CGT lawsuit filed.
04-02-2006, 10:07 PM
#316
Originally Posted by Les Quam
Oh for crying out loud I never said Willow had a partial oval read the posts! I said that when we ran at the CA speedway before the current configuration we used to run at 3/4 of the oval same as PIR. Two years in a row I saw 190 MPH at the end of the Willow front straight. There were three of us seeing those speeds out of the 54 Vipers present. So with that in mind 190 MPH is not that common I would agree but that was in 450 HP ill handling Vipers not in a 605 HP CGT. At Willow when you enter the front straight if you have any experience and have at least 450 HP you are doing between 80 to 100 MPH when you enter the front straight so reaching the speeds by the end of the staight I am talking about with a tow is certainly not a problem.
At Road America as far back as 1999 their are recorded lap times of stock Vipers running 2:31s. Modified Vipers were running 2:18s what do you think the speeds were on the straights 130 MPH?
Even if your correct what is your collective point that it is safe for the average driver to be doing 150 MPH in his street car on Road courses?????? Have any of you ever spun a car at even 135 MPH??? I have and several times in fact. I probably have spent more time going sideways than going forward and I have spun both open wheel cars and sedans at least two dozen times at speeds ranging from 100 to a high of 135. I can tell you my limit for having any chance of safely surviving a spin or serious on track problem like Ben faced is about 110 to perhaps 120 MPH tops. At even then it is luck. Ben spun at 130 MPH and couldn't keep the car off the wall in a CGT. Are you guys seriously trying to tell me that your capable and have the skills at 150 MPH on a road course to safely and compentently resolve a serious on track problem?? Because I would like to hear all about those skills?? I think if I understand your point that is what you are saying?
You guys are the math experts lets think about this for a second if your traveling on a track at about 155 MPH you are traveling at about 227 feet per second. If something happens to you or a car directly in front of you or a car pulls out onto the track in front of you like in Ben's crash. Nuerologists have determined that the average driver takes about 1.5 seconds to see the problem , decide what to do ,then react to it. Which means you will have traveled 363 feet just in the 1.5 seconds you had to decide what to do. How many average drivers , weekend recreational drivers can overcome those odds at 150 MPH?? Just curious?
At Road America as far back as 1999 their are recorded lap times of stock Vipers running 2:31s. Modified Vipers were running 2:18s what do you think the speeds were on the straights 130 MPH?
Even if your correct what is your collective point that it is safe for the average driver to be doing 150 MPH in his street car on Road courses?????? Have any of you ever spun a car at even 135 MPH??? I have and several times in fact. I probably have spent more time going sideways than going forward and I have spun both open wheel cars and sedans at least two dozen times at speeds ranging from 100 to a high of 135. I can tell you my limit for having any chance of safely surviving a spin or serious on track problem like Ben faced is about 110 to perhaps 120 MPH tops. At even then it is luck. Ben spun at 130 MPH and couldn't keep the car off the wall in a CGT. Are you guys seriously trying to tell me that your capable and have the skills at 150 MPH on a road course to safely and compentently resolve a serious on track problem?? Because I would like to hear all about those skills?? I think if I understand your point that is what you are saying?
You guys are the math experts lets think about this for a second if your traveling on a track at about 155 MPH you are traveling at about 227 feet per second. If something happens to you or a car directly in front of you or a car pulls out onto the track in front of you like in Ben's crash. Nuerologists have determined that the average driver takes about 1.5 seconds to see the problem , decide what to do ,then react to it. Which means you will have traveled 363 feet just in the 1.5 seconds you had to decide what to do. How many average drivers , weekend recreational drivers can overcome those odds at 150 MPH?? Just curious?
I take it from your post that you obviously consider these fast cars to be a danger to all but the best drivers, so what the heck are you doing with a CGT and GT2? haha I'll tell you what, I'll "face the peril" (Monty Python reference there) and take that pesky CGT off your hands, you can drive my slow *** 993. You get to be safe, I get to be fast
Les, driving a fast car on a track is dangerous, there will inevitably be risks beyond your control. You seem to find these risks unacceptable. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it - but please don't tell everyone else what's safe for them, that's a choice everyone must make for themselves.
Let's just all make our own decisions, and enjoy this great hobby however you see fit.
04-02-2006, 10:23 PM
#317
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
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.
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.
