CGT Design Flaw??

Did you actually read all of this thread and attached thread? Doesn't appear so. For someone that has no profile, ergo no relevance, you make a lot of noise, and just that. "we who own these cars" and all.

And one more time, just for you, I did not blame the design of the car, rather the lack of response from Porsche to a problem they even witnessed. Note that I purchased another evil P car?

 

I've always been surprised by the backlash against Porsche for building what a huge number of people clamor for: a purist's sports car with almost no babying technologies and over-assisting gadgets eager to step in at the first sign of trouble. Indeed, Porsche built just that and got sued.

I think that the day the last Carrera GT rolled off the assembly line is the day the very last old-school hardcore supercar was ever manufactured. The high-profile lawsuits, the Fontana/California Speedway one in particular, cement that thought in my mind.

 

Just for you one more time, the heading of the thread is "CGT design flaw??"

All my comments pertain to the fact there is no design flaw, nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing personal toward you and my comment was a little harsh (but if you have tracked a CGT it has great relevance concerning the "perceived lack of speed" and the danger therein)

As much as you might desire, the only relevance you get to try and define is your own. Last time I checked a profile was optional!

 

I agree. These cars are meant to be taken very seriously. Most drivers these days have become lazy, and overly dependent on technical aids to cover for driving skills that are not up to the level they should be before pushing their vehicles. Look at how many sports cars and sports sedans have a myriad of buttons to push to control suspension firmness, traction cotrol engagement point, etc, and you will see what I mean. If you get into a Carrera GT you really need to ask yourself if you really know what you are doing before just going out and blasting around. Even moderate speeds require great care in this car since it is essentially a race car with a license plate on it.

 

Only partially correct. If you buy a 600 hp car and do not have the common sense to gradually work your way up learning the dynamics of the car, and how the traction control is tuned for your car, you are an irresponsible driver. That is not the cars fault. The traction control does kick in, just at a different time than some owners would like. Again, it is the driver's responsibility to learn this, and not just go out and romp on a car with that much power. Personal responsibility needs to make a comeback here. Respect your cars!

 

To the original poster...sorry to hear about your accident. How many miles did yours have on it when the accident happened? Hopefully you were able to pack some enjoyment into that time before the accident.

 

I'm the "op" Mitch and it was more of a rhetorical question. For a spat there this past summer we've had a rash of CGT accidents in our area. At previous count there were 7-9 up here and to lose 3 in the span of a few months was a little disconcerting. Thus my question to the forum.

Mine is tucked away and safe.

 

13K miles. Most of them mine. Just for the record, having told Porsche the TC did not work in the car, todate I have not heard from them. I could literaly take the car to a track cloes to my house (airport) and spin the car in a circle several times with the wheels spinning and TC never turned on. I call that a failure of the system.

 

michael the car has 605hp and weights 3000lbs. If you floor it the tires will spin anytime you want. This has nothing to do with traction control. If you don't feather the throttle in these cars it will hurt you. There is no way around it.

CGT's do exactly what they are asked to do.

 

Ok, then why does it work in any other car? Your and my F cars or MBZs. Seems to me TC is to stop the wheels from spinning. I understand there are different levels of control. What I am pointing out here is that it NEVER turned on. If Porsche at least would have said "yes it has TC but it won't turn on until after you have crashed" you could be prepped for the fact that it doesn't work as other cars.

 

I can't answer for mb's. most mb's though weigh more than any other sporty coupes. my scud and cs will spin them off no problem when throttled. my 430 spider weighs too much to do it. totally different car.

the cgt has 20% more power (almost) than my scud and weighs 200lbs less and by Ferrari's well known specs it's probably more like 350lbs less.

It's simple Physics. I broke the tires free Sunday only when I wanted to.

 

OK, bring your CGT to Bremerton raceway and I'll show you what I mean. My SL65 has way more torque than any CGT and it doesn't suffer these issues. Seriously, as a fun exercise it would be interesting to me anyway. It's just like my SLR, it could keep up with a CGT simply because it was more controllable. But man, what a butt jarring ride.

 

it sounds like michael the mb's are more suited for you.........i don't think i'm ready for the track with my cgt. pro racing my gt3's didn't get me anywhere close to what this car has to offer. i'll get back to you in a few thousand miles.

