CGT lawsuit filed.
03-30-2006, 09:34 PM
#272
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I remember those zany automated mouse things that carried the seatbelt along a track at the top of the door. At least those things did not cost a fortune to replace..unlike airbags. A friend of mine slid into sidewalk during an ice storm. His airbags went off. The bill was 1100 for a replacement wheel, 600 bucks for suspension parts and 6 thou for airbags. Nice.
03-31-2006, 12:45 PM
#273
Burning Brakes
Take the Porsche 959 for example...it has tyre pressure detectors. if they go kaput, replacements are only available from Porsche for something over $3000. The problem is that is $3000 each and the car needs 8 of them. So $24k plus to keep reading the tyre pressures.....
You're right though Bob, follow Nick's logic and you all will be driving detuned Camrys with full body airbags on the outside. The cars will be limited to 60 MPH and the drinks holders will have sensors that automatically reduce the speed if they detect coffee spilling.
There will no need for PSM as is good for controlling cars near their limits.
You will never be allowed get near the limits if the nanny state is invoked to protect us.
Al long as cars a driven by millions of individuals capable of making mistakes there will be accidents. The only way to eliminate this totally is stop people driving.
P.S. not all SUVs are that bad - try rolling a Volvo XC 90 - it is not easy to roll them because of the Roll Stability Control (RSC) that activates the DSTC (Dynamic Stability and Traction Control). But they have no PSM....
You're right though Bob, follow Nick's logic and you all will be driving detuned Camrys with full body airbags on the outside. The cars will be limited to 60 MPH and the drinks holders will have sensors that automatically reduce the speed if they detect coffee spilling.
There will no need for PSM as is good for controlling cars near their limits.
You will never be allowed get near the limits if the nanny state is invoked to protect us.
Al long as cars a driven by millions of individuals capable of making mistakes there will be accidents. The only way to eliminate this totally is stop people driving.
P.S. not all SUVs are that bad - try rolling a Volvo XC 90 - it is not easy to roll them because of the Roll Stability Control (RSC) that activates the DSTC (Dynamic Stability and Traction Control). But they have no PSM....
03-31-2006, 05:19 PM
#274
Rennlist Member
Gentlemen
I've paused in my travels,plugged in my laptop, and find I've missed the best discussion in the last month. As all of you know, I'm a big Bob fan. Hoping I won't lose his respect, I must cautiously jump to Nick's side of the fence.
Very few break more speeding laws than I, dislike airbags more than I, agree that belts should be mandatory, hate stupid rules more than I, etc. But, that doesn't mean the issue of CGT stability shouldn't be questioned. We've gone over it a lot. The CGT is a very sharply honed blade. It is not an unfair assertion that it should come with a better blade guard.
I've just finished the 3 day advanced road racing course at Bondurant. Learned much, and polished some skills that may have goten a bit rusty. I'd guess I'm better than most, but worse than many. Catching a mid-engined supercar that wants to go tail-out is a challenge for the best, and far beyond the skill set of the majority. If the car has such high limits that approaching the edge jeopardizes life and limb, a computerized nanny seems like a logical thing to install. Not for Bob, maybe not for me, not for Mike, but definitely for some.
The reason it's not there most likely has more to do with cost than desirability. The engineering for limited production is probably cost-prohibitive (admittedly my speculation).
I enjoyed the darwinian comparisons. Unfortunately, the CGT may be weeding out a few of our best and brightest. These guys weren't stupid, or inexperienced. We are poorer for their absence. Everybody makes mistakes (ask me how I know), and I think we've come to expect a small margin for error between the mistake and disaster. I think that's what Nick is referencing.
My rental Lincoln seems to have stabilitrack, and when I took out the fuse to try to drift it, found it doesn't even need it, at least not on dry pavement. It's really hard to keep it sideways. A CGT apparantly gets sideways so easily, in my opinion, for the vast majority ofpeople who will purchase it, it does. Is that something I'm sure of? Absolutely not- I haven't driven one. But, I've driven enough 500+ hp supercars to know what a handful they can be. For how many of the buyers is that true?
The Explorer law suits are interesting. It turns out that there were production flaws in the Firestone tires. Ford compounded the problem by continuing an outdated suspension, then lowered inflation recs to keep cornering limits low. Then compounded the error by using a door lock design dating back to 1970, when their 1990 design wasn't finalized in time for the "new" chassis. This resulted in door openings during roll over. The law suits resulted in the findngs. Ford and Firestone will rightfully compensate the berieved families.
The MacDonald's suit was only superficially stupid. The company did change its procedures and began serving coffee at 190 degrees F(up from the standard 160), to better keep the coffee hot during the prep/serving process. This is a scalding temperature, and would have resulted in burns had the patron spilled it on her crotch in the restaurant. This was an accident waiting to happen. I don't think MacDonalds would have reverted absent the suit. We focus on the driving with coffee in your crotch aspect. The problem was coffee at temperatuers far higher than normally served. There was no warning, and no reasonable expectation that greater precautions were necessary. Had the coffee been at 160, the spill wouldnt have resulted in a suit, since it wouldn't have cause the severe burn.
