Fast and Furious Paul Walker killed in CGT
01-05-2014, 12:08 AM
#361
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone here have any thoughts as to whether the car's computer would be able to provide info if any abnormal wheel slip/spin had occurred, possibly as a result of contact with bott's dots for example?
01-05-2014, 08:12 AM
#362
if it had a type of crash recorder on board and it survived it can give a wealth of data. but i doubt porsche will share it with the general public.the data could show up in court if the passengers family sues the drivers estate
01-05-2014, 01:20 PM
#363
Exactly. I found the comments (much earlier in the thread) stating that a CGT - on a dry road - could lose control, skid sideways and launch over a large curb, knock down trees, look like a plane crash, burst into flames, etc. could occur at 40mph. Because of a failure in the car or a bump on the road??? These people were either trying to protect the image of the 2 in the accident and/ or cannot grasp basic physics.
01-05-2014, 07:03 PM
#364
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Zug, Switzerland
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Vman4639, from the moment I heard of the crash, us actual CGT drivers (and related Porsche friends) were thinking 150-170km an hour... No discussion of 40mph.
And there is no doubt that we are going to be sympathetic to the driver and passenger here (sorry for that) -- they were true noble men who achieved great things and gave back in so many ways to others less fortunate. Oh, and hey, they loved cars and driving cars... So on the Rennlist Porsche Supercar thread you might expect a slight bit of sympathy...
As for basic physics (I'm guessing you mean 1/2 mv squared? Like in energy... Gosh, help me out)? Look I don't mean to be overly critical of anyone's views, but where do I start here? I have studied under some of the most interesting and famous physicists and economists there have been -- and all them approach each and every situation with an open and inquiring mind (well, its called the "scientific method").
In particular, Richard Feynman, who I met at Caltech was the one who asked to figure out how the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred. There were a million different obvious things, but in the end he pointed out that the single point of failure was the O-rings (by physically putting them in an glass of ice water during Martin Marietta's testimony) -- in the freezing cold weather in that morning they got too rigid, were not elastic enough for the forces confronting them, and failed. Anybody could say that a solid fuelled rocket producing that much force was prone to fail... By the way, Richard Feynman wrote the single best set of textbooks on basic physics entitled simply "Feynman Lectures on Physics". (The original lectures were actually filmed and are brilliant). Let me offer a much more recent link to understand his brilliance (which while regretting he can't answer the original question about magnets, he tries to explain why its difficult to do so and why, for example, ice is slippery):
. It is a fantastic, beautiful and brilliant essay on basic reasoning.
To the annoyance of some, my main focus here has been on the initial single point of failure -- specifically, when did they lose control of the car? I understand what happened afterwards once this happened and it is many ways, tragically bad luck (sorry, but thats true). But I have not tried to focus on the moral or other failures here (dear lord!), but rather how you can explain their ability to make the corner and then suddenly lose control of the car and go into a rather broad sideways motion? So I am sorry if these minor nuances upset the simple "speed is bad" mindset -- but there we go. "Basic physics" will have the answer -- I believe it was the tires and the bots as they had to accelerate out of the turn to maintain traction. But I could be completely wrong!!! I would love to know what the car's recording mechanisms (as suggested above) have to offer. These guys didn't decide one day to drive their CGT at enormous speed and kill themselves. They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death. Mind you, their tolerance for this type of risk (and likely accompanying talent) was pretty absurdly high (at least from my limited experience). But nonetheless, other factors almost certainly had to have been at work here -- again, not excusing their speed or their high propensity for risk taking.
Cheers
And there is no doubt that we are going to be sympathetic to the driver and passenger here (sorry for that) -- they were true noble men who achieved great things and gave back in so many ways to others less fortunate. Oh, and hey, they loved cars and driving cars... So on the Rennlist Porsche Supercar thread you might expect a slight bit of sympathy...