 

OK, my 997 has more power to the ground with none of the CGT issues. It's not like I don't like P cars.

 

+100000!!!!!

The FIRST thing I do with a new car is do this. One HAS to know how it reacts when it lets go, if you don't how can you identify and attempt to correct when it does? Of course it's not a replacement for HPDE days but every little bit helps IMHO....

 

your 997 is awd...not a close comparison. I couldn't have broken my 650hp 996 turbo S free if my life depended on it.

 

I agree. Even if my car did have traction control, I wouldnt drive it to the limit where i expect to rely on the TC, especially on a public road.Spinning it at 25MPH and writing it off, hate to say it but that sounds to me like you were accellerating hard......if you know what i mean. I would have thought if someone jumped out infront of you, you would slow down and therefore TC would be pointless.

CGT sounds like a pretty mean machine...

 

Accidents do happen, but I also know that the Carrera GT (and any car really) should be treated with respect and almost underdriven until the dynamics of the car are well know. Put simply, the Carrera GT is a wonderful car, but is essentially a race car with license plates and a stereo. Everything...and I mean everything...is amplified several times over almost any other car. Knife edge handling has never been a secret with that car, and it should be learned on a carefully sliding scale of progression. If not, bad stuff happens. I feel bad for anyone that jumps into a Carrera GT and thinks that they are going to be pushing it to the limits the first few times out. That is not a good decision.

 

I think you could say it is a dangerous design philosophy as opposed to a design flaw and one that shows in their tradition dating to the early 930's reputation for exiting the road backwards and the engine location is part of that tradition. I bet a lot of the unfortunate victims had some of the same ideas as expressed by some of the posters here until it bit them as it seems there were a plenty with experience. It is a design philosophy that does you no favors. So if it is dangerous and it was designed to be that way in exchange for purity or how ever you wish to term it, is that a design flaw?

 

The actor Paul Walker was just killed in a CGT crash

 

He was a passenger and the car was driven by an experienced and accomplished race driver...RIP.

 

When Heard Paul Walker died in a "high performance Porsche," I immediately thought "I bet it was a, Carrera GT.". Yes it was simply another driver driving over the limit on the street . And maybe this was a unique accident. But we seem to hear about more crashes with the CGT than any other. We need to seriously examine why?

It was bound to happen that a Supercar accident would involve the death of someone high profile person, and a huge spotlight gets turned on the liability of super cars. This may or may not be the story that has legs but its bound to happen. I think it is not simple enough to dismiss this as just another time when a driver ran out of talent. The driver in this accident was a very accomplished racing driver. So, we should ask why people seem to crash this car more than others. I think that as car enthusiasts we better to be able to explain this accident better than just dismissing it.

There are many manufacturers producing super cars, some with 700hp in the case of Ferrari and Lamborghini, and even 1,200 in the case of the Bugatti Veryon, (the CGT had 600), why is it the Carrera GT seems to be involved in more deadly crashes? The answer is that it is the only "modern Supercar" that was mass produced and marketed without significant traction control and without stability control or electronic aids. All modern supercars built today have traction control, stability control and drivers aids. Even some race cars, built for professional drivers, now have these aids. Supercar makers realize you are giving the keys of a very potent weapon to someone who may have very little training. For the purity of the driving experiments, Porsche left these type of safety systems off of the CGT. And as a result we see more crashes.

It's not enough for us to say that super cars have existed for a long time, and this is the same. It is true that the CGT descends from a long history of sports car manufacturers such as Ferrari, Porsche, Ford, and others that produce a limited production of thinly disguised race cars for the street. In the past sports car races mandated that cars had to be street legal. So manufactures would produce a limited number of disguised prototype race cars for the street. Legendary race cars were built this way like the Ferrari P3, the Ford GT40, in the 1990s the Ferrari F40. They had tremendous power, were capable of over 200 mph, and were designed to be maneuverable, and thus quickly change direction. (Read no safe under steer) They were cars that could obviously kill all but an extremely experienced racing driver when driven at the limit. With these cars it was obvious this was a potent machine. They were extremely load and difficult to drive. Going 40 mph felt like 100 mph. Driving one of these cars was intimidating, even down right scary. They were also sold to select customers who were known by the factory and in small batches.

