Swedeboy

How does that picture prove anything whatsoever without a detailled driver's and/or eye witness account of what happened? You're really building a solid, well-founded case.

Name any highly conspicious car model and Internet will provide a truckload of similar pictures. Are all these supercars or even 'regular' sportscars lethal killing machines or is it just the case that every minor or major screw up by the driver of such a car will almost certainly be photographed and publicized on Internet?

Bob Rouleau

MANUAL - good points all. I believe you are correct. In many cases a complete loss of control can be avoided by a relatively small but very timely input. The best drivers do this by themselves and it's what separates the truly great from the the rest.

My comments in this thread relate to Ben's accident and I freely admit it is based on the hypothesis that Ben saw a car in his path. He instinctively lifted off the power and swerved to avoid hitting the Ferrari. Based on my rather ad-hoc experiments (prior to the accident I might add) PSM cannot prevent a loss of control under those circumstances. I didn't say under "no" circumstances, only the ones I theorize were operative in Ben's crash.

I think every driver knows that as we go faster, our inputs require more and more finesse. At 20 MPH we can violently swerve a car with no loss of control. Do not attempt the same thing at 120 MPH.

Experienced track drivers have enough seat time at high speed to overcome basic instincts in an emergency situation. This takes a lot of practice but it does become instinctive after enough time.

To maintain stability in spite of gross (grossly incorrect) inputs at high speed, engineers will have to resort to other means. Since physics can show the maximum yaw rate which PSM can manage, I suppose a "steer by wire" system could be devised which prevents the driver from executing a swerve at a speed beyond the control capability of PSM.

This, in an of itself, would put a significant liability burden on the manufacturer of a car equipped with a system designed to defeat the driver's steering input - on the other hand, that's exactly what ABS does isn't it?

Engineers might also contemplate deployable aerodynamic devices (air brakes essentially). A crude but effective example is on NASCAR racers - the wing that slows the car travelling backwards.

Of course, someone in senior management might ask about the potential liabilities of these complex systems - what if it fails and causes an accident! Were I in that position, I might decide that the simplest and cheapest solution would be to prevent the car from going at speeds above which PSM/ESP/ CST etc is functional.

Personally, I am not very enthusiastic about either solution.

Best,

Nick

Bob. one does not buy a sport car to transport items or passengers. The purpose of the sport car is to make as many curves straight and to out accelerate as many cars on the road. That is the essence of a sport car.

Who on this board can tell me they would enjoy their sport cars doing the speed limit? That just is not the case with sedans and SUV's. Sure there will be instances of these cars going beyond their purpose but they generally are the exception.

With a Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo or any other high perf. sport car the purpose is to get close to the edge in order to enjoy the car. Otherwise you might as well be driving a Camry.

Regarding the picture, we know someone lost control. Since the car did not go into the canyon it is safe to assume the speed wasn't great and certain stability devices would have save the day.

Bob Rouleau

Nick, perhaps you are projecting? I do not drive any of my cars differently on the public roads. I'm not saying that I drive any of them at the precise speed limit. Fact is, I don't. I do drive at reasonable speeds consistent with traffic flow and road conditions. The proof is a perfectly clean record with no demerit points and no insurance claims.

My travel time between my home and my country place is the same whether I am driving my sedan or a GT3, in fact my Mercedes probably makes the trip a little faster since it is less attention getting and I have no fear of scraping the underside on the back roads.

I firmly believe that anyone who attempts to exploit the limits of a modern high performance car on public roads is a fool. That's why I spend so many days at the track. I'll stick my neck out a little and postulate that accomplished track drivers tend to be less aggressive on public roads than the average. As someone once said,"the difference between tracking your car and driving on the street is a lot like the difference between sex and masturbation".

The picture proves nothing. The driver may have been DUI for all we know. As others have pointed out, if a Camry goes off the road nobody bothers to take a picture. If an exotic car has an incident, it makes headlines.

Regards,

Regards,

Bob Rouleau

Jeff - either he is pulling our collective legs, or, he is a far better man than I! In this part of the world the only people who drive the limit are the subject of scorn, derision and "gestures" for slowing traffic.

M758

I enjoy my stock 944 Turbo when moving at reasonable speed limit type pace. I also very much enjoyed my 84 944 when driving a speed limit pace on the roads.