As for basic physics (I'm guessing you mean 1/2 mv squared? Like in energy... Gosh, help me out)? Look I don't mean to be overly critical of anyone's views, but where do I start here? I have studied under some of the most interesting and famous physicists and economists there have been -- and all them approach each and every situation with an open and inquiring mind (well, its called the "scientific method").
In particular, Richard Feynman, who I met at Caltech was the one who asked to figure out how the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred. There were a million different obvious things, but in the end he pointed out that the single point of failure was the O-rings (by physically putting them in an glass of ice water during Martin Marietta's testimony) -- in the freezing cold weather in that morning they got too rigid, were not elastic enough for the forces confronting them, and failed. Anybody could say that a solid fuelled rocket producing that much force was prone to fail... By the way, Richard Feynman wrote the single best set of textbooks on basic physics entitled simply "Feynman Lectures on Physics". (The original lectures were actually filmed and are brilliant). Let me offer a much more recent link to understand his brilliance (which while regretting he can't answer the original question about magnets, he tries to explain why its difficult to do so and why, for example, ice is slippery):
To the annoyance of some, my main focus here has been on the initial single point of failure -- specifically, when did they lose control of the car? I understand what happened afterwards once this happened and it is many ways, tragically bad luck (sorry, but thats true). But I have not tried to focus on the moral or other failures here (dear lord!), but rather how you can explain their ability to make the corner and then suddenly lose control of the car and go into a rather broad sideways motion? So I am sorry if these minor nuances upset the simple "speed is bad" mindset -- but there we go. "Basic physics" will have the answer -- I believe it was the tires and the bots as they had to accelerate out of the turn to maintain traction. But I could be completely wrong!!! I would love to know what the car's recording mechanisms (as suggested above) have to offer. These guys didn't decide one day to drive their CGT at enormous speed and kill themselves. They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death. Mind you, their tolerance for this type of risk (and likely accompanying talent) was pretty absurdly high (at least from my limited experience). But nonetheless, other factors almost certainly had to have been at work here -- again, not excusing their speed or their high propensity for risk taking.
Cheers
01-05-2014, 07:52 PM
#365
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn NY
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately, though, it was the ridiculous speed for a public road, that is the cause. None of the other stuff matters (tire age, speed bumps, curb height, yada, yada, yada). Even if they had been 20 or 30 mph over the posted speed limit,they would have been fine. But, 70, 80, 90 mph over the posted limit? Well, I don't really consider that to be an accident, just a very poor lapse in judgement. The investigation results have simply verified what was more than obvious from day one.
01-05-2014, 08:09 PM
#366
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn NY
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steven Pitts:
They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
What a Jerk!!! why not include the Concord and the folks who die on 9/11
They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
What a Jerk!!! why not include the Concord and the folks who die on 9/11
Last edited by sptschoice; 01-05-2014 at 08:19 PM. Reason: delete post
01-05-2014, 08:11 PM
#367
button queen
Sorry Vman4639, from the moment I heard of the crash, us actual CGT drivers (and related Porsche friends) were thinking 150-170km an hour... No discussion of 40mph.
And there is no doubt that we are going to be sympathetic to the driver and passenger here (sorry for that) -- they were true noble men who achieved great things and gave back in so many ways to others less fortunate. Oh, and hey, they loved cars and driving cars... So on the Rennlist Porsche Supercar thread you might expect a slight bit of sympathy...
As for basic physics (I'm guessing you mean 1/2 mv squared? Like in energy... Gosh, help me out)? Look I don't mean to be overly critical of anyone's views, but where do I start here? I have studied under some of the most interesting and famous physicists and economists there have been -- and all them approach each and every situation with an open and inquiring mind (well, its called the "scientific method").