Ben will be found liable for losing control of his car
The Ferrari driver will be found partly responsible for being in a spot which made it necessary for Ben to swerve. This may be mitigated if Ben had missed the checkered flag and should not have been there in the first place.
The track will be found partly responsible because of a dangerous layout and their employee who signalled the Ferrari onto the track.
Porsche will be found responsible in a small way for having built and sold a super-car.
Assuming "the deep-pockets theory" is still at work (another stupidity of the law) Porsche will end up paying a lot of money.
From there on, I think the scene you paint is fairly plausible.
This brings me full circle to where I began .. why must it always be someone else's fault? Should I be forced to drive a "common denominator" car because there are people out there who are incapable of handling one, and too egocentric to get lessons? The idea really galls me.
Aside to Alex S and Gary, you guys are still on my Christmas Card list (well, not Alex, he get a Hanukkah card). It's rather nice to have an exchange of ideas without getting upset. We should send some of our kool-aide over to OT!
Best,
04-02-2006, 11:51 PM
#318
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pcar964, you remind me of the black knight guarding the bridge who gets all his limbs chopped off by King Arthur but desires to keep on fighting! LOL LOL We can discuss why I own any car other than an SUV in Las Vegas where every road was designed for a population of 500,000 and we are at 1.7 million now not counting the extra 200,000 weekend visitors some other time.
I will ask Pcar, Bob and everyone then a few questions. Lets try and stay on topic for a few minutes.
How much HP is enough for street cars that anyone can walk in and buy after writing a check without regard to driving experience?
Is any amount of HP or top speed too much or inherently unsafe for a car any driver regardless of experience can drive out of a dealership in?
Do these 200 MPH street cars pose a danger to other drivers on public roads when they are driven at______ speed(you can plug in any speed you guys like so we don't veer off topic) on canyons or roads with less traffic when the owners can't find a race track or don't want to find a race track?
The worlds car manufacturers are in the grips of an unprecedented HP and top speed war with no end in sight. The last HP war waged like this in America was the late 1960s but was geared for weekend drag racers and not weekend road course drivers top speed on those cars was about 120 MPH. My question is if Dodge builds the 700 HP Viper that Dodge insiders say they will build starting in 2007 for a 2008 delivery that will have zero driver computer aids and will (now work with me guys) with 700 HP be capable of reaching 220 on an oval or perhaps_____ on a road course. Does building that car make Dodge irresponsible? Does any amount of top speed capablity offend you guys?
I am not trying to impose my viewpoint on anyone I am just curious and have not really come to any decision myself. But with 600 HP Vettes and 700 HP Vipers priced affordably on the horizon it seems to me there are going to be many more widows and children without fathers as people learn how quickly they can lose control of these cars at tracks and highways around the country?
I remember thinking when the Viper produced 450 HP that we had reached the top of the limit for a street car that anyone walk in and can buy without an SCCA license or some proof of driving experience. Recently a fellow second generation Viper owner friend of mine got beat at a stop light drag race by a female senior citizen in a Mercedes SL 65 while she was talking on her cell phone. I am real curious as to whether you guys think there is any amount of HP or top speed that is so much that the Govt. should step in and regulate it? what about 1000 HP street cars is that too much? No sarcasm intended.
I will ask Pcar, Bob and everyone then a few questions. Lets try and stay on topic for a few minutes.
How much HP is enough for street cars that anyone can walk in and buy after writing a check without regard to driving experience?
Is any amount of HP or top speed too much or inherently unsafe for a car any driver regardless of experience can drive out of a dealership in?
Do these 200 MPH street cars pose a danger to other drivers on public roads when they are driven at______ speed(you can plug in any speed you guys like so we don't veer off topic) on canyons or roads with less traffic when the owners can't find a race track or don't want to find a race track?
The worlds car manufacturers are in the grips of an unprecedented HP and top speed war with no end in sight. The last HP war waged like this in America was the late 1960s but was geared for weekend drag racers and not weekend road course drivers top speed on those cars was about 120 MPH. My question is if Dodge builds the 700 HP Viper that Dodge insiders say they will build starting in 2007 for a 2008 delivery that will have zero driver computer aids and will (now work with me guys) with 700 HP be capable of reaching 220 on an oval or perhaps_____ on a road course. Does building that car make Dodge irresponsible? Does any amount of top speed capablity offend you guys?
I am not trying to impose my viewpoint on anyone I am just curious and have not really come to any decision myself. But with 600 HP Vettes and 700 HP Vipers priced affordably on the horizon it seems to me there are going to be many more widows and children without fathers as people learn how quickly they can lose control of these cars at tracks and highways around the country?