Sadly that is not the case. My parents have a very nice 2005 Honda Accord V6. It is a very nice car and competant, but utterly boring. The engine is nice, but it is stuck a bland chassis plus is front wheel drive. My 2002 BMW 530 is many many times more fun to drive at the same legal speeds because of the way it feels. It has less hp than the Honda yet is so much better balanced more responsive and much more engaging to drive. Even so over the same roads and speeds my 944 Turbo is even more fun engaging. The feel I get from the car as slowly bend it into a corner as well as the close direct responsive feel is just amazing. My 530 is a wonderfull car for it size, but response is just better in my 944 Turbo.

All of these can obtained at the same legally acceptable speeds. Granted most of the time it may be 5-10 over the limit, but that is very within normal speeds of most cars anyway. Now just because I do not approach the limits of my 944 Turbo on the street it does not mean I don't enjoy it. When I want to explore the limits of performance I have a dedicated race car to do that with. It in fact has the least hp of any car I own and yet provides me with the most thrills. I enjoy it because I do it the proper environment with the right safety gear and the real joy is not from the speed itself, but from MY ability to control the at its outer limits of performance. There is no PSM and no ABS to save my butt. It is just me in stiff twitchy car that can be spun in second if you fail to respect its capabilities. When you get it all right it a pure joy to throw the car into a corner feel the back end slide and apply power to straighten the car out with the tires singing all the way. Pure "no nanny" fun!

Nick

Bob, typically in the US once safety devices are mandated, manufacturers get immunity for those devices.

Just to set the record straight, my car is not limited to speed limits. I, like you drive according to the situation.

Also, I disagree that the picture does not mean anything. It speaks volumes. Take my word for it.

M758

Hmm... just looking at that picture does not tell me much of anything. First impression is it is a picture of some yahoo driving over his head. Then again without context it could mean anything.

Swedeboy

You mean a rope with an anchor?

Speculating if a stability device would have saved the day is cheap after the fact. I'd rather speculate that if the driver had seen the big void and steered well clear of it that might have done the trick as well?

Do tell - is this driver considering legal action against the road authority for the lack of safety guard rails? How about the dust and gravel on the road - shouldn't that have been cleared away properly by maintanence crews? How about the blatent lack of "keep well away from the void" signs?

It springs to mind the most appropriate solution that people who can't handle responsiblity for their own actions stay well away from fun activities - including anything with a larger engine than a Civic 1.6.

Bob Rouleau

Nick - I am skeptical about "immunity". If a safety device fails, I'm sure there is a PA out there who will try and spin it as "negligence".

As to the photo, how about I post the one of the Enzo spilt in half? That car has stability controls. Did it make a difference? The only distinction is that the driver was uninjured in spite of hitting a utility pole at high speed. Luck was a factor, no? I suspect with a little effort I could find lots of pictures of wreck cars - I'd only pick the ones with stability controls. Would it prove anything?

AS feels that maybe the CGT has a handling flaw. I listen to him carefully because he has driven a number of cars whose performance far outstrips the CGT. Proving it is another matter. I suppose an impartial (that could be hard) panel of expert drivers could be asked to put the car through its paces and express an opinion... but, they would be experts and most likely far more skilled that the average owner.

If the CGT has a handling flaw (AS was right to mention the Audi TT - it was unstable at high speeds even in the hands of an expert) then it needs to be fixed. Fixing a handling flaw on a car usually means something other than PSM though. If the car is unsafe then Porsche will pay the price. If it isn't ...they will probably have to pay anyway.

I have no doubt that a very safe "drive by wire" system is possible. Aviation has gone this route. The Airbus is one example. It won't let you make a mistake. If it can be done for an aircraft, I suppose it can be done for a simpler vehicle like a car.

It all comes down to the notion of protecting people from themselves. I am dead set against giving up my freedom to protect the foolish. My limited time in a CGT showed me a car with lightning fast reflexes, and engine that responds instantly to the throttle - a real thoroughbred of a car. To dumb down to make it safe in the hands of a poor driver is not an acceptable solution.

pcar964

I don't understand how you can arbitrarily state that the car "may have a handling FLAW." How do you define a flaw? That is absurd.

Could you say that a Geo Metro has a "handling flaw" because it handles like absolute crap? EVERY CAR IS DIFFERENT!!! Under that manner of thinking, every 911 before the 964 has a handling flaw too!! You people act as if there is a handling "standard" and if a car fails to meet that standard, it is considered "flawed." Ridiculous.