In particular, Richard Feynman, who I met at Caltech was the one who asked to figure out how the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred. There were a million different obvious things, but in the end he pointed out that the single point of failure was the O-rings (by physically putting them in an glass of ice water during Martin Marietta's testimony) -- in the freezing cold weather in that morning they got too rigid, were not elastic enough for the forces confronting them, and failed. Anybody could say that a solid fuelled rocket producing that much force was prone to fail... By the way, Richard Feynman wrote the single best set of textbooks on basic physics entitled simply "Feynman Lectures on Physics". (The original lectures were actually filmed and are brilliant). Let me offer a much more recent link to understand his brilliance (which while regretting he can't answer the original question about magnets, he tries to explain why its difficult to do so and why, for example, ice is slippery): Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 4: F*****' magnets, how do they work? - YouTube. It is a fantastic, beautiful and brilliant essay on basic reasoning.
To the annoyance of some, my main focus here has been on the initial single point of failure -- specifically, when did they lose control of the car? I understand what happened afterwards once this happened and it is many ways, tragically bad luck (sorry, but thats true). But I have not tried to focus on the moral or other failures here (dear lord!), but rather how you can explain their ability to make the corner and then suddenly lose control of the car and go into a rather broad sideways motion? So I am sorry if these minor nuances upset the simple "speed is bad" mindset -- but there we go. "Basic physics" will have the answer -- I believe it was the tires and the bots as they had to accelerate out of the turn to maintain traction. But I could be completely wrong!!! I would love to know what the car's recording mechanisms (as suggested above) have to offer. These guys didn't decide one day to drive their CGT at enormous speed and kill themselves. They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death. Mind you, their tolerance for this type of risk (and likely accompanying talent) was pretty absurdly high (at least from my limited experience). But nonetheless, other factors almost certainly had to have been at work here -- again, not excusing their speed or their high propensity for risk taking.
Cheers
And there is no doubt that we are going to be sympathetic to the driver and passenger here (sorry for that) -- they were true noble men who achieved great things and gave back in so many ways to others less fortunate. Oh, and hey, they loved cars and driving cars... So on the Rennlist Porsche Supercar thread you might expect a slight bit of sympathy...
As for basic physics (I'm guessing you mean 1/2 mv squared? Like in energy... Gosh, help me out)? Look I don't mean to be overly critical of anyone's views, but where do I start here? I have studied under some of the most interesting and famous physicists and economists there have been -- and all them approach each and every situation with an open and inquiring mind (well, its called the "scientific method").
In particular, Richard Feynman, who I met at Caltech was the one who asked to figure out how the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred. There were a million different obvious things, but in the end he pointed out that the single point of failure was the O-rings (by physically putting them in an glass of ice water during Martin Marietta's testimony) -- in the freezing cold weather in that morning they got too rigid, were not elastic enough for the forces confronting them, and failed. Anybody could say that a solid fuelled rocket producing that much force was prone to fail... By the way, Richard Feynman wrote the single best set of textbooks on basic physics entitled simply "Feynman Lectures on Physics". (The original lectures were actually filmed and are brilliant). Let me offer a much more recent link to understand his brilliance (which while regretting he can't answer the original question about magnets, he tries to explain why its difficult to do so and why, for example, ice is slippery): Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 4: F*****' magnets, how do they work? - YouTube. It is a fantastic, beautiful and brilliant essay on basic reasoning.
To the annoyance of some, my main focus here has been on the initial single point of failure -- specifically, when did they lose control of the car? I understand what happened afterwards once this happened and it is many ways, tragically bad luck (sorry, but thats true). But I have not tried to focus on the moral or other failures here (dear lord!), but rather how you can explain their ability to make the corner and then suddenly lose control of the car and go into a rather broad sideways motion? So I am sorry if these minor nuances upset the simple "speed is bad" mindset -- but there we go. "Basic physics" will have the answer -- I believe it was the tires and the bots as they had to accelerate out of the turn to maintain traction. But I could be completely wrong!!! I would love to know what the car's recording mechanisms (as suggested above) have to offer. These guys didn't decide one day to drive their CGT at enormous speed and kill themselves. They took calculated risks everyday (as we sometimes all do and so did NASA with the Challenger) and so they were certainly not anticipating certain death. Mind you, their tolerance for this type of risk (and likely accompanying talent) was pretty absurdly high (at least from my limited experience). But nonetheless, other factors almost certainly had to have been at work here -- again, not excusing their speed or their high propensity for risk taking.