I remember thinking when the Viper produced 450 HP that we had reached the top of the limit for a street car that anyone walk in and can buy without an SCCA license or some proof of driving experience. Recently a fellow second generation Viper owner friend of mine got beat at a stop light drag race by a female senior citizen in a Mercedes SL 65 while she was talking on her cell phone. I am real curious as to whether you guys think there is any amount of HP or top speed that is so much that the Govt. should step in and regulate it? what about 1000 HP street cars is that too much? No sarcasm intended.
04-03-2006, 12:26 AM
#319
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think it is at best questionable that someone can pretend to judge another person's ability based on their own perceived ability. I think it becomes truly threatening and ugly when that same person attempts to regulate others by such generalizations. Have we ever begun to realize our true potential, or simply that of participants performing to the levels required to compete successfully in a particular context and no more for that day or those conditions. There are instances of extreme strength being brought to bear in a situation demanding survival, say lifting by hand an entire automobile end off of the ground to free another trapped inside, or such "miracles". I have a friend, a pro rally driver, who likes to call me to report his activites of the day from time to time. He is usually travelling in excess of 110 mph when he does. He called to report a milestone last week: a hundred thousand miles on the street at over 100 mph without incident. He is a competent driver. He is also careful. He simply doesn't stay awake below that speed, and performs well above it. I don't regard my abilities as equal to his, .....yet....because I have not experienced such a feat, nor have I logged as many miles in competition as he has....yet. That doesn't mean I cannot perform as well or better. Nor does it mean anyone else can't. It was once thought that mankind would not suvive past 60 mph speeds in autos because the human body would suffocate at that speed. 
Extreme perceptive performance, such vision phenomenon are recorded. I have experienced vision feats you would not believe. Sterling Moss is reported to be able to read a newspaper from across the room. Can you do that? He can, so don't say everyone else can't, if you can't.
We are still evolving. Let us evolve. No limits.
Extreme perceptive performance, such vision phenomenon are recorded. I have experienced vision feats you would not believe. Sterling Moss is reported to be able to read a newspaper from across the room. Can you do that? He can, so don't say everyone else can't, if you can't.We are still evolving. Let us evolve. No limits.
04-03-2006, 12:43 AM
#320
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
Your question is a good one but everyone is going to have a different answer. I think of the issue akin to gun control laws.
A low of people felt that fully automatic weapons have no real purpose in a civilian setting (beyond committing crimes) and as such, they were outlawed. However, people are still killed every day from guns that are not fully automatic, but there are many people who argue for the "right to bear arms" vs. people who argue that there should be much tighter legislation.
One can apply the same analogy to high HP, high speed, high performance vehicles. However, what you are trying to ask is, "what is the automotive equivalent to fully automatic weapons?" I.e. what is the line that must be drawn before a car is seen as needlessly fast/unsafe?
Any time a line is drawn, it is of necessity an arbitrary one. The ultimate question is if we can achieve a consensus; given the current thread, I find it unlikely.
D.Min
Tulsa, OK
Your question is a good one but everyone is going to have a different answer. I think of the issue akin to gun control laws.
A low of people felt that fully automatic weapons have no real purpose in a civilian setting (beyond committing crimes) and as such, they were outlawed. However, people are still killed every day from guns that are not fully automatic, but there are many people who argue for the "right to bear arms" vs. people who argue that there should be much tighter legislation.
One can apply the same analogy to high HP, high speed, high performance vehicles. However, what you are trying to ask is, "what is the automotive equivalent to fully automatic weapons?" I.e. what is the line that must be drawn before a car is seen as needlessly fast/unsafe?
Any time a line is drawn, it is of necessity an arbitrary one. The ultimate question is if we can achieve a consensus; given the current thread, I find it unlikely.
D.Min
Tulsa, OK
04-03-2006, 06:25 AM
#321
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above a certain HP, say 450, perhaps additional safety equipment such as Hans, etc. (cages even?) might be prudent on a road course. Obviously having large disparities in HP (& driving abilities) on the track at the same time poses a problem. These disparities are dealt with on the Autobahn more or less safely with the strict drive right pass left adherence. In the States speed differentials can be huge with no lane discipline to make things dangerous.
