Les Quam

I think the last couple of pages really illustrate why it's so futile for CGT owners to try to intelligently discuss the CGT on this forum. Alex creates a post wherein he mentions yet another CGT owner who lost control of his CGT this time while driving on a bridge. He omits the fact the driver was drinking and showing off for his passenger in his description of the incident. But giving him the benefit of the doubt it's clearly possible he wasn't aware of all the pertinent facts and was merely repeating what he had heard somewhere else and was unable to investigate further. However that being said it is another example of how rumors get exaggerated and repeated. I applaud Micheal for his honesty it is refreshing.

It is also rare and equally refreshing that a driver like Micheal is candid in admitting his lack of experience with 600HP cars and admits driver error.

As long as 600HP cars are manufactured if drivers "goose" "mash" "stomp" "stab" the throttle the car will lose some level of control. Any 600 HP car will require the driver to modulate the throttle and apply it consistently so as not to upset the balance of the car regardless of whether or not it has computer assisted driving aids IMHO.

I agree with Nick in that the surviving family members in the Keaton crash have every right to investigate and research whether or not the CGT has a handling design flaw that may have contributed to the crash and death of their loved ones. Our American justice system has many strengths and as many weak areas. One stregnth is that product liabilty litigation has in fact saved many lives. One weakness is that frivious litigation is not filtered out more efficiently and in a way that truly punishes the plaintiff in the frivilious lawsuit. Frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits are an enormous problem here and need to be filtered out much more quickly before they raise insurance rates to a level untenable for both doctors and patients.

Like Mike the yellow CGT owner said somewhere on this thread it really seems pointless for a CGT owner to try to discuss his or her CGT on this forum.

PogueMoHone

Litigation lawyers always love the unanswerable question..to create fear, uncertainty and doubt and in the process line their own pockets, all with the attitude of doing public good..the ultimate fraud.

Having been given an education on the performance characteristics of this car under differing conditions (traction control on and off) and the driver being in control at all times I have a different view. A lot of us have experienced hot laps at Leipzig and come away impressed and amazed at the capabilities of the CGT and the drivers..that we can't repeat or duplicate such experience is not a fault of the car, more of an inadequacy on the part of the driver.

Ben (RIP) made many posts about the CGT and his varying experiences, based upon those posts (public record) there was nothing about the car's handling that he was unaware of and he went to the track many times to enjoy the event. Had he concerns about the cars handling then it was his responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous situations (and stay off the track), but the impression one gets from his posts was that the car was fantastic, and he enjoyed demonstrating it.

To suggest, imply or impute, upon the basis of a high speed accident, that there is a potential design flaw is spurious.

At high speed, sudden or panicked, inputs will cause a reaction (Newton's third law) that are not controllable because of the law of Physics, and bad stuff happens.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome on this but if you play the probabilities, it is unlikely that it's a design flaw, because otherwise we all would have experienced "track off" experiences in our respective adventures.

Les, you're right to debate this issue is futile, but to leave uncorrected (and unaddressed) the spurious assumption that there is a design flaw, based upon ancedotal evidence, when real world experiences suggest differently is a travesty!

Ray G

Colm,

You nailed it.

Irishdriver

This is not the same as decisions where a manufacturer decided to allow a car out with a known safety risk. This is where a manufacturer has given us a choice to buy something out of the ordinary - something exceptional.

The point of my post is that even Mike knows that he was out of order....I respect his admitting he was not the cleverest in doing what he did - but OK, he knows what the problem was. If the same thing happens to several CGT owners they all should know where the problem is.

People bought a Carrera GT because they wanted a CGT - they knew what they were buying and they bought it because of what it is. I can't see them buying it with a 2 litre engine and 100 HP.

Now saying that they should have been warned that it was a powerful car is insulting to CGT owners. Damn, if they are that stupid how did they ever get to buy the cars ???

