Bob Rouleau

Alex, I agree. If the allegations we've seen are true, nobody should have died that day. Did Ben miss the checkered flag?

Did the Ferrari driver cross the blend line, causing Ben to take evasive action? If so he is responsible to a lesser degree. Same with the flagger. From the photos posted of the scene of the accident, the barrier should not have been there either.

In the end everyone will probably be found responsible to some degree or other. Will Ben's estate file suit as well? In addition to being one of the accused, I suspect that Ben's estate might have a fairly good case too. It seems to me that Ben and Corey were both victims of circumstance and perhaps negligence.

I do draw the line at the notion that Porsche is negligent for not fitting PSM to the car. I do not deny that PSM might prevent some accidents caused by inept drivers in a high performance vehicle, but this was not one of them. I reiterate my concern that if a manufacturer is deemed to be at fault for not supplying stability controls, the next step will be to find them negligent for allowing said controls to be switched off. That would really upset me, since it would (to quote someone in the thread) "dumb down" our cars to a point where competent drivers would be denied the pleasure of driving.

Les Quam

As an attorney It's my opinion if we don't reform the civil legal system America's economy is doomed. It is also morally repugnant to allow such a system to continue. As much as I enjoy disagreeing with Alex I can't in this instance it is the Doctors who quite possibly have been hardest hit by this problem and the net reuslt is heath care for the rest of us has suffered terribly.

jaymtford

I know its getting a little off topic, but as example of how screwed our legal system is at the current time, I know of no better example. Being from Rhode Island this issue has been in news, but I don't know how many others are aware of the details. Have a read of the attached article. Isn't collusion supposed to be illegal ??

Bob Rouleau

Alex,

The circumstances cited above aren't the same as Ben's. It has been said that Audi engineers were concerned about high speed instability but the designer, Morgan Freeman, refused any changes to his design. Apparently his contract gave him the right to do so. After a number of crashes attributed to a loss of control at Autobahn speeds, Audi recalled the TT and added aerodynamic aids to prevent lift at high speeds. That was a design flaw in my opinion.

The Smart car failed a "moose test" - an emergency lane change. Mercedes recalled them and increased the track, fitted wider tires and added ESP. The problem was a propensity to roll over in an violent swerve. Not hard to understand given the high center of gravity. That too was an "oops" by the designers. There is no evidence that the CGT is an evil handling car is there? Accidents for sure, but it seems like high performance is the root cause - along with drivers incapable of handling a supercar.

If we buy into the idea of mandating ways to prevent inept drivers from hurting themselves, engineers will point out that stability controls can only go so far. I can see the insurance companies, the Naderites and the Greens getting together to push legislation which will eliminate high performance cars altogether, making the world a safer place.

Rgds,

Oldnslow

Let's see--I've probably put 15K track miles at various DE events on my old '69 911S. I guess if I stack it up and kill myself, I have no recourse against Porsche because my car was so old it had none of the modern safety devices (though from what I recall, it does have steering and brakes), but if I had a modern car that Porsche built without these devices and I did the same thing I could sue?? I must say find this rather illogical. Folks, when you strap yourself in after signing that waiver and proceed to drive very fast near concrete structures, common sense tells you that you are running a risk that you will kill yourself. Either take that risk and rely on your own life insurance policy for your family or don't drive under those circumstances.

Swedeboy

Small correction. That was the A-class. For the Smart - launched slightly later - the engineers added wider track & ESP before any incidents occured.

1AS

Bob,
I have no disagreement with your points. I guess one could always remove the fuse, if disabeling the system was not possible, but I also don't want to see the end of the opportunity to turn off the controls. When I was at Bondurant last week, I wanted to see if I could drift my rental Lincoln. To do that, the fuse was pulled. (You can easily get it sideways, but it doesn't have enough power to hold it, so it reverts to understeer until you flip it in the other direction)
I agree on the tt, though Audi did add the duck tail after the German rally champ died. I had also read they recalled all cars for retrofitting anti-skid technology. The moose test is also as I remember for Smart. I think a journalist got in trouble. My recollection was that is was the Smart and not the A, and the incident that triggered the re-engineering occurred at a pre-launch press event.
It's pointless to compare a 1969 911 to a modern supercar. The rate at which one gets in trouble, and the speeds at which that trouble arises are vastly different. My points completely disappear if we begin talking about a late 60's MGB. As it is, I fully accept all the points of those who differ on the skid control technology. AS

Swedeboy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test
The A-class was launched in 1997, the Smart in 1998.

gabbagabbahey

Prepare for the era of jumping through hoops...

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/0601_lexus_gs430_vsc/

My old 91 Audi 90 has a button to turn off ABS:

Kaz

You guys are all going on about the attorneys but Corey's wife of only a few weeks made it clear to close friends of Corey's that she was going to sue. It didn't take any lawyer to convince her of anything.

Bob Rouleau

Kaz,

This thread is more about the repercussions of the lawsuit and some weaknesses in the legal system.