Bumping HP beyond 500 w/o a commiserate increase amount of downforce / drag (to help brake upon throttle lift) could be part of the problem. Perhaps the experts who have raced race cars w big wings, splitters and stiff suspensions could weigh in on this topic vs. the control of high HP street cars w/o such downforce.
Bumping HP beyond 500 w/o a commiserate increase amount of downforce / drag (to help brake upon throttle lift) could be part of the problem. Perhaps the experts who have raced race cars w big wings, splitters and stiff suspensions could weigh in on this topic vs. the control of high HP street cars w/o such downforce.
04-03-2006, 12:32 PM
#322
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Everyone has made very good points in this topic; this is how I see it. The FIA is trying to slow down the most talented drivers in the world (ok, most of them). Yet the speeds at DE's keep getting faster and faster.
Every event I get caught up in at least one conversation about the kink at Road America. People asking why they don’t “fix” the kink (move the wall further away, got forbid they ever change the track). A few years ago Road America installed a kink bypass for the AMA superbike event, or any other group who would like to use it. Not many do, yet they all complain about the kink being too dangerous.
Every event I get caught up in at least one conversation about the kink at Road America. People asking why they don’t “fix” the kink (move the wall further away, got forbid they ever change the track). A few years ago Road America installed a kink bypass for the AMA superbike event, or any other group who would like to use it. Not many do, yet they all complain about the kink being too dangerous.
04-03-2006, 12:32 PM
#323
Pro
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Les Quam
Oh for crying out loud I never said Willow had a partial oval read the posts!
Gary
Originally Posted by Les Quam
However it seems to me at several tracks in this country such as Road America ,Willow, CA speedway when they use part of the oval
04-03-2006, 01:20 PM
#324
Rennlist Member
The problem witha high hp car is people do not know their skill to control the car and even if they did know they do not know the limit of the car. A high hp car can be uncontrollable even under the best of circumstances. A gun is controllable. A knife is controllable. A chain saw is controllable.
04-03-2006, 01:41 PM
#325
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Guys,
Here are a few thoughts on various ideas introduced into this thread:
Alex - suspects that there are some issues with the stability of the CGT at high speeds. I believe he bases his opinion on the number of CGT crashes. I wonder to what extent oour views are biased. When a supercar crashes it gets a lot of press. How many 996TTs (with electronic aids) have crashed without being noticed? Probably more, since they are a lot more 996TTs on the road than CGTs.
Magwheel had a learning experience when he participated in an impromptu drag race and got his car sideways. This is easily done in any powerful car with a Limited Slip differential. What I don't understand is why Traction Control did not prevent it. Was it turned off perhaps? Does it work correctly? Perhaps a CGT owner will tell us.
Nick feels that Porsche should fit every possible electronic aid to a car as potent as the CGT and may even be found negligent for not doing so. This opens a big can of worms. Les floats the notion of speed limiters and even horsepower limits. He asks "who needs a car capable of going 200 MPH (or more) on the street"?
Les justifies the idea of limts by raising the spectre of horrible accidents caused by drivers of ultra-performance cars whose very existence threatens women and children driving on public roads. This gives rise to the "protectionist" notion of limiting the performance of all cars to some level deemed (I hate that word) "safe" by some panel of "experts".
On the subject of limits: to power; power to weight; or even top speed, where do you begin and end. I worry more about people driving powerful SUV's losing control than a guy driving a CGT. There are plenty of supercharged Escalades driven around by Type A personalities at excessive speeds. There are far more of those than limited production CGTs in fact. With a high center of gravity, one is much more likely to lose control of an SUV than a sports car. I see this every winter, the majority of the vehicles in the ditch after a storm are SUVs, I think anyone living in the snow belt would agree.
I would like to see responsibility assumed by, well, the one responsible. If someone buys a supercar and loses control of it, so be it. The buyer knew what he was getting. I do not want my rights compromised to protect the foolish.
If this thread is a micro sample of what will happen in the broader sense, legislators prompted by the insurance industry, safety ***** (Nader, Claybrook et al) and even the Greens will see to it that the only vehicles we can buy are those which are "safe". This smacks of Big Brotherism, and I am dead set against it.
Regards,
Here are a few thoughts on various ideas introduced into this thread:
Alex - suspects that there are some issues with the stability of the CGT at high speeds. I believe he bases his opinion on the number of CGT crashes. I wonder to what extent oour views are biased. When a supercar crashes it gets a lot of press. How many 996TTs (with electronic aids) have crashed without being noticed? Probably more, since they are a lot more 996TTs on the road than CGTs.
