Carrera GT Crash Settled at $4.5m

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the car. Any high performance car is dangerous if driven beyond the driver's capabilities. You only have to look at Daniel Sadek's Enzo - full of every conceivable computer aided driving device - to understand that accidents happen. No disrespect to any of the following but would you consider the Enzo a killer since Gary Eisenberg was killed when he lost control of his Enzo? What about Eddie Griffin or Stefan Erikkson? All of them crashed an Enzo.

Amateur drivers need to realize that the limts of these "supercars" surpass the limits of most amateur drivers. In the end it comes down to the owners who need to understand that owning a supercar does not instantly turn them into Mario Andretti. These cars demand respect. Because they are capable of almost limitless performance doesn't mean that anyone can drive them to that point.

In the end ... accidents happen everyday in everyday normal cars. Supercars accidents are often sensationalized ten fold simply because of what they are, how much they cost and who the owners may be. The CGT is not a killer. It's a supercar that is to be respected for its performance capabilities.

 

While I think that you make some fair points, in turn I gave *my* reason for why the CGT is a killer: I watched Leno's CGT spin out at Talladega.

Talladega is a very special track. That's a very controlled atmosphere. The banks on the curves there are so steep that you DO NOT LIFT THE THROTTLE (much less brake) going into the turns.

You are at wide open throttle 100% of the time at Talladega. Straights. Curves. Everywhere.

Well, if you do not lift the throttle or hit your brakes at Talladega and your car spins...then it isn't your fault...it's the car's.

I will grant you that 99 times out of a hundred it is the driver who causes a spin, but sometimes there is a mechanical issue.

A part breaks. A tire is punctured.

Those aren't generally a driver's fault.

And in far more rare cases, the car itself has a design or assembly flaw. Well, Leno didn't brake until *after* his CGT was in a spin at Talladega.

And now you've got Porsche settling a case...paying money for their specific design culpability in a CGT race-track crash.

So I don't think that I'm too far out of line, based upon my own racing experience at Tallageda, based upon watching Leno spin his CGT at Talladega, and based upon Porsche's own admission (this was a settlement agreed to by Porsche...not a verdict handed to them)...in saying that the CGT is flawed.

Frankly, I think that I'm saving lives if CGT owners read these words. They may not even admit it, but I bet that they aren't going to go push a CGT flat out after reading this.

 

Porsche settling the case is not proof of admission. It's simply a wise financial decision versus the alternative of litigation in this country. I'm sure they weighed the pros and cons of just "getting rid of any further publicity" and opted for the quick and easy way out. Subsequently, their liability was a minor percentage. Again .. we seem to sue everyone when something like this happens and hope that some or all of the defendants cough up something.

As for you seeing Leno's spin - again - too many factors involved. How do you know his tire pressures were accurate? How do you know he didn't overcorrect a bit too much on the high speed bank. I've run my Challenge race car at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway on the high speed banks and can tell you that once the car gets to the edge - it lets go quickly. Why do you think NASCAR and Indy drivers spin on the ovals? Does that make their cars unsafe? They're at the limit and all of a sudden the limit is surpassed. Leno was at the limit (or his limit) and the car let go.

Beyond driver capabilities some Porsches have always been a little tail happy. Older 911s were very susceptible to "tail swapping." I spun an old 911 out on Sunset Blvd. once and it scared the crap out of me. One moment I was behind the Corvette and the next moment I was facing a tree perpindicular to to traffic. The consensus seems to be that the CGT operates on a similar knife's edge at the limit. Doesn't mean the car is a killer. Again ... it simply means that it should be respected. Alot of CGT owners out there enjoying their cars with no issues whatsoever.

 

Any that you know of in California?

 

That Porsche was sued makes me sick. My car used to understeer like crazy - if I went too quickly into a corner a got pushed out onto a tree it's MY FAULT. I was the one that assessed the situation incorrectly. I was the one making the decision. I was the one THAT KNOWS what the car can and can't do, and thus should act accordingly. How can I blame the car maker for all this?

 

I think you're making an awfully large leap in logic by concluding that because Jay Leno, a comedian and car enthusiast, but by no means a professional driver, spun a Carrera GT at Talladega, that the car has an inherent design flaw. If this were the case, when David Donohue was driving, it would've spun as well. As a matter of fact, using your logic, every lap turned in the Carrera GT with no lift of the throttle or brake input should have resulted in a spin. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The fact of the matter is, there are just too many variables in the Leno incident for you to scientifically conclude that a design flaw exists. How do you know that he didn't twitch the wheel a little, thus inducing the spin? What about debris? It's entirely possible that the outside rear tire ran over some debris at 170mph and brought the back end around.

The NASCAR Nextel Cup cars race around Talladega at nearly 200mph, quite a bit faster than Leno in the CGT. Sometimes when a car is running by itself with no traffic around, it ends up letting go and spinning in similar fashion to the Leno incident. Does that mean the NASCAR Nextel Cup cars all have an inherent design flaw? Maybe, but its highly improbable. I don't think the sanctioning body for the US's largest spectator sport would let 42 guys drive around in inherently flawed cars for 500 miles.

Your argument about Porsche settling the case because they believe the car is flawed is once again filled with too many variables. Many people across the country settle out of court for reasons besides a quiet admission of guilt. A more probable conclusion would be that from a purely economic standpoint, it would be more cost-effective to payout this settlement than to drag the suit out and have their day in court.

I don't see C-GT owners/drivers not pushing their cars hard after reading posts by a Ferrari 348 owner from Alabama who throws in his $.02 of speculation with no hard facts.

 

CGT is a killer ?

A ridiculous, over the top statement based on what ? a comedian's spin while turning on a bank oval, and Porsche's lawyers and accountants decision to settle at 8% liability in the most litigious state in the country.....hardly the basis for a breathless killer label. Porsche decided instead of putting their hands in another OJ simpson jury, they would cut their losses in what amounts to a sound decision.