If you can't handle a CGT, don't buy one. Blaming it on some nebulous "flaw" that cannot be defined is silly.

roberga

guys give up. Nick will never change. He either believes his insane argument or enjoys frustrating clear thinking people. Either way I have no doubt that scumbag POS bottomfeeding lawyers will try to make some money in litagation on this topic.

Bob Rouleau

pcar - I suggest you take it up with Alex instead of yelling at me. It is possible that the CGT has a flaw - an instability when lifting off the throttle perhaps? The Audi TT certainly had a flaw, at autobahn speeds the car became unstable and directional control was near impossible. They recalled the car and fixed it. I don't know how much they paid out in damages.

The CGT has a lot of compression and a big engine for a car weighing 3000 lbs. It also has a very light flywheel, any throttle input produces an instantaneous reaction. It's not like letting off the gas in a Buick automatic! Anyone who has driven a powerful race car knows you have to ease off the throttle if there is any lateral acceleration at all, otherwise the braking effect of compression on the rear wheels transfers weight to the front and the back end gets loose. In a mid engine car which can spin like a top, this can be a big handful. In a panic situation, the natural inclination is to lift abruptly .. how does the car react under those circumstances? If the outcome is a spin/slide that even a pro can't control, you might call that a flaw. I can't say this is true because in my limited seat time with one, I was very gentle on the controls - I gave the car the respect it deserved.

Alex managed to drive a Can-Am car around on the street even! Those things were lighter than a CGT (by 500 lbs or more) and depending on the car, equally or even more powerful. They used slicks which looked like rollers although they were probably only 18 inches wide. Massive rubber coupled with a very large wing kept the back end in check.

Anyway this is Alex' theory, why the heck am I defending it? He is a big boy and quite capable of speaking out on the issue.

One last thing, those Mercedes prototypes that got airborne at Lemans .. would you call that a handling flaw? "geez boss, I came over the hump and the next thing I know I am flying, did a barrel roll or two and landed off track, I think this car needs some extra time in the wind-tunnel".


Regards,

pcar964

Sorry Bob, that wasn't directed at you in particular - but I had seen the word "flaw" thrown around so much on this thread, I decided to make a point. I agree that in extreme cases, a car could be considered to have a flaw. But in reality, most of what people call "flaws" are simply unique handling characteristics of a unique car. The mid-engine layout of the CGT makes it more difficult to catch when it starts to spin... but that layout also provides better handling on the track. Considering the person buying a CGT is knowingly buying a high performance car oriented more towards outright performance than everyday drivability, they know what they're getting into.

If someone expects a car with CGT performance to be as forgiving as a 997, they're dreaming.

1AS

Hi Jeff,
Remember, my concerns started when I looked at the car at a point I was just beginning to consider purchase. That was at the Detroit auto show, when I attended the Autoweek -sponsored lecture series and special-viewing event. I attended with Chris Beebe, a friend and near-legend of road racing. I looked at every inch, and felt restraint overcoming desire.
That's even worse than not driving one. I didn't even sit in it. Just stared at the naked structure, recognizing it as a pure racing tub, and beyond-race-legal engine.
Having owned and driven some wicked machinery ( and growing up in the era of no computer asits, and vehicles with innately vile handling), the car gave me serious concern. When you look at it, it IS a barely disgusied race car, without some of the aids race drivers get. While many can handle that, I have seen many more that can't. Since the car was being sold to a broad cross-section (guys like Mike and Les are the cream of the crop), I saw disaster as an immeiated ane relevant concern.

My consistent theme is not to criticize the car, or diminish the desirablilyt of freedom of choice. I love the car. It's just to say that it looks like more than an average enthusiast can handle.
Porsche knows this, because PSM standrd on tt, a much slower and more stable car. It won't SAVE every lamebrained idiot from themselves, but it would save most of them most of their trauma.
It is also possible that not each CGT handles the same. In these cars, a minor set-up variation creates a huge difference.
Mostly, I think that facts will come out that clarify the issues. This lawsuit was inevitable. While the first, it may well not be the last. If anybody on this board died driving one, a suit would follow.
Look at what VW forces a driver to do before attempting a top speed run in a Veyron. You need to go thru a check list, and twist an extra key. Turning off psm is relatively easy compared to that. AS