David Piper vs Mark Hales

Surprised there was not a "Rev Limiter" on the engine. Be interested in knowing what part/s of the engine failed?, Spun bearing, sucked a valve, etc,etc, ???.....Mark

 

I read something about there being a "You bend it, you mend it" agreement in place.

Discussed here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1240649&mid=72681&i=0&nmt=%27You+bend+it%2C+you+mend+it%27+%2D+Piper+sues+Hales&mid=72681

 

Rev limiters do nothing in the event of a mechanical over-rev, ie: missed shift.

I would've thought agreements would have been put in place before anyone stepped foot in the car, as well.

 

The Judgement makes interesting reading. Elford and Siffert got away with it and come to think of it, so did Steve McQueen

http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf

"It is a difficult car to drive that requires the highest firm skill: this is not the same as a serious ‘problem’ or a defect. Mr Attwood, whose evidence I accept, said that “you have to be careful; you have to be firm, positive with the gear changes. Mr Hales knew how to drive the Car; he was given advice before the drive. The 917 gears are difficult; you have to be more conscious, and the throw of the gear lever is longer than normal.” In answer to a question about world champion racing drivers Vic Elford and Jo Siffert suffering blown engines in the Porsche 917, Mr Attwood said that “Drivers have made mistakes with this car in the past”. In my judgment that is what Mr Hales made – a ‘mistake’. It is accepted by both parties that it was always important to ensure the gear was engaged to avoid over revving."

 

Chris Harris article regarding this matter: RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend - PistonHeads

 

Miss a shift on a Porsche, it blows up. Miss a shift on a Ferrari, it just keeps on going. The only two cars I have experienced that would withstand violent over revving were Alfas and Ferraris. The Italians expected things like that, the Germans did not.

 

Hales should pay. It is the rule of borrowing somebodies car that you return it in the same condition as it was. We are not talking professional drives here. Otherwise people would abuse the crap out of cars they test. Expensive mistake by Hales but the owner of the car should not be disadvantaged for something they didn't do.

Pete
ps: DWR46, I cracked a Alfa Sud crankshaft after missing a gear and the poor thing revved to well over 10,000 rpm. This was a highly modified race engine ...

 

Andrew Frankel wrote his views on the mtter on Motorsport magazine's website, today. He brings up interesting points, and it's a nice read because he's frequently in the position of test driving these types of cars for magazines:

Mark Hales found liable in Piper case - Miscellaneous - Motor Sport Magazine

Apparently as far as British law was concerned, it was a pretty straightforward case. But it will probably have some repercussions.... And it makes Piper look like a bit of an ******...

 

John B Lewis has my respect.

Andrew Frankel has a lot of things backwards in that article. When you hire a racing driver to race a car at say Goodwood, that driver is hired as a professional and thus the car and it's costs are your responsibility.

This is not what happened here with Piper and Hales. Hales asked to drive the car ... thus he who bends it fixes it. That has always been the rules, and this will have no bearing on future magazine road tests, etc (unless they have lived under the delussion that they are a special case, which they are not. Magazines should have insurance for this sort of thing!). Also he missed a gear, it did not just explode for no reason.

Piper is not an ****** ... would you want to pay for an unexpected engine rebuild if it was your car?
Pete

 

Personally I do not care who said what, no matter who it was. The prime principle here is if you borrow anything of someone, it should be returned in the same condition. It is just a matter of personal principals.Either you look after another persons property or you do give a rats arse about it, in which case I really don't know why someone would lend you anything. If a journalist does this for a living then he should ensure he has sufficient insurance cover as part and parcel of his profession. Heck there are quite a few times someone has offered me a chance to drive their car (some very expensive) and I have refused the offer, simply because if I was driving down the street and some idiot hit the car I was driving, I most certainly would feel responsible. Yes there are morals and principles in today's world, it is just that a lot don't give a sh**.

 

Kim.. Having read the judgement you attach, to me its a clear case of yet again the legal profession being out of its depth. I have huge respect for both parties and they are really nice guys. For this reason I find it astonishing that a settlement couldn't be reached before this hit court.

Nobody will ever know the real truth and in my opinion it was no different to any racing incident. As for liability I would look to Octane Media.....After all, they insured the car and it was their insurers who refused pay. Had Mark been an employee of Octane I presume there would have been no argument over this but I suspect that like most motoring journalists today Mark works independently allowing him greater freedom to write for any magazine. Its not a legal argument but I also ask myself who had the most to gain from this track test ? Mark ?......Its all in a day's work to him. He has surely driven every great car that exists so probably only his fee from Octane......Pipes ?..... I'm sure the media coverage would have done no harm to the value of his car but doubt he cares at this stage of his life......Octane ?.......Huge exposure for their magazine. I'm sure this iconic race car would have featured on the cover and they would have hoped for greater sales......

