PogueMoHone

That has to qualify as one of the most idiotic or stupid posts ever made!

Mikey

You are very strongly opinionated.

Bob Rouleau

Mikey - so are you! I do not understand how you coompare a CGT to an F 430 Spyder. Perhaps if you explained your terms of reference we'd understand. I own an F 430 (coupe) and I have driven a CGT. I chose the 430 because I think it is a better all round deal. I would never compare the performance of the 430 with that of a CGT, an Enzo perhaps but not a 430.
I'd also love to know how you conclude that the CGT lacks adequate tires and downforce?

Rgds,

pcar964

The very reason the CGT has a top speed of "only" 205mph compared to the Enzo's 217-220mph, is because they wanted to produce more downforce. I would assume that you also think the Enzo is also good at "killing its passengers" because it doesn't have what you think is enough downforce? Give me a break.

The CGT is a fast car. Going fast can be dangerous. End of story.

500

Sums it up pretty well.

Mikey

Bob, You can say that E=MC2 is a strong opinion, but that was an analysis of available data points at the time and still good today. I am not offering an opinion but an analysis based on the data points I have, mostly first hand.

“I do not understand how you coompare a CGT to an F 430 Spyder.”

From a marketing standpoint the target demographic for the two cars is identical. The valid CGT shopper (myself included) will cross shop the F430 Spyder, CGT, SL65, Gallardo Spyder, Murcielago Spyder.

“Perhaps if you explained your terms of reference we'd understand. I own an F 430 (coupe) and I have driven a CGT. I chose the 430 because I think it is a better all round deal. I would never compare the performance of the 430 with that of a CGT, an Enzo perhaps but not a 430.”

If the F430 weighed much less and had 100hp more it would be a match for the CGT I would think. Both cars far are apart from the Enzo aerodynamically in that it does not promise to be good for the country club.

“I'd also love to know how you conclude that the CGT lacks adequate tires and downforce? “

Based on hundreds of hours of track experience with properly/improperly setup cars, having previously crashed on the track, being passenger with two of the world’s top drivers in the CGT, I conclude the car needs more tire for so much power (for extreme driving). This would compromise street wet performance which is why it is the way it is.

Aerodynamically, just read the specs. Any car boasting Le Mans performance should offer downforce comparable to its weight. I witnessed Ben and Corry’s incident from a few hundred feet away and it was painfully obvious that significantly extra downforce would have saved their lives!!! Some CGT owners have reported “high speed looseness” on this forum and continue to push their cars.

In the final analysis the CGT is living proof that the concept of a “every day super sports car” is an oxymoron. It is just at ridiculous to arrive at the country club in a LeMans racer (with golf clubs) as it would be to show up a the track with a helmet and fire suit in a CGT. By Porsches’ own definition (of marketing people) the car makes deadly compromises. Porsche says only professional drivers are allowed to operate it at Leipzig (a controlled environment) and that is absolutely correct.

Bob Rouleau

Mikey - thanks for the input. At least I undertstand where you're coming from. I'm not sure I agree with all your statements though.

I will stick with my idea that the 430 is not 500 lbs lighter and does not have 100 HP more, putting it on a lower performance rung than the CGT. As far as I know, there have been Enzo crashes too but I have never had the pleasure of driving one.

I have driven a CGT at 150 MPH on the track and the car felt perfectly comfortable to me. On the other hand, I normally drive a GT3 and that car might feel "loose" to someone used to an SL 55 AMG for example.

I don't take issue with your statement about the tires. A road car has to compromise and fitting huge tires is a disaster in the wet as you observe. On the other hand the only time I drive my GT3 on the track with street tires is when it is raining. Perhaps track driven cars should be equiupped with track rubber - or, driven with the limitations of the street tires in mind.

I' not sure about downforce. I see nothing about a 996 GT3 RSR (Le Mans) having downforce equal to its weight. Aero aids on street derived cars like the GT3RSR (as opposed to Prototypes) are to cancel lift mostly. My experience with downforce cars (F 2000) is that they are amazing as long as they are not going sideways - lose it and things go from bad to worse very quickly. The wings don't work well when the angle of incidence is wrong.

Since you saw the whole thing, I hope you can clarify a few things I've been wondering about.

Does/did the track have a proper pit out with a blend line which allows car to merge safely? If so, did the Ferrari driver cross the blend line putting him on the line and in Ben's way?

I have this notion (pure imagination I admit) that Ben came down the straight at high speed and the Ferrari suddenly pulled into his line. Ben took rapid evasive action which caused his car to spin. the rest is unpleasant history. Is my imagination anywhere near close?

FWIW, I am pretty sure that if I swerved violently at 150 MPH in my GT3 I would also have a hard time controlling it - a spin is most likely. We terach that the faster you go, the more finesse is needed. Easy to say but much harder to do when faced with the sudden prospect of hitting another car.

best,

Mikey

I maintain that a Porsche that claims Le Mans performance needs aerodynamics to match. This car is a prime example of what happens when marketing specs. a car and the engineers deliver precisely to spec. and the customers buy into the marketing story. This is an image of the track .. I was standing on X, the Ferrari at F, and green was Ben's trajectory to my recollection. I have a train to catch .. I'll respond later.

SundayDriver

I think I could really use your aerodynamic expertise as I was under the silly impression that to generate that kind of downforce, you need ground effects and in order for those gorund effects to work properly, you need ride heights that reach down to an inch or less (lower is better). So how, in your expert, aerodynamicist opoinion, does one generate that kind of downforce in a street car, without tearing the bottom out in the first 10 miles of driving.

BTW - You wouldn't happen to be the user formerly known as QuarterInch?

SundayDriver

No problem. In a real car, with real downforce, he could have made a sharp turn at 160 mph, driven over the grass (mowed it for the track workers too), and that downforce would have taken the car safely over the wall, all while making a latte for the driver.

Greg Fishman

Your drawing maybe accurate as to Ben's path but why would he have swerved so sharply to avoid a car not even on the track yet? It will be interesting to hear the real facts when they come out in the lawsuit. The fact that Ben was not even supposed to be on track at the time, the issues he had previous to the event with brakes, etc. No amount of downforce would have saved him, you do that same move with an F1 car and you are in the wall also.

roberga

DID YOU SEE THE Enzo crash??? What a dangerous car! Someone should do something about a car with so much power and not enough downforce to keep it on a road.

Sanjeevan

Again more hearsay,...I've heard the outcrop in the barrier was a temporary measure to accomadate something else and was in violation of the safety recommendations for the said track. If it is true I can see why blame can be placed on the track management.

Bob Rouleau

Mikey - wow, great info. When you get a chance, please show us the trajectory of the Ferrari as you remember it. The track pic you supplied reinforces my intuition that the Ferrari entered the track in such a way as to be in Ben's way. The pit exit seems odd to me, normally they joing the main track at less of an angle.

Regards,

PogueMoHone

You know this is all very interesting.

Eye witness accounts historically have been very misleading.

Was the witness looking at the Ferrari coming on the track? If so, what was Ben doing?

Was the witness was looking at Ben? If so, what was the Ferrari driver doing?

What was the flagger doing?

Your eyes can't be in two, let alone three, places at once.

The sad, sad fact is that the driver always bears primary reponsibilty to drive within the existing conditions (and capabilities). To slam the manufacturer, track management, organizers or anyone else based upon incomplete speculation is a travesty.

Again, we will never know, if the driver was distracted by the passenger, had a concentration lapse, was in over his head or what ever..but it is his primary responsibility and this is something that needs to be burned in our brains.

That said, it doesn't lessen the pain and suffering for those left behind.