Magwheel had a learning experience when he participated in an impromptu drag race and got his car sideways. This is easily done in any powerful car with a Limited Slip differential. What I don't understand is why Traction Control did not prevent it. Was it turned off perhaps? Does it work correctly? Perhaps a CGT owner will tell us.
Nick feels that Porsche should fit every possible electronic aid to a car as potent as the CGT and may even be found negligent for not doing so. This opens a big can of worms. Les floats the notion of speed limiters and even horsepower limits. He asks "who needs a car capable of going 200 MPH (or more) on the street"?
Les justifies the idea of limts by raising the spectre of horrible accidents caused by drivers of ultra-performance cars whose very existence threatens women and children driving on public roads. This gives rise to the "protectionist" notion of limiting the performance of all cars to some level deemed (I hate that word) "safe" by some panel of "experts".
On the subject of limits: to power; power to weight; or even top speed, where do you begin and end. I worry more about people driving powerful SUV's losing control than a guy driving a CGT. There are plenty of supercharged Escalades driven around by Type A personalities at excessive speeds. There are far more of those than limited production CGTs in fact. With a high center of gravity, one is much more likely to lose control of an SUV than a sports car. I see this every winter, the majority of the vehicles in the ditch after a storm are SUVs, I think anyone living in the snow belt would agree.
I would like to see responsibility assumed by, well, the one responsible. If someone buys a supercar and loses control of it, so be it. The buyer knew what he was getting. I do not want my rights compromised to protect the foolish.
If this thread is a micro sample of what will happen in the broader sense, legislators prompted by the insurance industry, safety ***** (Nader, Claybrook et al) and even the Greens will see to it that the only vehicles we can buy are those which are "safe". This smacks of Big Brotherism, and I am dead set against it.
Regards,
04-03-2006, 01:57 PM
#326
Nordschleife Master
Nick... I know that this is the string that will never end. You and the others that for some reason think people which have the ability and funds to purchase a half million car require a nanny (government) to ensure they take the right steps to stay safe will never be persuaded otherwise. We on the otherside will never agree with your point.
If someone buys a CGT and does not take the time to learn the car then what ever happens is their responsibility and their's alone. I have friends that when they bought their CGT, took it to the track and had an instructor work with them and progressed over time. Now they fly around the track.
If someone buys a CGT and does not take the time to learn the car then what ever happens is their responsibility and their's alone. I have friends that when they bought their CGT, took it to the track and had an instructor work with them and progressed over time. Now they fly around the track.
04-03-2006, 02:18 PM
#327
Originally Posted by Les Quam
Pcar964, you remind me of the black knight guarding the bridge who gets all his limbs chopped off by King Arthur but desires to keep on fighting! LOL LOL We can discuss why I own any car other than an SUV in Las Vegas where every road was designed for a population of 500,000 and we are at 1.7 million now not counting the extra 200,000 weekend visitors some other time.
I will ask Pcar, Bob and everyone then a few questions. Lets try and stay on topic for a few minutes.
How much HP is enough for street cars that anyone can walk in and buy after writing a check without regard to driving experience?
Is any amount of HP or top speed too much or inherently unsafe for a car any driver regardless of experience can drive out of a dealership in?
Do these 200 MPH street cars pose a danger to other drivers on public roads when they are driven at______ speed(you can plug in any speed you guys like so we don't veer off topic) on canyons or roads with less traffic when the owners can't find a race track or don't want to find a race track?
The worlds car manufacturers are in the grips of an unprecedented HP and top speed war with no end in sight. The last HP war waged like this in America was the late 1960s but was geared for weekend drag racers and not weekend road course drivers top speed on those cars was about 120 MPH. My question is if Dodge builds the 700 HP Viper that Dodge insiders say they will build starting in 2007 for a 2008 delivery that will have zero driver computer aids and will (now work with me guys) with 700 HP be capable of reaching 220 on an oval or perhaps_____ on a road course. Does building that car make Dodge irresponsible? Does any amount of top speed capablity offend you guys?
I am not trying to impose my viewpoint on anyone I am just curious and have not really come to any decision myself. But with 600 HP Vettes and 700 HP Vipers priced affordably on the horizon it seems to me there are going to be many more widows and children without fathers as people learn how quickly they can lose control of these cars at tracks and highways around the country?