By the time the CGT came out in 2005 things changed. Technology had progressed so much that Supercars were now easy to drive, even docile at low speeds. Yet they were now even faster. Modern Super cars like the CGT and the Ferrari Enzo could be driven like everyday cars, at 40 mph they drive like a Toyota Camry. You would not hesitate to give the keys to your grandmother to go to the grocery to buy milk. Literally anyone could drive these cars and use them like normal cars. The experience of driving a modern super car versus a vintage is in some ways opposite. Now instead of 40 mph feeling like 100, now 100 felt like 40. The danger that lurks beneath this extreme ability is that now they are designed and marketed not only to professional drivers, but to anyone who likes Sportscars. And the ease of driving the car at low speeds gives the illusion that you have total control over the cars abilities. Everything feels easy and in control, until you loose it. And it's very easy to fall into this trap of illusion of control. (Even for an experienced driver this illusion is apparent and can trap you). And when you loose it, you are now traveling at speeds that were unheard of years ago. These speeds are the domain of professional drivers who have the benefit of a roll cage, a helmet, a fire suit and a gas tank that was deposited for impact at high speeds.

Modern cars today have unprecedented amounts of power, but most have stability control systems. The CGT is not just fast sportscar. It is one of the fastest most extreme sportscars every built, it is faster than formula one cars not too long ago, and Porsche sold 1,270 for public roads. To do so without stability control and electronic safety aids is dangerous.

Is Porsche exposed to legal liability for Paul Walkers Death?

Not in my opinion. Does the fact that the Carrera GT did not have electronic stability control create legal liability for Paul Walkers Death? Probably not.
Yes they will be included in any lawsuit, but they will pay very little and it will be uneconomical and too risky to pursue Porsche. (Porsche is reported to have paid only 8% of a settlement in the well publicized CGT accident at the Ferrari Owners club event. ). Even though I believe the Porsche CGT is an unusually dangerous car in all but the most experienced hands, I doubt Porsche will have liability. A family of a person who died as a passenger of Carrera GT sued Porsche with this theory and rightfully settled with the, for a very small amount of fault. The car was being driven at high speeds on a racetrack and the consensus was that the driver was at fault. The passenger knew that they were getting into a car and driving to the limit. Doing this is called a voluntary Assumption of the Risk. In this case, the police have stated it was a one car accident and high speed was a factor in the crash. It appears that the driver lost control at high speed, and hit a pole or tree. There are rumors that there was burnouts and donuts in the area of the crash. If these turn out to be facts it will be a driver that will bel held solely at fault. The driver Roger Rodas was an experiemced race driver and involved with exotics, and thus likely knew about the had lack of stability control on the CGT. He had enough experience with cars to know he was taking a dangerous risk. It's an awful accident. I've been there and do that and gotten away with it, but its a sad, sad accident.

As an exotic car racer and as a product liability lawyer I wear different hats. I do hope that if there is anything that comes good of Paul Walker's death, its that driving extreme machines at death defying speeds on the street is OK in the movies, but we must not forget that the movies are not real. In real life this fast and furious conduct on the street has deadly consequences. And it's ironic that I think its terrible to glorify street racing.

And this said, I adore the CGT. It's an amazon machine. It just that for the reasons above it is very dangerous in the hands of anyone outside of someone extremely carful and with a lot of training. And even for a pro it is a car that can trick you. Ive produced and hosted over 30 Ferrari events over the last 15 years,and through all of it Ive learned a lot, and gotten away with worse conduct than this. Nowadays, if I promote driving a Supercar at the limit, I suggest buying a challenge car with a roll cage, and do it safely.

RIP to what appears to be two good guys.

 

Eloquently put. Pretty much covers it. The sole liability here lies with Sir Issac Newton and the now deceased driver.

 

and so the legal saber rattling begins....

 

To me, it doesn't make sense that Porsche didn't give this car an adequate stability control system that could be completely defeated with a switch. No need to decry the company for diluting the experience that way. It sucks thinking about the needless loss of life and all the lawsuits that have and will be filed relating to CGT wrecks.