The car commands respect, but so should any car with 612hp and a high power to weight ratio. Look at the number of serious Enzo accidents even with some form of stability management with far fewer produced.

Many factors contributed to Mr Keaton's untimely death. The settlement itself found the track and organizers at 86% fault due to layout and safety issues, but ultimately going fast on a track is risky business.

The CGT is not a killer. If I was even remotely concerned about sudden unwanted handling characteristics, I would not give my 3 yr old and wife any seat time whatsoever. As it is, they enjoy the car at every opportunity.....4k miles and counting.

 

Except, I did list facts. Hard facts. Leno's spin at Talladega. Porsche's agreeing to liability in this California accident. My own racing experience at Talladega.

And I'll list another fact: the driver in the fatal accident in California spun his CGT 4 times on the same track on the same day that he had his fatal accident.

So we aren't talking about 1 erroneous twitch of a steering wheel. And when you factor in Leno, we aren't talking about just one driver or just one day or just one track.

Now, I grant that other conclusions can be drawn besides my own (that the CGT is a killer)...but it isn't fair to say that just because I'm some country boy in Alabama that I'm not listing facts.

Because I'm not just listing facts, I'm itemizing them. Draw a different conclusion from them, fine...but don't claim that I haven't listed facts.

 

I do not wish harm upon you or your family. In fact, I hope that you enjoy all of your cars (safely).

But your argument above makes me wonder if you are of the mindset that no car could *ever* have a flawed design, as the same thing could be said for every car ever made if one just wanted to defend them all.

 

Being that most folks who buy Supercars like the CGT are not professional drivers, I think that these cars should be equipped by an up to date "electronic parachute" to rescue the owner, when exuberance or lack of experience have put the car in a precarious situation. These situations do not just apply to track days, but also to public roads where such an incident could claim innocent lives. I also tend to think that these owners (who tend to have deep pockets), would and should expect a certain degree of protection from their Supercar, other wise they would buy a Cobra replica with a high power 427 side oiler motor and try to go fast in one of those (without getting killed).
I think that Porsche are probably thanking their lucky stars for the outcome of this particular case. They may not do quite as well in the next law suit which is bound to come sooner or later

 

You are joking, right?

There is, and IMHO, can *never* be an "electronic parachute" that will save a poorly driven car - They're called "driver aids" for a reason. They may help, but something like you're proposing will make these "drivers" feel invincible, and when they (or a flagger, or another driver) screws up we'll see even more damn lawsuits - "My electronic parachute didn't stop me spinning, so I'm gonna sue the manufacturer...."

It does however seem extraordinary that:

1. The car spun 4 times without (apparently) any penalty - Darn, at the track days I've done a single spin gets you in deep trouble - Do it again and I'm pretty sure the clerk of the course will throw you out.
2. Moving the wall was, with hindsight, a bad thing - But hey, racetracks are dangerous places.

A terrible accident and a terrible outcome for lovers of freedom IMHO,

Cheers,
Ian

 

Gary was dead as his Enzo left the road. I know that for a fact, per autopsy results......

Rest in Peace, Gary.........

Now back to the CGT discussion.

 

No one is claiming that you haven't listed facts. But your facts have counter facts ...

Fact: Leno is an amateur driver. Fact: 83% of the blame for Ben's death was on the track itself. Fact: Highly tuned race cars - F1, Indy, NASCAR - under the control of professional drivers all spin. Fact: A settlement is not an outright admission of guilt. Fact: Other supercars - like the Enzo - with more computer aided driving devices - have been crashed in the hands of their owners. Fact: The CGT is not a killer (which by the way ... is MY conclusion).

 

NASCAR changed the barriers for the infield playground...very surprised they didn't follow the money there.

 

...

 

That's true.

 

I have more of a problem with the use of a flat wall instead of using tapered Jersey barriers than with the changed location of the wall.

A better angle for the wall's direction could have been chosen, as well.

 

+1
Very good point - "If you (NASCAR) hadn't moved the wall, he'd either not have hit it or the impact wouldn't have been pretty much head on - Why didn't you move it back when you were done?"

Unless sueing Nascar is like trying to sue the military.....

My 02c,
Ian

 

Good post.

 

The non-racers here also seem completely oblivious to the fact that HANS requires a correctly mounted harness and a correct seat--both of which are typically only found in proper race cars.

 

There is nothing wrong with the CGT. I have seen cars spin all the time at high speed. It happens on a race track. It's a dangerous place. There can be oil, debris, tire pressure, etc. It is a fact of life at the track. The only thing wrong with the CGT that day was the person driving it. It's just that simple. It was his fault. It is a sad situation. The lawyers are in it for the money.

Let's me ask you? If these two cars were Miata's do you think the settlement would have been 4.5 million? I don't think so.

 

Not personally, but there seems to be a good list here:
http://www.clubmotorsports.com/pressroom/

Although, most of these are "Country Club" like places.

One of the more successful is of course in Texas:
http://www.motorsportranch.com/

And this is the one they're building in PA now:
http://www.alpinesignature.com/

 

Agreed. But, are you saying that my standard 3 point harness and the seat (+headrest) supplied by Ferrari in my car don't qualify as a "correctly mounted harness and seat"?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand if a HANS device is a good idea in my application [360 Spider, occasional track days.]

Cheers,
Ian

 

I think you would have to check the HANS website to see if it is recomended with a 3 point seatbelt and stock seat. And no, a 3 point seatbelt is not considered a "harness". They have very different dynamics in a crash.




Darrell.

 

Hi Ian, no, your standard belts and seat don't do anything with a HANS device.

Check out this page on the HANS site for more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.5/.f