The notion that Porsche should be forced to engineer their cars so that guys with a few drinks on board cannot make a mistake is, to me, so off the wall that I really can't take it seriously. You were joking weren't you?

I can't skateboard - If I try and hurt myself should all skateboards be reduced to a level that is safe for me and the producers penalised ?

The unexplainable part is that when you take this type of action the result is usually that someone gets a lot of money, and choice is restricted for the rest of us, not that the world is a better place.

You're right, your legal system is not perfect.

Nick

[QUOTE=Irishdriver]

The notion that Porsche should be forced to engineer their cars so that guys with a few drinks on board cannot make a mistake is, to me, so off the wall that I really can't take it seriously. You were joking weren't you?

QUOTE]
I am amazed that you would attempt reach the above conclusion based on what I wrote. No one is justify drinking while driving.

You are having diffculty grasping the essential point. Several CGT have been involved in single car collisions. Most on this Board are quick to blame the driver. My point is if several accidents were as a result of applying slightly more throttle while doing 70mph or whatever, causes the car to lose stability should we always attrbute it to driver error?

Or should we as a society ask why is this happening and could there be a problem with the car? I suspect Porsche would like to know. They want to avoid a rash of lawsuits and if the problem is fixable they will fix it.

To take a dogmatic head in the sand approach with the sole purpose of protecting Porsche is irresponsible and frankly dangerous. Because if there is a problem with this car and it is not fixed many of us on the road could be in danger. Are you aware that one CGT was sold to an individual who could not drive it out of the showroom because he did not know how to drive a stick shift? How in the world can we expect this guy to steady the car should it lose its stability?

Bob Rouleau

Nick - I have to disagree with you. Anyone who buys a supercar has to respect the available power. At DE we constantly harp on the need to make progressive inputs. I am confident that a smooth application of the throttle will not send a C-GT sideways, whereas a brutal application will.

Is a car manufacturer to be responsible for the incompetence of the driver? If so, your 430 is a target too. Try mashing the throttle in second gear and tell me what happens. Should ferrari reduce the power to a level where a wrong input cannot produce a loss of control? How about a violent twist of the steering wheel, heck I can get a Toyota Yaris to slide by doing that. Where do we draw the line between the car and the driver?

What really annoys me is the notion that no American can make a mistake. No matter what happens, it is someone elses fault. A bad driver loses control of his car ... is he just a bad driver? Hell no, there are NO BAD drivers in the USA, just bad cars and damn good lawyers.

Regards,

pcar964

Explained perfectly.

Ron_H

I've been biting my lip for weeks as I read through these posts.

It is apparent that the form of an egg has evolved over eons of time to what it is today. Few would argue that it is an appropriate and fit form. It is light, just as thin as it must me and shaped so as not to roll out of the nest in the trees. Those eggs that were not properly or appropriately formed didn't serve their functional requirements well enough for their occupants to survive to reproduce such forms. But an egg is still fragile. It may be bumped and disturbed by a mother bird and might crack or roll out of the nest in a high wind anyway,( particularly if the mother bird is drunk). Should she sue God because the egg was not padded, or the shell was not made thick enough? Or because no one made a protective net under the nest to catch the egg if it fell?

My relatives, the great apes, have for years enjoyed a life in the treetops of forests, away from the dangers of predators on the forest floor. But they had to become adept at roaming around from branch to branch without falling to the ground, though some did at times, and were then promptly eaten by cats and other predators. Were the relatives of those who fell because they misjudged the ability of a branch to support their weight justified in suing God for failure to properly train them to pick only suitable branches to grab or for not providing only stong branches in the trees?

There are those among us who wish to make the world risk free. Good luck.
Of course then evolution would become de-evolution and we would become helpless blobs of jelly vibrating in wombs of goo, unable to cope with a fart.

