Bob Rouleau

Nick is, well, Nick. He represents a point of view which I don't happen to share but he makes me think.

It seems that opinions are split. The experienced track drivers want nothing between them and the car. The less experienced, or perhaps the more prudent ones, prefer electronic aids.

Personally I think that driving a car with electronic aids is like making love wearing a condom.

I agree with Alex that PCNA's stance on the GT cars is motivated by a fear of warranty claims. While I have never broken a street Porsche on the track, it seems that some do and Porsche is concerned about profits. Since taking a car to the track is much more a mainstream activity than ever before, I think things will get worse in this regard.

If those who share Nick's view dominate, it won't be long before our cars are fully drive-by-wire. We already have active brakes, active suspension and stability management including throttle control. Bosch has developed active steering which will show up soon. By then computers will control the throttle, brakes and steering. Safe yes, but explore the limits? No.

Nick

Most of the concerns regarding dumbing down sport cars are much to do about nothing. I have been predicting for several years that technology coupled with police enforcement will put an end to high speed driving on streets.

In this month's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkston predicted within his life time automobiles will have boxes which with satellite surveilance will put an end to spirited and speed driving.

All that will be left is track driving and in that environment one cannot predict to what extent car manufacturers will protect themselves.

Bob, sex with a condom is similar to driving a safety feature laden sport car? In one activity, there is fun regardless of the "constraints". In the other people die or get seriously injured. Surely you see the difference.

BTW, I am proud to say I have never watch "American Idol" so I cannot relate to any of the discussions.

1AS

Isn't driving a car with electronic aids more like making love with electronic aids?

I believe it is the smell of burning rubber that most offends Bob in both activities. AS

roberga

AS I do agree with you non the warrenty issue. A friend of mine missed a downshift. going for 4 made 2nd. The pully on the end of the crank came off. Computer showed zone 2 over rev. Repairs are his. I firmly believe this will continue with the cars.

Bob Rouleau

A.S.

themarsman

But the big difference was Simon was smart enough to admit his mistake, I don't think we have to worry about that with Nick.

ked

interesting pov from AutoExtremist, who is often very critical of Porsche...

"Porsche. The Carrera GT is no longer. The product of the "good" Porsche and developed by their True Believers who weren't sentenced to truck duty, the Carrera GT will go down in history as perhaps the finest all-around super car in the world, at least in the stratospheric price class that is. ... We're glad they had the cojones to build it, but we're sorry to see it go."

Matt Marks

Ok - I think the battle is already lost (unfortunately)

I think merely the THREAT of THIS litigation will move the entire industry down the road of increased driver aids - regardless of the outcome. The high profile of the case (nothing like Supercar Ferraris and Porsche's and deceased rich people to get mass attentiom) will lead many designers and corporate lawyers to pause before they roll out future models regardless of their positionining in the price/performance spectrum. The acceleating trend towards stability/traction/you name it control will just be accelerated at an accellerating rate.

Call me a vulture if you will, but I think that Nick et al have some legitimate points here in that the trial now needs to play itself out - it's been filed and no amount of hand-wringing and bitching at him/alex/lawyers will change that.

Note: I think that it's wrong that the suit has happened in the first place -everyone signed the waiver - and as has repeatedly been drilled into us at PCA instructor meetings - THE WAIVER HAS NEVER LOST in court. A few years ago this wouldn't have phased me - but now being married and having kid/house - it has potentially a much different effect on how I view instructing - which I really enjoy (accept for the Corvette club ;-)

It will be fascinating (though, I suspect, ultimately disappointting to those who love to track their cars) to see how the it plays out, as well as to get some insight as to how PI trials work as well as to how Porsche designs their cars and what defense they choose to play.

I would also suspect that it will lead to other lawsuits based on incidents such as where the one (so recently documented on video) at Pocono where the idiot in the Evo wasted the 3 cars at hugely dangerous pit out. That car didn't have traction control, and was obviously marketed as a performance car to young drivers who I suspect (mostly) wouldn't have the credentials to take the car to the limit - similar to some of the argument here about Porsche marketing the CGT to drivers who may not have been qualified either.