If we take Nick's view, the logical outcome will be the elimination of supercars simply because a few hapless drivers failed to respect their own limits. Should the rest of us be denied the pleasure of driving a very high performance car because a small few manage to hurt themselves with the darn things?

Alex (a very smart guy) stated "nobody should have died that day". He's right. Like him, I also believe that the award will be huge. Deep pockets suggests that if the award exceeds Ben's insurance, Porsche might be found partly responsible and forced to pay the lion's share of the award.

The last time this happened, Porsche withdrew the 930 Turbo from the US market after being forced to pay a large award under bizarre circumstances. Note the same lawyer who prosecuted THAT case is the plaintiff's attorney in this one.

It was a case similar to this one which pretty much wiped out the General Aviation market about 30 years ago.

I suspect we may see revisions to all insurance policies (reduced coverage and/or serious premium increases) as one of the outcomes. Nothing good can come of this action as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,

Kaz

Thanks Bob. I only bothered to read about 8 pages of this thread and did see the general direction it was headed. However the repercussions you speak of are only possible if the lawsuit goes forth and there is one person who can shut that down.

Nick

Bob I have thought long and hard on the issue you raise. Should good drivers be penalized for actions of the bad? Should cars of this nature confined only to tracks? We all must admit high performance cars on public streets and highways involve nothing more than breaking the law daily and exposing the driver and other's to dangers which would not exist on a sanctioned track assuming it was set up and supervised correctly.

So what is the answer? If your going to allow these high performance cars on the street and thereby implicitedly agreeing to violations of most traffic laws, at the very least we should require all safety devices available be part of the car. It is a fair exchange.

BTW here is a picture of another CGT losing control which just happened in CA. Fortunately no one was hurt and the driver one lucky person.

MANUAL

Bob and Steve N.,

I agree with you that at either low or high speed, once all four wheels are sliding, braking one of them may not be enough.
Isn't it true that usually before the driver loses complete control of the car, a brief window of opportunity arises in the form of either understeer and/or oversteer? When such a window arises:

at low speed: A driver and/or PSM has the opportunity to comfortably counteract the understeer and/or oversteer before all four wheel slide into an irrecoverable spin.

at high speed: A driver's brain may not be quick enough to realize the "kinetic energy of the car increases at the square of velocity" and begin to anticipate, then counteract before the window closes. However, PSM just may have a shot especially when its input sensors are constantly monitoring/anticipating slip angle, yaw rate, throttle, etc. and its reaction times are significantly faster than most humans. As soon as understeer or oversteer crosses the line from fun to danger, its constant monitoring/anticipation may be enough to "see" the window in time and counteract before the window closes and before all four wheels begin sliding.

With each innovation and passing day, for instance, the linear solenoid valves replacing conventional shaft valves, PSM's reaction times are improving while our human times are the same or deteriorating:

New generation of Porsche Stability Management
Introducing the new 911 Carrera and Carrera S, Porsche also hails the advent of a new generation of Porsche Stability Management (PSM). In terms of both longitudinal and lateral dynamics, PSM ensures a very high standard of active safety when driving to the extreme now combined with even greater agility and driving pleasure so typical of the brand. The new tyres, further refined control quality, and optimised ABS components also serve in this context to make stopping distances even shorter than before. New ABS sensors offer the input for this superior management and control, determining wheel rotation no longer by conventional pulse wheels, but rather by multi-pole seals fitted directly on the wheel bearings. The improved signal obtained in this way can now be used for more precise processing and control purposes, linear solenoid valves serving to adjust brake pressure with almost infinite precision, that is much more precise than with conventional shaft valves.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm...ml/country/gcf

Bob Rouleau

Sorry, I have to reject your theory out of hand. Breaking traffic laws has nothing to do with the performance potential of the vehicle. One can easily break any speed limit in the nation with an underpowered car, and even manage to lose control. Fact is, all else being equal, the high performance car will be safer under the same circumstances in view of better brakes, steering, handling etc.

There are a lot of single car accidents each day. Some of them involving vehicles with stability controls, some without. The majority of them (by far) are not performance cars. The same driving error that put the CGT pictured above in the ditch might have been far worse in an SUV - stability control or not.

I posit that a high performance car is safer than the majority of vehicles on the road today. A CGT can avoid accidents far better than an Escalade (to name but one - how about the most popular vehicle on the road, the Ford F-150 for another).

Yes a CGT or F430 can effortlessly achieve supralegal speeds where the consequences of error are more serious. The driver who goes that fast is uniquely responsible.

Would Electronic Stability Controls change things for the better? I am skeptical. It certainly didn't help the driver of the Enzo that wrote off his car on PCH a month ago.

Nick, my concern is rooted in the fundamental issue of do-gooders seeking to protect idiots from themselves. If one subscribes to that theory, what is the logical outcome? Mandatory PSM, horsepower limits, transponders which report our speeds, (speed cameras are already a step in this direction) speed governors .. you see where I am going here.

Who was it that said "let's take all the warning labels off and let evolution move forward"?

Regards,