I remember thinking when the Viper produced 450 HP that we had reached the top of the limit for a street car that anyone walk in and can buy without an SCCA license or some proof of driving experience. Recently a fellow second generation Viper owner friend of mine got beat at a stop light drag race by a female senior citizen in a Mercedes SL 65 while she was talking on her cell phone. I am real curious as to whether you guys think there is any amount of HP or top speed that is so much that the Govt. should step in and regulate it? what about 1000 HP street cars is that too much? No sarcasm intended.
I will ask Pcar, Bob and everyone then a few questions. Lets try and stay on topic for a few minutes.
How much HP is enough for street cars that anyone can walk in and buy after writing a check without regard to driving experience?
Is any amount of HP or top speed too much or inherently unsafe for a car any driver regardless of experience can drive out of a dealership in?
Do these 200 MPH street cars pose a danger to other drivers on public roads when they are driven at______ speed(you can plug in any speed you guys like so we don't veer off topic) on canyons or roads with less traffic when the owners can't find a race track or don't want to find a race track?
The worlds car manufacturers are in the grips of an unprecedented HP and top speed war with no end in sight. The last HP war waged like this in America was the late 1960s but was geared for weekend drag racers and not weekend road course drivers top speed on those cars was about 120 MPH. My question is if Dodge builds the 700 HP Viper that Dodge insiders say they will build starting in 2007 for a 2008 delivery that will have zero driver computer aids and will (now work with me guys) with 700 HP be capable of reaching 220 on an oval or perhaps_____ on a road course. Does building that car make Dodge irresponsible? Does any amount of top speed capablity offend you guys?
I am not trying to impose my viewpoint on anyone I am just curious and have not really come to any decision myself. But with 600 HP Vettes and 700 HP Vipers priced affordably on the horizon it seems to me there are going to be many more widows and children without fathers as people learn how quickly they can lose control of these cars at tracks and highways around the country?
I remember thinking when the Viper produced 450 HP that we had reached the top of the limit for a street car that anyone walk in and can buy without an SCCA license or some proof of driving experience. Recently a fellow second generation Viper owner friend of mine got beat at a stop light drag race by a female senior citizen in a Mercedes SL 65 while she was talking on her cell phone. I am real curious as to whether you guys think there is any amount of HP or top speed that is so much that the Govt. should step in and regulate it? what about 1000 HP street cars is that too much? No sarcasm intended.
I appreciate the Holy Grail reference
Even though your entire post makes logical sense, you're still missing the main point - nobody is forcing people to purchase these super powerful cars. People are responsible for all their own decisions, and that INCLUDES buying a 700bhp Vette. You're acting as if people have no choice in the matter.
The answer is not governmental regulation - the answer is personal responsibility.
04-03-2006, 07:32 PM
#329
Originally Posted by icon
in a perfect world this would be true.
but people are already not responsible for all of their own decisions.
there are laws and regulations that govern a lot of what we can and cannot do.
we're talking about street legal cars that can do more than 130 mph over the national speed limit.
i'm not for government regulation, but the current trend in ever escalating horsepower will eventually result in regulation whether we want it or not.
i think les is more or less just trying to get a consensus on what people on rennlist think would be acceptable.
there would have to be a point beyond which more would not make sense.
i also agree with bob that i would be more afraid of soccer moms in suv's than enzo owners driving down the road.(ex. stephan)
there are always going to be irresponsible people that will not be able to self regulate.
it would be better for the industry to regulate itself, instead of waiting for government to step in because they were not responsible enough to do it themselves.
but people are already not responsible for all of their own decisions.
there are laws and regulations that govern a lot of what we can and cannot do.
we're talking about street legal cars that can do more than 130 mph over the national speed limit.
i'm not for government regulation, but the current trend in ever escalating horsepower will eventually result in regulation whether we want it or not.
i think les is more or less just trying to get a consensus on what people on rennlist think would be acceptable.
there would have to be a point beyond which more would not make sense.
i also agree with bob that i would be more afraid of soccer moms in suv's than enzo owners driving down the road.(ex. stephan)
there are always going to be irresponsible people that will not be able to self regulate.
it would be better for the industry to regulate itself, instead of waiting for government to step in because they were not responsible enough to do it themselves.
There are good points on both sides, but the solution simply must not include government regulation of any kind... What happens when bhp becomes regulated? Surely it will become illegal to modify your car to increase its performance, because the government will already have established it as a public safety issue.
04-03-2006, 09:26 PM
#330
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
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