I am soon to enlarge my meager gun collection by purchasing a new handgun. Before I do, I am required by law to undergo a handgun training class and to provide the state with proof that I am not a criminal. I must become at least informed and proficient in the care and use of a handgun, BEFORE I make application to buy one. No excuses. And yet, the model of handgun I wish to purchase could put a huge hole in my body or that of another organism if I fail to perform as trained in the class. It could prove fatal instantly if misused and particularly if used while intoxicated. But if used responsibly by reasonably alert and attentive persons, it can be a useful and safe device. There are those among us who would prevent even a trained, responsible, sober and attentive person from possessing a handgun because it MIGHT be misused. Baloney. That means policemen, and soldiers, and wardens, etc. are to be denied use of a device that is making it possible for us all to say what we are saying on this forum today. Absurd.

I suggest, (as I have before), that makers of automobiles and other high performance machines), voluntarily require that purchasers of such tools undergo a high performance driver training school or provide proof of completion of such school before purchase is complete. If you still want to get in to your P car after consuming a case of beer and drive it into a wall, it is NOT Porsche's fault.

The do-gooders will never achieve a risk free world. If we thought about all of our actions before taking them, we would never opt to leave the womb. God says at one point "That's all the coddling you're going to get. Now get out of here and cope with the world.". So let's do it. Go to the gym and stay fit and particularly take pains to exercise your vision. I do. Or deteriorate and devolve....the choice is yours.

magwheel

Nick says, "Mike gooses the throttle while doing near 70mph"? Where in the hell did you see me say I was doing near 70? What, are you and Doc best friends or something? Or do you guys just make up quotes to enhance your arguments? Jeez..... I might have been doing 20 or 30 in second gear when I 'goosed it'!

Back in the late 60s, I owned several muscle cars... a 1966 427ci 425hp Corvette, 1968 Road Runner Hemi, 1969 Camaro Z28 and a 1970 Olds 442 with the 455ci engine and a few more cars like them. Any one of them with their huge torque could have done the same 'sideways dance' but nobody was tearing them new a-holes. Everybody loved them.... except the law and insurnace companies. We were all (except for you and Doc), mad as heck because they took our Muscle Cars away from us a few years later. But they're back..... so that must mean they're in huge demand and always were. Don't worry Nick, nobody will force one on you! We'd all hate to see you have a good time.

None of them had the 'handling characteristics' like the CGT but in their time they could go like a bat out of hell straight ahead. Have you seen what these cars are doing at Collector Auctions like Barret jackson? Absolutely STUPID MONEY! Apparently, nobody told these bidders of the risk of owning a fast car! Why don't you give them all a call and straighten them out Nick?

Owning a fast car demands some very important responsibility. If you're on the street playing around, showing off or drivng at very high speeds, there's a huge increased chance you're going to get in trouble faster than if you're driving a 1961 Volkwagen!

p.s. If you're going to quote me, at least make it verbatim, even if it's me calling myself an a-hole for goofing off in my CGT!

pcar964

Jeff, your logic is falling on deaf ears. Some people just can't accept the fact that their actions have consequences. They'll cite examples all day long trying to convince you that it's not the driver's fault.

"But, he was only going 70mph and he just touched the accelerator a little bit..." yeah, and maybe he was going over a slick patch of road, and 600bhp demands respect. How about an old 930, should you sue Porsche because you weren't expecting the back end to rotate when you lift off the throttle in the middle of a turn? Idiots.

Bob Rouleau

Icon - please, do me the service of making a civil argument. I'd also ask you to think about it. In any other country, I am fairly confident that Stella would have been laughed out of court. Instead, she won a $630,000 judgement for putting hot coffe between her legs and drivng off. Tell me, was it a stupid thing to do? Is it reasonable to expect an adult to know that coffee is hot and that putting a full cup between your thighs while driving is likely to lead to an accident?

How about the 80's lawsuit prosecuted by the same lawyer who filed the action agsint Ben, Porsche et all? Are you familiar with the case? Do you not find it strange that Porsche was found liable when the driver of the 930 had been drinking and was speeding (passed through a speed trap just before losing control) on a treacherous and slippery road? Was the driver held responsible? No. Porsche was. I repeat, in America there cannot be bad drivers, just bad cars and damn good lawyers. Feel free to call BS if you want but I'd prefer to see something more polite and perhaps even reasoned.

