1AS

The car entering the track is supposed to stay out of the line. Has anyone ever seen a yield sign ON the track? The car on the correct cornering line is presumed to have right-of-way, so contact under passing is attributed to error of the passer, not passee with our sanctioning bodies- tho clearly there are times a sightless driver comes down on you. In this case, it seems Ben would have the line.

The only time I've seen track entry above the entry to a corner(on the outside of the corner), the blend line kept entering cars way above the cornering line, and intersects the cornering line only at corner exit. AS

PogueMoHone

Was the swerve to avoid him?

Was the swerve when he saw him?

Was the swerve necessary?

Was the swerve an over reaction?

Was the swerve the result of inattention?

Where is the evidence that ferrari was anywhere other than where it was supposed to be?

The drawings to date are pure supposition and conjecture with regard to positioning, any film?

Who had the eyes that could instantaeously look at two places at the exact same time? (For the fraction of seconds it this event to occur, not unfold).

Who had the presence of mind to overcome the sounds of a skid to note the exact position of another car further away?


It wouldn't surprise me to see that when all is said and done there were a lot of things "lined up" to cause this unfortunate incident that had nothng to do with the handling of the car, and more to do with the driving of the car.

gabbagabbahey

fyi:

http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/show...2&postcount=32

MANUAL

Thank you, gabbagabbahey. Although, my question about the presence of a blend line is not answered.

Flying Finn

I'm very late to this party but anyways:

This (as well as the stupid 930 law suit) is just such a big bunch of bull****.
The whole principle here in States that you always have to sue for everything is so lame, like mooty said, if you trip and fall down on my yard, even if there's a hockey stick laying around or whatever, it's your fault, not mine!

I really like my current home country (USA) but this law suit business here sickens me, who can US citizens tolerate this kind of bull****!

If Porshe is somehow decided to be at fault and people don't retalliate and realize how ****ed up it is, I wish Porsche will never bring any of their cars in US again.

Sorry for the rant, I just get so worked up with this kind of lawsuit bull****.

Bob Rouleau

Photo

The link above is to a better photo posted by Mikey who was a witness to the accident. The photo isn't good enough to see a blend line, although I cannot imagine a race track without one.

I have never seen a yield sign on a race track. The rules are that cars never cross a blend line. Period. I have given that speech about 100 times - every driver's meeting I have ever held. I assume that the participants *that* day also knew the rules. If not, the lawyers will have a field day.

If "Mikey" choses to comment, he can tell us whether the blend line was properly visible, it's normally a solid white line.

Regards,

Mikey

OK Bob, you suckered me into another response
No blend line, no exit signs, no corner workers. There were loose piece of curbing on the track that went unclaimed for long periods. My friend Matt (Indy racer instructing me at the time) was horrified and we deliberately kept off the track at times. Regardless, this track and setup felt safer than public roads with no speed limits (e.g. the Autobahn).

I reiterate my previous position: The concept of a “daily driver supercar”=CGT is an oxymoron. I recall a TV program where the McLaren F1 was driven upside down in a tube to demonstrate it generates downforce (upforce) greater than its weight. I challenge anyone to produce this type of data for the CGT.

Regarding jealousy comments, I find that hilarious. ANYONE can afford a CGT if they own a home in CA. At its going price of $350K a home equity line would cost less than a lease payment on a GT3. Homes in my neighborhood are north of $4M … so how many CGTs is that? Jealous of Enzo or McLaren F1? Yes, but I am not bashing either car on the appropriate forum. In that price range I find a private jet much more conducive to my immediate goals in life.

tdf360

I've never heard that about the McLaren...more than 2500 lbs of downforce?!? I find that hard to believe, but what do I know.

Gary

PogueMoHone

I'd say quite a bit!

Mikey

I am sure there are McLaren experts here that can provide appropriate links. The Enzo is "electronically limited" at 1700lbs over 186MPH (not too far off how fast Ben was going). It is not too difficult to imagine the F1 could make more with a 240MPH top speed. The Veyron makes 1100lbs on the rear axle with the airbrake activated (same concept and desinger as F1).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_Enzo_Ferrari

Mikey

Here we go Mr.