Cheers
01-05-2014, 08:48 PM
#368
Rennlist Member
This is so old. I'm glad there are so many people who've never crossed over the line of what is safe, and what isn't, on the road. Most (99+%?) automotive enthusiasts have taken risks, we've just been lucky.
A lot of stuff lined up, to make this tragedy happen.
A lot of stuff lined up, to make this tragedy happen.
01-05-2014, 08:53 PM
#369
Nordschleife Master
01-05-2014, 08:55 PM
#370
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Zug, Switzerland
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry sptschoice... Gee, with a "ph" not a "v" and I am guessing you meant the Concorde -- the supersonic passenger jet way ahead of its time -- well, yes they did. Unfortunately, a piece of metal shrapnel was left on the runway that caused a tragic accident. And I guessing "died" on 9/11 (who died in the Paul Walker crash in a similar way?) Wow, clue me in to the larger cosmic significance here man? I was trying to critically examine one car accident. Guess, there are more cosmic perspectives here...
01-05-2014, 08:56 PM
#371
Rennlist Member
I'd call those "industrial streets" vs a neighborhood, which is what I'd consider "suburban". Yes, it wasn't smart, but I still stand by my comment that most of us here have pushed the limit, but we just didn't have 1, 2 or 3 other variables rear their ugly head to do us in.
I'm not advocating this was wise at all, I just get tired of the people here passing any kind of judgement on theirs.
I'm not advocating this was wise at all, I just get tired of the people here passing any kind of judgement on theirs.
01-05-2014, 08:59 PM
#372
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Zug, Switzerland
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DanL993: Love your photo (really, its cool). Sorry if I wasn't as "crist and succinct" as you would want, but any crisp or succinct arguments you could benefit us from?
01-05-2014, 09:02 PM
#373
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Zug, Switzerland
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, FlatSix911, I agree, but Ed Hughes made a very valuable point. Everyone likes to point fingers, but lets be a little more self-aware of our own less responsible moments?
01-05-2014, 09:05 PM
#374
Nordschleife Master
Ed, let's just say this was an example of very poor judgment ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_suburb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_suburb
01-05-2014, 09:27 PM
#375
Um... I think actually you and I agree with each other - so why the negative energy toward me?
Look at some of the early posts - there were people saying the driver was not speeding. I specifically referred to people with an agenda or basic math / physics issues - I never said CGT owners said this....
No problem with sympathy - at all. I think most of us can relate to this in some way. But claiming the car or the road was at fault takes more than sympathy.
Yes. That is what I mean. Specifically kinetic energy increase quadratically, not linearly (decreases as well, of course). I was looking at 60-0 times for the CGT and figuring how quickly the car would stop from 40-0. It's in the neighborhood of 1-2 seconds. So again, see the earlier posts - I was not speaking to you (or other students of top physicists) but to people who claimed this accident was possible at low speeds. There is no way - given a mechanical failure, bad tires, or a pot hole - that a CGT going 40mhp on a dry surface will lay that much rubber (going sideways), go over a curb, and knock down a pole and some trees.
To save you some searching time, here are some quotes (names removed):
---------------
Title: not more than 45mph...
I was supposed to be at that charity event; didn't make it.
Friends who were there and witnessed everything are adament that
the speed at time of incident wasn't more than 45mph (though it might have been a 15mph zone)
no drugs, no alcohol involved
Paul and Roger (driver) were both very experienced drivers
By all accounts, both Paul and Roger were standup guys.
RIP
I'm not going to debate the speed here - I wasn't there. Good friends who know high speeds and performance driving - one was a national champion in class and holds a few track records for non-pro - were there and were adament it was no more than 45mph.
At first glance 45mph seems a joke, but it's hard to say from the pics how much damage there is to the car on the front end and we can't see the side where the impact was perhaps. But looking at the pictures a second time, I suppose it's possible IF the car did actually explode. Regardless, it's a horrible accident and most likely was caused by carelessness. All it takes is a momentary loss of concentration in any car, especially a 600+hp car with a rep for being a handful.