Rgds,

Nick

I stand correct and aoplogize for thinking you were doing 70 mph when you lost control.

You lost control goosing it while doing 20-30 mph? Hmnn, now that really concerns me.

Nick

Jeff I know of three incidents where drivers lost control at around 70mph. Two ended up in collisions with one a fatality. The third no collison but a scared driver. BTW none involved Ben.

It may well be the car is too powerful for most drivers. However, to just punt the issue by stating the buyer bought the car and must accept the consequences is nonsense. The car should have be sold to people who are trained to drive a car of this nature. Whether that involves a driving school sponsored by the car manufacturer or a screening of the purchaser before the sale (the Enzo was sold to a very select few hand picked by Ferrari) it is the least a car manufacturer should do.

The CGT is a very extraordinary car with power and performance that Porsche never before offered to the public. When you consider that Porsche deliberately failed to install stability safeguards in order to "enhance the driving experience" it all points to a hightened obligation on their part to safeguard the buyer and public.

Ron_H

Once long ago in another land, I was driving a Plymouth Satellite (tank) on a two lane (one in each direction) road. I was behind a line of about 6 or so cars all doing about 30 mph. I decided to pass them all and there was clear road ahead with no one coming in the other direction. I goosed the Satellite and headed along in the other lane passing them, when all of a sudden one of the cars in the middle decided she would also pass the cars in front and pulled out in front of me without looking back. In an instant, I had to decide whether to take her door and risk surely killing her or veer off of the road and into the shoulder. I took the shoulder in a split second move and hit head on a telephone pole, smashing the front of the Satellite badly. I'm certain she never knew I was there and went on about her business. The insurance company told me .....(are you ready?)......I should have driven directly into her door so they would know I was not making up the story!

I see a similarity here with the unfortunate CGT event being discussed. It happens instantly. It is not expected. It is a choice the driver must make and there is a judgement of which evil to pick. There is surely loss of control for an instant or longer though the choice is conscious. There is a point at which the outcome is unknown, something like the people jumping out of the World Trade Center fires hoping to survive another few seconds in this world. BUT, there is one factor that is nagging and persistent afterward: the driver didn't pick the circumstances and they should not be happening as they are, because no one should drive into the path of an oncoming vehicle without looking first. I accepted responsibility for passing and the inherent danger, but the road was clear and the other drivers SHOULD have acted differently. That's life. One of them didn't. I am over it. I survived and so did she. Life involves calculated risks.

magwheel

When I lost control...... I don't remember saying that! I do remember saying the car went sideways a little and scared the hell out of me! But from what i hear, you're noted for stirring the post up by apparently writing your own script of various quotes. Thank God you not a Judge cause you remind me of the legendary 'Judge Roy Bean,' making up the charges as we go along!!

BTW, A little 'birdie' told me you have a 430 Spyder and you like to think how much better it is than a Porsche. Sounds like a pompous *** situation to me. You just can't compliment somebody on what they have. Whatever you have at the time has to be better than everyone else's choice of cars. That's the big difference between me and you. No matter what someone else has, it's their ride and means as much to them as any car I own! And, I will acknowledge that and pay them compliments and even have a friendly discussion on their car.

430 Spyder Huh? That's a pretty hairy car you know! I do cause I have a 430 Coupe. Stick or F1? Hopefully it's a F1 so you can keep all your concentration on the road and watch for all the other underlings around you! Are you sure you can handle it? I know this guy Nick who will tell you how dangerous it is and....... Nick? Ohhh, that's you! Nevermind!!

Bring it on Nick...... "Go ahead.... make my day!"

p.s. So you won't change my words and make everybody think I'm a belligerent so and so.... Hey everybody..... I'm just pulling Nick's chain!! Yeah, right!