The CGT is 190 degree coffee, just waiting to burn the skin off your genitals. If you don't spill it, it's great. You are a skillful coffee-drinker. But don't you think the buyer should know that he needs advanced skills first? AS
I've paused in my travels,plugged in my laptop, and find I've missed the best discussion in the last month. As all of you know, I'm a big Bob fan. Hoping I won't lose his respect, I must cautiously jump to Nick's side of the fence.
Very few break more speeding laws than I, dislike airbags more than I, agree that belts should be mandatory, hate stupid rules more than I, etc. But, that doesn't mean the issue of CGT stability shouldn't be questioned. We've gone over it a lot. The CGT is a very sharply honed blade. It is not an unfair assertion that it should come with a better blade guard.
I've just finished the 3 day advanced road racing course at Bondurant. Learned much, and polished some skills that may have goten a bit rusty. I'd guess I'm better than most, but worse than many. Catching a mid-engined supercar that wants to go tail-out is a challenge for the best, and far beyond the skill set of the majority. If the car has such high limits that approaching the edge jeopardizes life and limb, a computerized nanny seems like a logical thing to install. Not for Bob, maybe not for me, not for Mike, but definitely for some.
The reason it's not there most likely has more to do with cost than desirability. The engineering for limited production is probably cost-prohibitive (admittedly my speculation).
I enjoyed the darwinian comparisons. Unfortunately, the CGT may be weeding out a few of our best and brightest. These guys weren't stupid, or inexperienced. We are poorer for their absence. Everybody makes mistakes (ask me how I know), and I think we've come to expect a small margin for error between the mistake and disaster. I think that's what Nick is referencing.
My rental Lincoln seems to have stabilitrack, and when I took out the fuse to try to drift it, found it doesn't even need it, at least not on dry pavement. It's really hard to keep it sideways. A CGT apparantly gets sideways so easily, in my opinion, for the vast majority ofpeople who will purchase it, it does. Is that something I'm sure of? Absolutely not- I haven't driven one. But, I've driven enough 500+ hp supercars to know what a handful they can be. For how many of the buyers is that true?
The Explorer law suits are interesting. It turns out that there were production flaws in the Firestone tires. Ford compounded the problem by continuing an outdated suspension, then lowered inflation recs to keep cornering limits low. Then compounded the error by using a door lock design dating back to 1970, when their 1990 design wasn't finalized in time for the "new" chassis. This resulted in door openings during roll over. The law suits resulted in the findngs. Ford and Firestone will rightfully compensate the berieved families.
The MacDonald's suit was only superficially stupid. The company did change its procedures and began serving coffee at 190 degrees F(up from the standard 160), to better keep the coffee hot during the prep/serving process. This is a scalding temperature, and would have resulted in burns had the patron spilled it on her crotch in the restaurant. This was an accident waiting to happen. I don't think MacDonalds would have reverted absent the suit. We focus on the driving with coffee in your crotch aspect. The problem was coffee at temperatuers far higher than normally served. There was no warning, and no reasonable expectation that greater precautions were necessary. Had the coffee been at 160, the spill wouldnt have resulted in a suit, since it wouldn't have cause the severe burn.
The CGT is 190 degree coffee, just waiting to burn the skin off your genitals. If you don't spill it, it's great. You are a skillful coffee-drinker. But don't you think the buyer should know that he needs advanced skills first? AS
03-31-2006, 06:26 PM
#275
Pro
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
The CGT is 190 degree coffee, just waiting to burn the skin off your genitals. If you don't spill it, it's great. You are a skillful coffee-drinker. But don't you think the buyer should know that he needs advanced skills first? AS
Gary
03-31-2006, 07:02 PM
#276
Nordschleife Master
why do I read this??? Do you guys believe your bs or debating your favorite passtime. Do you go to the motorcycle boards and blame Honda for not putting training wheels and seat belts on their sport bikes?
03-31-2006, 07:38 PM
#278
Huh?
Originally Posted by icon
you didnt reply to anyone in particular 
03-31-2006, 08:53 PM
#279
Nordschleife Master
my comments are to the list of folks(Nick is King) that continue to whine about the dangers of the CGT. How the CGT is a dangerous car and that Porsche is building a defective car since they made one that if the driver applies the incorrect inputs crashes.
03-31-2006, 09:45 PM
#280
Originally Posted by tdf360
Much as I love the concept of personal responsiblity, and much as I normally agree with Bob R., this post is very compelling. With the performance capability of the CGT, I think it would be a very good idea for Porsche to have offered stability aids. Sure, give us a switch to turn the aids off, and then personal responsibility is primary, but for probably the majority of CGT buyers, the aids are necessary and would save some from death or injury. I've done enough instructing at open track days to know that car control talent is not a requirement for super car purchases, and with the CGT, a very high level of talent indeed is called for.