Hitting a tree at 45 mph is never a good thing. Anything u hit that's fixed is going to look very ugly. Tboning into a tree at 45 mph would look bad. Let's say what others have said that if car was in excess of 100 mph into a tree car wouldn't be wrapped around tree as on photo it be torn in pieces way past the tree with occupants ejected from the seats. Really sad for families involved. Rip and condolescences to the family. Mike
Roger (driver) hit a pothole, lost control, hit a pole and died instantly. Paul died afterwards when the car was engulfed in flames is what I hear. So tragic.
---------------
etc. much more discussion on possible failure of the car, tires that may have been out of date, etc.
I totally understand your desire to know "what happened at speed" - I'm able to separate the fact that they were excessively speeding from other independent factors - but that's separate from "they were not speeding" - or - "a bump in the road ~caused~ the accident"......
And there is no doubt that we are going to be sympathetic to the driver and passenger here (sorry for that) -- they were true noble men who achieved great things and gave back in so many ways to others less fortunate. Oh, and hey, they loved cars and driving cars... So on the Rennlist Porsche Supercar thread you might expect a slight bit of sympathy...
As for basic physics (I'm guessing you mean 1/2 mv squared? Like in energy... Gosh, help me out)? Look I don't mean to be overly critical of anyone's views, but where do I start here? I have studied under some of the most interesting and famous physicists and economists there have been -- and all them approach each and every situation with an open and inquiring mind (well, its called the "scientific method").
Yes. That is what I mean. Specifically kinetic energy increase quadratically, not linearly (decreases as well, of course). I was looking at 60-0 times for the CGT and figuring how quickly the car would stop from 40-0. It's in the neighborhood of 1-2 seconds. So again, see the earlier posts - I was not speaking to you (or other students of top physicists) but to people who claimed this accident was possible at low speeds. There is no way - given a mechanical failure, bad tires, or a pot hole - that a CGT going 40mhp on a dry surface will lay that much rubber (going sideways), go over a curb, and knock down a pole and some trees.
To save you some searching time, here are some quotes (names removed):
---------------
Title: not more than 45mph...
I was supposed to be at that charity event; didn't make it.
Friends who were there and witnessed everything are adament that
the speed at time of incident wasn't more than 45mph (though it might have been a 15mph zone)
no drugs, no alcohol involved
Paul and Roger (driver) were both very experienced drivers
By all accounts, both Paul and Roger were standup guys.
RIP
I'm not going to debate the speed here - I wasn't there. Good friends who know high speeds and performance driving - one was a national champion in class and holds a few track records for non-pro - were there and were adament it was no more than 45mph.
At first glance 45mph seems a joke, but it's hard to say from the pics how much damage there is to the car on the front end and we can't see the side where the impact was perhaps. But looking at the pictures a second time, I suppose it's possible IF the car did actually explode. Regardless, it's a horrible accident and most likely was caused by carelessness. All it takes is a momentary loss of concentration in any car, especially a 600+hp car with a rep for being a handful.
Hitting a tree at 45 mph is never a good thing. Anything u hit that's fixed is going to look very ugly. Tboning into a tree at 45 mph would look bad. Let's say what others have said that if car was in excess of 100 mph into a tree car wouldn't be wrapped around tree as on photo it be torn in pieces way past the tree with occupants ejected from the seats. Really sad for families involved. Rip and condolescences to the family. Mike
Roger (driver) hit a pothole, lost control, hit a pole and died instantly. Paul died afterwards when the car was engulfed in flames is what I hear. So tragic.
---------------
etc. much more discussion on possible failure of the car, tires that may have been out of date, etc.
I totally understand your desire to know "what happened at speed" - I'm able to separate the fact that they were excessively speeding from other independent factors - but that's separate from "they were not speeding" - or - "a bump in the road ~caused~ the accident"......
Last edited by vman4639; 01-05-2014 at 10:16 PM.