jeff522

Hemmingway once ststed that mountain climbing,bull fighting,and auto racing are the only true sports.The rest are just children's games.I have read throuht this thread it say alotThe true sports have one common factor,people will die.No matter how many saftey systems,restrants,and spotters there are.It has nothing to do with some one driving past thair level,or a spotter not doing his job,or not having the rigth saftey nanies(which I hate)it's just the natural risk of putting a human in an car going 150 or 200 mph plus.I truly feel for the famlies involved.Thair loved ones where doing something which thay love,and it killed them.End of story.Lawyers trying to make a buck from the pain and loss of others sicken me.(If they really want to help the injured why do they take 40 or 50% for there service.Bottom Feeders).We have growen use to a safe world,but racing or even hot lapping will always carry the risk of death.We forget that a little more than 50 years ago that fully 1/2 of the drivers who started the F-1 season died befor it was over.These were some of the greatest drivers of all time.Drives still die and always will.That is part of what draws many of us to racing.The thrill of cheating death.Any one who thinks that any of this can be made safe,or the only ones who die are those with to much car for there skill level,well I have some land to sell you and an oil lease for sale.Great drivers still die at all levels,and always will.

Nick

Les while it may be true that Ben's death has caused me to be more outspoken on the issue, my insistence on safety stability devices on high performance sport cars sold to the general public has nothing to do with his death. It is incomprehensible to me that with safety technology being what it is today that a manufacturer of a sport car would market a car that by all accounts 99% of the people do not thave the competence to drive at speed. This applies to Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborgini or any other manufacturer.

There will always be Buddy G's out there who haven't a clue about performance cars and their handling and either will kill themselves or others trying to demonstrate their inadequate skills.

gabbagabbahey

Nick, just curious, but if one were proving Porsche negligent for omitting PSM on the CGT, how much sway does the fact that there are indeed other high HP cars w/o this stability aid detract from the argument in a civil case?

OT but by the "its the plane not pilot" logic, any ski resorts with steep black diamond runs or access to runs with trees mixed in should be prohibited since they are "potentially" dangerous. A novice can easily get in over their heads by pointing their skis down the fall line and letting them rip but there is no way to exclude them from entry.

pcar964

Nick, I think we all know why you want these "safety devices" mandated in high performance cars - it's because you think they should be dumbed-down to the lowest common denominators (worst drivers) who might buy the car. To hell with everybody else, right?

Nick

Does the fact that most car manufacturers design and install electronic stability control devices pursuade any of you that they are effective? Why would they bother if they were ineffectual?

Jeff, a hot lap in a 300 hp car is far different from a hot lap in a 610hp car which is also lighter. Also, there are many approaches to teach drivers the use of these cars without exposing them to the "limit" expereince.

I am not a skier but if I am not mistaken ski bindings have safety features. Also the fact that trails are marked is a warning of the dangers and hazard of the trail. If I follow some of the arguments, people are not blind so they should be able to tell whether the hill is steep and tree lined and therefore no need to warn. So why do they have the trails marked?

Would any of you object to have the safety devices in all cars but in some they can be disabled by the driver?

pcar964

YES, WE OBJECT!! We object to mandatory devices in ANY car. If the manufacturer chooses to offer every safety device possible, great - you're free to buy that car. But we don't want a small group of people, or the government, telling US what WE need to have in OUR cars.

Why can't you understand this? I feel like I've repeated the same thing 100 times in different words! It's nothing personal Nick, but you need to respect the individual choices people make. In this perpetually scared society, there's no doubt that car manufacturers will offer the newest and best safety devices becauase consumers like the feeling of security - so you will have your precious electronic nannies in most cars, trust me. But don't try and rain on our parade by mandating these devices in high performance cars that we enjoy, in no small part, because of the absence of driver-aides.

1AS

I, for one, am glad that Les has done more stupid things than I. But having doen some of those stupid things, I have a different view.
First, lets not bring every arguement to a ridiculous extreme. We aren't talking about true racing speeds, and not 150 mph. There are numerous CGT crashes on the street at much lower speeds. One dealer mechanic seemed to have spun in the rain. Sure, it all might be stupidity. But, please consider an alterante explanation. Track driving is not racing, any more than foreplay is intercourse, but it may be as close to "total happiness" as most come. Neither Ben or Cory expected to die, as they might racing at Lemans in the rain, the original design intent of the car.

Most cars understeer, so loss of control is straight ahead, where the natural instinct is to slow down, which corrects the problem. (Defer discussion on locked brakes for the moment). The CGT seems to be a natural oversteerer, which is actually unusual in "as purchased" cars. That means it rotates with either too much throttle, brakes while turning, or too much speed on turning. Oversteer results in crashes, not with the first tail wag, but with the pendulum effect that comes with delayed correction, over-correction, and throttle-lift. Timely correction is not a natural response. Nobody who hasn't practiced can do it well in a mid-engined car.
I don't think the CGT is unique among supercars for absence of skid control. It is unique because of it's recent introduction, technological sophistication, and relatively high production numbers. It's irrelevant for an F40, since the technology wasn't available, and less significant for a Pagini, since the production numbers are so low. But, Porsche is a high-volume manufacturer. It was feasable to add the device, and leave it up to the driver to switch it off.
With it, I think some very smart, very wealthy people wouldn't have crashed.
Re Ben,
I wasn't there..... BUT, even at 130 on the straight, the first tail wag might have been impeded to the point where disaster didn't occur. Yes that is a "might have" I've had my nanny controls come in at 90+mph, and been appreciative of them. Maybe I was an idiot, but I didn't crash.
With Buddy, there is no maybe. Since attempted evasion of police pursuit seems to be his singular claim to fame, discussions of judgement are as irrelevant as teaching nuclear physics to the brain dead. Oops. Sorry that was inflammatory. Let me retract that and apologize before my wrist gets slapped. AS

gabbagabbahey

Yes, skis have bindings that will release in a twisting fall. One can set the bindings spring tension so that heavier or expert skiers require greater force to release. I guess that would be similar to your F430's magneto levels.