I would love to hear Pipes's account but doubt we ever will. I am very surprised that he elected to pursue Mark in this way as it is totally out of character. I suspect that there is so much we don't know especially the dialogue between Octane and Pipes. None of us is in a position to pass judgement with the scant facts we possess but Octane claim to be a Gentleman's motoring journal so perhaps they should act accordingly.......Maybe they will.

 

I'm confused by your comment. How do you understand the workings of a rev limiter if not to protect the engine under ALL driving conditions, a missed shift being "1" of those driving conditions, otherwise....What is the point of the rev limiter?.....Mark

 

When the gear selected is too low for the speed the car is travelling it can force the engine mechanically to turn at a speed that can be thousands of rpm over the recommended and safe maximum which can cause catastrophic failure. A rev limiter only stops the engine revving past a certain point under normal driving conditions.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong...as I believe a rev limiter is electronically controlled, Thus the electrical current is NOT altered/affected by "driving conditions"...current is current, it does not know the difference between the car traveling 10 MPH or 100 MPH....Mark

 

I'm fairly sure the 917 has no limiter as standard : mechanical or electronic

To address the last post : if you are accelerating at 8000 rpm in fourth gear and then select 3rd instead of fifth as soon as the clutch goes home the engine will try to rev to 9000 not 7000 - a limiter may try to stop it a 8500 but if the momentum is there the system will carry on upwards before slowing down

 

Is there a rev limiter on this car? I see after writing this post that greyboxer above says not and probably answers your question.

In this instance it has not been said that a wrong or too low a gear was selected but a missed shift. In the absence of a rev limiter if the throttle is depressed or to a certain point, missing a gear takes the load off the transmission and engine that was propelling the car because it's no longer in gear immediately causing the engine to spin a lot higher than it would if the car was in gear and the engine under load to propel the car. Others will be along to explain it better than I can.

 

Not sure how they end up w 174k USD. Cost of engine repair was 37k GBP which I find very reasonable compared to some of my recent rebuilt of Ferrari or Alfa engine. If difference comes from legal costs after 4 years of litigation, good for them. Lack of common sense and making lawyers rich rather than settle has a price. After all everyone want to have fun, not only on the track!

 

My understanding of it is that Hales owned the copyright to the story and sold it to several magazines not just Octane (IIRC it also appeared in Auto Italia and 911 & Porsche World). Octane's payment to Hales for the story included the cost of the insurance for the day.

Should Octane and the other mags contribute, morally yes but clearly from a legal point of view no as I'm sure Piper would have preferred to have pursed them on the basis they should have deeper pockets.

 

What you say makes sense to a point, but here's the thing. The 917 is a very old racing car that had issues back in its hay day. If you were to borrow a car and as you were leaving the pit lane at pit lane speed the engine suddenly lets go should you be liable for that? Your only crime was that you were in the car at the time the engine decided to explode. Now I know that was not the exact situation is this case but I hope you get where I am coming from.

Racing cars brake, they are highly stressed; most mechanical failures are not down to driver abuse. Should the driver be responsible in these cases, I say no.

If it can be proven that gross negligence was involved then that is a different case all together

 

No, not necessarily. The question is what caused the damage. If it is determined that the damage is caused by a specific mistake by the driver, than this driver is responsible. And if this driver is not the owner of the car, he is liable towards the owner. Unless the owner agreed upon carrying the risk of damage himself, prior to handing over the keys. Burden of prove of such an agreement lies with whoever caused the damage. And that is pretty much the very foreseeable outcome of this case.

So I can only assume that journalists will think twice before entering the cockpit of a very expensive, yet fragile racingcar. Especially the ones not employed to a certain magazine or publisher.

 

I don't know David Piper and I've heard both good stories and bad about him, but what I meant to say is regardless of how "right" he is, the attitude taken to sue the journalist has made him the villain in the story, even if perhaps unfairly.

 

This should be a warning to all who get the chance to drive someone else's car. Unless there's a written agreement or unless you can carry the repair costs, it's not wise to use someone else's car, especially an expensive one.

But that's also the reason I'm not lending my Ferrari to anyone else. Even though I might have the law on my side, it could destroy friendships and cause a lot of hassle. We have a saying in The Netherlands: you can't pluck feathers from a naked chicken.

 

Although it has been pointed out that this car had no rev limiter.. rev limiters in general do not protect under ALL driving conditions. Rev limiters work on the internal acceleration of an engine by cutting fuel, spark, or both. They do not work on external input such as incorrect gear for road speed.

 

How clueless of Mr. Piper to put someone in the cockpit of a $2MIL machine who has a working salary of, say, $60K? Would you lend a Ferrari to a homeless man, and then when the wreck comes back, haul the homeless man to court? Piper found a patsy to pay for his free engine rebuild - I suspect he knew the 40-year-old engine needed work before a 'journalist' came knocking, needing a story. Seems silly that the situation would have even happened had Piper made a judgement call regarding who holds the keys....how convenient.