There is also nothing wrong with the 996 GT2............
I vaguly remember a discussion of the 6GT2 at rennlist where someone was buying an uncrashed GT2 in Europe. One of the responses by an experianced European enthusiast was "I didnt know there were any".
Yeah I remember that..........LOL !! I have had lots of seat time in one. I bought a 2002 model year from the first owner in 2005, and resold it to the second owner........he didn't hurt it........I took it back on trade in 2007 and drove it for 2 months almost daily, then sold it again.......and heard that the 3rd owner smacked it up and wrote it off. 3 drivers and 5 years before it gets whacked.......hard to argue "design flaw". IMHO........"NOT" having an electronic nanny to reel you in makes you a safer/better driver.
The problem is if you choose to put TC in the car in the first place it needs to work. I imagine it gives people a false sense of security that would not be there if it was left out like it should have been. When it is relied on and then doesn't kick in thats an issue. By now though anyone that has one should be aware or made aware of the issue directly from porsche.
That was the point I made in the other thread. What some "experts" here missed all together is that I had taken the car to Porsche twice with the TC and ABS lights on and they did nothing other than telling me they would get back to me. Sorry folks, I call that a failure of the systems. What do you "experts" think I should have done to maintain the stability of the car, run the guy over?
it's too bad you lost the car...such a wicked ride. i can't believe they didn't address the issues when you took the car in. shame on them. but, as others have said, the TC wouldn't have helped you under those circumstances. the car needs a stability management system.
what they should've done was put in PSM..but they wanted it to be as 'pure' of a car as possible. should've incorporated the system anyway, and just have the ability to turn it off completely when desired.
Agreed. I just hope other owners take it to heed. I would not own another one as it can not be trusted in emergency situations. The comment has been made that older cars did not have these features, well, they would have crashed as well.
you're right. for a car so extreme, there should be at least an option to use other safety features, even if such features aren't the cure all. some is better than none you'd think. so the car is not being repaired? man, it's painful to see it damaged like that.
Allstate totaled it. As it is the one and only accident I have ever had they did not raise my rates. By the way, Porsche never responded to me, not even to this day.
Perhaps you should consider that expecting a car like a CGT/Enzo/Zonda/Murci to perform what you were trying to do in your emergency manouver was just not be, and that the 1/100,000 % not designed into the car was yours at that moment........and that expecting a CGT/Enzo/Zonda/Murci to do what you may have needed that car to do is perhaps like expecting an Air France A330 to float. Not knocking your driving skills or the car here. When I worked at Mercedes, we used to joke that ESP was there to just make sure you go off the cliff nose first, so the front airbags deploy when you hit the ground 500' later.
I had to do just such a maneuver in an SL65 and it performed flawlessly. My point overall is simply that I brought it to Porsche's attention and they said or did nothing. Heck, they didn't even say for me not to expect it to work, contrarily, the dealer said it should work.
An SL65 weighs how much more than a CGT ? Is the C of G in the exact same place ? Are the cars the same ride height, length and width ? What are the tire contact patch sizes ? Is the computer logic of the TC system different from one car to the other ? What are the power to weight ratios ? Gear ratios ? What gear were you in during each circumstance ? What speed, Accellerating or deacellerating ? Etc......I could name 10 more parameters.....and you know that. It is physically impossible for the circumstances to have been the same. On a track the CGT will have the SL65 for lunch. Just sayin'.......the car and the driver are not to blame. Sometimes excrement occurs. Some cars are much different than others......etc. Too bad it happened obviously, but it isn't your fault or the car IMHO. Guess we'll have to disagree. Now if your car was broken and the TC wasn't actually working, that is a totally different story all together. Perhaps something for the insurer to investigate. But I wouldn't let it stop me from buying another CGT if I were you.
+1 ...and with people who do not understand the risks. These cars are ridiculously difficult to drive. Everyone should take Napolis's advice and head to a big parking lot and see exactly what they can do in various circumstances.
agreed. risks are higher with such a car as the CGT. but, sometimes turd happens, and it was just unfortunate...
40mph in a 45mph isn't taking it easy? We have a lot of deer around here so avoidance capabilities in a car is huge.
Maybe it only seemed like 40-45MPH, but those of us who own these cars know that you can easily lose "perception" of speed in the CGT because it so capable..... and if you were looking at the speedometer, then you weren't looking at the road. There is nothing "wrong" with the traction control in the CGT..... but there might be something "wrong" with drivers who rely on it.
My God, you might be right. How stupid of me to think that I had a clue as to what happened just because I was there. By the way, just how do you know your speed and RPMs without looking at the gauges from time to time? Just asking.
traction control wouldn't have helped in this emergency manouvre...where stability control would've maybe been of some benefit.. from what i gather, this was just bad luck resulting in an accident, and not a case of 'bad driving'...so your 'looking at the speedo meant not looking at the road' comment is a bit harsh. i desperately want to own a CGT someday, and to see it wrecked like that is a total bummer!
If you can't keep track of the speed AND the road simultaneously, you probably shouldn't be driving a CGT.
Exactly! In some posts it was 25 MPH and others it 40-45 MPH. Going over a steel plate at any kind of speed yields zero traction and TC at that point is moot! But we all look for excuses (and someone else to blame) to relieve our own particular inadequacies. Human nature will never change. (I remember (40 years ago) when I wrecked my first car I told my parents I was doing about 45 MPH. However, that was my estimated speed of impact, I didn't tell them I was going into the corner at 70MPH and planning on really flooring it when I hit the apex... I never got there!)
You are correct, I was just trying to make a point, and that "steel plate" could have materialized in a nano second..leaving the most capable driver a passenger! Blaming the design of the car (since it contradicts other empirical observations) seems a stretch.