Yes, trails are marked by difficulty level and the back of a lift ticket warns the skiers of their responsibility to downhill skiers and the possibility of hidden objects etc. (similar to the release papers signed at a DE)

The point is that a hill poses different levels of threats (read hp levels for cars) and unforseen dangers (cars pulling out, oil on the track or a car spinning out ahead of one at a DE) so that it is up to the skier to accept these risks or not go down the hill in first place (or onto the track in a 600 HP car either w or w/o ESP).

One is responsible for "skiing in control" and when a jacka#$% knocked me out recently by crashing into me; I didn't blame his equipment, it was his fault for riding faster then he could turn.

At some point ESP will or is seen by the insurance companies as a reduction in risk and they should discount rates accordingly. Consumers will seek out cars w ESP and manufactures will either include it or not sell as many cars.

But why should small runs of cars by Lotus, Noble, even Porsche GT3's be required to include this? Just buy another make or model if you deem it a prerequisite. QED.

gabbagabbahey

Slippery slope, just a matter of time before "some" changes to none because of lobbying pressures by Bosch, concerned mothers, insurance companies.

1AS

Why a CGT and not an Elise?
Because it's easier to make a mistake and the consequences are greater.
A Noble?
Because a Noble is closer to a kit car than a production run, plus see Elise
A GT3?
I'd see it as a plus in both the GT2 and GT3, tho with capability to disable (ala C6ZO6), but again, 600 hp, mid-engined, tendency to oversteer all make a stronger case for CGT- just my opinion.
I personally think Porsche just saved the development costs in all 3 lines that don't have it. AS

gabbagabbahey

I wonder why Audi didn't include ESP in the updated Lambo Murci? ( but does in the Gallardo and VW with the Veyron) I can't imagine an additional 2 or 3K costs to a 300K car would eliminate potential buyers.

Are Lambo and Porsche worried that ESP will detract from the rebel image of its top models or is it that above certain HP (or speed = kinetic energy), ESP is not effective because the yaw control system can't react fast enough?

On p 6 of this paper, http://members.rennlist.com/jandreas...fVDC-BOSCH.pdf

the models show as the x axis "driving velocity" of around 30 meters/sec, while 150mph = 67 m/s. Perhaps Porsche did try a first generation ESP system (5 or 6 years ago) and found it overwhelmed with the yaw sensor available at the time for the speeds / slip angles a CGT can reach. OTOH omitting PSM on the new GT3 seems an oversight with the vehicle dynamics similar to the 997.

Heck Consumer Reports ragged on the latest Cadillac in a sedan tests because its stability control let its tail slide IRRC around 55 mph during their emergency test. A far cry from 150 mph!

Nordschleife

Audi was concerned that there might be electrical interference caused by the static electricity generated by the chest hair pieces of the owners, to say nothing of merkins.

Actually, the Murciélago is the last of the POS Lamborghinis, so perhaps nobody felt arsed enough to do it. Audi does care about the Gallardo and VW needs a string of Veyron crashes like it needs scandals involving bribery and prostitutes.... ooops.

R+C

clubrcr

I am shocked that the attorney forgot to included God in his lawsuit, it was his fault they had nice weather that day and how negligent God was for providing that to these entrants.

I believe that attorneys would quit filing these law suits if they would limit the attorney to a maximum fee of less than $5K per case. Let the attorney make money, but only the amount that he actually "claimed" on his hourly basis. They shouldn't get a percentage of winnings.

clubrcr

I think we need attorneys to help in case of need, what I don't like is the attorneys that take cases for the sole reason someone will settle out of court. I also think that many firms would not represent the person if they didn't think they would win big. The bottom line, you and I pay for that.

Do you honestly believe that attorneys that settle these cases can justify the amount of money they get paid. Just because they know some companies would rather settle than have the expense and publicity to fight it out.

I am not an attorney, and I know there are many attorneys don't fall trap to this, but for those who prey upon the greedy, we need to have reform.

By the way garabage collection is a money making opportunity, just ask the Sapranos.

1AS

No question that the contingency award is the basis for many attorneys entering the PI field. It's a phenomenal windfall for them. And since lawmakers are attorneys, and the PI lawyers are terrific campaign contributors, this won't change.
But, that doesn't mean each end every point won't be proven correct. My bet is for a huge award if it gets to trial, or for a huge (undisclosed)settlement if it doesn't. Any way you cut it, Cory should not have died that day. Something went hugely wrong.
It may be that all assertions are correct and contributed, or one or two get dropped if the evidence doesn't evolve. At the onset, they never leave anyone out, for fear of the "empty chair" defense.
As much as we don't like it, this one more likely does have merit. If it was you in the passenger seat, would you want your wife to be compensated for the untimely loss of your life?
ps: I'm a doctor, so I have sensitivity to the frivolous suit issue. AS