1997 McLaren GTR Long-Tail
Downforce:
1234 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 561 lbs. of drag
1776 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 807 lbs. of drag
2193 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 997 lbs. of drag
Lift-to-drag ratio: 2.2:1

2004 Porsche Carrera GT
Downforce:
343 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 459 lbs. drag
493 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 660 lbs. drag
640 lbs. @ 205 mph, with 857 lbs. drag

Source:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerod...rreragt04.html


You can now see what killed Ben and Corey

1AS

Michael,
The data are helpful in illustrating the point, comparing degree of difficulty driiving a CGT compared to other cars driven in a fashion that might be considered difficult or dangerous. This doesn't mean a CGT might be difficult or dangerous in all circumstances, it implies it may be more difficult than a casual buyer or passenger suspects, particularly at speed. Another way of saying that is that it could me more difficult than many race cars which a non-skilled driver wouldn't attempt to take to max speeds. Another way of saying it is that other manufacturers have provided more high-speed stability assistance for cars of similar capabilities. The euphamistic way of saying it is that Porsche provides the "purer" experience. The nihilistic way of saying it is that it's always the driver's responsibility to control the car.

While I was aware of the "drive it upside down" capability of the old groud effects CART cars, I hadn't been aware that a McLaren could also do it (and it seems to be marginal, even if extrapolated to 240). I think most drivers are unaware of the tremendous stability imposed by the large wings on race cars that have power similar to a CGT.

While qualifying is often associated with trimming out the wing, race set-ups typically have much more downforce. I know that I used to leave the wing at high downforce all the time.
Credit goes to the CGT for having downforce (since in the pre-wing era, all cars had lift), but compared to the aids other similiarly fast cars have had for track driving, CGT downforce is modest.
The absence of huge rear slicks is the second main factor.

The one that drives everyone wild is my concern that setting a car up for "sporty" handling (aka neutral to oversteer) at moderate speeds can lead to very tricky handling at high speeds on the track. That's why, despite my love of going sideways, I always raced with the bars firm in front and soft in back.

What did that mean? If you are willing to give up maximum potential top speed for stability, you can gear the box for redline at a lower top speed (in my case 188), but actually have a faster, more stable car. This doesn't work for supercars in the era of magazine tests, since the car would fall short of its competitors in the stat boxes. But for track driving, that is what even the pros do. Amateurs don't know this, and go to max speeds in street trim.

The point is not to bash the CGT (which I really admire for many reasons). It is to say that unleashing a CGT requires a different skill set than most appreciate, and perhaps shoould be associated with the typical track adjustments a competition car would receive- more understeer, more downforce, more drag, at least until the driver knows what to expect. I believe the wings on the GT2 and 3 have adjustability (please correct me if I'm wrong), so the technology isn't difficult. Absent that, a moderate amount of consternation and restraint are essential.
Sorry, since I think I've beaten this subject to death. I seem to have developed OCD related to this concern.
AS

W8MM

You have indulged in selective data cribbing to go along with your melodramatic hyperbole, sir.

Your same source lists a 2000 Porsche 911 (996) @ 150 mph with 600 lbs of net LIFT(228#F/372#R).

Are fast 911 drivers consigned to die from this well-known handicap?

Many on this board think nothing of high speeds in ordinary 911s. Yet, the Carrera GT has nearly 1000 pounds more downforce at 150 mph than an ordinary 911 and you see fit to pronounce it an executioner

The same source lists the 1971 Porsche 917K race car as having 293 lbs of downforce at 150 mph. The Carrera GT exceeds that figure from an older race car. Even a Ferrari 360 has less downforce than a CGT @ 150.

Ben wasn't going 200 at the time, and his driving an F360 in place of the CGT would have been worse in the downforce department. At 150, it seems like only the McLaren has more downforce. Your biased analysis is showing.

Bob Rouleau

Mikey - thanks for the info. No blend line will cost them. Also appreciate the link to the cool site. Great tech info there. Thanks.

Mike, I looked up the same numbers - I was searching for the lift/downforce on a 996 GT2 or 3, cars with a 190 MPH top speed. Couldn't find it but I noticed the lift on the regular 996 too.

I suspect the figures are somewhat better for a 996 TT, but my intuition is that the turbo does not have as much downforce as the CGT. Interestingly enough there isn't a big difference in top speed between the CGT, GT3 and 996TT. I have done about 24,000 track miles in my GT2 and GT3, with speeds of 245 KPH on the straights. Only now do I find out that I was driving a death machine. Sheesh!

Best,

500

Well, to keep that data on downforce in perspective, let's remember that we are comparing data for the McLaren GTR long tail race car, NOT the standard road-going McLaren F1.

Here is a picture of the GTR, the rear wing explains a lot...