stax68

Some people have missed the points there were some unusual
factors that led to the settlement..no-one just gives away $4.5
million for the hell of it..or to avoid a lawsuit....

1. Track just happened to
recently alter the wall exactly where driver happened to crash..

2. Estate of the dead driver probably
has tons of money(life insurance?) and just wanted to settle
avoid legal fees dragging the estate...

3. German engineer said in court Porsche didn't think that its
PSM system would work on the CGT because the car’s frame
structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations
that would interfere with its operation.

49% Driver/Estate + 41% Track/Event + 8% Porsch + 2% Ferrari Driver

= $4.5 Million
Ironic Ferrari Driver starts whole thing and pays the least

Axelrod

The whole payout was just totally ludicrous. The fact that PORSCHE paid out is ASTOUNDING.

How in the world is there a stretch to liability because there was no stability mgmt controls in place? If the driver needed it that badly, there was no point to him driving over 55mph !!

rustyguns

ludicrous x 100 !

its the system. lawyers are all in bed with each other. nobody wants to work, god forbid go to court so they get together and make up a bunch of baloney and settle. less work and all the lawyers get paid!

gotta love the system! at least the lawyers dooooo!

only good thing gang, is this is not a precedent because there was no court case, so it does not effect any current actual lawsuits or us as drivers

now when the lawyers figure out how to use settlement as rules of law we are all screwed! ( more than we are now! )

and to think i turned down an invitation to law school!

sothpaw2

You have a soul.

Z06Norway

[QUOTE=stax68;1562498141]Some people have missed the points there were some unusual
factors that led to the settlement..no-one just gives away $4.5
million for the hell of it..or to avoid a lawsuit....

1. Track just happened to
recently alter the wall exactly where driver happened to crash..

So, racing IS dangerous, if someone dont like that, go play golf

2. Estate of the dead driver probably
has tons of money(life insurance?) and just wanted to settle
avoid legal fees dragging the estate...

Insurance pay, ok, no problem then, oh wait, and who pays the insurance ? thats right, it is YOU

3. German engineer said in court Porsche didn't think that its
PSM system would work on the CGT because the car’s frame
structure and suspension mountings would create strong vibrations
that would interfere with its operation.

That would be a serious problem, atleast IF everyone trust this system to save their ***, when they do a mistake ?
Guess many CGT owners that has lost control and crashed lately will show up with the same lawyer ?

Independent1

^^While true that it does not set a legal precedent most cases are settled before going to court and you can be sure that this settlement will be used in similar cases.

If you are going to flirt with diaster then you better be ready for whatever happens.

rudyarias

Not true, the design a mid engine car is to balance horse power to weight ratio, front and rear weight distribution and to make the car overall neutral in its handling/performance characteristics.

Slalom4me

rudyarias, a mid-engine design generally contributes to a reduction in
the moment of inertia (I). All other things equal, an object with a lower
moment of inertia requires less effort to change its angular velocity
than an object with a greater moment of inertia.

While I don't agree with the inference that mid-engine cars oversteer
by design, I do agree that if their I is lower than a comparable car with
a different drivetrain layout, then they will rotate more readily.

.

robvuk

I think Rudy's point was in agreement with yours, just not stated clearly. The original point was that it is "supposed to rotate". All cars are "supposed to rotate", but they are not supposed to "over" rotate. From the huge number of pics I've seen on the internet involving these cars, I'd say it has an issue with predictable handling. I'm not condemning the car, I agree here that the driver should be in control regardless of the ability of the vehicle. If he didn't like the way it handled, he should've sold it and bought something he could handle.

I just met a guy at the track last week that has a Cayman. He says it has a very bad understeer and wore out a set of front tires in one day at the track. Go figure. It just shows you can design a car for neutral balance with front or mid engine. Most people in the know, consider a Corvette a mid engine (front mid) car these days. Although the mass of the engine is forward of center. With the pivot point of a car being the rear axle, a rear engine would probably have the best inertial advantages for changing direction but the CGT and 911's in general, clearly demonstrates that you can change direction "too" fast.

tcmc5

Since I don't have a track car anymore I don't think too much about this kind of incident 'til I read a thread like this one. If I did still have a track car, however, I'd say a little prayer before each event that I not do anything that could be construed as negligent(gross or otherwise) that caused injury or death to another participant. I would also make sure that I had an insurance company between me and any lawsuit that might arise and several million $$ of liability coverage that did not exclude my on track activity. Given the apparent vulnerability of the waiver participants sign, it would seem wise for everyone involved to make sure they're protrected should the worst happen. Be careful out there.