CGT crash settled at $4.5M
10-23-2007, 01:23 PM
#61
Race Director
McClellan thinks that the manufacturers’ greatest exposure in this regard may not be crashes on racetracks, but what might happen on the street. Imagine a CGT driver who gets in over his head on a public road, the rear end comes around, and he spins into an oncoming car, killing its occupant. Faced with expert testimony that electronic stability control could have prevented the spin, what will the jury think?
Who made this "expert testimony?"
Drivers losing control and having their cars come around them isn't too unusual around here all winter.
10-23-2007, 01:26 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
Jackpot Justice.
10-23-2007, 01:29 PM
#65
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
As I an event organizer/participant; whether you use track 'professional' personnel or use volunteers from within your negotiation is part of your event decisions/cost. Mid Ohio, WG, SP, CMP, and VIR provide corner workers and control for our events; but, that is because we pay for them. Control to our region also controls pit out. Some of the workers are more professional then others.
10-23-2007, 01:51 PM
#66
The point about inconsistent level of professionalism is a good one.
I made the comment about hiring professional pit in/out workers. Really the core issue is to make should trained pit in/out workers are present (whether hired or not). One thing this case has taught me is that pit in/out is pretty serious. I always try to "train" my replacement. Mostly it's just a conscious effort to transfer anything I learned in that work session that may help the next group.
As the current DE structure usually gives a discount for instructors perhaps the same could be done for volunteer workers. You go through a training program, get on an approved list and get a discount if the club needs you. First come, first serve.
I made the comment about hiring professional pit in/out workers. Really the core issue is to make should trained pit in/out workers are present (whether hired or not). One thing this case has taught me is that pit in/out is pretty serious. I always try to "train" my replacement. Mostly it's just a conscious effort to transfer anything I learned in that work session that may help the next group.
As the current DE structure usually gives a discount for instructors perhaps the same could be done for volunteer workers. You go through a training program, get on an approved list and get a discount if the club needs you. First come, first serve.
10-23-2007, 01:55 PM
#67
Rennlist Member
Except, for Thunderhill this year as an example, the paid S/F flagger(s) have this horrible tendency to let cars out as others are charging down the front straight. Yes, I've brought it up. No, nothing happens.
10-23-2007, 02:18 PM
#68
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Cars required to cross the track for T1 as they exited pit out? That is a stupid rule and suggestion IMO.
I haven't seen anyone question why Ben was already finishing a hot lap when a car was starting his session. Was the Ferrari late to the grid? It was rumored that Ben blew the checker and was doing a hot lap instead of pitting at the end of the session. That would make sense to me as the Ferrari and the pit out guy didn't think a car would be approaching and sent him out right into Ben's path.
And if Ben had spun his car 3 times that day why was he allowed to continue driving? Something was either wrong with the car or with him.
I haven't seen anyone question why Ben was already finishing a hot lap when a car was starting his session. Was the Ferrari late to the grid? It was rumored that Ben blew the checker and was doing a hot lap instead of pitting at the end of the session. That would make sense to me as the Ferrari and the pit out guy didn't think a car would be approaching and sent him out right into Ben's path.
And if Ben had spun his car 3 times that day why was he allowed to continue driving? Something was either wrong with the car or with him.
10-23-2007, 03:22 PM
#71
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is intersting in how the settlement was split. "49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash."
This seems to put most of the blame on the driver of the CGT. Their reasoning was that he knew that there was something wrong with his car but still drove it anyway. It was established that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the car, but that it was a design flaw by Porsche. They also blamed the driver for not getting a tech inspection. Even if he had gotten a tech inspection it wouldn't have turned up any problems so that should have been a mute point.
If the driver was driving the car that was in perfect mechanical shape and was handling as Porsche designed it to be, why was the driver at fault? You would think they would have gone after Porsche for a larger portion of the settlement if they really believed that there was an inherent design flaw.
I'm also kind of surprised that they didn't go after the Ferrari driver for more since he caused the accident by crossing over the blend line.
-Scott
This seems to put most of the blame on the driver of the CGT. Their reasoning was that he knew that there was something wrong with his car but still drove it anyway. It was established that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the car, but that it was a design flaw by Porsche. They also blamed the driver for not getting a tech inspection. Even if he had gotten a tech inspection it wouldn't have turned up any problems so that should have been a mute point.
If the driver was driving the car that was in perfect mechanical shape and was handling as Porsche designed it to be, why was the driver at fault? You would think they would have gone after Porsche for a larger portion of the settlement if they really believed that there was an inherent design flaw.
I'm also kind of surprised that they didn't go after the Ferrari driver for more since he caused the accident by crossing over the blend line.
-Scott
10-23-2007, 03:36 PM
#72
Moderator
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I don't see this as doing away with DEs, just one in a series of bad accidents that have happened at the track. I do see this as heightening awareness about safety and the seriousness of what we do. Meaning, that safety is critical as is what we teach (how to handle situations, how to properly run an event, what to check for, the importance of taking Pit-out and other duties seriously, etc.).
As for "professional" flaggers and other workers like pit out, what I meant earlier is to shift the liability from the club to the host track. I'd say that at about 50% of my events, there are volunteers handling duties like flagging stations. At the rest, they are track-provided. The assumption is that if the track provides them, they know what they are doing and the liability lies with the facility.
Spin or put 2 wheels or more off twice in a day, and you are done in all of the chapters I drive with. Perhaps over time, that will become a "one strike and you're out" rule. I'm sure if we knew that, we all might scale things back a bit and remember it is Driver's Education, not racing or race preparation.
Regarding the design of the CGT -- I've not seen anything saying it is a design flaw. It's about as serious a car you can find for the street. In the hands of professional drivers, one would say there is no design flaw whatsoever. In the hands of an amateur, it's hard to handle and that might lead some to say flawed. The car is federally certified...
As for "professional" flaggers and other workers like pit out, what I meant earlier is to shift the liability from the club to the host track. I'd say that at about 50% of my events, there are volunteers handling duties like flagging stations. At the rest, they are track-provided. The assumption is that if the track provides them, they know what they are doing and the liability lies with the facility.
Spin or put 2 wheels or more off twice in a day, and you are done in all of the chapters I drive with. Perhaps over time, that will become a "one strike and you're out" rule. I'm sure if we knew that, we all might scale things back a bit and remember it is Driver's Education, not racing or race preparation.
Regarding the design of the CGT -- I've not seen anything saying it is a design flaw. It's about as serious a car you can find for the street. In the hands of professional drivers, one would say there is no design flaw whatsoever. In the hands of an amateur, it's hard to handle and that might lead some to say flawed. The car is federally certified...
10-23-2007, 03:43 PM
#73
Lifetime Rennlist Member
From my recollection of that track (and it has been a while) there is not blend line or official entry there. In most events, the full track is used and entry is from the NASCAR pits.
10-23-2007, 04:12 PM
#75
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this was stated incorrectly. The track out from the previous corner is drivers left. That is the side where cars enter. I had understood the rule to be that cars on track should move back to the right to stay clear. Next corner you need to be back left.
From my recollection of that track (and it has been a while) there is not blend line or official entry there. In most events, the full track is used and entry is from the NASCAR pits.
From my recollection of that track (and it has been a while) there is not blend line or official entry there. In most events, the full track is used and entry is from the NASCAR pits.
I re-read the article and you are correct:
"Pit-out was in the middle of the straightaway, with entry on the left side. But cars on the straightaway tended to stay to the left to set up for the right-hander at the end. To avoid collisions, cars entering the track were required to move to the right side as soon as possible. However, at this event, cars were entering the track and staying on the left side."
Man what an asinine track entrance.
-Scott