Granted, it's a different level of performance between the CGT and the Evo, but had there been serious enjuries or a fatality, would the driver (or the estate) of one of the cars that got hit sue Mitsubishi for lack of traction/stability controls even though the Evo driver was in a novice run group and under authorized instruction (and obviously being a chucklehead)? It makes me sad - but the train for leaving un-aided enthusiast cars on the market has departed.

Love my 944 race car - will keep until the day that parts aren't available and the last one's been scrapped. . All driver all the time.

roberga

Matt you are 100% correct. Look what Jonh Edwards did tothe pratice of OB medicine. He is a piece of sh*t that made $65+M scaring people. A total scam. In the end we now have a much higher rate of C section births with ZERO change in the rate of MS which was the foundation of his litigation. Pure BS and now an OB with zero problems has a malpractice of $85,000+ per year.

1AS

Roberga,
Are you an Ob/Gyn? I run an ob/gyn practice (3 providers), and would suggest that the section rate was going up very fast long before the Edwards suit, possibly as a response to diminished reimbursement for hysterectomy, and the evolution of fetal monitoring. Ob/gyn malpractice is super expensive, but it has little to do with MS or Edwards. Every obstetric bad outcome is followed by a suit, whether it's a shoulder dystocia, laceration, or anything else. In the suits I have seen, some are baseless, but others are related to poor communication between docs who are covering each other (ultrasound showing cephalo-pelvic disproprtion, for example), slow response, failure to inform, missed test results, etc. Edwards' case was ridiculous, but it is irrelevant in the larger view.
The problem with OB is that no mother can accept she will have to take care of a damaged infant for the rest of her life, and worry about what happens to the child when the mother is old. This is a combination of guilt and greed, coupled to a very long statute of limitations. Basically, the problem is that payors don't pay enough per delivery to cover the laibility costs. If you got 5K for a delivery, the insurance premium would cease to be yourproblem, but would revert to the patient, the employer, adn the government. AS

Nick

THE WAIVER HAS NEVER LOST in court

Matt, not necessarily true. Most waivers are enforceable UNLESS there are facts/circumstances which should have been made known prior to the person signing it. For an example, assume you knew you had bad brakes on your 944 and decided to take someone out for a ride. However, you wanted protection and had the person sign the waiver without telling him about your bad brakes. Courts would have a problem with the waiver.

Unfortunately, in trying to avoid these waivers, attorney's have argued in the extreme and courts in some instances have agreed with them. Another example, assume instead of bad brakes you had spun out a few times in your 944. Some atty's would argue that information should have been disclosed prior to the person signing the waiver. AND on AND on

1AS

Every patient who enters a hospital signs an informed consent which has never been worth the ink used in signing. AS

Matt Marks

Seems to me that the implication here (if we go far enough down this road) is that instructors need a personal waiver/disclaimer stating that they've been off track or in the tires at some point previously. Maybe a placard on the passenger side dash in multiple languages tallying the # of spins. As most people who've raced have at a minimum have gone around a few times if not visited the tire wall or gone metal to metal at some point - it would seem that they are at significantly more risk from a personal liability standpoint when running in advanced run groups, instructing, or even racing.


The waiver comment is what they've told us over and over again at instructor meetings as this is a common subject of discussion. I'm dubious, but that's what I'm told that the PCA national counsel has determined. Apparently it's the party line.

ked

"Every patient who enters a hospital signs an informed consent which has never been worth the ink used in signing."

Waivers used to hold up for DEs & racing until doctors started participating so much that it became just as lucrative for lawyers as the health care industry.

ked

I don't get ya Jeff, how are doctors, lawyers & wealth mutually exclusive?
& prejudice? no, just years of observation about "the way things work."
my opinions are born of experience.