of envy is to think "If I can't h ave it, you won't enjoy it," and it's purveyors will always be trying to disuade your happiness. Fight the Power.

1AS

Is the inference that concern and envy are linked in this case? Sometimes, a rose by any other name is just a rose. Just concern, not envy.
Time will certainly clarify the issue. If the driver had not died, what would he have said? I think he'd want to know that the car didn't let him down. If you think the assertion of a problem lying with the car is stupid, so is the assertion that it's with the driver. Nobody knows.
I fully accept the statements of knowledgeable owners that their car is fine. Maybe they all are, or maybe there is something ideosynchratic.
A post on 6 speed by an owner describes going sideways with throttle application going over a bridge. No snow mentioned, no water mentioned.He doesn't say what gear, but it was in traffic, so apparantly not first. That seems a little tricky. AS