Gary
Gary
03-31-2006, 11:21 PM
#281
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing is very revealing about this discussion. It is now clear what direction the litigation is heading in regard to Porsche.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
03-31-2006, 11:37 PM
#282
Originally Posted by Les Quam
One thing is very revealing about this discussion. It is now clear what direction the litigation is heading in regard to Porsche.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
04-01-2006, 01:10 AM
#283
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree and on some level don't think a HP limitation is such a bad idea. Or at least a MPH limit.
I have often argued on this forum about the logic of 200MPH street cars? Why having cars capable of reaching 200 MPH on public roads is a goal manufacturers strive for. It seems to me that the average supercar buyer can't drive or enjoy these cars at anywhere near their limit without taking them to a track. Once on a road course at a track they now can reach the MPH limit of the supercar but in most cases don't have the experience to cope with any problems that may arise at those speeds.
I would argue that it makes more sense to build cars with a lot of HP if your going to build such cars that are designed to be used at the drag strip on weekends and as street cars during the week. Most drivers can more easily learn to drive their car at the strip then on a road course. I also think drag strips are a lot safer for the average driver than a road course.
In other words maybe Detroit and it right in the late 1960s build cars people could use to drive to work and the grocery store during the week and that could be taken to the local drag strip on Friday nights. How about a new Viper, vette or Mustang with drag pack options instead of 195 MPH options?
I like the new Challenger and Camaro concept and hope that they don't try to make these cars road cars. Yes I know all about the dangers of street drag racing but still think building 200 MPH street cars makes no sense to me. What road am I supposed to use all this capability on? How accessible are road courses for me to enjoy these cars. How often can I get out on a road course when it is not being utilized for other events? Drag strips are open to everyone every weekend during the season.
HOW FAST WILL THE MANUFACTUERS BUILD THESE CARS?? Dodge is working on a 700 HP Viper. Chevy a 600 HP Vette. How much is too much ? How much is enough? Are 220 MPH road cars the next level? For 100K will a driver with no road racing experience be able to walk into a dealership and drive out with a 220MPH Viper or Vette??? It seems the answer is yes? Such cars are not designed to handle drag strip duties so they must be designed for weekend road course activities. Who among us is capable of safely resolving a problem on a road course at over or near 200MPH???
If people want to road race it seems to me Porsche should go back to their roots and build ultra light low HP great handling reliable and safe weekend road cars like the Cayman or boxster or the Lotus Elise as opposed to 605 HP CGTs.
OK you can start the flames now.
I have often argued on this forum about the logic of 200MPH street cars? Why having cars capable of reaching 200 MPH on public roads is a goal manufacturers strive for. It seems to me that the average supercar buyer can't drive or enjoy these cars at anywhere near their limit without taking them to a track. Once on a road course at a track they now can reach the MPH limit of the supercar but in most cases don't have the experience to cope with any problems that may arise at those speeds.
I would argue that it makes more sense to build cars with a lot of HP if your going to build such cars that are designed to be used at the drag strip on weekends and as street cars during the week. Most drivers can more easily learn to drive their car at the strip then on a road course. I also think drag strips are a lot safer for the average driver than a road course.
In other words maybe Detroit and it right in the late 1960s build cars people could use to drive to work and the grocery store during the week and that could be taken to the local drag strip on Friday nights. How about a new Viper, vette or Mustang with drag pack options instead of 195 MPH options?
I like the new Challenger and Camaro concept and hope that they don't try to make these cars road cars. Yes I know all about the dangers of street drag racing but still think building 200 MPH street cars makes no sense to me. What road am I supposed to use all this capability on? How accessible are road courses for me to enjoy these cars. How often can I get out on a road course when it is not being utilized for other events? Drag strips are open to everyone every weekend during the season.
HOW FAST WILL THE MANUFACTUERS BUILD THESE CARS?? Dodge is working on a 700 HP Viper. Chevy a 600 HP Vette. How much is too much ? How much is enough? Are 220 MPH road cars the next level? For 100K will a driver with no road racing experience be able to walk into a dealership and drive out with a 220MPH Viper or Vette??? It seems the answer is yes? Such cars are not designed to handle drag strip duties so they must be designed for weekend road course activities. Who among us is capable of safely resolving a problem on a road course at over or near 200MPH???
If people want to road race it seems to me Porsche should go back to their roots and build ultra light low HP great handling reliable and safe weekend road cars like the Cayman or boxster or the Lotus Elise as opposed to 605 HP CGTs.
OK you can start the flames now.
04-01-2006, 05:10 AM
#285
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there was a thread here before the crash about how many cgt's were crashed... Usually if u sue you have to pay lawyers fees for the defendant if u lose but in this case i don't think that will happen...
They were smart enough to know the danger but who is at fault? I think I inquired about being able to drive on the track without other cars, they had the money to do that. It's sad but if admin thinks they should get the money than the threads should be deleted.. The lawyers probably contacted the window, bs lawsuit imho...
They were smart enough to know the danger but who is at fault? I think I inquired about being able to drive on the track without other cars, they had the money to do that. It's sad but if admin thinks they should get the money than the threads should be deleted.. The lawyers probably contacted the window, bs lawsuit imho...